them Sect. 3. pag. 182. Doctor Mortons rayling against the Inquisition Sect. 4. pag. 187. CHAP. XV. Of the signification of the word Catholike the iudgment of diuers Fathers obiected by Doctor Morton against the Roman Church pag. 195. That the word Catholike proues the Roman Church to be the true Church Sect. 1. ibid. The iudgment of S. Hierome concerning the Church Catholike Sect. 2. pag. 198. The iudgment of S. Gregory concerning the Supremacy of the B. of Rome and his title of vniuersall Bishop Sect. 3. pag. 201. S. Dionyse his iudgment concerning the supremacy of the Roman Church Sect. 4. pag. 302. S. Ignatius his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 5. p. 303. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 6. p. 304. Tertullian his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 7. pag. 308. Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 8. pag. 311. Other obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared Sect. 9. pag. 312. CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the B. and Church of Rome pag. 313. Doctor Mortons obiections against the precedent doctrine answeared Sect. 1. pag. 318. CHAP. XVII The second generall Councell held at Constantinople belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome pag. 324. By what authority this Councell was called Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Primacy of the Pope be Primacy of Authority and Iurisdiction or of Order only Sect. 2. pag. 328. Whether the names of Brother Collegue and Fellow-Minister which the Pope giueth to other Bishops and they to him argue them to be of equall Authority and Iurisdiction with him Sect. 3. pag. 330. A friuolous cauill of Doctor Morton against Bellarmine answeared Sect. 4. pag. 335. Of the Decree of this second Councell generall made in fauor of the Archbishop of Constantinople Sect. 5. pag. 336. That no Canon of any Councell can be of force vntill it be confirmed by the See Apostolike Sect. 6. pag. 338. That the Bishops of Constantinople knew this Canon to be of no force Sect. 7. pag. 340. CHAP. XVIII The third Councell generall being the first of Ephesus belieued the supreme authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome ouer all Bishops pag. 343. Of the deposition and condemnation of Nestorius by the command of Pope Celestine and whether the style of ancient Popes were to command Sect. 1. ibid. The Councell of Ephesus acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the cause of Iohn Patriarke of Antioch Sect. 2. pag. 351. Of the Ordination of the Bishops of Cyprus treated in the Councell of Ephesus Sect. 3. pag. 352. Whether it may be gathered out of the Councell of Ephesus that the authority of the Pope is aboue a generall Councell Sect. 4. pag. 353. CHAP. XIX The Councell of Chalcedon belieued the supreme authority of the B. of Rome pag. 355. That Leo Pope called the Councell of Chalcedon by his authority and presided in it by his Legates Sect. 1. ibid. That the Councell of Chalcedon by the authority of Leo Pope deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus restored Theodoret Sect. 2. pag. 356. Whether the title of Vniuersall Bishop which the Councell of Chalcedon gaue to the Pope argue in him no more but a generall care of the good of the Church such as belongs to euery Bishop and to euery Christian Sect. 3. pag. 360. Whether the Couneell of Chalcedon did giue to the B. of Constantinople priuiledges equall with the B. of Rome Sect. 4. pag. 362. Falsifications and vntruths of Doctor Morton discouered his Arguments answeared Sect. 5. pag. 367. CHAP. XX. The fifth Councell generall belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop Church of Rome p. 375. Doctor Mortons ignorance and contradictions concerning this Councell Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons ignorance further discouered and his falsifying of Binius Sect. 2. pag. 377. Of the matter treated in the fifth generall Councell Sect. 3. pag. 381. Doctor Mortons glosse vpon the word Obedience Sect. 4. pag. 383. CHAP. XXI Of the sixth generall Councell pag. 385. That it acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the fixth Councell condemned Honoriu Pope as an Heretike Sect. 2. pag. 387. CHAP. XXII Of the seauenth and eight generall Councells pag. 391. That these two Councells acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the eight generall Councell Sect. 2. pag. 392. Whether the eight generall Councell condemned the Saturday-fast allowed by the Roman Church Sect. 3. pag. 394. CHAP. XXIII Doctor Morton defendeth the hereticall custome of the Asian Bishops pag. 397. CHAP. XXIV Doctor Morton in opposition to the Roman Church defendeth the hereticall Doctrine of Rebaptization pag. 402. CHAP. XXV. Other Arguments of Doctor Morton out of S. Cyprian answeared pag. 408. CHAP. XXVI The Councells of Carthage and Mileuis acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome pag. 411. CHAP. XXVII Appeales to Rome proued out of the African Councell which was the sixth of Carthage p. 419. The state of the question Sect. 1. ibid. That the Nicen Canons were more then twenty in number And that the Canons concerning appeales to Rome were true Canons of the Nicen Councell Sect. 2. pag. 421. Whether if there had bene no Canon for appeales to Rome in the Councell of Nice it had bene forgery in Pope Zosimus to alleage a Canon of the Sardican Councell for a Canon of Nice Sect. 3. pag. 426. Vntruthes and falsifications of D. Morton discouered and his obiections answeared Sect. 4. pag. 429. Whether this Controuersy of appeales wrought in the Africans any separation of Communion from the Roman Church Sect. 5. pag. 437. CHAP. XXVIII Whether the Britans and Scots not celebrating Easter after the manner of the Roman Church were for that cause separated from her communion p. 450. CHAP. XXIX Of the great reuerence of ancient Christian Emperors and Kings to the Pope pag. 454. CHAP. XXX Whether Christian Emperors haue inuested themselues in Ecclesiasticall affaires pag. 461. Constantine the Great inuested not himselfe in Ecclesiastical causes Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons second Example of Theodosius examined Sect. 2. pag. 469. Doctor Mortons third instance of Theodosius the yonger and Honorius examined Sect. 3. pag. 471. Doctor Mortons fourth instance of Theodosius and Valentinian examined Sect. 4. pag. 473. Doctor Mortons fifth instance of Iustinian examined Sect. 5. pag. 475. CHAP. XXXI Of the authority and place of Emperors in Councells pag. 480. CHAP. XXXII Whether Popes haue challenged ciuill subiection from Emperors and Kings Christian and Heathen pag. 483. Doctor Mortons first Argument out of Innocent the third examined Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons second Argument out of Hieremy the Prophet examined Sect. 2. pag. 486. Doctor Mortons third Argument out of the examples of diuers Popes examined Sect. 3. pag. 490. Doctor Morton contradicteth himselfe Sect. 4. pag. 494. CHAP. XXXIII
Doctor Mortons late Sermon preached in the Cathedrall Church of Durham answeared pag. 495. The sense of S. Pauls words which Doctor Morton tooke for his text declared Sect. 1. pag. 496. Ancient Popes obiected and falfified by Doctor Morton Sect. 2 pag. 501. Other Fathers and Catholike authors obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 3. pag. 507. Doctor Morton slaundereth Vrban Pope and with him all Catholikes Sect. 4. pag. 510. Doctor Morton obiecteth the Bull of Maundy-thursday Sect. 5. pag. 512. Other slanderous accusations of Doctor Morton answeared Sect. 6. pag. 514. The same matter prosecuted Sect. 7. pag. 517. CHAP. XXXIV Doctor Mortons doctrine condemneth the Saints and Martyrs of God pag. 522. S. Policarpe obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 1. ibid. S. Cyprian obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 2. pag. 523. S. Athanasius obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 3. pag. 525. S. Basils beliefe of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome proued and Doctor Mortons obiections answeared Sect. 4. pag. 528. Whether S. Hilary excommunicated the Pope Sect. 5. p. 533. S. Hieroms iudgment concerning the necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof Sect. 6. pag. 536. S. Ambrose his iudgment concerning the necessity of Vnion and subiection to the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 7. pag. 545. S. Augustines iudgment concerning the necessity of Vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof Sect. 8 pag. 552. S. Hilary B. of Aries acknowledged himselfe subiect to the B. of Rome Sect. 9. pag. 558. CHAP. XXXV Of titles attributed to the Pope p. 561. CHAP. XXXVI The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of ancient Fathers discouered pa. 571. Some of his answeares examined Sect. 1. ibid. Others of Doctor Mortons answeares to the Ancient Fathers examined Sect. 2. pag. 574 Doctor Mortons answeare to the testimony of Acacius examined Sect. 3. pag. 577. Doctor Mortons answeare to Vincentius Lyrinensis confuted Sect. 4. pag. 581. Doctor Morton in his answeare to Optatus contradicteth himselfe Sect. 5. pag. 582. Other vntruthes of Doctor Morton discouered his cauilling against the title of Holinesse giuen to the Pope Sect. 6. pag. 583. CHAP. XXXVII Of the authority of the Epistles of ancient Popes pag. 587. Of the Epistles of Popes liuing within the first 300. yeares after Christ Sect. 1. pag. 588. The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of Popes that liued in the second 300. yeares after Christ Sect. 2. pag. 592. CHAP. XXXVIII The vniuersall iurisdiction of the B. of Rome proued by the exercise of his authority ouer other Bishops pag. 600. The Popes vniuersall authority proued by the institution confirmation of Bishops And of the vse and signification of the Pall or mantle granted to Archbishops Sect. 1. p. 601. A shift of Doctor Morton reiected Sect. 2. pag. 604. The Popes power of instituting and confirming Bishops proued by examples Sect. 3 pag. 605. The Popes power of deposing Bishops without a Councell proued by examples Sect. 4. pag. 608. The Popes power of restoring Bishops without a Councell Sect. 5. pag. 611. Doctor Morton to Crosse the Popes authority in restoring Bishops deposed takes part with the Arians and iustifies their impious proceedings against S. Athanasius other Catholike Bishops Sect. 6. pag. 612. Other passages of Doctor Morton examined Sect. 7. pa. 618. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning excommunication And of Heretikes excommunicating the Pope Sect. 8. p. 621. Adrian and Nicolas Popes obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 9. pag. 623. Of the deposition of Flauianns Patriarke of Antioch Sect. 10. pag. 624. Doctor Morton in defence of his doctrine chargeth ancient Bishops which exercising Acts of authority out of the limits of their owne iurisdiction Sect. 11. pag. 631. CHAP. XXXIX Of Appeales to Rome decreed in the Councell of Sardica pag. 635. Whether the Councell of Sardica were a generall Councell Sect. 1. ibid. Other obiections of Doctor Morton against Appeales to Rome answeared Sect. 2. pag. 637. Examples of innocent Appellants Sect. 3. pag. 638. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the antiquity of appealing to Rome from remote nations Sect. 4. pag. 639. That S. Athanasius appealed to Iulius Pope and Theodoret to Leo as to absolute Iudges and that by their authority both of them were restored to their Churches Sect. 5. p. 641. That S. Chrysoftome appealed to Innocentius Pope as to an absolute Iudge and by his authority was restored to his Church of Constantinople Sect. 6. pag. 643. That Flauianus appealed to Leo Pope as to an absolute Iudge Sect. 7. pag. 648. Of Nilus equalling the B. of Constantinople with the Pope in his right of Appeales Sect. 8. pag. 650. The rest of Doctor Mortons Arguments against Appeales to Rome Sect. 9. pag. 653. CHAP. XL. Whether the Easterne Churches be at this day accordant in Communion with Protestants pag. 654. The state of the question Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Grecians of the primitiue and successiue times agreed in Fayth and Communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome and particularly at the Councell of Florence Sect. 2. pag. 655. That many of the Grecians at this day are of the Roman Communion and professe subiection to the B. of Rome Sect. 3. pag. 662. Of the Aegyptians Sect. 4. pag. 663. Of the Aethiopians Sect. 5. pag. 664. Of the Armenians Sect. 6. pag. 665. Of the Russians Sect. 7. pag. 666. Of the Aslyrians Sect. 8. ibid. Of the Antiochians Sect. 9 pag. 668. Of the Africans Sect. 10 pag. 669. Of the Asians Sect. 11. ibid. CHAP. XXXXI That in the forenamed countries there are no Christians that agree in fayth Communion with Protestants pag. 669. The Grecians which are not of the Roman communion are absolute Heretikes And Doctor Morton falsifieth Catholike Authors to excuse them Sect. 1. pag. 670. Of the Lutherans of Germany writing to Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople to be admitted into the communion of the Greeke Church and his answeare to them Sect. 2. pag. 674. A particular instance of Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople produced by Doctor Morton to proue that he dissented from the Roman Church examined Sect. 3. pag. 678. The Aegyptians Aethiopians Armenians Russians Melchites Africans and Asians which call themselues Christians and be not of the Roman communion are absolute Heretikes Sect. 4. pag. 679. CHAP. XXXXII. Doctor Mortons plea for his Protestant Church pag. 683. The small extent of the Protestant Church proueth her not to be the Catholike Church Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Protestant Church be free from error in doctrine Sect. 2. pag. 686. Doctor Mortons pretended purity of manners in his Protestant Church ect 3. pag. 687. That Protestants by Schisme haue diuided themselues from the Catholike Church Sect. 4. pag. 688. CHAP. XXXXIII Of the Head of the Roman Church compared to the body therof pag. 691. Whether it be matter of fayth that the Pope is aboue a Councell Sect. 1. ibid. Whether it be matter of fayth that this
those monstrous Titles wherewith you slaunder our Doctrine most fitly agree to your owne deliuered in your Grand Imposture But before I come to ioyne issue with you concerning the particulers it will not be amisse to examine briefly in generall whether the ancient Fathers and Doctors of Gods Church whom you acknowledge to haue liued vpon earth in the true fayth and now to be most glorious Saints in heauen were of your beliefe concerning the Roman Church or of ours for they being lights of the world (x) Math. 5.15 whom God hath raised in all ages and placed on the candlesticke of his Church to enlighten our wayes and deliuer vnto vs the true sense and meaning of his holy word that we may not be like children wauering and caried away with euery blast of heretical (y) Ephef 4.14 Doctrine I suppose that as there is no wiseman who will not desire to be rancked among them in the next world and to stand with them at the later day so there is none that will not desire to be in this world a member of the same Church and a professor of the same fayth which brought them to that happines especially knowing as we doe that there is bur one Church in which and one fayth by which meÌ„ may be saued for to thinke that so many men so eminently learned and that vsed so great meanes both of study and prayer to attaine to the knowledge of truth and of the right way to heauen haue all erred not liuing in the true Church which leades to saluation but in an erring Synagogue that leades to euerlasting ruine and damnation is a conceipt that I thinke no Christian and I am sure no prudent man can harbour in his brest which yet he must doe that will credit your Doctrine as the ensuing proofes will declare SECT II. Whether the Roman Church be truly called the Catholike Church and in what sense ALthough the Name of Catholike Church whether we regard the etimology or the most proper and vsuall acception of the word Catholike signify not any particuler Church but the Vniuersall spread ouer the whole world yet with-all it is true that euery particuler Church may in some sense be called Catholike for as euery particuler Orthodoxe man hath the denomination of a Catholike man because he professeth the Catholike fayth and is a member of the Vniuersall Church so for the same reason and in the same sense both the particuler Church of Rome and all others orthodoxall may be called Catholike Churches In this sense the Christians of Smyrna writing to the Churches of Pontus (z) Euseb l. 4. histor c. 14. addresse their Epistle To the Church of God at Philomelium and to all other the holy Catholike Churches throughout the world In the same sense Constantine (a) In Apolog 2. Athaâ—asij the Emperour calleth the Church of Athanasius The Catholike Church of Alexandria by reason of the Catholike fayth which it preserued entire whiles many other Churches of Aegypt were infected with Arianisme And so likewise (b) Cont. ep Fund c 4. S. Augustine with whom agree (c) Epist. 1. Pacianus and Cyrill of Hierusalem (d) Cateches 18. sayth that if a stranger come into a Citty infected with Heresy and enquire for the Catholike Church euen the Heretiks themselues will not direct him to any Church of theirs but to a Church in which Catholikes meete to serue God In this sense as other particuler Churches so also the Roman euen as she is a particuler Church limited to the Dioces of Rome may haue the name of A Catholike Church But when we say No man can be saued that is not a member of the Roman Church we speake not of the Roman Church in this sense for Catholikes of other Dioceses may be saued aswell as of the Roman but by the Roman Church we vnderstand the Vniuersall Church comprehending both that of the Roman Dioces and all other particuler Churches that professe subiection to her follow her Doctrine and imbrace her communion for all these by adherence to her and vnion with her make one mysticall body of Christ and one holy Catholike or vniuersall Church of which she is the Head and the rest members For the better vnderstanding of this we are to consider seuerall dignities vnited in the person of the Bishop of Rome He is Bishop Arch-bishop Patriarke and Pope As he is Bishop his iurisdiction is confined to the Citty of Rome and other townes within her territories of which the Roman Dioces consisteth As he is Archbishop he hath subiect vnto him some few others the chiefest of which is the Bishop of Ostia As he is Patriarke the extent of his authority is ouer all the Westerne or Latin Church And finally as he is Pope that is to say the Successor of S. Peter and the chiefe Vicar or Lieutenant of Christ vpon earth he is the supreme Pastor Gouernor of the whole Church of God which is vniuersally spread ouer the face of the earth wheresoeuer the name of Christ is known which therfore is absolutely and without limitation called the Catholike Church In regard of this transcendent authority of the Bishop of Rome he is rightly stiled Bishop of the Vniuersall or Catholike Church to whom therefore all the members of the Church aswell Pastors as people by the institution of Christ owe subiection and obedience And as he is the head and Father of all Bishops so the particular Church of the Roman Dioces is the head and Mother of all Churches Now that not only the particuler Church of the Roman Dioces but also the whole body of the Catholike or vniuersall Church consisting of the Roman as head and the rest as members is likewise rightly and in a true and proper sense stiled the Roman Church I proue out of S. Augustine saying (e) De percato orig l. 2. c. 17. that against the Pelagians not only the Councels of Bishops and the See Apostolike but also vniuersam Romanam Ecclesiam the whole Roman Church and the Roman Empire were most iustly incensed where by the Roman Church he vnderstands the vniuersall or Catholike Church spread ouer the world as by the Roman Empire he vnderstands the Empire of the Romans spread ouer the world And the same I proue by examples For when we speake of the Iewish people or the Iewish Church we vnderstand not the tribe of Iuda only but all the rest of the tribes that were ioyned therwith S. Iohn Baptist was of the tribe of Leui S. Paul of the tribe of Beniamin and that holy widow Anna mentioned by S. Luke (d) Cap. 2.36 of the tribe of Aser and yet they all are rightly called Iewes parts of the Iewish people and members of the Iewish Church by reason of their adherence to and communion with the principall tribe which was that of Iuda Likewise vnder the name of the Greeke Church are not comprehended the naturall Greeks only for
which there is a continued Succession of Bishops from S. Peter cannot be the Protestant Church which hath no such succession but the Roman it followeth that S Augustine held the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church and therefore he grieued to see the Donatists lye cut off from her as branches from the vine Be yee ingraffed on the Vine sayth he to the (m) Psal contra part Donati Donatists It is a griefe to vs to see you so lye cut of number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranke of Fathers who succeeded whom That is the Rocke which the proud gates of hell ouercome not And as in these words S. Augustine sheweth the miserable estate of those then that are diuided from the Roman Church so on the contrary he declareth the happinesse and security of all that are in coÌ„munion which her when speaking of Cecilianus Archbishop of Carthage who had bene condemned by a numerous Councell of Donatist Bishops in Africa he sayth (n) Ep. 162. Cecilianus might haue contemned the conspiring multitude of his enemies because he knew himself to be vnited by communicatory letters both to the Church of Rome in which the Soueraygnty of the See Apostolike hath alwayes florished and to other Countreys from whence the Ghospell came first into Africa So teacheth Possidius Bishop of Calama a familiar friend to S. Augustine whose life he writ and therein reporteth (o) Cap. 18. that when Innocentius and Zozimus had condemned the Pelagians the most religious Emperor Honorius hearing of this sentence of the Catholike Church pronounced against them obeyed it condemning also by his lawes ordayned that they should be ranked among heretikes By which it appeares that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholike Church her iudgment in matters of fayth to be infallible and that the Emperors by their lawes seconded her iudgment comdemning as Heretikes those whom she had condemned So teacheth S. Cyril Patriarke of Alexandria explicating those words of our (p) Math. 16. Sauiour Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it According to this promise of our Lord sayth (q) Apud S. Thom. in Caten ad cap. 16. Math. he â—he Apostolical Church of Peter perseuereth in her Bishops pure free from all seduction circumuention aboue all Prelats bishops aboue all Primats of Churches and people most perfect in the fayth and authority of Peter And whereas other Churches haue bene stayned with the errors of some she alone remayns established firmely vnconquerably silencing and stopping the mouthes of all Heretikes we vpon necessity of saluation neither deceiued nor drunke with the wyne of pryde togeather which her confesse and preach the forme of truth and of holy Apostolicall tradition And (r) Apud S. Thom. Opusc 1. againe Let vs remayne as members in our head the Apostolicall throne of the Bishops of Rome from which it is our part to inquire what we ought to belieue and what to hold And lastly It is sayth the Angelicall (s) Ibid. Doctor proued necessary for saluation to yeild obedience to the Bishop of Rome for Cyril sayth in his booke of Treasures Therefore Brethren if we will imitate Christ let vs as his sheep heare his voyce remayning in the Church of Peter and let vs not be puffed vp with the wynd of pride least peraduenture the crooked serpent for our contention cast vs out as long since he cast Eue out of Paradyse So teacheth S. Peter for his golden eloquence surnamed Chrysologus exhorting Eutyches the Arch-heretike to leaue his heresy and learne the true fayth from the Church of (t) Epist. ad Eutych Rome We exhort thee Reuerend Brother to lend an obedient eare to the letters of the most holy Pope of the City of Rome for as much as the Blessed Peter who liues and rules in his owne seate exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it So teacheth (u) L. de promiss prodict Dei part 4. c. 5. S. Prosper The Apostles Peter and Paul founded the Church of the Gentiles in the Citty of Rome where they taught the Doctrine of Christ our Lord and deliuered it to their Successors A Christian communicating with this generall Church is a Catholike but if he be separated from it he is an heretike and Antichrist So teacheth Arnobius (x) In psal 106. explicating the necessity of remayning in the Roman Church in these few but effectuall words He that goeth out from the Church of Peter perisheth for thirst Whereupon Erasmus sayth (y) Praefat. instruct Comment in Psalterium Arnobius seemes to yeild this honor to the Roman Church that whosoeuer is out of her is out of the Catholike Church So teacheth Iohn an ancient Patriarke of Constantinople (z) In ep ad Orientales who making profession of his fayth to Hormisdas (a) In ep ad Hormisd Pope acknowledged that in the See Apostolike the Catholike Religion is alwayes conserued inuiolable and that they who consent not fully with the See Apostolike are out of the communion of the Catholike Church So likewise teacheth S. Fulgentius Bishop of Ruspa and a famous Doctor of the African Church who togeather which other Bishops his Collegues made this answer to Peter a Deacon that had bene sent out of the (b) L. de incarnat grat c. 11. East The Roman Church enlightned with the words of the two great lights Peter Paul as with radiant beames and honoured with their bodies and which is also the top of the world without hesitation belieues so to iustice and doubtes not to Confesse so to saluation So he teaching that no Christian ought to make doubt of the fayth of the Roman Church Againe a Disciple of his that writ and dedicated his life to Felicianus his Successor reporteth that when Fulgentius going to the (c) Vita S. Fulgent c 11. Extat in Biblioth Pat. Edit Colon. tom 6. wildernes of Thebais to fast arriued at Syracusa Eulalius Bishop of that City dissuaded him with these words Thou doest well in aspiring to greater perfection but thou knowest that without fayth it is impossible to please God and that a perfidious dissention hath separated those Countreyes into which thou art trauelling from the communion of blessed Peter wherfore Sonne returne home least by seeking a more perfect life thou runne hazard of loosing the true fayth By which it is euident that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholike Church and that all such as dissented from her Doctrine were out of the true fayth and incapable of Saluation So teacheth S. Leo the first Pope of that name for his admirable learning wisdome and sanctity surnamed The Great who writing to the Bishops of Vienne sayth (d) Epist. 89. Christ from the See of Peter as from a certaine Head powreth his gifts vpon the
he was Aeneas and not as yet Pope of Rome himself whereas it is a certaine truth and well knowne to your selfe that Aeneas retracted those his writings euen whilst he was Aeneas and long before he was Pope of Rome himselfe Hauing done this wrong to Aenaeas you offer the like to Nocolaus Cusanus (l) Pag. 22 y. 29 f. 40. nu 44. a. 93. l.c. 7. d. 107. d 12 i. 163. m. 200. f. 179 i. 283. d. 287. l. 289. q. 301 f. 302. l. 366. d. who in his youth before he was Cardinall being also present at the Councell of Basil writ a boke which he intituled Concordantia Catholica seeking therein to exalte the authority of a Councell aboue the Pope but soone after perceiuing the Councell to grow into open schisme against Eugenius then lawfull Pope he withdrew himselfe and detesting their proceedings writ most graue and learned Epistles against them and employed his best indeautors to extinguish that Schisme as it is to be seene in his epistle to Rodericus where he fully expesseth his iudgment concerning the supreme authority of the Pope Church of Rome as also in many other places of his workes and especially in his Epistle to the Bohemians where he prescribeth to them and to all others an infallible rule to know whether they be in the true church which is to examine whether they be vnited to the Chayre of the Bishop of Rome by continuall succession deriued from S. Peter If your meaning had bene good you would haue alleaged this as the Doctrine of Cusanus and not the contrary which he himselfe acknowledged to be false and recanted but your intention was to deceaue and no meruaile for such sleights are the firtest proofes for such Doctrine No lesse want of syncerity is that which you shew in setting downe and descanting vpon a passage of Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester (m) Pag. 362. c. 390. q. who in the beginning of King Henries defection from the Church of Rome being carried away with the streame of the tyme and desiring to purchase the kings fauour writ a litle boke De vera obedientia and in it en deauored to proue the Kings supremacy in spirituall things and to iustify his diuorce from Q. Catherine and his mariage with Anne Bolen which boke is forbidden by the Church he himselfe afterwards in the dayes of Queene Mary who for his great wisdome and learning made him Lord Chancelor of England condemned his owne doing in a famous Sermon preached at Paules Chrosse which is mentioned by Iohn Stow in his (*) Anno 2. Mariae Cronicle At this Sermon were present the King and Queene Cardinall Pole the Popes legat the Embassadors of the Emperor of the french King other Princes besydes a marueylous great learned and noble auditory as perhaps was euer at any sermon in England either before or since that tyme. He tooke for his text those words of the Apostle (n) Rom 13.11 Hora estiam nos de somno surgere It is high tyme now for vs to awake from sleepe His discourse was to shew that since King Henry left the old trodden path of his Ancestots breaking from the vnion of the Roman Church they had runne astray not without great strife and diuision among themselues and that therefore it was now time to awake In this sermon he likewise made a most hūble harty accusation of himselfe for his fall consenting to king Henries wil in that booke De vera obedientia which he vttered with so great vehemency of spirit and such abundance of teares that he could not goe forward but was inforced diuers tymes to make pauses And how harty those teares were the euent declared for afterwards falling sick and drawing neare his end he caused the passion of Christ to be read vnto him commyng to the denyall of S. Peter and how Christ hauing looked backe vpon him he went out and wept bitterly the Bishop cryed out bidding them stay there and see whether his sweet Sauiour wold vouchsafe also to looke vpon him and giue him some part of Peters teares For said he Negaui cum Petro exiui cum Petro sed nondum fleui amarè cum Petro. I haue deuyed with Peter I haue gone out with Peter but I haue not yet wept bitterly with Peter And by often repetition of those words and as king God forgiuenesse with sighes and cryes he entertayned himselfe vntill flouds of teares streaming from his eyes he gaue vp the ghost This answere was giuen to Syr Francis Hastings (o) In the Wardword Encounter 4. pag. 41. seqq who obiected against vs Bishop Gardiners booke De vera obedientia as you now doe nor do I thinke that you were ignorāt thereof But howsoeuer you knew that before his death he repented himselfe of his fall recalled that booke for the passage which in this your Imposture you obiect out of it you professe to take out of the English translation (p) Pag. 390. q. the author whereof being a Protestant and of your strayne in writing both in his preface and in his marginall notes throughout the booke rayleth most imtēperatly against Bishop Gardiner for recalling that Booke tearming him Doctor double-face a weathercock that turneth ersy-uersy as the wind bloweth an Antichristian Angell of Satan a seducer a hell-hound of a false trayterous hart a filthy traytour a pernicious Papist a knaue a double-faced periured impudent trayterous chattering Chancelour that seekes to pull away the authority of the crowne from the Queene and her heyres for euer And finally he giues his reader this marke wherby he may know him to be a double periured trayterous Villayne because sayth he in that booke he affirmed that the Bishop of Romes authority in England was against Gods word and now be iugleth to bring it in againe All these and other worse are the words of your modest Brother whose style you seeme to approue by citing his translation of Bishop Gardiners booke against the Pope and Church of Rome but with what conscience you can best iudge sithence the translator testifies that he retracted it and the Church hath forbidden it and the Bishop himselfe before and at his death lamented the writing of it with so many and so harty teares Wherfore as it were a grand imposture to perswade men that it is lawfull for them to deny Christ because S. Peter out of humane infirmity denyed him so it is for you to persuade your readers that it is lawfull for them to deny the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome because Bishop Gardiner out of fraylty and other humane motiues once denyed it for as S. Peter bewayled his fall with many teares so did Bishop Gardiner his Finally and that which most of all sheweth your lack of Conscience in producing diuers of these authors as competent witnesses against vs is that wheras in your former wrytings you haue obiected the testimonies of Cassander
from the Church which is true for before the end of their life they shall become members of Gods Church and perseuere in her vntill death But how proues this that none but predestinate are in the Church Nor doth it import that he giues to the predestinate the name of Church for that name sometimes doth not signify the vniuersall Church but a particular company of the faythfull as when we say The Church of the Corinthians or of the Ephesians and when S. Paul (f) Rom. 16.3 sayth Salute Prisca and Aquila and their domesticall Church And (g) 1. Cor. 16.19 againe Aquila and Prisca with their domesticall Church salute you In the same sense the name of Church is taken by Clemens Alexandrinus S. Gregory and S. Bernard whom heere you (h) Pag. 12. obiect for they all giue that name to the iust and predestinate by reason they are the principall partes of the Church SECT III. Your third Argument YOv (i) Pag. 16. say Though all agree in this as your selues confesse that without the Catholike Church there is no saluation yet haue you confessed two sorts of Christian professors namely Excommunicates and Catechumenists to be actually saued albeit no members of your Roman Church So you inferring that the Roman Church is not the Catholike Church Syr you know that Bellarmine whom here you cite expresly (k) L. 3 de Eccles milit c. 6. declareth that when we say none can be saued out of the Church we speake only of such as neither are in the Church really nor intentionally by desire but that if they be in the Catholike Church either really or at least by desire as Catechumenists and some Excommunicats are they may be saued Which Doctrine both he other Catholike Diuines approue And it is so certaine that you know not how to disproue it but by (l) Pag. 16. that as for being saued only by desire or vow of being in the Church is but a wild and extrauagant peece of learning in the iudgment of your owne Iesuit Suarez Pardon me Syr. This is not Suarez his censure but an vntruth of yours for Suarez speaking of excommunicats (m) De trio virt d. 9. sect 1. n. 14. sayth that those Diuines which hold them not to be in the Church really but only by desire differ not from him in the substance of their Doctrine but only in manner of speech Now he defends that both excommunicats Catechumenists are in the Church actually and really which also Valentia holdeth of (n) Tom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. punct 7. §. 14. 15. excommunicats on whom therfore you (o) Pag. 15. marg lit d. saying that the Church Catholike is compared by S. Peter to the Arke of Noah from whence you inferre that as in the tyme of the deluge all which were within the arke were saued and all without it were drowned although they desired neuer so much to be admitted into the arke so whosoeuer are essentiall members of the Catholike Church cannot possibly perish and contrarily whosoeuer is not a reall and vitall member therin cannot but perish So you reason the matter misvnderstanding S. Peter for he compares not the Arke of Noe to the Church but to the Sacrament of Baptisme wherin your argument holdeth not for though in the deluge none were saued but only they which actually were in the arke yet it is certaine that in the law of grace some are saued which neuer receaued the Sacrament of Baptisme as diuers Martyrs that were baptized in their owne bloud you acknowledge the same of Valentinian the Emperor who dyed vnbaptized But admitting the arke of Noe to be a type of the Catholike Church for so it is often taken by the ancient Fathers yet your argument proues nothing for similitudes hold not in all things Wherfore I answere with S. Augustine (q) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 28. that albeit none that were in the arke perished in the deluge and all perished that were out of the arke yet it falleth out otherwise in the Catholike Church represented by the arke for ill Catholikes notwithstanding they be in the Church not only by desire but corporally and really perish because they make bad vse of their baptisme and contrarily others that belieue aright and liue accordingly though they be not in the Church really but only in hart and desire as being yet vnbaptized are saued From whence S. Augustine concludeth that what is said of being in or without the arke in order to saluation is to be vnderstood of being in or without the Church corde non corpore that is to say not corporally and really but in hart and desire Which Doctrine as it is all Catholike Diuines so it is contrary to yours and sheweth your simplicity in calling it a wild and extrauagant peece of learning The things in which the Church is like to the arke witnes S. (r) Aduers Lucifer Hierome are that as the arke was visible so is the Church as in the arke there were Creatures cleane and vncleane so in the Church there are good and bad and as in the arke there were predestinate and also Cham a reprobate so in the Church there are both predestinate and reprobate Wherfore this comparison which you haue brought of the arke destroyes your owne doctrine SECT IV. Your fourth Argument YOur fourth Argument to proue the Roman Church not to be the Catholike Church is (t) Pag. 17. because say you our Diuines that speake more ingeniously freely graunt that the Pontificall dignity Roman as it is Roman is not from Diuine authority because only from the fact of Peter And they that are more affectionate to the Roman See although they attribute it to the institution of Christ yet dare they not say that this is to be belieued vpon certainty of fayth but only as a matter probable and coniecturall If you should argue thus An Aethyopian as he is black is not a man Ergo an Aethyopian is not a man your argument were a sophisme and so is that which heere you make against the Roman Church for as an Aethyopian though he be not a man reduplicatiue and formaliter as he is black yet he is a man as he is a rationall creature so like wise though it be no matter of fayth that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman is the Catholike Church yet it is matter of fayth that S. Peter by diuine institution was created supreme Pastor and Gouernor the whole Church that the same power descendeth from him to his Successors And it is also matter of fayth that S. Peter fixed his See at Rome and died there and that the Bishop of Rome succedeth him in his See and supreme authority of Prince and Gouernor of the whole Church of Christ nor was this euer questioned by any but heretikes That which some Catholike writers dispute is whether S. Peter had any command from Christ to place his See at Rome and
it is that S. Maximus Martyr said (p) Spond anno 657. n. 8. All the Churches of Christians had their beginning from the holy Roman Church and the Primates of Africa (q) Ep. ad Theod. Papam that all other Churches were to learne from her as from their natiue fountayne what they ought to belieue and Innocentius the first in his Epistle (r) Epist. 9. highly commended by S. Augustine (s) Epist 106. that from the Roman Church other Churches as springs proceeding from their mother source and running with the purity of their originall through the diuers regions of the whole world are to take what they ought to ordaine And the holy Councell of Chalcedon (t) Epist ad Leonem that the fountaine and source of our religion is from the See Apostolike And finally for diuers other respects the Roman Church is iustly called The most ancient Church as Bozius learnedly proueth (*) Desig Eccles to 1. l. 3. cap. 10. To him I remit you Wherfore the mother-hood of the Roman Church which we defend consisteth in her supreme authority and iurisdiction ouer all other Churches This you should disproue which here you do not but inferre that Hierusalem Caesarea Antioch the Brittish Church the Greeke Church in generall are all Mothers to the Roman because they were founded before her which is a false cōsequent drawne out of a wilfull mistake of the state of the question for though the Church of Hierusalem was founded before that of Caesarea yet who knoweth not that as the famous Councell of Nice (*) Can. 7. hath declared S. Hierome (†) Ep. 61. testifieth and you here confesse the Church of Caesarea was the Metropolitan or mother Church of all Palestine and that both the Church of Hierusalem and all others of that prouince were for aboue foure hundred yeares subiect to her Againe who knoweth not that the Bishops of Caesarea of Hierusalem and of all the East were subiect to the Bishop of Antioch as to their Patriarke notwithstanding that the Church of Antioch was founded after some of the Easterne Churches And who knoweth not that albeit the Church of Antioch was founded before that of Rome it was neuerthelesse subiect to the Church of Rome for why els did Iuuenal Bishop of Hierusalem say (u) In Concil Ephes Act. 4. in the presence of the whole Councell of Ephesus that the ancient custome and Apostolicall tradition was that the Church of Antioch is to be ruled and iudged by the Roman Syr a man of your reading ought to haue knowne that in the mysteries of Christ the yonger are preferred before the elder Abel before Cain Iacob before Esau Iudas before Ruben Dauid before Eliab Salomon before Adonias and so likewise of Christians the Gentils were preferred before the Iewes the Latines before the Greekes and the west before East for as the Apostle sayth (x) 1. Cor. 15.46 that is naturall which is first and spirituall that which is afterward and he that by his birth-right shall exalt himselfe as being the elder shall by the right hand of God be humbled that so the fauors he bestoweth on his Church may be knowne to proceed from no other root but his gracious vocation So we see among the Apostles that although in the opinion of S. Epiphanius (y) Haeresi 51. which is followed by Baronius (z) Anno 32. n. 23. Lorinus (a) In ca. 1. Act. 5.13 Serarius (b) Tract de Apost and many others Andrew were elder then Peter and as S. Ambrose (c) In c. 12.2 ad Corinth sayth followed Christ before Peter yet Andrew receaued not the primacy but Peter And therfore though the Churches of Hierusalem of Antioch and others of the East were founded before that of Rome yet not they but she obtayned the primacy Wherfore you produce in vaine the testimonies of S. Hierome S. Augustine and S. Basil affirming that the Ghospell was first preached at Hierusalem and other partes of the East and that from thence it came into the West for this proueth that the Church of Hierusalem and some others were founded before that of Rome and therfore were mothers to her in antiquity not in iurisdiction and authority But S. Chrysostome say (d) Pag. 30. you affirmeth that S. Iames was the first that obtayned a Bishopricke namely at Hierusalem You ought to haue added that the same S. Chrysostome likewise sayth (e) In Ioan. Hom. vltima that he was made Bishop of Hierusalem by S. Peter mayster of the whole world If therfore Iames was chosen Bishop of Hierusalem by Peter that sufficiently sheweth his authority ouer Iames and the other Apostles And what els did S. Chrysostome signify saying that Iames was made Bishop of Hierusalem by Peter Mayster of the world but that as much as the Bishop of the whole world surpasseth in authority the Bishop of one See so much did Peter surpasse Iames in authority which Euthymius hath also expressed in the same words with Chrysostome And no lesse effectually S. Bernard The rest of the Apostles sayth he (f) L. 2. de consid c. 9. obtayned ech of them their peculiar flocks Iames contented with Hierusalem yelds the vniuersality to Peter And S. Gregory (g) L. 4. epist 38. Peter surely is the chiefe member of the holy and Vniuersall Church Paul Andrew Iohn what were they but heads of particular Dioceses Impertinent therfore is your alleaging of S. Chrysostome to proue that Iames was the first that obtained a Bishopricke at Hierusalem for both he and these other Fathers testify that Peter was Bishop of the whole Church and consequently also of Hierusalem which was a part of the Church And who knoweth not that of all the Apostles S. Peter first preached the Ghospell to the Iewes and also to the Gentils first in the East and then in the West and that by his authority he instituted the three Patriarkcall seats of Rome Antioch and Alexandria by which all other Churches of the world were gouerned and that as Bozius (h) De sign Eccles l. 4. c. 2. 3. obserueth the whole world was conuerted by those which either were sent by S. Peter and his Successors in the Roman See hauing their mission and authority from them or els by such as were made Bishops by them whom S. Peter had ordayned And so likewise wheras here (i) Pag. 33. you make the Church of Caesarea mother to that of Rome who knoweth not that S. Peter founded that Church and made Cornelius the Centurion Bishop therof which therfore remained subiect to S. Peters See Impertinent likewise and fraudulent is your obiection (k) Pag. 34. out of Sozomene (l) L. 3. c. 7. that the Eastern Greeke Churches challenged this prerogatiue in their letters to Pope Iulius that they came from the East who first brought Christian Religion to Rome for if they came from the East their ordination and authority was from S.
Peter And againe those letters were not of Orthodoxe Bishops but of the Arians assembled in their false Councell at Antioch who with an hereticall pride stomaked at the Authority of the Bishop of Rome because as Sozomene there reporteth by the dignity and prerogatiue of his See he had restored to their Church Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria Paul of Constantinople and other Catholike Bishops whom they had deposed and rebuked them sharply for their vniust proceedings against them But yet their writing was more tolerable then yours for though to magnify themselues they alleaged that the Doctors of Christian Religion came first from the East to Rome yet withall they acknowledged (m) Sozom. ibid. that the Roman Church obtayned the prize of honour from them all as hauing bene from the beginning the Metropolitan of Religion A truth which you here conceale and euery where deny But you tell vs (n) Pag. 29. 30. that Bellarmine groundeth the motherhood of the Roman Church on a false principle taken out of the counterfeit epistles of Anacletus which is that all the Apostles had their Episcopall ordination of Pastorship from Peter which principle is denyed by Azor and Suarez Heere you speake vntruly and contradict your selfe for as you confesse (o) Pag. 38. Bellarmine groundeth the monarchie of S. Peter vpon those words of our Sauiour Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock will I build my Church c. And on the same passage as also vpon those other words Iohn 21. feed my lambes feed my sheepe by which Christ made him Pastor of his whole flock not only Bellarmine but all Catholikes with the ancient Fathers ground their beleefe of the Monarchy of S. Peter and of the vniuersall authority and motherhood of the Roman Church Wherfore Bellarmine here alleaged by you out of those passages of Scripture supposeth the supremacy of the Roman Church as vndoubted matter of fayth and from thence inferreth probablie as a singular priuiledge of S. Peter that all the Apostles had theyr Episcopall ordination from him and proueth the same not only out of the epistle of Anacletus which you are pleased (p) Pag. 29. 34. to call counterfeit and bastardly grounding your selfe on the testimony of Cusanus in a prohibited worke and which you know he himselfe hath retracted but out of the expresse testimonies of S. Cyprian of Innocentius the first in his epistles to the two Councels of Carthage and Mileuis of Iulius the first and Leo the Great all which you imposterously conceale This deduction of Bellarmine though it follow probably yet not so necessarily that the authority of the Roman Church any way dependeth theron And therefore other learned Diuines and in particular Azor and Suarez who no lesse firmely beleeued the Roman Church to be the mother of all Churches then Bellarmine did are herein of a different opinion from him holding that the Apostles were not ordayned Bishops by Peter but immediatly by Christ himselfe which say you (q) Pag. 29. 31. they mantayne vpon the oracles of God out of direct Scriptures accompanied with the consent of S. Augustine and many other Diuines And because you would haue vs beleeue that in their opinion none of the Apostles were ordayned by Peter you set downe in a different letter these words as theirs (r) Pag. 30. mitio Mathias had his ordination to the Bishoprick which Iudas lost not by the hands of Peter but by lot immediatly from God and S. Paul his not by S. Peter but by a voyce from Heauen euen immediatly from Christ. But your dealing is insufferable for these words are not theirs but feigned by your selfe and falsly fathered on them And as the words are not theirs so nether is the Doctrine for when they say The Apostles were ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ they speake not of Mathias and Paul but only of those twelue which Christ called and conuersed with in his life tyme as Suarez expressly declareth (s) De trip virt Theol. disp 10 sect 1. n. 7. prouing withall that both Mathias and Paul were not ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ but by the Apostles s their imposition of hands which also for as much as concerneth S. Paul he confirmeth with the testimonies of S. Chrysostome and S. Leo. Againe whereas you say they mantayne that the Apostles were ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ out of direct Scriptures accompanied with the consent of S. Augustine you cannot be excused from an vntruth for albeit Suarez in proofe of his opinion alleage the glosse vpon those words of the Apostle God placed in his Church first Apostles c. yet he neither vrgeth these words of S. Paul nor any other text of Scripture to that purpose nor any testimony of S. Augustine sauing one out of the booke of Questions of the old and new Testament which you ought not to regard because when it is alleaged against you you reiect it with contempt (t) Pag. 50. marg as hereticall contrary to S. Augustine but because you conceaue that here it makes for your purpose you will haue it to be S. Augustines So inconstant and contradictorious are you to your selfe And I must here also aduertise you of your absurd manner of arguing whiles you frame a syllogisme (u) Pag. 30. fin 31. assuming for your Maior proposition out of Bellarmine that all the other Apostles were ordayned Bishops by S. Peter and out of Suarez Azor for your Minor that all the other Apostles were not ordayned by S. Peter which being two contradictories as there is no man so senselesse that wil defend two opinions playnly contradictory so there is no man so foolish that will grant both the premises of this your syllogisme which yet he must do that will allow your argument to be good He that will defend Bellarmines opinion will deny your Minor and he that will hold with Azor and Suarez will deny your Maior and so your consequent in both the opinions is false for what els can a consequent be that is inferred out of two premises contradictory to themselues Moreouer you say (x) Pag. 34. fine 35. The nation of Brittayne by our owne accounts receaued the Ghospell Cardinall Baronius and Suarez acknowledging thus much out of most ancient records by the preaching of Ioseph of Arimathia in the 35. yeare of Christ two yeares before Peter did found the Church of Antioch where he was seated 7. yeares before he founded the Church of Rome that is to say in Brittany was planted a Church nine yeares before there was any Church in Rome and hereby so much her elder sister So you not without ignorance and falsehood for you set downe this acknowledgment in a different character as the words of Baronius and Suarez which yet are not theirs nor of any of the other authors whom you name but your owne fiction They indeed acknowledge that Ioseph of Arimathia came into Brittany but that his coming
words which you obiect to wit that Christ after his resurrection gaue equall power to all the Apostles saying As my Father sent me so I send you receaue yee the holy Ghost c. For by these words he gaue to them all equall authority to preach throughout the world to reueale matters of fayth assurance of infallibility to make canonicall Scriptures to institute the first mission of Pastors to remit sinnes to giue the holy Ghost and the like In this sense he sayth The Apostles were the same that Peter endowed with like fellowship of honor and power to wit in the exercise of these Apostolicall functions ouer the faythfull to whom he sent them But S. Cyprian sayth not that Christ made all the Apostles equall among themselues exempting them from the iurisdiction of S. Peter in the manner of exercising this power Nor is it true for he gaue it theÌ„ with subordination to him as to their Superior Peter sayth S. Leo (d) Serm. â— in Aâ—niuers suae Assumpt is preferred before all the Apostles if Christ would haue them to haue any thing common with him he gaue it them not but by him And this is declared and the reason therof yelded by Optatus S. Hierome and by S. Cyprian himselfe in that very place which you obiect for the contrary In the Episcopall chayre sayth Optatus (e) L. â— cont Parmâ—n was set the Head of all the Apostles Peter from whence he was also called Cephas to the end that in this only chayre Vnity might be preserued in all and that the other Apostles might not challenge to themselues ech one a seuerall chayre but that he might be a Schismatike and a sinner that against this only Chayre should erect another The Church sayth S. Hierome (f) L. 1. aduers louin c. 14. is built vpon Peter though els where it be also built vpon the rest yet among the twelue one is chosen to the end that a Head being made occasion of Schisme might be taken away And S. Cyprian (g) L. de vnit Eccles Christ to manifest vnity constituted one chayre and ordayned the originall of Vnity beginning from one giuing the primacy to Peter that so one Church of Christ and one chayre might be manifested And then declaring you that haue forsaken this originall of Vnity S. Peters Chayre on which the Church is built to haue lost the fayth and to be out of the Church he addoth He that keepeth not this vnity of the Church doth he belieue himselfe to hold the fayth he that resisteth the Church he that forsaketh the chaire of Peter on which the Church is built doth he thinke himselfe to be in the Church So S. Cyprian equalling you with the Nouatians for your disclayming from the Church of Peter CHAP. XII The authority of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth proued to be infallible HAVING in vayne shot your darts at S. Peter to dethrone him from the height of Authority in which Christ hath placed him you come now to try their force against the Bishop of Rome his Successor whose authority in his definitions of fayth you hold to be fallible SECT I. Our first Argument THat the authority of the Bishop of Rome in his definitions of fayth is infallible we proue out of the words of Christ spoken to S. Peter (h) Luc. 12.32 I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth faile not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren There is no man so voyd of vnderstanding sayth Leo the 9. speaking (i) Ep. ad Michael Impâ—r of this prayer that can thinke Christs prayer whose will is his power to haue bene inefficacious which the Apostle allso teacheth saying (k) Heb. 5.7 he was heard for his reuerence And for this prayer in particular Christ himselfe signifieth so much saying I haue prayed for thee for what would his prayer haue auayled Peter if he had not obtayned for him what he asked Or how cold his brethren haue any assurance of their confirmation in fayth from Peter if Peter could haue error proposing vnto them falshood for truth Againe that Christ in these words prayed not in mediatly for the whole Church nor for all the Apostles but for Peter alone appeareth in this that he expressed one singular person saying Simon Sâ—mon for in the Greeke it is twice repeated and added the pronounce of the second person I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth fayle not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren That Christ prayed not for the other Apostles you grant (l) Pag. 53. and take this for a ground to proue that he prayed for Peter only and not for Clement Vrban or any other of his Successors in the Roman See But your argument proueth nothing for Christ had formerly obtayned the personall perseuerance of Peter and the rest when he said (m) Ioan. 17.9 seqq for them I do pray c. Holy Father keep them in my name c. I pray not that thou take them out of the world but that thou preserue them from euill And therfore this prayer for Peters not fayling in fayth was not made for him in the person of a priuat man and without relation to his office of Supreme Pastor but as for a publike person that is as for the Head of the Apostles and Gouernor of the whole Church and consequently for his See and all his Successors in the same See for as that supreme dignity of Head Gouernor of the vniuersall Church was not to dye with Peter but to descend by him to his Successors so the effect of this prayer of Christ being a prerogatiue obtayned for Peter by reason of his office was to descend to Clement to Vrban and to whosoeuer hath hitherto or shall hereafter succeed him in the same office euen as whatsoeuer prerogatiue is granted to a Vice-Roy as Vice-Roy and as belonging to his office is consequently granted to all his Successors in the same office But you obiect (n) Pag. 54. that this priuiledge cannot agree to Peters Successors because Salas the Iesuit teacheth that a personall and singular priuiledge is that which is granted to an indiuiduall person with expression of his name and therfore doth not extend to any other but dyeth with the person to whom it is granted You vnderstand not Salas for he calleth a personall priuiledge that which is granted to an indiuiduall person as he is a piuat person only for his owne particular good not by reason of any publike office for the good and benefit of the community for if it be granted to him as to a publike person by reason of his office as this was to S. Peter as to the Head of the Church and for the common good of the Church though his name be neuer so much expressed in it it is not a personall but a common (o) See Bonacina Compend v. Priuileg or as Suarez (p) L. 7. de
leg c. 3. n. 23. from whom Salas learned his Doctrine de legibus call's it A reall priuiledge which he confirmeth with the example of a priuiledge that being granted to a certaine Bishop in the Canon law with expression of his name is notwithstanding supposed to passe to his Successors Now that this prayer of Christ was not made for Peter as for a priuate but as for a publike person that was supreme Head and Gouern or of the Church and consequently for the common good and benefit of the Church that therfore by vertue therof the Popes his Successors haue an infallible prerogatiue of not erring in their publike definitions of fayth to the seducing of others is the agreeing consent of the ancient Fathers in their expositions of this passage of S. Luke And 1. three holy Popes in their epistles Lucius the first to the Bishops of Spayne and France Felix the first to Benignus and Marke to S. Athanasius out of this prayer of Christ made for S. Peter gather the infallibility of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth But because Protestants hold for suspected the authority of these epistles I omit them and passe to such as by Protestants are granted to be vndoubtedly of those Popes to whom they are attributed 2. Therfore Agatho a most holy Pope and whom God graced with Miracles in his Epistle to the Emperor (q) Extat Act. 4. Apud Bin. to 3. pag. 12. Constantine Pogonat which was read in the sixt generall Councell and approued (r) Act. 8. 18. as the suggestion of the holy Ghoâ—t dictated by the mouth of the holy and most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles speaking by Agatho sayth Our Lord promised that the fayth of Peter should not faile and commanded him to strengthen his brethren which that the Popes my Apostolicall predecessors haue euer performed is a thing notorious to all This testimony sheweth that not only Agatho but all the Fathers of that Councell belieued this priuiledge of not erring in sayth and confirming others to haue bene obtained by Christ not only for S. Peter but for all his Successors and that this is a truth suggested by the holy Ghost and dictated by S. Peter speaking by Agatho 3. S. Gregory (s) L. 6. ep 37. Who is ignorant that the holy Church is strengthned by the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles who in his name receaued the constancy of his mind being called Peter of a Rock to whom by the voyce of truth it is said Confirme thy Brethren And els where (t) L. 4. ep 3. he proueth against Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople the authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer the vniuersall Church by the Commission giuen to S. Peter his predecessor It is manifest to all such as know the Ghospell that the charge of the whole Church is committed to the Apostle Peter Prince of all the Apostles for to him it is said Feed my sheepe And so him it is said I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth fayle not thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren Which testimony conuinceth thaâ— Christ prayed not for S. Peter as for a priuate person buâ— as for the Head of his Church and consequently for his Successors in him 4. S. Leo the great (u) Serm. 2. de Natali Apost Petri Pauli The danger of tentation was common to all the Apostles they all equally needed the protection of Gods help but our Lord taketh a speciall care of Peter and prayeth peculiarly for his fayth that the state of all the rest might be more secure if the mind of the Chiefe were not corquered The strength then of all is fortified in Peter God so dispensing the ayde of his grace that the assurance and strength which Christ gaue to Peter might by him redound to the Apostles And he addeth that as Peâ—er confirmed the Apostles so it is not to be doubted but that still he affordeth his help to his Successors in the Roman chayre and as a pious Pastor confirmeth them with his admonitions and ceaseth not to pray for them c. 5. Leo the ninth (x) Ep. ad Michael Imper. c. 7. The false deuises of all heretikes haue bene reproued confuted and condemned by the See of the Prince of the Apostles which it the Roman Church and the hartes of the Brethren strengthned in the fayth of Peter which hath not fayled hitherto nor shall euer fayle hereafter And the same sense of these words of Christ is deliuered by Nicolas the first (y) Ep. ad Michael Imp. and Innocentius the third (z) In Cap. Maior de Bap. If you answere that these testimonies are of Popes speaking in their owne cause I reply that they speake in the cause of God and his Church and are worthy of all credit both because they were men most eminent in learning sanctity as also because in this exposition they agree with the Fathers both of the sixth generall Councell and the rest for S. Ambrose sayth (a) Ad ca. 22. Luc. Behold what our Lord said and vnderstand it Peter is sifted he fall's into tentations but after his tentation is made Gouernor of the Church and therfore our Sauiour before hand signifieth why afterwards he chose him to be Pastor of his flock for he said vnto him And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren You see then that in S. Ambrose his iudgment Christ prayed for Peter as for the Pastor of his flock and that for Peter to confirme his brethren is to performe the office of Pastor and Gouernor of the Church which office as it was no lesse necessary afterwards then in S. Peters tyme so it descended from him to his Successors A truth which Theodorus Studites with other his brethren being pressed with the outragious persecutions of â—eretikes professe in their epistle to Paschalis Pope in these words (b) Apud Baron anno 817. Heare O Apostolicall Head made by God Pastor of his sheep porter of the kingdome of Heauen and Rock of the fayth vpon whom the Catholike Church is built for thou art Peter adorning and gouerning the See of Peter Christ our God said to thee And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren Behold now the tyme behold the place ayde vs c. Thou hast power from God because thou art Prince of all fright away the hereticall wild beasts c. And Theophilact (c) Ad cap. 22. Luc. expounding the same words The plaine sense of them is this because I hold thee as Prince of my Disciples when thou after thou hast denied me shalt weep and come to repentance confirme the rest for this becometh thee that next to me art the Rock and fortresse of the Church And we may vnderstand it not to be spoken of the Apostles only but of all the faythfull that shall be till the end of the world Which addition of Theophilact sheweth that this priuiledge giuen to Peter of not
of the East and many of the West it is a manifest signe so much the more euident the greater the persecutions and the more and longer the schismes haue bene that she is the impregnable Rock which the proud gates of hell cannot ouerthrow SECT VIII Other Arguments out of S. Paul and other Catholike Authors answered S. Paul writing to the Romans sayth (x) Rom. 1.13 I haue often purposed to come vnto you that I may haue some fruite in you as also in the other Gentils Tolet (y) in eum loc Annot. 22. vpon these words obserueth that the Ghospell is indifferent to all and that howbeit the Romans were more eminent then other nations and had the primacy yet in preaching of the Ghospell and busines belonging to saluation the Apostle equalleth others with them These words of Tolet you obiect (z) Pag 70. but to what end I know not for Tolet declareth the reasoÌ„ why S. Paul equalleth other nations with the Romans in preaching to them the doctrine of Christ and procuring their saluation to be because as Christ found all sinners and dyed for all so he calleth all and receaueth them from whence soeuer they come If you had set downe these words of Tolet you had discouered that to inferre either from his or S. Pauls words the equality of other Churches with the Roman in matter of iurisdiction is a senselesse illation for by the same consequence you may inferre that all Diocesans in spiritual iurisdiction are equall with their Bishops and all subiects in temporall power with their Princes because Christ hauing shed his bloud equally for all the soules of all are equally deare to him and their saluation ought with all indifferency to be procured by preaching the Ghospell to all aswell to the least as to the greatest to the poorest as to the richest 2. No lesse impertinently you obiect other words of the same Apostle (a) Rom. 11.19 in which as you confesse he exhorteth not the Romans in particular but all the conuerted Gentils in generall not to be ouer-wise but to feare lest they also be broken off by infidelity as the Iewes were For these words shew that no man hath certainty of fayth that he shall be saued as Protestants vaynly presume themselues to haue but that all ought to liue in feare lest they fall into infidelity or other sinnes which feare the Bishop of Rome and the Romans ought to haue as well as other nations But to inferre from thence that the Bishop of Rome may teach hereticall Doctrine ex Cathedra or that the whole Roman Church may fall from the fayth which is the poynt in controuersy nether is it S. Pauls meaning nor any Interpreter euer expounded so 3. As little to your purpose it is that S. Paul sayth (b) Rom. 1.11 to the Romans I desire to see you that I may impart vnto you some spirituall grace to confirme you for therby as S. Hierome or whosoeuer is the author of those Commentaries Theodoret S. Chrysostome and S. Thomas expound (c) In eum locum he sheweth that they had receaued the fayth already from S. Peter Because sayth Theodoret the great Peter had already declared to them the Euangelicall Doctrine therfore S. Paul necessarily addes To confirme you And S. Hierome Paul sayth he will confirme the Romans already belleeuing not that they had not receaued the fayth by the preaching of Peter but that their fayth might be strengthned by the witnesse and doctrine of two Apostles Wherfore S. Paul desired to see them to confirme them that is as he himselfe declareth to the end both he they might receaue mutuall comfort from each other they by his fayth and he by theyrs What makes this against the primacy of S. Peter or of the Roman Church 4. You obiect (d) Pag. 72 Bellarmine confessing that S. Peter Paul were Co-sounders of the Roman Church He doth so it is true but yet so that S. Peter first planted that Church S. Paul came not to Rome till many yeares after to assist him for which cause the conuersion of the Romans and the planting of Christian religion there is absolutely attributed to S. Peter Our will is say the godly Emperors Theodosius and Gratian (e) Cod. tit 1. l. 1. that all the people ruled by the Empire of our clemency shall liue in the same religion which the diuine Apostle Peter gaue to the Romans as the religion insinuated by him vntill this present witnesseth and which it is manifest that the high Priest Damasus followeth Wherfore when Bellarmine sayth that S. Peter and Paul were Co-founders of the Roman Church he sayth it not to equall them in the foundation and much lesse in authority for in that very place (f) L. 1. de Pout c. 27. he learnedly proueth that in authority S. Peter farre exceeded S. Paul 5. You obiect (g) Pag. 72. out of Lorinus that S. Epiphanius calleth both Peter and Paul Bishops of Rome True but S. Pauls Episcopall authority was only transient he had no Episcopall Chayre at Rome as S. Peter had and therfore Lorinus sayth that S. Epiphanius called S. Paul Bishop of Rome in no other sense then because he exercised the Episcopall functions there as he might doe in any other place of the world This explication contents you not and therfore you say (h) Pag. 72. marg it is confuted in the next testimony and in the Challenge following but you breake promise for there you nether confute it nor mentioÌ„ it And as for the thing it selfe it is manifest for no man euer sayd that S. Paul had an Episcopall Chayre at Rome as S. Peter had no do S. Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius Optatus S. Augustine S. Epiphanius whome you obiect making catalogues of all the Roman Bishops from S. Peter till their tyme nor any other writers reckon S. Paul as one of them 6. You obiect (i) Pag. 72. that the authority of both is cited in the Popes Breues for confirmation of Papall ordinances that both haue their images ingrauen in the Popes bulls and that in such sort that Paul somtime hath the right hand of Peter as well as other while Peter of Paul You often borrow arguments out of Catholike authors and conceale their answeres This you borrowed out of Bellarmine (k) L. 1. de Poâ—t c. 27. who largely and learnedly answereth giuing three different solutions vnto it To him I remit the Reader Only I will tell you that the wordes which you set down in a different character as of Peterius are not his but your owne for thogh he proue out of Scripture out of a place of Virgil that apud homines among men the right hand is the better and more honorable yet he sayth not that it is so among all people sauing the Persians as you by adding to his words this particle All make him to say for he acknowledgeth and Bellarmine out of
their Bishop with the multitude of Saints being departed out of it shall be consumed with fire before the reigne of Antichrist or in the very beginning therof as (r) Riber a cap. 17 n. 20. in vers 16. Ex hoc quod nunc ait Apostolus intelligitur Roman euertendam antequam Antichristus regnare incipiat vel certè ipso initio regni eius Ribera and (s) Viegas in cap 17. n. 5. Viegas reach In this supposition why may not the Pope with that multitude of holy Christian Romans be truly and verily the Bishop and Church of Rome Why should that multitude of Roman Christian and Saints be titulus sine re and not a very glorious and venerable Church Why should the Pope then cease to be Bishop more then the Bishop of Canterbury should in case Canterbury should be destroyed into ashes Will you say vpon this contingent that the Bishop of Canterbury shall be the man in the moone the sheepheard of Vtopia to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You might haue learned from Cusanus (t) Epist 2. ad Bohemos whome you cite often and highly commend that if by any accident the Citty of Rome should fayle the truth of the Church shall remaine there where the Principality and seat of Peter shal be Nor is your example of the Emperor of Rome (u) Pag. 77. any helpe to your Argument For albeit the Roman Empyre be now in part decayed or weakned in respect of that power and greatnesse which anciently it had yet it still remayneth so that the name succession of the Roman Emperors at this day is famous in the world els why did our late Soueraigne King Iames inscribe his Monitory Prefation Sacratissimo atque inuictissimo Principi ac Domino Rodulpho secundo Romanorum Imperatori semper Augusto c. And why els doth the Church of Rome in her Office (x) In die Parasceues Sabbatho Sancto pray for the Roman Emperor Nor the Authors which you alledge for the contrary do say ought els though you falsify Salmeron to make his words found otherwise for wheras he speaking of the Roman Empire as it anciently was sayth Imperium illud Romanum iamdiu euersum est that Empire of Rome to wit with that ancient splendor maiesty and power which once it had is long since destroyed you leaue out illud and make him say absolutely The Roman Empire is long since destroyed wheras in the words next following he expresly affirmeth that there is still a Roman Emperor and that he is so called although what now be possesseth be but a very small shadow of the ancient Empire Lastly I will not omit to put you in minde of your weake manner of arguing throughout all this Section for how doth it follow that because Ribera and Viegas hold that Babylon out of which the faythfull are commanded to depart is the City of Rome as she shall be idolatrous in the end of the world you may now lawfully reuolt from the Church of Rome Againe who obligeth me to allow of their exposition I might retort your Argument vpon your selfe and tell you that Babylon signifies not Rome but Geneua and proue it by the testimony of Castalio a prime brother of yours who liued there and was a speciall friend of Beza They sayth he speaking of the Geneuian brethren (y) Apud Rescium pag. 54. are proud puft vp with glory and reuenge We may with lesse danger offend Princes then exasperate these fiery Caluinists their life is infamous and villanous they are Maisters of art in reproches lyes cruelty treachery and insufferable arrogancy They name their Geneua The holy City and their assembly Hierusalem but in very truth we should call it O Babylon Babylon O infamous Sodome and children of Gomorrha If you like not this exposition yet I know no reason why if you will belieue Ribera and Viegas expounding Babylon in the Apocalyps to be Rome you may not as well belieue your brethren Vdalricus Velenus (z) Lib. de hac r◠and Henricus Buntingus (a) It iner de it iner Petri. denying it and so much the more because S. Augustine Tyconius Bede Arethas Primasius Ansbertus Haymo S. Anselme and S. Thomas (b) Apud Riber in vers 8. cap. 14. Apoc by Babylon vnderstand not Rome but the society of all the wicked in generall from whose vices the faithfull are commanded to depart (c) S. August Breuic Collat. collat 3. Others vnderstand Paganisme which because it adoreth a confused multitude of Gods is rightly named Babylon that signifies Confusion others Mahometisme the mother of fornication and all filthinesse Others Constantinople the Metropolitan of Turcisme And others the chiefe City of the Chaldaeans which is properly called Babylon These expositions with their Authors and reasons you may read in Cornelius à Lapide (d) Ade 17. Apoc. Suarez (e) Defens fid l. 5. c. 7. and Peron (f) Replic Chapit 15. But the truth is that all these senses as likewise that of Ribera being purely allegoricall afford no solid foundation to build matter of fayth vpon but are merely coniecturall And therfore if S. August say (g) Ep. 48. Who dares with an vnbridled licence produce for himselfe that which is couched in an allegory vnlesse he haue places more cleare by whose light to illustrate that which is obscure we may with iust reason reproue you for grounding your departure from the Roman Church vpon the allegoricall sense of those words of the Apocalyps Get forth of Babylon my people and so much the more because the Authors whose exposition you take for your ground admonish you that by Babylon is not vnderstood the Church of Rome but the City that not as it is Christian but as it was idolatrous in S. Iohns tyme and shal be againe in the end of the world But any thing will serue your turne be it true or false if by sleights you can wrest it against the Pope and Church of Rome SECT II. Whether S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter were subiect to the Bishop of Rome S. Peters Successor SVarez treating of the authority of S. Peter and his Successors moueth this question (h) De trip virtute disp 10. sect 1. Whether the Apostles that suruiued S. Peter were subiect to S. Peters successor in the See of Rome His answeare is I remember not that I haue read any thing of this point in Authors but it seemes to me to follow out of what hath bene said that they were inferior in iurisdiction and consequently subiect therin to the Bishop of Rome although in other excellencies and prerogatiues they were superior to him For the same power and iurisdiction that was in S. Peter descended to his Successours who therfore in three things surpassed the Apostles there liuing 1. In the obiect of their power for the charge and gouerment of the whole Church belongeth primarily to the Successor of S. Peter which as I haue
at all of them It belonges not to Kings sayth S. Damascen (q) Orat. 2. de Imagin to giue lawes to the Church for consider what the Apostle sayth and whom he hath placed in the Church first Apostles after Prophets then Pastors and Doctors in the constitution of the Church he placed not Kings And againe (r) Ibid. Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them for they watch as being to render accompt of your soules And remember your Prelates which haue spoken the word of God to you Kings are not they which haue spoken the word but Apostles and Prophets and Pastors and Doctors The ciuill gouerment belongs to Kings but the Ecilesiasticall constitution to Pastors and Doctors So Damascen whose Doctrine if it please you not you may learne the same lesson from your Grand-maister Caluin teaching that the chiefest place of gouerment in Christs Church belonged to the Apostles and so to Bishops and Priests their Successors And lest you might thinke that there is so much as one word in S. Paul which may argue him to grant vnto secular powers any place of gouerment in the Church Caluin (*) L. 4. Instit c. 3. sect 5. cap. 11. sect 1. specially noteth that by gubernationes gouerments which S. Paul after Apostles and Doctors reckoneth in the seauenth place are not vnderstood ciuill officers but such men as were ioyned to the Preachers for better order in spirituall gouerment But though you in neither of these places where the Apostle speaketh of the Ecclesiasticall dignities can finde any place for secular Princes and Magistrates the Fathers of the Church haue found in both of them a place for the Pope for S. Hierome obserueth (s) In Psal 44. that in the Church Bishops succeed in place of the Apostles and therefore Tertullian (t) L. de praescrip c. 2â— 32. and S. Augustine (u) Ep. 162. haue noted that their Churches were called Apostolicall so long as they continued in the fayth receaued from the Apostles as likewise all others that being afterwards founded agreed with them in Doctrine or as Tertullian speaketh propter consanguinitatem doctrinae Now as S. Peter was Head and Prince of the Apostles so the Roman Church in which he placed his Episcopall Chayre and into which sayth Tertullian (x) L. de praser c. 36. both he and S. Paul powred all their Doctrina togeather with their bloud was and is still by a speciall prerogatiue called The See Apostolike in so much that when the See Apostolike is named without any addition the Roman See is alwayes vnderstood In this language speake S. Hierome (y) L. 2. Apol aduers Ruffin when he said Ironicè to Ruffinus I wonder how the Bishops haue receâ—â—ed that which the See Apostolike hath condemned In this spake S. Augustine (z) Ep. 106. saying Relations concerning this busines were sent by the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the See Apostolike And els where (a) Ep. 162. In the Roman Church hath alwayes florished the Principality of the See Apostolike In the same language spake the Councell of Chalcedon (b) Act. 1. calling Paschasinus the Popes legate The Vicar of the See Apostolike And the Bishops of Dardania in their Epistle to Gelasius (c) Extâ—â— inter epist. Gelasij It is our desire to obey all your commands and to keep inuiolate the ordinations of the See Apostolike as from our Fathers we haue learned to do And S. Bernard (d) L. 2 de Considerat vpon those words of S. Paul He that resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God sayth to Conradus the Emperor This sentence I wish and by all meanes admonish you to keep in yelding reuerence to the chiefe and Apostolicall See From hence it also proceedeth that as S. Hierome (e) Ep. 58. said to Damasus The Bishop of Rome followeth the Apostles in honor and therfore he aboue all other Bishops is called Apostolicus Apostolicall So was S. Leo called in the Councell of Chalcedon (f) Act. 1. The most blessed and Apostolicall man Pope of old Rome which is the Head of all Churches And the Bishops of France (g) Inter op Leonis â—â—to 52. salute him with the title of The most blessed Pope to be reuerenced with Apostolicall honor And Rupertus (h) De diuiâ—â— offic l. 1.27 The Successors of the other Apostles are called Patriarkes but the Successor of Peter for the excellency of the Prince of the Apostles Apostolicus nominatur hath the name of Apostolicall And Hugo Victorinus (i) L. 1. Erud Theol. de sacram Eccles c. 43. The Pope is called Apostolicall because he hath the place of the Prince of the Apostles From hence also his Episcopall dignity is by a speciall prerogatiue called Apostolatus Apostolate or Apostleship So Paschacinus in the Councell of Chalcedon said of Pope Leo (k) Act. 1. His Apostleship hath vouch safed to command that Dioscorus sit not in the Councell So the Bishops of France writing to the same Leo beseech his Apostleship to pardon their slownesse (l) Iuter ep Leon. ante 52. Honorius the Emperor beseecheth Pope Bonifacius (m) Ep. ad Bonifac. that his Apostolate would offer vp prayers to God for the good of his Empire S. Bernard sayth to Innocentius (n) Ep. 190. It is fitting that whatsoeuer dangers or scandals arise in the kingdome of God be referred to your Apostleship All this sheweth that vnder the name of Apostles to whom S. Paul allotteth the first and chiefest place among Ecclesiasticall gouernors are vnderstood S. Peter and his Succcessors who haue the first and chiefest place of gouermentin the Church And this the Fathers Councels haue sufficiently declared by giuing the Pope the title of Apostolicall by calling his place Apostleship and his Church absolutely Apostolicall See This you could not see so dimme sighted you are in beholding any light that shewes the Authority of the Bishop or Church of Rome And this also is thereason why you could not see that S. Paul comprehendeth Peter and the Popes his Successors vnder the name of Pastors for Christ made Peter Pastor of his flock the same dignity remayneth to his Suecessors for why els did the Mileuitan Councell in tyme of the Pelagian heresy beseech Innocentius Pope (o) Aug. ep â—2 to apply his Pastorall diligence to the great perills of the weake members of the Church why did S. Hierome (p) Ep. 57. liuing in Palestine fly to Damasus Pope for resolution of his doubts as a sheep to his Pastor Why did S. Chrysostome say (q) L. 2. de Sacordot that Christ committed to Peter and his Successors the charge of those sheep for which he shed his bloud Why did S. Ambrose (r) Ep. 81. call Siricius Pope a good and rigilant Pastor that with pious solicitude keepes the flock of Christ Why did S. Prosper say (s) l. de ingrat c. 2. that Rome by
the Roman eares spare the fayth which was praysed by the voyce of the Apostle He declared his iudgment (y) Ep. 8. when aduising Demotrias to auoyd the cruell tempest of Heresy which rising out of the Easterne parts at that tyme when Anastasius of happy and holy memory goaâ—â—ned the Roman Church attempted to pollute and corrupt the sincerity of that fayth which was commended by the mouth of the Apostle he prescribeth her this rule that the keep fast the fayth of S. Innocentius sonne and Successor to Anastasius in the Apostolicall Chayre He declared his iudgment when he said (z) Proom lib. 2. Comment ad Galat The fayth of the people of Rome is praysed Where is there so great conâ—â—â—rse to Churches and to Martyrs sepulchers Where soundeth Amen like thunder from He euen c. Not that the Romans haue any other fayth then the rest of the Christian Churches but that there is in them more deuotion and simplicity of fayth He declared his iudgment when he said to Marcella (a) Ep. 17. In Rome is the holy Church there are the trophies of the Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the fayth celebrated by the Apostle and gentility trodden vnder foot the Christian name daily aduancing it selfe on high He declared his iudgment when he said (b) Ep. 16. that Peter Patriarke of Alexandria persecuted by the Arians sted to Rome as to the safest hauen of communion These testimonies of S. Hierome declare his iudgment of the Roman Church against which you obiect (c) Pag. 91. that he reproued an ill custome not of the Pope or Church of Rome but of the Deacons of that Church who though few in number yet growing proud in regard they had the treasure of the Church in their custody contrary to the ancient practise of that Church and of all other which was that Priests fitting with the Bishop Deacons should stand they of Rome began to presume by little and little to fit This custome S. Hierome reprehended because it proceeded from pride and wanted authority for sayth he if authority be required greater is the authority of the world then of a Citty which is true in things of this nature that nether concerne fayth nor the Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for who feeth not that a custome no way concerning sayth or iurisdiction but discipline and warranted by all other Churches of the would was of greater authority then a contrary custome brought in by a few Deacons of the Roman Church without any warrant of the Bishop of Rome And who seeth not that these words of S. Hierome are impertinently brought against the Roman sayth or the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome for in them he neither speaketh against the Roman fayth nor maketh any comparison betwene the Church of Rome the rest of the world in point of iurisdiction but only betweene the authority of all the other Churches of the world and the authority of a few Deacons of the Roman Church in a custome no way repugnant to fayth nor touching the iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome And finally who seeth not that your intention is to delude and deceaue your readers For he that hath so many and so pregnant testimonies of S. Hierome in which he expresly declareth that the Roman fayth is the. Catholike fayth that it admitteth no delusions nor can be changed that the way to auoyd heresy is to hold fast the fayth of the Roman Church that we must remaine in her as being that Church which hath Succession from the Apostles that he is the safest port of communion that the Church of Christ is built vpon the Roman See and that he which is not in the communion of the Bishop of Rome gathereth not but scattereth that he is prophane and belongs not to Christ but to Antichrist He I say that hath so many and so forcible testimonies of S. Hierome yet comming to deliuer his iudgment concerning the Roman Church concealeth them all and obiecteth one only testimony wholly impertinent as you do what intention can he be thought to haue but to deceaue men in the most important affaire of their saluation But you reply (d) Pag. 91. This is that testimony of S. Hierome wherin the Fathers of the Councell of Basil did in a manner triumph in opposition to the Popes clayme How proue you this With a sentence of Aeneas Siluius O imposture For you know that the Councell of Basil was a Schismaticall Conuenticle moreouer you know that the words which you obiect are not of the Councell of Basil but of Aeneas Siluius and that he hath retracted them with the whole booke out of which you tooke them Are not then you a deceiptfull merchant to cosen your customers with such false wares Nor do I well see how you can be excused from contradiction for you say (e) Ibid. S. Hierome was a professed and deuout child of the Church of Rome when Rome was yet a true and naturall Mother and no Step-dame Ergo in S. Hieromes dayes the Church of Rome became a Step-dame which could not be otherwise then by falling into error How then is it true that as afterwards you grant (f) Pag. 17â— 19â— the Roman Church remained pure and free from error in fayth 600. yeares after Christ which was not in S. Hieromes tyme but 200. yeares after him SECT III. The iudgment of S. Gregory concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and his title of Vniuersall Bishop YOur scope here is to disproue the vniuersall authority of the Bishop of Rome by the iudgment of S. Gregory refusing and reprehending in Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople the title of Vniuersall Bishop as likewise did Pelagius and Leo Bishops of the same See And first you tell vs (g) Pag. 91. It can be no sufficient argument for concluding a Papall authority to obiect against you the testimonies of Popes in their owne cause It was necessary for you to premit this Caueat for howsoeuer you here pretend that S. Gregory S. Leo and Pelagius did not acknowledge in themselues any superiority or iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church your guilty conscience tels you the contrary and therfore you slight their testimonies as of men partiall and that speake in their owne cause And the like you do afterwards againe with reproachfull and contumelious words for wheras Bellarmine (h) L. 2. de Pont. c. 21. in profe of the ancient practise of appealing to the Pope produceth the testimonies of S. Leo and S. Gregory you (i) Pag. 30â— 304 reiect them as of partiall witnesses and compare them to Adonias who traiterously sought to set the crown on his owne head which is in effect to say that as Adonias traiterously assumed to himselfe the dignity of a King not due vnto him so did these Popes vnlawfully challenge to themselues the dignity of Pastors and Gouernors of
of these testimonies of S. Irenaeus and therfore lest you might seeme to passe them ouer without answere you say (b) Pag. 100. marg fine As for the words Propter Principalitatem they are answered hereafter How are they answered first you bid vs (c) Pag. 253. marg remember that Irenaeus was he which consented with the Asian Bishops that were excommunicated by Pope Victor But wee know this to be an vntruth and wish you to remember that you acknowledge so much contradict your selfe saying (d) Pag. 131. Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops These then are your propositions Irenaus consented with the Asian Bishops Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops Reconcile them 2. Wheras S. Iraeneus sayth (e) L. 3. c. 3. It is necessary that all Churches haue recourse to the Roman Church by reason of her more mighty principality you answere (f) Pag. 253. This might haue bene spoken of the Imperiall power of that City to which the subiects of the Roman Empire were bound to resort for paying of tributes and the Gouernors of Prouinces to yield an account of their offices But the very words of S. Irenaeus shew the falshood of this answeare for he mentioneth not the City but the Church of Rome Ad hanc Ecclesiam c. To this Church sayth he all Churches must of necessity resort Againe they which were to resort to the City of Rome for the discharge of their offices and paymēt of tributes were the subiects of the Roman Empire only But S. Irenaeus tels you that omnes vndique fideles that is All the faythfull and all the Churches not only of the Roman Empire but of all the world are necessarily to repaire to the Church of Rome shewing therby that her authority and command is of larger extent then that of the Roman Empire for as Prosper truly sayd (g) De ingrat c 2. de vocat gent. l. 2. c. 6. Rome the See of Peter is greater by the fortresse of Religion then by the throne of temporall power and being made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world possesseth by religion what she doth not by force of armes 3. You answeare (h) Pag. 253.254 Be it Ecclesiasticall power yet was not the necessity of recourse vnto it absolute and perpetuall but occasionall for that tyme. This is as vntrue as the rest for the necessity of resorting to the Roman Church sayth S. Irenaeus (i) L. 3. c. 3. is by reason of her more mighty principality or which is all one by reason of the great dignity of the See Apostolike which sayth S. Augustine (k) Ep. 162. hath alwaies florished in her and which maketh her the Mother Church of the world And therfore so long as she shall be S. Peters See which shall be till the end of the world so long the necessity of all other Churches resorting to her and agreeing in fayth and communion with her shall still continue SECT VII Tertullian his Iudgment of the Roman Church TErtullian agreeth with S. Irenaeus in pressing against all heretikes the same argument of the neuer interrupted succession of Bishops in the Roman See (l) L. 3. Carm. cont Marcio c. vltimo recknoning all the Popes by name vntill his tyme against Marcion and all heretikes to proue thē to be such It is manifest saith he (m) Praescrip c. 21. that all Doctrine which agreeth with those Mother and originall Churches founded by the Apostles is true and to be held as certayne being that the Churches receaued it from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God and that whatsoeuer is contrary to this is to be accounted false and erroneous And speaking of heretikes (n) Ibid. c. 32. If there be any of them that darevent their Doctrine for Apostolicall let them shew the originall of their Churches let them vnfold the order of their Bishops in such sorte that by a Succession deriued from the beginning they proue their first Bishop to haue bene some one of the Apostoles or of the Apostolicall men that perseuered with the Apostles vnto the end This Tertullian sayth the Smyrnaeans in his dayes could do shewing that Polycarpe their Bishop was placed there by S. Iohn and that the Roman Church could do the like shewing Clement ordeyned by S. Peter And the same she can do at this day shewing that all her Bishops vnto Vrbā the eight which now possesseth that Chayre had S. Peter the Apostle for their predecessor and first Bishop in that See and that from him they can lineally deriue their pedigree wheras no heretikes could euer shew any such descent as Protestants at this day cannot And therefore Tertullian bringeth in the Catholike Church vpbrayding them and all heretikes in this manner (o) Ibid. c. 37. Who in Gods name are you When and from whence came you hither What do you among myne being none of myne By what right O Marcion dost thou cut downe my woods What leaue hast thou O Valantine to turne my streames and fountaynes another way By what authority doest thou remooue my bounds O Apelles O Luther O Caluin O Zuinglius The possession is mine I haue it of old I enioyed it before you I can deriue my pedigree from the very first Authors to whom the thing did properly belong I am the right beyre to the Apostles According to their will and testament according to their trust and charge giuen my Tenure standeth As for you they alwayes disinherited you and reiected you as aliens yea and as enemies In this very manner may Catholikes with great reason vpbrayd you who as you cannot shew any Succession of your Bishops continued from the Apostles so you are therby conuinced not to be their heires but strangers and enemies to them and to the Churches founded by them Againe Tertullian prescribing a rule for you to finde out the true fayth doctrine deliuered by the Apostles saith (p) Ibid. c. 36. Goe to If thou wilt be curiously exact in the affaire of thy saluation repaire to the Apostolicall Churches c. If thou be a neighbour to Italy thou hast Rome from whence we also haue authority O happy Church into which the Apostles powred all their Doctrine togeather with their bloud where Peter is equalled to our Sauiours passion where Paul is crowned with Iohn Baptists lot where Iohn the Apostle being plunged into boyling oyle and yet not hurt therwith was banished into an iland Let vs obserue what this Church hath learned what she hath taught Tertullian was an African a Priest of the Church of Carthage and yet speaking of the Roman Church sayth From whence we that is as Macerus expoundeth all the African Churches or all Catholikes haue authority at hand for our defence Wherfore out of this place of Tertullian Quintinus rightly inferreth that the Roman Church euen from her first foundation had great authority aboue all Churches of the world and
that all men are to learne from her the Doctrine of fayth deliuered vnto her by the blessed Apostles And this is the reason why Tertullian speaking of Marcion and Valentinus (q) Ibid. c. 30. proueth them to be heretikes because they had fallen from the faith into which they had beleeued in the Roman Church Nam constat c. For sayth he and his words no lesse agree to Luther and Caluin then to Marcion and Valentinus it is manifest that they first beleeued the Catholike Doctrine in the Roman Church vntill in the tyme of the blessed Bishop Eleutherius for their turbulent spirit of nouelty wherwith they did also peruert their Brethren they were often excommunicated and at length cast out for euer to perpetuall ruine By this it appeareth that the Roman fayth was then held to be the Catholike fayth and the Roman Church which Tertullian calleth The Catholike Church (r) L. 4. cont Marcio c. 4. the Head and Mistresse of all Churches in the world for Marcion was borne at Sinope in Pontus and for his heresy and lewdnesse of lyfe excommunicated by his owne Father a holy Bishop who refusing to absolue him he went to Rome to seeke absolution but his Father opposing obteyned it not ValeÌ„tine was as Aegyptian borne and hauing fallen into heresy in Cyprus came to Rome in the tyme of Higinius Pope and feigning himselfe to be a Catholike was receaued into the Communion of the Roman Church but falling often backe into heresy as a dog returning to his vomit was finally cast out of the Church by the blessed Pope Elutherius as you haue heard Tertullian report And why did these heretikes as also Cerdon at the same tyme when they sought absolution from heresy come from so remote countreyes subiect to other Patriarkes and why from all the Easterne Church and why all of them to the Church of Rome in particular but because they knew her to be the Head Mistres of all Churches that had power to absolue all those which had bene excommunicated by any other Bishops whatsoeuer and to be the originall and center of Catholike Communion and that so long as they remayned out of her bosome they nether were nor should be esteemed Catholikes nor to be in state of saluation Herby it appeares how little reason you had to say out of Beatus Rhenaus (s) Pag. 131 1â—â— though Tertullian giue an honorable testimony to the Church of Rome yet be did not esteeme her so highly as wee see her accounted of at this day And since you acknowledge that Rhenanus his mouth for that and other his inconsiderat speeches is gagged by the Index expurgatorius you shew litle iudgment in obiecting his authority against vs. SECT VIII Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church VVHat hath bene sayd sheweth the futility of your argument out of Vincentius Lyrinensis which is like to the two former out of S. Iraeneus and Tertullian And how little support you haue for your cause in the authority of this ancient and learned Father he will testify for himselfe for when the Doctrine of rebaptizing Heretikes at their returne to the Catholike Church defended by Firmilianus Bishop of Cefarea Agrippinus S. Cyprian Bishops of Carthage and many others wrought so great inconueniences that it gaue a paterne of sacriledge to all heretikes and occasion of error to some Catholikes Vincentius declareth how Stephen then Pope of Rome suppressed it by his authority When sayth he (t) L. cont propha haeres nouat c. â— all men euery where exclamed against the nouelty of that Doctrine all Priests in all places ech one according to his zeale did opppse then Pope Stephen of blessed memory Bishop of the Apostolike See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops but yet more then the rest thinking it as I suppose reason so much to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth as he did surmount them in the authority of his place To conclude in his epistle which then was sent to Africa he decreed the same in these words Let nothing be innouated but that which comes by tradition be obserued And (u) Ibid. c. 10. notwithstanding that the contrary doctrine had sayth he such pregnant wits such eloquent tongues such a number of Patrons such shew of truth such testimonies of Scripture but glosed after a new and naughty fashion and that it was decreed in an African Councell yet the authority of the Pope declaring it a nouelty was of so great force that after he had condemned it all those things were abolished were disanulled were abrogated as dreames as fables as superfluous And afterwards (x) Ibid. c. 43. he alleageth as witnesses of his Doctrine diuers Greeke Fathers and addeth to them the authority of S. Felix Martyr and S. Iulius both Bishops of the Roman Church whom to declare their soueraigne authority he calleth The Head of the world And he concludeth Ibid. c. 45. Least in such plenty of proofes any thing should be wanting wee haue added for a conclusion a double authority of the See Apostolike the one of S. Sixtus a venerable man that now honoresh the Church of Rome the other of Pope Celestine of blessed menory his predecessor And their decrees he calleth Apostolicall and Catholike decrees SECT IX Other Obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared YOur obseruations are (y) Pag 101. seqq that S. Athanasius S. Augustine the Councels of Constantinople of Aegypt and of Cauthage reckoning diuers Bishops to shew their agreement in fayth with them name not only the Pope but other Bishops and write both to him them and consult with him and them as with their fellow Bishops which you say is to giue the Bishop of Rome so many mates and to equalize other Bishops with him But who seeth not what poore stuffe these your obseruations are For if one concerning matters of fayth should consult with his parish Priest and his Bishop would it follow that he equalizeth the parish Priest with the Bishop and maketh him his mate Or if you writing to the King and his Counsell I should lay to your charge that by consulting with his Maiesty and his Counsell you giue his Maiesty so many mantes as he hath Counsellors and equalize them in power and dominion with him would you not thinke mâ— a trifling and indeed a childish opponent how then shall wee thinke otherwise of you that by like consequence go about to equalize other Bishops with the Pope among themselues CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome THAT the Councell of Nice acknowledged the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ouer all Bishops is proued 1. Because Iulius a most holy Pope in his third Epistle which S. Athanesius hath inserted into his second Apology writing to the Arians and declaring vnto them the right of the Roman See to haue the
hearing and finall decision of the causes of Bishops fayth Are you ignorant that the custome is that wee be first written vnto that from hence may proceed the iust decision of things And therfore if any suspicion were conceyued against your Bishops there it ought to haue bene referred hither to our Church And then declaring vnto them that this authority of the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged by the Councell of Nice he denounceth vnto them that in condemning Athanasius without expecting his sentence they had done contra Canones against the Canons to wit of the Nicen Councell which he setteth downe at large in his second epistle to them that as well Athanasius in appealing from their Councell to him as also he in repealing their actes in restoring to their seates Athanasius the other Bishops whom they had deposed and in summoning their aduersaries to appeare at Rome yeld account of their proceedings had done quod Ecclesiastici Canonis est according to the Canons of the Church 2. The same is proued by the testimony of Innocentius the first whom S. Augustine S. Hierome and other Fathers of that age highly commend He ordayneth (z) Ep. ad Victric Rhotomag Epise that if any difference arise betweene Priests their cause be iudged by the Bishops of the same Prouince but that greater causes be referred to the See Apostolike as the Nicen Councell hath ordeyned 3. The same is proued out of S. Leo the Great who writing to Theodosius the yonger (a) Ep. 4â—â— and representing vnto him the sacrilegious proceeding of the second Councell of Ephesus which he by his owne authority had called and impiously maintained that Flauianus the holy Patriarke of Constantinople which in that Councell had bene iniustly deposed and many wayes wronged fled to him for redresse presenting a Writ of Appeale to his Legates intreateth his assistance for the calling of a generall Councell in Italy adding that the Nicen Canous necessarily require the calling of a Councell after the putting in of an Appeale This sheweth that the Councell of Nice decreed the lawfulnesse of appeales from generall Councels to the Pope Nor are you ignoraÌ„t thereof for afterwards (b) Pag. 308. you bring these very words of S. Leo against Appeales to him but not without great Eclypse of iudgment for in them two things are clearly expressed the one that according to the Nicen canoÌ„s Bishops wheÌ„ they are wronged may lawfully appeale to the Pope the other that after the putting in of an Appeale to him a generall Councell ought to be called that to the greater satisfaction of all parts the cause may be fully examined reiudged by the common consent of the Church which no more preiudicateth the Popes Authority then it doth the Kings that after an appeale made to Maiesty a Parliament be called for the decision of the cause for as the King is Head of the Parliament so is the Pope of a generall Councell And hereby it appeares how litle iudgment you shew in obiecting the African Councell to proue that the Councell of Nice denyed appeales to Rome both because your selfe alleaging this testimony of the Nicen Councell out of S. Leo proue them to be lawfull as also because the African Councell is wholly against you as hereafter shall be proued (c) Below Chap. 27. 4. That the Councell of Nice acknowledged the vninersall authority and iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome is proued out of Socrates a Greeke historian of aboue 1200. yeares standing who speaking of the Arian Councell at Antioch (d) L. 2. c. 5. proueth it to be vnlawfull because Iulius Bishop of Rome was not there nor sent any in his steed although the acclesiasticall canon forbids to rule the Churches without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome And Sozomen (e) L. 3. c. 9. Iulius reprehended them the Arians that they had secretly altered the fayth of the Nicen Councell and that against the lawes of the Church they had not called the Pope to their Synod for there was a sacerdotall law which pronounceth all things to be inualide that are done without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome And Theodoret (f) L 2. hist c. 4. Iulius Bishop of Rome following the canon of the Church commanded them the Arian Bishops to come to Rome and summoned the Diuinâ— Athanasius to answeare for himselfe in iudgment And the same is reported by Nicephorus Now this Canon so vniformely auouched by these Greeke historians which forbiddeth Bishops to be deposed or any Ecclesiasticall decrees to be made without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome can be of no other then of the Nicen Councell or els of that of Sardica which confirmed the decrees of the Councell of Nice and is reputed as an appendix vnto it both because as you haue heard Innocentius afflirmeth the Councell of Nice to haue made such a law as also for that since the Apostles tyme vntill the tyme of those two Councels there had bene held no other generall Councell in the Church And finally because Iohn that learned Disputant of the Latines in the Councell of Florence (g) Sess 20. in their name answeareth Marcus Ephesius the disputant of the Greekes that the most ancient epistles of Iulius and Liberius Popes which Iulian Cardinall of S. Sabina had shewed to the Grecians in that Councell did conuince that blessed Athanasius being persecuted by the Arians in their Councell at Antioch writ to Felix Marcus Iulius and Liberius all of them successiuely Popes of Rome for a true copy of the Actes of Nice which were kept entire and incorrupt at Rome all those that were in the East being corrupted by the Arians and that their answere was They wold not send the originall acts which being written in Greeke and Latine and subscribed by the Nicen Fathers and sealed with their seales were kept by the Bishop of Rome with great veneration but that they wold send him copied out seuerally such Canons as were for his purpose And moreouer he sheweth that when Athanasius had appealed from the Councell of Antioch to the See of Rome and that the Arians obiected it vnto him as a thing vnlawfull Liberius promised to send him copied out the Nicen decree for the lawfulnesse of appealing to Rome and that Iulius in his Epistle sharply rebuked the Arians for hauing presumed to call a Councell without his allowance shewing theÌ„ out of a decree of the Councell of Nice that no Councell could euer be held without the authority of the Bishop of Rome And lastly Pisanus (h) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 345.346 in proofe of these Nicene decrees produceth the testimonies of the Councell of Constantinople of Marcus of Stephanus and Innocentius Popes of Athanasius and the Bishops of Aegypt of other Orientals of Marianus Scotus Iuo Carnotensis and Gratianus All which with the rest here alleaged shew your vnshamefastnesse in vrging the Councell of Nice against Appeales to Rome which were so
certainly allowed and decreed by it 5. The same is confirmed out of the Councell of Sardica which being held soone after that of Nice made three decrees concerning Appeales The first (i) Cap. 3. that if in the cause of a Bishop who conceaues himselfe to be wronged a new iudgement be required the Bishop of Rome is to giue the Iudges The second (k) Cap. 4. that if a Bishop deposed by the next Bishops say his cause ought to be iudged againe none is to be installed in his See vntill the Bishop of Rome haue pronounced vpon it The third (l) Cap. 5. that a Bishop accused may haue recourse to Rome by way of appeale These Canons of Sardica sufficiently declare the beleefe of the Nicen councell touching the authority of the Bishop of Rome for as Harmen opulus writeth (m) In Epit. Can. By the aduice of the Emperor and of the Bishop of Rome the Synod if Sardica was assembled consisting of 341. Fathers which confirmed the fayth of the Councell of Nice and published the Canons Wherfore these canons touching appeales extant in the Councell of Sardica are either the very Nicen canons inserted into that of Sardica or declarations of them for the Sardican Councell consisting for the most part of the same Bishops that the Nicen did it is a senselesse thing to say that when those Bishops in their Councell at Sardica so expresly and so effectually declare the Bishop of Rome to be the supreme iudge of all Bishops they professe a new doctrine contrary to that which a litle before they had professed in the Councell of Nice 6. The authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer the whole Church is yet further declared in the Nicen Councell decreeing thus (n) Can. 39. ex 80. Graec. Arab. A Patriarke is so ouer all those that are vnder his power as he that hath the See of Rome is Head and Prince of all Patriarkes for he is the chiefest as Peter was to whom power was giuen ouer all Christian Princes and all their subiectes as being the Vicar of our Lord ouer all people and ouer the vniuer sall Church 7. The same is proued by the order of subscribing in the Councell for Victor and Vincentius being not Bishops but simple Priests because they were Legates to the Pope presided in the Councell togeather with Osius B. of Corduba and subscribed in the first place before all the Bishops and Patriarkes which they could not haue done but only in regard they represented his person who was Superior to all Bishops and Patriarkes 8. Though Constantine the Emperor was a great cause of the Bishops meeting in the Councell of Nice both because he persuaded that meanes of Concord as also because he defrayed their charges and by his letters called them together yet he called them not by his owne authority but as Ruffinus sayth (o) L. 1. c. 1. fin apud Spond Anno 325. n. 5. ex Sacerdotum sententia by the determination or decree of the Priests as in like manner he called an other Councell of 275 Bishops at Rome at the same time in which it is said Siluester gathered the whole Councell with the aduice of the Emperor The same is testified by Damasus in Syluesters life and by the sixt generall Councell saying (p) Act. 18. Constantine and Syluester worthy of prayse called the famous Councell of Nice And how can it be thought that it was called by any other authority then of the Pope seeing S. Athanasius and the Bishops of Aegypt in their Councell at Alexandria witnesse (q) Ep. Synod ad Felic that the Nicen Councell made a decree that no generall Councells should be held without the allowance of the B. of Rome and this decree it is which Iulius Pope the next but one to Syluester alleaged against the Arians (r) Ep. ad Orientales rebuking thē sharply that they had infringed it by calling their Councell at Antioch without his allowance which is also testified by Socrates Sozomen and Theodoret as you haue heard 9. And as this Councell was called by Syluester Pope so that it required confirmation from him we are certified by the Roman Councell vnder Felix the third (s) In ep Synod Felic c. 3. and by the Councell of Nice it selfe saying (t) In summ Conc. Nice Placuit c. It hath seemed good that all these Acts and decrees be sent to Syluester B. of Rome And in their letter to Syluester (u) Apud Baron An. 325. ex collect Crescon Whatsoeuer is determined in the Nicen Councell we beseech you that it may be seconded with the confirmation of your mouth And that Syluester accordingly confirmed their decrees we may learne from a Councell of the Bishops of Italy held at Rome in which he presiding sayd (x) Apud Bar. An. 325. Bin. to 1. pag. 382. Whatsoeuer is determined by the 318. holy Priests at Nice in Bithinia for the strength of the holy Catholike and Apostolike Church we with our mouth accordingly confirme and all those that shall dare to dissolue the definition of the holy and great Councell assembled at Nice in the presence of the most religious and venerable Prince Constantine the Emperor we anathematize them And all answeared So be it SECT I. Doctor Mortons Obiections against the precedent Doctrine answeared THough you either could not or would not find any thing of all that which hath bene alleaged out of the Councell of Nice in proofe of the Popes authority yet you cold find two argumēts to obiect against it The first is (y) Pag. 105. seqq The Councell of Nice decreeth that the ancient custome goe on to wit that the Patriarke of Alexandria haue power ouer Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis because the B. of Rome hath so accustomed To this argument Bellarmine hath answeared (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. that the Canon speakes of the Patriarke of Alexandria with restriction assigning to him the Prouinces of Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis and of the Pope without restriction not prescribing any lymits to his iurisdiction nor ordeyning any thing concerning the authority of the Roman Church but making her a rule and patterne for the gouerment of other Churches commanding that the B. of Alexandria haue power ouer those three prouinces because the B. of Rome hath accustomed so to allow or permit And this canon is so explicated by Nicolas the first (a) Ep. ad Michael Imper that liued almost 800. yeares since and for his learning and sanctity hath deserued the surname of Great And the same explication is confirmed by the practise both of the Roman and of the Alexandrian Church For if according to your construction the Roman Church by this canon be proued to haue no superiority of iurisdiction ouer the Church of Alexandria or other Easterne Churches but only ouer those which are within the Patriarkeship of the west how comes it to passe that S. Athanasius Patriarke
betake your selfe as to your last refuge when you are pressed with vnanswearable arguments is a mere shift inuented to delude ignorant readers with empty words voyd of truth And by this canon it is in like manner euident that the primacy was not then first giuen to the Church of Rome but preserued vnto it according to the canons Your second Argument (z) Pag. 107. to proue that the later Roman Councells are bastardly and illegitimate and that we haue little regard to the Councell of Nice is taken out of Theodoret writing that Constantine the Great required in that Synod that because the bookes of the Apostles do plainly instruct vs in diuine matters therfore we ought to make our determinations vpon questions from words which are diuinely inspired And then you tell vs that Bellarmine answeareth thus Coâ—stantine was a great Emperor indeed but no great Doctor of the Church who was yet vnbaptized and therfore vnderstood not the mysteries of religion Thus say you doth this your Cardinall twite and taunt the iudgment of that godly Emperor and as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth from his reader that which followeth in Theodoret namely that the greater part of that Councell of Nice obeyed the voyce of Constantine So you as you are wonâ— for first you falsify Bellarmine who sayth not that Constantine was yet vnbaptized but that that is the opinion of you Protestants and the old Arians from whence he argueth ad hominem against you that this testimony of Constantine is not of so great weight as Caluin and Kemnitius make it for if he were vnbaptized he could then be no great Doctor of the Church as being a Neophyte and therfore not so well skilled in the mysteries of Christian Religion What twiting or taunting of that godly Emperor your find in this answere of Bellarmine I know not but I know that you in holding Constantine to be then vnbaptized both seeke to disgrace that godly Emperor and withall to vphold the authority and credit of the Arian heretikes who to make him a Patron of their heresy gaue out that he was not baptized vntill a litle before his death and that then he receaued his baptisme from Eusebius B. of Nicomedia the chiefe ringleader of the Arian faction But that your dealing may the better appeare it is to be noted that Bellarmine is so farre from twiting or taunting that godly Emperor that he admitteth of his testimony Admitting sayth he (a) L. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. §. Admissâ— the authority of Constantine I say that in all those doctrines which concerne the nature of God there are extant testimomes in Scripture out of which if they be rightly vnderstood we may be fully and plainly instructed but the true sense of the Scriptures dependeth on the vnwritten tradition of the Church Wherfore the same Theodoret that reporteth this speach of Constantine declareth in the next Chapter that in the Councell of Nice Scriptures were produced on both sydes but the Arians were not conuinced with them because they expounded them otherwise then the Catholikes and therfore were condemned by the vnwritten tradition of the Church piously vnderstood to which condemnation no man euer doubted but that Constantine assented So Bellarmine And hereby it appeares that when you say Bellarmine citeth Theodoret yet as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth that which followeth in him namely that the greater part of the Councell obeyed the voyce of Constantine you wrong Bellarmine and a buse Theodoret who in those words relateth not to the determining of controuersies by Scriptures but to Constantines exhortation made to the Bishops of peace and concord among themselues which sayth Theodoret the greatest part of the Councell obeyed imbracing mutuall concord and true doctrine though diuers Arians disagreed some of whose names he there expresseth This you iniustly conceale like the ill Steward in the Ghospell that you may pick a quarrell with Bellarmine In confirmation of this I might adde that as S. Augustine (b) L. 5. de Baptism c. 23. and Vincentius Lyrinensis (c) Cont. haer c. 9. 10. haue testified the heresy of Rebaptization could not be disproued by Scripture but was condemned by Tradition And finally I might aske you why you like the bad Steward conceale what Theodoret writeth in that very place namely that what Constantine said he spake not to the Bishops as their Head but as a sonne that loued peace offered vp his words to the Priests as to his Fathers and that he would not enter into the Councell but after them all nor sit downe but with their leaue and in a low chayre Did he trow you belieue himselfe to be Head of the Church CHAP. XVII The second Generall Councell held at Constantinople belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome SECT I. By what authority this Councell was called BELLARMINE in proofe of the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction alleageth that the Fathers of the first generall Councell of Constantinople which was the second generall of the whole Church in their Epistle to Pope Damasus say They were gathered by his Mandate and confesse that the Church of Rome is the Head and they the members This say you (d) Pag. 109. is all that is obiected but vpon a mistake What then is the mistake Because Bellarmine in the Recognition of his workes afterwards obserued that it was not the Epistle of the second generall Synod but of the Bishops which had bene present at the Synod and met againe the next yeare after at Constantinople But if this Epistle were not of the Synod why do you speaking of it not without contradiction say (e) Pag. 10â— The generall Councell of Constantinople do endite an Epistle (f) Pag. 110. margin and inscribe it thus And why do you mentioning the inscription of the same Epistle call it Synodicae Epistolae inscriptio The inscription of the Synodicall Epistle And why doth Theodoret (h) L. 5. hist. c. 9. stile it Libellus Synodicus à Concilio Constantinopolitano missus A Synodicall writ sent by the Councell of Constantinople c But howsoeuer you alleaging that Bellarmine acknowledgeth his owne mistake is a mere cauill nothing auailing your cause for be it that those Bishops writ not their Epistle whiles they were assembled in Councell but when they met the next yeare after at Constantinople yet you must acknowledge the truth of what Bellarmine alleageth out of their Epistle vnlesse you will make them all lyers But let vs goe on Bellarmine sayth (i) Recogn pag. 46. in hoc Concil it is sufficiently proued out of the sixth generall Councell that this of Constantinople was called by the commaund of Pope Damasus you answeare (k) Pag. 109. that in proofe therof he referreth himselfe to another Councell against the vniuersall current of histories which with generall consent set downe the Mandates of Emperors as the supreme and first compulsary causes for
the collecting of Councells So you but falsly as hath bene already proued (l) Chap. 1â— â— 8. And to go no further for examples That very sixth generall Councell which you mention beareth witnesse for Bellarmine against you saying As soone as Arius arose the Emperor Constantine and Syluester worthy of prayse assembled the great and famous Councell at Nice And that Constantine did not call that Councell by his authority hath bene proued (m) Ibid. and is confirmed out of the sixth Councell it selfe which was called by the authority of the Pope as it appeareth out of the Epistle of Constantine the Emperor to Donus (n) Inter praeambul 6. Synod apud Bin. to 3. pag. 6. in which he earnestly intreateth him to send Legates in his name with sufficient instructions and authority for the celebration of a Councell to represse heretikes and restore peace to the Church promising withall to see them securely conueighed to Constantinople to receaue them with due honor and the Councell being ended to returne them home with safety Donus being dead before this letter came to Rome it was receaued by Agatho his Successor who yielding to so pious a desire of the Emperor caused diuers Synods to be held in the West to examine the Monothelites Doctrine Which being done he called a Synod at Rome to establish more firmely the Catholike fayth against those Heretikes and then sent his Legates to Constantinople vpon whose ariuall the Emperor as knowing that without the authority of the See Apostolike no Councell could be valid signified by letters (o) Extat apud Bin. to 3. pag. 7. to the Patriarkes of Constantinople and Hierusalem that the Pope hauing yelded to his desire of calling a Councell had sent his legates representing his owne person and with them order and instructions how to proceed therin and therfore wished them with their Metropolitans and Bishops to resort to Constantinople All which sheweth how vntruely you say that Emperors are the supreme and first compulsarie causes for the collecting of Councells for indeed how can that authority belong to them who haue no more then the sixth Councell sheweth Which being ended the Popes Legates though none of them were Bishops but two of them Priestes and the third a Deacon as they had presided in the Councell so they subscribed in the first place before all the Bishops and Patriarkes and the Emperor in the last place after all and in these words Legimus consensimus (p) Apud Bin. to 3. pag. â—7 shewing therby that he had no authority of a Iudge in the Councell but that his duety was as it is also of other Emperors to agree vnto what the Bishops by their authority as Iudges had determined 2. To proue that the Emperor was the supreme and first comâ—ulsaty cause of collecting the second generall Councell at Constantinople you produce Theodoret as a witnesse (q) Pag. 109. 110. that not Damasus but he was the absolute Commander If Theodoret say that the Emperor commanded he sayth it not to shew that he commanded by his owne authority but by the power he had receaued from Damasus so that his command and conuocation was only executory of Damasus his authority for why els doe not those Bishops say that the Emperor called them and why do they say to Damasus You called vs as your owne members by letters sent to the Emperor but because Damasus was he that chiefely called them and the Emperor no otherwise then by vertue of Damasus his letters sent vnto him to that effect Euen as Basilius the Emperor in like manner called the eight generall Councell by the Mandate of Pope Adrians letters (r) Apud Bin. to 3. pag. 881. Volumus c. Wee will sayth Adrian to the Emperor that a full Councell be held at Constantinople by the industry of your Piety in which our Legates presiding c. And this would haue bene no lesse cleare concerning the calling of the second generall Councell at CoÌ„stantinople if what you set downe in your Latin and Greeke marginals you had syncerely rendred in your English text which most imported your readers for the vnderstandding of the truth And the same is yet further proued out of two very antient Manuscripts the one of the Vatican and the other of S. Maria Maior in which it is said (s) Apud Baron anno 381. Damasus confirmed the sentence of condemnation pronounced against Macedonius and Eunomius in the second Synod which by his command and authority was held at Constantinople And lastly whether Damasus did belieue that the authority of calling Councells belonged to the Emperor or to himselfe may be gathered out of another Epistle of his written in answere to one Stephen an Archbishoppe of Mauritania and three African Councells (t) Damas Ep. 4. apub Bin. to 1. pag. 499. in which hauing declared that he had the Episcopall charge or ministery ouer the house of God which is the vniuersall Catholike Church and that the See Apostoleke is constituted by God ouer all Priests and Bishops he addeth for as you know it is not Catholike that a Synod be held without the authority of the holy See Apostolike nor a Bishop condemned but in a lawfull Synod assembled by the same authority nor are any Councells read to be valid but only such as haue their strength from the Apostolicall authority And hereby you are conuinced of an vntruth in saying (u) Pag. 110. that Damasus his letters were not mandatory to the Orientals but letters of request to the Emperor Theodosius for obteyning liberty to collect and assemble a Synod For albeit Damasus requested Theodosius to assist him therin as the duty of a Christian Emperor was to do yet witnes Theodoret (x) L. 5. c. 8. he with his Roman Synod without whose aduice he dispatcheth no busines of moment sent letters to the Easterne Bishops themselues to call them to a Councell at Rome which letters they hauing receaued by the Emperor returne an answere to Damasus not taxing him for want of authority to call them but excusing their not obeying his command by reason of the shortnes of tyme the great inconueniences their long absence would haue bred to their Churches newly freed from the persecutions and troubles of Heretikes Which excuse sufficiently sheweth that they acknowledged in him authority to call them SECT II. Whether the Primacy of the Pope be Primacy of Authority and Iurisdiction or of Order only BEllarmine (y) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. proueth the Popes authority ouer the Orientals by their acknowledging him to be their Head and themselues to be his members You answere (*) Pag. 110. that the similitude of Head and members implieth no superiority of iurisdiction but only of Order that is of priority of place of voyce and the like But this euasion is coÌ„futed by the very comparison it selfe for the Head hath not only priority of place aboue the members but gouerneth and
were more then maruell if the Church of Rome should admit any Canon that may any way derogate from her presumption This your answere is as if the lower house of Parliament should enact a law against the Kings iust and lawfull authority or at least without his knowledge and the King not admitting therof you should iustify their acte saying a It were more then maruell if the King should admit any acte that may any way derogate from his presumption Were this loyalty Were this good Doctrine Yet such is yours for concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires the Pope hath the same place in a generall Councell that a King hath in his Parliament And as no Statute enacted in Parliament can be of force vnlesse it be confirmed by his Maiesty so no Canon nor decree of a Councell can be of force vnlesse it be confirmed by the Pope SECT VI. That no Canon of any Councell can be of force vntill it be confirmed by the See Apostolike FOr who knoweth not that as Socrates shewing the decrees of the Arian Councell at Antioch to be of no force sayth (h) L. 2. c. 5. Iulius B. of Rome was not there nor sent any in his steed wheras the Ecclesiasticall Canon commandes that no decrees be made for the Churches without the sentence of the B. of Rome Which Doctrine is els where repeated by himselfe (i) L. 2. c. 13. and by Epiphanius Scholasticus in the Tripartite saying (k) L. 4. c. 9. Councells must not be held without the allowance of the B of Rome And by Sozomen (l) L. 3. c. 9. who writes that Iulius rebuked the Arians for that against the lawes of the Church they had not called him to the Synod there being a Sacerdotall law which declareth all Actes to be inualid that are made without the allowance of the B of Rome The reprehension of Iulius which these Historians mention is exstant in his first Epistle to the Orientalls where he sayth The Nicen Canons command that by no meanes Councells be held without the B. of Rome And in his secōd Epistle which S. Athanasius hath inserted into his second Apology speaking to the Arians Are you ignorant that the custome is that if any exceptions were taken against the Bishops there we should first haue bene written to that what is iust might be determined from hence And how ancient this custome is Marcellus the first a holy Pope and Martyr testifieth saying (m) Ep. ad Epise Antioch Prouin The Apostles ordeyned that no Synod should be held without the Authority of the See of Rome Which ordination of the Apostles the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian confirmed by a speciall law in these words (n) Const Nouel Theo. tit 24. We decree that according to the ancient custome nothing be innouated in the Churches without the sentence of the Reuerend Pope of the City of Rome And in like manner Iustinian in his Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (o) Cod. tit 1. l. 7. We preserue the estate of the Vnity of the most holy Churches in all things with the most holy Pope of ancient Rome to whom we haue written the like because we will not haue any thing to passe concerning the affayres of the Church which shall not be also referred to his Blessednesse because he is the Head of all the holy Prelatet of God And in his letter to the Pope (p) Cod. tit 1. l. 8. We wil not suffer that any thing be treated of belonging to the estate of the Church though cleare and manifest which shall not also be referred to your Holynesse who are the Head of all Churches Vpon this ground it was that Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria was accused and by the Popes command punished in the Councell of Chalcedon (q) Act. 1. for that he had temerariously presumed to hold a Synod without the authority of the See Apostolike which neither was nor could euer lawfully be done And Euagrius in the history of the same Councell reportes (r) L. 2. c. 18. that the Senators demanding of Leo's Legates what charge there was against Dioscorus they answered that he must yeld an account of his iudgment because against right he had vsurped the person of a Iudge without the B. of Romes permission Wherupon by the iudgment of the Synod he was commanded as a person guilty to stand vp in the middest of the place and accused of many crimes as the same Narration declareth Againe from this ground it proceeded that as the Fathers of Chalcedon testify (s) Act. 10. in generall Councells the Legates of the See Apostolike were alwayes wont to speake and confirme the decrees made in the first place before all other Bishops And as all those Councells generall and particular which haue required and obtained Confirmation from the See Apostolike haue euer bene held valid and reuerenced throughout the Christian world so contrarily all those that haue wanted this confirmation haue bene reiected and condemned as vnlawfull and spurious assemblies The Councell of Ariminum for number of Bishops was exceeding great and yet for want of this confirmation the profession of fayth made by them in that Councell as also the Councell it selfe haue euer bene reputed inualid The number of Bishops assembled at Ariminum sayth Damasus with many other Bishops (t) Theod. l. 2. c. 22. Sozom. l. 6. c. 23. ought to haue no force of preiudice for as much as that profession of fayth was made without the consent of the B. of Rome whose sentence before others ought to haue bene attended Againe for want of this confirmation the second Councell of Ephesus hath alwayes bene condemned as a piraticall Synod And that famous Martyr Stephanus Iunior speaking of a Councell held by the Image-breakers vnder Constantinus Copronymus answered (u) Apud Damas edit Pacis an 1603. part 2. pag. 491. How can this Councell be called Oecumenical which was not allowed by the B. of Rome without whose authority no Ecclesiasticall decrees can be made In like manner Pelagius predecessor to S. Gregory speaking of Iohn B of Constantinople sayth (x) Ep. 1. That intituling himselfe Vniuersall he presumed to call a general Councell wheras the authority of calling generall Synods hath bene consigned by a singular priuiledge to the Apostolike See of blessed Peter c. And therfore sayth he (y) Ibid. to the Bishops of that Councell all that you haue decreed in that no-Synod of yours for Synod so attempted it could not be but a Conuenticle I ordaine by the authority of blessed Peter that it be annulled and abrogated And S. Gregory speaking of this sentence of Pelagius sayth (z) L. 4. op 38. l. 7. ep 70. Our Predecessor Pelagius of blessed memory hath disanulled by a sentence entirely valid all the actes of that Synod except what concerned the cause of Gregory B. of Antioch Finally to adde more proofes for the confirmation of a truth so certaine were to adde light
to the Sunne starres to the Heauens and water to the Ocean These sufficiently shew that you by confessing that this Canon of the Councell of Constantinople was neuer admitted by the Church of Rome discouer your folly in insisting so much on a Canon which for want of due confirmation is inualid SECT VII That the Bishops of Constantinople knew this Canon to be of no force YOu aske (a) Pag. 112. Which of the Fathers for the space of 60. yeares after opposed against this Canon What one Bishop before Pope Leo thought is not most equall I answeare that this Canon was so farre from being allowed either by the Popes or other Fathers of that tyme that because it was not confirmed by the See Apostolike it presently dyed and the Patriarkes of Constantinople acknowledged themselues still subiect to the Pope and the Pope exercised his iurisdiction ouer them as formerly he had done For this Councell of Constantinople being held in the tyme of Nectarius Patriarke of that Citty S. Chrysostome that was his immediat Successor being deposed at the procurement of Eudoxia the Empresse by a Councell of Bishops held at Constantinople vnder Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria had recourse by letters of appeale to Innocentius Pope beseeching him to disanull by his letters and authority the Actes of that Councell to abrogate their sentence of condemnation iniustly pronouÌ„ced against him to restore him to his Bishopricke and punish his aduersaries according to the Canons of the Church yet not with such rigor but that if they did repent he would be pleased to spare them All these particulars are the requests of S. Chrysostome expressed in his letters to InnoceÌ„tius (b) Ep. 1. 2. ad Innocent in which who seeth not that he acknowleged in him the power of an absolute Iudge not only ouer himselfe but also ouer Theophilus the greatest Patriarke of the East and ouer the whole Councell that had condemned him Chrysostome was no sooner thrust out of his See and sent into banishment but his enemies set vp Arsacius in his place who liuing not much aboue a yeare Innocentius would neuer admit him to his communion and after his death commanded his name to be razed out of the records of the Church After Arsacius succeeded Atticus Chrysostome yet liuing Him likewise Innocentius excommunicatated and notwithstanding that he sent many embassages to procure absolution he could neuer obteyne it vntill he had inrolled the name of Chrysostome in the records of the Church as Innocentius ordeined (c) Theod. l. 5. c. 34. Sone after him succeded Nestorius who being fallen into heresy was by the authority and command of Pope Celestine excommunicated deposed in the first Councell of Ephesus (d) See the next Chap. sect 1. In his place Maximianus a man of excellent vertue was ordained by the Legates of the See Apostolike and confirmed by Celestine Pope and who in acknowledgment of the See Apostolike writ a famous Epistle to the Orientals Part of his words you haue heard aboue (e) Chap. 1. sect 4. After him succeeded Flauianus who hauing condemned Eutyches in a Synod at Constantinople and being therfore deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus by meanes of Dioscorus an hereticall Patriarke of Alexandria appealed to Leo Pope Fliuianus saith Liberatus (f) In breuiar c. 22. appealed to the Apostolike See by petition presented to his Legates The same is testified by Leo himselfe (g) Ep. 24. and by Valentinian the third to Theodosius his Father in law (h) In Ep. preamb. Concil Chalced. These examples are so many testimonies of your ignorance You aske which of the Fathers for the space of 60. yeares after the Councell of Constatinople opposed against this Canon or what one Bishop before Leo thought it not equall But we contrarily demand of you which of the Bishops of Constantinople in whose fauor this Canon was made for the space of 70. yeares which passed betweene the two Councells of Constantinople and Chalcedon did clayme any priuiledge of honor ouer the other Patriarkes of the East or any exemption from the Popes iurisdiction by vertue of this Canon Or what Pope in those 70. yeares did thinke it equall The examples alleaged conuince that the most famous Bishops of Constantinople which liued in that tyme knew the Canon to be of no force since in the wronges done them by other Patriarkes and Councells of the East they neuer alleaged it in their owne defence but still appealed to the Popes of those tymes as to their lawfull Iudges and the Popes thought their appeales to be most equall and iust absoluing them condemned their aduersaries And finally that this Canon tooke no effect is a thing evident by the answere which the Popes Legates made when Anatolius B. of Constantinople attempted to haue it renewed in the Councell of Chalcedon for hauing said that it was not to be found in the Code of the Canons of the vniuersall Church they added (i) Act. 1â— If the Bishops of Constantinople haue enioyed it what would they haue more And if they haue not enioyed it why do they now require it CHAP. XVIII The third Councell Generall being the first of Ephesus belieued the supreme Authority and Iurisdiction of the B. of Rome ouer all Bishops SECT I. Of the deposition and condemnation of Nestorius by the Command of Pope Celestine and whether the style of ancient Popes were to Command CELESTINE Pope being informed of the blasphemous Doctrine of Nestorius Patriarke of Constantinople who held that in Christ there were two persons diuine and humane and that therfore the B. Virgin Mary was the mother of man only and not of God condemned it first at Rome and then made Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria his Vicar in the East giuing him Commission to publish and execute his sentence at Constantinople This he signified to Nestorius himselfe (k) Conc. Ephes to 1. c. 17. sin We haue sent sayth Celestine the forme of this iudgment together with the whole processe to our holy fellow-Bishop of Alexandria to the end that he being made our Vicar may notify this our Decree vnto all And giuing Commission to Cyrill to publish and execute his sentence he sayth (l) Ep. ad Cyril in Conc. Ephes to 1. c. 16. Adding to thee the authority of our See and vsing with power the representation of our place thou shalt execute exactly and seuerely this sentence namely that if within ten dayes told after signification of this admonition made to Nestorius he do not in expresse words anathematize his wicked Doctrines c. thy Holinesse shall prouide for that Church without delay and declare him to be wholly cut off from our body Who seeth not that these words of Celestine import a command to Cyrill And in conformity to this command Cyrill writ to the Clergy people of Constantinople (m) Conc. Ephes to 1. c. â—5 We are constrayned to signify to Nestorius by Synodicall letters
Argument is of no force both because neither this Canon nor any other of what Councell soeuer is powerfull to limit his authority nor hath force further then it is confirmed by him as hath bene proued as also because he is not only Bishop of the Roman Dioces in particular but of the vniuersall Church Other Bishops sayth S. Bernard (s) L. 2. de Confider c. 9. according to the Canons are called to a part of solicitude he to the fullnesse of power the power of other Bishops is confined to certaine limits his is extended also to them that haue receaued power ouer others He if there because can shut Heauen to a Bishop and depose him from his Bishoprick He can erect new Bishopricks (t) S. Bernar. ep 131. where they were not He of Bishopes can make Archbishops and contrarywise of Archbishops Bishops if reason so dictate vnto him Wherfore albeit as considered in the quality of a particular Bishop of the Roman Dioces he cannot ordaine Bishops out of that Dioces more then other Bishops can out of theirs yet as he is Pastor and Bishop of the vniuersall Church he can depose and ordaine Bishops in other Dioceses as Agapet deposed Anthymus Patriarke of Constantinople and ordeyned Menas in his place And the Ecclesiasticall histories are full of examples of the same nature which therfore conuince that the Councell of Ephesus by that decree intended not to prescribe any limits of iurisdiction to the Pope but only to command all particular Bishops not to entrench vpon the liberties of others which decree Celestine Pope confirmed with all the rest of that Councell (u) Ep. 2. ad Syn. Ephes as no way contrary to his Vniuersall authority SECT IV. Whether it may be gathered out of the Councell of Ephesus that the authority of the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell YOu say (x) Pag. 115. If the Councell could not depose Nestorius without the Popes mandate nor durst depose Iohn Patriarke of Antioch but reserued the cause to the iudgment of the Pope the issue must be directly this that the Pope is absolutely aboue a generall Councell And was not this say you (y) Pag 116. more then holdnesse in your Cardinall Bellarmine to inferre this supreme authority out of this Councell O egregious imposture Bellarmine only relateth what passed in the Councell namely that those Fathers durst not pronounce a definitiue and vltimate sentence against the two Patriarkes but reserued it to Celestine Pope as to the supreme Iudge of all Bishops Your guilty conscience telling you that the issue therof directly must be that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell you make that inference out of the Councell against your selfe and falsly father it on Bellarmine for though els where he defend that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell yet neither there nor here he makes any such inference out of this Councell of Ephesus And no lesse imposterous is your alleaging the Councells of Constance and Basil against that Doctrine of Bellarmine for the Councell of Basil is a damned Conuenticle and that of Constance when it defined a Councell to be aboue the Pope was not a generall Councell nor speaketh of him that is certainly known to be true Pope but of three Popes in tyme of Schisme when it was doubtfull which of them or indeed whether any of them were true Pope Nor was that decree euer confirmed but expresly condemned by the Councells of Florence and Lateran as you know Binius (z) To. 1. Not. ad Concil Constan. pag. 1662. and Bellarmine (a) L. 2. de Conc. c. 17. haue obserued But to proue that the Pope is not aboue a Councell you vrge (b) Pag. 116. out of Stapleton that the contrary was neuer expresly decreed in any Councell But in this you are as false as in the rest for you cite Stapleton in his thirteenth booke De principijs doctrinalibus wheras in that worke he hath but twelue bookes in all But be the proposition his or whose you please and be it that no Councell hath expresly defined that the Pope is aboue a Councell doth it therfore follow that the Doctrine is not true Is nothing true but what is defined in Councells Who seeth not how inconsequent this your consequence is CHAP. XIX The Councell of Chalcedon belieued the supreme authority of the B. of Rome SECT 1. That Leo Pope called the Councell of Chalcedon by his Authority and presided in it by his Legates OVT of the famous Councell of Chalcedon one of the foure which S. Gregory (c) L. 1. ep 24. reuerenced as the 4. Ghospells the supreme authority of the B. of Rome ouer the whole Church is proued many wayes 1. Because this Councell was called by his authority If it please your Holinesse sayth Martian the Emperor to Leo Pope (d) Extat in Ep. preamb. Conc. Chalced. that a Synod he held vouchsafe to signify so much by your letters that I may direct mine into all the East into Thracia and Illyria to the end that all the most holy Bishops may meete at a set place where your Holinesse shall please to appoint and by their wisdome declare those things which may be profitable for Christian Religion and the Catholike fayth as your Holinesse according to the Ecclesiasticall rules shall define And Pulcheria the Empresse writing to the same Pope (e) Extat epist. ibid. Your Reuerence vouchsafe to signify according as you haue ordeyned that all the Bishops of the East of Thracia and Illyria may come together into one Citty and by your authority determine there in a holy Councell what the Christian fayth and your Piety require concerning the Catholike profession and the Bishops which haue bone excommunicated And the Bishops of the second Maesia in their Epistle to Leo the Emperor (f) Apud Biâ— to 2. pag. 154. Maâ—y holy Bishops were assembled in the Citty of Chalcedon by the commandment of Leo B. of Rome who is truly the Head of all Bishops And Gelasius Pope 40. yeares after the Councell of Chalcedon (g) De Anathem vinculo The See Apostolike delegated the Councell of Chalcedon to be held for the common fayth and the Catholike and Apostolike truth And againe (h) Ibid. The Pope alone ordeyned that by his authority the Councell of Chalcedon should be held 2. And as by his authority he called this Councell so by his Legates he presided in it My Brethren sayth he speaking of this Councell (i) Ep. 94. presided in my steed in the Orientall Synod And writing to the Councell it selfe (k) Ep. 47. Your brotherhood is to conceaue that in these my brethren Paschasinus and Lucentius Bishops Bonifacius and Basill Priests which are sent by the See Apostolike I preside in your Synod And be confident that I am not absent from you who am present in these my Vicars And to Pulcheria the Empresse he sayth (l) Ep. 5â— that by those his brethren
professe by acknowledging (c) Ibid. that he ruled ouer them as the Head doth ouer the members and therfore beseeching him to confirme their decrees with his authority they adde (d) Ibid. We pray you to honor our iudgment with your decrees and that as in what concernes the Weale we haue held correspondence to our Head so your Soueraignty wold fulfill vnto your Children what is fit and conuenient These testimonies so cleare and pregnant cannot but conuince the vnderstanding of any impartiall reader that the Councell of Chalcedon beleeued the vniuersall authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome whom therefore the same Councell often calleth (e) Act. 1.2.3 Bishop of the vniuersall Church SECT III. Whether the title of Vniuersall Bishop which the Councell of Chalcedon gaue to the Pope argue in him no more but a generall care of the good of the Church such as belonges to euery Bishop and to euery Christian. OF all the proofes hereunto alleaged you take no notice two only excepted namely of the title of Vninersall Bishop and of the metaphor of a Vine by which the Councell expresseth the vniuersall Church saying (f) In relat ad Leon. that the custody therof is by Christ our Sauiour committed to the Pope These two you call Two postes to support the ruinous Monarchy of the B. of Rome And your answeare to them here (g) Pag. 117.118 and afterwards againe (h) Pag. 236. is that these attributes import no vniuersall power of iurisdiction in the Pope but of prouidence and care which euery Bishop shold haue in wishing and to his power endeauoring the vniuersall good of the whole Church But if the words of the Councell import no more it will follow that the custody of the vniuersall Church that is the gouerment therof was by Christ committed not only to euery Bishop but also to euery Christian man and woman who should wish and to their power procure the vniuersall good of the whole Church But you obiect (i) Pag. 116.117 236. that Eleutherius Pope writing to the Bishops of France sayth The vniuersall Church of Christ is committed to you that you may labor for all men and that according to Binius his exposition the meaning of Eleutherius is that for as much as heretikes oppugne the Catholike and vniuersall Church is belongeth to euery Bishop to haue an vniuersall care to defend and support it And this say you is a true answere indeed But you speake vntruly and interprete falsly for Binius hath no such word as Vniuersall care nor doth he speake of Bishops only but sayth that a care solicitude of defending the vniuersall Church against heretikes belongeth not only to Bishops but to euery Christian for as much as we are commanded by God Eccl. c. 4. to fight fortruth and iustice vntill death How do these words of Binius proue that the Pope hath not or that the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledged him not to haue authority and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church but only a charitable care of her good as S. Paul had and as euery Bishop and euery Christian man and woman according to their power are bound to haue for did not that Councel giue to Pope Leo the title of Vniuersall Archbishop and Patriarke or as you set it downe (k) Pag. 235. of Bishop of the vniuersall Church but these words say you (l) Ibid. were not the words of the Councell but of two Deacons writing to the Councell and of Paschasinus the Popes Legate False for it was giuen to him (m) Act. 3. in foure different petitions of Theodorus and Ischyrion Deacons of Alexandria of Athanasius a Priest of the same City and of Sophronius And the Councell approuing thereof commanded theyr petitions to be registred in the Acts. Moreouer the same title was giuen him by Paschasinus who though he were his legate was a Reuerend Bishop as also by Martian the Emperor the Councell no way excepting therat And did not S. Gregory and after him the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas testify that the whole Councell of Chalcedon with the following Fathers gaue the same title to Leo Pope And did not Leo a man of admirable sanctity learning instyle himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church And did not the Regulars of Constantinople and of Syria and the Bishops of the Patriarkships of Antioch and Hierusalem giue the same tytle to Agapetus Pope in the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas (n) See all this proued aboue Chap. 15. sect 3. Againe did not the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledge in Leo power to restore Theodoret to his Bishoprick of Cyre bordering vpon Persia from which he had bene deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus (o) Act. â— Did it not acknowledge in him authority to depose Dioscorus the greatest Patriarch of the East (p) Act. 3. Did not all those Fathers being the representatiue body of the Vniuersall Church professe (q) In relat ad Leon. that Leo Pope did preside rule ouer them as the Head ouer the members Is this Authority common to euery Bishop Or did Eleutherius or the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledge any such thing But he that will see how imposterously you wrest the testimony of Eleutherius against the vniuersall power and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome and against the meaning of the Councell of Chalcedon let him read the epistle and he shall finde that Eleutherius a litle before the words which you obiect declareth that althought it be lawfull to examine the accusations and crimes obiected against Bishops either before their Metropolitans or before the Bishops of their owne Prouince yet that it is not lawfull to end them there for as much as it hath bene decreed by the Apostles their Successors that the finall decision of Bishops causes is to be referred to the See Apostolike and no others substituted in their places vntill their iudgments be ended at Rome Can there be a more full expression of the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church then to professe him to be the sole supreme Iudge of all Bishops Or can there be a greater imposture then to obiect this epistle of Eleutherius for the contrary SECT IV. Whether the Councell of Chalcedon did giue to the B. of Constantinople priuiledges equall with the B. of Rome YOu obiect heere (r) Pag. 118. and often repeate that the Fathers of Chalcedon did giue priuiledges to the Patriarke of Constantinople equall with the Church of Rome Answeare The Fathers of Chalcedon in absence of the Popes Legates of the Patriarke of Alexandria and of all the Bishopes of Aegypt at the suggestion of Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople renewed the decree of the 150. Fathers made in the first generall Councell of that City which was that the B. of Constantinople shold haue the second place of honor after the B. of Rome And to this decree was added that he should haue equall priuiledges
the Canons of the holy Fathers to be violated by any rashnesse and that if any trusting in the power of their City shold offer to vsurpe any thing contrary to the dignity of his person they should represse them as iustice requireth Which in like manner Leo himselfe testified to Maximus Patriarke of Antioch (s) Ep. 62. If they say that the brethren which I send in my steed to the Synod haue done any thing more then what concernes fayth that shall be of no force because they were sent by the See Apostolike only to root out heresies and defend the fayth CHAP. XX. The fifth Councell Generall beliued the supreme Authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome SECT I. Doctor Mortons ignorance and contradictions concerning this Councell IN your discourse of the fifth Generall Councell contradictions ignorance vntruthes march by troopes for 1. (t) Pag. 122. here you suppose the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas Archbishop of that Citty to be the fifth generall and afterwards you directly affirme the same (u) Pag. 289. marg lit 0. when speaking of the Councell vnder Menas and alleaging the Synodicall relation made out of the Epistle of Pope Agapetus extant in the first action therof you call it Concilium secundum Constantinopolitanum quod erat quintum generale The second Councell of Constantinople which was the fifth generall And againe twice more (x) Pag. 347. lin 14. pa. 348. lin 11. you repeate that this Councell vnder Menas was a generall Councell And yet in another place contradicting your selfe you say no lesse expresly (y) Pag. 238. lin 11. that it was not a generall Councell It was then a generall Councell and it was not a generall Councell Reconcile these two eris mihi magnus Apollo 2. You acknowledge (z) Pag. 238. 347. that this Councell vnder Menas was held in the inter-regnum or vacancy between the death of Pope Agapetus and the election of his successor the yeare 536. and yet not without contradiction you proue out of Baronius and Binius (a) Pag. â—â—2 in t is sect 6. pag. 123. lit m. that the fifth generall Councell was held the yeare 553. which was neither in the vacancy after Agapetus his death nor in the tyme of Siluerius his successor but in the 14. yeare of Vigilius full 17. yeares after the other vnder Menas And as these two Councells differed in tyme so they did in matter for in that vnder Menas was handled the execution of the second sentence which Agapetus Pope before his death pronounced against Anthymus but in the fifth generall was discussed the cause of the Three Chapters Is it not then great ignorance in you to confound these two Councells the one being particular consisting of 50. Bishops only the other generall of more then 165. the one held vnder Menas the yeare 536 and the other vnder Vigilius Pope the yeare 553 and to frame Arguments out of them both as out of one and the same Councell 3. You say (b) Pag. 189. marg lit o. that the Councell vnder Menas was the second Councell of Constantinople and yet you had said before (c) Pag. 235. marg lit s. that it was the fifth Councell of Constantinople neither the one nor the other being true for betweene this and the first generall Councell of Constantinople there were held eleuen or twelue other Councells vnder diuers Patriarkes of that City as you may read in Baronius (d) Apud Spond Ind. verb. Constantinop Concil 4. To proue this Councell vnder Menas to be a generall Councell you alleage (e) Pag. 347. Binius who sayth directly the contrary to wit that it consisted of such Bishops only as were neere to Constantinople and some others then resident in the City all of them being but 50. in number whose names are expressed in the beginning of the first action And the same is testified by Baronius (f) Anno 536. and Bellarmine (g) L. 1. de Conc. c. 5. l. 2. de Pont. c. 13. by Zonaras (h) In vita Iustinian and Nicephorus (i) Lib. 17. c. 9. SECT II. Doctor Mortons ignorance further discouered and his falsifying of Binius COming to the relation of what passed in the fifth Generall Councell you say (*) Pag. 122. Anthimij causa ab Agapeto Papa condemnata Binius Tom. 2. p. 416. post in Synodo Constantinopol ventilata Idem Binius in Not. Conc. Constant. sub Menna This is an egregious falsification for Binius hath no such words and therfore your setting them downe englished in a different character as his is another false sleight that by fathering them on him you might ground on his authority the Argument which out of them immediatly you frame against the authority of the Pope saying (k) Ibid. This argueth the no-dominion of the Pope ouer that Councell which will take vpon them to examine that cause which the Pope before had condemned But these your words besides falshood containe excessiue ignorance for Agapetus pronounced two sentences of condemnation against Anthymus By the one he deposed him from the See of Constantinople by the other from the See of Trebizond In the former sentence the Councell had no hand for it was definitiue and absolutely perfected and put in execution Menas being ordeined in Anthymus his place by Agapetus his owne hands before his death But because Anthymus was not only an vsurper of the See of Constantinople but also guilty of heresy Agapetus being solicited by the Eastern Bishops ordained that wheras vpon the sentence of his deposition from the See of Constantinople his owne See of Trebizond had bene reserued vnto him if he did not cleare himselfe from the crime of heresy he should also be deposed from that See and withall excommunicated and depriued of all Sacerdotall title and of the very name of a Catholike But because Agapetus dyed before the tyme which he gaue Anthymus to purpe himselfe from the imputation of heresy Menas the Patriarke after his death assembled a Councell not to re-examine mine and ventilate the sentence of deposition which Agapetus pronounced against Anthymus as you ignorantly mistake but to put in execution the second sentence which he had begun but preuented by death could not finish All this is cleare out of the petition of the Regulars of Syria reported in the Councell it selfe when speaking of the first sentence of Agapetus they say (l) In Conc. sub Mena. Act. 1. God sent into this Citty Agapet truly Agapet that is truly beloued of God and man Pope of old Rome for the deposition of Anthymus and of the aforesayd heretikes as heretofore he sent great Peter to the Romans for the destruction of Simâ—n the Magician This reuerend person then knowing by the requests of many of ours the things iniustly attempted vpon the Churches and knowing them by sight would not so much as admit into his presence Anthymus transgressor
and her communicants we haue for our communicants and those that are condemned by her we also condemne Why then did you say that we obiect out of this Councell but one word Obedience why did you here and afterwards againe (m) Pag. 237. citing this passage out of Bellarmine in both places cut it of in the middst Can any Catholike at this day professe more perfect and exacte obedience to the See Apostolike then to hold all them for Orthodoxe and communicate with them all that communicate with her and to condemne all them that are condemned by her This was the obedience of that Councell to the Pope which to shift of and deceaue your reader you mangle the words leauing out the most effectuall part of them because they shew that if you had bene liuing in those primitiue tymes that Councell would haue detested and condemned you as it did Anthymus and other heretikes there mentioned for their disobedience to the See Apostolike and for not communicating with her CHAP. XXI Of the sixth Generall Councell SECT I. That it acknowledged the supreme Authority of the B. and Church of Rome THAT the sixth Generall Councell was called by the Authority of the B. of Rome I haue already proued (n) Chap. 17. sect 1. And that it acknowledged the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church is declared by Constantine the Emperor who speaking to the Roman Synod held vnder Agatho calls him Vniuersall Father and Vniuersall Arch-Pastor (o) Syn. 6. Act. 18. and by the Councell it selfe (p) Ibid. calling him Bishop of the first See and of the vniuersall Church And speaking of the Epistle of Agatho sent from the Roman Councell to the Emperor they receaue it as of the holy Ghost dictated from the mouth of the holy and most Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and written by the hand of the thrice blessed Pope Agatho And againe (q) Ibid. We assent say they and agree to the dogmaticall Epistle of our most holy Father the soueraigne Pope Agatho sent to your Highnesse and to the suggestion of the holy Synod of 225. Fathers vnder him And a litle after speaking of the same Epistle and acknowledging Agatho to be the Successor of S. Peter they adde The paper and inke appeared but it was Peter that did speake by Agatho One of the things which Agatho spake in that Epistle (r) Apud Bin. to ◠pag. 11. was that the Roman Church hath neuer bene stayned with error that the whole Catholike Church all the Councells all the Venerable Fathers and all the holy Doctors haue imbraced her authority and reuerenced and followed her Apostolicall Doctrine which contrarily the heretikes haue maliciously derogated from and persecuted And speaking of the same Church to the Emperor and his two sonnes (s) Ibid. This your spirituall Mother the Apostolicall Church of Christ by the grace of Almighty God shall neuer be proued to haue erred from the track of Apostolicall tradition nor by any deprauation to haue yelded to hereticall nouelties but as from the beginning of the Christian fayth the receaued it pur◠from her authors the Princes of Christes Apostles so she remaineth vntill the end according to the diuine promise which our Lord and Sauiour made to the Prince of his Disciples in the Ghospells saying Peter Peter Satan hath required to sift you as one that sifteth wheat but I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth faile not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren Your Clemency therfore consider that our Lord and Sauiour of all who hath faythfully promised that the fayth of Peter shall not faile admonished him to confirme his brethren which that my Apostolicall predecessors haue alwayes assuredly performed is a thing notorious to all men And because Theodorus Patriarke of Constantinople was a Monothelite as Anastasius testifieth (t) In vita Agathon condemned with Pyrrhus and the rest of that Sect in this sixth Councell he addeth that Since the Bishops of Constantinople haue endeauored to bring hereticall Nouelties into the Church of Christ his Apostolicall predecessors of holy memory haue neuer ceased to exhort and admonish them to desist from hereticall error lest by holding one will and operation in Christ they should occasion a beginning of diuision in the vnity of the Church SECT II. Whether the sixth Councell condemned Honorius Pope as an Heretike THese passages of the sixth Councell so forcible for the authority of the Roman Church you mention not but passing by them as being not for your purpose pick out of it a quarrell against Honorius B. of Rome that with no small lack of syncerity for wheras you obiect out of Bellarmine that in this sixth Councell as also in the seauenth and eight Honorius was condemned as a Monothelite Bellarmine contrarily proueth out of Honorius his expresse words that he was no way guilty of that heresy but alwayes a Catholike holding with the Roman Church two wils and operations in Christ And he confirmeth the same with the testimony of S. Maximus Martyr the greatest Diuine of that age and that liued in Honorius his tyme. And Maximus himselfe in a famous disputation which he had with Pyrrhus Patriarke of Constantinople alleageth as witnesse of this truth Honorius his owne Secretary that writ those epistles dictated from his mouth and was then still liuing Wherfore Bellarmine denyeth that the sixth Councel damned Honorius as an Hereticke and further proueth it because Agatho in his first epistle to Constantine the Emperor which was read in the Councell and not only read but approued and admired as the words of S. Peter and as dictated by the holy Ghost affirmeth expressly that none of his Predecessors one of which was Honorius was euer guilty of heresy but that they haue alwayes made resistance to heretikes that the Pope as Pope cannot decree any thing contrary to fayth And from thence he inferreth that the Councell did not iudge Honorius to be an heretike nor condemne him as such els by receauing and reuerencing Agathos Epistle as the words of S. Peter and as dictated by the holy Ghost the Councell should contradict it selfe and condemne both S. Peter and the holy Ghost of a lye in affirming that none of Agatho's predecessors was euer guilty of heresy And the truth hereof he confirmeth by the testimony of Nicolas the first who in his epistle to Michael the Emperor auoucheth that none of his predecessors was euer stayned with the least spot or blemish of heresy which he wold not euen for very shame haue affirmed so resolutely if Honorius in the publike assēbly of a generall Councell had bene anathematized as an heretike Wherfore Bellarmine rightly inferreth that Honorius was not condemned by the sixth Councell but his name inserted among those heretikes whom the Councell condemned by the Greekes enemies to the Church of Rome And so it is testified by Theophanes Isaurus a Greeke historian and out of him
by Anastasius Bibliothecarius which also he confirmeth because it was the frequent and almost ordinary custome of the Greekes to corrupt and falsify Bookes in hatred of the Roman Church and in fauor of their owne errors S. Leo complaines (u) Ep. 83. that they had corrupted his Epistle to Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople S. Gregory (x) L. 5. ep 14. ad Narsem that they had falsified the Councell of Chalcedon and he suspected the like of the Councell of Ephesus And where in his Dialogues (y) L. 2. c. 38. he hath Paraclitus à Patre semper procedit filio they in their copies leaue out filio and insteed thereof say in filio manet a thing which Ioannes Diaconus (z) Vita S. Greg. c. 75. obserueth testifiing that Zacharias Pope hauing translated that worke of S. Gregory faythfully and published it in the East the Greekes razed out the name of the Sonne in fauor of their heresy that the holy Ghost proceeds not from him but from the Father alone Againe Nicolas the first remitteth Michaell the Emperor to the Epistle of Adrian if sayth he it be not falsified after the manner of the Graecians but kept by the Church of Constantinople as it was sent by the See Apostolike And he had reason to say so for what he alleageth to Photius out of Adrians Epistle to Tharasius is not to be found in that Epistle as it is read in the eight Synod And finally this very sixth Councell discouered that the Greekes had falsified the fifth Councell generall fathering on Pope Vigilius and Menas Patriarke of Constantinople certaine quaternions of their owne If then they haue falsified the writings of the Fathers of the third the fourth the fifth and eight generall Councells what maruell if they haue done the like to the sixth and seauenth defaining Honorius and especially since a little after the sixth Councell they assembled themselues againe at Constantinople by their owne authority and made the Trullan Canons in hatred of the Roman Church To this I adde that in the Lateran Councell of 105. Bishops held before the sixth Synod by Martin the first Pope and Martyr against the Monothelites Sergius Cyrus Pyrrhus and Paul were condemned by name without any mention of Honorius whom yet those Bishops being graue men and impartiall would not haue left vncensured if he had bene guilty of the same heresy as neither would Paulus Diaconus Theophanes Cerameus Photius and Zonaras in their Catalogues of the heretikes condemned in the sixth Councell especially Photius and Zonaras being professed enemies to the Roman Church And finally Emmanuel Calleca a Grecian with all the Latin historians (a) See Cocc to 1. l. 7. arc 13. and Bell. l. 4. de Pont. c. 11. commend Honorius for a Catholike and holy Prelate These proofes most of them being brought by Bellarmine and so vnanswerably conuincing that Honorius neither was an heretike nor condemned by the sixth or seauenth Councell is it not strange that you should so confidently assume the contrary as a thing granted by him and that it being a matter of fact those Fathers were deceaued therin Good God say you (b) Pag. 125. the rare modesty of this man who will haue vs belieue that one Bellarmine liuing now 1000. yeares since that matter was in agitation should iudge better by his coniecture of the circumstances of a mater of fact then could 639. Bishops in their publike Synods iam flagrante crimine when as yet the cause was fresh their witnesses liuing and all circumstances which are the perfect intelligencers visibly before their eyes So you And Bellarmine may truly say Good God the strange conscience of Doctor Morton that will speake so vntruly for doth bellarmine bring no other proofes but his owne coniecture Doth he not produce the testimonies of Honorius his Secretary and of S. Maximus Martyr who were liuing at that tyme of Martin the first with a Councell of 105. Bishops of Iohn the fourth of Nicolas the first of Theophanes Isaurus of Emmanuel Calleca and of all the Latine Fathers that Honorius neuer assented to the Monothelites but euen in those his very Epistles which are obiected defended two wills and operations in Christ with all the Catholikes of the world And doth he not proue the same by the expresse testimony of Agatho Pope affirming that none of his predecessors were euer stayned with heresy and out of the sixth Councell it selfe receauing this testimony of Agatho as the words of S. Peter and as an oracle of the Holy Ghost Againe doth he in all this say that 639. Bishops were deceaued Nay doth he not proue by the testimony of Theophanes Isautus and Anastasius and collect the same out of many other authors that the condemnation of Honorius is not theirs but falsly inserted in their Councells by the Greekes according to their ordinary custome of corrupting Councells and other bookes in hatred to the See of Rome Good God then the seared conscience of Doctor Morton who can conceale all this and lay hold on a few words which Bellarmine addeth to wit that if any man be so obstinat that all this cannot satisfy him he may receaue another solution from Turrecremata which is that the Fathers of the sixth Synod condemned Honorius but out of false information and therfore erred therin as any Councell may in matter of fact The reason why you omit all the rest of Bellarmines doctrine catch at this solution of Turrecremata is to inferre that Popes may be heretikes that not only as priuat Doctors which some Catholikes grant but in their publike persons as Popes because those Fathers condemning Honorius in their publike Councell did iudge him according to his publike person These your words (c) Pag 126. containe a ridiculous fallacy for when we say The Pope cannot erre as Pope or which is all one as a publike person or ex Cathedra the sense is that he cannot either in a Councell or by himselfe ordayne any hereticall doctrine to be receaued by the Church Nor could you be ignorant of this for as Canus whon ye alleage granteth that Popes according to their priuat persons may be heretikes and that peraduenture one or two examples may be giuen therof so in that very place (d) L. 6. c. 8. pag. 214. he addeth that no example can be giuen of any Pope that though he fell into heresy did euer decree the same for the whole Church which is the thing you ought to haue disproued to shew that either the sixth or any other Councell iudged the Pope according to his publike person And lastly as for Honorius in particular Bellarmine (e) L. 4. de Pont. c. 11. rightly sheweth that Canus was in a double error concerning him whose opinion therfore is to be reiected CHAP. XXII Of the seauenth and eight Generall Councells SECT I. That these two Councells acknowledged the supreme Authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome
Paulus Diaconus (s) L. 6. e. 4. and other historians testify and you may read in Baronius (t) Anno 692 Bellarmine (u) L. 1. de Binius (x) Tom. 3. pag. 152. and Canus (y) L. 5. de loc c. vlt. who rightly obserue that as not by the Pope so neither by any of the Patriarkes of the East nor by any authority of antiquity it hath bene receaued as a true Councell but held to be and so Bede (z) Loco cis calls it Erratica Synodus An erring Synod in so much that the Greeke Historians Theophanes Zonaras Cedrenus Glycas and others thought best to bury it in silence neuer reckoning it among the Councells nor making any mention at all of it And with great reason for how Almighty God punished both the wicked Patriarke Calinicus and the Emperor who pleaseth may read in Baronius (a) Anno 691. All which being true as it is it must follow that you shew great ignorance or els lack of Conscience in attributing to the eight generall Councell a decree of this impious Conuenticle and obiecting it against a religious custome of the Saturday fast in Lent piously obserued by the Roman Church from the Apostles tyme. If it be an abuse why did not the seauen first Oecumenicall Councels take notice of it Do not the Greeke authors with one voyce cry out that in thinges of this nature which are not repugnant to fayth or good manners the variety of ancient customes vsed in diuers Churches is to be obserued And did not S. Hierome being consulted about this very custome of the Saturday fast long before the Trullan Synod answeare (b) Ep. 28. Let euery countrey abound in their owne sense and reuerence the precepts of their Fore-fathers as Apostolicall lawes And did not S. Ambrose (c) Spond anno 384. n. 6. in this very particular aduise Monica S. Augustines Mother to obserue the custome of whatsoeuer place she was in And do not both he and S. Augustine (d) Apud S. Aug. ep 86. professedly proue against you and such as you are that wheras the Easterne Church from the tyme of the Apostles fasted not but feasted on Saturdayes contrary to the custome of the Westerne Church both of them did it vpon good and pious considerations declared by the ancient Fathers (e) Apud Baro. an 692. And doth not S. Augustine (f) Loco cit shew that variety to be a singular ornament to the Church And do not the Councells of Agatha (g) C. 22. and Eliberis (h) C. 26. subscribe to that custome of the Roman other Westerne Churches What authority then had those Trullan Bishops to make themselues Iudges of the Roman Church and of all the Churches of the West ouer whom they had no authority as your selfe well knoweth And hereby is discouered your folly that not contenting your selfe with proposing heere this Argument so impertinent and friuolous you repeate it afterwards againe saying (i) Pag. 220. 221. that S. Augustine approuing the custome of the Easterne Church wounds the Papacy and signifies that the Roman Church had not then any peremptory authority to determine all causes for the Roman Church then did and still doth allowe variety of Customes in diuers Churches though sometimes contrary to her owne when they are not repugnant to fayth or good manners Such was the Easterne custome of not obseruing the Saturday-fast which therfore she allowed How then doth S. Augustine wound the Papacy in allowing the Orientalâ—s to obserue their custome since the Roman Church agreeth with him in allowing the same To proue out of S. Augustine that the Roman Church had not then authority to determine all Ecclesiasticall causes you should haue shewed that he held endlesse and indeterminable any cause which she had once determined or that he allowed what she had once condemned which whiles you do not you spend your breath in vaine Finally wheras you aske (k) Pag. 127. Whether the Church of Rome would at this day swallow and disgest such an hoat morsell as the Trull an decree was you insinuate that then she could and did swallow that morsell which how false it is you haue heard since neither Sergius Pope nor any of his successors could euer be brought to confirme that deceee or the Synod that made it which alone sheweth the transcendent authority of the Roman Church in those dayes for want of whose allowance and confirmation that Synod was then and euer since hath bene reproued as an impious Assembly whose decrees therfore you are ill aduised to obiect in fauor of your cause against the Roman Church CHAP XXIII Doctor Morton defendeth the hereticall custome of the Asian Bishops against Victor Pope BELLARMINE and other Catholike writers to proue the authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome practised ouer the Easterne Church in the first ages after Christ among other examples alleage the sentence of excommunication pronounced by Victor Pope against Polycrates and many other Asian Bishops for not celebrating the feast of Easter vpon the Sunday as the Roman Church did but according to the Iewish computation at the full moone of March on what day soeuer it sell wheras witnesse Eusebius (l) Lib. 5. hist c. 22. the rest of the Churches throughout the whole world insisting in the Apostolicall tradition and custome did neuer obserue their Easter on any other day then that on which our Lord arose from death which was on Sunday And so it was decreed to be kept by the Councells of Palestine of Rome of Pontus of France of Osraena of Achaia and of other Bishops almost Innumerable (m) Euseb Ibid. To which I adde out of Tertullian (n) De praescrip c. 53. that Blastus by persuading the obseruation of that Iewish custome did endeauour to bring Iudaisme againe into the Church which also Eusebius testifieth saying (o) L. 5. hish c. 14. Blastus hauing drawne many into error did labor to bring in a new Sect for the destruction of truth Vpon these grounds Victor excommunicated him and the Asian Bishops for their obstinate defence of that custome which Pius his predecessor had forbidden You obiect (p) Pag. 130. that the Asian Bishops stood out a long time against Victor and contemned his excommunication and that Polycrates pleading their cause in his Epistle to Pope Victor alleaged that they had receaued their custome from S. Iohn who leaned an our Lords brest that it was practised by Philip the Apostle and continued by Polycarp Thraseas and Sagonius all of them Bishops and Martyrs and that Polycrates himselfe hauing liued 65. yeares in the communion of the faythfull was nothing moued with those terrors meaning of excommunication which were vrged against him and the rest And you adde (q) Pag. 131. out of Eusebius that this Act of Victor did not please all other Bishops who did greatly reproue him for troubling the peace of the Church
be directed to the holy and Venerable Pope Innocentius And we likewise had written from the Councell of Mileuis in Numidia to the same Apostolike See And what did they write We hope sayth the Councell (k) Aug. ep 92. these men which hold so peruerse pernicious opinions will sooner yeld to the authority of your Holinesse drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures by help of the mercy of our Lord Iesus-Christ who vouchsafeth to gouerne you consulting with him and to heare you praying vnto him To this Epistle of the Councell Innocentius answeared (l) Aug. ep 93. You prouide diligently and worthily for the Apostolike honor c. following in the consultation of difficult things the forme of the ancient rule which you know as well as I to haue bene alwayes obserued by the whole world But I omit this for I thinke it is not vnknowne to your wisdome for why els did you confirme this by your deeds but because you know that answeres do alwayes flow from the Apostolicall fountaine throughout all Countries to those that aske them And especially as often as matter of fayth is in question I conceiue that all our brethren and fellow-Bishops ought not to referre what may be profitable in common to all Churches to any but to Peter that is to the author of their name and dignity as your Dilection hath done If you answeare that Innocentius writ this but spake vntruly in his owne cause S. Augustine will satisfy you who highly prayseth both these answeares of his Vpon this affaire sayth S. Augustine (m) Ep. 106. relations were sent from the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the Apostolicall See c. And besides the relations of the Councells we writ also priuate letters to Pope Innocentius of blessed memory in which we discoursed more largely of the same subiect And he answeared vs to euery point as it was conuenient and fitting the Prelate of the Apostolike See should answeare And againe (n) Ep. 157. Pelagius and Celestius hauing bene the authors or most violent promotors of this new Heresy they also by meanes of the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councells with the help of God who vndertakes the protection of his Church haue bene condemned in the extent of the whole world by two reuerend Prelates of the Apostolike See Pope Innocentius and Pope Zozimus vnlesse they reforme themselues and do pennance Out of this it is euident 1. That it was the ancient tradition and custome that Councels should send their decrees to the Pope to be confirmed by his authority 2. And that it is so ordeyned not by humane but by diuine sentence 3. That all other Churches of the world compared to the Roman are as streames that flow from their mother source and are to imbrace as pure whatsoeuer doctrine she deliuereth and reiect whatsoeuer she condemneth 4. That the Fathers of both these Councels did acknowledg the Pope to be their Pastor 5. And that they did belieue his authority to be takē out of the holy Scriptures 6. That Christ guideth him in his consultations and decrees of fayth 7. That the custome ancient rule beareth that in doubts especially of fayth the See Apostolike is to be consulted and nothing determined vntill answeare had from thence Now to your obiection (o) Pag. 141. seqq that the Councell of Mileuis denied any right of Appeales from Africa to the Church of Rome which in your eyes is so forcible that you repeat it afterwards againe (p) Pag. 321.322 seqq and descant on it at large against Bellarmine who sheweth (q) L. 2. de Pont. c. 24. it to be wholly impertinent and from the matter for the question of appeales to the B. of Rome is not of Priests and inferior Clerkes of whom only the Councell of Mileuis speaketh but of Bishops for the Councell of Sardica which hath declared (r) Can. 4. 7. that Bishops may appeale to the Pope hath withall decreed (s) Can. 27. that Priests and inferior Clerkes are to be iudged by their owne Bishops that if they conceiue themselues to be wronged by them they appeale to other Bishops of the same prouince And the same had bene ordeyned not long before by the Councell of Nice (t) Iulius ep 1.2.3 apud Bin. to 1. pag. 399. seqq and afterwards by S. Leo (u) Ep. 84. ad Anastas Thessal S. Gregory (x) L. 2. indict 11. ep 6. ordeyning that maior causes be iudged in the first instance by a Councell of Bishops of the same prouince by way of appeale by the See Apostolike And to goe no further the same was answeared by the holy Pope Innocentius to whom the Councell of Mileuis sent their decrees to be confirmed (y) Aug. ep 92. For when Victricius B. of Rhoan desiring to order the gouerment of his Church according to the Roman discipline required instructions from him he (z) Ep. 2. addressed vnto him diuers rules to be obserued of which the third is that If dissentions arise betweene Priests or other Clerkes of the inferior order they are to be iudged ended by the Bishops of the same Prouince as the Councell of Nice hath determined And for the causes of Bishops he addeth (a) Ibid. If they be maior causes that are in question let them after the Episcopall iudgment be referred to the See Apostolike as the Synod of Nice and the ancient customes ordeyne This Epistle of Innocentius was cited by the Bishops of France in the second Councell of Tours 700. yeares since And his very words concerning the appeales of Bishops to the See Apostolike are inserted in forme of a Law into the Capitulary of Charlemaine And Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes in his epistle to Nicolas Pope (b) Erodoard histor Eccles Rhem. lib. 3. repeating the same decree of Innocentius sayth We Metropolitans trauilling in our prouinciall Councels haue care after iudgment to referre the maior causes that is of fayth and of maior persons that is of Bishops to the determination of the soueraigne See And speaking of Priests and inferior Clerkes Let it not please God that we thould depise the priuiledge of the first and supreme See of the holy Roman Church as to weary your soueraigne Authority with all the controuersies and quarrels of the Clergy as well of the superior as of the inferior order which the canons of the Nicen Councell and the decrees of Innocentius and other Popes of the holy See of Rome command to be determined in their owne Prouinces From hence it followeth that the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis which you obiect against appeales to Rome makes nothing at all for your purpose your peremptory conclusion is (c) Pag. 141. that the Councell of Mileuis denieth any right of appeales from Africk to the Church of Rome To make this good you should haue shewed that the Councell of Mileuis forbids the appeales of Bishops
from Africa to Rome for of them only the question is But insteed of prouing this you produce a Canon in which euen as it is reported by your selfe no mention is made of Bishops but only a command giuen that Priests Deacons or other inferior Clerkes appeale not from the Bishops of their owne prouince eyther to Rome or to any other transmarine Church which no more impeacheth the soueraigne power of the Pope or disproueth his right of appeales out of Africa then it would impeach the authority of the King of France if to preuent the multitude of vnnecessary suites and keepe his people in awe of their immediate Superiors his Maiesty and his Courts of Parliament with his assent should prouide by a speciall law that in minor causes no appeales be made froÌ„ them to himselfe To this I adde that Innocentius confirmed this Councell of Mileuis (d) Aug. ep 93. which he would not haue done if it had prohibited the appeales of Bishops to his See which he himselfe in his epistle to Victricius claymeth and proueth out of the Councell of Nice to be lawfull And the same is confirmed out of S. Augustine who was present at the Councell of Mileuis and speaking of Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage that had bene iniustly condemned by the Donatists in a Councell of 70. Bishops fayth (e) Ep. 162. Cecilian might haue contemned the multitude of his enemies conspiring against him for as much as he knew himselfe to be in the Communion of the Roman Church in which had alwaies florish't the principality of the See Apostolike that he might haue reserued his cause entire to be iudged a new there because it was not a cause of Priests or Deacons or other Clerkes of the inferior order but of a Colleague that is to say of a Bishop This discourse of S. Augustine conuinceth that Bishops may appeale to Rome though Priests and other inferior Clerkes may not How comes it then to passe that you say (f) Pag. 323. Bellarmine when he sayth that S. Augustine in the place alleaged doth iustify appeales of Bishops beyond the sea to Rome speakes so still as though be were scarse able to report a truth Bellarmine may indeed with truth tell you that when you sayd (g) Ibid. The case of Cecilian which S. Augustine speaketh of was not a case of appeale but of delegation by the authority of the Emperor to the Pope and to other Bishops you speake as one that is scarce able to report any thing out of him without an vntruth for he speaketh not of what passed de facto in the case of Cecilian but of the right that Cecilian had to appeale to the Pope which right S. Augustine could not haue alleaged vnlesse he had belieued that Bishops in their wrongs might lawfully appeale to him And that the case of Cecilian was not a case of appeale to the Pope but a delegation from the Emperor is an vntruth that shall be confuted hereafter (i) Chap. 30. sect â— From hence Bellarmine collecteth that albeit the Councell of Mileuis prohibited the appeales of Priests and inferior Clerkes to Rome yet they nether did nor could prohibite the Pope to admit of such appeales if they were made Against this you reply (k) Pag. 322. that where there lyeth a prohibition against appealing to a Iudge that Iudge is not held a superior Iudge False if it be taken vniuersally without limitation for a prohibition may be iniust as being made without sufficient authority such is the prohibition of Protestants forbidding all Appeales to Rome Againe a prohibition may be made with dependance on the will and confirmation of a Superior to whom the right of appeales belongeth Such was the prohibition made in the Councell of Mileuis which therfore without the Popes confirmation was inualid and is not valid further then he confirmed it Wherfore though by confirming it he did authorize the AfricaÌ„ Bishops to impose on their Priests other Clerkes a command of not appealing to Rome yet by granâ—ing them that authority he cannot be thought to renounce his owne right so farre as that if a Priest appeale vnto him he may not admit his appeale when he shall finde it expedient as it may be in case the Priest or Clerke can make euidence of his innocency prouing by sufficient witnesses that he hath bene iniustly condemned by the Bishops of his owne prouince out of misinformation or other motiues CHAP. XXVII Appeales to Rome proued out of the African Councell which was the sixth of Carthage SECT I. The state of the Question APIARIVS an African Priest of the Citty of Sicca being of a lewd scandalous life was excommunicated by Vrbanus B. of the same City He trauelled twice to Rome and making his complaints to Zozimus Pope appealed to his iudgmeÌ„t Zozimus sent him back into Africa wishing the African Bishops to examine his cause diligently And for as much as not only Apiarius but as it appeareth out of two Epistle of the African Bishops to Boniface and Celestine successors to Zozimus some Bishops also had appealed vnto him out of Africa and the African Bishops complained therof he sent vnto theÌ„ three Legates Faustinus B. of Potentia Philip and Asellus Priests and with them the Canons made in the Councell of Nice concerning appeales to Rome The Africans not finding those Canons in their copies of the Nicen Councell sent Deputies into the East to procure authenticall copies from Cyril Patriarke of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople But when they came their copies were found to containe no more then 20. which is the nuÌ„ber exstant in our Latin editions and in which there is no mention of appeales to Rome This obiection hath bene often vrged by Protestants and as often answeared by vs and particularly by the most eminent Cardinals Baronius (l) Anno 419. Bellarmine (m) L. 2. de Pontif. c. 25. and Peron (n) Repliq. l. 1. Chap. 49. In them you may read the solution It will be sufficient for me to giue the Reader out of them and other Authors a touch of your vnsyncere dealing wherby he may also come to vnderstand what the issue of this controuersy was First therfore Bellarmine Peron (o) Loc. cit and Brereley (p) Prot. Apol tract 1. sect 7. Subdiu 2. n. 3. shew that the ancient Fathers and Councels and in particular the Africans themselues whom this matter most concerned highly commend those three Popes Zozimus Boniface and Celestine with whom this controuersy was and grace them with titles of great reuerence honor calling Zozimus The most blessed Pope Zozimus Zozimus of venerable memory that they call Boniface The venerable Bishop of the Roman Church The most blessed Bishop of the City of Rome The holy and blessed Pope The Reuerend Pope Boniface Boniface of holy memory The most blessed and our honorable brother Boniface and that S. Augustine dedicated to him one of his principall workes And
and Scots not celebrating Easter after the manner of the Roman Church were for that cause separated from her Communion AMONG other examples of ancient Churches which you pretend to haue bene separated from the Church of Rome and yet in state of saluation you produce for your last instance (l) Pag. 156. 157. 158. the Britans and Scots who kept their Easter if not wholly after the Iewish manner yet contrary to the custome of the Roman Church of the whole Christian world Wherin you are guilty of diuers vntruthes For first you speake of this their custome as ancient among the Britans wheras Bede (m) L. 2. hist Anglo c. 19. recordeth that Honorius Pope about the yeare 635. and Iohn the fourth a few yeares after writ to the Britans and Scots letters full of authority and learning for correcting this errorâ— that Pope Iohn in the beginning of his Epistle (n) Extat apud Bin. to 2. pag. 1029. manifestly declareth nuperrime temporibus istis exortam esse haeresim hanc that this heresy was very lately sprung vp among them which Florentius Wigorniensis also testifieth saying (o) In Chron. an 628. Eo tempore c. At that time Honorius Pope did reproue the error of the Quartadecimans in the celebration of Easter sprung vp among the Scots 2. You attribute this custome to the Britans Scots in generall as if they had bene all guilty therof wheras Venerable Bede attributes it not to all the Britans non totis sayth he (p) L. 3 hist cap. 25. not to all of them nor to all the Scots but especially to such as dwelled in Ireland and also to some of them that dwelled in Britany Besides the whole English Church in a manner was free from that error 3. You assume (q) Pag. 190. as granted by vs that the Britans and Scots were schismatically diuided from the Church of Rome but not heretically That their opinion was Hereticall you haue heard Bede testify saying that this heresy was very lately sprung vp among them And who knoweth not that as hath bene proued (r) Chap. 23. the Quartadecimans had bene long before that time anathematized by the three first generall CouÌ„cells of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus and the maintainers of that error registred for heretikes by Philastrius S. Augustine Theodoret and others All which notwithstanding you are not ashamed to say (s) Pag. 157. init that the Britan Church did Orthodoxally in following the Quartadociman rite contrary to the custome of the Roman Church 4. Though the Britans and Scots in this their obseruation did disagree from the rest of the Christian world yet because they did it not with a schismaticall intention but out of simplicity and ignorance of the Ecclesiasticall computation they liuing in a corner of the world whither no learned Catholike Calculator of times had as yet come vnto them the See Apostolike did still retaine them in her communion deeming this error pardonable in them And therfore when the Abbot Colmanus in the famous conference held betweene him and Wilfridus concerning this matter vrged in defence of their custome (t) Apud Bed l. 3. hist. c. 25. that they could not belieue that their Reuerend Father Columba and his successors being men so beloued of God did contrary to the holy Scriptures in celebrating Easter as vntill that tyme they had done Wilfride answeared (u) Ibid. I deny not but that your Fathers were seruants of God and beloued of him whom they loued with a rude kind of simplicity but with a godly intention Nor do I thinke that this their obseruation of Easter was greatly hurtfull vnto them so long as none had come to them to informe them of the decrees of more perfection which they ought to haue obserued For I belieue that if a Catholike Calculator had come vnto them they would haue followed his admonitions c. And therfore sayth Baronius (x) Anno 604. n. 5. It seemed not good to the Catholike Church to blotout of the Catalogue of Saints such men as had liued among them eminent in sanctity and whom God had illustrated with miracles 5. But to proue that the Scottish and Brittish Churches were not subiect to the Roman you alleage (z) Pag. 157. marg Galfridus out of the Centurists saying Dinothus a learned Abbot proued with many Arguments that they owed no subiection to Augustine whom S. Gregory had sent to preach the fayth of Christ to the English This is a falsification which therfore you vent in the Centurists name for Galfridus hath not any one word of the Britans or Scots no-subiection to the Church of Rome but only a passionate and cholerick speach of the Britans not acknowledging any superiority of Augustine ouer them seing he was sent only to the English and that the authority of their owne Archbishop was not taken away by his comming for ought they knew which question of iurisdiction falleth out daily between Bishops euen where the Popes authority is most acknowledged Yea moreouer that both the Britans and Scots acknowledged the authority of the B. of Rome ouer them Galfridus against you and your Centurists beareth witnesse reporting (a) L. 9. c. 12. 11. that on the day of Pentecost at Chester King Arthur being present there was a great meeting of Princes Lords and Bishops for his Coronation And that of three Archbishops which Britaine had at that time of Chester London and Yorke Dubritius Archbishop of Chester being Primate of Britaine and Legate of the See Apostolike did the office of the Church and crowned King Arthur If therfore the Pope had his Legate in Britaine and that no lesse a man then the Primate of all Britaine it is manifest that the Britans acknowledged the authority of the See Apostolike oâ—er them Which is yet made more euident because as your Bale (b) De script Eceles fol. 30. confesseth Dauid that famous Welsh Bishop was canonized by Pope Calixtus the second and not only Bale but S. Prosper (c) Chron. â—n 432.434 Bede (d) L. 1. hist c. 13. 17. and Marianus Scotus (e) Chron. an 430. write that Celestine Pope sent Palladius and Germanus learned Bishops into Britaine to extirpate the Pelagian heresy and to reduce the Scots to true piety and Patricius who had studied Diuinity in Rome and was a man most excellent in learning and sanctity to the Irish and Scots to defend them from the same heresy All which sheweth that aswell the Britans as also the Scots Irish euen before the comming of S. Augustine were in the communion of the Roman Church and that the Pope had supreme care ouer them in spirituall affaires since he appointed them Bishops from Rome Iustly therefore may we conclude that your denying the subirction of the British Scotish and Irish Churches to the See of Rome at the time of S. Augustines coming into this Iland to preach to the English is grounded
of Baronius saying that herein he is iustly reproued by many as one inuading vpon and intruding into the office of diuine Causes He is indeed reproued by diuers that thinke him to haue made ecclesiasticall lawes by his owne authority But by others he is iustly excused and in particular by Baronius (r) Anno 528. alleaging for his iustification as you confesse (s) Pag. 166. that he being a man wholly illiterate his Ecclesiasticall Constitutions were made by Epiphanius and Menas Patriarkes of Constantinople but publised in his name to the end they might be better obserued which was no way hurtful but profitable to the Church whose lawes were neglected and contemned by vicious Emperors and hereticall Prelates and people which at that tyme abounded in the East and especially by the Patriarkes of Constantinople many of them hauing bene infected with heresy This is apparent out of the expresse testimonies of Iustinian himselfe who not once but often professeth (t) Nou. 1 de Monast monach Nou. 81.123.133.137 that concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires he decreed nothing but according to the prescript of the holy Canons and therfore Iohn the second Pope of that name in an Epistle to him (u) Extat apud Baron anno 534. approueth and confirmeth his Lawes being informed by two Bishops Hypatius and Demetrius his Legates that they were made by the interuention and consent of Bishops according to the Doctrine of the See Apostolike decrees of the holy Fathers Wherfore Iustinian in those constitutions did nothing but what a Catholike and religious Prince might lawfully do without preiudice to the authority of the See Apostolike or inuesting himselfe in any part of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction Moreouer that by his Lawes he intended not to derogate any thing from the authority of the Bishop or Church of Rome his Lawes themselues beare witnesse We preserue sayth he in his law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (x) Cod. tit 1. L. 7. the estate of the vnity of the most holy Churches in all things with the most holy Pope of old Rome to whom we haue also written the like for we will not suffer any thing to passe concerning the affaires of the Church which shall not be referred to his Blessednesse because he is the Head of all the holy Prelates of God And in the Law Inter claras (y) Cod. tit 1. L. 8. into which is inserted that famous Epistle which he sent by Hypatius and Demetrius with a solemne Embassage to Pope Iohn against Cyrus and Eulogius Legates of the Acemites he sayth Yielding honor to the Apostolike See and to your Holynesse which is and euer hath bene our desire and honoring your Blessednesse as it becometh vs to honor our Father we haue speedily giuen notice to your Holynesse of all things that belong to the ecclesiasticall state for we haue had great care to preserue the Vnity of your Apostolike See and the state of the holy Churches of God c. And thersore we haue made hast to subiect and vnite all the Priestes of the East partes to the See of your Holynesse nor do we suffer that any thing belonging to the state of the Churches be is neuer so cleare and vndoubted be vnknowne to your Holynesse who are the Head of all the holy Churches To these restimonies of Iustinian you haue deuised diuers answers 1. With some petty Protestant Lawier you cauill at his Epistle to the Pope and the Popes answere to him as fictitious (z) Pag. 256. But this to be a calumny is learnedly proued by the two famous lawiers Alciatus (a) Parerg. l. 4. c. 24. and Cuias (b) Obseru l. 12. c. 16. 2. By Liberatus a writer of the same tyme (c) In Breu. c. 20. who reportes Iustinians embassage sent to the Pope by Hypatius and Demetrius and the Popes answeare to him which are extant in the same Law 3. By the testimony which Iustinian himselfe giues therof in his Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (d) Cod. tit 1. L. 7. and in his Epistle to Agapet Pope 4. By Leunclauius a Protestant Lawier who hath translated and printed Iustinians Epistle to the Pope and the Popes answeare to him as the eight Law of the Code 2. Wheras Iustinian call's the Pope The chief and Head of all Bishops and the Roman Church The Head of all Churches you answeare (e) Pag. 256. that we haue heard how common the word Caput hath bene without any sense of Monarchy We haue indeed heard you say (f) Pag. 50. 110. that the similitude of Head and Members implieth no superiority of iurisdiction but only of order that is of priority of place of voyce and the like But you also haue heard (g) Chap 11. Chap. 17. sect 2. how vntrue and repugnant not only to the beliefe of antiquity but euen to common sense this is 3. You obiect (h) Pag. 256. If this Rescript of Iustinian be taken so rigidly as we would haue it it is contradictory to another Constitution of his in which he grants the chiefe right in ecclesiasticall causes to belong to the Gouernor of euery Prouince We know that as while Iustinian was Catholike he made no Lawes but with the consent of Bishops and confirmation of Popes so if after he fell into heresy and contemned the authority of the Church he made lawes repugnant to the Catholike fayth and discipline of the Church t' is no wonder That proueth against you that heretikes are they which make lawes contrary to the fayth and discipline of the Roman Church and that if Iustinian had still remained a Catholike he would haue made no such lawes as he did not before he fell into heresy 4. You obiect (i) Pag. 166. Iustinian before he fell into heresy banished two Popes Siluerius and Vigilius To proue that he banished Siluerius you set downe these words as of Baronius Siluerium Papam mittit in exilium Iustinian sendeth Siluerius Pope into banishment But you abuse Baronius He hath no such words nor attributes the banishment of Siluerius to the Emperor but sayth he was sent into exile by Bellisarius and Antonina his wife partly at the instigation of the hereticall Empresse Theodora offended with him because he would not replace in the See of Constantinople Anthymus an Eutychian heretike and an inuader of that See whom therfore Agapet Pope had iustly deposed and partly for certaine crimes forged against him by her and Vigilius Yea Baronius (k) Anno 538. witnesseth that the Bishop of Patara comming to the Emperor and shewing him how displeasing it was to God that the Pope who is ouer the Church of the whole world to whom no King in the world is comparable should be driuen from his See he presently commanded him to be recalled from the place of banishment to Rome that the accusations against him of Treason might be examined But if Baronius had said that Iustinian
himselfe euen before his fall into heresy had banished not only Vigilius as he doth but also Siluerius as Bozius by you cited sayth he did doth it therfore follow that he had done well May not among Catholikes Children sometimes forgetting their duety rise against their Parents and subiects against their Superiors spirituall or temporall May not Catholike Princes be in passion displeasure against Bishops and vpon suspicions mistakes and misinformations do against them that which afterwards they must repent as King Henry the second did the death of S. Thomas of Canterbury Did not Constantine misinformed by the Ariaus banish S. Athanasius (k) Athan. Apol. 2. Socrat l. 2. c. 22.23 Epipha haer 66. And was not S. Chrysostome condemned by a Councell of Catholike Bishops and banished out of a Catholike Citty by Arcadius a Catholike Emperor at the instance of Eudoxia his wyfe a Catholike Empresse And yet both he and she were so far from not beliueing the supreme authority of the Roman Church or thinking it lawfull to liue out of her communion that being for this fact excommunicated by Innocentius Pope they humbled themselues and crauing absolution with sorrow for their fault obtained it What therfore Iustinian did in his wrath either against Siluerius or Vigilius is no Argument to proue his no subiection to the B. of Rome whom he called and acknowledged to be his Father but it proueth that in laying violent hands on Vigilius he behaued himselfe not like a child but like an enemy and persecutor of the Church For which offence as also for the great wronges he offered to Eutychius a most holy Patriarke of Constantinople for his heresy auarice and cruelty God punished him with a suddaine death And albeit Nicephorus (l) L. 17. c. 31. report that he died penitent and in hope therof the sixth Synod Agatho Pope and S. Gregory (m) Apud Baron amo 565. with other late writers make honorable mention of him yet Euagrius Procopius (n) Apud Baron ibid. eye witnesses of those times report otherwise The truth will be knowne at that day when the secrets of all hartes must be reuealed Lastly you obiect (o) Pag. 256. that Iustinian which made a Law declaring the Roman Church to be the Head of all Churches shewed his authority in breaking it when he called the Church of Constantinople the Head of all other Churches This obiection hath no other ground but your mistake for Iustinian speakes of the Church of S. Sophia which is the Cathedrall Church of Constantinople and this he call's The Head of all other Churches not of the whole world but of that Patriarkeship as it appeareth by the contexture following and by his other Lawes (p) Cod. tit 1. L. 7. 8. in which he declareth the Pope to be Head of all the holy Prelates of God and ordaineth that the See of Constantinople be second after Rome We ordaine sayth he (q) Nou. 131. according to the definition of Councells that the holy Pope of old Rome shall be the chiefe of all Prelates and that the blessed Archbishop of Constantinople new Rome shall haue the second place after the See Apostolike of old Rome If therfore the Church of Constantinople be the second after Rome she cannot be Head of the Roman Church and therfore not Head of all Churches of the world CHAP. XXXI Of the Authority and place of Emperors in Councells THAT no Councell is valid which is not called and approued by the B. of Rome is a truth already demoÌ„trated (r) Chap. 17. sect 6. as also that the first eight generall Councells in particular were assembled confirmed by his authority (s) Chap. 16. seqq Cusanus his Concordia which you obiect for the contrary is of no force as being a prohibited booke and which you know Cusanus himselfe hath retracted Concerning Priority of place in generall Councells whether it be due to the Pope or to Emperors some ghesse may be had by what already you haue heard (t) Chap. 29. 30. for if the Episcopall dignity be aboue the Imperiall as far as gold is aboue lead and the soule aboue the body and if Christian Kings and Emperors be sheep of Christs fold the Pope their Pastor if they his children and he their Father will you say that priority of place is due to the lesser dignity aboue the greater that the sheepe ought to sit aboue their Pastor or the Children aboue their Father Constantine the Great said to the Bishops in the Councell of Nice (u) Ruffin l. 1. c. 1. Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. S. Greg. l. 4. ep 72. God hath placed you as Gods ouer vs and we being men haue no power to iudge you that are Gods but you are to iudge vs men For Leo de Castro vpon those words of Isay (y) Ep. 60.14 The children of them that humbled thee shall come crowching to thee out of an ancient Record of the order of S. Benedict concerning the customes of the Catholike Church reporteth that Kings in ancient times going to the Synods of Bishops did prostrate themselues before them and kisse the ground not rising vntill the Bishops desâ—eding from their seates did lift them vp in their armes So far were the greatest Princes in those dayes from thinking that priority of place was due to them either before the Pope or other Bishops And vpon the same motiue it was that Emperors and Kings neuer signed the Actes of generall Councells but either after all the Bishops as Constantine Pogonate did in the sixth Councell or at least after the Popes Legates and all the Patriarkes as in some others in which for honors sake it was granted to Emperors to signe before other Bishops inferior to Patriarkes And if the most religious Emperors and Kings haue held the Pope in so great veneration that because they knew him to be the chiefe Vicar and Lieutenant of Christ on earth they haue honored him with kissing his feet and performing the office of yeomen of his stirrop (z) See about Chap. 10. If Iustine the Emperor receauing Iohn the first Pope of that name in the City of Constantinople adored him prostrate on the ground (a) Spond anno 525. n. 1. if Iustinian the elder did the like to Pope Agapetus (b) Spond anno 536. n. 5. and the younger Iustinian hauing his Imperiall crowne on his head and meeting Constantine Pope fell downe prostrat as his feet and kissed them (c) Spond an 710. n. 1. how can it be conceaued that these Emperors and Kings did thinke priority of place to be due to theÌ„selues aboue the Pope Oh but say you (d) Pag. 163. when we aske the question why none of your Popes were euer personally present in any of the first generall Councells though they were present in the same City as was Vigilius when the fifth generall Councell was celebrated Bellarmine answeareth that the Greek Bishops would
Councell of Hierusalem and reported in that of Constantinople vnder Menas (a) Act. 4. to iustify their sentence of deposition against Anthymus B. of Trebizond And Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria (b) Ep. ad Epiphan apud S. Hieron Ep. 67. a familiar friend to S. Hierome as their mutuall Epistles declare out of the same text proueth the power of condemning heresies giuen by Christ to his Church which sayth he we see now performed for the Church of Christ with the Euangelicall sword hath cut off the heads of Origens serpents And finally this text is alleaged to the same purpose by Petrus Cluniacensis (c) L. 6. ep 14. Alexander of Hales (d) Part. 3. q. 40. memb 2. the Irrefragable Doctor and Maister to S. Thomas of Aquine All which sheweth that either the Fathers and Councells vnderstood not the words of the Prophet or els that you deny the true sense misinterpreting them in fauor of your false Doctrine But returning to S. Bernard That which most of all discouereth your ignorance if not rather fraud is that you say Boniface the eight prophaneth the word of God notoriously for patronizing of rebellions and murders making from pretence of Scripture a Decree to dispossesse Emperors Christian and heathen of their kingdomes depriue them of their lines It is to be noted that this decree of Boniface on which you are pleased to inflict so seuere a censure are the very words of S. Bernard taken out of his fourth booke of Consideration to Eugenius Wherfore you must confesse that S. Bernard prophaned the word of God notoriously for patronizing rebellions and murders and dispossessing Kings of their kingdomes and liues or els you must acknowledge that you wrong and slander Pope Boniface who sayth nothing but what S. Bernard said before him and in S. Bernards owne words I cannot but vehemeÌ„tly suspect that a man of your reading could not but know that the words were S. Bernards but because you durst not for shame of the world impute such horrible wickednesse to so glorious a Sainct and whom Caluin himselfe (e) L. 4. de Consid c. 11. §. 11. acknowledgeth to speake in those his bookes of Consideration as if Truth herselfe did speake you lay it on Boniface Pope that so you may haue some colour to raile freely at him in his name to charge S. Bernard with that impiety of which neither of them both was guilty The second Father whom you alleage is S. Gregory who as he is frequent in Moralls so he explicateth these words of Hieremy in a morall sense of pulling vp Vices and planting vertues by preaching in the soules of the hearers But that they may haue another more litterall sense the Fathers and Councells haue informed you Nor was S. Gregory so ignorant as to thinke he had no other way to reforme the disorders of Bishops and others vnder his charge but by preaching only for his writings his practise and your owne confessions beare witnesse to the contrary (f) See aboue Chap. 15. sect 3. Your third profe is out of Lyra to whose words you adde gratis the aduerbe Tantùm to inferre that Bishops haue no other meanes to represse vices and remedy disorders in their subiects but only by preaching which if it were true how could the Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon haue deposed Nestorius and Dioscorus not to mention a thousand such exaÌ„ples of which Ecclesiasticall histories are full Yea the word denuntiare which Lyra vseth doth not obscurely import so much for not only preachers but ecclesiasticall Prelates denounce punishment to offenders to deterre them from sinne And so do secular Iudges when they threaten them with corporall chastisements SECT III. Your third Argument out of the examples of Popes examined SOme Popes say you (g) Pag. 171. haue not bene idle but haue put their positions in practise by deposing Kings and Emperors sporting themselues with tossing the crownes from their heads not for any note of heresy but only for not subiecting themselues to the Popes dignity and dominion Why do you not tell vs that when 200. Bishops in the Councell of Ephesus and 630. in the Councell of Chalcedon deposed Nestorius and Dioscorus they did it to sport themselues with tossing the myters of Patriarkes from their heads If any Popes haue deposed Kings or Emperors my assumpt is not either to defend or dispute by what right they did it The first Pope whom you accuse (h) Pag. 171. 174. is Zacharias who being chosen by diuine ordination (i) See Anestasius Platiâ—a Yllescas in his life performed heroical acts for the publike good of the Church He bare singular loue to the clergy and people of Rome and generally to all Christians being ready to spend his life for them He built repaired and adorned with rich furniture many Churches within without Rome He reduced to peace all Italy which he found in combustion of warrs going himselfe in person to effect it He established confirmed Bishopricks and setled the affaires of Christian religion in Germany He was of a most sweet and malde disposition adorned with all vertue and goodnesse slow to anger most ready to mercy and compassion rendring to no man euill for euill but to the imitation of Christ ouercoming euill with good in so much that being made Pope he aduanced to honors those who formerly had bene his enimies and bestowed rewards on them And finally for his singular vertues he is reuerenced as a Saint and his feast yearely celebrated by the whole Church of God (k) Martyrol Roman 15. Martij The second Pope you traduce is Gregory the seauenth who say (l) Pag. 171. 174. you deposed Henry the third Now this Gregory whom you so often and so intemperatly reuile (n) Pag. 40. 171. 174. 179. was one of the most admirable Prelates that hath possessed the chaire of S. Peter A man sayth Nauclerus (o) Chronol genral 37. religious fearfull of God a louer of iustice and equity constant in aduersity and that for God feared not to enterprise whatsoeuer was iust A man sayth Schafnaburgensis (p) Hist. rerum German an 1977. of great constancy and inuincible courage against auarice The signes and wonders which God did worke by the prayers of Gregory and his most feruent zeale for God and the lawes of the Church did sufficiently defend him against the poysoned tongues of his detractors He was sayth Otho Frisingensis (q) L. 6. hist c. 32.34.36 alwayes most constant in Ecclesiasticall rigor a paterne to his flock shewing by his example that which in words he taught a valiant champion that feared not to oppose himselfe as a wall for the house of God and whose death bred no small griefe to the Church because she saw herselfe depriued of so worthy a Pastor who among all Priests and Bishops of Rome was of most especiall zeale and authority A man in whose defence S. Anselme that
5. Martin the first praying the Emperor to vouchsafe to read his letters The Epistle is not of Martin alone but of the whole Roman Synod which hauing condemned the Monothelites sent their decrees to Constans the Emperor desiring and exhorting him for his confirmation in the Catholike fayth to read them attentiuely by his Lawes condemne and publikely declare the Monothelites to be heretikes Can there be a more childish illation then to inferre from hence that Martin acknowledged himselfe subiect to the Emperor If a Prouinciall Synod gathered by the Archbishop of Canterbury should send the like instruction to a Peere of this Realme his spirituall subiect exhorting him to read it would it therfore follow that the Archbishop did acknowledge himselfe subiect to that Peere Who then seeth not your arguing to be trifeling 8. You say (e) Impost pag. 179. serm pag. 5. Adrian the first deuoted himselfe to the Emperor by letters as one in supplication fallen downe prostrate at the soales of his feet O Imposture Adrian writ that Epistle to Constantine and Irene his Mother against the Image-breakers heretikes of that time whose heyres you are And hauing proued effectually out of Scriptures and Fathers the veneration due to sacred Images with all loue as if he were at Constantinople present with them and prostrate at their feet beseecheth and requireth them before God and coniureth them for so are his words which you alter and mangle that renouncing and detesting the craft of those wicked heretikes they would cause the sacred Images to be restored and set vp againe in the Churches of Constantinople and of all Greece to the end they might be receaued into the vnity of the holy Catholike Apostolike and irreprehensible Roman Church But that it may appeare how you abuse your readers and hearers inferring from hence that Adrian acknowledged subiection to the Emperor it is to be obserued that in that very Epistle he often calleth Constantine and Irene His belieued children and exhorteth them by the examples of Constantine the great Helena his Mother and the rest of the Orthodoxe Emperors to exalt honor and reuerence the holy Catholike Apostolike Roman Church as their spirituall Mother from which all Churches haue receaued the documents of Fayth to embrace her doctrine to admit of her censure to loue honor and reuerence the Successor of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles to whom our Sauiour gaue the keyes of heauen with power to bind and loose on earth And as he hauing receaued from Christ the principality of the Apostleship and pastorall charge sate first in the Apostolike See so by commandment from God he left it with all the power and authority that Christ had giuen to him to his Successors for euer and therfore that the sacred Scripture declareth of how great dignity that chiefe See is and how great Veneration is due vnto it from all faithfull throughout the world So Adrian as if he had written purposely to shew your lack of iudgment and honesty that would aduenture to produce his Epistle as a selected Argument against the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome and vent it for such both in your Imposture and againe in your late Sermon before his Maiesty And not vnlike to this is an other obiection you make (f) Impost pag. 179. serm pag. 5. out of an Epistle of Agatho Pope to Constantine in the sixth Councell generall 9. You cull certaine Latin words out of two Epistles of S. Gregory the great and patching them vp into one English sentence adding to them these two adiectiues of your owne Vestris and Vestrae you make him say As for me I performe obedience vnto your commands wherunto I am subiect Both the Epistles out of which you botch vp this sentence are written to Mauritius who though he were a Catholike Emperor yet S. Gregory sticketh not to compare him to Nero and Dioclesian and reprehendeth him sharpely for his tyrannizing ouer the Roman Church the Head of all Churches and seeking to subiect her to his earthly power against the commandment of Christ who committed his Church to S. Peter when he gaue him the keyes of the kingdome of heauen The one of those Epistles he writeth against the arrogancy of Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople styling himselfe Vniuersall Bishop And as he praiseth Mauritius for desiring the peace of the Church to hinder the garboiles of warres and in the procuring therof professeth himselfe ready to obey his commands so he reprehendeth him for not repressing the pride of Iohn wherby not he alone but the peace of the whole Church was disturbed And if in the other he also professed obedience to the same Emperor it was only in temporall affaires and because with humble and submissiue words he sought to worke him to his owne good whom he cold not dissuade nor otherwise hinder from publishing an iniust Law wherby he prohibited soldiers and all such as had bene employed in publike accompts of the Common wealth to become Monkes And therfore in one of the Epistles which you obiect (g) Pag. 179. 234. he declareth to the Emperor that he vsed not his Episcopall authority nor speaketh in the right of the Common wealth but writeth as a priuat person yet adding that he stood greatly astonished at such a Law because it did shut vp the way to heauen vnto many Wherfore he dealt earnestly with him to abrogate the Law or els permit it to be moderated so that it might stand without preiudice to Christian liberty Wherunto the Emperor at length yielded as S. Gregory declareth saying (h) L. 7. ep 11. indict 1. Qua de re Serenissimus Christiantssimus Imperator omnimodò placatur concerning which matter our most Clement and most Christian Emperor is wholly pleased And therfore S. Gregory hauing corrected the Law and reduced it to a reasonable lawfulnesse and temperate moderation to wit that they which had borne offices of charge in the Common wealth and desired to become Monkes should not be receaued vntill they had giuen vp their accompts and obtained publike discharge for the same and that soldiers should not be admitted to Monasticall habit vntill they had ended three yeares of probation in their secular apparell Wherfore though S. Gregory yielded to publish the Law yet withall he shewed his Pastorall power and care in limiting and moderating the Emperors law according to the law of God Which if you had not concealed the futility of your obiection wold haue bene apparent to euery reader But you say (i) Impost pag. 179. Heere wee are arrested by your Cardinall in the name of this Pope Gregory from his Deeree concerning the Monastery of Medardus enioyning that whatsoeuer secular Prince should violate that same Decree should forthwith he depriued of his honor As if this one Act of this only Pope were so authentike and of so suffecient authority in it selfe as to be made a Precedene for euer vnto all Popes of succeeding
with all that are committed to vs are and will euer be obedient to you And in his Epistle to Felix Pope For as much as our Predecessors and we haue alwayes receaued assistance from your holy Apostolike See and haue had experience of the care you haue of vs we following the decrees of the Canons fly for succour vnto it as vnto a Mother from whence our predecessors haue receaued their orders doctrine and reliefe And againe (h) Ibid. Which by no meanes we dare presume to do to wit to define matters of fayth without consulting you the Canons commanding that in maior causes nothing be determined without the B. of Rome c. For therfore Christ hath placed you and your predecessors in the height of Eminency and commanded you to haue care of all Churches c. And he addeth (i) Ibid. that It belongs to the Pope to iudge the causes of all Bishops If therfore to appeale to the Pope as to his Iudge if to acknowledg in him power to restore the greatest Patriarkes to their Sees if to professe that the iudgment of Bishops belongeth to him and that all maior causes are to be referred to his tribunall if to belieue the Roman Church to be the Head and Mother of all Churches and the Pope to be Bishop of the vniuersall Church and finally if to professe actuall and promise perpetuall obedience to the See Apostolike be Arguments of S. Athanasius his beliefe of the soueraigne authority of the See Apostolike of his obligation to obey her and to liue in vnion with her and in subiection to her then are you guilty of Imposture in omitting these and other pregnant testimonies of the same kind extant in his second Apology and obiecting in lieu of them a false tale of Liberius excommunicating Athanasius deuised by your selfe to seduce your readers And hereby you are conuinced of another vntruth in saying (k) Pag. 191. that Athanasius sought not any vnion with Felix who was Pope insteed of Liberius for these his testimonies shew that he was in communion with him and acknowledged himselfe subiect to him as to the Gouernor of the vniuersall Church But you say (l) Pag. 190. and that impertinently to the matter in hand which is to proue S. Athanasius his no subiection to the Roman Church that When we esteeme Felix to be the legitimat Pope and Liberius a Schismatike remoued from the society of Catholikes and from his Papall function wee fight notably against our owne principles which are 1. That there cannot be two Popes together and 2. That no Pope can be deposed vnlesse he appeare to be a manifest heretike which if he be he ceaseth to be Pope without any iudgement at all That there cannot be two Popes together we acknowledge to be a principle of ours Nor did it happen otherwise in the case of Liberius for when he returned to the Papacy it was by acceptation of the Clergy people of Rome equiualent to a new election and this not vntill after Felix his death For as Sozomen prudently obserueth (m) L. 4. c. 14. God by his speciall prouidence called Felix out of this life soone after Liberius returned to Rome lest the See of Peter should be defamed with the note of schisme two Popes gouerning at once contrary to the lawes of the Church The second principle is not ours but an ignorance of yours For a Pope ceaseth to be a Catholike consequētly falleth from his Papacy not only by publicke profession of heresy but also by making publicke profession of Schisme and outward communion with heretikes though in his hart he detest their doctrine for to be a Catholike it is not only necessary to belieue the Catholike fayth inwardly but also to make profession thereof outwardly abandoning the cōmunion of heretikes Wherfore the syllogisme which here you make (n) Pag. 190. sin 191. concludeth nothing the Minor proposition that Liberius notwithstanding his consenting to the condemnation of Athanasius and communicating with heretikes was a Catholiks Bishop is absolutely false And wheras you professe to set downe this Minor as the words of Bellarmine you falsify him for albeit he say that if a Pope become a manifest heretike he ceaseth eo ipso to be Pope yet in the same place (o) L. 2. de Pont. c. 30. §. Eadem est sententia he sufficiently expresseth that not only heretikes but also schismatikes are out of the Church and loose all spirituall iurisdiction ouer those which are in the Church SECT IV. S. Basills beliefe of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome proued and Doctor Mortons obiections answeared IT seemed to vs sayth S. Basil (p) Ep. 52. writing to Athanasius to be to good purpose that we write to the B. of Rome that he consider the affaires of these parts and giue his iudgement to the end that being there is difficulty in sending from thence persons by a common and Synodicall decree he may vse his authority and choose men capable of the labour of such a iourney c. And that hauing with them the Acts of Arimin they may disanull those things which haue bene done by force Bellarmine (q) L. 2. de Pont. c. 15. bringeth this testimony you except against him as peruerting S. Basil by false translation which you proue out of Baronius for where Bellarmine translateth vt res nostras videas that the B. of Rome see or view our affaires Baronius rendreth vt res nostras consideret that he consider our affaires But who seeth not this to be a mere cauill for what difference is there between intreating the Pope to take the affaires of the Easterne Churches into his consideration as Baronius readeth or to see and looke into them as Bellarmine translateth Whether you follow the one or the other it is manifest that S Basil thought it a fit way to redresse the calamities of those Churches that the Pope should take them into his consideration or haue a vigilant eye ouer them the requiring wherof from him liuing in a Countrey so remote and in another Patriarkship sheweth that S. Basil belieued some charge of visiting those Churches to belong to him superior to that which the Easterne Patriarkes had Nor doth your answeare satisfy saying (r) Pag. 195. He required not from the Pope any help or visitation of dominion or iurisdiction but only of confortation of louing and brotherly consideration hoping that the persuasions of stangers especially being indued with Gods grace would be more preualent with the Easterne people then the Counsell of their owne Bishops for this euasion is conuinced of falshood by the very words of S. Basil It is fit sayth he (s) Ep. 52. that we beseech the Pope to shew his authority in the busines sending men that may bring with them the Acts of Arimin and disannull the thinges done by force And immediatly after he professeth himselfe ready to be corrected by the Popes Legates if
in any thing he had erred and acknowledgeth in the Pope authority of a Iudge We are ready sayth he to be iudged by you prouided that they which slander vs may appeare face to face with vs before your Reuerence Doth all this import nothing but a request of louing and brotherly visitation or consideration Could S. Basil in more effectuall words expresse the Popes power and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church then by requesting him to send his Legates with authority to annull the Acts of a generall Councell as that of Arimin was No they are testimonies so forcible that with no glosse can be eluded But you reply (u) Pag. 194. against Bellarmine that he will needes haue S. Basil to desire the Popes Decree wheras Baronius readeth Counsell or Aduice Here againe you cauill for the Greeke word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by interpretation of Budaeus signifieth voluntatem sententiam iudicium Why then was it not lawfull for Bellarmine to say S. Basil desired the Popes decree for to desire him to giue his sentence and iudgement what was it els but to acknowledge in him the authority of a Iudge with power to sentence to iudge to decree Ecclesiasticall causes in the East Which power he also declareth in other places of his workes for do not both he (x) Ep. 73. al. 74. and S. Gregory Nazianzen (y) Epist ad Clede testify that Eustathius B. of Sebaste by vertue of Liberius his letters presented to the Easterne Bishops in the Councell of Tyana and by vertue of his command intimated in them was receaued into the communion of the whole Easterne Church and restored to his See Eustathius sayth S. Basil to the Bishops of the West hauing bene cast out of his Bishoprick because he was deposed in the Synod of Melitine aduised himselfe to find meanes to be restored trauailing to you Of the things that were proposed to him by the most Blessed Bishop Liberius and what submission be made we know not Only he brought a letter that restored him which being shewed to the Councell of Tyana he was reestablished in his Bishops seat Againe doth not S. Basil (z) Ep. 77. compare the Church to a body wherof the Westerne part by reason of the Roman See is the Head and the Eastern the Feet And doth he not from this very Metaphor denominate the B. of Rome Head of the vniuersall Church and all other Bishops fellow-members of the same body (a) Ep. 70. ad Episc transmar edit Paris an 1603. Againe doth he not beseech Pope Damasus (c) Ibid. to send Legates with order to examine the accusations laid to his charge and to appoint a place for him to meet them that his cause might be iudged by them and he punished if he were found guilty And doth he not require the same Pope (d) Ep. 74. to giue order by his letters to all the Easterne Churches that they admit into their communion all such as hauing departed from the Catholike truth shall disclaime from their Errors and to renounce the Communion of them that shall persist obstinatly in their nouelties And lastly declaring the Popes authority in determining all doubts and controuersies of fayth he sayth In very deed that which was giuen by our Lord to your Piety is worthy of that most excellent voyce which proclamed you blessed to wit that you may discerne betweene that which is counterfeit and that which is lawfull and pure and without any diminution may preach the fayth of our Ancestors I conclude therfore that if S. Basil beleeued aright the Pope hath authority to restore Bishops deposed to their Sees to send Legates with power to dissolue the Acts of generall Councels to condemne hereticall doctrines to iudge the causes of Bishops to punish delinquents And is this nothing els but charitable aduice but perswasion but counsell Is it not to vse authority to exercise iurisdiction But you obiect (f) Pag. 1â—6 that S. Basil in his owne name and in the name of his fellow Bishops in the East hauing written often to Pope Damasus and other Westerne Bishops and sent to Rome foure seuerall legations requiring helpe and comfort from them in their afflictions could not receaue any answeare in so much that S. Basil taxeth them with supercilious pride haughtinesse and that they did neither know the truth nor would learne it This you obiect out of Baronius from whom you might haue taken the solution which is that S. Basil was oppressed and as it were ouerwhelmed with waues of sorow and affliction not only for the common calamity of the Orientall Church but also for his owne particular for as much as by Eustathius B. of Sebaste and others who hiding the venime of their heresy feigned themselues to be Catholikes he was accused and defamed of heresy in the East and brought into suspition euen with his owne Monkes and his dearely beloued Neocaesarians And this made him likewise not to be well thought of in the West in so much that Damasus Pope for a time desisted from that familiar communication by letters which Basil expected and differred the sending of Legates to examine his cause and cleare the truth which he had required greatly desired Yet as you (g) Pag. 198. confesse was he then a member of the Catholike Church and held communion with the Church of Rome both in fayth and charity Nor was Damasus so wholly wanting to his comfort but that euen then when he was suspected of heresy vpon his letters he called a Councell at Rome in which he condemned Apollinarius Vitalis and Timotheus (h) Baron anno 373. Sozo l. 6. c. 25. called Vitalis to Rome and excommunicated Timotheus as he testifieth in his Epistle to the Easterne Bishops (i) Apud Theodo l. 5. histor c. 11. expressing withall the profession which they had made to him of their beliefe of the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Now if S. Basil in these afflictions and grieuing at the intermission of such communicatory letters from the Westerne Bishops and chiefly from Damasus as he expected let fall from his mouth some hasty words as other holy men whom Baronius (k) An. 373. nameth in like occasions haue done is that by you to be reproached vnto him or is it any argument of his deniall of the Supremacy of the B. of Rome which he hath taught so clearely so constantly so effectually in so many places of his workes Yea albeit S. Basil gaue a litle way to the motions of nature yet by vertue he soone recalled himselfe retracting what he had said as his letters full of humility written soone after to Damasus the other Westerne Bishops expresse You sayth (l) Ep. 1. in addiâ— he are praised by all mortall men that you remaine pure and without blemish in fayth keeping entire the doctrine taught you by the Apostles It is not so with vs among whom there are some
citation and application of these attributes you deale not vprightly as is to be seene in Canisius from whom you tooke them (b) Catechisinit in Encorn Pat. But leauing that to the readers examination your owne answeare destroyeth it selfe for those ascriptions you confesse import no authority But doth the title of Rector or Gouernor import no authority As the power authority of the Head of a Colledge or Gouernor of a cōmonwealth cannot be better or more effectually expressed then by saying He is Rector of the Colledge or Gouernor of the Common-wealth so if S. Ambrose had studied to confute your answeare and expresse the Popes Monarchicall power authority ouer the whole Church he could not haue done it more effectually then by stiling him Rector or Gouernor of the house of God which is his Church for that title neuer was nor can euer be giuen to any other but to the Pope of Rome whom Christ hath made Pastor Gouernor of his whole flock (c) Ioan. 21.15 seqq And to this S. Ambrose alludeth (d) L. 10. ep 81. when writing to Siricius Pope he calls him A watchfull and pouident Pastor that with pious solicitude defends the flock of Christ from wolues that is from heretikes 3. What S. Ambrose his iudgment was concerning the infallibility of the Bishop and Church of Rome he declareth when writing to Siricius Pope of certaine heretikes whom he had condemned he sayth (e) Ibid. Whom your Holinesse hath condemned know that we also hold them condemned according to your iudgment S. Ambrose was fare more learned then Siricius and yet by reason of the infallibility of the Roman Church in determining causes of fayth and condemning heresies he submitteth to the iudgment of Siricius Impertinently therfore do you obiect (f) Pag. 214. to proue S. Ambrose his no-subiection to the Church of Rome that the Pope asked his iudgment concerning the day of Easter for a Counsellor may be more learned then a King the King may aske his iudgment and yet the authority of determining the cause is not in the Counsellor but in the King And the Counsell or though he be more learned is subiect and bound to obey the King as S. Ambrose was and acknowledged himselfe bound to obey Siricius Nor do you find vs to hold that the Pope in his determinations ought not to proceed prudently asking the aduice of learned men 4. To proue that S. Ambrose acknowledged no subiection to the Church of Rome you report (g) Pag. 214. out of Baronius that certaine Clergy-men of Milan 670. yeares after the death of S. Ambrose called the Bishoprick of Milan S. Ambrose his Church and withstood Petrus Damianus the Popes Legate alleaging that the Church of Ambrose had bene alwaies free in it selfe and neuer subiect to the lawes of the Pope of Rome But why do you conceale the truth of this history The ancient splendor and beauty of the Church of Milan being defaced and greatly decayed partly by the impurity of Clergy-men that being infected with the heresy of the Nicolaites liued incontinently and obstinatly defended the same to be lawfull and partly by Simoniacall Priests the people of Milan sent Legates to the Pope beseeching him to commiserate the lamentable state and cure the desperate diseases of that famous Church The Pope not Leo the Ninth as you mistake but Nicolas the second between whom and Leo there were other two Popes Victor and Stephen condescending to so iust a request sent two holy and learned men Petrus Damiani Cardinall of Ostia Anselme B. of Luca as his Legates to visit that Church and armed them with his owne authority to correct the offenders and ordayne whatsoeuer should be thought expedient for the reformation of so great disorders The Legates being ariued at Milan had no sooner intimated their Commission but the people stirred vp by those lewd and factious Clergy-men began to oppose them alleaging that the Church of Ambrose had bene alwais free in it selfe and neuer subiect to the Lawes of the Pope of Rome These are the only words which you cull out of Baronius whole narration leauing out what precedeth and making no mention of what followeth which is that Petrus Damiani stepping vp into the Pulpit after he had quieted the people proued effectually the soueraigne authority granted by Christ to the Roman Church ouer all Churches that whosoeuer denies that authority is an heretike The people giuing eare to his words were appeased and with one accord promised to do whatsoeuer he should ordayne There was present a great number of Clergy-men and scarce any of them that had not bene promoted to orders by Simony For the remedy of so great a mischiefe the Legats required from Guido the Archbishop an inuiolable caution and promise not to admit any from thence forward to holy orders for money and also to roote out the heresy of the Nicolaites Wherunto he willingly yeilded with imprecation of Gods wrath and reuenge on himselfe if he performed it not He gaue this caution in writing the Priests and Clerkes subscribed vnto it Which being done he prostrated himselfe on the ground asking pennance of the Legates for his offence And in like manner the Clergy-men admitting pennance were reconciled in tyme of Masse and receaued new ornaments from the Bishops hand hauing first made a profession of their fayth in which they anathematized all Heresies extolling themselues against the holy Catholike and Apostolike Church particularly those of the Nicolaites and Symonians This is the story and what greater folly can there be then to argue that S. Ambrose a most holy and learned Doctor opposed the authority of the Roman Church because a few lewd hereticall Clergy-men of Milan 670. yeares after his death disclaimed from the obedience of the B. of Rome to the end they might hold on their damnable courses and escape that punishment which their offences so iustly deserued And can there be a greater Imposture then to alleage a few rash words vttered by the people at the instigation of those heretikes to conceale that they togeather with the people Archbishop being admonished by the Popes Legats acknowledged their error with harty sorrow and promise of amendment and obedience to the See Apostolike By this a iudicious reader will perceaue that you neither regard what you alleage true or false nor stick to patronize vice and heresy in them that with you will oppose the Bishop and Church of Rome But you that follow them in their disobedience why do you not also follow them in their repentance When Theodosius in excuse of the great slaughter he had made at Thessalonica alleaged to S. Ambrose that King Dauid also had offended committing adultery and murther S. Ambrose answeared (h) Paulinus in vita Ambros Sequutus es errantem sequere poenitentem As you haue followed Dauid in his finne so follow him in his repentance And if he were now liuing he would
in like manner answere you that as you haue followed some wicked Clergy-men of his Church in their disobedience to the See Apostolike so follow them in their repentance and both he and they would condemne you of great perfidiousnesse in proclaiming their sinne and concealing their amendment 5. You obiect (i) Pag. 214.215 that S. Ambrose refused to follow the Church of Rome in the custome of washing the feet of infants is baptized which say you the Church of Rome iudged to be superfluous but contrariwise Ambrose and the Church of Milan held to be necessary Your custome is to borrow Arguments from Catholike writers and suppresse their solutions This you borow from Bellarmine (k) L. 2. de Pont. c. 16. as you do many others In him read the answere It shall suffife me to tell you that the Roman Church obligeth not other Churches to vse or omit all the rites and ceremonies which she vseth or omitteth in administration of the Sacraments or other Ecclesiasticall offices In such as are of themselues indifferent she commandeth nothing as you haue heard (l) ChaÌ„p 2â— sect 3. but leaueth freedome to other Churches to follow their owne customes Such was the ceremony of washing the feet of infantes baptized which though she practized not she condemned not and therfore it was free for the Church of Milan to vse it without any disobedience at all to the Church of Rome If you had not bene minded to trifle you should haue proued that S. Ambrose disobeyed the Roman Church in matter of fayth as you do This you cannot proue both because S. Augustine hath testified (m) Cont. Iulia Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. that in the workes of Blessed Ambrose the Roman fayth greatly shineth also because he himselfe defineth a Catholike Bishop to be one that a greeth with the Roman Church (n) Orat. de obitu Satyri and protesteth to Siricius (o) L. 10. ep 81. that whom the Roman Church condemneth he following her iudgment holdeth in like manner condemned of which number you are one SECT VIII S. Augustines iudgment concerning the necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof S. Augustines iudgment was that the Roman Church is the Head of all Churches which he professed saying (p) Ep. 162. In her hath alwaies florished the Princedome of the See Apostolike Princedome I say not only Principality of Order as you comment but of true power and authority ouer all the Churches of the world as hath bene effectually proued (q) Chap. 17. sect 2. and the ensuing testimonies of S. Augustine shall further confirme For heerein he declared his iudgment when together with all the Fathers of the Mileuitan Councell to which he was Secretary he writ to Innocentius Pope (r) Ep. â—2 For as much as God by the gift of his principall grace hath placed you in the Apostolike See and granted you to be such in our dayes as we ought rather to feare that it should be imputed to vs for a crime of negligence if we should conceale from your Reuerence those things which for the Church ought to be represented to you then to imagine that you can receaue them disdainefully or negligently we beseech you to apply your Pastorall diligence to the great perills of the weake members of Christ. You deny not but that S. Augustine with the whole Councell in these words requireth the Popes Pastorall diligence for the repressing of the Pelagian heresy in Palestine and Africk but your answere is (s) Pag. 218. that Iohn the first writing to an Arch-bishop granteth that the charge of the Church for the helpe of all in repressing of heresies was committed to him as well as to himselfe that euery Patriarke hath a Principality and height of a Pastorall watch-tower aboue all Metropolitans and Bishops and yet haue they not ouer all Bishops power of iurisdiction But these euasions I haue already proued to be vaine and not without Imposture (t) See aboue Chap. 19. sect 3. That euery Bishop ought to concurre to the help of all in repressing of heresy we deny not but we deny that euery Bishop hath a watch-tower of pastorall authority to iudge and condemne heretikes whersoeuer out of his owne Dioces as S. Augustine and the Mileuitan Fathers acknowledge the Pope to haue out of his Dioces and Patriarkship of Rome requiring him to condemne by his pastorall authority the Pelagians in Africk Palestine And that the Popes power herein exceedeth the iurisdiction of all other Bishops S. Augustine professeth writing to Boniface Pope (u) Cont. duas Epist. Palag l. 1. c. 1. Thou disdainest not to be afrend of the humble though thou be placed in a higher gouerment And againe (x) Ibid. The pastorall watch is common to vs all that haue the office of Bishops but thou art supereminent in a higher degree And yet further he declareth this supereminent power and iurisdiction of the Pope to extend it selfe ouer all the world writing to Optatus (y) Ep. 157. Pelagius and Celestius by the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councels with the helpe of God who vndertakes the protection of his Church haue bene condemned in the extent of the whole world by two reuerend Prelats of the Apostolike See Pope Innocentius and Pope Sozimus If then S. Augustine belieued aright the Pope hath Pastorall power to represse and condemne heretikes throughout the whole world which other Bishops haue not their pastorall power being confined to the limits of their owne Diocesses Your obiections against this are 1. (z) Pag. 219.210 That S. Augustine speaking of Stephen B. of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage calleth theÌ„ Two Bishops of most eminent Churches Ergo the B. of Rome hath not iurisdiction ouer the B. of Carthage for there cannot be Two most Eminents Your consequence is vntrue and such you must confesse it to be for the B. of Rome being Patriarke of all the West the B. of Carthage is subiect vnto him as you forgetting your selfe afterwards acknowledge (a) Pag. 2â—9 Wherefore S. Augustine calling Stephen and Cyprian two Bishops of two most eminent Churches intended not to deny the subordination of Cyprian to StepheÌ„ nor of the Church of Carthage to that of Rome but only to signify that as the Roman Church is most eminent by reason of her Patriarchall power ouer the West and her Primacy ouer the whole world so the Church of Carthage is also most eminent though in an inferior degree by reason of her Primacy ouer all Africa And in this sense both those Churches â—â—e most-Eminent the one ouer all Africa and the other ouer all the world Your second obiection of the Saturday-fast (b) Pag. 220. your third of the deniall of Appeales out of Africa to Rome (c) Pag. 221. your fourth concerning the cause of Cecilian (d) Ibid. your fifth of the Epistle to the Hebrues whether in S. Augustines
Capella your fellow-Nouellist sayth (q) Pag. 225. The Imperiall Rescript is either forged by some Gnatho of Pope Leo or els forced from the Emperor by the importanity of Leo himself Good God! If the asseueration of a faythlesse man vttered merely vpon splene and hatred to the See Apostolike may be belieued what may not be called in question what though neuer so false may not be desended what neuer so true may not be denied Your answeare that when all is done this Rescript is but a humane Constitution cannot auaile you for Valentinian performing the duty of a godly Emperor made this humane Constitution to defend and mantaine that authority which by diuine institution was giuen to S. Peter and his successors and which witnesse the Councell of Mileuis (r) Aug. Ep. 91. is taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures But you say (s) Pag. 225. Hilary notwithstanding the displeasure of Pope Leo was worthy for singular sanctity to be registred in the Roman Martyrologe of Saints True King Dauid also is a Saint but not for his adultery committed with Bethsabee nor for his murthering of Vrias He is a Saint for his vertuous life before and his great pennance after the committing of those siunes So like wise Hilary is a glorious Saint canonized not for transgressing the limits of his iurisdiction but sayth Baronius (t) Anno 445. for his zeale in the Catholike fayth for his great labors against the Pelagians for his pious liberality to the poore other his excellent vertues and finally because though for a tyme defending as he supposed the right of his See he exceeded the limits of his iurisdiction yet that serued him for a spurre to returne to himselfe with greater courage feruor and humility And I cannot but maruaile at your sharpe sight that in this history can espy any thing to argue in S. Hilary disobedience to the Pope of Rome Was his entrenching vpon the priuiledges of other Bishops done to oppose his authority No. It was as he supposed to defend the rights of his owne Church When he was cōplained of to the Pope did he deny his authority Nay did he not of his owne accord goe to Rome to giue account of his proceedings to him as to his lawfull Superior And when he was conuinced of his error did he shew himselfe refractary Did he not presently returne to Arles desisting from his claime neuer so much as once opening his mouth to make any the least complaint against Leo If therfore a mist of hatred to the See Apostolike had not obscured your eyes you would haue seene that as this history of S. Hilary doth no way infringe but many wayes confirme the authority of the Pope so it doth also shew your inconsideration who to disgrace S. Hilary report his offence but conceale his repentance yea deny it that so he may seeme to haue died impenitent because that fitteth your purpose and suiteth best with your spirit which whether it be good let the reader iudge for what spirit can that be which teacheth you to publish the imperfections of the Saints and deny their vertues CHAP. XXXV Of Titles attributed to the Pope THE Titles giuen to Popes by the ancient Fathers and Councells shew that their vniuersall iurisdiction was belieued acknowledged in the primitiue tymes of the Church Concerning the titles giuen them by Councels you say nothing but what hath bene already answeared One only testimony you adde here (u) Pag. 237. of the Coūcell of Constantinople vnder Menas calling not only the Pope but also Menas Patriarke of Constantinople Oecumenicall Patriarke (x) Act. 5. that is to say Vniuersall True but that Title was neuer giuen to him nor to any other Patriarke of Constantinople in the West but in the East only and that not in regard of any vniuersall iurisdiction which those Patriarkes had equall with the Pope but vnder the Pope and in respect of the Patriarkes of the East only as hath bene proued (y) See aboue Chap. 19. sect 4. And the same appeares out of the seauenth Law of the Code where Iustinian calls Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople Oecumenicall Patriarke and yet in the same Law he calls the Pope Head of all the holy Prelates of God And Constantine Pogonate in the sixt Councell (z) Ep. ad Synod Apost in 6. Syn. Act. 18. intitles the Pope Vniuersall Arch-Pastor and Protothrone of all Patriarkes and the rest of the Patriarkes Synthrones to the Pope The testimony of S. Gregory Nazianzen which here you obiect (a) Pag. 236. as aboue also you had done (b) Pag. 140. is borowed out of Salmeron whose discourse whoeuer pleaseth to read will soone find your dealing to be imposterous and that you curtall Nazianzens words to your owne aduaritage leauing out the later part of them The Titles attributed by ancient Fathers to the Pope you seeke to elude by parallells of equall titles giuen to other Bishops But in vaine 1. For albeit some of the titles which anciently were are still giuen to the Pope if you regard the sound of the words only may haue bene giuen in some occasion to other Bishops yet you proue them not to parallell the Popes titles vnlesse you can shew that they were giuen to any other Bishop in the same sense in which they haue bene alwaies giuen to the Pope Christ said of himselfe (c) Ioan. 9.6 I am the light of the world And the same title he gaue to his Apostles saying to them (d) Math. 5.14 You are the light of the world Againe he is called a Rock (e) 1. Cor. 10.4 the same title he gaue to S. Peter (f) Math. 16.18 Loe here parallells like to yours Behold the same titles in words giuen to Christ and his Apostles But doth this proue that the titles of Rock and Light of the world do equally and in the same sense agree to Christ and his Apostles Do they import the same excellency and dignity in the Apostles that they do in Christ No therfore your disprouing the Popes supremacy by parallelles of titles like in words giuen to the Pope and to other Bishops is mere sophistry for as the titles of Rock and Light of the world if you regard the sense import a far greater dignity in Christ then in his Apostles so like wise though some titles giuen to the Pope and to other Bishops may be equiualent in words yet not in sense for they importe a far greater dignity in the Pope then in any other Bishop The title of Pastor may be giuen to other Bishops and Priests but in a degree far inferior then to the Pope He is called The chiefe Pastor Prince of Pastors Vniuersall Arch-Pastor Pastor of all the sheepe for which Christ shed his bloud Pastor that feeds the flock of Christ committed to him throughout the whole world Pastor of our Lords flock and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church
meanes not that Athanasius was the top or head of all but omnium nostrum of vs all as the Latine translation hath that is to say of all the Orthodoxe Pastors which in those Easterne parts applied themselues to remedy the calamities of that distracted Church 2. You say (l) Ibid. Cyrill in a Councell the first of Ephesus is called The Head of the assembly True he presided in that Councell as Vicar to Pope Celestine whom therfore Cyrill and the whole Councell acknowledged to be their Head (m) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 1 3. You say (n) Pag. 243. S. Chrysestome calls Antioch The head City of the whole world S. Chrysostome by the whole world vnderstandeth not all the nations vnder heauen but the East only as a litle before he had declared speaking of Flauianus He knew well that the busines of his embassy to the Empetor was not for one City but for all the East for of all the cities seated in the East our City is the Head and mother If you can shew that the Fathers and Councells when they call the Roman Church The head of all Churches and the B. of Rome The Head of all the holy Prelates of God explicate themselues to speake of the West only or of any part of the world your answeare shall be accepted but vntill then it shall stand for sophistry as it is and you well know it to be The rest of your answeares to the titles giuen to Popes by the ancient Fathers are of the same straine but to dwell in the examination of euery patticular is a superfluous labor especially the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome being vnanswearably proued by the Titles which I haue declared But you obiect (n) Pag. 258. that of later times blasphemous titles are giuen to the Popes by their Parasites and swallowed vp by them as their spirit and vitall breath I cannot but meruaile that a man of your learning yeares and calling should make such obiections in good earnest which consist merely in your owne violent wresting of words contrary to the sense meaning of them that spake them and contrary I dare say to your owne knowledge for you cannot be so simple as to thinke that those titles were euer giuen to any Pope in that sense in which you misconstrue them But your good will to the Bishop and Church of Rome is such that so you may make them hateful to your readers you regard not how you delude them nor how you wronge our Authors First then the Pope is called Sponsus Ecclesiae The bridegroome of the Church This title you except against (o) Pag. 246.251 as blasphemous because the Church (p) Ioan. 3.29 is called The Spouse of Christ But why may not the name of Bridegroome which is one of the titles of Christ without blasphemy and without wrong to Christ be giuen to his Vicar on earth in an inferior degree as the name of Light of the world another of his titles is without blasphemy or wrong to him giuen to his Apostles (q) Math. 5.14 Shall we thinke that 500. Reuerend Bishops in the second Generall Councell of Lions (r) C. vbi peric De elect in 6. blasphemed when they approued that title vnto the Pope Shall Doctor Morton now after 350. yeares come to controle them and teach them how to speake But you aske (s) Pag. 246. how S. Bernard did like of this diuinity He say you writing vnto Pope Eugenius admonisheth him not to call himselfe the Bridegroome of the Church which is the spouse of Christ for sayth he Nemo committit sponsam suam Vicario No man will commit his spouse to his Vicar Can there be a more wilfull falsification S. Bernard hath no such words They are yours and directly contrary to S. Bernards words and Doctrine who in that very Epistle (t) Ep. 237. sayth to Eugenius Tibi commissa est Domini tui sponsa The spouse of thy Lord is committed to thee And to Innocentius Pope (u) Ep. 191. To thee is committed the spouse of Christ thou art a friend of the Bridegroome It belongs to thee to present a chast Virgin to one man Christ. In what sense therfore S. Bernard admonished Eugenius (x) Ep. 237. to call the beloued spouse of Christ Princesse not my Princesse these passages of his giue sufficiently to be vnderstood and our authors haue declared (y) See Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. c. 31. Nor can this diuinity seeme strange to any man that is a Diuinor for although there be but one chiefe Bridegroome of the Church which is Christ and in respect of him all Bishops are but Paranymphes friends of the Bridegroome yet who knoweth not what Demetrius B. of Bulgaria writing to Constantinus Cabasilas hath rightly obserued that as in carnall marriage the Bridegroome by a ring weddeth himselfe to his Bride so a Bishop hath a ring giuen vnto him to signify the spirituall mariage betweene him his Church And as euery particular Bishop without any wrōg to Christ is a Bridegroome of his particular Church vnder Christ cooperating extrinsecally with him to beget children vnto him by preaching his word administring his Sacraments so likewise in the same sense the Pope is Bridegroome of the vniuersall Church and she his spouse without any wrong to Christ 2. You obiect (z) Pag. 251. out of Bzouius Innocentius the eight was called by Abrahamus Polonus Regno vnctione Christus prae participibus sui◠In Royalty and vnction Christ aboue his fellowes This title also you will haue to be blasphemous because S. Paul (a) Heb. 1.9 giues that name to Christ But what then say you to S. Bernard who (b) L. 2. de consider at calls Eugenius Pope Peter in power in Vnction Christ Did he not know how to speake Did he blaspheme And if he did not why do you misinterpret Polonus his words who spake in the same sense S. Bernard did 3. You obiect (d) Pag. 251. The Orator of the Venetians called Paul the second Celestiall Maiesty But what say you to Bassianus B. of Ephesus who in his petition to the Emperors Valentinian and Martian (e) In Conc. Chalced. Act. 11. sayth I cast my selfe at your Diuine feet quatenus dignetur Vestra caelestis Potestas c. that your celestiall Power may vouchsafe to write to the Councell c. Et vestram Diuinitatem exoro And I beseech your Diuinity c. What to that learned Doctor Theodorus Studites and his fellow Regulars saying (f) In Ep. ad Michael Imper to Michael the Emperor If your diuine Magnificence seeme to doubt of any thing or not to belieue the declaration is piously to be required from the Pope What to the Bishops of the Councell of Mopsuestia saying (g) Ep. ad Vigil to Vigilius Pope The things which concerne the state of the Churches are to be referred to your Diuinely
and practised the same authority 7. Not vnlike to these are the answeares you giue to S. Athanasius (x) Pag. 254. S. Chrysostome (y) Pag. 255. and Theodoret who being iniustly deposed from their Bishoprickes appealed to to Iulius Innocentius and Leo Popes with manifest acknowledgment of their authority ouer all Bishops and Churches of the world as shall be proued SECT II. Others of Doctour Mortons Answeares to the ancient Fathers examined SOme Easterne Bishops who with great scandall of the Church and perturbation of the people refused to insert the name of Chrysostome into the Dyptikes or tables of publike records were for that cause excommunicated by Innocentius with command that they should not be admitted into the peace and communion of the Roman Church vntill they restored him This though it be an Argument of the supreme power of the B. of Rome you wrest it to a contrary sense Among them that refused to restore the name of Chrysostome were Alexander Patriarke of Antioch and Acacius Bishop of Beroë but these two to the end they might be admitted into the Communion of the Roman Church restored his name and performed what els Innocentius in ioyned them (a) Spond anno 408. n. 11. Of these two you are silent they were not for your purpose But because some others stood out for a time you lay hold on them who vpon due examination will proue as litle to your purpose as the two you conceale Your first example (b) Pag. 258.259 is of Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria who stood out vntill the end of his life But God that would not haue a man so well deseruing of his Church to die in the state of excommunication ordained by his prouidence that the soule of Theophilus could not depart out of his body vntill an Image of S. Chrysostome being brought vnto him he adored it doing pennance for his former error and by that meanes restored himselfe to the peace of the Church This his recantation is reported by Isidorus Diaconus and out of him by S. Iohn Damascen (c) L. 3. de imag prope fin Wherfore your deniall of it is a falsity framed without ground by your selfe out a desire that Theophilus should haue died out of the Communion of the Roman Church as you liue Your second example (d) Pag. 257. is of Atticus Patriarke of Constantinople who being excommunicated for the same cause persisted sometime in his error but at length moued by the example of Theophilus and Maximianus a Bishop of Macedonia making intercession for him (e) Baron anno 408. Innocentius yeilded to absolue him prouided that he would himselfe aske absolution and restore the name of Chrysostome Hereupon Atticus witnesse Theodoret (f) L. 5. hist. c. 34. sent many embassages to Rome to obtaine the communion of Innocentius but could neuer obteine it vntill partly by perswasion of the Emperor and partly fearing a tumult of the people he restored the name of Chrysostome and writ letters to Cyrill B. of Alexandria persuading him to do the like Wherfore Baronius truly sayth (g) Anno 425. that Atticus restored Chrysostome by the command and compulsion of Innocentius and not by the distraction and tumultuosnesse of the people only as you comment for if he feared the tumult of the people it was in regard the people were incensed against him for not restoring Chrysostome as Innocentius had commanded And if as you obiect (h) Pag. 258. he called two Bishops that had died in the communion of the Roman Church Schismatikes he spake in passion seing himselfe excōmunicated by the B. of Rome and knew as you also do that he spake vntruly for if it were thought Schisme to be in the communion of the Roman Church as you say he did why did he so earnestly desire and send so many Embassages to be admitted into her communion Was is to make himselfe a Schismatike Nay was it not to free himselfe from schisme Why do not you imitate him Your third example (i) Pag. 259.260.261 is of Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria who if for a tyme he obeyed not Innocentius in restoring the name of Chrysostome it was because he iudged the command of Innocentius to be against the Canons witnesse his owne words alleaged by your selfe (k) Pag. 259. fin But his iudgment was erroneous and because what he did was out of a pious zeale as he conceaued God reduced him by a miraculous Vision wherin he saw himselfe cast out of the Church by Chrysostome and a troupe of Saints that assisted him therin but that the Blessed Virgin Mary did make intercession for him as one that had defended her honor against Nestorius Cyrill moued with this vision condemning his owne iudgment concerning Chrysostome and calling a Prouinciall Synod restored his name to the sacred records as the other Patriarkes had done To this you make two replies first (l) Pag. 261. you call this A tale of Nicephorus a fabulous Author that liued 800. yeares after Cyrills death But you wrong Nicephorus for he reportes it out of Nicetas that liued almost 500. yeares nearer Cyrills tyme then himselfe and out of other ancient historians Hoc sayth he (m) L. 14. c. 28. in arcana Nicetae Philosophi historia apud alios inueni 2. You reply (n) Pag. 261. that Cyrills restoring Chrysostome cannot any whit serue our turne because he did not simply by submission to the Popes decree but by vertue of a Vision in a dreame Surely you seeme to haue bene in a dreame when you deuised this answeare for there cannot be a greater Argument of the Popes authority then that God by a miraculous vision should notify to Cyril that by reason of his resistance made to the decree of Innocentius he was out of the Church And in how great Veneration did Cyrill hold the B. of Rome he I say that being greatly exasperated against other Bishops for the name of Chrysostome yet neuer let slip from his mouth any the least irreuerent word against Innocentius And who can be ignorant that he firmely belieued the supreme authority of the Roman See when he presided in the Councell of Ephesus as Vicar to Celestine Pope (o) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 1. Without whose order as he durst not depart from the Communion of Nestorius so he executed on his person punctually what Celestine commanded And finally his beliefe was that saluation cannot be had out of the Roman Church (p) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 4. SECT III. Doctor Mortons Answere to the testimony of Acacius examined A Cacius Patriarke of Constantinople writing to Simplicius Pope professed that the care of all Churches belonged to him You answeare (q) Pag. 161. fin 162. The vniuersall care of all Churches was applied to S. Paul in the dayes of Peter and to other Bishop in whom there was no Monarchicall Popedome This satisfieth not for the vniuersall care of all Churches may be of
themselues were absent These testimonies of your owne Brethren are so many sharpe wedges in the hart of your cause and shew in you either ignorance or lack of cōscience in denying so manifest a truth Nor do your Writers testify this of those Popes in generall but in particular euen of those very twelue whose testimonies you heere seeke to elude Of Iulius whom you (n) Pag. 2841 call the first man of the inquest they say (o) Brerel ibid. n. 60.61 that wheras the Ecclesiasticall canon decreed that no Councell should be celebrated without the sentence of the B. of Rome Iulius made challenge therby for which Danaeus reproueth him and other Bishops of Rome M. Cartwright and the Centurists say of him (p) Ibid n. 63. that in the Councell of Antioch he ouer-reached in claiming the hearing of causes that apperteyned not to him and M. Symonds (q) Ibid. n. 64. that he decreed that whosoeuer suspected his Iudge might appeale to the See of Rome And wheras in his Epistle to the Easterne Bishops extant in the second Apology of S. Athanasius he expresseth the authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome ouer all others in these words An ignoratis c. Are you ignorant that the custome is we should be first written vnto and that from hence the iust decision of things should proceed And that if any suspicion were conceaued against your Bishops there you should haue written to this Church for the things which I signify to you we haue receaued from the blessed Peter You answeare (r) Pag. 184. Iulius plainly speaketh of document and instruction receaued from Peter not of dominton or iurisdiction which may be an answere to many of the rest But this answeare is refuted not only by the ancient historians as afterwards you shall heare but also by the Centurists who set downe these very words of Iulius (t) Cent. 4. col 746. and (u) Col. 529. reprehend him for them and out of that his Epistle shew that with the authority of a Iudge he summoned the Easterne Bishops commanding them to come to Rome assigned them a day of appearance before him to be iudged and hauing heard the whole cause gaue sentence rebuking the Eusebians and by the preregatiue of his See restored the Catholike Bishops to theirs The same Epistle is alleaged by D. Philippus Nicolai (x) De reg Christ. l. 2. pag. 149. a learned Protestant who out of Socrates Sozomen and the Epistle it selfe witnesseth that Iulius doth more then once declare himselfe alone by especiall priuiledge to be Bishop of the primary See and that by diuine ordinance the right of calling Councells and of iudging the causes of Bishops and other weighty affaires of that nature belonged to him alone I conclude therfore that Iulius speaketh not of document and instruction receaued from Peter but of authority and iurisdiction Not vnlike to this answere is your affirming (y) Pag. 284. fin 285. that the Bishops of the East challenged Iulius for writing to them alone by his owne authority for there is no such challenge in their Epistle (z) Extat Ep. apud Bin. to 2. pag. 401. Yea as Sozomen (a) L. 3. c. 7. testifieth and the beginning of the Epistle it selfe sheweth in it they professe the primacy of the Roman Church though otherwise falsly obiecting to Iulius the breach of the Canons a thing not to be wondred at for they that wrot were Arians in hatred of him because he had annulled their Councell of Antioch and restored Athanasius And as the Epistle was written by Arians so it is also reported by Socrates and Sozomen from Sabinus a Macedonian Heretike who tooke part with the Councel of Antioch against the Pope and against the Councell of Nice to which as also to Athanasius and to the Blessed Trinity it selfe he was a professed enemy In regard wherof their Epistle is of no more weight then if Lutherans or Caluinists should now write the like And hereby it appeareth how vntruly you say (b) Pag. 185. that Some of the testimonies of ancient holy Popes expressing the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Roman See may be confuted and indeed confounded by as ancient opposisions of the Orientalls against Pope Iulius c. for those Orientalls were heretikes Hauing thus shifted off the testimony of Iulius whom you call the first man of the inquest you passe immediatly to S. Gregory the last of the twelue which Bellarmine alleageth omitting all the rest And wheras he out of the works of this holy Pope produceth diuers testimonies clearely conuincing the subiection of all Churches to the Roman you omitting the rest as being vnanswearable find meanes to except against one (d) Pag. 284. which is Who doubts but that the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the See Apostolike which the most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother Eusebius Bishop of the same City continually protest This testimony of S. Gregory you reject vpon pretence that the Epistle is supposititious and counterfeit Some of the Popes alleaged by Bellarmine say you speake not but their counterfeites as the last Iurist Pope Gregoryin an Epistle wherin Eusebius B. of Constantinople is said to haue bene subiect vnto him when as as our Doctor Reynolds hath proued there was no Eusebius B. of Constantinople in the dayes of S. Gregory But to Doctor Reynolds I oppose the most eminent Cardinall Peron a man of greater renowne learning authority who answeareth (e) Replip l. 1. Chap. 34. 1. That Cyriacus which was then Bishop of Constantinople might haue two names and be called Eusebius Cyriacus as S. Hierome was called Eusebius Hieronymus 2. That Eusebius might be there taken adiectiuely and signify pious or religious as when Arius (f) A pud Theod. l. 1. hist c. 5. writ to Eusebius B. of Nicomedia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Farewell Eusebius truly Eusebius that is truly religious And 3. that it is an error of the Exemplarist who of eiusdem ill written and blotted made Eusebius for the ancient copies of this Epistle current for the space of 200. yeares after S. Gregory make no mention of Eusebius but read simply and our brother B. of the same City as it appeares out of the relation of Amalarius Fortunatus who liued 800. yeares since and setteth downe this whole Epistle of S. Gregory word by word (f) De dini offic l. 4. c. 2. in Biblioth Pat edit Colon to 9. part 1. and his testimony alone liuing 800. yeares nerer S. Gregories tyme then Doctor Reynolds or your selfe is a sufficient proofe of the authority of this Epistle against you both But what Though you except against this Epistle yet in the next which no man hath doubted of S Gregory in like manner sayth (g) L. 7. ep 64. For wheras he the B. of Constantinople being accused of a certaine crime profefieth himselfe subiect to the See Apostolike if any fault be found in
the left in his kingdome They were holy Apostles that sought among themselues without any ordinance of their Lord who should be chiefe They were indeed Disciples and Apostles of Christ but as yet imperfect nor did they arrogate to themselues much lesse seeke to practise superiority ouer the Church of the whole world as the Popes from the beginning haue done Which if it were not giuen them by Christ could not stand with Christian Modesty much lesse with sanctity for such a claime is not a small blemish nor a veniall offence but the very height of Luciferian pride for so you call it (d) Pag. 336. and the very marke of Antichrist himselfe Againe the ambition of the Apostles was reformed and they perfected and confirmed in grace by the cōming of the holy Ghost But there is no testimony of antiquity that any one of the primitiue Popes whom you taxe with pride and great arrogancy did at any tyme before their death relinquish that claime yea contrarily all of them constantly mantained their authority as giuen them by Christ in S. Peter and exercised the same ouer all the Churches of the world vntill their dying day And if this were in them great arrogancy and Luciferian pride they were far from being holy Saints of God which yet you truly confesse them to haue bene condemning therby your doctrine against their supremacy of falshood and your selfe of slandering Gods Saints with Luciferian pride and arrogancy Your last refuge (e) Pag. 286. that Popes are not fit witnesses in their owne cause was refuted aboue (f) Chap. 15. sect 3. CHAP. XXXVIII The Vniuersall iurisdiction of the B. of Rome proued by the Exercise of his Authority ouer other Bishops AS among the Arguments for the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction there is none more conuincing then that from the first ages after Christ by their authority they haue ordayned deposed and restored Bishops throughout the whole Church so there is none which with more sleights you seeke to clude That the Popes anciently exercised this authority is a thing so certaine that Danaeus a learned Protestant is enforced to acknowledge the truth therof (g) Resp ad Bellar. part 1. pag. 117. and answeare It followes not that because the B. of Rome vsed that right he had therfore that right for certainely he had no right to do this but only tyranny and vsurpation Which to be an vnconscionable answeare no man can doubt for the B. of Rome as now he doth so much more did he then want temporal power to cōpell Bishops especially in Countres far remote from Rome to obey him which yet he must haue had if that vse of his power had not bene from a true right giuen him by Christ but only by tyranny and vsurpation Wherfore you finding this answeare of Danaeus not to satisfy haue made a bold aduenture to deny that the ancient Popes exercised any such power which how vntrue it is the ensuing Sections shall demonstrate SECT I. The Popes vniuersall authority proued by the Institution and confirmation of Bishops and of the vse and signification of the Pall or Mantle granted to Archbishops YOur first position is (h) Pag. 288. Anciently Institutions of Metropolitans and Patriarkes were done by communicatory letters to the chiefe Patriarke which were letters of correspondence to shew their agreement in fayth in which case the B. of Rome sent his Pall in token of his consent That the B. of Rome hath euer accustomed to institute Bishops in the most remote Prouinces of the world appeareth out of the booke intituled Vitae Romanorum Pontificum written by Damasus or as others more probably thinke by Anastasius Bibliothecarius in which are reported the ordinations of Bishops made by Linus immediate successor to S. Peter and successiuely by all other Bishops of that See The letters you mention of Metropolitans Patriarkes written at the tyme of their Institution to the chiefe Patriarke the B. of Rome were not only of correspondence to shew their agreement in fayth for howbeit they did containe a profession of their agreement in fayth with the Roman Church that therby they might be receaued into her communion and haue the title of Catholike Bishops yet moreouer they contayned an oath of Obedience and subiection to the B. of Rome And by the same letters they asked his Pal which S. Gregory witnesses (i) L. 7. ep 5. indict 1. was granted to none vntill they did humbly and earnestly desire it It is true that the Pope by sending his Pal to Archbishops did expresse his consent to their Institution But if they did not owe subiection to him there had bene no need of requiring his consent and much lesse of asking his Pal for the Pal did not only containe an expression of the Popes consent to their Institution but a grant of great authority and power which by the Pal was signified and giuen vnto them So testified the irrefragable Doctor Alexander of Hales 400. yeares since When the Pal is giuen sayth he (k) Part. 4. q. 10. memb 5. art 2. §. 6. there is giuen fulnesse of Pastorall power for before a Metropolitan be honored with the Pal he is not to ordaine Priests consecrate Bishops or dedicate Churches And before him the fourth Councell of Lateran consisting of 1280. Fathers declared (l) C. 5. that after the Patriarkes of the East haue taken their Oath of Fidelity and Obedience to the B. of Rome and haue receaued the Pal from him as a token of the plenitude of Pontificall office they may grant it also to their Suffragans receauing in like manner from them an oath of Obedience both to themselues and to the Church of Rome And before the Councell of Lateran Innocentius the third (m) Myster Missae l. 1. c. 63. The Pal containes the fulnesse of Pontificall office for as much as in it and with it the fulnesse of Pontificall office is conferred for before a Metropolitan be honored with the Pal he ought not to ordaine Priests consecrate Bishops or dedicate Churches nor haue the Name of Archbishop Which also was testified before him by Honorius the second (n) Ep. ad suffragan Episcop Tyri and by S. Bernard (o) Vitae S. Malach. cap. 19. reporting of S. Malachias that hauing founded a Metropolitan See in Ireland and knowing it to want authority vntill it were confirmed by the See Apostolike he trauelled to Rome in person to procure the Pal as well for that See as also for another which Celsus had founded And before him Wilfrid an English Abbot who for his great labors in preaching the Ghospell to the Germans and conuerting that nation to Christ hath deserued to be intituled The Apostle of Germany coming to Rome and bring consecrated Bishop by Gregory the third and in his consecration called Boniface after he had taken the oath of obedience to the See Apostolike as all Bishops vsed to do (p) Spond an 723. n.
for euen Bellarmine (i) L. 2. de Pont. c. 18. against whom you write and in that very place which you cite for the contrary proueth that all Archbishops Metropolitans and Patriarkes were instituted or confirmed by the Pope and that by sending them the Pal he conferred on them the plenitude of Pastorall power which being an act of supreme authority a conuincing argument of his vniuersall iurisdiction and performed by him alone proueth vnanswerably that he instituted Bishops by his owne authority alone without the helpe of a Councell And to proue the same by particular examples When Agapetus Pope came to Constantinople he deposed Anthinus in the Imperiall city in the presence of Iustinian the Emperor and this alone without the helpe of any CouÌ„cell yea and without any support at all (k) See this proued aboue Chap. 20. sect 2. And Honorius the first Pope of that name as appeareth out of his epistles to Edwin King of England and Honorius B. of Douer (l) Extant Epistola apud Bin. to 2. pag. 994.995 according to the petition made to him by Honorius sent to him and Paulinus two Palls (m) Beda hist Anglor l. 2. c. 17. with Apostolicall authority that the Superuiuer of the two might ordaine an Archbishop in place of him that first departed this life And S. Gregory a litle before that tyme sent the Pal to Augustine Archbishop of Canterbury (n) Bed l. 1. hist. Angl c. 29. who conuerted vs to Christ giuing him therby full authority to ordaine Bishops subiect to him and to erect a new Archbishoprick at Yorke And doth not Socrates report (o) L. 7. c. 35. that Perigenes being ordained B. of Patras in Achaia and the Citizens not receauing him the B. of Rome commanded that he should be Bishop of the Metropolitan Church of Corinth the Bishop of that place being dead and that he gouerned in that Church all the dayes of his life And when in the false Councell of Ephesus Anatolius had bene ordained Patriarke of Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch by what meanes was their Ordination legitimated and they confirmed in those Sees but by the authority of Leo Pope alone You wish vs (p) Pag. 296. in good fayth to tell you whether we can belieue that Maximus of Antioch was iuridically instituted or confirmed by Pope Leo because his owne Legates said so We tell you in good fayth that you are quite mistaken for not only the Legates of Pope Leo said so but also Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople with approbation of the whole Councell of Chalcedon (q) Conc. Chale Act. 10. My voyce is sayth he that none of the things ordayned by the pretended Councell of Ephesus remaine firme but only that which was done for Maximus B. of great Antioch for as much as the most holy Archbishop of Rome Leo receauing him into his Communion hath iudged that he rule the Church of Antioch And because you aske vs in good fayth we must needes say that you are no lesse mistaken concerning Anatolius for when Theodosius the Emperor requested Leo Pope to confirme him in the See of Constantinople Leo answearing (r) Ep. 33. beeseeched the Emperor not to take it in ill part if he did not confirme him vntill he had performed the things which he ordained And when Anatolius had performed them Pulcheria the Empresse giuing notice therof to Leo (s) Ep. ad Leo. inter Ep. pream bul Conc. Chalced. he confirmed him verifying that by his assent Anatolius obtained the Bishoprick of so great a City But what if there were no other proofe extant but the bare affirmation of Leo Was not Leo a most holy Prelate worthy of all credit And when he said that Anatolius by his assent obtained the Bishoprick of so great a City did he not speake it to Martian the Emperor who knew the truth of that businesse But what need we to dwell in the rehearsall of more particulars Did not S. Leo alone (t) Ep. 84. without any CouÌ„cell make Anastasius B. of Thessalonica his Vicar in the East with full power to confirme the ordinations of Bishops lawfully made in the Orientall Churches to annull those that were made against order And did not S. Gregory (u) L. 4. ep 7. write to the Bishops of Illyria following the desires of your demand wee confirme by the consent of our authority our Brother Iohn in the Bishoprick of the first Iustinianca And this power it is which S. Bernard expressed saying (x) Ep. 131. The Roman Church â—ath power is â—rect new Bishopricks where hitherto noâ—â— haue bene Of those that are in being the way depresse some aduance others as reaso is shall â—â—ctare vnto her so that of Bishops she hath power to make Archbishops and contrarity if is seeme conâ—â—â—ient SECT IV The Popes power of deposing Bishops without a Councell proued by Examples IF the Pope haue not authority to depose Bishops alone without the helpe of a Councell why did S. Cyptian (f) L. 2. ep 13. ad Stephâ— write to Stephen Pope that by his letters addressed into the prouince to the people of Arles Marcian Bishop of that city might be deposed and another substituted in his place And S. Cyprian did so title doubt of Stephens authority in this kinde that he beseecheth him to let him vnderstand who was instituted in Marcians place at Arles to the end he might know to whom to direct his brethren and letters Wherfore you are much mistaken when you say (g) Pag. 295. text marg Stephens letters were but admonitory signifying that Marcianus ought to be deposed If you will not beleeue S. Cyprian belieue Danaeus your Protestant Brother who speaking of this very example (h) Respons ad Bellarm. part 1. pag. 317. findeth it so conuincing that he is enforced to confesse that the Bishops of Rome did anciently depose other Bishops which sayth he they had no right to do but only tyranny and vsurpation So he confuting you and confessing against you himselfe that Cyprian speaketh absolutely of deposing Marcian not of admonishing that he ought to be deposed This power was likewise acknowledged when the Fathers of the first Councell of Constantinople beseeched Damasus Pope to depose Timothy an hereticall Patriarke of Alexandria and Damasus answearing them said (i) Apud Theodoret. l. 5. hist. c. 10. Wheras your charity my deare children yeildeth due reuerence to the Apostolike See it shall turne you to great honour c. But what need was there to require from me the deposition of Timothy seing he was long since deposed were with his Maister Apostimarius by the iudgment of the See Apostolike And againe (k) Ibid. paulo superiùs Know yea brethren that we haue long since deposed that prophane Timothy disciple to Apollinarius the heretike And Theodoret reporting the same (l) Ibid. Damasus a man most worthy of all praise as soone as he vnderstood
without their help that they made thēselues executors of his authority caused the letters of restitution which he he had grāted to Bishops iniustly deposed to be obeyed SECT VI. Doctor Morton to crosse the Popes Authority in restoring Bishops deposed takes part with the Arians and iustifies their impious proceedings against S. Athanasius and other Catholike Bishops TO proue the Popes authority of restoring Bishops by his letters authority alone we haue for precedents the examples of the great Prelates Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria Paul of Constantinople Marcellus Primate of Ancyra in Galatia Asclepas B. of Gaza in Palestine Lucius of Adrianopolis in Thracia who being iniustly deposed by the Arians appealed to Iulius Pope and he by his authority restored them to their seats You not knowing how otherwise to auoid the force of these examples haue thought best to take part with the Arians against S. Athanasius to iustlify their opposition against Pope Iulius mantaine their contempt of his authority To this end you say (h) Pag. 290. Among those Easterne Bishops which condemned Athanasius in the Councell of Antioch there were many orthodoxe There were indeed in that Councell according to the relation of S. Athanasius (i) De Synod and Socrates (k) L. 2. c. 5. 90. Bishops and according to S. Hilary (l) L. de Syn. 97. or if we beleeue Sozomen (m) L. 3. c. 5. 96. Of this number there were only 36. Arian Bishops These only were they that plotted the deposition of Athanasius these only made the decrees of that Councell and subscribed to them as Iulius in his Epistle afterward written to them and out of it Athanasius (n) Apolog. 2. testify These only were they that capitulated with Iulius Pope to haue communion with him not vpon condition that he should communicate with those Bishops whom they had ordeyned as you ignorantly affirme but vpon condition that he should abandon the communion of Athanasius and the other Catholike Bishops which being deposed by them had appealed to him for redresse and by his authority recouered their Churches againe And because the decrees of that Councell were made by Arians only they haue euer bene held to be absolutely hereticall The Arians sayth Sozomen (o) L. 8. c. 20. after they had with calumnies circumuented Athanasius and cast him out of his Church of Alexandria fearing lest things might be brought about againe made this Canon endeauoring to haue their plots against him remaine indiscussed The same is expresly affirmed by S. Chrysostome (p) Apud Niceph. l. 13. n. 18. against whom when his aduersaries that had deposed him to iustify their fact and blame him for returning to his Church alleaged a Canon of this Councell of Antioch he answeared It is not a Canon of the Church but of the Arians And the same is testified by the holy Pope Innocentius (q) Apud Niceph. l. 13. c. 31. so much commended by S. Augustine Wherfore you cannot be excused from an vntruth in saying that among those Easterne Bishops that condemned Athanasius reproued the Pope for restoring him there were many Orthodoxe for none of the Orthodoxe Bishops consented therto But that the Arians who had spit in the face of Christ and trampled his Diuinity vnder their feet should also contemne the Pope his Vicar on earth ti 's no wonder as neither it is that you should therin bandy with them for no heretike euer fell from the Church but he toke the Pope for his enemy at the same tyme. 2. To iustify your disobeying and resisting the authority of the Church of Rome and Bishop therof you say (r) Pag. 295. lit O. marg text The Orientals to wit the Arian Bishops resisted and excommunicated the Pope and in proofe herof you set downe in your margent these words as of Sozomen l. 3. c. 7. Illi Iulium Episcopum Romanum quòd cum Athanasio Paulo communicaret abdicarunt Sozomen there hath no such words He sayth They obiected to Inlius as a crime that he communicated with Athanasius and the Bishops that were with him and accused him that in annulling their Councell and abrogating their sentence he had done against the Ecclesiasticall Law so they called the hereticall Canon which themselues had made in the Councell of Antioch to iustify their impious proceedings and promised to communicate with him on condition he would confirme the deposition of Athanasius and the Orthodoxe Bishops which had fled to him for succor 3. You say (s) Pag. 306. fin 307. The Popes command to the Orientals who had deposed Athanasius to receaue him againe was answeared with contempt and they argued à paribus with him What els cold be expected from sacrilegious Arians or what from you but to obiect against vs their resistance to the Bishop and Church of Rome as lawfull to make good yours not vnlike to theirs But what did all their arguing auaile them for notwithstanding their contempt and all the resistance they were able to make by themselues and by the power of Constantius the Arian Emperor their abettor and patron Athanasius Paul and the other Bishops whom they had deposed were by vertue of Iulius his letters restored to their Churches and their restitution imbraced as iust by vniuersall consent of all the Catholikes in the world in so much that when the Arians meeting at Philippopolis required the Orthodoxe Bishops assembled in the Councell of Sardica to abstaine from the Communion of Athanasius and those other Catholike Bishops protesting that otherwise they would haue no communion with them the godly Bishops there assembled and representing all the Orthodoxe Bishops of the world answeared (t) Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. that they neuer had nor would now abstaine from their Communion and principally because Iulius B. of Rome hauing examined their cause had not condemned them But that the Arians were not so refractary to the Popes authority as you are and would make them to be to countenance your error is a truth easily proued for at last Vrsacius and Valens the two principall aduersaries of S. Athanasius departed from their pursuite and went to Rome to aske pardon of the Pope They came in person sayth Seuerus Sulpitius (u) Hist. sacraae l. 2. to aske pardon of Iulius B. of Rome And themselues in the Act of their Pennance (x) Athan. Apol. 1. Your Piety in your naturall goodnesse hath vouchsafed to pardon our error And at the end of their Act they made this protestation (y) Athanas ibid. Moreouer we promise that if vpon this occasion those of the East or Athanasius himselfe shall maliciously appeale vs in iudgment we will not depart from what you shall ordaine 4. You tell vs (z) Pag. 306. lit k. out of Sozomen The restoring of S. Athanasius to his Bishoprike againe by Iulius was only by his communicatory letters to declare that he thought him worthy to be restored for if we inquire
after the authority wherby Athanasius was restored it was by the command of the Emperor Constantius as the same historian recordeth These are your words then which none can be more vntrue for that Iulius in his letters did not only giue his aduice declaring that he thought Athanasius worthy to be restored but operatiuely exercised his power authority and by vertue of them effectually and absolutely restored Athanasius and those other Bishops is a truth not only acknowledgeth by your Protestant writers as you haue heard (a) Chap. 37. sect 2. but in it selfe so certaine that I thinke no man but Doctor Morton could haue the face to deny it Iulius B. of Rome sayth Socrates (b) L. 2. c. 11. by reason of the priuiledge of his Church aboue others defended their cause and sent them back with letters written to the Easterne Bishops wherby each of them might be restored to their place and reprehended seuerely those that had rashly deposed them And they going from Rome and relying vpon the letters of Iulius recouered their seates againe Which is also expressed in the title of that Chapter The B. of Rome sayth Sozomen (c) L 3. c. 7. hauing examined their complaintes and found that they agreed touching the Decrees of the Councell of Nice receaued them into his communion and because by reason of the dignity of his See the charge of all belonged to him he restored to each of them his Church And in the title of that Chapter Athanasius Paul by the letters of Iulius receaued their seates againe Are not these words cleare inough But yet moreouer doth not Nicephorus say (d) L. 9. c. 8. that Iulius by the greatnesse of his See and out of the ancient priuiledge prerogatiue therof knowing that the charge of all Bishops whersoeuer belonged to him as to a Iudge armed ech of them with powerfull letters and sending them back into the East restored their Churches vnto them And do not he and Sozomen adde (e) Ibid. that he rebuked the Arians for that they had rashly deposed those Bishops and troubled the Churches not standing to the decrees of the Councell of Nice and commanded that some of them in the name of all should on a set day appeare at Rome to giue account of the iustice of their sentence and threatned not to let them passe without punishment vnlesse they did cease to innouate And doth not Felix Pope (f) Ep. ad Athanas cet Episc Aegypt who liued soone after that tyme deliuer the same in most cleare and effectuall words And finally do not he Theodoret (g) L. 2. hist c. 4. Sozomen (h) L. 3. c. 7. and S. Athanasius himselfe (i) Apolog. 2. out of the vndoubted Epistle of Iulius report that Iulius following the Ecclesiasticall Law commanded the Arian Bishops to come to Rome and summoned the diuine Athanasius canonically to present himselfe in iudgment and that as soone as he receaued this citation he transported himselfe in diligence to Rome but the Authors of the tragedy went not because they knew their lies would be openly discouered How thinke you now Did not Iulius with the authority of a Iudge restore those Orthodoxe Bishops to their Churches and that by the prerogatiue of his See and because the charge of all Bishops belonged vnto him Did he not command and Canonically cite both Athanasius and his aduersaries to appeare in iudgment at Rome and appoint them a day for it And finding Athanasius to be free from the crimes which his enemies had maliciously forged against him did he not threaten to punish them vnlesse they desisted to innouate and trouble the Churches Is this nothing but to declare that he thought those Orthodoxe Bishops worthy to be restored Is it not to exercise the authority of a Iudge And this sheweth the falshood of your addition (k) Pag. 306. fin that the authority wherby Athanasius was restored was the command of the Emperor Constantius For he being an Arian was so far from commanding him or any of those Catholike Bishops to be restored that as Socrates writeth (l) L. 2. c. 12. when he heard that Paul B. of Constantinople was restored by the letters of Iulius he stormed therat and caused the Prefect of the City by his secular power to thrust him out againe as he in his owne person once before had done (m) See Spon anno 342. n. 7. 8. And the Arian crew supported by him so molested Athanasius that they enforced him to fly againe to Rome and Constantius himselfe perseuered in persecuting him as long as he durst which was witnes Sozamen (n) L. 3. c. 19. and Theodoret (o) L. 2. c. 11. 12. vntill Athanasius and Iulius made complaint therof to his brother Constans a Catholike Emperor who assisting the Ecclesiasticall authority of Iulius with his Imperiall power writ threathing letters to Constantius and so effectuall that he durst resist no longer but permitted Athanasius according to the iust sentence giuen by Iulius to returne to his Church and affisted him therin And how far Constantius was from hauing any power to restore Bishops or to forbid them from returning to their seates appeareth in this that when he commanded the Bishops assembled at Ariminum (p) Socrat. l. 2. c. 29. not to dissolue their Councell but to expect his answere they sent a peremptory message vnto him and neglecting his command as of one that had no authority to meddle in Ecclesiasticall affaires presently dissolued their Councell and returned to their Churches Let the reader now iudge how many vntruthes you haue told in this one history and whether you may not be thought guilty of impiety in defending and canonizing the outragious proceedings of blasphemous heretikes and iultifying the sacrilegious violence offered to Catholike Bishops for not subscribing to their heresy and finally in answearing (q) Pag. 285. that the testimonies of ancient Popes in proofe of their authority may be confuted and indeed confounded by as ancient oppositions as of the Orientals against the authority of Pope Iulius Such examples we allow you to mantaine your doctrine and disobedience to the Bishop Church of Rome But I presume that euery vnderstanding Protestant will disclaime from such an Aduocate and thinke that by such precedents his cause is not defended but disgraced condemned and parallalled with Arianisme SECT VII Other passages of Doctor Morton examined BEllarmine in proofe (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 18. of the Popes authority alleageth that Sixtus the third deposed Polychronius You say (a) Pag. 195. margin lit l. He numbreth him as one of the eight Patriarkes which Nicolas the first of that name reckoneth in his Epistle to Michaell the Emperor This is another vntruth The eight Patriarkes which Bellarmine mentioneth out of the Epistle of Nicolas were of Constantinople namely Maximus Nestorius Acacius Anthymus Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus Petrus All these were deposed by the Bishops of
appeares yet further in this that S. Iohn Chrysostome who was then Archbishop of Constantinople and fauored Flanianus as hauing a litle before bene a Priest of his beseeched Theophilus (t) L. 8. c. 3. to labor with him and helpe him to make the B. of Rome propitious to Flauianus and to this end by mutuall consent of both were chosen as Legates to be sent to Rome Acacius B of Beroea Isidore Priest And the same is confirmed by Sociates (u) L. 5. c. 25. Theophilus sayth he sending the Priest Isidore appeased Damasus that was offended and represented to him that it was profitable for the concord of the Church to parson the fault of Plauianus and so the Communion was restered to him Finally notwithstanding that the Emperor fauoured Flauianus and tooke vpon him to plead his cause in iudgment at Rome yet he neuer was receaued as Patriarke of Antioch nor his Legates admitted vntill the Pope at the intreary of so great personages had pardoned his fault and confirmed him in that See This is the true history of Flauianus which you haue singled out as an especiall example of retorsion against Bellarmine to proue the Popes no-iuridicall authority ouer the Patriarkes of Antioch but you performe it not for this example euidently sheweth the Popes authority exercised ouer the Easterne Churches many wayes as 1. In annulling the Confirmation of Flauianus made in the Councell of Constantinople 2. In calling those Bishops to Rome to put the cause in triall againe nor did they in their answeare except against his authority to call them but humbly acknowledging him to be their head and themselues to be his members excused their not coming for want of time and other reasons expressed in their Epistle 3. In calling not only the Westerne but also the Easterne Bishops to the Councell of Capua they obeying his command 4. By the Epistle of S. Ambrose wishing Theophilus to procure a confirmation of his sentence from the B. of Rome 5. By the intercession of Theophilus of S. Chrysostome and of the Emperor Theodosius himselfe made to the Pope to pardon Flauianus his fault and to confirme him in the Bishoprike of Antioch And 6. by the Legates which Flauianus himselfe in the end was faine to send to the Pope before he could be receaued as true Bishop of that See which he needed not to haue done if his confirmation had not depended on the Popes approbation All this being manifest out of Socrates and Sozomen whom Bellarmine citeth and also out of S. Ambrose impartiall relators of this cause you mention not any of them but fasten vpon the relation of Theodoret who being a Suffragan of the Patriarkship of Antioch and a creature to one of Flauianus his Successors was a great fauores of his person and hath reported his cause with more relation to fauor then to truth For first (x) L. 5 c. 23. he makes Flauianus absolute and lawfull Successor to Meletius and Paulinus an iniust pretender to that See wheras contrarywise Paulinus was the true Successor and Flauianus an inâ—â—â—der as being bound by oath not to permit himselfe nor any other to be ordained Bishop in place of Meletius but to let Paulinus enioy that dignity alone and peaceably whiles he liued 2. He mentioneth not this oath of Flauianus but signifieth that he came to the Bishoprike by a lawfull and Canonicall election without breach of any oath 3. To make good the cause of Flauianus against Euagrius he reporteth that Paulinus alone before his death ordained Euagrius contrary to the Lawes of the Church when as Socrates (y) L. 5. c. 15. and Sozomen (z) L. 7. c. 15. impartiall writers testify that Euagrius was not ordained by Paulinus but by his Disciples after his yeath 4. Nor is he to be credited in his report that Theodosius hauing heard Flauianus at Constantinople did not presse him to goe to Rome but bid him returne home to Antioch and that coming himselfe afterwards to Rome he vndertooke to answeare for Flauianus and to plead his cause in iudgment And yet notwithstanding euen this relation of Theodoret partiall as it is proueth the iuridicall authority of the Pope ouer the Patriarkes or Antioch if it be taken entirely as it is set downe by him and not mangled as you report it for he sayth (a) L. 5. c. 23. The Bishops of Rome not only that admirable man Damasus but also after him Siricius and Anastasius successor to Siricius inueighed greatly against the Emperor telling him here pressed them that practised tyranny against himselfe but left vnpunished those that by tyranny sought to ouerthrow the lawes of Christ Wherupon as the Emperor before had commanded him so now againe he labored to compell him to goe to Rome to haue his cause iudged there This sheweth that the Emperor acknowledged no lesse obligation in the greatest Patriarkes to obey the Pope then in the subiects of the Empire to obey the Emperor and that such Bishops as shew themselues disobedient to him violate the Lawes of Christ and deserue no lesse punishment then subiects that rebell against their Prince Againe The Emperor sayth Theodoret (b) Ibid. comming long after that tyme to Rome and being blamed againe by the Bishops for not repressing the tyranny of Flauianus said he would take vpon himselfe the person of Flauianus and pleade his cause in iudgment which last clause you in your relation of Theodorets words omit because it sheweth that the iudgment of Flauianus his cause belonged to the Court of Rome for the pleading of causes in iudgment is only before them that haue authority to iudge Finally though Theodoret relate partially this story of Flauianus yet that he intended not therby to deny the authority of the Pope ouer the Bishops of Antioch appeareth not only by what hath bene here proued to the contrary but also because in expresse words he professeth (c) In Ep. ad Kenat that the Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment ouer all the Churches of the world and therfore he being a Suffragan of the Patriarkeship of Antioch when he was deposed from his Bishoprike by the second Councell of Ephesus had not recourse to his owne Patriarke for redresse but appealed to Leo Pope and by him was restored He likewise knew that Iohn Patriarke of the same See had bene deposed by Celestine Pope (d) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 2. and Maximus confirmed in that See by Leo the Great (e) See this Chap. sect 3. All this sheweth how vntruly you say (f) Pag. 296. fin that Damasus deposed not Flauianus nor executed any act of iuridic all proceeding against him but that he was confirmed in his Bishoprike by the Emperor for Damasus annulled the sentence of the Councell of Constantinople that had confirmed him and cited both the Fathers of that Councell and him to appeare at Rome to haue his cause tried there and therupon the Emperor once and twice vrged him
to goe and Siricius successor to Damasus gaue to Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria power to iudge his cause And notwithstanding all the Emperors fauor he was not confirmed in the Patriarkship vntill at the intreaty of Theophilus Chrysostome the Pope had pardoned his offence and he himselfe had sent Legates to obtaine his confirmation If this be not sufficient to proue the Popes authority ouer the Bishops of Antioch what is And when you aske (g) Pag. 297. Whether the Christian Churches could be good Catholikes and in state of samation that communicated with Flauianus at the time of his opposition to the Pope it is a question sprung from ignorance for the cause of Flauianus being in agitation it was so far from being vnlawfull to communicate with him or with them that adhered either to him or Paulinus and Euagrius that for auoyding of further schisme the Councel of Capua ordained that Communion should be denied to neither party SECT XI Doctor Morton in defence of his Doctrine chargeth ancient Bishops with exercising Acts of authority out of the limits of their owne iurisdiction VVE haue proued the Popes to be supreme Gouernors of the vniuersall Church because they haue exercised acts of iurisdiction ouer the greatest Bishops of the East and West You make your apposition as you say (h) Pag. 297. by parallels and examples of other Bishops in antiquity executing Acts of confirming and deposing Bishops without the limits of their owne iurisdiction which is tacitly to contradict your selfe confessing that the Popes haue confirmed and deposed Bishops out of their owne Patriarkship to which you confine their authority but that they had no iurisdiction our those Bishops The falsity of this answeare who seeth not for confirming and deposing of Bishops is an act of iurisdiction which no Bishop hath power to exercise out of the limits of his iurisdiction And therfore to say that either the Popes or other Bishops haue executed acts of confirming or deposing Bishops without the limits of their owne iurisdiction is to accuse them of pride and iniustice in arrogating to themselues liberty to transgresse the limits of their iurisdiction executing acts of authority where they had no right But as to deny the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Popes you wrong them so to make good your deniall of their authority you wrong the other Bishops in whom you instance The first is S. Athanasius B. of Alexandria who say you (i) Pag. 300. appointed a Bishop ouer the Indians This Bishop though you name him not was Frumentius who hauing liued among the Indians and returning from thence informed S. Athanasius of the great hope he conceaued of their Conuersion to Christ if preachers were sent vnto them The fayth which Frumentius preached was the Roman fayth and he serued God after the manner of the Roman Church and induced all Christians that traded with the Indians to do the like (k) Ruffin l. 2. c. 9. Sozom. l. 2. c. 2.3 S. Athanasius with the aduice of his Clergy created him Bishop at Alexandria and sent him with other Priests to preach the Ghospell to the Indians and reduce them to the Communion of the Roman Church Where do you find in all this that S. Athanasius instituted or confirmed any Bishop without the limits of his owne iurisdiction Did he not consecrate Frumentius Bishop in his owne Church at Alexādria Did he send him to preach or exercise iurisdiction within the Dioces of any other Bishop No. He sent him to a barbarous people to reduce them to the fayth of Christ and obedience of the Roman Church which was then and is still lawfull for any Bishop in like case to do that being no where forbidden nor contrary to any Law diuine or humane nor any way derogating from the authority of the B. of Rome but most gratefull to him whose greatest desire is to reduce the whole world to the fayth of Christ and whose approbation for such enterprises is alwayes iustly presumed especially since therby the glory of the Roman Church is increased and her iurisdiction enlarged as by the conuersion of both Indies in these later tymes we see Your second example (l) Pag. 300. is of Theophilus B of Alexandria laboring to ordaine Chrysostome to be the B. of Constantinople For this you alleage Sozomen who sayth (m) L. 8. c. 2. that Chrysostome being famous for his Vertue learning throughout all the Roman Empire by voyce of the Clergy and people of Constantinople and of the Emperor himselfe was chosen Archbishop of that Imperiall City but that Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria resisted his ordination laboring to promote to that dignity Isidore a Chaplaine of his owne This is the relation of Sozomen why do you report it vntruly Your third example (n) Ibid. is of S. Gregory Nazianzen vnto whom say you Meletius B. of Antioch and Petrus of Alexandria confirmed the See and Patriarkship of Constantinople For this you bring Theodoret (o) L. ◠hist. c. 8. and Gregorius Presbyter Theodoret sayth no such thing but only that albeit the Canons to preuent ambition forbid the remouing of Bishops from one See to another yet the opinion of Meletius was that in those circumstances Gregory might hold the Bishoprick of Constantinople by reason of the great domage that Church sustained for want of a Bishop in so dangerous a time But that Meletius designed or ordained him Bishop Theodoret sayth it not nor is it true for he was created Bishop by the Councell of Constantinople which Theodoret in that Chapter mentioneth And the same is verified by other historians Gregory sayth Socrates (p) L. 5. c. 5. by the common consent of many Bishops was transferred from the Bishoprike of the City of Nazianzum to the Bishoprike of Constantinople And Sozomen (q) L. 6. c. 17. Gregory by the voices of many Bishops was designed B. of Constantinople for no Catholike Bishop nor Church of Orthodoxe people being in that City the doctrine of the Councell of Nice was in danger to be wholly exploded How then could you say that Meletius and Petrus of Alexandria confirmed vnto Gregory Nazianzen the See of Constantinople Especially since Theodoret in that very Chapter expresseth the names of diuers of those Bishops which in the generall Councell of Constantinople conferred that dignity on him and repressed the insolency of Maximus whom Timothy B. of Alexandria would haue intruded into that See Your fourth example (r) Pag. 300. is Moyses who being a man famous for miracles was ordained Bishop by certaine exiles It is true for the Romans vpon agreement of peace with Mauia Queene of the Saracens who desired to haue Moyses created Bishop of her Nation brought him to Alexandria to be consecrated by Lucius then Patriarke of that city who being an Arian heretike Moyses refused to be consecrated by him and therfore the Arians were enforced to permit him to be consecrated by the Catholike Bishops of the Roman
the iudgment of a Councell for in case of an appeale two things are necessary the first is to iudge whether the cause be lawfull if it be to admit of the appeale to annull the sentence pronounced against the Appellant and restore the cause to the same state in which it was before his condemnation This Innocentius performed in the cause of Chrysostome He admitted his appeale he absolued him he annulled the Councell that condemned him he excommunicated the Emperor and the Empresse by whose procurement he had bene condemned and vpon their repentance absolued them All this he did without a Councell shewing that he acknowledged not insufficiency in himselfe nor thought the only remedy to be in a Councell The second thing required in case of an Appeale is to proceed to a new iudgment naming Iudges either of Bishops of the adioyning Prouinces or els by sending Legates from Rome with authority to iudge the cause together with the Bishops of the Prouinces adioining or if the weight of the cause require it to call a general Councell in which it may be determined with satisfaction of the whole Church as the Councell of Nice hath prescribed (a) Leo Ep. 25. This also was exactly performed by Innocentius Pope in the appeale of Chrysostome Innocent sayth Palladius (b) In vit Chrysost hauing receaued both parties into his Communion determined that the iudgment of Theophilus should be abrogated and annulled saying They should hold another Synod irreprouable of the Prelates of the West and East This was Innocentius his desire which as Sozomen reporteth he proposed by fiue Bishops (c) L. 8. c. 28. and two Priests of the Roman Church to Honorius and Arcadius wishing them to appoint a time and place for the Councell but could not effect it not for want of Ecclesiasticall authority to call the Bishops as you misinterpret but because as Sozomen declareth (d) Ibid. the enemies of Chrysostome opposed it being supported by the temporall power of Arcadius and Eudoxia without whose consent a Councell could not be held the cities in which it should be held being subiect to them and at their command Wherfore Innocentius did not acknowledge any Ecclesiasticall authority in the Emperor to call a Councell as you comment but only requested him as being Lord of the Empire to appoint a time and place when and where in some City of his the Councell might be held which he by his spirituall power intended to call It resteth therfore that whatsoeuer you haue obiected out of this history of Chrysostome against the Popes authority is nothing but vntruthes and ignorant mistakes among which I will score vp one other which is that in this matter of Appeales to Rome you say (e) Pag. 307. m. both your Cardinalls Baronius and Bellarmine giue for instance the example of Chrysostome B. of Antioch Those Cardinalls were not so ignorant as to call Chrysostome B. of Antioch that 's your mistake fathered on them He was a Priest of the Church of Antioch and after the death of Nectarius Patriarke of Constantinople by a Councell of Bishops chosen Patriarke of that Imperiall City and by meanes of the Emperor Arcadius brought from Antioch thither and there consecrated Bishop SECT VII That Flauianus appealed to Leo Pope as to an absolute Iudge AN other example of appealing to Rome is of Flauianus to which you answere two things shewing ignorance in the one and falshood in the other Ignorance in saying (f) Pag. 308. fin 309. iuit that of this same Flauianus you haue said inough already You haue indeed already spoken of Flauianus inough to the discredit of your cause (g) Pag. 296.297 but not of this same Flauianus for Flauianus of which there you spake was B. of Antioch and liued in tyme of Damasus Pope But Flauianus of which now you speake was B. of Constantinople and liued in time of Leo the Great 70. yeares after the other Is it not then too great a mistake in a man that professeth so much learning to shift of what we alleage in proofe of Appeales from the example of the one by what you haue said of the other especially their cases being farre different To ignorance you adde falshood saying (h) Pag. 308. fin It will be a hard matter for you out of the example of Flauianus to collect a right of appeale to the Pope from his appeale to a Synod To proue that Flauianus appealed not to the Pope but to a Synod you rehearse in your margen a Latin sentence of Leo writing to Theodosius the Empetor which you English not because Leo sayth not that Flauianus appealed to a Synod that 's your false comment but expresly affirmeth that he put vp a petition of Appeale to his Legates which was not to appeale to them but to him whose person the Legates represented Yea the very words of Leo which you recite directly testify that he which required a Councell was not Flauianus but Leo himselfe yielding for his reason the Nicen Canons which command that after the putting in of appeale in causes of such weight the calling of a generall Councell is necessary Moreouer that Flauianus appealed and not to a Synod but to the Pope is a truth declared not only by the words of Leo but testified also by other writers Flauianus sayth Liberatus (i) Cap. 1â— appealed to the Apostolick See by petition presented to his Legates And the Emperor Valentinian the third writing to Theodosius the second Emperor of the East (k) In eppraeambul Concil Châ—lced We ought in our dayes to preserue to the Blessed Apostle Peter the dignity of reuerence proper to him inuiolate that the Blessed Bishop of the City of Rome to whom antiquity hath yeilded the Priestood ouer all may haue way to iudge of Bishops and of fayth for therfore Flauianus B. of Constantinople following the custome of Councells hath appealed to him by petition in the contention moued concerning fayth And if you belieue not these witnesses belieue the Centurists who testify against you (l) Cent. 5. col 778. that somtimes Bishops condemned in Synods appealed to the See of Rome as did Flauianus in the Councell of Ephesus What testimonies more expresse then these Is it not manifest out of Liberatus out of Valentinian out of the Centurists yea and out of the very words of Leo which you produce for the contrary that Flauianus appealed not to a Synod but to him Who but Doctor Morton could deny so inuincible a truth And no lesse apparent it is that antiquity acknowledged in the Pope authority to iudge of Bishops and of fayth and that appeales vnto him were ordained by the ancient Councells for why els did Valentinian say to Theodosius his Father-in-Law that Flanianus appealed to the See Apostolike according to the custome of Councells SECT VIII Of Nilus equalling the B. of Constantinople with the Pope in his right of Appeales NIlus an hereticall Bishops of Thessalonica
thing vncertaine Many thinke it to be of Damasus and his you will haue it to be But the contrary is manifest for the epistle speaketh of Bonosus an Arch-heretike who had bene condemned by Iudges appointed in thē Councell of Capua which was not held in time of Damasus but of Siricius successor to Damasus It is therefore euident that the request of Bouosus which you obiect out of this epistle to haue his cause heard againe could not be to Damasus his first condemnation being not vntill after Damasus his death When you can shew this epistle to be of Damasus you shall receaue an answeare which it were easy to giue you now if I listed to spend time in refuting your tedious discourse of racking the verbe Competit to a strict sense and which not one but many wayes is deficient as all your arguments for the most part are Your addition (e) Pag. 318. marg l. that if the epistle be not of Damasus it is certainly of some Pope and that all hold it so is affirmed by you gratis and as easely denied by me CHAP. XL. Whether the Easterne Churches be at this day accordant in Communion with Protestants SECT I. The state of the Question THE nine first Sections of your fourtenth Chapter you spend in prouing that the Grecians Aegyptians Aethiopians Assyrians Armenians Russians Melchites and other remote nations at this day dissent from the Roman Church and are accordant in Communion with Protestants The foundation of your whole discourse you lay in these words (f) Pag. 330. Whatsoeuer Christians haue not ruinated any fundamental article of sauing fayth set downe in our ancient Creeds and are vnited vnto the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus our Lord by a liuing fayth all Protestants esteeme them as true members of the Catholike Church and notwithstanding diuers their more tolerable errors and superstitions to be in state of saluation albeit no way subiect or subordinate to the Roman Church These are your words which containe in themselues open implication namely that one may be vnited to the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus by a liuing fayth and be in state of saluation and yet be out of the Catholike Church which to be none els but the Roman and that out of her there is no saluation hath bene already proued (g) Chap. 1. sect 2.3.4 From this false principle you deduce that the Grecians Asians Aegyptians Assyrians Aethiopians Africans Melchites Russians and Armenians notwithstanding their separation from the Roman Church are at this day truly professed Christian Churches (h) Pag. 379. partes of the Catholike Church (i) Pag. 406. fin 407. init faythfull Christians professing the fayth of the ancient Fathers (k) Pag. 417. in state of saluation and raile bitterly at the Church of Rome for denying the same But how great ignorance and impiety you shew and how many most shamefull vntruthes you vtter in the prosecution of this Argument it is easy to declare Some of them I shall present to the Readers view And to proceed methodically I will reduce what I am to say to two heades 1. I will proue that as the Christians of these remote nations anciently were so many of them at this day are accordant in beliefe and communion with the Roman Church yeild obedience to the Pope as to the Vicar of Christ on earth and as to the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church 2. That the inhabitants of these nations which are not Roman Catholikes are not of one beliefe or Communion with Protestants but wholly dissent from them holding most blasphemous and damnable heresies acknowledged for such by Protestants themselues From whence it will follow that you affirming them to be faythfull Christians of the same beliefe with the ancient Fathers charge the ancient Fathers with blasphemous heresies and make them incapable of saluation SECT II. Whether the Grecians of the primitiue and successiue times agreed in fayth and Communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome and particularly at the Councell of Florence THat the Greekes in the first Councell of Constantinople and afterwards in that of Calcedon endeauored to giue to their Patriarke of Constantinople the second place of dignity in the Church next after the Pope and before the other Patriarkes we acknowledge But that they sought therby to exempt themselues from their obedience and subiection to the Pope hath bene effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 5. Chap. 19. sect 4. I speake not this to deny that anciently there were of the Grecians many Heretikes which opposed the Roman Church and by her authority were condemned and that eight Patriarkes of Constantinople in particular as also Eutyches an Arch-heretike of the same City were anathematized and east out of the Church for heresy And wheras the Westerne Church by the example and diligence of the Bishops of Rome was preserued from heresy the Churches of the East new heresies daily springing vp were so pitifully torne and ten in peeces that S. Hierome complaining therof to Pope Damasus said (m) Ep. 57. Because the East striking against it selfe by the ancient fury of the people teares in litle morsells the vndeuided coate of our Lord wouen on high and that the foxes destroy the vine of Christ in such sorte that it is difficult among the drie pits that haue no water to discerne where the sealed fountaine and the inclosed garden is I haue therfore thought that I ought to consult with the Chaire of Peter and the fayth praised by the mouth of the Apostle This was the miserable state of the Easterne Churches in those dayes being gouerned somtimes by Catholike Bishops that acknowledged subiection to the Church of Rome and somtimes by Heretikes that opposed her authority vntill at length Photius hauing iniustly driuen Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople from his See and intruded himselfe into his place and being for that cause often excommunicated by Nicolas the first and Iohn the eight Popes of Rome to mantaine his iniust title withdrew himselfe from their obedience and to the end he might haue some colour to perseuer in that separation cauilled at the doctrine of the Roman Church which teacheth that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Sonne and writ against it And the Greekes following him in this error separated themselues from the Communion of the Roman man Church Yet not so but that they haue often eleauen times sayth S. Antoninus (n) Hist. par 2. tit 22. c. 23. acknowledged their error and reconciled themselues to her and especially thrice in most solemne manner in three seuerall Councells of Barium in Apulia of Lions in France and of Florence in Tuscany but still returning to their error against the holy Ghost and disobedience to the Church of Rome as dogs to their vomit Almighty God punished them with a heauy hand deliuering them vp to a miserable captiuity seruitude vnder the Turke And that they might know the
authority and command of the Pope the Councell it selfe so requiring and the condemnation of all the errors of Wiclef and Hus ratified and confirmed by a speciall Bull of the Pope with command that all suspected of those heresies should be demanded whether they belieue that S. Peter was the Vicar of Christ hauing power to bind and lose vpon earth and whether they hold that the Pope canonically chosen his proper Name expressed is the Successor of S. Peter hath supreme power ouer the Church of God These are the doctrines of that Councell which shew that your obiecting it against the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome ouer all other Bishops and Churches is a Grand Imposture SECT VIII The same matter prosequuted out of the Councell of Basil THere was say you (r) Pag 358. a Councell gathered at Basil by the authority of Pope Martin the fifth What A generall Councell called by authority of the Pope Then it appeares that the Pope is supreme Head and gouernor of the vniuersall Church for as a King cannot by his authority call a Parliament of those that are not his subiects so neither could the Pope by his authority haue called a generall Councell had not his authority extended it selfe ouer the vniuersall Church So vnaduisedly are you caught in your owne snares You adde (s) Ibid. out of Binius that this Councell was after confirmed by Eugenius How confirmed Were the Acts or decrees of that Councell confirmed by Eugenius So would you perswade your reader But Binius speaketh not of the confirmation of any Act or Decree of the Councell but only of ratifying the calling and beginning of it vnder the presidence of Iulianus Caesarinus his Legate according to the Order of his predecessor which is also obserued and proued by Canus (t) L. 5. de loc cap. postrem It was therfore begun and for a time continued by lawfull authority but afterwards became schismaticall and was iustly condemned by the generall Councell of Lateran (u) Sub Leon. 10. sess 11. as a Conuenticle schismaticall sedition and of no authority 1. Because as Turrecremata a learned writer of that time aduertiseth (x) Sum. de Eccl. l. 2. c. 10â— contrary to the custome of all generall Councells they refused to acknowledge the authority of those whome the Pope had sent to preside in the Councell 2. For that they presumed to pronounce a sentence of deposition against Eugenius Pope and that in a most temerarious manner because there was then no Legate of his in the Councell all the chiefe Bishops being departed a certaine Cardinall of Arles by his owne authority had vsurped the place of President and because there wanted voyces of Bishops to make vp number they tooke into the Councell a great multitude of Priests so that now against all order and forme of Councells it was not a Councell of Bishops but of Priests 3. as Turrecremata witnesseth (y) Ibid. the decrees of that Councell euen such as they were were not vnanimously agreed vpon both because many Prelates and Doctors as well of Canon as of ciuill Law made resistance vnto them and also because vnderstanding that Embassadors sent by the Kings of England and Castile were on their way and neere at hand they hastned fraudulently to define such things as they knew those Legates would not assent vnto 4. Because as S. Antoninus reporteth (z) Part. 3. tit 22. c. 10. §. 4. Iulianus the Cardinall whom Eugnius had appointed President leauing that schismaticall Conuenticle returned to the Pope who by Apostolicall authority dissolued their assembly But they stopping their eares began to summon Eugenius being solicited theruÌ„to by the Duke of Milan his professed enemy On the other side Sigismund the Emperor and the Venetians dissuaded them from any further proceeding Which notwithstanding they pronounced sentence of deposition against Eugenius and erected to themselues a new Idoll Amadaeus Duke of Sauoy calling him Felix the fifth to whom obedience was yeilded in his owne territory Thus S. Antoninus Wherby it appeares that Felix whom the Councell created being acknowledged no where but in his owne Dukedome the whole Church adhered still to Eugenius belieuing that the Councell had no authority to depose him Yea Felix himselfe (a) See Binius in Not. ad hoc Council pag. 406. acknowledging the same resigned his vsurped title by perswasion of the Emperor and euen by his owne iudgment condemned all the Acts of that Councell by which he had bene chosen as of a schismaticall Assembly And hereby is discouered the falshood of what you alleage (b) Pag. 359. out of a Synodicall Epistle of that Councell demanding whether the Pope will condemne for schismatikes all the Cardinalls Bishops and the Emperor himselfe with Kings Princes yea and the whole Church which did approue that Councell This I say is a shamefull vntruth for all the chiefe Prelates seeing that Councell grew to open Schisme had forsaken it there was remaining one only Cardinall (c) See Bin. to 4. pag. 121. and he an enemy to the Pope the maior part of them that remained were not Bishops but Priests and they disagreeing among themselues as appeareth out of another Synodicall Epistle of theirs (d) Apud Bin to 4. pag. 146. in which also they confesse the paucity of their number partly excusing it by reasons and partly laying the fault on Eugenius that he had drawne away so many Prelates from them How then is it true that all the Cardinalls Bishops the Emperor with Kings and Princes and the whole Church were present there and approued this Councell How is it true since it is certaine that three yeares before the dissolution of this Conuenticle was assembled that famous generall Councell of Florence in which this Basilean Synagogue was condemned and the Vnion betweene the Greeke and Latine Church established Pope Eâ—genius himselfe assisting in it as President the Emperor of the Grecians being present in person the Emperor of the Latines by his Legates together with all the most famous Prelates of the Greeke and Latin Church aboue 1400. in number This sheweth which of these two assemblies was the lawfull Councell which the schismaticall yea and God himselfe interposing his verdict declared the same for those Schismakikes obstinatly refusing to breake vp their assembly so often annulled by the Pope he according to his promise made to S. Peter (e) Math. 16.19 and in him to his Successors confirming the sentence of Eugenius from hâ—auen sonâ— among them a most horrible plague of which many of them dying the rest were enforced to breake vp and depart as Aeneas Siluius recordeth (f) In histor Conc. Basil who hauing bene present at that Councell and seeing their â—emerations obstinacy against the Roman See forsooke it and detesting it writ earnestly against it All this being true as it is with what fidelity do you say (g) Pag. 350. that in this case the
that is not of God heareth vs not In this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of Error And if at all times the Pastors of Gods Church are to be heard then surely most of all when they are assembled in a generall Councell Christ professing himselfe to be then in the middest of them (b) Math. 18.20 By their authority the sayth is maintained and heresy condemned When Firmilianus and Cyprian with many other Bishops defended the Error of Rebaptization by testimonies of Scripture but as Lyrinensis noteth (c) Cap. 10. glossed after a new and naughty fashion by what authority was that error condemned but by the custome and tradition of the Church the prohibition of Pope Stephen chiefly cooperating therto for as S. Augustine truly sayth (d) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 23. the Apostles had deliuered nothing in writing concerning that point And when the Arians in the Councell of Nice alleaged and misinterpreted Scriptures in proofe of their heresy by what meanes were they confuted and condemned but by the tradition of the Church deliuered by the Venerable Bishops assembled in that Councell (e) Seâ— aboue Chap. 16. chiefly by the authority of the B. of Rome by whom that Councell was called and confirmed (f) Ibid. and without whose confirmation no Canon of any Councell can be of force (g) Sâ—e aboue Chap. 17. seâ—t 6. And from hence it hath proceeded that as all the generall Councells which the B. of Rome hath confirmed are held by the whole Church to be of infallible authority no one Father or Doctor euer doubting therof so contrarily the Councell of Ariminum the second of Ephesus and all others which he hath reproued haue bene euer reputed spurious assemblies and of no authority And with great reason for his authority in defining controuersies of fayth Christ himselfe declared to be infallible (h) See aboue Chap. â—â— sect 1. 2. when he prayed for him that his fayth might not faile commanded him to confirme his brethren and likewise when he promised that heresies which are the gates of hell shall not prouaile against the Church built vpon him I conclude therfore that you mistake the state of the question We agree with you that a Councell which is not directed by the spirit of Gods word may erre but the difference betweene vs is who is to be the Iudge whether a Councell proceed according to the direction of Gods word or no. Luther and you his disciples casting of the yoke of obedience to your lawfull Pastors and refusing to heare them will haue no other Iudges but your selues to the end that if a generall Councell condemne your doctrine as that of Trent hath done you may reiect it vpon pretence that it hath not bene directed by the spirit of Gods word which is an excuse common to all Heretikes for what heretike will not and may not with as faire colour as you pleade that the Councells which condemned him were not directed by the shirit of Gods word Vpon this pretence the Arians that of Ephesus the Eutychians that of Chalcedon the Monothelites the sixth Councell the Image-breakers the seauenth Vpon the same pretence you reiect the Councell of Trent and make profession to reiect all Councells whatsoeuer that shall not allow you to be the only Iudges of the sense of Gods word and grant vnto euery one of you that infallible authority to expound it which you deny to a whole generall Councell When Councells haue defined sayth Luther (i) Art 11â— then will we be Iudges whether they be to be accepted or not And the same is the doctrine of Caluin (k) L. 4. instit c. 9. tot We contrarily insisting in the steps of all Orthodoxe antiquity whose testimonies are plentifully alleaged by Coccius (l) To. 1. l. 7. art 21. acknowledge that the Pastors which are the representatiue body of the Church assembled together with the B. of Rome as their Head is an infallible Iudge of the true sense of Gods word and that what they define in matters of fayth is of vnâ—oâ—â—â—â—â—d authority to be reuerenced as the Ghospells of Christ for so antiquity reuerenced the generall Councels which haue beene held before their time (m) See Coce 〈…〉 and so we reuerence the rest that haue beene held since their time all of them being assembled and confirmed by the same authority of the See Apostolike and directed by the same Spirit of truth that the first Councells were And who seeth not that you denying this authority take away all the vse of Councells in the Church making controue sies of sayth indeterminable and arguing Christ of lack of wisdome and prouidence in not leauing any certaine meanes to end dissentions and preserue Vnity in his Church SECT III. Whecher Protestants hold the Church of Christ to be inuisible YOur fourth Thesis is (n) Pag. 167.368.369.370 Protestants hold not any greater inuisibility or rather obscurity of the Church Catholike then that which the Romanists are forced to confesse This Thesis is manifestly false for you haue heard your grand Maister Caluin other your brethren (o) Here aboue sect 1. confessing that before Luthers time the Church was wholly destroyed euen as mans life is when his throat is cut that it is ridiculous to thinke there were any true belieuers when Luther began that not a part but the whole body of the Church was fallen away by Apostacy And you cannot be ignorant that other ProtestaÌ„ts haue testified (p) Brereley Prot. Apol. tract 2. c. 2. sect 11. sub dict 3. that she was not only obscured as in the time of the Arians but inuisible and could not be shewed Iuell (q) Ibid. that the truth was vnknowne at that time and vnheard of Perkins (r) Ibid. that aâ— vniuersall Apostacy ouerspread the whole face of the earth and that your Church was not then Visible to the world Milius (s) Ibid. that if there had bene any right belieuers before Luther there had bene no need of a Lutheran reformation Francus (t) Brerel Ibid. tract 2. c. 1. sect 4. that for 1400. yeares the Church of Christ was no where externall and visible Napper (u) Ibid. that for 1260. yeares Gods true Church was most certainly latent and inuisible These are the confessions of your brethren conuincing you to speake vntruly when you say Protestants hold not any greater inuisibility or rather obscurity of the Church Catholike then that which the Romanists are forced to confesse for our Tenets which we haue learned from the holy Scripture are that the Church of Christ is a magnificent throne as resplendent as the sunne (x) Psal 88.38 A lofty City placed vpon a mountaine (y) Math. 5.14 which sayth S. Augustine (z) Cont. Parm. l. 3. c. 5. cannot be hid but shal be knowne to all the coastes of the earth To a mountaine prepared in the top of mountaines eleuated
from error in their definitions of fayth hath bene the beliefe of all Orthodoxe antiquity (m) See aboue Chap. 12. sect 1. 2. Nor do you produce here any thing to the contrary which hath not bene proued to be imposterous excepting only that here you charge the new Church of Rome for so you call it with belieuing the conclusion of the Pope in matters of fayth to be infallible albeit he vse no diligence at all for the directing of his iudgment which is say you the strong breath of an Anabaptisticall and Enthusiasticall spirit We are well assured what spirit guydeth your pen. Do you find this doctrine authorized by the Church of Rome In what Councell By what Pope In your margent you cite Valentia in the seauenth Chapter of his Analysis which is to cite at randome and falsly for that worke of Valentia consisteth of eight bookes you specify none of them nor are the words you obiect to be found in the seauenth Chapter of any one of those eight bookes I find some such in the third Chapter of his last booke where as also afterwards againe (n) Analy l. 8. c. 10. he professedly disputeth what meanes the Pope is bound to vse in his definitions of fayth and whether the infallibility of his iudgment depend vpon those meanes In which question Valentia teacheth nothing but what is the most receaued opinion of Deuines and most agreeable to truth There seemeth to be some disagreement in this point among the Schoole-Doctors some saying that the Pope cannot erre if he proceed maturely hearing the counsell of Pastors and Learned men Others of which number Valentia is affirming that he cannot erre though he define alone without deliberation and consultation But these two opinions differ in words only not in reality of truth for when the authors of the former opinion say that to define the Pope is bound to proceed maturely taking the aduice of a Councell or of men wise learned and skilfull in the matter which is to be determined to the end he may not erre they say not this to signify that the infallibility of his definition consisteth in or proceedeth from the wisdome and learning of his Counsellors but only to shew that he is bound to proceed prudently and maturely And so likewise when Valentia and authors of the second opinion say that if the Pope should define alone without a Councell of Bishops or aduice of other learned men he could not erre they say it not to deny that he is bound to vse such meanes but to signify that the infallibility of his definition consisteth not in them but in his owne authority and warrant which he hath from Christ of not erring And this is the meaning of Valentia as in that very place he expresly declareth Nor do I see what you can find therin either absurd or vntrue But if you curiously demand Whether the Pope may erre in case he proceed to define inconsideratly and rashly Valentia and all Catholike Doctors will answeare that your Question implieth a Condition impossible for the Pope in his definitions cannot proceed immaturely The Philosophers say Qui dat formam dat consequentia ad formam He that giues the forme giues also the dispositions necessary for the forme And he that giueth the end giueth also such meanes as are necessary for the attaining of the end Wherfore Christ hauing made promise to the See Apostolike that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her and that the successors of S Peter shall not faile in confirming their brethren it belongeth to his diuine prouidence so to direct gouerne and assist him that he proceed not to define without sufficient deliberation and maturity If sayth S. Augustine (o) De vtil ered c. 10. the prouidence of God be not the Gouernesse of humane affaires no regard is to be bad of religion But if all this variety of Creatures do I know not with what interior knowledge mooue vs to seeke God and to serue God surely we ought not to be diffident but that there is some authority constituted by the same God wheron we relying as vpon a certaine step may ascend vnto God SECT VII Whether there be in the Scripture any Prophesy that the Church of Rome shall fall from the fayth THat Christ hath prophesied of the Church of Rome that she shall neuer fall from the fayth hath bene alredy proued (p) Chap 12. sect 1. 2. Your third Thesis to the contrary is that there is not in all the Scripture any prophesy of the fall of any Church Christian from the fayth Pag. 377. but only of the Church of Rome from which it may somtime be necessary to depart Which is in effect to say that there is in the Scripture a prophesy that the Church of Rome shall fall from the fayth In proofe of this you remit vs to the testimony of two Iesuits Ribera and Viegas that the city of Rome shall in the end of the world be the seat of Antichrist which is not their doctrine but a calumnious slander of yours They hold with the ancient Fathers that not Rome but Hierusalem shall be the Seat of Antichrist The Euangelist sayth Ribera (r) Ad cap. 11. Apocalyp n. 20. fin 21. init calling Hierusalem a great city signifieth not obscurely that she shall be great at that time in power and in number of Citizens to wit when Antichrist shall raigne in her being receaued of the Iewes and honored as the true Messias This city both because she killed our Lord and because then she shal be the Court of Antichrist full of all wickednesse and impiety he calleth Sodome and Aegypt c. for what sinne and impiety will she not be guilty of Antichrist raigning in her So Ribera from whom Viegas dissenteth not Say now Can there be a more shamfull imposture then to impute to these learned Authors your owne falsities theron to ground your calūnies against the Church of Rome as vpon truthes asserted by them Such Arguments are indeed fit proofes to iustify your departure from her But were it true that the City of Rome in the end of the world shall be the Seat of Antichrist doth that any way iustify your present departure from the Roman Church Looke back vpon what hath bene sayd you shall find how little those words Goe out of Babilon my people make for you and that euen according to your Protestant Expositors they are wholly against you In your fourth Thesis (s) Pag. 378. which is That the Church of Rome hath long bene and still is the most schismaticall Church of all other Churches Christian that carry in them a visible face of a Church you bring nothing but what hath bene already answeared point by point SECT VIII Whether Luther were iustly excommunicaeed TO proue that he was iniustly excōmunicated you say (t) Pag. 381. Luthers excommunication by Pope Leo must haue bene either for manners or
passage in which he acknowledgeth in most effectuall words his beliefe of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome For in the very first words of his Epistle he sayth Be it known to your Wisdome that I obey the Apostolike mandats with filiall affection deuoutly reuerently and that I make resistance to those things which are against the Apostolike mandats zealing the honor of my Father for to both I am bound ex diuino mandato by the commandment of God for the Apostolike mandats neither are nor can be any other then the doctrines of the Apostles and of our Lord Iesus Christ Maister and Lord of the Apostles whose place and person our Lord the Pope chiefly holdeth in the Hierarchy of the Church A iudicious reader would thinke it a hard matter for any man out of these words and doctrine of Grosthead to frame an argument against the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome and yet are you so witty that you haue done it but by what art By cutting and mangling the Bishops words as the reader will see if he please to compare them with the Latin set downe in your Margent and euen that Latin mangled and falsified as it is you thought best not to english because it would haue giuen light to a iudicious reader to see your dealing What you adde (c) Pag. 394. of the Bishops not receauing a Prouision sent by the Pope maketh nothing for you for by the whole discourse of his Epistle it appeareth that he iudged the Prouision to be procured fraudulently by surreption therfore not to be a true mandate of the See Apostolike and vpon that ground he made resistance vnto it which the ciuill (d) Cod. Si cont ius L. Etsi Canon law (e) De rescript C. Dilectus in such cases declare to be lawfull without any impeachment to the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome SECT XI Whether Protestants had any Professors of their fayth before Luther THere is no way more expedite or effectuall to conuince heretikes to be such their doctrines to be prophane nouelties then to require of them a Catalogue of primitiue Fathers and learned men which haue agreed with them and dissented from the Roman Church in all those points in which they dissent from her as contrarily there is no way more effectuall for an Orthodoxe man to proue himselfe to be such then to shew that the Fathers Doctors of Gods Church in all ages from the beginning haue professed and taught the same doctrine he professeth and teacheth To this triall S. Athanasius challenged the Arians Behold sayth he to them (f) In decret Nic. Syn. cont Euseb we haue proued the succession of our doctrine deliuered from hand to hand from-Father to sonne you new Iewes you children of Caiphas what predecessors of your names can you shew To the same triall that most religious Emperor Theodosius prouoked the heretikes of his time for as Sozomen recordeth (g) L. 7. c. 11. hauing called together the chiefe of the Nouatians Arians and Macedonians he demanded of them whether they thought that the ancient Fathers which gouerned the Church before those dissensions in matter of Religion fell out were holy and Apostolicall men whether they did allow of their expositions of holy Scripture and would accept of them as of competent Iudges for the triall of their cause and ending of all controuersies Those Heretikes highly praysed the doctrine and expositions of the Fathers but yet could not agree among themselues to haue the bookes of the Fathers produced and their owne doctrines tried by them Wherupon Theodosius forbid them all exercise of their religion and inflicted other punishments vpon them With him accorded herein the Emperor Iustinian publishing by an especiall Law (h) L. 5. 6. that to confute the lyes of impious Heretikes and represse the madnesse of those that giue assent vnto them it is necessary to manifest vnto all what the most holy Priests of God haue taught and to follow them How often doth S. Augustine stop the mouthes of the Pelagians (i) Cout Iul. Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. l. 2. versus fin l. 5. c. 17. cont duas Ep. Pelag. l. 4. c. 12. with the testimonies of almost all the famous Bishops and Doctors both of the East West specifying them by their names somtimes twelue somtimes fourteene together adding to them the rest in generall The same kind of Argument was vsed by S. Leo the Great (k) Ep. 97. when hauing vrged against the Nestorians and Eutychians the testimonies of the holy Fathers Athanasius Hilary Ambrose and Chrysostome Theophilus Alexandrinus Basil the great and Cyril he concludeth thus to the Emperor to whom he writeth To these testimonies if you vouchsafe to attend you shall find that we teach no other thing then what our holy Fathers haue taught throughout the whole world and that no man dissenteth from them but impious heretikes Lastly the same manner of arguing from the testimonies of Fathers was vsed in the sixth generall Councell against the Monothelites in the second of Nice against the Image-breakers and in the Councell of Florence against the error of the Grecians denying the holy Ghost to proceed from the Sonne To this triall learned Catholikes haue often challenged the Sectaries of this age to that end haue set forth Catalogues of the most learned Doctors of Gods Church from the very time of Christ shewing them to haue bene members of the Roman Church and to haue belieued and taught the now Roman fayth not only in the generall heads wherin Protestants agree with vs but also in each of the seuerall points in which they dissent from vs to haue held them to be hereticall and confuted them as such euen as we do alleaging their testimonies at this day against Protestants The truth of this is to be seene in Iodocus Coccius a German who as it is declared in the Preface to his first Tome being in his youth a Lutheran afterwards partly by frequenting the Sermons of Catholike Preachers partly by hearing disputations in Schooles partly by obseruing the meruailous concord of Catholiks and the fatall discord of Protestants in matters of fayth partly by considering seriously and weighing with himselfe that the Churches of Protestants were confined to a few Prouinces and not spread ouer the whole world as the Church of Christ (l) Isa 49. was prophesied to be and that they wanted succession and continuance being newly sprung vp and lastly by a diligent perusall of the writings of ancient Fathers whom be found to agree wholly with vs and dissent from Protestants abandoned them and abiuring their doctrine east himselfe into the armes of his Catholike Mother the Roman Church And aswell for the confusion of heretikes confirmation of Catholikes as also to yeild vnto all men a reason of his fayth he vndertooke an immense labor in which he spent 24. yeares of reading the
know and am able I desire to obey his ordinances in all things least peraduenture if I coming to the gates of the kingdome of heauen there be none to open vnto me he being offended with me that is knowne to keep the keyes So teacheth Aponius in his learned Commentary vpon the Canticles (q) In Cant. lib. 2. saying It is manifest to all the earth where the pasture of holsome doctrine was reuealed to Peter to wit when Christ asking he answered Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God c. These pastures the Iew sees not nor the Gentill nor yet any heretike whatsoeuer for they follow not that Pastor whom Christ the Prince of Pastors hath left as his Vicar in the world So teacheth Theodorus Studites a holy Abbot and very famous for his learning and constancy in maintayning the Catholike fayth against heretikes who with diuers Regulars his Collegues writing to Paschalis Pope among other titles calls him The (r) Ep ad Paschalem Papam chief Priest of Priests Pastor of the sheep of Christ Porter of the kingdome of heauen and Rock of the fayth vpon whom the Catholike Church is built And the Roman Church he (s) Ibid. calles The supreme throne in which Christ hath placed the keyes of fayth against whom the gates of hell which are the nouthes of heretikes haue neuer preuailed nor shall euer preuaile the fountaine of Orthodoxall truth the quiet hauen of the Vniuersall Church against all hereticall stormes the chosen Citty of refuge for saluation And els where speaking of the Heretikes of his tyme he (t) Ep. ad Naucrat sayth I protest here before God and man they are diuided from the body of Christ and the supreme See in which Christ hath deposited the keyes of fayth against which the gates of hell that is to say the vnbrideled mouths of heretikes haue neuer preuailed nor shall preuaile euen to the end of the world according to the promise of our Lord which cannot fayle And (u) In opere de cultu imag againe So great is the fayth of the Romans that there is seene to be the impregnable rock of fayth founded according to the promise of our Lord. These two later testimonies are set downe and highly commended by that learned Patriarke of Constantinople Gennadius Scholarius who addeth to them this verdict of his (x) In defens Concil Florent c. 5. sect 17. owne If that diuine See belieue not aright Christ lyes when he sayth Heauen and earth shall passe but my words shall not passe for in these words he promised his Church to be with her and that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her So teacheth Rabanus that learned Bishop of Mentz (y) Apud S. Thom. in Catena ad c. 16. Matth. Therfore Peter specially receaued the keyes of the kingdom of heauen and the Soueraignty of iudiciall power that all the faythfull throughout the world might vnderstand that whosoeuer in any sorte separate themselues from the vnity of his fayth and society can neither be absolued from the bonds of their sins nor enter into the gate of the kingdome of heauen And the same power of the Roman Church to shut the gates of heauen against all those that diuide themselues from her communion he expresseth againe in a Poeme which he writ in prayse of the holy Crosse to Gregory the fourth of that name The same teacheth Petrus (z) Baron anno 105◠Damiani a Bishop of excellent learning and of a most holy and austere lyfe that liued six hundred yeares since and was sent by Nicolas the second together with S. Anselme Bishop of Luca to Milan to extinguish the heresies of the Simonians and Nicolaits wherwith diuers clergy men of that Citty being infected to the end they might auoyd the correction and censure of the Roman Church pretended that the Church of Ambrose was free and not subiect to the lawes of the Pope of Rome for the cōfutation of which error Petrus Damiani made a learned oration in which he prooued effectually the supreme authority granted by Christ to the Roman Church aboue all Churches and that whosoeuer denies her authority is an heretike And this his Oration tooke so good effect that those licentious Clergymen abandoning their heresy submitted themselues to the Roman Church with promise neuer to depart againe from her Communion So teacheth S. Bernard who (a) In ep ad Innocent 2. writing against Schismatikes giueth this rule to distinguish between them and Catholiks Those that are of God are vnited willingly to Innocentius the true Pope And he that stands out against him either belongs to Antichrist or is Antichrist himself To omit the like testimonies of many other holy and learned Doctors so writeth our famous Arch-bishop of Canterbury (b) De Eucharist conc Boreng Lanfrancus that liued almost six hundred yeares since deliuering his owne and their Verdicts in these words worthy to be noted The Blessed Doctors if not in the same words yet in the same sense haue vnanimously taught in many places that euery man which dissenteth from the Roman and vniuersall Church in Doctrine of fayth is an heretike If therfore the Blessed Doctors those I say whom Protestants with vs acknowledge to haue liued and died in the true sayth and to haue bene members of the Catholike Church and lights of the world haue all agreed in this and these be their expresse Tenents faithfully deliuered in their owne words that whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church is to beheld as an Heretike of peruerse iudgment or as a Schismatike and self-liking presumptuous man That he which standeth out against the See of Rome neither is in the Church nor holds the true fayth That vpon necessity of saluation we ought to remayne as members in our Head the Apostolicall throne of the Bishop of Rome That if we imitate Christ we are as his sheepe to heare his voyce remayning in the Church of Peter That he who opposeth the Chayre of Peter is a Schismatike and a sinner That he agrees not with the Catholike Church That he is a prophane person That he gathereth not but scattereth That he is not of Christ but of Antichrist That he shall perish at the comming of the floud That he perisheth for thirst That a perfidious dissension hath separated him from the Communion of S. Peter That he is an Heretike and Antichrist That he can no way be partaker of the diuine mysteries That he is either Antichrist or a Diuell That in the next world he shall haue the entrance of lyfe shut vnto him That he is guilty of the heresy of the Acephalists That he gainsayth S. Peter the Porter of Heauen That he cannot be admitted into the gate of heauenly paradise That he is an Heretike speaking iniquity against Heauen That he cannot be loosed from the bonds of his sinnes That he either belongs to Antichrist or is Antichrist himself These be the very Tenents of
for if Luther had said nothing els Leo would not haue condemned him And to the same end you corrupt Philiarchus who say you will hâ—ue vs to take head of the heresies of Luther teaching that the Church hath no power to create new articles of fayth That word new is an addition of your owne to Philiarchus his text as his Latin words in your margeÌ„t conuince but what wonder since your worke is a Grand Imposture CHAP. V. That the word Roman is no deprauation but a true declaration of the article of the Catholike Church TO declare which is the catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed we say it is the holy Apostolike Roman Church Against this you (g) Pag. 8. 9. 10. obiect that the word Roman is no true exposition and declaration but a notorious alteration and deprauation of the article of the Catholike Church This you proue with eight seuerall arguments set downe in so many sections SECT I. Your first Argument YOVR first is (h) Pag. 9. that because the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed by the accordance of S. Augustine and other our Diuines comprehendeth both the triumphant and the militant Church the word Roman which caÌ„not be a declaration of the Catholike Church as she is triumphant but only as she is militant can no way be a declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed So you forgetting your selfe for heere you hold that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed comprehendeth both the triumphant Church and the militant but els where contradicting your (i) Pag. 365. selfe you define the Church properly Catholike set downe in the Symbolor Creed of the Apostles to be the Church militant videlicet the multitude of Christian belieuers whensoeuer and wheresoeuer dispersed throughout the world and the congregation of Christians assembled in a generall Synod to be the representatiue body of the Church in the Symbol properly called Catholike From whence it followeth against your selfe that the word Roman may be a true declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed which by your owne definition is the multitude of all Christian belieuers dispersed throughout the world for this definition can no way agree to the Church triumphant where the cleare vision of the diuine essence excludeth fayth but to the militant only consisting of all Christian belieuers And because true Christian beliefe is to be found only in the Roman Church it followeth that the woro Roman is a true declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed 2. Be it that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed taken in her whole latitude comprehendeth both the militant and the triumphant yet in your argument you mistake the state of the question for when we declare the Catholike Church to be the Roman Church we speake not of her taken in her whole latitude but only as she is militant And this you know right well for whiles in this Imposture you so often rayle at vs for holding the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church out of which there is no hope of saluation you sufficiently declare that you know vs to speake of the Catholike Church as she is militant only for she only is in hope of saluation the triumphant already enioyeth it I conclude therfore that your argument is grounded on a wilfull mistake of the question which as you cannot defend without contradicting your selfe so neither without wronging S. Augustine for when he sayth that the Catholike Church comprehendeth both the militant and the triumphant he speaketh of her taken in her whole latitude but that the may and euen in the Apostles Creed be taken for the militant only he expresly declareth in his explication of the same Creed where teaching the Catechumenists which is the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed he (k) De Symb. ad Catechum l. 1. c. 6. sayth We belieue the Catholike Church She is the holy Church one Church the true Church the Catholike Church fighting against all heresies she may be opposed but she caÌ„not be ouerthrowne All heresies are gone eut from her as vnprofitable branches cut of from the Vine but she remaynes in her roote in her Vine in her charity the gates of hell shall neuer ouercome her In these words S. Augustine teacheth the catechumenists to belieue that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed is the Church militant built vpon S. Peters Chayre as vpon a rock against which the gates of hell can not preuaile And the same he declareth when speaking to the Donatists he denounceth vnto them that because they were out of the Roman Church they were out of the Catholike Church and out of the state of Saluation Be yee ingrafted sayth (*) Psal cont part Donati he on the Vine It grieueth vs to see you lye so cut of Number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranke of Fathers who succeeded ech other That is the rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not That Church therfore in which there is a neuer interrupted succession of Bishops from S. Peter is in S. Augustines beliefe the Catholike Church Do not you then abuse S. Augustine producing his authority to proue that the catholike church mentioned in the Creed cannot be the Church militant since he so expresly teacheth the contrary yea and not only that she is the militant Church but in particular that she is the Roman Church built vpon S. Peter and his successors and that whosoeuer is diuided from her is an vnprofitable branch cut of from the Vine which is Christ our Lord and therfore no lesse deuoyd of spirituall life then the dead branch is of naturall SECT II. Your second argument YOur second argument (l) Pag. 10 1â—.12 is grounded on a false principle with is that the Catholike Church in her essentiall state is inuisible We know that the essentiall forme of the Church which is Fayth is inuisible to corporall eyes But the Church as you (m) Pag. 36â— confesse is the multitude of all Christian belieuers whensoeuer and whersoeuer dispersed throughout the world and that the congregation of Christians assembled in a generall Synod is the representatiue body therof Wherfore as it were ridiculous to affirme that a multitude of men ioyned in one Common-wealth or the representatiue body therof assembled in Parliament is essentially inuisible because their soules are inuisible or that Christ liuing on earth was inuisible because his Diuinity was inuisible so it is no lesse ridiculous to affirme that the Church in her essence is inuisible because fayth is inuisible for fayth is not the Church but the essentiall forme of the Church as the soule of man is not man but the essentiall forme of man Man consisteth essentially of body aswell as of soule and by reason of his body he is visible for according to the axiome of Philosophers Actiones passiones sunt
not to remoue it from thence or whether without any commandment from Christ he chose Rome for his See out of his owne free election as he might haue chosen Milan or any other city That he had such a command from Christ is affirmed learnedly proued by (u) De triplici virt Theol. d. 10. sect 3. n. 10. Suarez (x) L. 2. de Pont. c. 12. Bellarmine (y) Institut mor. part 2. l. 4. c. 21. §. Secunda sent Azor and by the greatest part of Catholike Diuines with many forcible testimonies of antiquity According to this opinion which is the more probable pious learnedly proued by Suarez it followeth that the Roman Church euen as Roman is by Diuine institution the See of S. Peter and his Successors and that therfore it is not left free for them to remoue their See from Rome to any other place But to giue you your greatest aduantage be it that S. Peter receaued no such commandment from Christ but that it was free for him to chose for his See either Rome or any other Citty and that his successors may also freely transferre their See from Rome Yet this affoards no help to your cause for though according to this opinion it be no matter of fayth that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman be the Catholike Church yet specificatiuè and absolutely it is for albeit S. Peter might haue placed his See els where yet it is matter of fayth that de facto he placed his See at Rome and that whiles his Successor continueth his See there the Roman Church is de facto the Head Mistresse of all Churches and that whosoeuer is not a member vnited to this Head is out of the Catholike Church This you should haue disproued but wilfully mistake the state of the question and because it is not matter of fayth but of opinion that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman is the Catholike Church you inferre that specificatiuè and absolutely it is not matter of fayth but only of opinion that she is the Catholike Church which is as good a consequence as that an Aethiopian absolutely is not a man because formally as black he is not a man With such arguments you delude ignorant Readers that want learning to discerne your sleights SECT V. Your fifth Argument YOur fifth argument to proue that the Roman Church is not the Catholike Church (z) Pag. 18.19.20 is because there was a Catholike Church which had Apostles Martyrs and Confessors blessed Saints of God before the Roman Church was founded yea and before the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed or the Apostolicall Creed it selfe composed All this though it be granted as true is yet of no force against our Doctrine which is that S. Peter was ordained by Christ Pastor of his whole flocke and therefore Gouernor of the vniuersall Church from whence it followeth that whatsoeuer Apostles Martyrs Confessors or other faythfull liued in the Church of Christ after S. Peter was made Head thereof were members of the vniuersall or Catholike Church subiect to Peter though for a tyme there were no one particular Church which was head of al Churches because S. Peter as yet had not made choyce of any particular seate as afterwards he did at Antioch and therfore the Church of Antioch whiles he sate there was the Head and Mother Church to whom all other Churches were bound to professe vnion and obedience In regard wherof that Holy Pope Innocentius the first greatly commended by S. Augustine (a) Epist. 18. Alexand. Episc Antioch sayth that the See of Antioch had not giuen place to the See of Rome but because what Antioch obtayned only by the way Rome obtayned absolutely and finally To which I adde that if the Successor of S. Peter should now remoue his See from Rome to Milan as S. Peter did from Antioch to Rome not the Church of Rome but that of Milan should be the Catholike Church as the Head and Mother Church of the world But because by the prouidence of God S. Peter fixed his seat left it to his Successors at Rome whiles they continue it there the Roman Church by reason of his See is the Head Mother Church of the world to which sayth (b) L. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus all Churches and all the faythfull from euery place are of necessity to agree by reason of this her more powerfull principality I conclude therfore that you ignorantly or wittingly mistake the state of the question for the Roman Churches being or not being the Catholike Church as the Head and Mother Church of the world no way dependeth on her being founded before or after the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed but vpon being the See in which S. Peter Prince of the Apostles liued and dyed and which he left to his Successors for the Bishop of that See being S. Peters Successor succeedeth him in his supreme authority and that authority maketh the Roman Church the Head of the world which dignity it hath euer enioyed since S. Peter sate there and shall enioy whiles his Successor continueth there which shal be to the end of the world To haue spoken to the purpose you shold haue proued that the Saints which departed this life before the Roman Church was founded were separated from the communion of S. Peter and from the Church of which he was Head which if they had bene they had no more bene Saints then you now are SECT VI. Your sixth Argument YOur sixth Argument is a mere sophisme Al Catholike Diuines accord as in a matter of fayth that the Catholike or vniuersall Church (c) Pag. 20.21.22 mentioned in the Apostles Creed hath a prerogatiue of continuing in the true fayth vntill the end of the world according to Christs promise made to S. Peter Secondly and that the Roman Church whiles the Successors of S. Peter continue their seate at Rome cannot fayle in fayth But that S. Peter fixed his seat at Rome by the commandement of Christ there to remaine to the end of his life and in his Successors to the end of the world although it be a most pious and probable opinion held by the greatest and best part of Diuines yet it is not expresse matter of Fayth because no such precept of Christ appeareth in Scripture or tradition and therfore some Diuines stick not to grant that the fixing of S. Peters See at Rome was a thing proceeding merely from his owne free will and election consequently that it is in the power of his Successors to transport it from Rome to Antioch or any other City In which case as Rome shold not then be the See of S. Peter but Antioch so neither should the Bishop of Rome be the supreme Gouernor of the whole Church nor the Church of Rome the Catholike Church as the Head and mistresse of all others as now
failing in fayth and confirming his brethren was not personall but belonging to his office and descending with it to his Successors for Peter in his owne person was not to liue till the end of the world and therfore not by himselfe but by his Successors to confirme the faythfull vntill the end of the world The same truth is further proued out of an ancient Treatise intituled A dispute between the Church and the Synagogue written by a learned Author aboue 700. yeares since in which it is said (d) Cap. 19. art 4. Christ seemeth to haue defined that the fayth of the Roman Church shall neuer faile saying to Peter I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth faile not for he foresaw that Peter whose fayth he promised shold neuer faile was to be Bishop of the Roman Church and there to end his lyfe by Martyrdome And what I beseech you are we to thinke him to haue signified to vs but that that Church especially whose Bishop Peter the Head of all Churches after Christ was to be shold alwayes remaine in the confession of one true fayth To these I adde the testimony of Georgius Trapezuntius a learned Grecian who explicating the same words of Christ sayth (*) In illud Ioan. Si eum volo manere c. In them two great Mysteries are plainly expressed the first that only the fayth of Peter his Successors that is to say of the Roman Church shall not fayle The other that the fayth of the rest shall sometimes fayle Wherefore sayth Christ thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren He said Once to shew that the Apostles being confirmed with the grace of the Holy Ghost none of them should erre but that their Successors should for whose confirmation Peter that is to say his Successors are commanded to be conuerted which hath byn effectually performed for the rest of the Churches of the world haue byn often confirmed by the Roman but She neuer by others Finally S. Bernard writing to Pope Innocentius and requiring him to condemne the heresies of Abailardus subscribeth to the same exposition saying (e) Ep. 190. It is fit that all dangers scandals arising in the kingdome of God and chiefly those that concerne fayth should be referred to your Apostleship for I thinke it iust that the ruines of fayth shold be repared there where fayth cannot fayle for that is the prerogatiue of your See for to what other was it euer said I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth faile not and therfore what followeth is required from Peters Successor And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren It is tyme therfore most â—ouing Father that you show your zeale repressing the corruptors of â—ayth Out of these testimonies I inferre against you that whatsoeuer Bellarmine in his Controuersies holdeth to the contrary (f) L. 4. de Pont. c. 3. these words of Christ I haue prayed for thee Peter c. containe no priuiledge of Peter peculiar to his person but a publike prerogatiue belonging to his office and descending to his Successors as Bellarmine in a later worke (g) Apol. c. 14. §. Neque solum expresly declareth And therfore though out of them it cannot be proued but that his Successors in their priuate Doctrine or writing may erre and fall into heresy yet it followeth that they neuer shall nor can erre ex cathedra that is iudicially in their Councels Consistories publike decrees or definitions of fayth made for the whole Church for S. Augustine (h) Epist 16â— truly sayth The heauenly Mayster in the chayre of Vnity hath placed the Doctrine of verity and secured his people that for euill Prelates they forsake not the chayre of holsome Doctrine in which chayre euen they that are ill men are inforced to speake good things There is then in the Church a chayre of holsome Doctrine which is not the chaire in which Christ now sitteth in Heauen for in that there sit no ill men nor any other but himselfe Nor is this Chayre the chayre of euery Bishop for euery Bishop is not inforced to speake truth many haue bene heretikes and inuentors of heresies Wherfore S. Augustine himselfe declareth this chayre of Vnity to be that in which sitteth one Pastor in whom all Pastors of the earth are one I find sayth he (i) L. de Pastor c. 13. all good Pastors in one for surely good Pastors are not wanting but they are in one They that are diuided are many here one is praysed because vnity is commended This one chayre is none els but that of S. Peter There is one chayre sayth S. Cyprian (k) L. 1. ep 8. founded vpon the Rock by the voyce of our Lord. and againe (l) Lib. de Vnit Eccles Christ to manifest vnity constituted one chayre and ordained the originall of this vnity beginning from one giuing the primacy to Peter that so one Church of Christ and one chayre might be manifested c. He that keeps not this vnity doth he thinke himselfe to hold the fayth In the Episcopall chayre sayth Optatus (m) L. 2. contra Parmen was set Peter the Head of all the Apostles to the end that in this only chayre vnity might be preserued to all From this priuiledge obtayned by Christ for S. Peter his chayre it proceedeth that the ancient Fathers haue not doubted to belieue and teach the infallibility of the Roman Church in matters of fayth as also from other grounds of Scripture to be declared hereafter S. Cyprian speaking against the Nouatians sayth (n) L. 1. Ep. 3. They presumed to carry letters from Schismatikes and heretikes to the chayre of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praysed by the mouth of the Apostle and to whom misbeliefe can haue no accesse S. Basil writeth to Damasus Pope (o) Epist. 69. per Sabinum Diac. Surely that which is giuen by our Lord to your Holynesse is worthy of that most excellent voyce which proclamed you Blessed to wit that you may discerne betweene what is counterfeit and what is lawfull and pure and that you may without any diminution preach the fayth of our ancestors S. Ambrose writeth to Siricius Pope (p) L. 10. ep 31. Whom your Holinesse hath condemned know that we also hold them condemned according to your iudgment S. Hierome sayth to Ruffinus (q) L. 1. Apol aduers Ruffin Know thou that the Roman fayth commended by the voyce of the Apostle admitteth no such delusions and that being fensed by S. Pauls authority it cannot be altered though an Angell should teach otherwise S. Augustine writing against the Pelagians and hauing professed that the Bishop of Rome hath from the holy Scriptures authority to declare the true fayth and condemne heresies addeth (r) Epist 157. The Catholike fayth expressed in these words of the Apostolike See is so ancient so grounded so certaine
cleare that it is great impiety for a Christian to doubt therof S. Fulgentius sayth (s) De incarnat grat c. 11. that what the Roman Church teacheth the Christian world without hesitation belieues to iustice and doubts not to confesse to saluation S. Peter surnamed Chrysologus exhorteth Eutyches the arch-heretike thus (t) Ep. ad Eutych prafixa Act is Concil Chalced. We exhort thee reuerend brother to lend an obedient eare to the letters of the most holy Pope of the Citty of Rome for as much as the blessed Peter who liues and rules in his owne seate exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it I omit other testimonies no lesse cleare of S. Cyrill of Iohn and Maximianus Patriarkes of Constantinople of Venerable Bede S. Maximus Martyr Theodorus Studites Rabanus and others formerly alleaged (*) Chap. 1. sect 4. From this infallibility of the Roman Church it proceeded that the ancient Fathers and Councels for the decision of all doubts of fayth had euer recourse to the See of Rome and that many learned and holy Doctors haue sent their writings to the Popes of their tyme to be examined by them and approued if their Doctrine were found to be Orthodoxall or reproued if it were erroneous So did S. Augustine to Zozimus the 4. Primates of Africa to Theodorus the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to Innocentius S. Cyril to Celestine Theodoret and the Councell of Chalcedon to Leo the great S. Anselme to Vrbanus S. Bernard to Innocentius Other particulars I omit hauing dwelled long in this point already SECT II. Our second Argument AN other place of Scripture wherwith we proue the Roman Churches indefectibility in fayth are the words of Christ Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I wil build my Church the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it By the gates of hell Origen S. Epiphanius S. Hierome S. Cyril Rabanus and all other expositors vnderstand Heresies and Arch-heretikes by whom as by gates men descend into hell And contrarily by Rock they vnderstand S. Peter and his Successors in the Roman See against which heresies and whatsoeuer persecutions raised by them haue no more power to preuaile then the furious waues of raging tempests against a Rock firmely seated in the middest of the sea They may beate and breake themselues against it but destroy it they cannot And so experience teacheth for howbeit the Heathnish persecutors and other enemies of Christ haue tried their forces against it and all the other Patriarchall Sees haue fallen into heresy yet against the Roman Church God protecting it no persecutions no errors haue preuailed nor euer shall preuaile for she sayth S. Augustine (u) Psal cont part Donati is the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not Neither against the Rockon which Christ builded his Church sayth Origen (x) Tract 1. in Math. nor against the Church it selfe the gates of hell shall preuaile Vpon this Rock sayth S. Hierome (y) Ep. 57. speaking of the Roman See to Damasus I know the Church to be built he that gathereth els where scattereth Our Lord sayth S. Epiphanius (z) In Ancorato made Peter the chiefe of the Apostles a strong Rock vpon whom the Church of God is built and the gates of hell which are heresies and Arch-heretikes shall not preuaile against it for the fayth is euery way fortified in him S. Chrysostome sayth (a) Hom. 55. in Math. Our Sauiour promised to Peter power to forgiue sinnes that the Church hauing for her Pastor and Head a poore fisherman shold amongst the assalts of so many raging flouds remaine immoueable and more firmely fixed and setled then the strongest Rock S. Cyril explicating the same words of our Sauiour sayth (b) Apud S. Thom. in Catena ad c. 16. Math. According to this promise of our Lord the Apostolicall Church of Peter perseuereth in her Bishops pure and free from all seduction and circumuention aboue all Prelates and Bishops and aboue all Primates of Churches and people in the fayth and authority of Peter And wheras other Churches haue bene stayned with the errors of some she alone remaines established firmely and vnconquerably silencing and stopping the mouthes of all heretikes Possessor a famous African Bishop and banished by the Arians consulting Hormisdas Pope about the Doctrine of Faustus Rhegiensis yeldeth this reason (c) Extat Epistola apud Baron Anno 520. It is expedient to haue recourse to the head as often as the health of the members is treated of for who hath a more solicitous care of his subiects or from whom is the resolution of fayth when it is questioned to be required but from the President of that See whose first Rector heard from Christ Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it S. Leo the great (d) Serm. 2. de sua assump The solidity of that fayth which was praysed in the prince of the Apostles is perpetuall and as that remaines which Peter belieued so remaineth that also which Christ instituted in Peter Wherfore the disposition of truth remaineth and Peter perseuering in the strength of a Rock hath not left the gouerment of the Church which he once vndertooke S. Maximianus an ancient Patriarke of Constantinople higly commended by Celestine Pope (e) Ep. ad Theodosium and others (f) Apud Spond anno 431. n. 22. writeth to the Orientalls All the bounds of the earth haue sincerely acknowledged our Lord and Catholikes throughout the whole world professing the true fayth looke vpon the power of the B. of Rome as vpon the Sunne And then speaking of the reward which our Sauiour gaue to Peter for that excellent confession of his fayth he addeth For the Creator of the world amongst all men of the world chose S. Peter to whome he gaue the chayre of Doctor to be principally possessed by a perpetuall right of priuiledge to the end that whosoeuer is desirous to know any diuine and profound thing may haue recourse to the oracle and doctrine of this instruction Iustinian the Emperor maketh this profession of his fayth to Bonifacius Pope (g) Extat inter decreta Bonif. Papae The beginning of saluation is to conserue the rule of right fayth no way to swarue from the tradition of our fore-Fathers because the words of our Lord cannot faile saying Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock c. And the proofes of deeds haue made good those words because in the See Apostolike the Catholike Religion is always conserued inuiolable And the same profession was made by Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to Hormisdas Pope (h) In epist ad Hormisd abiuring the memory of all such as dye out of the Communion of the Roman Church or agree not in all things fully with her S. Gregory (i) L. 6. ep 37. Who knoweth not that the holy Church is strengthned by
so but that all the other Apostles had likewise authority to preach vnto them both But you oppose (c) Pag. 59. that S. Ambrose (d) In Gal. 2â— from hence cellecteth two different Primacies the one of Peter and the other of Paul S. Ambroses words are As Paul receaued a primacy of founding Churches among the Gentiles so Peter had the primacy of founding the Church a dignity farre greater then to preach and found Churches among the Gentils and that implieth the subiection of S. Paul and all other Prelates of the Church vnto him 2. You say (e) Pag. 59. Chrysostome argueth from these words of S. Paul that both he and Peter had the same dignity and Oecumenius wisheth his reader to obserue that Paul herein equalled himselfe to Peter I answeare The false Apostles excepted against S. Pauls Doctrine and authority to preach because he had not conuersed with Christ nor bin trayned vp in his schole before his passion as the other Apostles had and by that meanes seduced some of the Galathians as it appeares out of the first Chapter of his epistle to them Wherfore in the second Chapter he certifies them that he went to Hierusalem to conferre his Ghospell with the chiefe knowne Apostles and was receaued by them into their society as being an Apostle no lesse then they were and one that had learned his Doctrine by reuelation and receaued his authority to preach from the same mayster that taught and authorized them And herein only S. Chrysostome and Oecumenius say that S. Paul is equall to the rest compares himselfe to Peter the chiefest of them for sayth Oecumenius (f) In cap. 2 ad Gal. though he speake this of Peter praedicationis causa to authorize his owne Doctrine with the Galathians yet he respecteth and honoreth Peter farre aboue himselfe that is to say as Head of the Apostles for so he had called him a little before and (g) Ad c. 1. Act. As one to whom the gouerment of the Disciples was committed and that had power to command them all And how cold S. Chrysostome meane any other thing he that said (h) In c. 2. ad Gal. hom 87 in Ioan. Paul went to Peter as to one greater then himselfe as to the mouth and Prince of the Apostles and Head of the whole company that in matters belonging to authority Paul giues the primacy to Peter (i) Hom. 35. in c. 14.1 ad Cor. that Peter surpassed the rest of the Apostles in authority by many degrees (k) L. 2. de Saâ—ord that he was chiefe of the Apostles had the whole world subiect to him (l) Orat. 5. aduers Iudaeot that Christ deliuered to him the gouermeÌ„t of the Church throughout the whole world (m) Hom 80. ad Antioch the charge of feeding those sheep which he had redeemed with his bloud (n) L. 2. de Sacord 3. You obiect (o) Pag. 61. S. Gregory saying Paul was made the Head of Nations and obtayned the principality of the whole Church S. Paul I grant obtayned the principality of the whole Church as the rest of the Apostles did because they were all Princes ouer the whole Church as S. Hierome and others collect out of those words of the Psalme (p) Psal 44.17 Thou shalt make them Princes ouer all the earth And this is the principality which S. Chrysostome declared S. Paul to haue (q) Hom. 18. in epist ad Rom when he said all preaching the affayres of the world all mysteries and all dispensations were committed to him But this argueth not that the Princedome and authority of S. Paul or the other Apostles was independant and without subordination to S. Peter for as S. Hierome (r) In psal 44. obserueth The Church hath Bishops insteed of the Apostles and as their Successors in their Episcopall authority which therfore in that respect are Peers and Princes of the Church yet not without due subordination for all Bishops are subiect to the Pope and so were Paul and the other Apostles to Peter And this S. Gregory himselfe to shew your imposture in obiecting him for the contrary declareth saying (s) L. 4. ep 38. Peter the Apostle is the chiefe member of the holy and vniuersall Church Paul Andrew Iohn what are they but Heads of seuerall flocks SECT IV. Other arguments of Doctor Morton answeared IN prosecution of the same matter you obiect (m) Pag. 62.63.64 that Paul named Iames before Peter saying Iames Cephas and Iohn wherby you will haue Paul to mate and equall Iames Iohn with Peter for it had bene ill manners in him to name Iames before Peter if Peter had bene Iames his Superior as it would be thought ill manners in a Catalogue of Bishops to reckon the Bishop of Colen before the Pope You argue from an vncertaine ground for S. Chrysostome in his commentary S. Ambrose and S. Hierome both in the text and commentary read Peter Iames and Iohn and so likewise doth S. Hieromâ— in other his workes (n) Contrâ— Heliud l. de Scriptor Eccles in Paulo It is therfore credible that S. Paul in naming them obserued the same order but if he named them otherwise it is no argument to proue that he equalled Iames in authority with Peter first because as S. Chrysostome (o) In cap. 1. ep ad Gal. noteth S. Paul in that very Epistle professeth himselfe to yeld greater honor to Peter and shew more loue to him then to the rest in saying that he went vp to Hierusalem not for any of them but for his sake alone 2. because ascending by gradation he placeth Peter aboue himselfe and next vnto Christ I am Paules and I Apolloes but I of Cephas and I of Christ 3. If it be true that he named Iames before Peter he did it not to equall them in authority and much lesse to preferre Iames before Peter but in regard of the priority of the knowledge which Iames receaued of the great grace giuen to Paul for when he came the first tyme to Hierusalem to giue the Apostles notice of his calling and of the great fruit of his labors he found none of them there but Iames. Put now the like case and it will neither be ill manners nor any derogation to the Popes authority to name him after the Bishop of Colen or of Milan 4. Because it is certaine that in all other places of the new Testament in which there is a Catalogue of all the Apostles in generall or of some in particular Peter is still named in the first place and if here as you say he is named before Peter because he was Bishop of Hierusalem it is no argument to proue him Superior or equall in authority to Peter S. Bernard (q) Serm. 3. de 7. misericord fragm nameth Paul Mathew before Peter and yet in that very place expresly sayth that the Pastorall care of the whole Church was committed to
the See Apostolike is made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world Why did the Bishops of the East say to Pope Symmachus (t) In volum Orthodoxograph impres Basileae You are taught dayly by Peter your sacred Doctor to feed the flock of Christ which is committed to you throughout the whole world Why did Amator an African Bishop write to Siluerius Pope in banishment (u) Ep. ad Siluer What do you thinke becomes of vs when such things are done to the chiefe Pastor Why did that Emperor Leo surnamed the wise say (x) Serm. de S Petro. that Christ made Peter Prince of Pastors and required of him the care of feeding his flock as a returne of his loue Why did the Emperor Constantine Pogonate and the sixth Councel generall call Agatho the vniuersall Arch-pastor (y) Ep. ad synod Apost in ◠synodo Act. 18. You say they to the Councell of the West and the vniuersall Arch-pastor by your procurators haue bene present at our Councell Why did the second generall Councell of Lions (z) Sext. decret C. Vbi peric call Gregory the tenth Gouernor of the vniuersall Church and guyde of our Lords flock And finally why did S. Bernard (a) L. 2. de considerat say to Eugenius Pope To you are committed the sheep not of one City or countrey but all the sheep of Christ without exception What thinke you M. Doctor These Fathers and Councels found the Pope among the Pastors reckoned by S. Paul and beleeued him to be the Arch-pastor and Pastor of all Pastors vnder Christ but you that shut your eyes against the light cold not discerne him The same I say of the name and title of Doctor which all antiquity hath acknowledged to be due to S. Peter and in him to his Successors S. Hypolitus Martyr sayth (b) Orat de consummat mundi Peter the Prince the Rock of fayth he the Doctor of the Church the chiefe of the Disciples S. Chrysostome calleth him (c) Orat. Encom in Pet. ac Paul Doctor of the Apostles and Mayster of the world And the Councell of Florence (d) In lit vnion with the accord both of the Latin and Greeke Church defineth the Bishop of Rome to be The Successor of blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles the true Vicar of Christ the Head of the whole Church the Father and Doctor of all Christians Nor doth this title agree to him as it doth to others but in a far more noble and excellent manner for S. Augustine speaking of his Chayre sayth (e) Ep. 160. The heauenly Mayster hath placed in the Chayre of Vnity the Doctrine of verity To you sayth S. Basil to Damasus Pope (f) Ep. 69. per Sabin Diac it is giuen by our Sauiour to discerne betweene what is counterfiete and what is pure and without any diminution to teach the fayth of our Ancestors And S. Hierome (g) L. 1. Apol. aduers Ruffin That though an Angell should preach otherwise then the Roman Church teacheth he were not to be beleeued Wherof Maximianus Patriarke of Constantinople yeldeth the reason saying (h) Ep. ad Oriental The Creator of the world among all the men of the world selected S. Peter to whom he granted the Chayre of Doctor to be principally possessed by a perpetuall right of priuiledge that whosoeuer is desirous to know any profound and diuine thing may haue recourse to the oracle and Doctrine of this instruction Nor is there any man that can deny this truth if he credit the auncient Fathers teaching that the priuiledge giuen to S. Peter of confirming his Brethren did not dye with him but was in him grāted to his Successors In regard wherof the Councels haue sent their decrees to the Pope to be cōfirmed by him S. Hierome S. Augustine Theodoret S. Cyril Venerable Bede S. Anselme S. Bernard and many other of the most learned Doctors of Gods Church haue submitted their writings to the seuerall Popes of their tymes to be examined approued or reproued according to their iudgment SECT IV. Doctor Mortons rayling against the Inquisition YOu obiect (i) Pag. 83. 84 that S. Peter as an Elder exhorteth the Elders or Bishops feede the flock of God not dominiering ouer Gods heritage What may be inferred from hence say you we may vnderstand in your second Challenge But you must giue vs leaue not to learne the sense of this Scripture from your Challenge but from the Ancient Doctors of Gods Church who out of it shew that S. Peter had practised the authority of Supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church But because S. Peter writing to Bishops commanded them not to dominiere in the Clergy (k) See aboue Chap. 9. fin you take occasion to raile against the Romish Inquisition first by making a relation of your owne (l) Pag. 85. no lesse false then spitefull of imprisonment famishment torment and ropes to strangle prisoners and all in tenebris workes of darknesse employed against all beleeuers receyuers defenders and fauorers of heretikes And to this your relation you add another like of Cornelius Agrippa (m) Ibid. whom you know to be a Magician an heretike and a forbidden author and yet you are not ashamed to call his lyes Our Confession And to the same purpose you bring Thuanus (n) Ibid. whom we owne not but bequeath him to you as one who by praysing the Huguenots and theyr Doctrine and by speaking against the Pope and Church of Rome sufficiently declareth what he is Now as for the thing it selfe who seeth not the absurdity of your argument which reduced to a few words is The inquisition is seuere in punishing heretikes especially such as hauing abiured their heresy before a Iudge relapse into the same againe and are in danger to infect others Ergo saluation may behad out of the Roman Church or Ergo it is lawfull to depart from her fayth communion or Ergo the Roman Church is not the Head of all Churches for these are the poynts in proofe wherof your grand Imposture wholly insisteth That you know all these illations to be absurd t' is not to be doubted but you are contented that men of learning and iudgment should know you to be absurd so that therby you may make the Roman Church hatefull to simple soules that want learning and iudgment to discerne your Impostures That Iews Mahumetans and Heretikes hate the Inquisition t' is no wonder Malefactors hate their Iudges theeues the gallowes How sayth S. Augustine (o) Ep. 166. can he that hath an ill suite prayse the Iudges by whom he hath bene conuicted And els where (p) Tract 11. in Ioan. ep 48. 50. he declareth that as they which blasphemed the God of Sidrach Misach and Abdenago were iustly punished by the Edict of Nabuchodonosor so heretikes because they draw men from Christ are in like manner iustly punished according to the lawes made against
the vniuersall Church hauing no right therunto A most vngodly comparison for these two Popes were of the most holy learned and renowned Prelates that euer sate in the Chayre of S. Peter since his tyme whose sanctity God hath testified with most illustrious miracles and whom all posterity hath iustly honored with the surname of Great S. Leo is he that with great care and vigilancy suppressed the Manichees that came flying out of the Africa to Rome other places of Italy that vsed singular industry to roote out the Donatists in Africa the Pelagians in France the Priscilianists in Spaine writing to the Bishops of greatest learning and fame that were then liuing in those Countries to be watchfull and assemble Councells for the condemning and extirpating those heresies and like wise he himselfe against the errors of Nestorius Eutyches Dioscorus assembled in the East that famous Councell of 630. Bishops at Chalcedon who all acknowledged him to be their Head and themselues his members and children and that to him the gouerment of the Church was committed by our Sauiour (k) In relat ad Leon. and who esteemed his words as the words of S. Peter and his iudgments as oracles of God crying out all which one voyce (l) Act. 1. Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo Leo hath iudged the iudgment of God Nor was S. Gregory of lesse renowne for to omit the admirable humility wherwith he refused the dignity of supreme Pastor the conuersion of our English nation and other great workes which he performed for the good of the Church the excellent bookes he writ for which he hath deserued the title of Doctor of the Church and the many famous miracles wherwith God declared his sanctity who is ignorant of the admirable Elogies wherwith ancient writers haue celebrated his prayses Among others that famous Archbishop of Toledo and Primate of Spayne S. Hildephonsus writeth of him (m) In lib. de viris illust that in sanctity he surpassed Antony in eloquence Cyprian in wisdome Augustine by the grace of the holy Ghost was endowed with so great light of humane science that in former ages none had bene equall vnto him And Petrus Diaconus testifieth (n) Vit. S. Greg. that he saw the holy Ghost in forme of a doue at his care inspiring him whiles he was writing which alone might haue made you forbeare the traducing of so admirable a man But returning to our question this very euasion of yours to wit that the testimonies of Popes are no sufficient argument to conclude a Papall authority because they speake in their owne cause sufficiently conuinceth that you know them to haue acknowledged such authority in themselues and that when you deny it you speake without all ground of truth for who can think that S. Leo S. Gregory and many other Popes renowned Martyrs and glorious Confessors most eminent in humility and all kind of vertue and to whose sanctity God added the seale of diuine miracles should with a Luciferian pride arrogate to themselues Pastorall authority power ouer the Church of God throughout the whole world if that dignity had not bene giuen by Christ to S. Peter and in him to them I deny therfore that when they maintayne their authority they speake in their owne cause They speake in the cause of God as witnes your selfe (o) Pag. 4◠S. Paul did when he said (p) Rom. 11. I will magnify myne office in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentiles And the like did S. Gregory when vpon that text he collected a generall lesson for the defence of his owne iurisdiction against such as you are saying (q) L. 4. ep 36. The Apostle teacheth vs so to carry humility in our hart that we do keep and preserue the dignity of that order wherunto we are called Wherfore as if a Vice-Roy should defend maintaine the dignity of his place for the seruice of the King his Maister and the repression of seditious persons he that should oppose him and resist his authority vnder color that he speaketh in his owne cause would be accounted no better then a rebell so no other reckoning is to be made of him that reiects the testimonies of Popes the Vicars and Lieutenants of Christ on earth because they defend their authority for they do it to defend the honor of Christ their Maister to magnify their office with S. Paul and with S. Gregory to preserue the dignity of that order wherunto they are called which dignity S. Augustine (r) Ep. 92. and the whole Councell of Mileuis acknowledge to be taken out of the authority of holy Scriptures But here by the way I desire to be resolued of a doubt You confesse (s) Pag. 301. that power of appeales if it be right and proper is a most certaine argument of dominion Againe you cōfesse (t) Pag. 303. marg fin n. 8. that S. Gregory excommunicated Iohn a Greeke Bishop of the first Iustinianaea because he had presumed to iudge Adrian Bishop of Thebes after he had appealed to the See Apostolike which conuinceth S. Gregory to haue belieued that the Bishops of the Greeke Church might lawfully appeale from their owne Metropolitans and from their Patriarke of Constantinople to the See Apostolike that the same See had true and proper right to admit their appeales and re-iudge their causes which it could not haue if the Pope had not true proper authority ouer the Greeke Church How then can you deny that S. Gregory belieued himselfe to haue that authority or that he practised the same Yea that he had power and iurisdiction not only ouer the Greeke Church but also ouer the vniuersall Church practised the same is a thing so certaine that your Protestant brethren Friccius Peter Martyr Carion Philippus Nicolai the Centurists and Osiander (u) Apud Brier Protest Apol. Tract 1. sect 7. subdiu 9. à n. 11. ad 29. shew out of his writings these particulars That the Roman Church appointeth her watch ouer the whole world that the Apostolike See is the Head of all Churches that the Bishop of Constantinople is subiect to the Apostolike See that S. Gregory challenged to himselfe power to command Arch-bishops to ordayne or depose Bishops that he assumed to himselfe right for citing Arch-bishops to declare their causes before him when they were accused and also to excommunicate depose them giuing commission to their neighbour Bishops to proceed against them that in their prouinces he placed his Legates to examine and end the causes of such as appealed to the Roman See that he vsurped power of appointing Synods in their prouinces and required Arch-bishops that if any cause of great importance happened they should referre the same to him appointing in prouinces his Vicars ouer the Churches to end smaller matters and to reserue the greater causes to himselfe All this is testified by your owne brethren to which Doctor Sanders
(x) Visib Monarch l. 7. à n. 433. ad 541. addeth much more of the same kind out of S. Gregories owne workes and in his owne words as that the See Apostolike by the authority of God is preferred before all Churches That all Bishops if any fault be found in them are subiect to the See Apostolike That she is the Head of fayth of all the faythfull members That if any of the foure Patriarkes had done against the Popesletters that which was done by the Bishop Salona so great a disobedience could not haue passed without a most grieuous scandall That the See Apostolike is the head of all Churches That the Roman Church by the words which Christ spake to Peter was made the Head of all Churches That no scruple nor doubt ought to be made of the fayth of the See Apostolike that all those things are false which are taught contrary to the Doctrine of the Roman Church That to returne from Schisme to the Catholike Church is to returne to the communion of the Bishop of Rome That he which will not haue S. Peter to whom the keyes of heauen were committed to shut him out from the entrance of lyfe must not in this world be separated from his See That they are peruerse men which refuse to obey the commands of the See Apostolike I conclude therfore with Doctor Sanders that he which readeth all these particulars and more of the same kinde that are to be found in the workes of S. Gregory and yet with a brasen forehead feareth not to interpret that which he writ against the name of Vniuersall Bishop so as if he could not abide that any one Bishop should haue the chiefe seate and supreme gouerment of the whole militant Church that man sayth he seemes to me either to haue cast of all vnderstanding and sense of a man or els to haue put on the obstinat peruersnesse of the Diuell How comes it then to passe that you are not ashamed to vrge here and els where so often in this your grand Imposture S. Gregories refusing the name of vniuersall Bishop as an argument to disproue his authority and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church especially since it hath bene so often and so fully answered by vs But because here you insist so much theron I will for the readers satisfaction briefly declare in what sense Pelagius and S. Gregory refused that title and how to better your argument you abuse and falsify our Authors The title of Vniuersalis Episcopus Vniuersall Bishop may be taken two wayes first for a Bishop that challengeth an vniuersall power ouer all other Bishops clayming to himselfe a right of hearing and determing all Ecclesiasticall causes in his owne and their Diocesses leauing them no other right to exercise any Episcopall iurisdiction power but only such as they shall receaue frō him as his Vicars In this sense S. Gregory conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to stile himselfe Vniuersall Bishop as it appeareth out of his plaine and expresse words in diuers of his Epistles (z) L. 4. ep 32.34 36.38 l. 7. ep 70. to which the margent will direct you And in this sense he calleth the name of vniuersall Bishop A prophane and Antichristian title 2. It may be taken in the same signification with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae so that it signify a Bishop to whom belongeth the gouerment of the vniuersall Church and the determining of all such causes as appertaine to her in generall without taking away or hindering the ordinary power and right of other Bishops and leauing each of them in their seuerall places degrees with full power and authority to iudge and determine all Causes Ecclesiasticall belonging to their Diocesses and within them In this sense the tytle of Vniuersall Bishop is not condemned by S. Gregory as new or prophane or any way vnlawfull but agreeth to the Pope no lesse then the title of Bishop of the vniuersall Church And therfore as S. Gregory (a) Ep. ad omnes Episc stileth himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church so likewise when Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria writing to him (b) L. 4. ep 36. gaue him the title of vniuersall Bishop he acknowledged (c) L. 4. ep 36. that in this sense he might lawfully accept therof and that the Councell of Chalcedon and the following Fathers had giuen it to his predecessors But yet he refused it out of his great humility as also he denied himselfe to be a Priest (d) L. 4. ep 31. and as S. Paul called himselfe the greatest of sinners (e) 1. Tim. 1.15 and thought himselfe vnworthy to be called Apostle (f) 1. Cor. 15. ◠And chiefly lest he might be thought to accept of it in the former sense vnlawfull iniurious to other Bishops in which he conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to vsurpe it And finally that therby he might better represse his insolency This doctrine is deliuered by Baronius and Bellarmine of whom because they declare Vniuersalis Episcopus in this second sense to be all one with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae you say (g) Pag. 94. They would gladly confound these two titles therby to proue their Popes to be proper Monarkes ouer the whole Church because some predecessors of S. Gregory haue bene called Bishops of the vniuersall Church which is their peruerse error refuted by one of their learned Iesuits But you must pardon me if I tell you that this is a shamefull vntruth for Baronius and Bellarmine deliuer the same double acception of Vniuersalis Episcopus which I haue declared and likewise affirme that in one of them it may be attributed to the Pope but not in the other which is not to confound but to distinguish that confusion and mistake may be auoyded And the thing it selfe is euident for if the title of Vniuersalis Episcopus might not be taken in a sense vnlawfull S. Gregory would not haue condemned it in Iohn of Constantinople as a new prophane Antichristian title And againe if it might not be taken in a sense lawfull neither the Councell of Chalcedon nor the following Fathers (h) Apud S. Greg. l. 4. ep 36. would haue giuen it to the Bishops of Rome The former sense is vnlawfull because it taketh away all ordinary power and iurisdiction due to other Bishops in their Diocesses The second is lawfull because it leaueth to them their ordinary power and iurisdiction From whence it followeth that as S. Gregory in this second sense did instile himselfe Episcopum Vniuersalis Ecclesiae (i) Ep. ad omnes Episcop so if Vniuersalis Episcopus be taken in the same sense it is also lawfull and due to the Bishops of Rome and in this sense he taketh it when he sayth that the Councell of Chalcedon and the following Fathers gaue it to his predecessors But the former sense he condemned as prophane and Antichristian reprehended in Iohn of Constantinople And Salmeron for
ruleth the whole body And therfore your answere is no lesse contrary to reason then if you should tell vs that in a politicall body as in a Colledge the Rector which is Head of the house hath no other superiority ouer his fellow-Collegials but only priority of place or of voyce nor the Gouernor of a City ouer the Citizens nor the Vice-Roy ouer the inferior officers of the kingdome And so much the more reprehēsible is this your sophistry because you know that the holy Councell of Chalcedon speaking to Leo Pope sayth (z) Inrelat ad Leon. You rule ouer vs as the Head doth ouer the members And (a) Ibide We beseech you to honor our iudgment with your decrees and that as in what concernes the weale we haue had correspondency to our Head so your Soueraignty would fulfill to your Children what concernes decency Do not these Fathers here expresly acknowledge Leo to be the ruler and Gouernor of the Vniuersall Church and beseech him to confirme and authorize their decrees If he had not power and authority ouer the whole Church why did S. Ambrose one of the Bishops to whom these Orientals addressed their letter as the inscription (b) Apud Theodoret. l. 5. hist c. 9. declareth speaking of this very Pope Damasus say (c) In cap. 3. prior ad Timoth Though all the world be Gods yet the Church is called his house wherof at this day Damasus is Gouernor If the Pope haue not iurisdiction ouer all Bishops euen the greatest Patriarkes of the East and power to annuall their decrees and the decrees of their Councells why did S. Chrysostome (d) Ep. 1. ad Innocent when he was deposed from the See of Constantinople in a Councell held by Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria write to Innocentius Pope beseeching him to annull the Acts of that Councell and punish them that had so iniustly condemned him Why did Theodoret Bishop of Cyre deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus appeale to Pope Leo (e) Ep. ad Renat ep ad Leo. acknowledging that the holy Roman See hath the sterne of gouernment ouer all the Churches of the world If the rule and gouerment of the vniuersall Church belong not to the Pope why did the Bishop of Patara in Lycia vpon the expulsion of Pope Siluerius from his See (f) Liberat. in Breui c. 12. represent vnto Iustinian the indignity of that fact saying that albeit there be many Kings and Princes in the world yet none of them ouer all the earth as the Pope is ouer the Church of all the world If the gouerment of the vniuersall Church belong not to him why did the Emperor Valentinian the third (g) Cod. l. 7. 8. instile him Rector of the vniuersaloty of Churches Why doth the same Emperor and Theodosius decree (h) Constit. Nouel tit 24. that all those things shall be lawes which haue beue or shall be ordayned by the Pope of the eternall Citty and that presumption attempt nothing against his authority for so say thoy the peace of the Church shall be maintayned by all if the vniuersality acknowledge her Rector If the Pope haue no superiority ouer other Bishops but only priority of place or of voyce why did Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria Paul of Constantinople with many others of the East in their wrongs appeale to Iulius Pope as to their Iudge (i) Socrat. l. 2. c. 11. how came he to replace them in their seates but (k) Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. by the soueraignty of his Church and (l) Nicepho l. 9. c. 8. because the charge of all belonged to him But to returne to the Councell of Constantinople Those Fathers in their letter to Damasus made sufficient acknowledgment of his authority ouer them (m) Apud Theodoret. l 5. c. 9. when they demanded from him the confirmation of their decrees of fayth and in particular that of the deposition of Timothy Patriarke of Alexandria condemned for heresy All these things say they being lawfully decreed according to the Canons of the Church we beseech your Holiness to approue them To which petition Damasus answeared (n) Apud Theodoret. ibid. c. 10. Wheras your charity most honoured children yeldeth due reuerence to the Apostolike See it shall turne you to great honor c. But what need was there to require from one the deposition of Timothy seeing he was long since deposed here with his Maister Apollinarius by the iudgment of the See Apostolike and in the presence of Peter Bishop of Alexandria SECT III. Whether the name of Brother Colleague and fellow-Minister which the Pope giueth to other Bishops and they to him argue them to be of equall authority and iurisdiction with him YOu obiect (o) Pag 110.111 that the Fathers of this second Councell generall write not to the Pope alone but to him with other Bishops of the Roman Synod whome they acknowledge to be their Colleagues and fellow members and therby cut the Roman Head into so many peeces as there were Bishops to whom they inscribed their Epistle It is a prime Argument of yours which you often repeate and strongly insist on (p) Pag 63. fin 64.83.84.110.111.116.141.268 that because Bishops are ioyned in society with the Pope or because they call him Brother Colleague and fellow-Minister as also because he writing to them calleth them his Brethren Colleagues there is no inequality of power betweene the Pope and them but that they are all equall with him Whiles you giue to the Pope say you (q) Pag. 63. fin 64. an absolute iurisdiction cum plenitudine potestatis ouer all Bishops how can you suffer him to be mated or equaled with others Bishops as Paul did Peter by ioyning in society with him Iames and Iohn 2. Here (r) Pag. 110.111 you inferre that because the Orientall Bishops that had bene present at the second Councell generall writing to Damasus Pope and other Bishops assembled at Rome call both him and them their Brethren and Colleagues they acknowledge not any authority or iurisdiction in the Pope more then in themselues or in the other Bishops to whom they write 3. You frame the like Argument (s) Pag. 116. out of the Councell of Ephesus because it calles Celestine B. of Rome Fellow-Minister 4. And out of S. Epiphanius (t) Pag. 241. who called Pope Hormisdas Brother 5. And out of S. Cyprian you tell vs (u) Pag. 268. that he neuer calleth the Pope Bishop of Bishops Father of Fathers High Priest of Christ and Monarke of the vniuersall Church as he would haue done if he had belieued his Monarchy but contrariwise in all his Epistles saluteth Pope Cornelius with only Charissime frater Most deare Brother taketh his Vale with the same Most deare brother farewell And when in his Epistles to others he falleth into mention of him he exceedeth not these Epithets Ourfellow brother Cornelius Our Colleague or fellow
blessed memory as of all our predecessers we command your Dilection to keepe so that if any one contemne them he may know that pardon shall be denied him And to the Bishops of Maurirania (i) Ep. 8â— We command that the cause of Lupicinus Bishop be heard there whom we haue restored to our communion he himselfe earnestly and often desiring it These few testimonies of holy and renowned Popes that liued before S. Gregory are sufficient to shew how ignorantly you affirme that it was not the style of Popes in the ancient and primitiue tymes to Command And as the ancient Popes commanded when it was necessary for them to shew their authority so the Bishops euen the greatest Patriarkes acknowledged in them authority to command and in themselues subiection and obligation to obey For did not S. Athanasius vpon Pope Iulius his citation obey taking his iourney from Aegypt to Rome (k) Theoder l. 2. hist c. 4. and doth he not professe his subiection to Marcus Pope (l) Ep. ad Marc. when he sayth We are yours and with all that are committed to our charge are and will euer be obedient to you And do not the African Fathers writing to Bonifacius Pope promise to obey his Mandates vntill a more diligent inquisition of the Nicen Canons And do not the Fathers of the Mileuitan Councell beseech Innocentius the first to shew his authority against the Pelagians Many say they (m) Ep. ad Innocent oppose against them in defence of Grace and the truth of the Catholike fayth c. But we belieue that with the helpe of the mercy of our Lord Iesus Christ they that hold these opinions so peruerse and pernicious will more easily yeld to the authority of your Holinesse drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures And when Paschasinus B. of Lilibaea Lucentius of Ascoli Legates of Leo pope said to the Councell of Chalcedon (n) Conc. Chalced. Act. 1. We haue in our hands the Commands of the blessed and Apostolike Prelate of the Citty of Rome wherby he hath vouchsafed to ordaine that Dioscorus sit not in the Councell and that if he offer to do it he be cast out because hauing no right to do the office of a Iudge he attempted it and presumed to hold a Synod without the authority of the See Apostolike which neuer was lawfull nor hath euer benedone And did not the Councell obey the Popes command causing Dioscorus not to sit among the Bishops as a Iudge but as a person guilty to stand in the midest of the place to yeld account of hid proceedings And did not the Bishops of Dardania in their Epistle to Gelasius acknowledge that they had receaued his commands with due reuerence and thanke him that he had vouchsafed to visit them with his Pastorall admonitions And did not the Bishops of France in the second Councell of Tours say (o) Can. 21. Our Fathers haue alwayes obserued what the authority of the See Apostolike hath commanded And when Chrysostome was deposed by a Councell of Bishops at Constantinople did he not appeale to Innocentius Pope and petition him in these wordes (p) Ep. 1. ad Innocent Vouchsafe to command that these things so wickedly done we being absent and not refusing iudgment may not be valide as in truth they are not and that they which haue caried themselues so iniustly may be submitted to the punishment of the Ecclesiasticall lawes And when Theodoret B. of Cyre was deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus did he not write to Leo Pope (q) Ep. ad Leon. I attend the sentence of your Apostolike Throne and beseech your Holinesse to succour me appealing to your right and iust iudgment to command that I transport my selfe to you and verify that my Doctrine followes the Apostolike steps And finally did not the Emperors Theodosius Valentinian (r) Nouel Theod. tit 24. publish a law which ordeynes that to all Bishops those thinges shall be lawes which haue bene or shall be ordeyned by the Apostolike See in such sorte that whatsoeuer Bishop being called by the Pope shall refuse to appeare shall be constrayned therunto by the Gouernor of the Prouince These and a thousand more examples which may be alleaged conuince that it was the stile of ancient Popes before S. Gregories tyme to command when necessity required it and that all Bishops and generally all Christians acknowledged this power in the Popes and in themselues obligation to obey And as for S. Gregory in particular who say you vtterly abhorred the word Command as he was a man of admirable humility so his gouerment was not dominiering in the Clergy but according to the commandment of Christ (s) Lue. 2â— 27 and of S. Peter his predecessor (t) 1. Pet. 5.2 with great meekenesse and humility and therfore writing to Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria he wisheth him L. 7. ep â—5 not to mention any command of his for when crimes exact it not sayth he all Bishops according to the condition of humility are equall And in many places of his workes he teacheth (x) L. 4. ep 38. l. 2. Pasto. c. 7. Hom. 18. in Ezechiel that the Ecclesiasticall Gouernor ought to make himselfe a companion and equall to his subiects and whiles they do well to preferre himselfe before them in nothing but yet so that if they offend he shew his power and authority in correcting them This therfore is the reason why in his Epistle to Eulogius which you obiect he beseecheth him not to say that he commanded for being he writ not to him to taxe him of any crime or offence committed though by the authority of his place he knew himselfe to be his Superior yet by humility he made himselfe his equall and wished him not to say that he commanded for sayth he I commanded not but endeauored to signify those things which are profitable All which notwithstanding the same S. Gregory to shew that in authority and iurisdiction he was Superior to Eulogius and all other Bishops and had power to command and punish them when they ossended sayth (y) L. 7. ep 64. For wheras the Patriarke of Constantinople confesseth himselfe subiect to the See Apostolike I know no Bishop that is not subiect to it And what he professed in words he practised in deedes commanding and exercising his iurisdiction ouer the Bishops of all Christian nations as out of his writings and the confessions of our owne more learned brethren I haue formerly proued (z) Chap. 15. sect 3. But because you so boldly auerre that he vtterly abhorred the word Command (a) Pag. 114. I will briefly shew how ignorantly and vntruly you speake for to Anthemius he writeth (b) L. 11. ep 35. Because notice hath bene giuen vs that the Bishops of Campania are negligent c. therfore with this authority we command you to call them together and by vertue of our Command to giue them a strict
charge that hereafter they be not slouthfull but by their cariage shew themselues to haue the zeale and solicitude which becometh Priestes and that they be vigilant in these things which it is fitting for them to do iustly according to God that hereafter no complaints may be made of them And if you finde any of them to be negligent send him to vs without excuse that he may feele by Canonicall punishment how grieuous an offence it is not to amend those thinges which are reprehensible And in the priuiledge which he granted to the Monastery of S. Medardus (c) L. 12. Epistolarum sin alias l. 2. post ep 38. If any King Bishop Iudge or secular person whatsoeuer shall violate the decrees of this Apostolicall and our Command let him be depriued of his honor be he of neuer so high a degree I know that Bellarmine alleaging this decree you tell vs out of Doctor Iames (d) Pag. 179. a man of as much credit as your selfe that it is forged wheras that most holy and learned Pope Gregory the seauenth which liued 600. yeares nearer the tyme of S. Gregory then Doctor Iames and had better meanes to know what writings of his were legitimate and what spurious alleageth it as his vndoubted Epistle And his testimony you disproue no otherwise then by rayling against him whom yet as hereafter I shall shew (e) Chap. 32. sect 3. the Historians of that age and among them the two S. Anselmes of Canterbury and Luca highly extoll for one of the most admirable Prelates that euer sate in the Chayre of S. Peter and whose sanctity God himselfe testified with many most famous miracles But howsoeuer you carpe at this decree of S. Gregory Bellarmine in the same place (f) Cont. Barâ—â—â— c. 40. alleageth another of the same tenor granted by him to an Hospitall built in Austum by Brunichildes Queene Syagrius Bishop of that City which because you know not how to shift of you slily passe ouer without mentioning it notwithstanding S. Gregories authority and command is no lesse effectually expressed in it then in the former I conclude therfore that as this holy Doctor confesseth (g) L. 4. ep â—6 he had learned from the Apostle to cary humility in his hart and yet to preserue the honor and dignity of his place commanding and denouncing punishment to offenders when it was needfull SECT II. The Councell of Ephesus acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the cause of Iohn Patriarke of Antioch HAuing shewed that the Councell of Ephesus deposed Nestorius by the commandment of Pope Celestine and that it was the ancient custome of the best and holiest Popes to Command when the affaire required it let vs goe on with you (h) Pag. 115. to the cause of Iohn Patriarke of Antioch whom the Councell of Ephesus durst not iudge but reserued him to the iudgment of Celestine (i) Conc. Ephes to 4. c. 17. in ep ad Celestin Papam This againe say we sheweth the supreme authority of the Pope You deny it because Those Fathers in the same Epistle report that they had diuested him of all Sacerdotall power and deposed him before they made any relation therof to Celestine Pope False For their words are (k) In eadem ep Moued with the indignity of his proceeding we would haue pronounced against him such a sentence as he had pronounced against those that were not conuicted of any crime But to the end that we might with lenity ouercome his rashnesse we haue reserued his sentence to the iudgment of you Piety and in the meane tyme we haue excommunicated him diuested him of all Sacerdotall power These words euidently conuince against you that those Fathers to gaine Iohn with lenity and hoping that he might be reclaimed as afterwards in the time of Sixtus Pope he was pronounced not any absolute and finall sentence against him according to his deserts but reserued that to Celestine as to his supreme Iudge yet they excommunicated him in the meane time and as they say to the Emperor (l) Ep. ad Theodos to 4. c. 8. tantisper for a while suspended him from the exercise of his Episcopall function that he might not hurt others And the same is gathered out of Celestines Epistle to the Councell (m) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 628. in which he sayth that after their sentence against Iohn diuers things remained to be considered and determined by him And this proceeding of the Ephesine Councell against Iohn was afterwards imitated by the sixth Councell generall in the cause of Macarius another Patriarke of Antioch as the Emperor Constantine Pogonate reportes in these words (n) In 6. Synod Act. 18. Macarius B. of Antioch and his adhereurs haue bene deposed by the consent of the whole Councell and reserued to the discretion of the most holy Pope It is therfore euident that both these Councells acknowledged the giuing of the last and definitiue sentence against those Patriarkes to belong to the Pope which is also confirmed by the words of Iuuenall B. of Hierusalem vttered in presence of the whole Councell of Ephesus (o) To. 4. c. 4. apud Bin. to 1. pag. 794. It is fit said he that Iohn the right reuerend B. of Antioch honoring this great holy and Oecumenicall Councell haue recourse hither to iustify himselfe of what is obiected against him and that he honor and obey the Apostolike throne of great Rome especially since the custome of Apostolike tradition and practise is that the seat of Amioch be perpetually ruled and iudged by that of Rome I appeale to the reader whether these Councells did not acknowledge the supreme power of the B. of Rome in reseruing to him the last sentence in the causes of these two great Patriarkes What then may we thinke of you that haue the boldnesse to out-face so manifest a truth SECT III. Of the ordination of the Bishops of Cyprus treated in the Councell of Ephesus BVt there remaines one which you (p) Pag. 116. call A principall obiection and it is that wheras Reginus Zenon and Euagrius Bishops of Cyprus had by a petition presented to the Councell of Ephesus made complaint of the Patriarke of Antioch (q) To. 2. Append. 1. c. 4. That contrary to the ancient custome practised from the tyme of the Apostles and contrary to the Canons of Nice he had presumed to ordeyne Bishops in that Iland the Councell decreed (r) Ibid. that no Bishop should encroath vpon the liberties of any other nor draw vnder his subiection any Prouince which belonged not to him from the beginning and therfore that if the ancient custome were not for the Bishop of Antioch to ordaine Bishops in Cyprus he should not trouble the Bishops of that Iland but leaue to them the ordination of their owne Bishops This Decree you will haue to exclude the authority of the B. of Rome as well as of any other But your
he sent to the Councell instructions in writing what forme they ought to obserue in their iudgment And finally the Councell it selfe acknowledged that the Pope presided in it You say they to Leo (m) In relat ad Leon. presided in this assembly as the head doth to members exhibiting your good will by those that held your place And the faythfull Emperor presided for ornament sake and to see good order kept that is to hinder by his secular power such tumults and murders as had bene lately committed in the second false Councell of Ephesus Who seeth not that the whole Councell in these words acknowledged the Pope to be their Superior and themselues to be his subiects since they professe that he ruled ouer them at the head doth ouer the members SECT II. That the Councell of Chalcedon by the authority of Leo Pope deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus and restored Theodoret. THe supreme authority of the Pope is yet further proued out of the Councell of Chalcedon For Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople hauing reckoned vp the enormities of Eutyches requested Leo Pope to confirme the sentence of condemnation which in a Coūcell at Constantinople he had pronounced against him Moued then saith he (n) In ep praeambul Concil Chalced most holy Father with all these attempts of Eutyches with those thinges which haue bene done and are done against vs and against the holy Church worke confidently according to your courage as it belongs to the Priesthood and making the common cause and the discipline of the holy Churches your owne Vouchsafe to confirme by your writings the condemnation which hath bene regularty made against him Leo according to this petition of Flauianus condemned Eutyches and depriued him of his dignity Dioscorus sayth the Councell of Chalcedon writing to Leo (o) Relat. ad Leon. by the decrees of his tyranny hath declared Eutyches innocent and restored to him the dignity wherof he was depriued by your Holinesse What els is this but to say that albeit Eutiches had bene condemned by Flauianus his owne Bishop and lawfull Iudge yet afterwards when Flauianus by Eutyches his negotiation being deposed in the false Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo Pope and Leo declaring him innocent deposed Eutyches the Councell of Chalcedon imbraced this sentence of Leo and attributed to him the finall deposition of Eutyches as to the supreme Iudge that had power to reiudge the iudgments of other Bishops Which power Valentinian the third writing to Theodosius acknowledged and declared in this very cause of Flauianus We ought sayth he (p) In ep praeamb Conc. Chalced. to preserue inuiolable in our dayes the dignity of particular reuerence to the blessed Apostle Peter that the holy Bishop of Rome to whom antiquity hath attributed the Priesthood aboue all may haue place to iudge in matters of fayth and of Bishops c. For therfore according to the custome of Councells the Bishop of Constantinople Flauianus appealed to him in the contention which is risen about points of fayth The same power was like wise acknowledged by the Councell of Chalcedon in the cause of Theodoret Bishop of Cyre who being deposed by the second Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo and was restored by him and therupon admitted to take his place in the Councell of Chalcedon Let the right Reuerend Bishop Theodores come in say the Emperors officers (q) Conc. Chalc. act 1. that he may haue part in the Synod because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his Rishoprick and the most sacred and religious Emperor hath ordayned that he assist in the holy Councell Now that the Emperor ordayned not this as challenging any authority ouer Bishops but only as one that by his officers assisted at the Councell to execute the Popes decrees and to see peace and good order kept you haue heard the Councell testify (r) Sect. praeced and he himselfe declared the same saying to Pope Leo (s) In ep praeamb Concil Chalced. Our desire is that peace be restored to the Churches by this Councell celebrated vnder your authority The authority then is in the Pope not in the Emperor And when the cause of Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria came to be examined the Councell inquiring of the Popes Legates what charge they had against him Lucentius one of them answeared (t) Act. 1. Euagr. l. 2. c. 18. Dioscorus must yeld an account of his Iudgement because hauing no right to do the office of a Iudge he attempted it and presumed to hold a Synod without the authority of the See Apostolike a thing which nether was nor cold euer lawfully be done And Paschasinus another of the Legats (u) Act. 1. Wee haue here the commandes of the blessed and Apostolike Prelate of the City of Rome which is the Head of all Churches wherby his Apostolate hath vouchsafed to command that Dioscorus Archbishop of Alexandria sit not in the Councell but yet that he be admitted to be heard Wherupon the Councell commanded him not to sit as a Iudge among the Bishops but to stand in the middest as a person accused to answeare for himselfe (x) Euag. l. 2. c. 4. And the Councell hauing heard his whole cause condemned him requesting the Popes Legates to pronounce the sentence of condemnation against him (y) Act. 3. We beseech your Holinesse who haue the place and primacy of the most holy Pope Leo to pronounce the sentence against him Wherupon the Legates Paschasinus Lucentius and Bonifacius pronounced it in these words (z) Ibid. Therefore Leo the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of the great and ancient Rome hath by vs and by this present Synod together with the thrice blessed and worthy of all praise Peter the Apostle who is the Rock and Head of the Catholike Church and the foundation of the right fayth deposed Dioscorus from the Episcopall dignity and depriued him of all Sacerdotall function To this sentence all the Bishops subscribed And it is to be noted that wheras many most enormous crimes of Dioscorus are there rehearsed (a) Ibid. yet that which the Councell iudged to exceed all the rest was that he had presumed to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of great Rome Leo which enormity of his the whole Councell exaggerating to Leo sayd (b) Relat. ad Leon. And after and aboue all these things he hath extended his phrensy euen against him to whom the guard of the Vine hath bene committed by our Sauiour that is to say against your Apostolike Holinesse and hath dictated an Excommunication against you that seeke to vnite speedily the body of the Church In which words the Councell plainly professeth that the custody and charge of the whole Church signified vnder the name of a Vine was giuen to the Pope by our Sauiour and that he because he is Head of the Church laboreth to vnite the body thereof which also they
to place his See at Rome rather then in any other Citty was the dignity of Rome To the end sayth S. Leo (c) Serm. 1. de Apost Pet. Paul that the light of truth which was reuealed for the saluation of all nations might from the Head of the world be communicated more effectually to the whole body Of this cause the Fatherâ— of Chalcedon speake when they say (d) Act. 15. Rome got the Primacy because it was the chiefe seate of the Empire And both these causes are comprehended by the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian in their Law made a litle before the Councell of Chalcedon in these words (e) Nouel Theodos tit 24. Three things haue established the primacy of the See Apostolike the merit of S. Peter who is Prince of the Episcopall society the dignity of the City and the Synodicall authority 3. You obiect (f) Pag. 118. The Fathers of Chalcedon gaue priuiledges to the Patriarkes of Constantinople equall to the Church of Rome This we deny for in the Councell of Chalcedon there was no mention made of equal priuiledges this clause was afterwards added by Anatolius or by the Clerkes of Constantinople (g) See this proued aboue in this Chap. sect 4. and to this S. Gregory seemeth to relate when he sayth (h) L. 5. ep 14. The Councell of Chalcedon in one place hath bene falsified by the Grecians And the Fathes of Chalcedon neuer intended by this Canon to giue the Patriarkes of Constantinople any priuiledge of exemption from their obedience and subiection to the Pope but only to grant them precedency before the other Patriarkes of the East as hath bene proued (i) In this Chap. sect 4. And the same is manifest out of the writings of Leo Pope who though in his epistle to the Fathers of Chalcedon and in diuers others which he writ to the Emperor Martian to Pulcheria the Empresse to Anatolius himselfe and to diuers other Bishops of this subiect he speake against Anatolius for his ambitious attempt yet in none of them doth he say or insinuate that those Fathers gaue to Anatolius or that Anatolius himselfe euer aspired to equality of priuiledges with the B. of Rome but only reprehended him for wronging the Patriarkes of Alexandria and Antioch in procuring himselfe to be preserred before them The same is yet further proued because when Rome was fallen into the hands of the Gothes and Wandals the Patriarkes of Constantinople making vse of the tyme and setting this Canon on foote againe procured the Emperor Zeno to establish by a law that the Patriarke of CoÌ„stantinople shold haue the precedency before the other Patriarkes And the like they obtayned from Iustinian after the recouery of Rome when he ordayned (k) Nouel 131. that the Archbishop of Constantinople shold haue the second place after the holy See Apostolike and be preferred before all the other See Lastly the same is proued by the subiection which the Patriarkes of Constantinople acknowledged to the Pope after the Councell of Chalcedon and by the authority which he exercised ouer them for not long after that tyme when Acacius B. of Constantinople an enemy to the Councell of Chalcedon had fallen into the faction of heretikes the Churches of the Patriarkeship of Constantinople had recourse to Symmachus Pope as to their Pastor as Superior to their Patriarke Seeing your Children perish sayd they (l) Ep. Eccles Orient ad Symach in volum Orthodox impress Bafil in the preuarication of our Father Acacius delay not or rather to speake with the Prophet stumber not but make hast to deliuer vs. And when the same Acacius for his adhering to Peter Moggus an hereticall inuasor of the See of Alexandria was deposed by Felix Pope though he stood out as long as he liued contemning the Popes sentence sent vnto him to Constantinople yet the Emperor Iustine that succeeded Anastasius caused Felix his sentence to be executed on him after his death making his name to be razed out of the Records of the Church and from the recitall in the sacred mysteries Wee haue giuen order sayth Iustine to Hormisdas Pope (m) Epist. ad Hormisd that the Reuerend Church of Constantinople and many others accomplish your desire in razing out the names of those whom you haue commanded to be taken away from the sacred records And in conformity to this Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople writing to the same Hormisdas said (n) Epist ad Hormisd I anathematize Acacius somtime Bishop of this City and promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred mysteries the names of them that are excluded from the communion of the Catholike Church that is to say that agree not in all things with the See Apostolike And Theodorus Anagnostes reporteth (o) Ad calc hist. Eccles Theodor. ex edit Robert Stopha that when Anastasius the Emperor vrged Macedonius Patriarke of Constantinople to abrogate the Councell of Chalcedon he answeared he could not do it without a generall Councell in which the B. of Rome must be president And when Anthymus B. of Trebizond inuaded the See of Constantinople Agapetus Pope being arriued thither deposed him euen in the City of Constantinople it selfe and in the sight of Iustinian the Emperor and excommunicated the Empresse Theodora that protected him and with his owne hands ordained Menas in his place the truth of all which is auerred by Iustinian himselfe (p) Nouel 42 by Marcellinus Comes (q) In Chron. by Liberatus (r) Breuiar c. 12. and Victor of Tunes (s) In Chron. edit per Ioseph Scâ—lig And did not Menas Patriarke of Constantinople make open profession of obeying the See Apostolike in all thinges (t) In Conc. Constan sub Meâ— Act. 4. And when Iohn the first Pope of that name was arriued at Constantinople Iustine the Emperor inuiting him to sit in a seat by Epiphanius Patriarke of that City that they might seeme both to be of equall dignity Iohn refused to sit vntill according to the prerogatiue of his See a throne was prepared for him aboue Epiphanius (u) Nicoph l. 17. c. 9. which passing in the City of Constantinople it selfe and in Epiphanius his owne Church and that many yeares after this decree of the Councell of Chalcedon was made euidently sheweth that it neuer tooke effect since neither Epiphanius nor any of the other Patriarkes here named liuing after the Councell of Chalcedon claymed any right of Equall Priuiledges therby but all of them remained subiect to the Pope as before the Councell they had bene And that which purreth this out of al doubt is that albeit the Patriarkes of Constantinople at length obtained that precedency before the other Patriarkes of the East which in the Councells of Constantinople and Chalcedon they labored for yet neuerthelesse euen then they still acknowledged themselues subiect to the Pope witnesse S. Gregory who writing to Iohn B. of Syracusa sayth (x) L. 7. ep â—4 Who doubts but
of the Canons but iustly deposed him from the Episcopall See of this Citty Loe here the first sentence absolutely finished by Agapet before his death And then speaking of the second sentence they adde (m) Ibid. Afterwards the Bishops of Palestine assembled in this Citty and others of the East and deputies of others and we did againe present petitions touching Anthymus and the other heretikes and demanded that Anthymus should certify his beliefe by writ to the See Apostolike and should purge himselfe from all hereticall errors in this case returne to the Church of Trebizond or if he would not do it that he should be finally condemned and deposed from all Sacerdotall dignity and action And a litle after (n) Ibid. These our iust requests the same most holy personage Agapet preuenting and seeing that Anthymus had fayled to appeare condemned him with the aforesaid heretikes and despoiled him of all office and dignity Sacerdotall and of all title Orthodoxall euen till the pennance of his errors The same is declared by all the Fathers of that Councell who in their sentence pronounced against Anthymus speaking of his first deposition say (o) Act. 4. The Blessed Pope Agapet of most holy and happy memory setting with God his hand to the sacred Canons deposed Anthymus from the See which belonged not to him pardoning those which had participated and communicated in the act And then passing to the second sentence they adde (p) Ibid. But because that euen in doctrine Anthymus was charged with many accusations and that many petitions were preferred against him by diuers reuerend personages to the most religious Emperor and the most blessed Pope the same most blessed Pope after much paine taken with a Fatherly care to regaine his soule c. pronounced a sentence in writing against him full of Clemency and seemly holynesse granting him tyme of repentance and ordayned that vntill he had changed his opinion and satisfyed the doctrines canonically defined by the Fathers be should neither haue the title of a Catholike nor of a Priest This sheweth that the Councell intermedled not at all with the first sentence of Agapet by which Anthymus was deposed from the See of Constantinople but because this second sentence of his deposition from the See of Trebizond was not absolute but left depending and subiect to reuocation if he should appeare and purge himselfe from heresy the Councell taking the cause where the Pope left it and according to the order giuen by him cited Anthymus thrice to appeare and because he appeared not executed the Popes sentence on him deposing him from the Bishopricke of Trebizond and depriuing him of the title of a Priest and the name of a Catholike We say they (q) Act. 4. in sentent cont Anthym following those things which haue bene rightly examined by the most blessed Pope ordayne that he as an vnprofitable and rotten member be cast out of the body of the holy Churches of God and depriued of the Bishopricke of Trebizond and depriued of all sacred dignity and action and according to the sentence of the most holy Pope stript euen of the name of a Catholike Who now seeth not how ignorantly and vntruly you haue said (r) Pag. 122. that The cause of Anthymus which the Pope had condemned was afterwards ventilated in the Councell of Constantinople For those Fathers neither questioned nor any way examined either the first or the second sentence of the Pope against Anthymus but assembled themselues to put in execution the sentence which Agapet had pronounced and being preuented by death could not see executed All which is so farre from making against the iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the Bishops of the East that it is a strong proofe therof And that it may better appeare how vnaduised you are to vrge this history against the authority of the Roman Church it is to be noted that Anthymus an Eutychian heretike not contenting himselfe with his owne Bishopricke of Trebizond by the fauor of Iustinian who as yet knew not that he was an heretike and chiefly by the craft of Theodora the Empresse an Eutychian and for that cause a great fauorer of Anthymus intruded himselfe to the See of Constantinople But Agapet Pope coÌ„ming thither deposed him and with his owne hands ordayned Menas in his place which was an admirable effect of the power of S. Peter in his Successor for at that tyme Constantinople was the seate of Iustinian and the Head of the Empire wheras Rome was oppressed and made a slaue vnder the tiranny of Gothes a barbarous and Arian people The Church of Constantinople was most florishing and glorious and that of Rome greatly depressed and afflicted Iustinian the Emperor waâ— vâ—ctorious and triumphant and contrarily the Pope brought to such straytes that Theodat an Arian King of the Gothes threatned to ruinate the Roman Church vnlesse he would goe to Constantinople solicite the Emperor for peace and procure him to call his armies out oâ— Italy which vâ—â—â—ge therfore Agapet could not refuse though he were so poore that for the performance therof he was inforced to pawne the sacred Vessells of his Church wheras on the other side Anthymus being exalted by the Emperor and Empresse from the Bishoptick of Trebâ—zond to the Patriarkeship of Constantinople was very powrefull in meanes and highly fouored by them both And yet neuerthelesse and that the Empresse threatned Agapet if he deposed Anthymus and promised him great rewards if he would leaue him in the See of Constantinople the holy Pope soon after his ariuall being a stranger and without support deposed him casting him out of that See euen in the very Imperiall Citty in the presence of the Emperor that fauoured him and excommunicated Theodora the Empresse that obstinatly maintained him and with his owne hands ordained Menas a Priest of Constantinople in his place and pardoned Peter Patriarke of Hierusalem and other Bishops of the East that had communicated with him All this is accordingly reported by Marcellinus Comes (s) In Chron. Liberatus (t) Breu. c. 12. Victor of Tunes (u) In Chron. edit per Ios Scal. ad calc Chron. Euseb and Iustinian himselfe (x) Nou. 42. and is so cleare an euidence for the supreme authority of the B. of Rome that it admitteth no colour of answeare SECT III. Of the matter treated in the fifth generall Councell THe matter disputed in this Councell was about certaine writings of Theodorus Mopsuestinus Ibas and Theodoret commonly called Tria capitula The three Chapters Before the Councell Vigilius Pope with the Bishops of the West defended the Three Chapters which the Easterne Bishops opposed and what both of them did was vpon pious considerations in defence of the Councell of Chalcedon The Bishops of the East assembled in a Councell at Constantinople condemned the Three Chapters But Vigilius knowing that the Westerne Bishops stood in opposition to their sentence refused to confirme it hoping by that
meanes like a prudent and solicitous Pastor to worke both partes to an accord and establish peace in the Church But finding the Emperor and the Easterne Bishops violent in the prosecution of their decree and that the Bishops of Venice and the regions adioyning as also those of Ireland following his opinion relying on his authority had condemned this Councell of Constantinople and that the Church therby was in danger to be rent in sunder with Schisme and on the other syde considering that the subiect of that Contention was no matter of fayth and neither the one part nor the other any way repugnant to the Councell of Chalcedon as S. Gregory hath noted (y) L. 3. ep 37. but a thing of it selfe indifferent he altered his opinion and yelded to confirme this decree purchasing to himselfe that commendation which S. Augustine (z) Ep. 162. giues to the most famous Gouernors of Gods people both in the old new Testament which is that They tolerate for the good of vnity that which they hate for the loue of equity and imitating the example of S. Leo the great who testifies of himselfe (a) Ep. 14. that for the loue of peace he yelded to confirme the ordination of Maximus B. of Antioch which Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople without any example against the Canons had presumptuously vsurped to himselfe Nor can Vigilius herein be argued of leuity for if he altered his mind he did it vpon iust causes for the auoyding of Schisme and following the example of S. Paul who hauing first giuen his voyce for the abolishing of circumcision (b) Act. 15.11 afterwards vpon iust cause circumcised Timothy (c) Act. 16.3 and yet againe reprehended Peter that by his dissimulation he induced the Gentiles to circumcision and other Iewish ceremonies (d) Gal. 2.11 14. You to proue the no-necessity of subiection to the Pope obiect the standing out of the Easterne Bishops against Vigilius (e) Pag 123. 124. But you might by the like Argument proue that subiects are not bound to obey their Prince because some of them stand out in rebellion against him And as litle to the purpose is your telling vs (f) Pag 123. fin that those Bishops condemned all them that defended the Three Chapters for contrarily we tell you that the Bishops of the West in their Councell at Aquileia condemned all those Bishops and their Councell at Constantinople and had more right to do it then the Easterne Bishops to condemne them for they did it in defence of the Popes authority whose opinion they followed Your vrging (g) Pag. 123. the persecution which Iustinian raised against Vigilius to bring him to confirme the decree of the Easterne Bishops maketh wholly against you for why did both he and the Bishops themselues vrge Vigilius so â—uch to confirme their decree but because they knew that no decree of any Councell can be of force vnlesse it be approued by the See Apostolike (h) See this proued aboue Chap. 17. sect 6. Finally the Popes authority 〈◊〉 effectually proued out of this Councell for as much as by vertue of Vigilius his confirmation it hath obtained the force of a lawfull Councell and deserued the title of the fifth generall wheras without his confirmation it would not haue bene receaued by the Church more then that of Ariminum or the second of Ephesus which the See Apostolike hath reiected And the same is confirmed by Eutichius Patriarke of Constantinople who though he prefided in this Councell yet acknowledged the right of presiding not to belong to himselfe but to Vigilius when inuiting him to the Councell he sayd (i) Ep. ad Vigil in quinta Syn. Collat. 1. Our desire is to haue the Three Chapters examined your Blessednesse presiding ouer vs. SECT IV. Doctor Mortons glosse vpon the Word Obedience TO conclude your discourse of the fifth generall Councell as vntruly ignorantly as you began you say (k) Pag. 124. Idle and vaine is your obiection out of that Synod from one word Obedience which they professed to the Catholike See by not discerning betwene a logicall and a morall obedience for they promised obedience to that See in all her orthodoxe and reasonable perswasions but not to her peremptory commands and conclusions for you may obey S. Augustine by subscribing to his iudgment without submitting to his iurisdiction So you where first you ignorantly make this profession of obedience to the Roman Church to be of the fiâ—â—h generall Councell and alleage Bellarmine for your author who expresly sayth that they are words of the Synod held vnder Menas before the fifth generall Councell 2. Your glosse vpon the word Obedience is idle and false for you wrest it to an improper signification I deny not but that the words of Obedience and Command may be taken improperly as if when your equall or inferior requests you to do a fauor for him or perswades you to your owne good you answeare I will obey your commands vnderstanding by his Commands his requests and persuasions But that the B. of Rome as being gouernor of the vniuersall Church hath true power and authority to Command according to the most first and proper signification of the word and that the greatest Bishops Councels haue acknowledged in themselues obligation to obey in the same sense hath bene already proued (d) Chap. 18. sect 1. False therfore is you glosse that this Councell acknowledged not in themselues obligation to obey the B. of Rome nor in him authority to command but only to persuade You defend an ill cause which vpon no other ground but only to excuse your disobedience to the See Apostolike inforceth you to wrest the words of the Councell to an improper signification And as your glosse vpon the word Obedience is false so is it repugnant euen to common sense for let a generall Councell be called of all the Orthodox Bishops in the world let them condemne an Arius an Eutyches or a Pelagius if your glosse may be allowed any of these heretikes or any other neuer so impious may refuse to submit himselfe and obey their decrees saying He will obey them in all their Orthodoxe and reasonable persuasions but not in their peremptory commands and conclusions and so obey them in nothing at all For what heretike will not say that the decrees of a generall Councell against his heresy are not Orthodoxe and reasonable persuasions but peremptory commands and conclusions Cold this euasion iustify Arius his disobedience or excuse him from heresy No and so neither can your glosse iustify your cause or satisfy any man of iudgment And as your glosse is false so is your dealing imposterous for the words of the Councell truly alleaged by Bellarmine out of whom you cite them are Apostolicam Sedem sequimur obedimus ipsius communicatores communicatores habemus condemnatos ab ipsa nos condemnamus We follow and obey the See Apostolike
Apostles And wheras you (r) Pag. 131. appeale to our consciences and bid vs in all our reading shew vnto you if we can that Polycrates and other Asian Bishops so excommunicated by Pope Victor were held by any other Catholike Bishops of those tymes to be therby without the state of saluation we contrarily appeale to the conscience of any christian man whether it be not damnable doctrine to mantaine as you do that these Qartadeciman heretikes after they knew themselues to be excommunicated by the Pope and anathematized by so many Councels if they repented not but persisted obstinatly in the defence of their heresy cold be in state of saluation And lastly wheras you add (s) Pag. 131. that wee full well know that S. Hierome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiasticall writers numbred Polycrates among those who did aduance the Catholike fayth we know that you speake ignorantly and vntruly for S. Hierome in that his Catalogue doth not only number Catholikes but also diuers heretikes that writ of Ecclesiasticall affaires as Eusebius Caesariensis whome the same S. Hierome (t) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. cals The ring-leader of the Arians And so likewise he numbreth Nouatianus Donatus and Photinus whom in that very Catalogue he acknowledgeth not only to be heretikes but authors and propagators of seuerall heresies And in no other condition doth he number Polycrates whom he commendeth not for aduancing the Catholike fayth as you affirme but hauing set downe a piece of his epistle written to Pope Victor in defence of his error sayth He reports it to shew the wit and authority of the man where by authority he vnderstands not authority of right but of fact that is the credit which Polycrates had among the Quartadecimans CHAP. XXIV Doctor Morton in opposition to the Roman Church defendeth the Hereticall Doctrine of Rebaptization FIRMILIANVS B. of Caesarea in Cappadocia with other Asian Bishops out of their great hatred to heresy decreed in their Councells of Iconium Synnada that Baptisme giuen by Heretikes was inualid and therfore that Heretikes returning to the Catholike Church were to be baptized a new This Doctrine from Asia crept into Africa and Agrippinus B. of Carthage hauing layd the first grounds therof Cyprian with other African Bishops afterwards imbraced the same so far that for the authorizing therof they assembled a Councell of 80. Bishops at Carthage All which notwithstanding that doctrine as being contrary to the tradition and practise of the Catholike Church was forbidden by Stephen then Pope of Rome in these words Nihil innouetur sed seruetur quod traditum est Let no innouation be made but that obserued which hath come by tradition Firmilianus with other Bishops of Asia notwithstanding this prohibition persisted still in their error and were for that cause excommunicated by Stephen Wherat Firmilianus storming in his fury spued out reprochfull and contumelious words against him But Cyprian although he defended the same error yet not as a doctrine of fayth nor condemning the contrary nor censuring the Pope or the rest that defended it as any way guilty of Heresy for as S. Augustine writing against the Donatists and excusing Cyprian (u) L. 2. de Bapt. t. 18. l. 2. c. 4. sayth If he held that opinion it was before it was condemned by a a generall Councell to which he would most easily haue submitted his iudgment if any such had bene held in his tyme. And moreouer if he held it it was with so great temper that as both he himselfe (x) Ep. ad Iuba in Conc. Carthag and S. Augustine (y) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18. 19. l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9 alibisaepe for him testifieth for the defence therof he neuer forsooke the communion of the Roman Church but as S. Peter dissented from S. Paul concerning the circumcision of Gentils newly conuerted and yet both of them still remayned in Catholike vnity and peace so likewise though Cyprian touching rebaptization differed in opinion from Stephen yet he still remayned in communion with him And therfore when the Donatists defended their heresy by the authority of Cyprian and his Councell S. Augustine answeared (h) Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 32. l. 2. c. 31. alibi saepe that Cyprians patronage could not auaile them because they were out of the communion of the Roman Church in which Cyprian liued and dyed This is the controuersy as it passed betweene Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and Stephen Pope briefly related And you in obiecting it against the Popes authority shew impiety folly and falshood Impiety 1. In taking part with Firmilianus Cyprian in their opposition to Pope Stephen and approuing their doctrine which you know to be erroneous that soone after being condemned by a generall Councell it hath euer since bene held for an absolute heresy not only by Catholikes but also by Protestants And doth not S. Augustine say (i) L. 2. de Bapt. c. 2. that albeit Cyprian Bishop Martyr were a man of great fame and merit yet not of greater then Peter the Apostle and Martyr in whom the principality of the See Apostolike was so eminent which sheweth that Cyprian ought to haue borne respect to Stephen Pope sitting in the See inuested in the authority of Peter Prince of the Apostles And doth he not shew (l) L. 2. Cont. Crescon c. 32. that Cyprian erred herein and that the Epistles which he writ of this subiect are of no force because the contrary was decreed by the authority of the whole Church which is to be preferred before the authority of Cyprian or of any one man whatsoeuer And doth he not (m) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 23. seqq learnedly confute the Epistle which Cyprian writ to Pompeius in defence of his error And wheras you to iustify Cyprian obiect (n) Pag. 134. that he gathered a Councell of 87. Bishops which concluded contrary to the Pope and his Councell celebrated in Italy you know that S. Augustine doubted (o) L. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. whether any such Councell were euer held and if it were whether the greater part of the Votes were not against Cyprian because the Donatists could reckon but 50. Asian and 70. African Bishops that adhered to Firmilianus and Cyprian (p) S. Aug. cont Crescon l. 3. c. 3. wheras many thousands held with Stephen Pope against them And the same S. Augustine (q) L. 6. de Bapt. per tot answeareth and confuteth seuerally euery one of the verdictes of the Bishops which were said to be giuen in that Councell assembled by Cyprian 2. You cannot be excused from impiety in obiecting (r) Pag. 137. against the Popes authority the words which Firmilianus and Cyprian in their passion let slip from their mouthes against Stephen for S. Augustine (s) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 25. held them vnworthy to be mentioned and couered them with this excuse The things which
him I am And I answere you that this is a friuolous obiection for as Onuphrius hath noted (x) Tract voc obscur Eccles the name of Pope anciently vntill after the tyme of S. Gregory was common to all Bishops of great Cities as of Rome Carthage Alexandria Antioch Hierusalem and the like and you afterwards shewing the futility of your obiection proue the same (y) Pag. 241. Wherfore S. Cyprian acknowledging that the Christians of Africa of whome only both he and the Proconsull spake did call him Their Pope and that he was so did not acknowledge himselfe to be Pope per antonomasiam for in that sense the name of Pope was not then vsed but to be B. of Carthage that is to say the chiefe Father and Primate of all the Christians of Africa How then proueth this that the name of Pope being from the tyme of S. Gregory appropriated to the B. of Rome to signify his supreme authority doth not since that appropriation declare him to be Pope per antonomasiam For words signify ad placitum that which according to the common vse and acception of men they import And finally that the name of Pope when it is applied to the B. of Rome importeth a singular dignity proper to him alone is conuinced by the Epithets which ancient Fathers speaking to him adde to that name as when they call him Vniuersall Pope for so he is styled by the Councell of Cyprus (z) Ep. Synod ad Theodor. Pap. by S. Athanasius and all the Bishops of Aegypt (a) Ep. ad Marc. Pap. CHAP. XXVI The Councells of Carthage and Mileuis acknowledged the supreme Authority of the B. of Rome AGAINST the prerogatiue of appeales to Rome you obiect (b) Pag. 141. the Councell of Mileuis held Anno 402. And yet afterwards you say that the same Councell was held in the yeare 416. and cite Binius as your Author for both Binius speaketh of two different Councells held at Mileuis in those seuerall yeares and vnder different Consuls and you confound them taking them both for one and father your ignorance on Binius And with like ignorance you affirme (c) Ibid. the decree touching appeales to haue bene made by the Councell of Mileuis Anno 402. for the Councell held that yeare was the first of Mileuis in which the decree concerning appeales was not made but in the second Anno 416. 2. You must remember that when Bellarmine in proofe of the Popes vniuersall authority among other arguments produceth examples of African Bishops instituted or deposed by him as also the ancient custome of appealing to him out of Africa you answeare (d) Pag. 289. 304. that the Africans are within the Popes Patriarkeship which you call his Dioces and therfore rather subiect to him then to others If then the Africans were within the Popes Dioces they were subiect to him as to their lawfull Iudge and had right to appeale to him and he to admit their appeales and iudge their causes Wherfore if in the Mileuitan or any other Councell or occasion whatsoeuer the Africans inhibited appeales out of Africa to the Pope their inhibition was an act of disobedience and rebellion against their lawfull Superior and no lesse a crime then if the subiects of a temporall Monarke should forbid appeales to their Soueraigne With what face then can you iustify them therin But the truth is that you slaunder them iniustly for as there is nothing more euident then that the Councell of Carthage and this of Mileuis held in the cause of Pelagius and Celestius did fully acknowledge the supreme authority of the Pope and professed their obedience to him both in words and deeds so there is nothing more certaine then that they denied not his prerogatiue of Appeales without which his authority cannot consist If the African Bishops did not belieue the soueraigne power of the See Apostolike why did S. Cyprian addresse his Councell held in fauor of Rebaptization to Stephen Pope (e) S Hierom. aduers Lucifer And why did the Councell of Carthage held against Pelagius and Celestius send their decrees to Innocentius Pope to be confirmed by his authority saying (*) Aug. ep 92. This our proceeding holy Lord and Brother we conceaued we ought to represent to your Charity that to the statutes of our mediocrity might be added the authority of the See Apostolike for the defence of many mens saluation also for the correction of some mens frowardnesse Nor do they require this of Innocentius by way of charity only but require him as their Pastor to take compassion on them Pastoralibus visceribus with the bowels of mercy which he as their Pastor oweth to them as to his sheep And hauing rehearsed the opinions of Pelagius and Celestius they conclude What other things soeuer are obiected by them we doubt not but that your Reuerence when you haue examined the decrees of the Bishops which are said to be made vpon this occasion in the East will frame such a iudgment wherat we all may reioyce in the mercy of God Innocentius hauing receaued this Epistle praised the Fathers of the Councell (f) Aug. ep 91. that Antiquae traditionis exempla sequentes following the examples of ancient tradition and knowing what is due to the See Apostolike they had sent their decrees to be approued by his iudgment for as much sayth he as we all that sit in this place desire to follow the Apostle himselfe from whom the Episcopall office and the authority of this name hath proceeded the which Apostle we following do now as well know how to condemne euil things as to approue those which are worthy of prayse And then declaring what that is which the ancient tradition hath deliuered he addeth (g) Ibid. The Fathers haue ordeyned not by humane but by diuine sentence that they should not account any thing that is treated in prouinces distant and far of to be ended vntill first it were come to the knowledge of the See Apostolike to the end that the sentence which should be found iust might be confirmed by the authority of the same See and that from thence all other Churches as streames flowing from their Mother source and running with the purity of their originall through the diuers regions of the whole world might take what they ought to ordeyne and what to auoide In like manner the Councell of Mileuis writ to the same Pope as to their Pastor (h) Aug. ep 92. Because our Lord by the guift of his speciall grace hath placed you in the Apostolike See vouchsafe we beseech you to apply your pastorall diligence to the great dangers of the weake members of Christ And S. Augustine who was present at this Councell and Secretary therof writ to Hilary of the same subiect (i) Ep. 94. When I did write these things we knew that a decree had bene made against them Pelagius and Celestius in the Church of Carthage to
finally that they qualify Celestine with these titles Our most beloued Lord and honorable brother Celestine Celestine of blessed memory that the famous Councell of Ephesus cals him New S. Peter This sheweth the impudency of your Centurists who as Peron and Bellarmine aduertise (q) Loc. cit vpon occasion of this African Controuersy traduce almost all the Popes of those times inuerting and peruerting their names by calling Innocent Nocent Boniface Maleface Celestine Infernall and the most holy and learned Pope S. Leo the great A roaring Lyon and a hellish Wolfe To this impudency of the Centurists you adde your Vote whiles in your late sermon before his Maiesty at Durham speaking of Vrbane the second you say (r) Pag. 29. Pope Vrbane called by the nick name of Turbane So indeed he is nicknamed by your selfe but that he was euer so nicknamed by any one els I thinke you cannot shew And to make your selfe more like to the Centurists in this your Grand imposture you brand Zozimus Boniface and Celestine with the black marke of Falsaries charging them with forgery of a false Canon of Nice which censure you might haue spared if you had considered that the African Fathers themselues with whom this controuersy was were so farre from laying any such aspersion on them that contrarily they honored them with titles of great reuerence as you haue heard And how vniustly you charge them with forging a Canon of Nice may appeare by the testimonies of antiquity wherby I haue proued (s) Chap. 16. 26. that the Canons of appeales to Rome which Zozimus sent to the Africans were true Canons of the Nicen Councell But because afterwards (t) Pag. 301. seqq you make a digression to proue that the Nicen Canons were no more but 20. you shall heare receaue your answeare before hand SECT II. That the Nicen Canons were more then 20. in number and that the Canons concerning appeales to Rome were true Canons of the Nicen Councell YOur words are (u) Pag. 302. Your authors instance in multitudes of particular points as being handled in the Councell of Nice which they call Canons of that Councell but erring for want of that paire of spectacles for so we may call a distinction which their owne Iesuit Pisanus reacheth vnto them who distinguisheth thus The things sayth he handled in the Councell of Nice were partly Constitutions or Acts belonging to doctrines and partly Canons which concerne Ecclesiasticall Policy So now all the examples which your obiectors haue collected out of the testimonies of Fathers and Councels as though they had bene Canons are easily answeared by the former distinction to proue them to haue bene Diatyposes Constitutions Acts only not Canons as your Iesuit Turrian doth also manifest which we grant and oppose against all your instances So you not without wilfull imposture for though Pisanus obserue that in the Councell of Nice there were not only Canons but Diatyposes or Constitutions yet he is so farre from saying that the Nicen Canons were but 20. in number that besides the 20. vulgarly acknowledged he setteth downe (x) Apud Bin. pa. 348. other 24. taken out of the second Epistle of Iulius to the Arians in which that holy Pope reprehendeth them seuerely for their proceeding against Athanasius and other Catholike Bishops whom in their Councell at Antioch they had iniustly condemned infringing the Canons of the Nicen Councell which command sayth he that no Councells be held praeter sententiam without the allowance of the B. of Rome And this Canon out of the said Epistle of Iulius is in like manner reported by the Sardican Councell by Socrates Sozomen Theodoret Nicephorus and other ancient authors Whose testimonies Pisanus (y) L. 3. in Conc. Nicen. apud Bin. to 1. pag. 349. 350. setteth downe at large 2. And no lesse effectuall are the words he alleageth of (z) Ibid. pag. 347. Iohn that famous Orator of the Latins in the Councell of Florence for when Marcus the Greeke disputant imputed to the holy Pope Zozimus the same crime of forging a false Canon of the Nicen Councell which you now do in proofe therof alleaged that the Nicen Canons were but 20. in number Iohn in his owne name and in the name of all the Latins answeared that the most ancient Epistles of Iulius and Liberius Popes which Iulian Cardinall of S. Sabina had shewed to the Grecians in that Councell did euince that Athanasius being persecuted and condemned by the Arians writ to Felix Marcus Iulius and Liberius all of them successiuely Bishops of Rome for a true copy of the Actes of Nice all that were in the East being corrupted by the Arians and that their answere was They would not send the originall Actes which being written in Greeke and Latin subscribed by the Nicen Fathers and sealed with their seales were kept by the B. of Rome with great Veneration but that they would send him copied out seuerally those Canons which were for his purpose Moreouer he shewed that when Athanasius appealed from the Councell of Antioch to the See of Rome the Arians reproached it vnto him as a thing vnlawfull Liberius promised to send him copied out the Nicen decree for the lawfullnesse of appealing to Rome and that Iulius in his Epistle sharply rebuked the Arians for presuming to call a Councell without the authority of the See Apostolike shewing to them out of a decreee of the Councell of Nice that no Synod was to be held without the authority of the B. of Rome 3. And in proofe of the same verity he alleageth out of Isidore the testimonies of the Councell of Constantinople of Marcus Stephanus and Innocentius Popes of Athanasius and the Bishops of Aegypt of Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria and other Orientalls of Marianus Scotus Iuo Carnotensis and Gratian giuing vs therby spectacles to see your imposterous dealing who are not ashamed to produce his authority for your number of the 20. Nicen Canons where he professedly proueth the contrary Yea in that very place which you cite thogh he distinguish the decrees of that Councell which you cite into Canons Constitutions yet he presently addeth that Onuphrius reportes the Nicen Canons to be 84. in number but that out of Athanasius we know them not to be aboue 70. or 80. at the most and that the number of 84. reckoned by Onuphrius peraduenture belongs to the Constitutions So Pisanus Can you then be excused from a wilfull falsification in cutting of his words and alleaging him for your 20. Canons in that very place where he addeth immediatly out of S. Athanasius and proueth afterwards out of so many ancient and learned writers that they were many more But leauing him and returning to Iulius he in his third Epistle which S. Athanasius hath inserted into his second Apology intimating to the Arians the right of the B. of Rome to haue the hearing and finall dicision of the causes of Bishops sayth Are you
to resist all nouelties with such constancy as the authority of the See Apostolike and the seuerity of the Prelates assembled in one may not seeme to permit that the doctrine of those whom the Church hath long since condemned come to be borne againe 6. Eugenius another successor to Aurelius being pressed by the LieutenaÌ„t of Hunericus Lord of Africa to enter into a publike disputation with the Arians answeared (y) Victor Vtic. l. 2. He would not do it without writing to his fellow Bishops and chiefly to the Roman Church which is the Head of all Churches 7. S. Fulgentius sayth (z) De incarn grat c. 11. Which the Roman Church which is the head of the world holdesh and teacheth and with her the whole Christian world doth both without hesitation belieue to iustice and also doubts not to confesse to saluation And when the same Sainct was going to the wildrnesse of Thebais in Aegypt to fast (a) Author vitae S. Fulg. c. 12. to 6. Bibliothec Pat. he desisted from his intent when comming to Sicily he vnderstood from Eulalius B. of Syracusa that those Countries were separated from the communion of the Roman Church lest desiring a more perfect life he should runne hazard of loosing the true fayth And insteed of gong into Aegypt he went in pilgrimage to Rome to visit the Sepulchers of the holy Apostles Peter Paul 8. The African Bishops consulted S. Leo the great in their doubts of fayth and S. Leo writ to them a famous decretall Epistle (b) Leo ep 87. 9. Almost all the African Bishops 220. in number being banished into Sardinia by Thrasimundus the Arian King Symmachus Pope relieued maintained them at his owne charges (c) Paul Diac. l. 17. rerum Roman which he would not haue done if they had bene separated from his communion 10. Possessor a famous African Bishop writ to Hormisdas Pope (d) Ep. ad Hormisd It is fit and expedient that we haue recourse to the Heard as often as the health of the members is treated of for who hath greater solicitude of his subiects or from whom is more to be required the stability of fayth that is wauering then from the President of that seate whose first Gouernor heard from Christ. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church 11. Victor Bishop of Vtica reporteth (e) L. 1. de persequut Vandal that the Arians in Africa did call the Catholikes Romans as you now call vs Romanists which they did vpon no other ground then because the African Catholikes were of the Roman Communion 12. And that the possession which the Bishop of Rome were in of appeales out of Africa was not interrupted by the sixt Conncell of Carthage is prouâ—d out of Ferrandus a Deacon of that Church (f) Breuiar Can. art 59. 60. which liued soone after that tyme hath registred in his collection of Canons this as the fifth sixth Canon of the Councell of Sardica That a condemned Bishop may if he will appeale to the See Apostolike and that during the appeale no other can be ordained in his place By these and many other euidences which may be produced it is manifest that by this Controuersy of Appeales the Africans were not separated from the communion of the Roman Church and that therfore to affirme as you do that they remained in the state of separation for the space of 100. yeares vntill the tyme of Boniface the second is a notorious vntruth for all the examples here alleaged are of African Bishops that liued within the compass of 100. yeares after the sixth Councell of Carthage Against this truth confirmed by so many euident and vndeniable proofes that the African Church was not in the dayes of Aurelius Primate of Africa and S. Augustine seuered by Schisme from the Roman Church you vrge the Epistle of Boniface the second wherein he testifieth that the African Church was in his dayes reconciled vnto them Roman In the Body of your Councells say (g) Pag. 148. you there is (h) Apud Suriumtom 2. Concil pag. 384. So you quote him falsly for it is Tom. 1. Concil pag. 1057. extant the Epistle of Boniface the second wherein about the yeare 606. the same Pope complaineth that Aurelius with his fellow-Bishops of Africa with whome S. Augustine did consent had by the instigation of Satan for so the Epistle speaketh been separated from the Church of Rome vntill now after an hundred yeares space Eulalius Bishop of Carthage acknowledging his offence seeketh and desireth to be reconciled to the Church of Rome Thus farre the Epistle of your Pope Do you belicue this Epistle concerning the Excommunication of the Churches of Africk Then had you best stand aside a while for scare of knocks For behold there are at hand children of the Tribe of Dan angry fellowes that lay about them 1. Bellarmine (i) Bellar. lib. 2. de Pont. Rom. c. 25. I greatly suspect sayth he that this Epistle is counterfait 2. It is full of fraud sayth (k) Binius Tom. 1. Conc. in hanc Epistolam Binius 3. Which sayth Baronius some wicked Impostor hath fayned c. Do not you belieue this Epistle of Boniface to be true Then harken to your (l) Lindan Panopl l. 4. c. 89. Lindan This Epistle sayth he is not supposititious but true c. Thus you And then finding in Baronius that during those huÌ„dred yeares there were whole troopes and armias of African Martyrs and holy Confessors you triumph and bid vs take (m) Pag. 150. this your Syllogisme to ruminate vpon No true Christian Martyrs dye out of the state of Saluation Diuers true Christian Martyrs dye out of Obedience to the Roman Church Ergo Diuers dying out of Obedience to the Roman Church dye not out of the state of Saluation Thus you dispute in your fancy victoriously as hauing by this your discourse and Syllogisme knock't the Roman Church on the heal I shall first discouer the weakenesse and vanity of your Syllogisme then shew the multiplicity of your falsities and fraudes supposed and cunningly contriued into your relation of the Story lastly lay open the reasons why that Epistle may be suspected yea reiected as being Counterfait In your Sollogisme I grant the Maior Proposition That no true Martyr dyeth out of the state of Saluation In your Minor or Assumption Diuers true Christian Martyrs dye out of obedience to the Roman Church I distinguish sundry Kinds of Disobediences First there is disobedience Heretical which resists the doctrines decrees of Fayth deliuered by the Catholike Roman Church yea denieth the prime article of Christian vnity the headship and supreme authority of her Bishop In the state of this Disobedience there can be no true Martyrdome no hope of Saluation Secondly there is Disobedience Schismatical which belieuing firmely the Doctrine of the Roman Church and acknowledging the Supreme authority of her Bishop excepts against the present
Bishop and Pastor as not being true Pope and cleaueth to one opposite vnto him men dying in the state of this Disobedience cannot possibly be true Martyrs nor be saued Thirdly there is Disobedience moral in matter of good life manners against precepts enacted by the Church for the better auoyding punishing of ill behauiour Now in the state of this kind of Disobedience men may be saued for the disobeying of these kind of orders and commands may proceed either from contumacy and contempt or from errour and ignorance If out of contempt then is it damnable so that none dying therin can be Martyrs or goe to heauen But with Disobedience of the second kind caused by ignorance Saluation and Martyrdome may stand for their ignorance may be inuincible or else probable and grounded vpon good seeming reasons Or if it be vincible and faulty yet may it be abolished by their contrition for all their sinnes or falce Martyrij by the sickle of Martyrdome done away This supposed I say the Disobedience of the African Bishops was not Heretical because in all matters of sayth they were conforme to the Church of Rome and by manifold practise shewed that about doubts and controuersies of this kind they held it necessary to haue recourse to (n) Ep. Concil Mileuit 92. inter Epist August the Pastorall Chayre and care of Peter to the (o) Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 10. l. 4. ep 8. Roote and matrice of the Catholike Church to the Rocke which the (p) August Psal cont part Donat. proud gates of Hell do neuer ouercome to the maine indeficient fountaine which with the streames of wholesome doctrine watereth all Christians ouer the whole world The ancient rules say they the foure Primates of Afrike (q) Ep. ad Theodor. Papam Extat in Concil Lateran 1. consult 2. Bin. to 2. p. 1075. haue ordayned that whatsoeuer is treated in Prouinces distant and farre of should not be deemed to be ended vntill first it were come to the knowledge of the See Apostolike to the en that the sentente which should be found iust might be confirmed by the authority of the same See and that from thence all other Churches as streames flowing from their mother source might take the beginning of their preaching and the Sacraments of Saluation Their Disobedience then could not be Heretical nor was it Schismatical because they acknowledged the Pope euen that Pope with whome they did disagree to be their Pastor and Superior whose (r) August Epist. 157. Iniuncta nobis à Venerabili Papa Zozimo Ecclesiastica necessitas lawfull Commaunds they were bound to obey that all Maior causes all matters controuersies aboue Iurisdiction of greater moment to wit such as concerne sayth and the life and gouernment of Bishops are to be referred vnto him and to be finally and infallibly decided by him Neither thirdly was their Disobedience ioyned with contumacy and contempt because though they refused to deferre vnto the Appeales which Priest infertour Clergymen might make to the Pope yet they do it with great humility and respect and by way of submissiue intreaty in their (s) Ep. ad Caelestin apud Sur. Tom. l. Coucil pag. 520. letter to Pope Celeftine Praefato debitae Salutationis officio impendio deprecamur vt deinceps ad aures vestrashinc venientes non facilius admittatis The behoofe of due Salutation or Reuerence being premised we humbly beseech you that those which come from hence with their Appeales you will not admit them vnto audience ouer-easily Therefore their disobedience was out of ignorance for they did not doubt but the Pope had power to command the Bishops of Africa to yield vnto the Appeales that were made vnto him but they esteemed the practise of that power not to be in those circumstances for the good of the Church of Africa They saw by appealing to Rome that dissolute and vnruly Clergymen would cause much vexation vnto the Bishops their lawfull Iudges prolonge the cause differre the sentence and many times escape deserued punishment which impunity might easily grow into liberty and audacity and extreme disorder Wherefore the power giuen of Christ to his Church and Vicar on earth being giuen (t) â— Cor. 1â— 10 for edifying not for destroying they were persuaded that the Pope could not prudently command them to deferre vnto such Appeales and if he did that they should not be bound to obey therein You demand (u) Pag. 150â— whether the Pope of Rome whom we entitle Monarch of the Church Catholike and Bishop of Bishops would accept it as a matter of subiection for Protestants with S. Augustine and those other African Bishops to deny that any ought to be called Bishop of Bishop and not to yield to his demands in point of Iurisdiction vpon any pretence of Diuine Law but to exact of him proofe by a Canon of an ancient Councell I answere The African Bishops deny the title of Prince of Bishops to any Arch-bishop or Primate within Africke but not to the Roman Bishop yea they entitle him in expresse termes (x) Aruob in Psal 138. Tertullian lib. de pudicit c. 1. Stephanus Mauritaniae in Africa Episcopus Epist. ad Damasum Bishop of Bishops the Holy Father of Fathers the soueraigne Bishop of all Bishops and Pastors they call his Authority the Princedome of the Apostolike Chayre euer vigent in the Roman Church they acknowledge that they are bound to obey all his iust commandes that all Christians may and must Appeale to him about Controuersies of Religion and the Catholike Fayth August ep 1â—2 A postolitae Cathedrae principatum Item the foure Primates of Afrike in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Theodor in Conc. Lateran 1. Consul 2. Bintom 2 pag. 1078. Patri Patrum summo omnium Praesulum Pontifici Theodoro By which is answered what you alleage pag. 46. out of the 26. Canon of the Councell of Carthage yea Bishops also in criminal causes from the condeÌ„nation giuen against them by their fellow-Bishops But that the Pope should admit the Appeales so easely of euery African Priest and Clergyman hereof they doubt whether it be expedient for the African Church Now Bishops may be sometimes excused if they do not obey the Pope in matters that are extremely burthensome and hard specially when they haue probable reasons that it is not prudently commanded nor will proue for the good of soules But Protestants you are disobedient vnto the See of Peter and the Soueraigne Bishop of all Bishops in points of Iurisdiction allowed vnto him by ancient Councells Your disobedience is ioyned with Contumacy contempt contumely and base language You deny Appeales vnto him in matters and doubts about Christian Fayth Wherefore you want that dutifull subiection to Peters chayre without which none can be of the number of Christ his sheepe nor consequently be saued yea you are guilty of that damnable disobedience whereof S. Leo sayth (y) Epist 93. c.
Authentica which out of the Glosse you obiect We ordaine sayth he (i) Authen de eccles tit c. 2. according to the definitions of the holy Councells that the most holy Pope of the elder Rome is to be the first of all Prelates and that the most blessed Archbishop of Constantinople new Rome shall haue the second place after the holy See Apostelike of old Rome and shall be preferred before all the other Sees But you vrge the Glosse alleageth the Emperor saying that the B. of Constantinople hath the same right ouer those in subiection vnder him which the Pope hath ouer his True but the same Glosse declareth which you conceale that this similitude of rights between them is not in all respects but in quibusdam in some which the Glosse nominateth Yf you compare them precisely as Bishops of their peculiar Dioceses of Rome and Constantinople or as Patriarkes he of Constantinople hath the same rightes in his Dioces and Patriarkeship of Constantinople that the Pope considered precisely as Bishop and Patriarke hath ouer his Dioces of Rome Patriarkeship of the West But besides these two dignities the Pope is Chief of all Prelates and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church to which titles the B. of Constantinople hath no right but in regard of them is inferior to the Pope and subiect to him And so much you might haue vnderstood if from the Glosse you had turned your eyes to the texts of that and the precedent Chapter which declare that the Pope is aboue the B. of Constantinople and hath power to depose him when there is cause And you might also haue called to minde that many Patriarkes of Constantinople haue bene deposed by diuers Popes among them Anthymus by Agapet in the very City of Constantinople in the presence of Iustinian which neither he nor Theodora the Empresse that protected Anthymus would haue permitted if they had not acknowledged the subiection of the Patriarke of Constantinople to the B. of Rome SECT IV. Doctor Mortons fourth instance of Theodosius and Valentinian examined THe Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian say you (k) Pag. 162. in their letters to Cyrill require all Bishops without exception to be present at the Councell of Ephesus as they meane to auoid the sentence of condemnation vpon themselues Wherupon Pope Leo is glad to returne an answeare excusing his not coming by the exigence of time and his other instant occasions within his owne Dioces which would not permit him to be absent from his See and therefore hopeth his owne words to obtaine so much pardon and fauor that his Legates may be accepted of in his stead These your words are full of ignorance and falshood for first the letters of Theodosius and Valentinian to Cyrill were to call him and other Bishops to the first Councell of Ephesus which was held finished in the tyme Celestine Pope nine yeares before Leo was created B. of Rome Is it not then palpable ignorance to say that Leo is glad to returne an answeare excusing his not comming by the exigence of time and his other instant occasions within his owne Dioces when as the letters were written nine yeares before he had any Dioces at all and were neither directed to him nor any way concerned him 2. If Theodosius and Valentinian called the Bishops to the first Councell of Ephesus it was not by their owne authority but by the authority of Celestine Pope (l) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 2. Bar. anno 430. 3. Howbeit Theodosius in the yeare 449. which was 19. yeares after the writing of that letter to Cyrill by his owne authority assembled the Piratioall Synod of Ephesus in fauor of the Eutychian heresy yet knowing that no Councell can be valide which is not celebrated by the consent and authority of the B. of Rome he writ to Leo then Pope inuiting him to it And this letter it is which you ignorantly confound with the other written to Cyrill who was dead siue yeares before the writing of this to Leo. But Leo knowing the error of Eutyches to haue bene condemned already in a Councell at Constantinople and to be in it selfe so manifestly impious that as he writ to the holy Patriarke Flauianus (m) Ep. 1◠another Councell might no way seeme necessary for the condemnation of it and withall fore-seeing the great mischiefes that were like to ensue out of the Councell intended by Theodosius endeauored to diuert him wholly from that purpose or at least to perswade him that if a Councell were called it might be held in Italy But seeing he could draw the Emperor to neither of these conditions least on his part any thing should be wanting which might seeme auaileable for the destruction of Heresy and peace of the Church he sent Legates in his steed to preside in the Councell at which himselfe could not be present for the reasons expressed in diuers of his epistles (n) Ep. 12.17.18 in which also he declareth that he sent them armed with his authority either to restore Euches to the Catholike communion if he would renounce his errors and aske pardon of them as by libell presented to the See Apostolike he had promised to do or els to pronounce the last sentence of condemnation against him But wheras you to make good that the calling of Councells belongs to Emperors say (o) Pag. 162. Leo's owne words are that he hopeth to obtaine so much pardon and fauor that his Legates might be accepted of in his steed you speake not truly for his words are Because you know that my presence at Rome importeth for the common good so that saluâ Clementiae Vestrae veniâ by the good leaue of your Clemency I might not deny my selfe to the loue and requests of the Citizens thinke me to be present in these my brethren whom I haue sent in my steed and giuen them full instructions what ought to be obserued And it is to be noted that these words are not spoken by Leo to the Emperors as out of your discourse it may seeme to our English reader but to Pulcheria a woman who witnesse the Apostle (p) 1. Cor. 14.34 may not speake in the Church much lesse assemble Councells or moderate Ecclesiasticall causes Nor do they import any subiection to her in ecclesiasticall affaires but are merely words of ciuill respect and vrbanity fit to be vsed to the person of so great a Lady And your illation out of them that Emperors haue power to moderate Ecclesiasticall causes and assemble Councells is a consequence that suiteth not well with your iudgment and learning SECT V. Doctor Mortons fifth instance of Iustinian examined THe last Emperor you obiect is Iustinian Who say you (q) Pag. 162. will hardly please vs because he authorized vnder his owne hand the Code or bookes of Constitutions and Pandects for the regulating of the Clergy as well as of the Laity That this will hardly please vs you proue out
deinde neque hoc habet Papa propter ordinem charitatis sed propter subiectionem subordinationem ad deponendos Reges disponendum de regnis which you set downe (l) Pag margi as Bellarmines is not his but patched vp of diners words taken out of seuerall places of his and knit into one sentence to make him dance after your pipe speake as best fitteth your designe Yea Bellarmine out of that very Epistle and out of those very words of Innocent which you obiect proueth els where (m) L Pont that the Pope hath no temporall dominion ouer Christian Princes whome therfore you slander falsly fathering on him the contrary to make him all Catholikes as much as in you lieth hatefull to Christian Princes The third author which is Carerius I haue not seene but how vnsincerely you haue heretofore cited him in this very matter F. Persons in his Treatise tending to Mitigation against the seditious writings of Thomas Morion Minister hath shewed long since (n) Ch 162.17 And because he truly obserueth that you hardly cite any Author without some sleight or other I suspect that here you deale no otherwise with Carerius SECT II. Your second Argument out of Hieremy the Prophet examined SEcondly you say (o) Pag. 170. Popes exact of Emperors be they Christians or Ethnickes subiection and subordination when they meane to dispossesse them of their kingdomes or depriue them of their liues from pretence of Scripture alleaging in their Bulls for their warrant that saying of the Prophet Behold I haue constituted thee aboue nations and kingdomes to plant and roote on t to build and destroy Ierem. 1. So they Wherunto also accordeth the decree of Boniface the eight Good God that the world should be so bewitched by them as to account them Pastors of the Church who feed their people with thornes swords daggers and pistolls For what els meane these grosses wherby the word of God is so notoriously prophaned for patronizing of rebellions and murders All these are your words false I am sure and slanderous and whether not also rayling virulent let the Reader iudge My intention heere is not to dispute what authority the Pope hath ouer Kings and Emperors in temporall matters I write against you and my intention only is to shew that as in other matters so also in this you wrong the Popes and falsify the Fathers with other Catholike authors And to begin with S. Bernard you say (p) Pag. 170. He writing to Pope Eugenius (q) L. 2. de Considerat condemneth the Papall Glosse to his face teaching that in this text vnder the figuratiue speach of rurall sweat is expressed the spirituall labour c shewing therby that your Popes might haue proued for their aduantage out of that text rather a right to become gardeners and carpenters for roting out weeds and destroying of buildings then Generalls of Hoasts for conquest and subiection of kingdomes That S. Bernard out of this text gathereth no power of Popes to depose Kings or other secular Princes or people I grant He only admonisheth Eugenius that being placed in a seat of eminēcy from whence as from a watch-tower he beholdeth all he neither giue himselfe to idlenesse his function being an office of spirituall labor nor be puffed vp with pride but gouerne in humility which he calleth The chiefest gemme among all the ornaments of the high Priest and to that end representeth vnto him the admonition which S. Peter gaue to all Prelats (r) 1. Pet. 5.2 not no dominier in the Clergy but to become paternes of the flock from the hart and the example of Christ who was in the middest of his Disciples as one that wayted (s) Luc. 22.27 But yet to shew against you that Eugenius had spirituall iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church he sayth to him (t) L. 2. de Consid What person bearest thou in the Church of God Who art thou A great Priest the chiefe Bishop Thou art the Prince of Bishops thou the heyre of the Apostles thou art Abel in primacy Nōe in gouerment in Patriarkship Abraham in order Melchisedech in dignity Aaron in authority Moyses in iudicature Samuel in power Peter and by Vnction Christ. Thou art he to whom the keyes were giuen to whom the sheepe committed There are other porters of Heauen and Pastors of flocks but thou as in a different so in a far more glorious manner hast inherited both those names They haue their seuerall flockes assigned vnto them to thee all are committed one flock to one shepheard Thou art not only Pastor of the sheep but Pastor of all Pastors Dost thou aske how I proue it Out of the word of our Lord for to which I will not say of the Bishops but euen of the Apostles were the sheepe committed so absolutely and without exception If thou louest me Peter feed my sheepe What sheep Of this or that City or Countrey or Kingdome My sheep sayth he To whom is it not manifest that he designed not any but assigned all where no distinction is put no exception is made c. The power of others is confined within certaine limits Thy power extendeth euen to them that haue receaued power ouer others If there because canst not thou shut vp Heauen to a Bishop Canst not thou depose him from his Bishoprick and deliuer him to Satan All these words are S. Bernards which I haue transcribed that the reader may see he belieued the Pope to be Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church and acknowledged in him absolute power to depose Bishops which you could not be ignorant of but conceale it because it toucheth your copie-hold and mention only deposing of Princes of which S. Bernard speaketh not one word Yea more ouer he doth not only acknowledge that the Pope hath power to depose Bishops but withall sheweth how falsly you alleage him to proue that in the text of Hieremy nothing is expressed but spirituall labor vnder the figuratiue speach of rurall sweat for writing to the same Pope Eugenius (u) Ep. 237. he requesteth him to depose the Bishops of Winchester Yorke as intruders and wicked men that opposed the Archbishop of Canterbury a religious Prelate and of good fame and out of this very text of Hieremy proueth his authority to do it for to that end sayth he (x) Ibid. thou art placed ouer nations and kingdomes to pull vp and destroy to build and to plant which power he declareth againe in another Epistle (y) Ep. 239. out of the same text of Hieremy speaking to Eugenius of deposing a wicked Bishop of the Ruthenians Nor is it S. Bernard only that interpreteth Hieremy in this sense for 630. Bishops assembled in the Councell of Chalcedon (z) In relat ad Leo. alleage the same text to iustify their deposing of Dioscorus and require Leo Pope to confirme the same The like interpretation is made by 32. Bishops in the
a person of so great dignity and very aged he vndertake so long so laborious and so dangerous a iourney to declare vnto Anicetus the reasons of his persisting in the Asian custome which if Anicetus had then condemned it is not to be doubted but that Polycarpe would haue departed from it as all orthodoxe Bishops did when they saw it condemned by the Church and the defenders of it declared to be heretikes SECT II. S. Cyprian obiected by Doctor Morton TO proue that Cyprian belieued not any necessity of vnion with the Roman Church you repeate here (t) Pag. 185.188 what you had sayd before of his being excommunicated by Pope Stephen contemning the excommunication for which you bring no other proofe then the testimony of Cassander an heretike Primae classis whose workes you know to be forbidden and yet shame not to cite him as a Catholike author that you may call his lies Our confessions for that they be lies I haue already proued (u) Chap. 24. And so much the more reproueable you are because S. Cyprians testimonies which shew him to haue beleeued the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church and all that are diuided from her to be Schismatikes you shift off (x) Pag. 186. with an answeare of Goulartius that Cyprian spake them of his owne only authority against Schismatikes who troubled his iurisdiction Which to be a false and vnconscionable answeare you and your Goulartius may learne from the Centurists who reprehend S. Cyprian (y) Brerel Protest Apol. tract 1. sect 3. subdiu 10. for teaching that our Lord hath built his Church vpon Peter that one Chaire by our Lords voyce is built vpon Peter as vpon a Rock that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholike Church for calling Peters chaire the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued and for teaching that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all others the Mother and Roote of the Catholike Church To these testimonies acknowledged by the Centurists I adde that Cyprian (z) L. 4. ep 2. exhorteth Antonianus in time of Schisme to adhere to the Pope and hold fast his communion that is sayth he the communion of the Catholike Church and expressly affirmeth (a) L. de Vnit. Eccles that Who-euer resisteth the Chaire of Peter nether holdeth the fayth nor is in the Church And speaking of some certayne heretikes he obiecteth vnto them their great boldnesse in presuming to saile to the chaire of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praised by the voice of the Apostle and to whom perfidiousnesse can haue no accesse To this you answeare (b) Pag. 186. No Father of the primitiue times is more vrged by you then S. Cyprian no Epistle more insisted vpon then this no words more inculcated then these and we may adde no Father no epistle no sentence more egregiously abused and peruerted for he speaketh not of perfidiousnesse in doctrine but only in discipline by the false and perfidious reportes of schismaticall fellowes c. If this sentence of S. Cyprian be peruerted not we but you peruert it And so it will appeare to any impartiall Iudge that shall read the words not cut short as you rehearse theÌ„ that the sense may not be vnderstood but entire as I haue set theÌ„ downe The Nouatians were not only Schismatikes but heretikes as S. Cyprian in that epistle els where often calleth them And in the words alleaged when he opposeth their perfidiousnesse to the Roman fayth commended by the Apostle by perfidiousnesse he vnderstandeth error in doctrine or misbeliefe which is oposite to fayth not perfidiousnesse in discipline for that hath no opposition at all with fayth Wherefore he reprehendeth the Nouatians that hauing not only diuided themselues by schisme from the chaire of S. Peter which is the principall Church from whence sacerdotall vnity is deriued but also forsaken the Roman fayth praysed by the mouth of the Apostle they dare notwithstanding presume to saile to Rome in hope to deceaue that Church and get their doctrine approued by her not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth being praysed by the Apostle misbeliefe can haue no accesse to them Which doctrine S. Hierome seemeth to haue taken from this place of Cyprian when speaking to Ruffinus he saith (c) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. Know that the Roman fayth commended by the voice of the Apostle admitteth no delusions and that being fensed by S. Pauls authority it cannot be altered c. SECT III. S. Athanasius obiected by Doctor Morton THat S. Athanasius beleeued not the necessity of vnion and subiection to the Roman Church you proue (d) Pag. 190. for that being excommunicated by Liberius Pope he regarded not his excommunication This we deny It is peraduenture true though not altogether certaine (e) Onuphr in Not ad Plati Ruffin l. 1. histâ—c 27. Sozom l. 4. c. 14. that Liberius wearied out with two yeares banishment and other vexations by Constantius the Arian Emperor yeilded to signe the condemnation of Athanasius and entred into communion with the Arians and thereby became a Schismatike But that he excommunicated Athanasius is not reported by any writer nor is it true but a fiction of yours And were it true the excommunication had not only bene iniust as being pronounced against an innocent person and therfore no way obligatory but also inualid for as much as Liberius by forsaking the communion of Catholikes and entring into communion with heretikes was fallen from his Papacy and had no power to pronounce excommunication against Athanasius or if he had pronounced it Athanasius had not bene bound to obey To proue that Athanasius regarded not the excommunication of the B. of Rome you should haue proued that whiles Liberius was true Pope he excommunicated Athanasius and that Athanasius refused to obey which you proue not and therfore your obiection is impertinent and your assertion false For who knoweth not that Athanasius acknowledged the supreme power of the Roman Church when being cast out of his Bishoprick he appealed to Iulius Pope and Iulius by the dignity and prerogatiue of the Roman See restored him againe to his Church (f) Socrat. l. 2. c. 11. Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. And what els did he meane when he and the rest of the Aegyptian Bishops writing to Marcus Pope endorsed their letter To the holy and Venerable Lord of Apostolicall Eminency Marke Father of the holy Roman Apostolike See and of the vniuersall Church And in the letter We desire that by the authority of the Church of your holy See which is the Mother and Head of all Churches we may deserue to receaue the copies of the Nicen Canons by these our Legates for the instruction and comfort of the faythfull that being fensed by your authority c. And againe (g) Eadem Ep. We are yours and
de Pont. c. 2. it is defended by Gerson and Almain Doctors of Paris as also by Castro and Adrianus sextus and that it is tolerated by the Church Do not you then ouerlash saying that Bellarmines opinion is part of our beliefe necessary to saluation when he so expresly teacheth the contrary SECT VI. S. Hieroms iudgment concerning the necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof HE declared his iudgment (z) Ep. 77. when to assure himselfe to be in the communion of the Catholike Church he regarded not the communion of Paulinus in whose Patriarship of Antioch he liued but professed himselfe to stick fast to the communion of Damasus Pope that is to the chaire of Peter vpon which sayth he I know the Church to be built You answeare (a) Pag. 203. that by chaire he meant not the See and Bishoprick of Rome but the true Doctrine of fayth then preached at Rome euen as Christ spake of the chaire of Moyses that is sayth S. Hierome the law of Moyses This satisfieth not both because whē some Fathers expound fayth to be the Rock on which Christ built his Church they exclude not but include the person of Peter and chiefely because S. Hierome followeth not that exposition but euer vnderstāds the person of Peter his See to be the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church Christ sayth he (b) Ad cap. 16. Math. gaue to Simon that belieued in him the name of a Rock and according to the Metaphor of a Rock it is rightly said to him I will build my Church on thee And a litle after Christ did not then actually build his Church on Peter but promised to build it on him afterward saying I will build my Church on thee and I will giue to thee the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen Wherfore as he promised not to deliuer the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to Fayth but to Peter and his Successors so on him and them he promised to build his Church And the same is manifest out of the contexture of this his Epistle to Damasus for doth he not say I am ioyned in communion to your Blessednesse that is to the chaire of Peter vpon this Rock I know the Church to be built Whosoeuer shall eate the Lambe out of this house he is prophane If any one shall not be in the arke of Nöe he shall perish in the deluge These words conuince that S. Hierome by the chaire of Peter vnderstands not fayth but the Church built on him and his Successors for the house out of which no man can eat the lambe that is offer sacrifice is not fayth to which the denomination of a house cannot agree but the Church built vpon Peter which S. Ambrose (c) In 1. Timoth 3.15 calleth The house of God wherof Damasus was then Gouernor And the same is euident out of S. Hierome himselfe for fayth is not the Arke of Nöe but the Church of Peter out of which whosoeuer shall be at the comming of the deluge shall perish And I cannot but admonish you of a fraudulent reticence for being you make so great accompt of Erasmus produce him for your only author (d) Pag. 204. that S. Hierome by the chaire of Peter vnderstandeth fayth why do you conceale that vpon this very passage Erasmus sheweth S. Hierome to condemne your doctrine of falshood Here sayth he (e) Anotat in Ep. 77. S. Hieron Hierome seemeth to be wholly of opinion that all Churches ought to be subiect to the Roman See or surely not diuided from her which peculiarly glorieth in this Apostle that had the soueraignty among the Apostles and which is so Orthodoxall that of all Orthodoxall Churches she is the chiefest in dignity This you know to be the true meaning of S. Hierome but shift it of repeating often and with great variety of words that if S. Hierome pointed out the Church of Rome as the Arke of Noah yet therby he conceaued not a perpetuity therof that Virgin Hierusalem may become a harlot and that she hath no priuiledge neuer to apostatate But this euasion I haue already disproued (f) See aboue Chap. 12. sect 1. 2. by the promise of Christ made to S. Peter and his Successors that their fayth shall not faile and that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against the Church built vpon them To this I adde that S. Hierome acknowledgeth Damasus to be his Pastor (g) Ep 77. and therfore Pastor of the vniuersall Church for when he writ that Epistle he was an inhabitant of Palestine which being in the Patriarkship of Antioch Paulinus that was then Patriarke of Antioch was actually his Pastor and he actually a sheep of Paulinus therfore could not at the same time be actually a sheep of Damasus if the sheep of the Patriarkship of Antioch were not actually subiect to the pastorall authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome Yes say you (h) Pag. 202. He might be held a sheep of the B. of Rome in respect of his baptisme But this I deny for he that being baptized in one Dioces leaueth that and becometh an inhabitant of another eo ipso becometh a sheep of that Dioces which he inhabiteth and leaueth to be a sheep of the former in which he was baptized And as the Bishop vnder whom he was baptized can haue no authority ouer him after he hath left his Dioces vnlesse he be superior in power and iurisdiction to the Bishop whose Dioces he now inhabiteth so neither could Damasus be actually Pastor to S. Hierome hauing left the Dioces and Patriarkship of Rome and inhabiting that of Antioch if Damasus had not had pastorall authority ouer the sheep of the Patriarkship of Antioch Now to your obiections The first is (i) Pag. 205. S. Hierome twited and taunted Damasus saying But away enuy and let the ambition of the Roman height depart which he did not say so much in regard of Damasus his owne pride otherwise an excellent godly Pope as for the pride of the Roman top or height namely the ambition of his state This is impertinent and vntrue Impertinent for were it true as it is not that S. Hierome reprehended the pride of the Roman Church pride is not an error in fayth but a fault in manners and therfore no warrant for you to disauow the fayth or forsake the Communion of the Roman Church It is also vntrue for S. Hierome doth not only not twite Damasus but professeth himselfe to be ioyned in communion with his Blessednesse And much lesse doth he taunt his See which he acknowledgeth to be the Rock on which the Church is built And indeed who but you would haue charged S. Hierome with twiting and taunting Damasus an excellent godly Pope whom you acknowledge to be his pastor and spirituall Father that not for any fault of his owne but for faults feigned by you against
dayes the Roman Church held it canonicall (e) Pag. 222. are all repetitions of your former Arguments which in their due places haue bene answeared (f) Chap. 22. sect 3. Chap. 25.26 tot Chap. 30. sect 1. Chap. 34. sect 6. But to them you adde here a Consideration of your iudicious Casaubon (g) Pag. 223. requiring vs who accompt the only note of Schisme to be diuided from the Roman Church and Pope thereof to answeare Why S. Augustine who in seauen Bookes besides many other places confuted the Schismaticall Donatists yet neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope or of the infallibility of his iudgement whereby to reduce them to the vnity of the Church and truth Your iudicious Casaubon shewed great lack of iudgment in making this Argument and that he had not read S. Augustine or if he had that he did not vnderstand him or if he had read did vnderstand him then you know what he sheweth in concealing the truth For throughout all those seauen Bookes against the Donatists there is nothing which S. Augustine so often obiecteth nor so much vrgeth against them as their separation from the Roman Church repeating the same not once or twice but almost in euery Chapter of some of those bookes For when the Donatists did striue to defend their heresy of rebaptization by the authority of S. Cyprian S. Augustine answeared (h) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18.19 l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9 Contra Crescon l. ◠c. 32. l. 2. c. 3. alibi saepè that Cyprians patronage could not auaile them because they were out of the Communion of the Roman Church in which S. Cyprian liued died And doth he not in other his writings against the Donatists often vrge the succession of Bishops in the Roman Church If sayth (i) Ep. 165. he the order and succession of Bishops be to be obserued how much more assuredly and safely indeed do we begin our accompt from S. Peter himselfe to whom as he represented the whole Church our Lord sayd (k) Math. 16.18 Vpon this Rock I will build my Church For Linus succeoded to Peter Cletus to Linus c. And so reckoning all the Popes vnto Anastasius who then sate in the chaire of S. Peter he concludeth against the Donatists In this order of succession there is not one Donatist to be found to which I adde no nor yet one Protestant And reckoning the motiues that held him in the Church among them he setteth downe the succession of Bishops in the See of Rome There are sayth he (l) Cont Ep. Fundam c. 4. many thinges which with greatest reason hold me in this Catholike Church 1. The vniforme consent of people and nations which is not to be found in the Protestant Church confined to a few Northern countreyes in a corner of the world 2. A certaine authority begun by miracles which Protestants confesse themselues not to haue 3. The succession of Priests euen from S. Peter vntill this present Bishop Wherfore since that Church in which there is a continued succession of Bishops from S. Peter cannot be the Protestan Church which hath no such succession but the Roman it followeth that S. Augustine held the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church And therefore expressing to the Donatists how much he grieued to see them ly cut of from this Church he said (m) Psal cont part Donati It greeueth vs to see you ly so cut of Number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranck of Fathers who succeeded whom That 's the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not Here againe S. Augustine sheweth the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church built vpon Peter and his successors as vpon a rock against which heresies schismes which are the proud gates of hell shall neuer preuaile and all that are out of her communion to be as branches out of from the Vine and deuoid of all spirituall life And as he held all that are out of the Roman Church to be in miserable state so contrarily he held all that liue in her Communion to be most hapy and secure from error in fayth for so he deemed Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage to be notwithstanding all the plots and conspiracies of the Donatists against him He might sayth S. Augustine (n) Ep. 162. contemne the conspiring multitude of his enemies because he knew himselfe to be vnited by communicatory letters both to the Church of Rome in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike hath alwaies florished and to other Countries from whence the Ghospell came first into Africa These few passages among many others shew that your iudicious Casaubon failed much in iudgment and truth when he aduentured to say that S. Augustine in his workes against the Donatists neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope nor of the infallibility of his iudgment wherby to reduce them to the vnity of the Church and truth And as he vrged the authority of the See Apostolike against the Donatists so hath he testified that by the same authority taken from the authority of holy Scriptures (o) Aug. Ep. 91. the Pelagians were condemned who therfore seeing themselues esteemed as Heretikes throughout all the Westerne Church in which they liued sought to the Churches of the East hoping to be admitted into their Communion as the Protestants of Germany writing to Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople did (p) See Iustus Caluinus Apol. pro Eccl. Rom. pag. 10. whom therfore we may check with S. Augustines words written against Iulian a chiese mantainer of the Pelagian heresy I thinke sayth he (q) Cont. Iulia l. 1. c. 4. that part of the world ought to suffice thee in which our Lord would haue the chiefe of the Apostles to be crowned with a most glorious Martyrdome To the Gouernor of which Church Blessed Innocentius if thou woldst haue giuen care thou hadst ere this freed thy dangerous youth from the Pelagian snares for what answeare could that holy man giue to the African Councells but that which from ancient times the Roman Church with all others perseuerantly holdeth And els where he noteth (r) L. 2. de grat Christi pecc orig c. 8. that albeit Pelagius had drawne others into error he could neuer deceaue the Roman Church for the most Blessed Pope Sozimus considered what opinion his predecessor worthy to be imitated had of his proceedings and what iudgment the fayth of the Romans to be commended in our Lord had made of him But you obiect (s) Pag. 225. It is mere sophistry to inferre a necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome to be professed of all Christians at all times because the Fathers required it in their times By this Argument a Pelagian a Donatist an Eutychian or any other Heretike may iustify his departure from the Roman Church pretending as you do that the necessity of vnion with her was not for all times
confiderat when he called Eugenius Pope The God of Pharao as God called Moyses Did Ladislaus that famous King of Hungary blaspheme when he called Nicolas the fifth A God vpon earth (d) Orat. ad Nicol. 5. Acknowledge then that this your obiection is an imposterous cauill against the Bishop and Church of Rome or rather a calumny inuented to mantaine a bad cause which with other Arguments you cannot vphold CHAP. XXXVI The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of ancient Fathers discouered SECT I. Some of his Answeares examined WHAT hath bene produced hitherto out of antiquity conuincingly proueth the vniuersall Authority and Iurisdiction of the B. of Rome to haue bene acknowledged from the beginning by all the Catholikes of the world Here you vndertake to answeare the testimonies of ancient Fathers alleaged by Bellarmine but performe it not Some of them you passe ouer not only without answeare but without any mention of them as of Valentinian the Emperor Venerable Bede S. Anselme Hugo de S. Victore and S. Bernard whom yet Caluin (e) L. 4. instit c. 7. §. 22. cites for himselfe acknowledgeth to be a Saint 2. To the testimonies of S. Ignatius and Irenaeus you answeare but satisfy not as hath bene proued (f) Chap. 15. sect 5. 6. And the like hath bene shewed of your answeares to the testimonies of S. Basil (g) Chap. 34. sect 4. and Iustinian (h) Chap. 30. sect 5. the Emperor 3. Of S. Prosper you say (i) Pag. 270. fin 271. init His meaning might haue bene better knowne if he had written in prose and not assumed vnto him the liberty of a Poet. But who seeth not this to be a mere shift void of truth for as in verse he sayd (k) L. De ingrat c. 2. Now Rome the great Apostle Peters seat Head of Pastorall Honour here below Hath by fayths Empire made her selfe more great then she by all her armed powers could grow So likewise he said in prose (l) De vocat gentium c. 16. The soueraignty of the Apostolicall Priesthood hath made Rome greater by the Tribunall of religion then by the Throne of Power Bellarmine alleageth both the one and the other as well in prose as in verse But because both of them are vnanswerable you vnder colour that the one is in verse reiect S. Prosper as fabulous in both for the liberty which Poets assume vnto them is to report fables insteed of truthes This is the reuerence you beare to that holy and renowned Father and such the solutions wherwith you shift off the testimonies of antiquity and yet beare your Readers in hand that you belieue as they belieued 4. The B. of Patara in Licia (m) Liberat. in Breu. c. 22. vpon the banishment of Pope Siluerius represented to the Emperor Iustinian the iudgment of God vpon the expulsion of the Bishop of so great a Seate saying There are many Kings in the world but not one of them as the Pope who is Head ouer the Church of the whole world You answeare (n) Pag. 156. Liberatus who reported this history was an author deceaued by heretikes belieued not himselfe what he reported for the Pope Giue vs any one author that excepted against this relation of Liberatus before your selfe or that sayd he himselfe beliued not what he reported for the Pope If it shall be lawfull for you to reiect testimonies of antiquity vpon no other ground but because they are against your selfe what authority may not with such answeares be eluded You know this not to satisfy and therfore haue inuented another that this Greeke Author must be taken in the Greeke sense of Primacy of order This satisfieth as litle as the former for the B. of Patara compares the spirituall authority of the Pope with the temporall of Kings protesting that no King hath temporall power ouer all the Kingdoms of the earth as the Pope hath spirituall ouer the Church of the wholeworld Againe that the Popes Primacy in the Greeke sense is not Primacy of iurisdiction but of Order only is said gratis and vntruly The Greeke Fathers in the Councell of Chalcedon spake in the Greeke sense yet they acknowledged (o) In relat ad Leon. the Pope to be their Head and to rule ouer them at the Head doth ouer the members Theodoret spake in the Greeke sense when he said (p) In Ep. â—â— Renat The See of Rome hath the sterne of gouernment ouer all the Churches of the world Theodosius spake in the Greeke sense (q) Const. â— Nouel The 24. when he called the Pope Rector of the vniuersality of Churches This therefore is the Greeke sense and in this sense the B. of Patara spake to Iustinian 5. S. Epiphanius (r) Haeres 58. reporteth that Vrsacius Valens Bishops chiefe sticklers of the Arians touched with remorse for their treachery against Athanasius went vp to Rome and presenting libels of pennance to Iulius Pope craued pardon for their offence and promised to stand to his iudgment which sheweth that they acknowledged him to be the Head and Iudge of Bishops This testimony though set downe in your Latine margent curtalled (s) Pag. 254. yet in your English you make no mention of it but pretending to answeare by a similitude tell vs a tale of a tubbe of A. R. in the County of Suffolke crauing pardon of the Sheriffe of Middelsex for a notorius offence done vnto him But to omit that hereby the English reader can haue no notice at all of the force of this testimony your answeare is nether similitude nor solution but petitio principij a false supposition that Vrsacius and Valens asked pardon of Iulius for a notorious offence done vnto him Their offence was not against Iulius but against Athanasius and yet of this offence they asked pardon of Iulius because they knew that to him as to the Head of the Church it belonged to remedy the disorders of the Church and that as he had power to punish them for their offence so he had also to pardon them vpon their submission and promise of amendment which to that end they made 6. No lesse impertinent is the other flimflam which you adde (t) Pag. 254. as an answeare to the testimony of Dionysius Alexandrinus of two Gentlemen the one being a Iustice of peace agreeing to haue their difference to be ordered by another Iustice of peace for when Dionysius Patriarke of Alexandria was fallen into suspicion of heresy (u) Athanas de sent Dion Et de Sin Arim Seleuc the Catholikes of Alexandria went vp to Rome to accuse him before the Pope The Pope admonished him to cleare himselfe and he obeying presently sent vp a booke of defence and apology which sheweth that both the people Patriarke of Alexandria acknowledged that the cause of Bishops and of fayth were to be tried at the Popes tribunall and that the Pope knew himselfe to haue
Charity only this euery Bishop and euery Christian is bound to haue according to the measure of his ability Or it may be of Iustice and such is the care or charge which euery Bishop hath of his owne Dioces and the Pope of the Vniuersall Church for to him by reason of his office of supreme Pastor belongeth not only a charitable care but the rule gouerment of the vniuersall Church (r) See this proued Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. In this sense Acacius spake when he said (s) Ep. ad Simplic Simplicius Pope had the care of all Churches And the Fathers euermore speake in this sense when they say that to Peter and his Successors in the See of Rome was committed the care of the vniuersal Church In this sense S. Chrysostome said (t) Hom. 87. in Ioan. The care of the whole world was committed to Peter and what he meaneth by Care he explicateth saying (u) Hom. 80. ad pop The gouerment of the Church throughout the whole world was committed to Peter Euthymius (x) Ad c. 21. Ioan. Christ committed to Peter pascendi curam gubernationem the care of feeding and gouerning his flock So Sozomenus (y) L. 3. c. 7. Iulius Pope restored to their seates Athanasius and other Bishops banished by the Arians because the care of all belonged to him by reason of the dignity of his See S. Leo speaking to Anastasius B. of Thessalonica (z) Ep. 84. and making him his Vicar in the East To the end sayth he thou maiest supply the place of my gouerment and help me in that care which by diuine institution I owe to all Churches and in person visit those Prouinces remote from the See Apostolike And to Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople (a) Ep. 46. If they who haue so grieuously offended against Flauianus offer satisfaction let relation therof be made to the See Apostolike that our solicitude may ordayne what is to be obserued S. Gregory (b) L. 4. ep 32. To all that know the Ghospell it is manifest that by the voyce of our Lord the Care and Princedome of the whole Church was committed to Peter Prince of the Apostles And againe (c) L. 7. ep 70. indict 2. By the care of our vndertaken gouerment we are enforced to extend with vigilancy the solicitude of our office S. Bernard (d) Serm. 3. de 7. misericord frag Witnesse Peter to whom the Pastorall care of the whole Church was committed These and a thousand more testimonies conuince that when the ancient Fathers speake of the care of all Churches committed to the B of Rome by Care they vnderstand the Pastorall charge and obligation of ruling and gouerning the Vniuersall Church and therby condemne you of falsity who to the testimony of Victor Vâ—iconsis calling the Roman Church the Head of all Churches answeare (e) Pag. 271. that he calls it not Head of all Churches in power and iurisdiction and that we could neuer proue this out of any ancient Father for you haue heard it proued by their most expresse and vnanswearable words (f) Aboue Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. Yf the fore to expresse this vniuersall authority and iurisdiction of the Pope ouer all Churches they vse somtimes the word Care rather then Gouerment it is because as S. Chrysostome (g) Hom. 3. in Act. speaking of the Pastorall authority of S. Peter ouer the other Apostles hath noted Eminency of spirituall power is a care of subiects not a Lord-like dominion And this sheweth the wrong you do to Costerus (h) Pag. 235. when to disproue the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction you alleage him calling it Care for with what conscience could you possesse your reader that by Care he vnderstands not power and iurisdiction but only a charitable solicitude knowing as you do that in the same Chapter (i) Eâ—chirid Tract de Pont. solut 7. he proueth out of Scripture and Fathers the Pastorall charge of ruling and gouerning the vniuersall Church committed by Christ to S. Peter and his Successors He that readeth this in Costerus and alleageth him for the contrary what can his intention be but to deceaue his readers You (1) Pag. 262. obiect Acacius his deedes full of pride and arrogancy against the Roman Church so that Baronius for his defending Peter Mogg by him established in the Bishopricke of Alexandria against the will of the same Pope Simplicius calleth him a Francirke man violently opposite vnto the Bishop of Rome I answere that Acacius so long as he continued Catholike did both by word and deed acknowledge the supreme authority of the Roman Bishop but it is grosse ignorance in you not to know that afterward he fell to be (2) Euagr. lib. 3. c. 20. Liberatus in Breu. c 18. Niceph. l. 16. c. 17. Spondom An. 484.488 a stiffe mantayner of the Entychian Heretikes namely of Peter Mogg in those dayes the chiefe defender pillar and Patriarke of that damnable Sect for which cause he was excommunicated by the Pope dying obstinate in his sinne his name was blotted out of the Dyptiches euen (3) Spond An. 51â— with the consent of the Bishops of Constantinople his successors wherby we learne this lesson that men so longe as they be Orthodoxe Christians still honor obey the Pope and Roman Church so they are no sooner blasted with the spirit of heresy but they become Frantike opposers therof as your Luther was And wheras to make men belieue that this Acacius was of great authority and esteeme euen in the Latin Church you bid vs remember (4) Pag. 263. that the two Patriarkes Cyrill and Acacius were they that sent the Copies of the Canons of Nice vnto the African Bishops by which our Popes were conuinced of fraude c. We can remember no such matters but wonder how a man so learned as you would be thought could be so childishly mistaken seing Acacius was made Patriarke in the yeare 472. that is fourty eight yeares after the sending of the Nicen CanoÌ„s to the African Bishops the Copies wherof sent by Atticus not by Acacius to haue been imperfect wherein many Canons were wanting we haue already demonstrated As for the decree and sanction of Leo Emperour in behalfe of the Church of Constantinople and Acacius the then Patriarke thereof wherein he termeth the Church of Constantinople the mother of all Christians of the Orthodox Religion whatsoeuer might be the meaning of these wordes in Acacius who moued the Emperour to make that decree his ambitious conceits which Baronius censureth yet according to the mind of the Godly Emperour they import no more then Mother of all Orthodoxe Christians in the Church of Constantinople as is cleere by the text Mother sayth he vnto our Piety and vnto all Orthodoxe Christians and of this Royall Citty the most sacred See You make the Emperor say (5) Pag. 263. the Mother of all Orthodoxall Churches
noting the wordes in a distinct letter as the very phrase of his Sanction manifestly against his meaning For in that very Sanction or Decree he declareth that the cause that moued him to publish it was to disanull the attentats and Innonations against the Venerable Churches aswell those wherof the Patriarke Acacius hath the Priesthood as those placed in other sundry Prouinces which second part about other Churchs and Prouinces you (6) Pag. 26â— leaue out in your Marginal Latin to deceiue the Reader in making him to thinke that Constantinople is stiled absolutely Mother of all Orthodoxall Churches that thereby you may more colourably elude the like Titles attributed vnto the Roman Church So as nothing is related or alleaged by you without fraudulency and falshood SECT IV. Doctor Mortons Answeare to Vincentius Lyrinensis confuted VIncentius to proue that the Latine Churches agreed in Doctrine with the Churches of the East produceth as witnesses Felix and Iulius Popes calling them the Head of the world and S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose The sides of the world You to put off this testimony offer violence to Vincentius his words (k) Pag. 271. interpreting him to meane by Head of the world not the Bishop but the City of Rome But knowing this to be a false comment you adde as a second answeare (l) Ibid. that if he vnderstood the B. of Rome to be the Head of the Catholike Church we must also belieue that Cyprian of Carthage and Ambrose of Milan were alwayes to continue the sides of the Catholike Church This we deny for the Churches of Charthage and Milan haue no promise from Christ that the gates of Hell shall not preuaile against them nor that their fayth shall not faile as the Roman hath (m) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 1. 2. But to bolster vp one falsity with another you say (n) Pag. 271. If Lyrinensis by Head of the world vnderstood the Ecclesiasticall Orbe he cold meane no more then that the Pope is Head of the Westerne part therof But this hath bene already disproued (o) See Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. Chap. 3â— by the testimonies of Councells and Fathers Greeke and Latine directly affirming that the B. of Rome is Head of all Churches and faythfull whatsoeuer throughouth the whole world and that his spirituall power extends euen to them whom the temporall forces of Rome could neuer subdue And to goe no further for proofes Lyrinensis himselfe declared this (p) Cap. 9.10.11 when he said that all Priests in all places made resistance to the doctrine of Rebaptization defended by Agrippinus Cyprian but Stephen B of Rome more then the rest thinking it reason to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth so much as he was superior to them in the authority of his place And what els doth he throughout that whole Treatise but declame against you who haue brought nouelties into the Church contrary to that ancient truth which you found in it when Luther began and when as Caluin professeth you made a separation from the whole world SECT V. Doctor Morton in his Answeare to Optatus contradicteth himselfe OPtatus proueth the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church by the succession of Bishops in the chaire of Rome numbring them all from S. Peter to Siricius that liued in his time (r) L. 2. cont Parmen and defineth all them to be schismatikes and sinners that are separated from the communion of that only singular chaire You answeare (s) Pag. 269. that Optatus by One chaire meant not the particular chaire of Rome but the whole vniuersall Church But the contrary is euident for he reckoneth not the succession of Bishops in any other Church but only in the Roman and sayth (t) L. 2. cont Parmen that the Episcopall chaire was set vp in Rome for Peter to the end that in that chaire vnity might be preserued to all and that he might be a schismatike and a sinner that against this only chaire should set vp another What expression can be more effectuall to proue you to be a schismatike and a sinner then these words of Optatus who condemned the Donatists (u) Ibid. of bold and sacrilegious presumption for fighting against this Chaire of Peter as you do But you reply (x) Pag. 269. The particular Church of Rome is but a portion of the vniuersall Church and therfore Optatus obiecteth against the Donatists their want of vnion with the Churches of Asia commended by S. Iohn in the Reuelation as well as with Rome This you repeate afterwards againe (y) Pag. 273. and had obiected the same before (z) Pag. 100. 101. 229. 230. Your answere you haue receaued already (a) Chap. 15. sect 9. Chap. 34. sect 8. to which I adde that as he who should obiect to rebells their want of vnion with their Prince his loyall subiects doth not therby deny the supreme authority of the Prince ouer all the subiects of his dominions so Optatus obiecting to the rebellious Donatists the want of vnion with the Roman Church and other Orthodoxall Churches of Asia subiect to her doth not therby deny her authority ouer all the Churches of the world But you say (b) Pag. 270. Rome hauing departed from the sincerity of the Apostolicall profession as Asia hath done the departure from that must dissolue necessity of Vnion with Rome You grant then that the Asians haue fallen from the Apostolicall profession as Rome hath done and Rome if we belieue you hath fallen so far that her doctrine is false impious hereticall blasphemous damnable sacrilegious Antichristian Satanicall c. Ergo the Asians hauing fallen from the Apostolicall profession as Rome hath done their doctrine is also damnable hereticall blasphemous Satanicall c. And yet afterwards you say (c) Pag. 407. the Asians haue continued visible partes of the Catholike Church and Protestants stand in Christian vnity with them I conclude therfore that when it is for your purpose the Asians are truly professed Christians and partes of the Catholike Church and Protestants stand in Christian Vnion with them and when it is not for your purpose they haue fallen from the sincerity of the Apostolicall profession as Rome hath done from whence it must follow that it is as vnlawfull to be in vnion with them as with Rome whose doctrine to you is Hereticall blasphemous c. SECT VI. Other vntruthes of Doctor Morton discouered his cauilling against the Title of Holinesse giuen to the Pope YOu set downe (d) Pag. 273. this Thesis as of Bellarmine When the Fathers say that the Church of Rome cannot erre the word cannot is not to be taken absolutely and simply but with this cantion so long as the Apostolicall See continueth at Rome This is not a Thesis of Bellarmine but of a few other Deuines who hold that S. Peter fixed his See at Rome not by diuine ordination but by his owne
1. Author Vitae eius apud Sur. 5. Iunij returned into Germany Gregory sent him the Pal conferring on him the authority of an Archbishop (q) Greg. 3. ep 2. ad Bonifac And before him S Gregory the Great (r) L. 4. Ep. 8. writing to Iohn Bishop of the first Iustinianea The relation of our brethren and fellow-Bishops of Illyria hath declared vnto vs that thou art called to the Episcopall dignity by the agreeing consent of dall the Councell and by the will of the most excellent Prince Mauritius the Emperor wherunto we also giue our consent c. And send thee the Pall according to the custome and decree by a reiterated innouation that thou exercise the Vicarship of the See Apostolike And before him Celestine Pope sending the Pal to Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria (s) Balsom in Nomocan Phot. tit 3. c. 1. Niceph. l. 14. c. 34. made him his Vicar with full power to preside in the Councell of Ephesus and iudge the cause of Nestorius And againe before him Marcus Pope granted the Pal to the B. of Ostia (t) Vit. Rom. Pontif. in Marco confirming to him and his successors the authority of consecrating the B. of Rome All this sheweth that the Pal which the Pope sendeth to Archbishops is not only an expression of his assent to their election and institution but a grant of most ample power and authority which they require from him by asking the Pal and receaue from him together with the Pal. And moreouer that their letters to him are not only to professe their agreement in fayth with the Roman Church but also to acknowledge their subiection and to promise obedience to him Which promise was likewise made by all Bishops at their returne from Schisme to the Catholike Church as appeareth by the forme of oath which Hormisdas Pope (u) Apud Baron anno 517. S. Gregory (x) L. 10. Ep. 30. and the eight generall Councell (y) Bin. to 3. pag. 923. Canus l. 6. c. 6. pag. 200. prescribe to be taken by them as also by the profession which Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople (z) Ep. ad Hormisd made to Hormisdas Pope And finally the ancient custome which Sophronius Patriarke of Hierusalem (a) Ep. ad Honor. Pap. calls An Apostolicall tradition was that when Bishops were first instituted they should send a profession of their fayth to the B. of Rome which he approuing did therby confirme them in their Bishoprikes This custome sayth Sophronius we following write vnto you who haue the knowledge of diuine things to the end we may giue testimony of what fayth we hold We write I say to you who haue knowledge not only to discerne true doctrines from false but are able to supply whatsoeuer is wanting SECT II. A shift of Doctor Morton reiected YOur second answeare is (b) Pag. 288. that as the sending of the Pall to Archbishops was only a declaratiō of the Popes assent to their institution so his deposing of other Bishops without the Roman Dieces was but an expression to others that he thought them iustly deposed that his power in restitution of others that had bene deposed was the like manifestation of his consent to haue such and such restored euen as other Patriarkes often did These are words but not an answeare For any inferior as a Suffragan Bishop or a lay man may expresse his opinion or his assent that his Metropolitan is to be deposed or if he be already deposed that he is iustly deposed and yet nether depose him nor any way concurre to his deposition but leaue him in the state he found him for deposition whether it be of an Ecclesiasticall Prelate or of a temporall Officer is iuridicall sentence wherby a Superior actually exerciseth the authority of a Iudge and really depriueth his inferior of a dignity wherof he was possessed and therfore can be performed by none but by him that hath power of a Iudge to condemne his inferior And so likewise the restitution of a Bishop to his seat is an operatiue act of power wherby the sentence of deposition pronounced against him is reuersed and annulled which therfore can be performed by none but by one that is Superior in power as well to the Bishop deposed as to the Superior that deposed him In this manner the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon requested the Legates of Pope Leo Presidents of the Coūcell (c) Act. 3. to pronounce sentence of condemnation against Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria which they accordingly performed deposing him in Leo's name from his Episcopall dignity and from all Sacerdotall function And the Ecclesiasticall histories are full of examples of the same nature SECT III. The Popas power of instituting and confirming Bishops proued by Examples YOur third answeare is (d) Pag. 288. You produce no one example wherin it can appeare that the Pope could either institute confirme depose or restore any Bishop by his owne authority alone without the help of a Councell This answeare is a shift vaine as the former was and withall a notorious vntruth A shift for when his Maiesty makes a law with the assistance of his Parliament or the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury an Ecclesiasticall decree with a Councell of his Suffragās were it not sophistry to argue from thence that his Maiesty is not supreme gouernor in his dominions or that the Archbishop of Canterbury hath not iurisdiction ouer his Suffragans No lesse then it is to argue that the Pope hath not iurisdiction ouer other Bishops because he deposeth or restoreth them not without a Councell For as it is not necessaty that a King in his kingdome or an Archbishop in his Dioces exercise all actes of Iurisdiction alone without the aduice or helpe of their subiectes so neither is it that the Pope institute depose or restore Bishops alone without the aduice and helpe of a Councell And so much the more because when Councels haue proceeded to the deposition of Bishops they haue acknowledged the last desinitue sentence to belong to the Pope So did the Coūcell of Ephesus professing themselues to depose Nestorius by the command of Pope Celestine (e) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 1. and in reseruing to him the last sentence against Iohn Patriarke of Antioch (f) See Ibid. sect 2. And when the Councell of Chalcedon was to depose Dioscorus they beseeched the Popes Legates as representing his person that was supreme gouernor of the vniuersall Church and Iudge of all Bishops to pronounce the sentence of condemnation against him which the Legates performed (g) See aboue Chap. 19. sect 2. And when they admitted Theodoret that had bene deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus to enter and take his place among the Bishops they did it vpon this ground that the most holy Archbishop Lee had restored him to his Bishoprick (h) See aboue ibid. And as this your third answeare is a shift so it is an vntruth
that this sect was broached deposed not only Apollinarius but also Timothy his Disciple The same appeareth by the authority which the Popes of Rome haue shewed in the deposition of eight Patriarks of Constantinople (m) Nicol. primus Ep. 8. apud Bin. to 3. pag. 688. Maximus Nestorius Acacius Anthymus Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus Petrus for not to dispute whether all of them were deposed without Councells it cannot be denied that Agapet Pope coÌ„ming to Constantinople deposed Anthymus in the very Imperiall City in presence of the Emperor Iustinian that fauored him and excommunicated the hereticall Empresse Theodora that protected him this not only without a Councell but being very poore and without assistance yea contrarily the Empresse tempting him with promises of great rewards if he would leaue Anthymus in that seat with great threats if he deposed him The Empresse in secret sayth Liberatus (o) In Breu. c. 11. promising great presents to the Pope if he would leaue Anthymus in his seat and on the other side tempting him with threats the Pope persisted in not harkening to her demand And Anthymus seeing himselfe cast out of his seat gaue vp his mantie to the Emperor retired himselfe where the Empresse tooke him into her protection And then the Pope for the Emperors sake ordained Menas Bishop in his steed consecrating him with his owne hands The same is reported by Iustinian himselfe (p) Nouel 42. and by Victor of Tunes (q) In Chron. set forth by Ioseph Scaliger (r) Ad calc Chron. Euseb adding hereto the excommunication which Agapet pronounced against the Empresse To this I adde that Celestine Pope by his authority alone commanded Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria to depose Nestorius an hereticall Bishop of Constantinople writing thus vnto him (s) In Cont. Ephefâ—ro act 1â— Adding to thee the authority of our See and with power the representation of our place thou shalt execute exactly and seuerely this sentence namely that if within ten dayes after signification of this admonition giuen to Nestorius he do not in expresse words anathematike his wicked doctrines c. thy Holinesse shall prouide for that Church without â—â—ay and declâ—â—â— him to be wholly cut off from our body In like manner S. Leo the Great depriued Hilary B. of Arles from the authority of ordaining Bishops in the Prouince of Vienne which he had iniustly vsurped Hilary is to know sayth Leo to the Bishops of Vienne (t) Ep. 89. that he is depriued of all power ouer the Prouince of Vienne which he had vsurped vnlawfully And Valentinian the Emperor acknowledging that Leo might for this fault haue iustly deposed Hilary from his Bishoprick of Arles said (u) Nou. Theod. 〈◊〉 14. The Popes clemency alone permitted Hilary to beare still the title of a Bishop And Gelasius 40. yeares after speaking of the power of Leo Pope sayd (x) De anathem vinc Flauianus hauing bene condemned by the Congregation of the Greeke Bishops the See Apostolike alone because he had not consented thereunto absolued him and contrarywise by his authority condemned Dioscorus Prelate of the second See who had bene there approued and alone annulled the wicked Synod in not consenting to it and by his authority alone ordained that the Councell of Chalcedon should be kept In like manner when Iohn Archbishop of Larissa in Thessaly had iniustly condemned Adrian B. of Thebes one of the Bishops of his iurisdiction that had appealed froÌ„ him to the See Apostolike S. Gregory exempted the B. of Thebes from his iurisdiction We ordaine sayth he (y) L. 2. ep 7 indict 11. to Iohn Archbishop of Larissa that thy brotherhood abstaine from all the iurisdiction which thou hast formerly had ouer him and his Church c. And if at any tyme or for any occasion whatsoeuer thou that attempt to contradict this our statute know that wee declare thee depriued of the sacred communion so as it may not be restored to thee except in the article of death but with leaue of the B. of Rome Finally omitting other examples of which Ecclesiasticall histories are full to these I adde the testimony of S. Bernard who speaking to Eugenius Pope said (z) L. de Considerat The power of others is confined within certaine limits thine extendeth euen to them who haue power ouer others Hast not thou power if there be cause to shut heauen to a Bishop to depose him from his Bishoprick and deliuer him to Sathan And vpon this knowne right of the Pope he required him to depose the Bishops of Yorke (a) Ep. 217. and Winchester likewise (b) Ep. 230. a wicked Bishop of the Ruthens SECT V. The Popes power of restoring Bishops without a Councell proued ANastasius Patriarke of Hierusalem that liued 1100. yeares since in acknowledgment of this power writ to Felix B. of Rome (c) Ep. ad Belic The prerogatiue of your Apostolike See hath euer bene to restore by the authority of your power them that haue bene iniustly condemned or excommunicated and to returne vnto them all that hath bene taken from them and by the Apostolicall priuiledge to punish those that condemned or excommunicated them as we know it to haue bene done both in our and in former tymes The practise of this authority is no lesse certaine out of the Ecclesiasticall writers Eustathius B. of Sebaste in Armenia being deposed from his Bishoprick by the CouÌ„cell of Melitine trauelled to Rome and bringing letters of restitution from Liberius Pope the Councell of Tyana in Cappadocia obeying receaued him without inquiring of the conditions by meanes wherof he had bene restored The things (d) S. Bafil Ep. 74. that were proposed to him by the most blessed Bishop Liberius what submission he made we know not Only he brought a letter that restored him which being shewed to the Councell of Tyana he was reestablished in his Bishops seat Againe when the Emperor Valens had driuen Peter that famous Patriarke of Alexandria whom Theodosius and Valentinian call (e) Cod. titulo 1 l 1. a man of Apostolicall sanctity from his See and placed in it Lucius an Arian heretike Peter going to Rome appealed to Damasus Pope obteined letters of restitution from him Peter sayth Socrates (f) L. 4. c. 30. being returned from Rome to Alexandria with letters from Damasus B. of Rome which confirmed the creation of Peter the people encouraged draue away Lucius and restored Peter in his place And wheÌ„ Theodoret B. of Cyre bordering vpon Persia was deposed from his Bishoprick by the Councell of Ephesus he was restored by Leo Pope Wherupon the Senators which assisted at the Councell of Chalcedon sayd (g) Act. 1. Let the most religious Bishop Theodoret come in that he may take part in the Councell because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his Bishoprick These examples shew that the venerable Councels were so far from thinking the Pope could not restore Bishops
Rome and are so many witnesses against you of the Popes authority acknowledged and practised ouer the Bishops of Constantinople Polichronius was B. of Hierusalem and deposed by Sixtus Pope as Bellarmine proueth out of the Acts of Sixtus which acts witnesse Baronius (b) Anno 432. fin are cited by Nicolas the first by Petrus Damiani and other later writers And if as you obiect (c) Pag. 295. Baronius found no other Records of any Polychronius that was B. of Hierusalem at that tyme doth it therfore follow there was none such To omit the later writers he mentioneth Petrus Damiani and Nicolas were men eminently learned the one liued 600. the other 800. yeares nearer the time of Sixtus then Baronius did and the Acts of Sixtus are yet more ancient then either of them Wherefore in those dayes Record might be extant of Polychronius and his deposition by Sixtus reported in those Acts which before Baronius his time were lost or if not lost yet might not come to his knowledge 2. You answeare (d) Pag. 295. Your Popes must be thought to haue restored Bishops only by endeauoring and desiring that they might be restored You exemplify in Basilides whose cause sheweth it was a knowne truth in those dayes that the Pope had authority to restore Bishops deposed for why els did Basilides trauaile from Spaine to Rome to procure letters of restitution from him Of this Basilides you say (e) Pag. 289. fin 190. Cyprian constituted Sabinus Bishop insteed of Basilides whom he had deposed But you shew great ignorance in Ecclesiasticall history for Cyprian neither deposed Basilides nor coÌ„stituted Sabinus in his place Basilides was not an African nor any way belonging to Cyprians iurisdiction who was Primate of Africa only but Bishop of Leon in Spaine and for his enormous crimes being iustly deposed by the Bishops of that Countrey fled to Stephen Pope and by a false information of his owne innocency deceaued him that by his authority and command he might be restored to his Bishoprick The Bishops of Spaine who had condemned him sent Sabinus and Felix into Africa to informe S. Cyprian truly of the case to aske his aduice and require his intercession to the Pope that he would not restore Basilides S. Cyprian approued their proceeding and answeared that if Basilides had obtayned from the Pope any sentence of restitution it was surreptitious by reason of the false information he had giuen which alone was sufficient to make his restitution void as not only the Ciuill (f) Cod. cont ius L. Etsi but also the Canon Law (g) De Rescrip C. Dilectus declareth decreeing in a case like to this of Basilides that sentences procured from the See Apostolike by surreption are inualid and of no force Wherfore S. Cyprian rightly answeared that albeit Stephen for his incircumspection might be argued of negligence in giuing so easy credit to a false information and suffering himselfe to be deceaued therby yet the chiefe fault was in Basilides who with lies had sought to iustify himselfe This is all that antiquity recordeth of this controuersy which sheweth that in those ancient times the custome of Bishops when they thought themselues wronged by their Metropolitans was to appeale to the Pope as Basilides did against which custome nor against the Popes authority to admit of Appeales neither the Bishops of Spaine nor S. Cyprian excepted as appeareth in this that they blamed not Basilides for appealing to one that had no power to reiudge his cause but for his surprise made vpon the Pope and the Popes want of circumspection in suffering himself to be deceaued by a false information 3. You say (h) Pag. 290. Cyprian confirmed the election of Pope Cornelius whose communion both he as himselfe speaketh his Colleagues and fellow-fellow-bishops gaue approbation vnto To confirme the election of a Bishop is an Act of iurisdiction which therfore can proceed from none but a Superior This authority though you deny to the Pope yet out of a desire to annihilate his authority you ouer-shoote your marke so far as to make him inferior to all the Bishops of Africa and to stand in need of their confirmation a thing which S. Cyprian mentioneth not He only signifieth to Cornelius that Nouatianus hauing made a schisme in the Church and set himselfe vp as Antipope in opposition to Cornelius and the Africans being doubtfull which of the two they should acknowledge and obey as true Pope S. Cyprian sayth he exhorted all that sailed out of Africa to Rome to abandon Nouatianus and adhere to Cornelius and procured letters from his brethren at Rome to those of Africa that being fully certified of the truth they might sayth he to Cornelius acknowledge and firmely imbrace you and your communion that is to say the communion of the Catholike Church All therfore that you haue gained out of S. Cyprian is to proue your selfe to be out of the communion of the Catholike Church for to be of the Catholike communion and to be vnited to the Pope in S. Cyprians beliefe is one and the same thing 4. The like abuse you offer to S. Gregory saying (i) Pag. 29â— that he sought approbation from the foure Patriarkes As soone as this holy Pope was placed in the chaire of S. Peter following the custome of his Predecessors he writ a circular or Synodicall letter for so anciently those letters were called to the foure Easterne Patriarkes that hauing notice of his election they might know whom to obey and whom to haue recourse vnto in all doubts of fayth and other maior causes which was no more to seeke confirmation or approbation from them then if a King of Poland or any other electiuâ— Prince being chosen should write a circular letter to hiâ— Nobles giuing them notice of his Election and admonâ—shing them of their duty and allegiance vnto him This to haue bene the effect of those Synodicall letters is proued out of Gelasius Because sayth he to Laurence Bishop of Lignidis with fraternall loue you put vs in mynde that we should send a forme of fayth as a certaine medicine to the Bishops throughout Illyria and others although this hath bene most amply performed by our predecessor of Blessed memory yet because the custome is that when a Bishop of the Roman Church is newly made he send a forme of his fayth to the holy Churches I haue endeauored to renew the same in a compendious breuity to the end the reader by this our Epistle may vnderstand in what fayth he is to liue according to the ordinations of the Fathers And as the Popes when they were chosen did send these Synodicall letters prescribing a forme of fayth to be obserued by all Bishops so likewise all Metropolitans did send to the Popes newly chosen a profession of their fayth to the end it might be approued by the See Apostolike So did S. Cyprian to Cornelius Pope calling it (k) L. 2. ep 10. a diuine
Communion (s) Ruffin l. 2. c. o. Socrat. l. 4. c. 〈◊〉 Sozo l. o. c. 38. who though banished by the Arians had not therby lost their iurisdiction and therfore might ordaine Moyses without entrenching on the liberties of other Bishops or passing the limits of their owne And what they did was confirmed by Damasus Pope who saith Socrates (t) L 4. c. 30. by his letters approued the fayth of Moyses and confirmed the creation of Peter that is to say of that renowned Patriarke successor to S. Athanasius who being expelled by Lucius appealed to Damasus Pope and by him was restored to his Church of Alexandria Wherfore this example sheweth the Roman Church to be the Head of Catholike communion and that if Moyses had bene brought to to you to be consecrated Bishop he would haue shunned you as he shunned Lucius Your fift example (u) Pag. 300. is of Athanasius B. of Alexandria deposing Bishops without AEgypt This you report out of Socrates (x) L. 3. c. 20. who hath no such words nor treateth of any such subiect Your last example (y) Pag. 300. is of Cyrill of Hierusalem who was cast out of his Bishoprick by Acacius B. of Casarea This maketh against your selfe for the B. of Hierusalem was Suffragan to the B. of CÄ™sarea who therfore might depose him without exceeding the limits of his iurisdiction It is true that the Metropolitan cannot without iust cause depose his Suffragan and therfore because Acacius being an Arian deposed Cyril merely out of hatred to the Catholike faith and for certaine crimes which himselfe had feigned against him the deposition was iniust and iudged to be such by the Councell of Seleucia (z) Theod. l. 2. c. 27. Sozo l. 4. c. 24. So crat l. 2. c. 35. Niceph. l. 9. c. 19. where Acacius durst not appeare to haue the cause of Cyrill examined and therfore both he and his complices for the wrong done to Cyrill and for other their hereticall machinations were themselues deposed and Cyrill restored to his seat at Hierusalem These are your sixe examples which vpon examination proue all against your selfe and therfore your horned argument framed out of them doth nothing els but goare your owne bowels CHAP. XXXIX Of Appeales to Rome decreed in the Councell of Sardica SECT I. Whether the Councell of Sardica were a generall Councel IN the Councell of Sardica it was decreed * Cap. 3.4.5 1. That if in the cause of a Bishop who thinkes himselfe to be wronged a new iudgment be required the B. of Rome is to giue the Iudges 2. That if a Bishop deposed by the next Bishops say his cause ought to be iudged againe none is to be placed in his See vntill the B. of Rome haue pronounced vpon it 3. That a Bishop accused may haue recourse to Rome by way of Appeale Against the authority of the Councell of Sardica you obiect (a) Pag. 301. 1. That Bellarmine produceth in this place this Councell as a sound argument which elswhere heranketh among those Councels that are to be partly allowed and partly reiected as if coyne partly mixed and counterfeit ought to be taken for good payment This argument is an imposture for to the Councell of Sardica came 376. Bishops of which 300. were Catholikes the other 76. Arians (b) Socrat. l. 2. c. 16. These 76. refused to enter into the Councell at Sardica vnlesse Athanasius and Paul were expelled which condition the Catholike Bishops admitted not but answeared (c) Sozom. l. 31. c. 10. They neuer had nor would now abstaine from the communion of Paul and Athanasius especially because Iulius B. of Rome hauing examined their cause had not condemned them Hereupon those 76. Arian Bishops separating themselues from the body of the Councell held an Antisynod of their owne at Philippopolis a City not far from Sardica which is reproued as being a Conuenticle of Arians Of this Bellarmine speaketh when he sayth The Councell of Sardica is partly reproued But the decrees for appealing to Rome were not made in this mock-Councell yea this reproued Athanafius for appealing and Iulius Pope for admitting his appeale but by the true Councell held at Sardica which hath euer bene approued by the Church in no part reproued This Councell of 300. Bishops it is which Bellarmine alleageth in proofe of Appeales How then can you be excused in saying that he produceth this Councell in this place as a sound Argument which elswhere he ranketh among those Councells that are to be partly allowed and partly reiected for he neuer sayth that this Councell of 300. Bishops is in any part to be reiected 2. You obiect (e) Pag. 302. that this Councell is not a generall Councell for say you though in respect of the calling of it by Constantius we may not vnworthily say that it was generall yet if we obserue that it was afterwards distracted and diuided into two places we may rather esteeme it particular This vrgeth not for the distraction consisting in so small a number of Bishops and they Arians their absence could not take from the true Councell of Sardica which represented all the Catholike Bishops in the world the name of a generall Councell which had bene imposed on it at the first calling no more then the Anti-Synod held at Ephesus in fauour of Nestorius by the Bishops of the Patriarkship of Antioch hindred the true Councell of Ephesus from being perfectly and absolutely generall And in conformity to this you els where suppose and confesse (f) Pag. 144. sin 145. the Sardican Councell to be a generall Councell according to the testimonies of S. Athanafius Socrates Seuerus Sulpitius Iustinian Baronius Binius To which number you might haue added Vigilius that ancieÌ„t B. of Trent (g) Cout Eucych l. 5. Theodoret (h) L. 2. c. 8. Hincmarus (i) Opuse â—â— c. 20. Nor did Constantius alone call this Councell but also his brother Constans and that not by their authority but by the authority of Iulius Pope who as it is plaine out of Socrates (k) L. 2. c. 16. called the Bishops and appointed a day for them to meote at Sardica to begin the Councell SECT II. Other obiections of Doctor Morton against Appeales to Rome answeared YOu third obiection (l) Pag 302. that the right which the Pope can claime for Appeales dependeth altogeather vpon humane constitutions hath bene already answeared (m) Aboue Chap. 27. sect 4. 4. You except (n) Pag. 304. against some of the examples which Bellarmine produceth of Appeales made to the Pope as being of such as were within his owne Patriarkship and therefore rather subiect to him then to others from whence to inferre that appeales out of other Patriarkships may be made vnto him is say you (o) Ibid. as if a Proctor should say My Client had tith in his owne parish therfore do the next Parishes adioyning owe their tithes vnto him But
and a professed enemy to the Roman Church as all heretikes are against Appeales to Rome obiecteth the Councell of Chalcedon in which sayth he it was decreed that if a Clerke haue a cause against a Clerke it is to be iudged by the Bishop if against a Bishop by the Archbishop if against an Archbishop by the Primate or of the Bishop of Constantinople To this obiection the holy and learned Pope Nicolas the first answeared neere 800. yeares since (m) In Ep. ad Michael Imper. that by Primate which is there in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifies a Prince is meant the B. of Rome This explication Turrianus (n) Pro Ep. Rom. Pont. l. 3. c. 4. Bellarmine (o) L. 2. de Pont. c. 2◠and Binius (p) Tom. 2. pag. 129. confirme both because the title of Prince more fitly agreeth to him then to any other Primate as also because it cannot be shewed that in time of the Councell of Chalcedon there were especially in the East any Primates distinct from the Archbishops and Patriarkes Wherfore the sense is that if a Bishop haue a cause with his Metropolitan it is to be iudged by the Pope or by the B. of Constantinople if the parties be neerer to him and willing to stand to his iudgment This say you (q) Pag. 309. it false for the Canon vseth a Climax or gradation from Clerke to Bishop from Bishop to Archbishop from Archbishop to Primate or the B. of Constantinople from whence you inferre that if our exposition be true the B. of Constantinople is aboue the Pope as a Generall is aboue a Coronell because in gradation of Appeales the last is alwaies the highest and most excellent A thing not only contrary to the Councell of Chalcedon which acknowledgeth the Pope to be supreme Head of the whole Church (r) In relat ad Leon. but neuer so much as dreamed of by any of the Greekes nor by the Bishops of Constantinople themselues who by their claime of equal priuiledges neuer challenged authority aboue the Pope nor equall with him ouer the whole Church but only that as he by the institution of Christ is supreme Iudge of all causes ecclesiasticall throughout the world so they in the second place vnder him and by his permission might haue authority to iudge throughout the East the causes of all that should be willing to accept of their iudgement which authority the Pope though intreated by the Councell of Calcedon refused to grant vnto them as being a wrong to the other Patriarkes And therefore Bellarmine (s) L. 2. de Pont. c. 22. out of Leo and Liberatus rightly obserueth that this Canon obiected by Nilus was neuer receaued in the Church as being vnlawfully made in absence of the Popes Legates who presided in the Councell This is the substance of this controuersy in the prosecution wherof you falsify the Councell of Calcedon and are guilty of some other errors of which I shall briefly aduertise you 1. Therfore Bellarmine truly sayth that custome the best interpreter of lawes plainly sheweth it was neuer lawfull to appeale to the B. of Constantinople but only from places within his owne Patriarkship and that no example can be giuen of an Appeale made to the Easterne Church out of the West South or North. You to crosse Bellarmine say (t) Pag. 310. that the Councell of Calcedon speaketh generally of euery Church and in proofe therof falsify the Councell adding to the beginning of the Canon these words In quacunque Ecclesia In euery Church putting them downe in a different character as the words of the Canon and citing both it and them out of Binius who hath this Canon (u) Tom. 2. pag. 129. of three different versions and yet no such words in any of them 2. You haue hitherto pretended afterwards repeate againe that no one man can be Head of the whole Church on earth Yet now vpon condition that the Pope may not haue that dignity you are contented to allow it the B. of Constantinople For you say (x) Pag. 302. fin We confesse that the supreme right of appeales is proper to a Monarke it being as essentiall a part of his Monarchy to haue the right of appeales as it is for him to be a Monarke from whence it will follow that you here granting to the B. of Constantinople a supreme right of appeales from all the Churches of the world make him a Monarke ouer all the Churches of the world 3. Out of the gradation which the Councell maketh from Clerke to Bishop from Bishop to Archbishop from Archbishop to the Pope or the B. of Constantinople you inferre the Bishop of Constantinople to be aboue the Pope which is a senselesse paradoxe collected from a false groūd for if because an Archbishop is to be iudged by the Pope or by the B. of Constantinople you may inferre the B. of Constantinople to be equall with the Pope or aboue him you may by like consequēce inferre that in an army a Coronell is equall to the Generall or aboue him because a cōmon soldier is to be iudged by his Captaine the Captaine by his Generall or by his Coronell for in this gradation the Coronell is the last and therfore by your rule the highest and most excellent With such sophistry you answeare our arguments and frame your owne 4. Bellarmine sayth The Councell is to be vnderstood of the first iudgement But this say you (y) Pag. 311. euidently crosseth the Popes exposition False for the Pope alloweth to the B. of Constantinople permissiuely the first iudgement of Easterne causes if the parties be willing to accept of his iudgment but not the second by way of appeale out of his owne Patriarkeship 5. Why do you conceale what Bellarmine and Binius adde namely that if we should grant to you your inference out of this Canon it would not follow that the B. of Constantinople is of equal authority with the Pope for the Popes power extendeth not only to right them which are wronged by their Metropolitans but also to iudge the Metropolitans and Patriarkes themselues and to right thē euen when they are wronged by whole Councels of Bishops as the examples of Athanasius Chrysostome Flauianus Theodoret and others conuince SECT IX The rest of Docter Mortons Arguments against Appeales to Rome THe rest of your instances against appeales as of Fortunatus and Felicissimus (z) Pag. 311. taken from S. Cyprian of the Councell of Mileuis (a) Pag. 321. of the cause of Cecilian (b) Pag. 324.325 from S. Augustine haue ben already (c) Chap. 25.26 30. sect 2. answered One only remaineth taken from an Epistle as you say (d) Pag 318. of Damasus Pope It is not among the epistles of Damasus but of S. Ambrose and yet his it cannot be for in it mention is made of him as of a third person Wherfore whos 's the epistle is is a
ouer the world as well in Europe where Protestants are as in all other parts of the world where they are not either she is the Catholike Church or els that there is no Catholike Church on earth And therfore with great reason all antiquity hath held the Roman Church and the Catholike Church to be termes conuertible and that whosoeuer is diuided from her is a schismatike and incapable of saluation The testimonies of the ancient Fathers in this behalfe I haue copiously alleaged in the first Chapter of this Apology which to repeate heere were actum agere And this sheweth how falsly you slander the Roman Church with diuiding herselfe proudly and impiously from all other Churches of the world S. Augustine said to the Donatists (l) L. 2. cont lit Petil. c. 52. that with sacrilegious fury they had separated themselues from the Chaire of S. Peter and I wish the same might not be truly said of you That Church when you began was and still is and shall euer be spread ouer all the world where Christ is knowne You first liued in her and afterwards diuided your selues from her as all Heretikes haue done she sayth S. Augustine (m) De Symb. ad Catechum l. 1. c. 6. remaining still in her roote in her Vine in her charity From hence it is that the same Father hauing reckoned by name all the Popes from S. Peter to Anastasius who was then B. of Rome compareth that Church to a Vine and the Donatists to branches cut off from her as you likewise are Wherfore as he said to them (n) Psal cont part Donat. so we say to you Come brethren if you please that you may be ingrafted into the Vine It is a griefe toys to see you lye so cut off Number the Priests from the very seat of Peter c. That is the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not And you must remember that the same S. Augustine is he that said (o) Tract 8â— in Ioan. A branch cut off from the Vine is fit for nothing but the fire CHAP. XLIII Of the Head of the Roman Church compared to the Body therof YOv compare the B. of Rome who is Head of the Roman Church with the Body thereof in many respects (p) Pag. 343. 344. 345. all which you attribute to vs as Articles of our fayth to be belieued necessarily vnder paine of damnation SECT I. Whether it be matter of Fayth that the Pope is aboue a Councell VVE belieue that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth and Gouernour of the Vniuersall Church to which you adde (q) Pag. 344. that according to our fayth there is a necessity of belieuing that the Pope is aboue a Councell In proofe of this you alleadge (r) Ibid. marg Bellarmine l. 1. de concil c. 7. who in that very place expresly teacheth the contrary and you afterwards contradicting your selfe acknowledge so much (s) Pag. 355. lit e. setting downe these words of his The matter is still questionable vntill this day which also you proue (t) Pag. 116. init out of Stapleton saying It is not yet defined by any publike Decree And in confirmation hereof you adde (u) Pag. 115. fin that the contrary is mantained by our Doctors of Paris When therfore it is for your purpose it is an Article of our fayth necessarily to be belieued with diuine fayth that the Pope is aboue a Councell and when the contrary is more for your purpose then it is no Article of our fayth nor yet defined by any publike decree but matter of opinion and questionable vntill this day These are your propositions Reconcile them SECT II. Whether it be matter of fayth that this indiuidual person v. g. Vrban the eight is true Pope and true Head of the Church YOu set downe here (x) Pag. 345. and afterwards againe (y) Pag. 351. 353. as a receaued Article of our fayth that it is necessary for euery man to belieue with diuine fayth that this determinate man for example Vrban the eight which now sitteth in the Chaire of S. Peter is true Bishop and true Head of the Church In proofe of this you alleage Salmeron and Suarez but very deceiptfully for although that be the peculiar opinion of Salmeron and Suarez whose proofes you mention not because it passeth your skill to answeare them yet they deliuer it not as matter of fayth defined by the Church or taught by all Catholike Diuines which you cold not be ignorant of for Suarez in that very place which you cite (z) Pag. 24. 345. professeth the contrary opinion to be taught by Turrecremata Albertinus Caietan Bannes Canus Vega Corduba Castro and other Catholike Diuines mantaining that we cannot haue diuine fayth of this indiuiduall man that he is true Head of the Church but morall certainty only And this they hold sufficient to oblige all men to yield perfect obedience vnto him and to belieue his definitions ex Cathedra And you contradicting your selfe had formerly acknowledged (a) Pag. 2â— this to be the opinion of many of our Schole-Doctors With what conscience then do you now charge all Catholikes with holding the contrary as necessary to be belieued with diuine fayth and vnder paine of damnation which so many of our learned Schole-Doctors deny and which in them was neuer censured by the Church nor euen by their aduersaries as any way opposite to fayth But what censure you deserue for doubting of the ordination or election of Gods Priests not I but S. Cyprian shall tell you who sayth (b) L. 4. Ep. 9. that it is no other thing but to belieue that Priests are not appointed in the Church from God nor for God that it is not to belieue in God but to be rebellious against Christ and his Ghospell SECT III. Whether the Church of Rome be at any time a Body headlesse It is a Thesis of yours (c) Pag. 34â— that the Church of Rome is a Body headlesse so long as there is a vacancy in the See betweene the death of one Pope and the election of another Which to affirme is as ridiculous as if you should call the Empire An headlesse Empire because there is no Emperor betweene the death of one and the election of an other And by the same argument you may proue Bohemia Polonia and other kingdoms and States whose Princes are electiue to be headlesse kingdoms and states There is not alwaies so precise necessity of a Pope in the Church but that as it was gouerned 300. yeares without Councels so if by reason of schismes or other difficulties it fal out that after the death of one Pope some tyme passe before the election of another God may not for that time gouerne his Church without a Pope especially all other Bishops and inferior Pastors remaining in full possession of their authority ouer their seuerall flocks Nor is the Church for that time left
Church had no true visible Head such as we require because of him it could not be said This is the B. of Rome This obiection you borowed from Baronius (m) Anno 955. who though he acknowledge that the electâ—on of Iohn was void because no true forme was obserued in it yet you passe ouer what he addeth as not being for your purpose namely that the Church afterwards consented to his election wherby the defects that interuened in his former election were supplied and he receaued and reuerenced as true Pope by the whole Church And wheras you say that this Pope was for his life monstrous it hath bene proued (n) Abouâ— Chap. 12. sect 2. that the ill liues of Popes or other Bishops are not Arguments to disproue their authority God is able to teach by Balaams Asse and the Euangelist tells you (o) Ioâ—â— 11.49 that notwithstanding Caiphas was a wicked man yet because he was high Priest he prophesied or rather God by him And our Blessed Sauiour foreseeing that Cauillers would arise hath by S. Augustine (p) Ep. 165. long since answered this your Argument to a wrangling Donatist and in him to you saying If any traitor in those dayes had by surreption crept into that ranck of Bishops which is deduced from S. Peter himselfe euen to Anastasius or Vrbanus who at this present sitteth in that chaire it could worke no preiudice to the Church and to innocent Christians for whom our Lord prouideth saying of wicked Prelates Do yee what they say but what they doe doe it not for they say and do not c. And speaking to Petilianus another Donatist after he had reprehended him for separating himselfe from the Roman Church with sacrilegious fury he addeth (q) Cont. lit Petil. l. 2. c. 51. Why dost thou call the Apostolike See the chaire of pestilence If in respect of the men whom thou thinkest to speake the Law and not to fulfill is did our Lord Iesus Christ for the Pharisees of whom he sayth they say and do not any way wrong the chaire in which they sate Nay did he not commend that chaire of Moyses and reprehend them preseruing entire the honor of the Chaire If you would thinke vpon these things you would not for the men whom you defame blaspheme the Apostolike Chaire with which you do not communicate So S. Augustine to Petilianus and so we to you SECT V. Whether the Roman Church at any time be diuided into many Heads HOw ill aduised you are to obiect either the multitude or the long continuance of Schismes which haue bene in the Roman Church you haue heard (r) See aboue Chap. 7. prope sin Chap. 12. sect 7. But because in time of Schisme when there are two or three that pretend right to the chaire of S. Peter the faithfull cannot certainly know which of them is true Pope you aske (s) Pag. 352. What resolution our Church can haue in such a case adding moreouer (t) Pag. 353. that our article of belieuing this only singular Roman Pope without which fayth none can be saued damneth two of the three parts of our Roman Church at that time Your question is a doubt springing from ignorance and your addition an vntruth To your question S. Antoninus (u) Part. 3 â—is 21. c. 2. seqq hath answeared who treating of the schisme which happened in time of Vrban the sixth against whom the French Cardinalls â—earing his seuerity and flying to Anagnia created a new Pope calling him Clement the seauenth prescribeth this rule that in time of Schisme when two or more at the same time hold themselues to be true Popes it is not necessary for saluation to belieue any one of them determinatly to be the true Pope but disiunctiuely him that hath bene Canonically assumpted And which of them determinatly that is faythfull people are not bound to know but may follow the iudgment of their Prelates and Superiors To which Gerson (x) De modo hab se temp Schism addeth that in this case it is temerarious iniutious and scandalous to hold as excommunicated or out of the state of saluation those that adhere to either part or that carry themselues noutrally and that it is lawfull to communicate with either party and to obey either of those Popes as occasion shall serue while the right of neither is certainely knowne And this he confirmeth by the answere which S. Ambrose gaue to S. Augustine concerning the lawfulnesse of fasting or not fasting on Saturdaies according to the diuersity of times places and persons I conclude therfore that your so often repeating as an article of our fayth that for saluation it is necessary to belieue that this determinat man is true Pope and true Head of the Church if you speake of belieuing it with diuine fayth you confesse the contrary to be held by many of our learned Diuines and that their opinion hath neuer bene censured by the Church But if you speake of belieuing it at least with morall certainty it is granted by all Catholike Diuines when there is but one determinat person whom the whole Church receaueth and obiecteth as her vndoubted Head and as the Vicar of Christ vpon earth But yet neither that is necessary in time of Schisme when of two or three it is doubtfull which is the true Pope for then it is sufficient to belieue him to be true Pope which is Canonically chosen without determining any of them in particular as S. Antoninus and Gerson haue taught instructing you how to carry your selfe in such a case But I feare you haue no desire to learne SECT VI. Whether the Roman Church be doubtfully headed TO proue that the Roman Church is doubtfully headed you alleage (y) Pag. 354.355.356 that after 1600. yeares it is not yet determined whether the supreme Iudge in our Church be the Roman Pope or a Councell collecting from thence that the Roman Church should not take vpon her to determine Controuersies of fayth against Protestants before she haue satisfied Protestants in this one whether Pope or Councell be indeed the supreme Iudge So you as you are wont for you are not ignorant that this diuision is inadequate since beside the Pope alone without a Councell and a Councell alone without the Pope there is a third member which is the Pope together with a Councell whose iudgment in matters of fayth all Catholikes hold to be infallible Nor did any euer defend that a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope can erre either in definitions of fayth or manners This is the sense and meaning of Catholike Doctors when they say The Church cannot erre for by the Church they vnderstand not the Pope alone without a Councell nor a Councell alone without the Pope but both of them together as they make one whole Church consisting of the Pope as Head and of the Councell as the representatiue body therof This is that supreme Iudge which
whole body of his Church to the end that whosoeuer should be so bold as to depart from the solidity of that See might know himself to be no way partaker of the diuine mysteries And (e) Ibid. that whosoeuer goeth about to diminish the power of the Bishop of Rome endeauoreth with most impious presumption to viâ—late the most sacred strength of the Rock Peter framed by the hand of God And speaking against Hilary Bishop of Arles and all such as are refractary and disobedient to the Successors of Peter and in them to Peter himselfe he (f) Ibid. addeth To whom whosoeuer thinketh the primacy to be denied can no way diminish their authority but puffed vp with the spirit of pride plungeth himselfe headlong into hell And (g) Epist 75. that he who dare oppose the Roman Church built by the voyce of our Sauiour vpon the most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles as vpon a rock is either Antichrist or a Diuel All these sayings of so learned a Doctor and so great a Saint I wish the Protestant reader duly to consider So teacheth the holy Councell of Chalcedon (h) Act. 3. affirming Peter the Apostle to be the rock and head of the Catholike Church and foundation of the true Fayth From whence it followeth that whosoeuer buildeth not vpon the foundation of Peters See is not in the Catholike Church nor in the true fayth without which no man can be saued So teacheth S. Gregory the Great who writing to Bonifacius (i) L. 3. ep 41. sayth I admonish you that whiles you haue tyme of lyfe remayning your soule be not found diuided from the Church of blessed Peter to whome the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen were committed and the power of binding and losing giuen lest his fauour be contemned here he there exclude you from the entrance into lyfe So teacheth S. I sidore a learned Doctor and Archbishop of Seuill (k) Ep. vltima ad Eugenium Episcop Toletanum saying that albeit the Episcopall dignity and power descend from S. Peter to all Catholike Bishops yet especially and by a fingular priuiledge it remayneth for euer to the Bishop of Rome as to a Head higher then the rest of the members whosoeuer therfore sayth he yelds not obedience reuerently to him is separated from the head and makes himself guilty of the schisme of the Acephalists that is of certain heretikes who acknowledged no one particular Head And he addes that the Church belieues this as the Creed of S. Athanasius and as an article of fayth and that whosoeuer belieues it not cannot be saued So teacheth S. Maximus Martyr the greatest Diuine of his age that writ learnedly against the Monothelites pestilent Heretikes that held but one will and operation in Christ and were anathematized in the sixth generall Councell He among other Elogies of the Roman Church hath (l) Epist ad Marinum Diac. this All the bounds of the earth and whosoeuer in any place of the world do confesse Christ our Lord with a pure hart and Orthodox fayth looke vpon the most holy Roman Church and her confession and fayth attentiuely as vpon a Sunne of euerlasting light receauing from her the shining light of spirituall and holy Doctrines c. For from the first comming of the Word Incarnate all the Churches of Christians throughout the world haue had from her their beginning their only and surest foundation against which the gates of hell shall no way preuaile according to the promise of our Sauiour himself that she shold haue the Keyes of Orthodoxall fayth and Confession and open to them that religiously come to the same Roman Church seeking true reall and only piety and contrariwise shut and stop euery hereticall mouth that speaks iniquity against heauen So teacheth S. Aldelmus an ancient Bishop of the Scots whom Venerable Bede highly commendeth for his eloquence for his great knowledge of humane literature of Scripture and Ecclesiasticall rites Among other his works which Bede reckoneth he writ an excellent booke against the error of the Britans who at that tyme differed from the Roman Church in the celebration of Easter And of the same subiect he writ an epistle to Geruntius in which he sheweth the Britans by reason of that their separation from the Roman Church to be in error (m) Epist ad Gerunt If sayth he the keyes of the heauenly kingdome were by Christ giuen to Peter of whom the Poet sayth He is the Porter of heauen that opens the gate to the stars who is he that despising the principall statutes of that Church and condemning the Doctrine which she commands to be obserued can enter into the gate of heauenly paradise And if Peter by a happy lot and a peculiar priuiledge deserued to receyue the power monarchy of binding both in heauen and earth who refusing to obserue the Roman rite of Easter can thinke that he is not rather to be straitly tied with in soluble bonds then any way to be absolued And the same he further proueth out of the priuiledge of not erring granted to the Roman Church when Christ promised to build his Church vpon Peter as vpon an impregnable rock So teacheth Venerable Bede (n) Homil. in die Apost Petri Pauli saying Therfore the blessed Peter confessing Christ with true fayth and following him with true loue receaued specially the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the soueraignty of iudiciall power that all the faythfull throughout the world might vnderstand that whosoeuer do any way separate themselues from the Vnity of his fayth and society can neither be losed from the bonds of their sins nor come within the gate of the heauenly kingdome And speaking of a conference held betwene Colmannus an Abbot and Wilfridus a learned Priest concerning the celebration of Easter Colmannus defending the Iewish rite and Wilfridus the custome of the Roman Church Wilfridus said (o) Beda in histor gent. Ang. l. 3. c. 25. If you disdaine to follow the decrees of the See Apostolike yea and of the vniuersall Church they being confirmed by the holy Scriptures without all doubt you sinne for be it that your Columba was a holy man and of Christ likewise your Fathers yet is their smal number in a corner of a remote Iland to be preferred before the vniuersall Church of Christ And hauing in proofe of the Authority of the Roman Church alleaged the words of Christ promising to build his Church vpon Peter and to giue him the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen Of win king that was present at the conference demanded of the disputants whether both of them agreed in this that those words of our Sauiour were principally spoken to Peter and whether the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to him And they answering Yes the king (p) Ibid. concluded And I say to you that because Peter is that porter I will not gainsay him but so far forth as I
an other French Lawier whom you call Our noble Historian whereas the whole course of his history sheweth him to haue bene a Huguenot or litle better Nor are you contented with citing him as a Catholike author but to helpe out the matter you falsify him most notoriously as hereafter (s) Chap. 44. sect 9. shall be proued A third sleight is to vrge as Catholike authors some that are of suspected fayth as 1. Erasmus (t) Pag 208. who albeit in the end he abandoned Luther * 303. u. 306. a 381. g 380. f. g. and dyed Catholike as out of his owne confession and Osianders testimony Brierley (u) Aduertism before his Protest Apol. hath proued yet for some tyme he fauoured Luther in regard therof is challenged by Doctor Humfroy and Doctor Reynolds for a man of your religion and by Iohn Foxe Canonized for a Protestant Saint (x) Acts and Mon. pa. 402. Kalend. 22. Decemb. His rash and vnaduised writings gaue occasion to Lutherans and Zuinglians to Father on him diuers of their hereticall Tenents and therfore are generally reproued by Catholikes (y) Ind. lib. prohib condemned by the Church which you cold not be ignorant of therfore your persisting still to alleage him against vs as an approued Catholike author is inexcusable 2. To this classe may be reduced others who though Catholikes yet fell into some errors as Beatus Rhenanus Claudius Espencaus Papyrius Massonius Ioannes Ferus and Gulielmus Barklaius of which the foure first are prohibited by the Church nor were you ignorant therof for speaking of Rhenanus you say (z) Pag. 101. Rhenanus writ so whiles he had the vse of his tongue but since you haue gagged him by your Index expurgatorius By what authority then do you vngagge him whom the Roman Church which he acknowledged to be his Mother hath so iustly gagged And though William Barkley be not registred in the Index as a condemned author his booke being set forth since the Index was made yet Bellarmine (a) Tract de potest Papae aduers Barclaium in praesat hath produced against his doctrine the agreeing consent of the most learned Diuines of Italy France Spayne England and Scotland as also the decrees of ancient Popes and generall Councels and therfore with great reason hath censured him for that being no Diuine but a Lawier he presumed to write a booke De potestate Papa in temporalibus which contayning diuers errors being left imperfect at his death was afterwards published without name of author printer or place of impression for although some copies say it was printed at Mussipont yet Bellarmine conuinceth that to be an (b) Ibid. vntruth Iohn Barkeley sonne to William hath confessed the same (c) In praef Parenesis giuing notice to all men that it was published in England by Protestants and hath withall acknowledged his Father to haue erred in that booke and retracted his owne defence therof All this might haue moued you to forbeare the alleaging of Barkeleys booke against vs. And so much the vrge in this your Grand imposture the very same passage of his which your ancient Antagonist (d) F. Persons Treatise to mitigations Chap. 6. pag. 202. here tofore shewed you to haue obiected in an other treatise of yours corruptly against our common beliefe and practise falsifying and sophisticating both his and our meaning And the like abuse he sheweth you to haue offred to (e) Ibid. Tolosanus whose testimony you yet againe impertinently produce here against (f) Pag. 172. vs. 3. And to this classe may be reduced Polydore Virgill (g) Grand Impost pag. 46.97 e. 164. p. 382. â— 386 c. who being a Catholike author his Booke De inuentoribus rerum hath bene enlarged and corrupted by heretikes and is for that cause prohibited 4. Your fourth sleight is to alleadge and insist much on some writings of Aenae as Siluius Cardinall Cusanus and Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester which they set forth in their youth but afterwards repented and publikely retracted Aenaeas Siluius that was afterwards Pope Pius the second being in his yonger yeares present at the Councell of Basil and Secretary therof writ a booke exalting the authority of a Councell and depressing the authority of the Pope which booke is not only forbiden by the Church but he himselfe also being more mature in yeares more ripe in iudgment and more solidly learned repenred the writing therof when he came to be Pope set forth a speciall bull to retract it (h) Extat hac Bulla apud Binium to 4. pag. 512. seqq in which among other words he sayth In minoribus agentes c. Whiles I was in minority not yet entred into any holy orders being present at Basil among those who made themselues a generall Councell said they represented the vniuersall Church I writ a small booke of Dialogues c. in which ignorantly as Paul did I persecuted the Roman and chief See Wherfore I admonish in our Lord that you giue no credit to such former writings of mine as do in any sorte extenuate the Soueraigne authority of the See Apostolike And then hauing declared that he made not this change by his comming to the Popedome but before he was either Pope or Bishop and set downe the causes that moued him therto he addeth Hauing considered all these things I submitted my selfe to Pope Eugenius saying with Hierome I am ioyned in communion with the chayreof Peter vpon which I know the Church to be built and I had at that tyme no other orders but of Priesthood only when I returned to the obedience of Eugenius By this it appeares that when Bellarmine sayth (*) Lib. de Scriptor in Aenea Siluio he retracted his error in his old age and being Pope he speaketh only of the setting forth of the said Bull to make his retractation publikely knowne to the whole world but the error it selfe he recalled before he was either Pope or Bishop as you haue heard And this discouereth your want of sincerity who in diuers places of your Grand Imposture alleaging testimonies of Aeneas to shew his iudgment concerning the Roman Church conceale all those in which his doctrine and beliefe is truly deliuered and set downe (i) Pag. 91. d. 210. * .249 d. only such as you could pick out of his former workes written in his youth forbidden by the Church and retracted by himself which dealing is no lesse impostetous then if you should deliuer as S. Augustins doctrine that which in his Retractations he hath recalled But you seeke to lessen this Imposture by adding an other to it for lest peraduenture your Reader might haue notice of this retractation of Aeneas and therby discouer your bad dealing you couer it by insinuating that he made no such recantation till he was Pope for hauing cited a passage of his you say (k) Pag. 210. So Aeneas out of Hierome whilest
before there was any Church at all in Britaine and most especially because she begot and founded the Brittish Church Wherfore with great reason K. Henry the eight confesseth (o) Lib. de 7. Sacram. contra Luther art 2. that all the Churches of the faythfull acknowledge and reuerence the most holy See of Rome for their Mother And our late Soueraigne K. Iames of famous memory in the Summe of the conference before his Maiesty affirmeth (p) Pag. 75. that the Roman Church was once the Mother Church and consequently that as well the Church of Brittaine as all others were her daughters which right she being once possessed of cold neuer lose vnlesse you will make false the words of Christ who promised that the gates of hell which are false and hereticall Doctrines shall neuer preuaile against her Lastly I will not omit to put you in minde of two other slâ—ights The one is that wheras you know all antiquity to haue belieued and left expressed in their workes that the Roman Church is The head and Mother of all Churches and that it were not difficult if needfull to set downe their testimonies in their owne words you mention no other authority for our beliefe of that truth but the late Councell of Trent The other is that you runne on in your owne mistake calling it in vs a mad point of genealogizing to conclude that Rome must be mother to those Daughters of S. Peter which were begotten 7. yeares before she was borne and which therfore you call (q) Pag. 31. 36. Mothers grand-mothers and Aunts to her If by motherhood you vnderstand antiquity of tyme though it were indeed a mad point of Genealogizing to call the Roman Church Mother in respect of any Church that was founded before her yet in this very sense of Motherhood it is false that the Roman Church is a daughter to the Brittish for the Brittish was founded after the Roman But you know that by Motherhood we vnderstand superiority and iurisdiction and therfore as it were a mad manner of arguing to inferre that Caesarea in Palestine is not Superior in iurisdiction and mother to the Church of Hierusalem after which she was founded so it is in you to inferre that the Roman Church is not superior in iurisdiction and Mother to all Churches because she was founded after some of them CHAP. VII S. Peters Primacy defended TO proue that S. Peter was not of the now Roman fayth coÌ„cerning his owne primacy you (r) Pag. 38. seqq obiect those words of our Sauiour Mat. 16. vpon this Rocke for in them say you (s) Pag. 38. the fayth of S. Peter did not conceiue any Monarchicall or supreme iurisdiction promised vnto himselfe by Christ The natiue obuious and true sense of these words of Christ deliuered by the agreeing coÌ„sent of ancient Fathers Councels and all Orthodoxe writers is that Christ spake them to Peter in reward of that admirable confession of his fayth wherby he proclamed Christ to be The Sonne of the liuing God made him an impregnable Rock and promised to build his Church vpon him as vpon a foundation so firme and immoueable that the gates of hell which are errors and heresies should neuer preuaile against it This sense you cannot disgest therfore seek to elude it by abusing and falsifying the Fathers and other expositors For the better vnderstanding hereof it is to be noted that wheras you alleage some Fathers affirming that the rock on which Christ promised to build his Church is the fayth and confession of Peter and others saying that it is Christ himselfe these their expositions are no way contrary either in themselues or to our Doctrine for as Bellarmine (t) L. 1. de Pont. c. 10. §. Nemo dubitat obserueth no man doubts but that Christ is the chiefe foundation of the Church and that so much may be gathered out of these his words for if Peter be a secondary foundation supplying the place of Christ on earth it followeth that Christ himselfe is the first and chiefe foundation or as S. Augustine (u) In Psal 86. and S. Gregory (x) L. 28 Moral c. 9. call him Fundamentum fundamentorum The foundation of foundations Agayne they are not to be vnderstood of the person of Christ abstracting from the Confession of Peter but including it as the obiect confessed nor of Peters confession abstracting from Peter himselfe but including him as the person that confesseth Wherfore the sense is that Christ promised to build his Church vpon himselfe confessed by Peter or which is all one vpon Peter confessing Christ and for the confession he made of Christ Which to speake in the Schoole language is to say that Christ built his Church causally vpon Peters confession and formally vpon his person because that excellent confession of Peter was the cause which moued Christ to chose Peters person for the foundation of his Church The confession of Peter sayth S. Hilary (y) Cau. 16. in Mathaeum hath receaued a worthy reward declaring what reward it was he addeth O in the title of a new name happy foundation of the Church and worthy stone of her edifice O blessed Porter of Heauen c. And againe (z) Lib. e. de Trim. This is he that in the silence of all the other Apostles beyond the capacity of humane infirmity acknowledging the sonne of God by the reuelation of the Father merited by the Confession of his fayth a supereminent place 2. S. Basil (a) L. 2. Cont. Eunom Because Peter excelled in fayth he receaued the building of the Church on himselfe 3. S. Ambrose (b) Serm. 47. Peter for his deuotion is called a rock and our Lord is called a Rock for his strength he rightly deserueth to be a partaker in the name that is partaker in the worke for Peter layd the foundation in the house 4. S. Hierome (c) In cap. 16. Math. Because thou Simon hast said to me Thou art Christ the Sonne of God I also say to thee not with a vayne or idle speach that hath no effect for my saying is doing therfore I say to thee Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And againe (d) Ibid. He rewardeth the Apostle for the testimony he had giuen of him Peter had said Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God His true confession receaued a reward c. 5. S. Chrysostome (e) In psal 50. Heâ—re what he sayth to Peter that Pillar that foundation and therfore called Peter as being made a Rock by fayth 6. Theophilact (f) Ad cap. 1â— Math. Our Lord rewardeth Peter bestowing on him a singular fauour which is that he built his Church vpon him By these testimonies of Fathers it appeares that to say Christ built his Church vpon the confession of Peter is not to deny that he built it on the person of Peter but to expresse the cause for
sayth (c) L. 4. ep 36. The Apostle teacheth vs so to carry humility in our hart that we do keep and preserue the diguity of that order wherunto we are called but S. Peter as Salmeron testifieth though he were Head and Iudge ouer the other Apostles so behaued himselfe among them that he might seeme in a manner to haue neglected his Pastorship by carrying himselfe as a Brother and equall with them and not as either Head or Rector ouer them So you out of Salmeron whose words make wholly against you for in them he acknowledgeth the Pastorship of S. Peter ouer the other Apostles that he was their Iudge their Head their Rector If therfore he say that S. Peter carried himselfe with so great humility that in some sort he may seeme to haue neglected his Pastorship he sayth it not to deny his Pastorall power but to shew that in the exercise therof he caried himselfe rather like a Brother and equall then as a Superior or Iudge which Salmeron might haue said of Christ who sayth of himselfe (*) Ioan. 13.13 You call me Mayster and Lord and you say well for I am so and yet he carried himselfe not as a Maister but as a seruant washing his Disciples feete It is the property of the Spyder to draw poyson from the same flower out of which the Bee sucketh hony so out of the singular modesty and humility of S. Peter in the exercise of his Pastorall power which Salmeron alleageth to his great commendation you draw an argument to disproue his authority to which S. Gregory hath answered longe since Peter sayth he (d) L. 9. cp 38. the chiefe of the Apostles answered the complaint of the faythfull not by his power but by reason for if when he was blamed by the faythfull he had regarded the charge which he had receaued ouer the holy Church he might haue answered that the sheep should not dare to reprehend their Pastor to whose care they were committed But if in the complaint of the faythfull he should haue said any thing of his owne power surely he had not bene the Doctor of meekenesse Wherfore Peter exercised his power but yet with meekenesse and humility after the example of Christ who being Lord and Maister was in the middest of his Disciples as one that ministred (e) Luc. 22.27 His example Peter followed shewing himselfe to be meeke and humble of hart (f) Math. 11.29 practising that lesson which he had learned from him The Princes of nations dominiere ouer them but you not so (g) Luc. 22.25 but he that is the greater let him become as the yonger and he that is the elder as the wayter Yet neuerthelesse as humility hindred not Christ from shewing his power and authority when and where it was sitting so neither did it hinder Peter from exercising his iurisdiction as often as occasion required for as Philip a reuerend Priest and Legate of the See Apostolike in the famous Councell of Ephesus truly said (h) Concil Ephes to 2. c. 10. It is out of doubt and notorious to all ages that the holy and most blessed Peter Prince and Head of the Apostles pillar of the fayth and foundation of the Catholike Church receaued from Iesus Christ our Lord our Sauiour redeemer of mankind the keyes of the heauenly kingdome and exercised the power of binding and losing which he had receaued and that in his Successors he still liueth vntill this day Some of the particulars in which he exercised his power are expressed in holy Scripture We read in the Acts of the Apostles (i) Cap. 1.15 seqq that immediatly after the Ascension of Christ Peter rising vp proposed to the brethren the substituting of an other Apostle insteed of Iudas exercising his authority therin Peter sayth S. Chrysostome (k) Hom. 3. in Acta rising vp in the middest of the Disciples said c. Behold how feruent Peter is how he owneth the flock committed to him by Christ how he sheweth himselfe Prince of this assembly See likewise the modesty of Iames he had bene made Bishop of Hierusalem and yet sayth not a word Consider also the singular modesty of the other Disciples how they yeld the throne to Peter not debating for it among themselues as formerly they had done And further shewing how Peter in this affayre exercised his authority before and aboue the rest he sayth (l) Ibid. Why doth he communicate this businesse with them might he not haue made the election alone He might without doubt but did not lest he might seeme partiall to any And againe (m) Ibid. This was the wisdome and foresight of this Doctor He said not We alone are sufficient to teach and although he had right to appoint an Apostle as much as all they had yet this doing it with aduice was agreeable to the Vertue of the man And because eminency in spiritual power is not an honor but a care of subiects yet worthily doth he first before them all exercise authority in the busines qui omnes habebat in manu who had all the rest at his disposition and will for this is he to whom our Lord sayd And thou being conuerted confirme thy brethren So Chrysostome And no lesse plainly Oecumenius Not Iames sayth he (n) Ade 1 Act. but Peter ryseth to whom the gouerment of the Disciples was committed Nor did any of them make reply to Peters words but presently at his command they appointed two whom they thought worthiest of that dignity that God himselfe might designe one of them Can any Catholike at this day more fully or in more significant words expresse the exercise of S. Peters iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles and his power to command them then these two ancient Fathers haue done To whom also I adioyne another like testimony of Leo the ninth a learned holy Pope (o) Epist. ad Michael c. 1. Silly therfore is your shift whiles you reduce the force of this argument to Peters deposing of Iudas from his Bishoprick for it insisteth not on his deposition but on the election of Mathias in his place which you conceale not so much as mentioning it because you know it to be vnanswerable 2. No lesse cunningly you shift of S. Peters giuing sentence of death vpon Ananias and Saphyra (p) Act. 5.5.10 for their fraud and hypocrisy It was say you (q) Pag. 48. no act of ordinary Magistracy but an extraordinary act of Miracle as Pauls striking of Elimas starke blind was But S. Augustine or whosoeuer is author of the worke De mirabilibus sacrae scripturae teacheth you another lesson saying (r) L. 3. cap. vlt. Peter punished thē to shew how great his Apostolicall authority was and how great their sinne and that their chastisment might be an example to others And S. Gregory treating of the Pastorall function and shewing how great benignity it requireth towards those that do well
Peter And the sacred Expositors teach you the same lesson for when a new Apostle was to be chosen in place of Iudas S. Chrysostome noteth (t) Hom. 3. in Act. that albeit Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem yet he acknowledged the superiority not to belong to himselfe but to Peter that therfore not he but Peter shewed his authority in the cariage of that busines Behold sayth Chrysostome the modesty of Iames He had receaued the office of Bishop of Hierusalem and yet speakes â—ot a word but yelds the throne to Peter And Oecuâ—â—e niâ—â— (s) Ad cap. 1. Act. Iames riseth nâ—â— out Peter be being the man to whom the gouerment of the Disciples was committed And Chrysostome further declaring that the Episcopall authority which christ gaue to Peter was as farre aboue that of Iames as the Bishop of the whole world surpasseth in authority the Bishop of one particular See sayth (t) Hom. vlt. in Ioan. If any one demaund how Iames obtained the See of Hierusalem I answere he was made by Peter Maister of the whole world which difference betweene the authority of Peter and Iames Euthymius (u) Ad c. 21. Ioan. hath also expressed in the same words And no lesse S. Bernard saying (x) L. 2. de considerat c. 9. The other Apostles obtayned ech of them their peculiar stocks Iames contented with Hierusalem yelds the vniuersality to Peter I conclude therfore that if S. Paul once named Iames before Peter which is yet doubtfull it is a non sequitur to collect from thence that he held Iames superior or equall in authority to Peter You shew your selfe to be one of those men of whom S. Peter (y) 1. Pet. 3.16 sayth that reading S. Paules epistles they depraue them and the rest of the Scriptures to their owne perdition Not vnlike to this is the argument you make (z) Pag. 62. fin 63. to proue that S. Paul forsooth butteth and excopteth against Peters authority because he sayth (a) Gal. 1.18 I went to Hierusalem to see Peter and tarried with him 15. dayes but other of the Apostles I saw none saue Iames the brother of our Lord. Your inference is that Paul going vp to stop the mouths of false Apostles who obiected that he had not sufficient commission to preach as not hauing bene authorized by the other Apostles if the spirit of Popery had reigned in those dayes his Aduersaries might haue replyed that Peter being the Vicar of Christ and the Ordinary and vniuersall Pastor of his Church was alone sufficient and All in All to authorize him because the Gouernor of all others without exception So you but falsly and ignorantly for Paul went not then to Hierusalem to haue his Ghospell approued but only for honors sake to see and reuerence Peter his Superior as the expositors with one accord declare Their words you haue already heard His iourney to Hierusalem to vindicate his calling and haue his Ghospell approued by S. Peter and the other Apostles was 14. yeares after when he tooke Barnabas Titus with him as in the second Chapter to the Galathians he declareth But you are contented to confound the former iourney with this such mistakes are the engines of Arguments wherewith you But at the Popes authority SECT V. Priuiledges granted to other of the Apostles and not to S. Peter obiected by Doctor Morton TO the former obiections you adde others concerning some priuiledges granted to other Apostles and not to S. Peter which I will briefly touch The first is (c) Pag. 64. Peter gaue not sentence in the Apostolicall Synod but Iames in his presence This is an vntruth and such I haue proued it to be The second (e) Pag. 64. Peter leaned not on Christs brest as Iohn did True but Christ made Peter the foundation of his Church and Pastor of his flock a far greater dignity then to leane on his brest and which implies Iohns subiection to him The third is (f) Pag. 64. Peter solicited Iohn to aske a question of scorecy He did so but how ill aduised you are to obiect this against Peters Primacy the Fathers will informe you Cassiodorus (g) L. de amicit c. Quasi diceret benefac sint amici Surely our Lord preferred Peter before Iohn and bestowing the Princedome on Peter did not therfore withdraw his affection from the disciple whom he loued He gaue to Peter the keyes of the kingdome of heauen that he might open and shut heauen to Iohn he gaue a facility of opening vnto vs the secrets of his brest To Peter he gaue the charge and gouerment of his Church to Iohn the care and custody of his Mother Peter durst not aske of our Lord who was to betray him Iohn at Peters instance asked confidently what the Prince of the Apostles durst not in quire S. Chrysostome (h) Hom. vlt. in Ioan. Why doth Iohn mention his leaning on Christs brest Not without cause but to shew the confidence of Peter after his deniall for he that durst not then aske but did is by another after the charge of his brethren was giuen to him committeth is not to another but himselfe asketh the Maister and Iohn is silens He speakes and shewes his loue to Iohn c. For when Christ had communicated great matters to Peter and giuen him charge of the whole world he being desirous to haue Iohn for his partner and colleague said And this man what And as he not daring to aske at the last supper did it by Iohn so now doth he the like for Iohn thinking that he was desirous to aske but durst not And againe (i) Hom. 66. in Math. Marke how this same Iohn that lately made such demands after wholly yelds the primacy to Peter and prefers him in all things before himselfe S. Hierome (k) L. 1. aduers Iouin Among the twelue Apostles one is chosen that a Head being appointed occasion of Schisme might be taken away And declaring (l) Ibid. why the dignity of Head was not giuen to Iohn but to Peter he yeldeth this reason because Peter was the elder and lest if Christ had bestowed that dignity on a yong man whom he loued he might seeme to minister occasion of enuie to the rest That famous Emperor Leo surnamed The wise hauing declared (m) Serm. de S. Petro. that Christ male Peter Prince of pastors and required of him the care of feeding his flock as a returne of his loue addeth Peter knowing that to be a great Princedome and how great strength it requireth seing Iohn following whom Iesus greatly loued said And this man what wilt thou haue me to be placed as Head ouer the disciples what then dost thou commaund him to doe Our Lord answered as it were checking Peter So I will haue him to remayne till I come what 's that to thee follow thou me that is follow me with this pastorall staffe and as whiles I was with you I did
said belonged not to the other Apostles 2. That power did extend to all Bishops because the reason of order and Ecclesiasticall vnity so required 3. The power of the Bishop of Rome was alwaies ordinary and to continue perpetually in the Church not so in the other Apostles This is Suarez his Doctrine which I haue set downe in his owne words that the reader perusing yours and comparing them with his may see how you falsify for both in your Latin margent English text you leaue out (i) Pag. 79. the reason wherwith he proues his assertion and set downe for his only ground that he cannot remember to haue read in any author any thing of this point wheras he proues it out of what he had formerly said And doth he not here againe proue it out of the power and iurisdiction which was in S. Peter ouer the whole Church descended from him to his Successors And doth he not from thence inferr three prerogatiues which his Successors had ouer the other Apostles two of which you conceale And though you set downe the third yet it is in your Latin Margent only and so dismembred from Suarez his context that the reader will not easily vnderstand the force therof Againe who is so blind that sees not your absurd manner of arguing which is this (*) Pag. 78. 79. Suarez opinion is that S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter was subiect to Linus his Successor ergo S. Iohns fayth did not conceaue the Pope to haue iurisdiction ouer all other Bishops and Pastors in the Catholike Church You might as well haue inferred that because Yorke hath a Minster London hath a Bridge for this is as good a consequence as yours But hereby the Reader may see with what silly Sophistry you delude or to vse your owne words against your selfe with what vntempered morter you daube vp the consciences of your followers Now as for Suarez his assertion that the iurisdiction of S. Peters Successor was greater then the ordinary Episcopall iurisdiction of the other Apostles a iudicious Reader wil easily conceaue to be no such improbable Doctrine if he reflect that the Successor to euery Bishop is inuested in all the Episcopall authority of his predecessors and therfore Linus being Successor to S. Peter it must follow that 8. Peter being in Episcopall authority and iurisdiction superior to all the other Apostles Linus had the same authority and iurisdiction ouer those that suruiued S. Peter And this S. Chrysostome seemeth to haue expressed (k) L. 2. de Sacerd 1â— when he said Christ committed to Peter and to Peters Successors the charge of those sheep for the regayning of which he shed his bloud from which number I trust you will not excluded S. Iohn or any other of the Apostles that suruiued S. Peter And what els did S. Cyril meane when he said (l) Apud S. Thom. Opusc cont error Graec. c. 32. As Christ receaued from his Father most ample power so he gaue the same most fully to Peter and his Successors And what Paschasinus when in the presence and with the approbation of the Councell of Chalcedon (m) Act. 1. he affirmed the Pope to be inuested in the dignity of Peter the Apostle And what meant S. Bernard (n) L. 2. de considerat when he said to Eugenius Pope Thou art Peter in power and by vnction Christ the sheep of Christ were not so without exception committed to any Bishop nor to any of the Apostles as to thee thou art Pastor not only of the sheep but Pastor of all Pastors And what meant S. Leo (o) Serm. 2. â— Anniuers suae assump when he said The ordinance of truth standeth and S. Peter continuing in the receaued solidity of a Rock hath not left the gouerment of the Church for truly he perseuereth and liueth still in his Successors And againe (p) Ibid. In the person of my humility he is vnderstood he honored in whom the solicitude of all Pastors with the sheep commended to him perseuereth and whose dignity in an vnworthy heyre fayleth not And what S. Peter surnamed Chrysologus (q) Ep. ad Eutychet when he exhorted Eutyches to heare obediently the most blessed Pope of Rome because S. Peter who liueth in his owne See and is stil president in the same exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it And what the Legates of Celestine Pope in the Councell of Ephesus (r) P. 2. Act. 2. No man doubtes for it hath bene notorious to all ages that the holy and most blessed Peter Prince and Head of the Apostles piller of the fayth foundation of the Catholike Church liues and decides causes yet vnto this day and for all eternity by his Successors And what Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria writing to S. Gregory (s) Apud Greg. l. 6. ep 37. that Peter Prince of the Apostles sitteth still in his owne Chayre in his Successors And what S. Gregory himselfe reporting (t) Dial. l. 3. c. â— that Agapet Pope comming to Constantinople the friends of a man that was lame and dumbe beseeching him to cure that man by the authority of Peter the Apostle Agapet by the same authority cured him And what the Fathers of the sixt Councell generall when commending the Epistle of Agatho Pope they said (u) Act. 18. The paper and inke appeared but it was Peter that did speake by Agatho And finally what Constantine Pogonate when writing to the Roman Synod (x) Apud 6. Syn. Act. 18. he admired the relation of Agatho at the voyce of the diuine Peter himselfe It followeth then that if Linus was inuested in the Episcopall dignity and power of Peter if S. Peter still liue and rule in his owne See and decide causes in his Successors if he speake by them and their voyce be to heard as his voyce to be subiect to Linus was no other thing then to be subiect to S. Peter and to disobey Linus was to disobey S. Peter who did speake by Linus and gouerne in his owne See by him Wherfore as the Apostles owed subiection to S. Peter whiles he liued so those that suruiâ—â—â— him did to Linus hauing the place of Peter for 〈◊〉 â—â—â—rian â—alles the Roman See L. 4. â—p 2. CHAP. XIV Your fifth Chapter with diuers Arguments answered SECT I. Of the Name Catholike AFTER a discourse made from an Argument ab authoritate negatiuè which euery Logician knowes to be of no force you say (a) Pag. 81. We begin at the word Catholike and desire to vnderstand why the epistles of Iames and Iohn and Iude were called Catholike or vniuersall as well as the two Epistles of Peter if the word Catholike were so proper to the Roman Chayre seing that the Epistles of Iames Iohn and Iude were not sent to or from Rome nor had any relation to Peter there Before I answere I desire you to remember that the name Catholike by the ancient Fathers is giuen
it selfe but one Church gouerneth another as the Metropolitan doth the Suffragans the Roman Church as being the Head and Mother Church ruleth all others of the world Nor is this explication of lesse force becauss he sayth that she gouerneth in the region of the Romans for he sayth it not to limit her gouerment but to expresse the place in which she is seated and from whence she gouerneth all other Churches I conclude therfore that by calling her the Church that gouerneth and not limiting her gouerment to anyone Church or nuÌ„ber of Churches he declareth her to be Head Gouernesse absolutely of all Churches for as S. Bernard speaking of this subiect sayth (m) L. 2. de consider at Where there is no limitation nothing is excepted And in this sense Theodoret long before had said (n) Ep. ad Leon. The Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the whole world This to be the genume sense of S. Ignatius his words Casaubon and you peraduenture did see and therfore to giue an expedite solution you reiect the whole Epistle saying (o) Pag. 100. marg No man skilfull in Greeke would belieue it to be written by S. â—gnatius But this solution is exploded by Euscbius (p) L. 3. hist. c. 30. and S. Hierome (q) L. de Scriptor who might be Casaubons and your Maysters in Greeke and yet affirme S. Ignatius to be the Author of this Epistle and transcribe a part therof yeÌ„t to be found in it as also doth S. Irenaeus (r) L. 4. aduers haeres apud Baron anno 109. to shew the admirable spirit and feruor of that holy Bishop Hauing proposed these arguments of Casaubon you obiect out of your owne obseruations (s) Pag. 100. that S. Ignatius exhorting the Trallians vnto obedience to Bishops instanceth equally in Timothy S. Pauls scholler as in Anacletus Successor to S. Peter Answere You may by the like argument proue that S. Ignatius equalleth Priests in authority with Bishops for exhorting the Trallians to obedience he instanceth as well in Priests as in the Bishop Obey sayth he (*) Ep. ad Trallianos the Bishop the Priests Who then seeth not your argument to be a childish Sophisme SECT VI. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church I Renaeus say you (t) Pag. 100. for direction in the right of Traditions referreth as well to Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna as to Linus Bishop of Rome Tertullian also to secure Christians in the Doctrine of the Apostles prescribeth vnto them that they consult with the Mother Churches immediatly founded by the Apostles naming as well Ephesus in Asia and Corinth in Achaia as Rome in Italy and for the persons mentioning as well Polycarpe ordayned by S. Iohn as Clemens by Peter The like argumeÌ„t you make out of Vincentius Lyrinensis But all of them imposterously and against your selfe And first to begin with S. Irenaeus these words Discite ab Apostolicis Ecclesijs Habetis Romae Linum which you alleage as of S. Irenaeus (u) L. 2. c. 3. I find not in him It is true that both he and Tertullian teaching the Christians of their tyme to auoyd heresy warned them that the true fayth was to be learned from the Apostolicall Churches that is from the Churches founded by the Apostles themselues or by Apostolicall men as Timothy Polycarpe and other their disciples that preached the same fayth they learned from the Apostles their Maysters But withall they taught them that the chiefe Church they were to adhere vnto and by whose authority they were to confound all Heretikes was the Roman Church All men sayth S. Irenaeus (x) L. 3. c. 3. may behold the tradition of the Apostles that is the fayth deliuered by them to their Successors in euery Church if they be desirous to heare the truth and we can number the Bishops that were made by the Apostles in Churches and their Successors euen vnto vs who neither taught nor knew any such thinge as rauing heretikes do broach c. But because it were a long businesse to number the Successions of all Churches we declare the tradition of the most great most ancient and most knowne Church founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which tradition and fayth it hath from the Apostles coÌ„ming to vs by Succession of Bishops and thereby we confound all them that any way ether by euill complacence of themselues or vaine-glory or blindnesse or ill opinion do gather otherwise then they ought Lo here how Catholikes in S. Irenaeus tyme did confound all heretikes by the fayth of the Roman Church and by the Succession of Bishops in that See And he yeldeth the reason saying (y) Ibid. for to this Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality all Churches must necessarily agree that is to say all the faythfull of what place soeuer in which Church the tradition and fayth of the Apostles hath bene alwayes conserued And in confirmation of this he reckoneth by name all the Popes from S. Peter to Eleutherius who at that tyme gouerned the Church (z) Ibid. And by that orderly and neuer-interrupted Succession he proueth the Roman Church to haue conserued vnto his daies the fayth pure and entyre as it was preached by the Apostles By this Succession that Doctrine and truth which the Apostles preached in the Church hath come to vs And this is a demonstration conuicing that it is one and the same quickening fayth which from the Apostles tyme vntill this day is conserued and delinered in truth And againe relating to this place and speaking of the same Succession of Bishops in the Roman Church which he calleth the principall Succession he declareth all those that withdraw themselues from it to be Schismatikes or heretikes They that are in the Church sayth he (a) L. 4. c. 41. ought to obey those Priests which haue their Succession from the Apostles which togeather with the Succession of their Bishoprikes haue receaued the assured grace of truth according to the good will of the heauenly Father And we ought to hold suspected all others that withdraw themselues from the like Principall Succession and ioyne togeather in some other place We ought I say to hold them as heretikes of a peruerse iudgment or as Schismatikes and selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes or els as Hypocrites that worke for lucre and vaine-glory If then S. Irenaeus in his dayes thought it an argument sufficient to conuince all Heretikes that they had fallen from the true fayth preached by the Apostles because they had fallen from the Succession of Bishops in Peters See to which all the Churches and faythfull of the world must necessarly agree how much more conuincing is the same Argument against Protestants to whom we shew not the Succession of twelue Popes in S. Peters See as S. Irenaeus did to the heretikes of his tyme but almost of 240. You were not ignorant of the force
man highly esteemed by you hath taught you (t) Not. in ep Cyp. ad Cornel that the word Brother there signifieth not equality but society of religion And nothing els is signified by the words Colleague and Fellow-minister when other Bishops are so instiled by the Pope or the Pope by them For that ancient Father Vincentius Lyrinensis speaking of Pope Stephen and other Bishops opposing the doctrine of rebaptization defended by Firmilianus and Cyprian sayth (u) Cont. haer cap. 9. Then the blessed Stephen made resistance together with but yet before his Colleagues iudging it as I conceaue a thing worthy of him to excell them in fayth so much as he did in the authority of his place And Innocentius the first in answere to the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis (x) Inter ep Aug. ep 93. I conceaue that all our Brethren and fellow-Bishops ought not to referre what may be profitable in common to all Churches to any but to Peter that is to say to the author of their name and dignity And the Bishops of Aegypt in the Synod of Alexandria call S. Athanasius their Colleague (y) Athan. Apol. de fuga sua who yet was their Head and had iurisdiction ouer them as the Coūcell of Nice declareth (z) Can. 6. And lastly the Bishops of the Councell of Ephesus call Celestine Pope their fellow-minister (a) Par. 2. Act. 1. and yet in the same place stile him their most holy Father and make themselues executors of his decrees Constrained necessarily say they by the force of the Canons and by the letters of our most holy Father and Fellow-minister Celestine we are come not without teares to pronounce this heauy sentence against Nestorius I conclude therfore that these words Brother Colleague and fellow-minister when they are vsed by the Pope to other Bishops or by other Bishops to the Pope signify nothing els but society of religion and vnity of communion from whence to inferre as you do that other Bishops are of equall authority with the Pope is a peece of ignorance no way suiting with a man of your reading and altogeather vnbeseeming him that holds the place of so great a Bishop SECT IV. A friuolous cauill of Doctor Morton against Bellarmine answeared YOu obiect (b) Pag. 109. fin that wheras Theodoret sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is letters the yeares past Bellarmine against all Lexicons readeth The mandate of letters Is not this fine art trow yee c. If any should translate the yeare past into Mandate might it not be suspected that the mans witts were now in the wayne as being ignorant c. So you who by seeking to shew your wit in scoffing at Bellarmine discouer your ignorance and folly Bellarmines intent is to shew that the Councell of Constantinople was called by the Popes authority because the Fathers of the Councell writing to Damasus acknowledge that they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his letters which Bellarmine translateth mandato literarum by command of his letters following the version of Christopherson and with good cause for who is so stupid as not to vnderstand that it is all one to call the Bishops to a Councell by his letters as the Greeke sayth or by the authority and Mandate of his letters as Christopherson translated But to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Mandate neither did Bellarmine so translate nor would any man whose wits are not in the wayne haue imputed so grosse an ignorance to that learned Cardinall especially since in two different places he setteth downe the same passage at large and expresseth both Mandato litterarum (c) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. In Respon ad Apol. pro iuram fidel pag. 375. and Anno superiore saying Mandato litterarum superiore anno à vestra Reuerentia ad sanctissimum Imperatorem Theodosium missarum by the Mandate of letters sent the last yeare by your Reuerence to the most religious Emperor Theodosius Which sheweth that if he had left out of the Latin Anno superiore as you citing his words cunningly do it had not bene to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Mandate but to omit Anno superiore as a particle wholly impertinent either to proue or disproue the Popes power of calling generall Councells which no way dependeth on the yeare but on the authority and dignity of his place SECT V. Of the Decree of this second Councell generall made in fauor of the Archbishop of Constantinople AGainst what hath bene said you oppose a (d) Pag. 112. 113. Canon of the second Councell ordayning that the B. of Constantinople haue the honor of primacy next after the B. of Rome because Constantinople is new Rome This Obiection reboundeth on your owne head For if the Bishop of Constantinople sought then to obtayne the second place after the Pope because Constantinople is new Rome it is therby manifest that before that tyme the B. of old Rome had the primacy aboue all Bishops The primacy I say not of order only for this the Bishops of Constantinople neuer denied to the Pope but of authority and iurisdiction ouer the Patriarkes of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem for that authority it was in which they sought to participate with him though in the second place after vnder him which they cold not haue done vnlesse the primacy of authority ouer those Patriarkes had primitiuely and originally belonged to him So farre therfore is this your Argument from euincing any thing against the Popes authority that it confirmeth the same And so much the more because the Canon obiected whatsoeuer the sense of it be and whatsoeuer the Bishops of Constantinople pretended by it is of no force for the Councell in which it was made consisted only of the Bishops of the East and therfore was not Generall of it selfe but only by the adiunction and confirmation of another Councell of the Westerne Bishops held at Rome vnder Damasus Pope at the same tyme which neither knew of this Canon before it was made nor confirmed it after it was made as S. Gregory hath testified saying (e) L. 6. ep 31. The Roman Church neither hath nor receaueth the Canons or the Actes of the Councell of Constantinople but she hath admitted that Synod in what it defined against Macedonius And the same is testified by S. Leo (f) Ep. 53. who reprehending Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople for seeking to renew this Canon in the Councell of Chalcedon sayth The signature of certaine Bishops made as thou vauntest more then threescore yeares since cannot iustify thy intention to the vpholding whereof being of it selfe from the beginning ruinous and long since quite fallen thou hast sought weake and feeble props for neuer hauing bene transmitted by thy predecessors to the knowledge of the See Apostolike it could be of no force That this Canon was neuer allowed by the See Apostolike you know but shift it off saying (g) Pag 112. Truly it
that if very speedily that is within the tyme prescribed by the most holy Bishop of the Roman Church he renounce not the Nouelties of his Doctrine he is to haue no more communion with vs not place among the Minister of God And the Councell it selfe proceeding to the sentence of condemnation against him sayth (n) Conc. Ephes to 2. c. 20. Constrained necessarily by the force of the Canons and by the letters of our most holy Father Celestine we are come not without many teares to pronounce this heauy sentence against him And then they couch the sentence it selfe in these words (o) Ibid. Therfore our Lord Iesus Christ whom Nestorius hath assailed with his blasphemies by this holy Synod pronounceth him wholly depriued of all Episcopall dignity and cast out from all company and conuersation of Priests These passages proue the authority of the Pope 1. Ouer Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria whom he made his Vicar and who acknowledged himselfe bound by Celestines letters to condemne Nestorius and cast him out from among the Ministers of God 2. Ouer the Patriarke of Constantinople whom he first condemned at Rome and afterwards gaue command to Cyrill to publish his condemnation at Constantinople and to substitute another Bishop in his place And 3. ouer the Councell of Ephesus in which the Bishops professe (*) Euagr. l. 1. c. 4. that they were compelled necessarily by the force of the Canons and by the letters of Celestine to condemne Nestorius Which sayth Bellarmine was to professe that they deposed him by the command of Pope Celestine False say you (p) Pag. 114. There is not the word Command vsed by the Councell c. No you know well that to command was not the stile of Popes in primitiue and ancient tymes S. Gregory B. of Rome 150. yeares after Celestine did vtterly abhorre it I command sayth he Away with the word Command I haue not commanded And the same you repeate afterwards againe (q) Pag. 233. And to persuade your readers that the passages alleaged containe no Command of Celestine to Cyril or to the Councell you shift them off saying (r) Pag. 115. Those Fathers confesse they were moued and compelled by Celestines letters meaning by the persuasions of that Orthodox Bishop and that but only tùm tùm in part for so they say Both by the Canons and also by your letters But this euasion cannot serue for they say not They were persuaded by Celestines letters there is no mention of persuasion but that they were necessarily compelled by them which is to be Commanded for Persuasions do not necessarily compell but Commands And what more cleare then that Celestine did exercise the authority of a Iudge and Commander in ordayning Cyrill to execute exactly and seuerely the sentence of condemnation against Nestorius if he did not within ten dayes after admonition giuen him anathematize his hereticall Doctrine Was this only to persuade Was it not most strictly and properly to command Vnlesse you will say that when his Maiesty without vsing the word Command giues strict charge to his Iudges to condemne a Malefactor he commands them not but only persuades them to condemne him But you say (s) Pag. 115. Those Fathers were compelled by Celestines letters and by the Canons and therfore not wholly by his letters but only in part What then If the Iudges say they are compelled by the lawes and by his Maiesties letters to condemne a malefactor doth it therfore follow that his Maiesty hath no authority to command the Iudges or that his letters were not mandatory to them but only persuasiue with such poore euasions you deceaue your disciples But you say (t) Pag. 114. We well know that to command was not the style of Popes in primitiue and ancient times Pardon vs Syr we well know that you speake vntruly and ignorantly for Victor the first Pope of that name who liued in the first age after Christ commanded the Asian Bishops to celebrate the Feast of Easter after the manner of the Roman Church and excommunicated them that obeyed noâ— (u) Euseb l. 5. hist c. 24. 2. Anthetus that liued in the beginning of the next age writ to the Bishops of Andaluzia Toledo These things we command to be obserued according to your desire (x) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 145. Stephen the first of that name writing to S. Cyprian commanded that such as were baptized by hetetikes should not be rebaptized Let nothing be innouated sayth he (z) Vincent Lyr. aduers haer c. 9. but the ancient to adition abserued And notwithstanding the opposition of S. Cyptian of Firmiâ—ianâ—â—s and many other learned Prelates this command of Stephen preuailed and the contrary doctrine was condemned by the Councell of Nice as hereticall 4. Iulius the first of that name rebuked the Arians (a) Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. because they had rashly depersed Athanasius and other Catholike Bishops and commanded that some of them in the name of all should appeare at Rome on a set day to giue â—ccempt of the iustice of their sentence and threatned not to let them passe without punishment vnlesse they did leaue to innouate And both Theodoreâ— (b) L. 2. hist. c. 4. S. Athanasius (c) Apol. 2. out of an vndoubted Epistle of the same Pope report that following the Ecclesiasticall law hâ— commanded the Arian Bishops to come to Rome and suâ—â—â—ned Athanasius canâ—nic ally to present himselfe in iudgment and that as soone as he receaued the citation he transported himselfe in diligence to Rome What thinke you of these examples Was it not the stile of ancient Popes before S. Gregory to command and to command the greatest Patriarkes of the East But let vs goe on 5. Anastasius the second of that name speaking to Anastasius the Emperor sayth (d) In ep ad Anastas Aug. Let not Pride make resistance to the Apostolicall precepts but those things which are commanded by the Roman Church and Apostolicall authority let them be obserued 6. when Aurelius Bishop of Carthage writ to Damasus Pope for a copy of all the decrees and Statutes ordeined by the Roman Church since S. Peter to his tyme he sent them to him saying (e) Ep. 5. We wish you to obserue them and command you to publish them that with due reuerence they may be kept by all The African Bishops acknowledge (f) Ep. ad Bonifac in Concil Africa c. 101. that they had receaued from the Pope Mandata literas Mandates and letters 8. Gelasius a learned holy Pope maketh expresse mention of the decrees and commandes of the Popes his predecessor for the good of the Church (g) Ep. â— 9. Leo the great writing to Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople testifieth (h) Ep. 4â— that he bath enioyned him the execution of his decree And in his first Epistle which is to all Bishops he sayth All the decrees and constitutions as well of Innocentius of
with the B. of Rome after him But this addition to the Canon of equall priuiledges was surreptitiously made by the vsurpation of Anatolius to augment his power for the Fathers of Chalcedon neuer owned it as it appeares in this that when they beseeched Leo Pope to confirme their decree they made to him no mention of Equall priuiledges but only said (s) In relat ad Leon. We haue confirmed the rule of the 150. Fathers assembled at Constantinople which ordeyned that after your most holy and Apostolike See that of Constantinople should haue the second place of honor which is to say that as the B. of Rome had the Primacy absolutely ouer all the Patriarkes so the B. of Constantinople should haue it after him ouer all the other Patriarkes So this Canon is reported by Euagrius It was decreed sayth he (t) L. 2. c. 4. fin that the See of new Rome by reason she held the second place after the ancient Rome should haue the primacy before the other Sees In which sense and in no other Socrates (u) L. 5. c. 8. testifieth this decree to haue bene made in the Councell of Constantinople which was the source of all this pretence And Iustinian the Emperor speaking of both these Councells sayth (x) Noueâ— 131. that in them it was decreed that as the holy Pope of old Rome is the first of all Prelates so the Archbishop of Constantinople new Rome should haue the second place after the See Apostolike of old Rome and be preferred before all the other Sees And long after that time the Emperor Basilius the yonger and Eustathius Patriarke of Constantinople (y) Glaber Rodulph hist l. 4. c. 1. desired that it might be lawfull for them to obteyne with the consent of the Pope that the Church of Constantinople might be called Vniuersall in the compasse therof as the Pope of Rome was in the compasse of the whole world By this appeares that although the Fathers of those two Councells contrary to the decrees of Nice endeauored by this Canon to make the B. of Constantinople the first and chiefest Patriarke of the East and to conferre on him after vnder the Pope an vniuersal iurisdiction ouer the other Patriarkes yet they neuer intended therby to put any limitation to the Vniuersall Iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church nor any way to exempt themselues or the Patriarkes of Constantinople from his subiection and obedience Which is also further proued 1. By the testimonies of Zonaras and Nilus both of them Greeke Schismatikes and enemies to the Roman Church Zonaras sayth (z) In Conc. Constantin 1. c. 3. that wheras the Councell of Constantinople ordeyned that the Bishop of that Citty should be the second after the Pope of Rome some thinke that the Preposition after importeth not inferiority and submission but only posteriority of tyme and in proofe of this their opinion they make vse of the 28. Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon which ordaynes that new Rome shold be honored with the same ecclesiasticall prerogatiues as old Rome and should be preferred in honor before all the other Churches being the second after her But this sayth he is refuted by the 130. Nouell of Iustinian inserted into the third title of the fifth booke of the Basilikes which giues the Canon to be otherwise vnderstood And therfore he concludeth saying (a) Ibid. From hence it appeares manifestly that the Preposition after signifies submission and inferiority And Nilus B. of Thessalonica (b) De primatu Pâ—pae l. 1. We are not separated from peace for attributing to our selues the primacy nor for refusing to hold the second place after the principality of Rome for we neuer contested for primacy with the Roman Church 2. The same is proued for the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the deposition of Eutyches and Dioscorus in the restitution of Theodoret to his Bishoprick (c) See aboue sect praeced in confessing (d) In relat ad Leon. themselues to be his members and him to be their Head in submitting to him their decrees to be confirmed and in particular this made in fauour of the B. of Constantinople We haue say they (e) Ibid. confirmed the decree of the 150. Fathers confiding that the beame Apostolike raigning amidst you and you by your ordinary gouerment spreading it to the Church of Constantinople you may cause it to shine into these partes because you are wont without enuy to enrich those of your linage with the participation of your goods Againe if we speake of Anatolius in particular who to augment his owne power was the proiecter of this decree how can it be thought that he did not acknowledge himselfe to be a spirituall subiect of the Pope he I say who being made Patriarke of Constantinople by Dioscorus in the false Councell of Ephesus had no right to that See but only by the confirmation of Leo Pope which afterwards he obteyned in regard wherof Leo writing to Martian the Emperor against this attempt of Anatolius said (f) Ep. 54. It shold haue sufficed him that by the help of your Piety and by the consent of my fauor he hath obteined the Bishoprick of so great a Citty And what els did Anatolius himselfe signify when speaking of the Acts of the second Councell of Ephesus in which Maximus was chosen Bishop of Antioch he said (g) Cone Chalced. Act. 10. My verdict is that none of the things ordeyned in the pretended Councell of Ephesus remaine firme but that which was done for Maximus B. of great Antioch for as much as the most holy Archbishop of Rome Leo receauing him into his communion hath iudged that he is to rule the Church of Antioch 3. Because the Fathers of Chalcedon knowing that without the Popes confirmation their decree could be of no force had recourse to Leo beseeching him to confirme it We beseech you say they (h) In relat ad Leon. to honor our decrees with your iudgment and that as we haue held correspondence with our Head for matters of weale so your Soueraingty will yeld to your Children in things of decency for in so doing the religious Emperor shall be gratified To this their petition Leo assented not but wholy annulled and abrogated their decree The Piety of your fayth being ioyned with vs sayth he to Pulcheria the Emperesse (i) Ep. 55. we annull the plots of the Bishops repugnant to the rules of the holy Canons established at Nice and by vertue of the authority of the Blessed Apostle Peter we wholly abrogate them by a generall sentence Another Epistle of the same tenor he addressed to the whole Councell of Chalcedon (k) Ep. 61. And to Anatolius himselfe he likewise writ (l) Ep. 53. Neuer may my conscience consent that so depraued a couetousnesse be furthered by my fauor but rather that it be suppressed by me by them that allow not
THAT the seauenth and eight Generall Councells belieued the B. of Rome to be the Head and Gouernor of the Vniuersal Church is a truth not to be denied In the second Action of the seauenth Synod was read and approued the Epistle of Adrian Pope to Tharasius in which speaking of S. Peters See he sayth Whose seate obtayning the primacy shineth throughout the whole world and is the Head of all the Churches of God In the eight Synod the profession which all Schismaticall Bishops returning to the Catholike Church were to make is expressed in these words (f) Apud Bin. to 3. pag. 923. Can. l. 6. c. 6. pag. 200. The begiuning of saluation is to conserue the rule of right fayth and no way to swarue from the tradition of our Fore-fathers because the words of our Lord cannot fayle saying Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it And the proofes of deeds haue made good these words for as much as in the See Apostolike the Catholike religion is alwayes conserued inuiolable We therfore desiring not to be separated from the fayth and doctrine of this Sea and following in all things the constitutions of the Fathers and chiefly of the holy Prelates of the See Apostolike anathematize all heresies c. And a litle after Wherfore following the See Apostolike in all things and obseruing all her constitutions we hope to deserue to liue in one communion which the See Apostolike teacheth in which there is the true and entire solidity of Christian religion we promise likewise not to recite in the sacred mysteries the names of those which are separated from the communion of the Catholike Church that is to say which agree not to the See Apostolike What you thinke Doctor Morton I know not but sure I am that if you who deny the Roman Church to be the Head and gouernesse of all Churches you that liue out of her Communion you that refuse to obey her constitutions you that professe not to follow her doctrine had liued in tyme of the seauenth and eight Synods they would haue anathematized you and condemned your doctrine as hereticall And this is the reason why you conceale these many other passages of those Councells in which the same truth is deliuered and many other points of your Protestant Doctrine condemned SECT II. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the eight Generall Councell IN your eight Chapter in the title of the eight Section you say (g) Pag. 127. The beliefe of the Article Viz. The Catholike Roman Church without subiection wherunto there is no saluation damneth the eight Councell which you call generall consisting of 383. Bishops in the yeare 870. This is your title in proofe wherof you cite Binius (h) Tom. 3. p. 143. in your margent but ignorantly and falsly for the Councell which Binius there setteth downe is not the eight generall held the yeare 870. vnder Basilius the Emperor and Adrian the second Pope of that name but a particular Synod consisting of certaine Greeke Bishops assembled the yeare 692. by the industry of Calinicus Patriarke of Constantinople in the tyme of Sergius Pope Iustinian the yonger in his pallace called Trullum hath neuer bene esteemed a lawfull Councell but alwayes reproued as a false and erraticall assembly as Binius proueth (i) To. 3. pag. 154. 155. and I shall presently declare (k) Sect. seq Againe you say The eight generall Councell consisted of 383 Bishops and giue Binius for your Author But you are mistaken wrong Binius for he (l) Tom. 3. pag. 910. proueth out of Nicetas and Anastasius who was present at the eight Councell that it consisted only of 102. Bishops Nor will it serue you for an excuse that Bellarmine sayth it consisted of 383. Bishops for you bring not him for your author but Binius who affirmeth and proueth the contrary And in what sense Bellarmine speaketh you might haue learned if you had obserued what Binius noteth out of Anastasius namely that many other Bishops agreed to this Synod though they were not present at it But let vs go on What was done say you (m) Pag. 127. in this fourth Synod of Constantinople you may vnderstand from your owne men Here I must request you to call to mind that els where you say (n) Pag. 235. marg lit â— the Councell vnder Menas was the fifth Councel of Constantinople How then can the eight general Councel which you say was held the yeare 870. be the fourth Councell of Constantinople since in this other place alleaged you affirme the Councell vnder Menas held the yeare 553. to be the fifth Councell of Constantinople for therby you ignorantly make the fifth Councell of Constantinople to haue bene held aboue 300. yeare before the fourth SECT III. Whether the eight generall Councell condemned the Saturday fast allowed by the Roman Church YOu tell vs (o) Pag. 1â—7 that we may vnderstand from our Binius that these Bishops of the eight generall Councell condemned a custome of the saboth fast in lent then vsed in the Church of Rome and therupon made they a Canon inhibiting the Church of Rome from keeping that custome any longer And you adde (p) Ibid. This Canon sayth your Surius is not receaued because it reprehendeth the Church of Rome the mother-Church of all other Churches So you And your readers especially of the vulgar sort by this your expression what will they conceaue but that the Roman Church did in those tymes fast the Sundayes in Lent for as by the Saboth day Protestants especially the vulgar vnderstand no other day but Sunday so by the Saboth fast what will they vnderstand but the Sunday fast which was neuer vsed nor allowed in the Roman Church but condemned in the Councell of Gangra as an hereticall obseruation of the Eustathians (q) See Spond anno 319. n. 9. The fast which this Canon inhibiteth is the Saturday fast which as then it was so notwithstanding this Canon is still vsed by the Roman Church in Lent and not prohibited out of Lent Nor was that Canon made by the eight generall CouÌ„cell to whom you ignorantly ascribe it but by the Trullan Synod as Binius and Surius testify whom therfore you abuse in fathering on them your owne ignorant mistake of the Trullan Synod for the eight generall Councell And so much the more because both of them with all Catholike Diuines hold the Trullan Canons to be illegitimate and of no force for as much as no Legates of Sergius then Pope were present at that Synod nor was it assembled by his authority or consent but absolutely reproued and condemned by him notwithstanding the barbarous violence of Soldiers and other meanes vsed by the Empetor to extort a confirmation from him and his successors as Venerable Bede (r) L Dâ— sex aetat in iustinian iuniore who liued at that tyme
These Syr are not Eusebius his words but yours He sayth that they did earnestly exhort Victor to peace to a diligent care of charity towards his neighbours and bitterly reproued him as prouiding vnprofitably for the good of the Church So indeed Eusebius sayth according to the translation of Ruffinus And both of them being Heretikes shew their malice against the See Apostolike in saying that other Bishops did bitterly reproue Victor for comming to giue an example of this bitternesse they bring for their paterne the wordes of S. Irenaeus in all which there is not one bitter word but a gentle remonstrance full of submission to the person of Victor and to the authority of his See for he sayth not that Victor could not but that he should not haue cut off from the body of the Church so many prouinces for so small a cause which is not to argue him of want of power but for vsing his power indiscreetly Irenaeus sayth Eusebius (r) L. 5. hist c. 24. did fitly exhort Pope Victor that he would not vtterly cut off so many Churches from the body of the vniuersall Church of Christ. And wheras you (s) Pag. 132. traduce Christopherson our learned Bishop of Chichester for this translation of Eusebius it is a cauill sprung out of your ignorance for the Greeke verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Eusebius vseth fignifieth to cut off from the whole masse or body and so it is proued out of Ruffinus who translateth thus Irenaus reproued Victor for not doing well in cutting off from the vnity of the body so many and so great Churches And so likewise translateth your learned Protestant-brother Ioannes Iacobus Grynaeus in his Basilean edition of Eusebius And in the same manner translateth Nicephorus (t) L. 4. c. 38. all of them as well skilled in Greeke as your selfe to say no more And indeed how could Irenaeus reproue Victor for exceeding the limits of his power he that crieth out (u) L. 3. c. 3. To the Roman Church all Churches and all the faythfull from all places must necessarily haue recourse by reason of her more powerfull principality Wherfore it was not want of Power that Irenaeus reproued in Victor but indiscreet vsing of his power But that euen in this he was instaken and that Victor failed not euen in point of prudence nor vsed ouer-much rigor appeareth in this that hereby he repressed the Heresy of Blastus by which many were seduced as also because the famous Councell of Nice first many others afterwards confirmed his sentence and condemned the doctrine and practise of Blastus the Asians in this point in so much that all which since that tyme haue persisted in the contrary custome haue bene accounted Heretikes and vnder the name of Quartadecimani registred for such by the Fathers that haue made catalogues of heretikes That the Nicen Councell had iust cause to condemne this Quartadeciman error you dare not deny but you deny the same of Pope Victor yeld a disparity in these words (x) Pag. 132. Be it knowne vnto you that the decree of the Nicen Councell which ordayned that Easter should be kept vpon the Lords day maketh nothing for the Act of Victor his excommunicating the Asian Bishops because as that Councell was celebrated 200. yeares after so had it far more iust and necessary cause to make such a decree by reason of the heresy of Blastus who at that tyme defended an indispensable necessity of obseruing the Iewish ceremonial law The cause then for which you approue the decree of the Nicen CouÌ„cell and condemne that of Victor in the same cause is by reason of the heresy of Blastus who say you at that tyme of the Nicen Councell defended an indispensable necessity of obseruing the Iewish ceremoniall law which wordes present vnto vs an excellent testimony of your ignorance in ecclesiasticall history for Blastus liued not at the tyme of the Nicen Councell as you affirme but 130. yeares before in the very tyme of Victor Pope and of S. Irenaeus who writ against him as S. Hierome testifieth (y) L. de Scriptor And so likewise did Tertullian at the same tyme saying (z) De praescrip c. 53. Blastus seeketh couertly to bring in Iudaisine for he teacheth that Easter is not to be kept otherwise then according to the law of Moyses And with them agreeth Eusebius reporting (a) L. 5. bist c. 14. that Blastus begun to preach and diuulge his heresy in the tyme of Victor Pope Wherfore you saying that Blastus liued not in the time of Victor but of the Nicen Councell which was more then 100. yeares after present vs ignorantly with falshood insteed of truth in lieu of impugning the fact of Victor against your will confirme the same And by the way I will not omit to aduertise the reader of three things The first is that wheras you say (b) Pag. 132. The Nicen Councell was 200. yeares after Pope Victor excommunicated the Asians you cannot be excused from another ignorant mistake for it was not much aboue 120. yeares after that tyme the sentence of Victor being in the yeare 198. and the Councell of Nice the yeare 325. The second is that the sentence of Victor being ratified and confirmed and contrarily the Iewish custome of the Asians anathematized by the three first generall Councels of Nice Constantinople (c) Ca. 7. and Ephesus (d) P. â— act 6 as also by the second of Antioch (e) Ca. 1. the first of Arles (f) Ca. 1. and that Laodicea (g) Ca. 7. and they that obeyed not the sentence of Victor registred for heretikes by Philastrius (h) In catal Haer. S. Epiphanius (i) Haer. 50. S. Augustine (k) L. de Haeres haer 29. Theodoret (l) Haeret. fab l. 3. cap. 5. S. Damascen (m) Haeres 50. and Nicephorus (n) L. 4. c. 36.37.38 you neuerthelesse blush not to approue that hereticall custome and to say (o) Pag. 157. that the Britans and Scots in obseruing it some hundreds of yeares after it was thus condemned did much more orthodoxally then the Roman Church which sheweth that any custome so it be contrary to the practise of the Roman Church is to you Orthodoxall though in it selfe it be damnable and anathematized as hereticall by neuer so many Councells and Fathers as this Asian custome obserued by the Brittans and Scots was 3. And from the same spirit proceedeth your saying (p) Pag. 131. that Pope Victor was the Schismatâ—ke that troubled the peace of the Church and not the Asian Bishops since they for their obstinacy in defending the Iewish custome haue bene by all orthodox Fathers and Councels condemned as heretikes and contrarily Pope Victor euen as M. Whit gift your brother acknowledgeth (q) In his Defence pag. 5â—0 was a godly Bishop and Martyr and the Church at that tyme in great purity as not being long after the
Cyprian in his anger spread against Stephen I will not suffer to passe vnder my pen. But as C ham (t) Gen. 9.22 delighted to lay open the shamefull parts of his Father so you glory in publishing the faultes of the Saintes when you can espy any error or frailty in them though afterwards they repented themselues as Cyprian did for S. Augustine reporteth as most credible (u) L. 2. de Bapt. c. 4. ep 48. ad Vincent that he changed his opinion before his death and as absolutely certaine that by his glorious Martyrdome he washed out with his bloud the blemish which he had contracted by defending that error 3. In making this Argument you shew great folly it being so far from disprouing the Popes authority that it is an vnanswerable proofe therof as that ancient and learned Father Vincentius Lyrinensis in his golden Treatise against the prophane nouelties of heresies conuinceth in these words (x) Cap. 9.10.11 In tymes past Agrippinus of venerable memory Bishop of Carthage the first of all mortall men maintained this assertion against the diuine Scripture against the rule of the vniuersall Church against the minde of all the Priests of his tyme against the custome and tradition of his fore Fathers that Rebaptization was to be admitted and put in practise Which presumption of his procured so great domage to the Church that not only it gaue a paterne of sacriledge to all beretikes but also ministred occasion of error to some Catholikes When therfore all men euery where exclaimed against the Nouelty of that doctrine and all Priests in all places each one according to his zeale did repugne then Pope Stephen of blessed memory Bishop of the Apostolike See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops but yet more then the rest thinking it as I suppose reason so much to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth as he was superior to them in authority of place To conclude in his Epistle which then was sent to Africa he decreed the same in these words Let nothing be innouated but that obserued which came by tradition c. What then was the end of this whole businesse what els but common and vsuall Antiquity was retained nouelty abandoned But perhaps that new inuention wanted patrons and defenders To which I say on the contrary that it had such pregnant wits such eloquent tongues such number of defendants such shew of truth such testimonies of Scripture but glosed after a new and naughty fashion that all that conspiracy schisme should haue seemed to me inuincible had not the very profession of nouelty it selfe so taken in hand vnder that name defended with that title recommended ouerthrowne the very ground of so great a schisme To conclude what force had the Councell or decree of Africa By Gods prouidence none but all things there agreed vpon were abolished annulled abrogated as dreames as fables as superfluous And O strange mutation of things the authors of that opinion are iudged to be Catholikes and the followers accounted heretikes the maisters discharged and the schollers condemned the writers of those bookes shall be children of the kingdome of heauen and the maintainers of them shall burne in bell All this is of Vincentius Lyrinensis who tels you that albeit Cyprian and other his Colleagues authors of that doctrine be Saintes in heauen yet they that maintaine it now after it hath bene condemned by the vniuersall Church as you do iustifying Cyprian in his defence therof against Stephen Pope shall burne for euer in hell which I wish you to looke to in tyme to obserue how properly you are discribed by Vincentius a litle after comparing such as you are to Cham and expressing liuely your imposterous dealing in theirs 4. As in this obiection you shew folly arguing against your selfe so you cannot be excused from fraud for wheras we answeare that Firmilianus and Cyprian with the other Bishops that assented to them when they saw their doctrine reproued and condemned by the Church acknowledged their error retracted the same by a new decree contrary to that which before they had made in their Councell of Carthage you shift it of saying (y) Pag. 138. I passe it ouer as a vaine presumption and so it is proued to be By whom forsooth by your Reuitius a man of as much credit as your selfe His answere set downe by you in Latin in your margent as also what he bringeth out of Dionysius Alexandrinus and S. Basil you may see confuted by Baronius (a) Apud Bisciol anno 258. pag. 148. S. Hierome and other ancient Fathers The blessed Cyprian sayth S. Hierome (b) Aduers Lucifer stroue to auoid the miry lakes not to drinke of strange waters and vpon this subiect addressed the Synod of Carthage to Stephen B. of Rome who was the twenty sixth after S. Peter but his strife was in vaine And in the end they which had decreed that such as were baptized by heretikes must be rebaptized returning to the ancient custome set forth a new decree saying What do we So it hath bene deliuered to them by their ancestors and ours And Venerable Bede (c) L. quaest q. 5. Cyprian with his Bishops in Africa made a decree contrary to the custome of the Church that heretikes should be rebaptized but because in his sense which he conceaued to be right he endeauored to enrich himselfe with good workes he deserued to be soone reformed and by the instruction of spirituall men to be reduced to the vniuersall custome of holy Church And S. Augustine testifieth (d) L. 3. cont Crescon c. 3. that The orientall Bishops which had met at Icomium and Synnada reuoked their decree and corrected their iudgment And finally Dionysius Alexandrinus certified Pope Stephen (e) Ep. ad Stephan apud Euseb l. 7. hist c. 4. Nicephor l. 6. c. 7. that the same was done not only by the Orientall but also by other forraine Churches euery where Wherfore your obiecting of Firmilianus and Cyprian as opposing the Pope in this conuouersy and inferring that you may likewise oppose him in your Protestant Tenents is as if you should proue out of S. Peters deniall of Christ that it is lawfull for you to deny him for as S. Peter repented his fall so did those Bishops retract their error And hereby also appeares the fraud of your Reuitius seeking to limit this retraction of Firmilianus and other Bishops to those of the East only for you haue heard S. Hierome Bede S. Augustine Eusebius and Nicephorus testify that S. Cyprian with his African Bishops and all others vbique locorum in all place were reconcileds and this not only among themselues as Reuitius ridiculously glosseth for they dissented not among themselues but also with Stephe Pope returning to the ancient custome practise of the Church as he had commanded Wherevpon Dionysius Patriarke of Alexandria writ to him a congratulatory letter (f) Extat
apud Author cit that he with them all might reioyce in the peace restored to the Church by his meanes And in another to Xistus his successor (g) Apud Euseb l. 5. hist c. 4. he declareth the Popes authority ouer all those Bishops beseeching him to pardon their offence restore them to his communion I writ to Stephen sayth he an Epistle for all those Bishops To conclude you adde another falshood saying (h) Pag. 135. that we grant Stephen Pope to haue excommunicated not only Firmilianus with other Eastern Bishops but also S. Cyprian and you proue it by the testimony of Cassander and hereticall and prohibited Author whome you contrary to your owne knowledge cite as a Catholike writer that so you may haue some colour to call his lies our Confessions as here you doe And indeed what man of common sense can persuade himselfe that the Roman Church would honor S. Cyprian as a glorious Saint and Martyr as she doth if he had died out of her communion and especially if he had contemned her excommunication Lastly I must aduertise you of another absurdity whiles you tell vs (i) Pag. 138. that we should aduise in this case rather with Firmilianus a Bishop liuing in the dayes of S. Cyprian then with S. Augustine who came 150. yeares after for this is to tell vs that we must rather belieue Firmilianus a party and for a tyme guilty both of the heresy of the Quarta decimans of Rebaptization then S. Augustine an Orthodox Doctor and an impartiall witnesse But yet if we aduise with Firmilianus he will condemne you 1. Because he retracted his errors before his death returning to the communion of the Roman Church and witnesse S. Basil (k) De Spir. S. ad Amphil. c. 29. was admitted among the Catholike Bishops in the Councell of Antioch held against Paulus Samosatenus And 2. because in his Epistle to Cyprian he acknowledgeth Stephen to be successor of S. Peter on whom the foundations of the Church were layd And the reason which he yeldeth for his not obeying Stephen is that he must rather obey God then man (l) Extat apud Pamel pag. 198. which is a reason not to be giuen but by one that knowes himselfe bound to obey him that commands if his command be not contrary to the commandment of God as he thought Stephens to be though erroneously as you haue heard CHAP. XXV Other Arguments of Doctor Morton our of S. Cyprian answeared FRom this your mayne Argument of the opposition of Firmilianus and S. Cyprian you passe to other obiections shewing as you say (m) Pag. 134. in tit sect 4. the full opposition of S. Cyprian and other Bishops against Stephen B. of Rome But seeing you acknowledge (n) Pag. 291. alibi the Roman Church to haue bene pure and free from error for the space of 600. yeares and the Popes that liued in S. Cyprians time to be glorious Saints and Martyrs of Christ (o) Pag 172.178.181.287 with what conscience do you make S. Cyprian fully opposite to them and to differ in masters of fayth from them for what els is that but to make S. Cyprian an heretike that so he may seeme to be like to your selfe Now to your obiections of the full opposition of S. Cyprian to Pope Stephen The first is (p) Pag. 134. that S. Cyprian impugned the Popes pretended power of appeales to Rome in proofe wherof you produce ignorantly the examples of Fortunatus and Felicissimus for they appealed not to Pope Stephen but to Cornelius betwene whom and Stephen sate Lucius another Pope Againe the obiection is impertinent for the definitions of Councells confirmed by the Popes and the decrees of the Popes themselues ordeyne that maior causes that is to say of fayth and of Bishops be referred to the See Apostolike but that minor causes that is of the liues manners of Priests and inferior clerkes be finally sentenced ended in their owne prouinces by their Bishops and Metropolitans or by the Councells of their Prouince This is declared by S. Augustine who speaking of Cecilianus B. of Carthage that had bene condemned in Africa by a Councell of 70. Bishops sayth (q) Ep. 162 There was no question then of Priests or Deacons or other Clerkes of the inferior order but of the Colleagues that is so say of Bishops who might reserue their causes intire to the iudgment of the other Colleagues and principally of the Churches Apostolike and therfore that Cecilian might haue contemned the multitude of his enemies conspiring against him for as much as he saw himselfe vnited by communicatory letters with the Roman Church in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike had alwayes florished This sheweth the futility of your obiection For Fortunatus and Felicissimus were not Bishops but simple Priests who hauing bene iudged by their owne Bishops ought not to haue appealed to Rome and therfore Cornelius reiected their appeale and excommunicated them as S. Cyprian declares in that very Epistle which you obiect and returned Felicissimus back into Africa with other his associates sent by Fortunatus for Fortunatus himselfe went not in person to Rome as you mistake but sent Felicissimus with other Schismatikes like himselfe And that S. Cyprian by complaining to Pope Cornelius of these rebellious sugitiâ—â—s did not deny his power of appeales not the subiection of the African Churches to the See of Rome his words in that very Epistle (r) Ep. 55. three lines before to goe no further plainly declare when speaking of these Schismatikes he sayth They presume to saile to the Chaire of Peter and the principall Church from whence sacerdotall Vnity is deriued and to carry betters from schismaticall and prophane persons not hauing in mind that the Romans are they whose fayth was praised by the mouth of the Apostle and to whome vnfaithfulnes can haue no accesse Your second obiection is (s) Pag. 134. that the Councell of Carthage did deny to any whomsoeuer the title of Bishop of Bishops This is an vntruth for the words are not of the Councell but of S. Cyprian who speaketh only of his fellow Bishops of Africa assembled with him in that Councell and to them only he directs his speach wishing them to deliuer their opinion freely without regard to the authority which he as their Primate had ouer them But in what sense soeuer you take the words they are of no force as being vttered in an erroneous Councell which the Church hath condemned which S. Augustine (t) L. 6. de Baptism per tot hath confuted from which S. Cyprian himselfe afterwards disclaymed retracting his error Your third is (u) Pag. 134. that S. Cyprian would not acknowledge the name of Pope per antonomasiam to be proper to the B. of Rome as we teach because at the tyme of his Martyrdome being demanded of the Proconsull Art thou he whom the Christians call their Pope He answeared
interuene that could not without much difficulty passe the seas for the debility of sexe or of age or other impediments In regard wherof they requested the Pope not to be facill in admitting appeales of that nature 2. You obiect (z) Pag. 146.151 If it were granted that the Canons for appeales were to be found in the Councell of Sardica yet the Popes Monarchy would stil stand vpon but humane authority for the grant of appeales made in that Synod to Iulius Pope was but vpon fauor not vpon duty not an old custome but a new constitution If it please you say they so much to honor the memory of Peter let vs write to Iulius B. of Rome c. And againe If you all be pleased c. From these words you inferre that the graÌ„t of appeales to Rome is no more but ad placitum and that if the Pope for his pretension could haue drawne a two edged sword ex iure diuino he would not haue fought with this wodden dagger of humane Constitution This wodden Argument you thinke to be of such moment that for want of better you repeate it afterwards againe (a) Pag. 302.303 Your reasoÌ„ I know not for the very words which you obiect shew that the Councell of Sardica did not ground appeales to Rome vpon humane Constitution but vpon diuine right for what is it to honor in the Pope the memory of Peter but to acknowledge him to be S. Peters Successor and consequently Head of the Church And therfore what in their Canon they expresse in these words That we may honor the memory of Peter let it be written to Iulius B. of Rome c. they declare in their Epistle to the same Iulius saying It is very good and fit that from all Prouinces the Bishops haue reference to their head that is to the See of the Apostle Peter Wherfore as the dignity of Head of the Church had belonged to the See of S. Peter from all antiquity by diuine institution as the African Fathers in the Councel of Mileuis haue declared (b) Aug. ep 92. professing the Popes authority to be taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures so likewise had the right of Appeales implicitly conteined in that dignity And on this right was grounded the custome of appealing to Rome from all antiquity as it appeareth out of the Epistle of Iulius Pope (c) Apud Athan. Apolog 2. written to the Arians before the Councell of Sardica Are you ignorant sayth he that the custome is that we be first written to that from hence may proceed the iust decision of things and therfore if there were any suspicion conceaued against the Bishops there you should haue written to vs. And by this right it is that Athanasius Paul and other Bishops of the East being driuen from their seates by the Arians appealed to Iulius Pope before the Councell of Sardica and he restored to each of them their Churches by the prerogatiue of his See and because the charge of all belonged to him (d) Socra l. 2. c. 12. Sozom. l. â— c. 7. Wherfore the Councell of Sardica did not then first institute appeales to Rome as you pretend but only reduce into a written law that which had belonged to the See of Rome by diuine right and had bene formerly practised by custome only And this written Law it is which Osius proposed to be made saying If is please your Charity that we honor the memory of Peter c. In which sense Nicolas the first truly said (e) Ep. ad Michael Imper. The priuiledges of the Roman See were giuen by Christ our Lord celebrated and honored by the Councels but not giuen by them And before him Gelasius an African and scholler to S. Augustine with a Councell of 70. Bishops (f) In Decret de Apocryph Scriptur The holy Roman Church hath not bene preferred before others by any constitutions of Synods but hath obtained the primacy by the voyce of our Lord and Sauiour in the Ghospell saying Thou art Peter c. And the same truth had bene professed long before that tyme by Iulius Pope in his first Epistle to the Easterne Bishops in the cause of Athanasius (g) Extat apud Bin. to 1. pag. 399. Nor is it new for a Councell to make a written decree for the presetuation and obseruance of that which formerly had bene practised in the Church by custome only why els did the first Councell of Constantinople speaking of the ordination of Bishops by their Metropolitans say (h) Apud Theodoreâ— l. 5. hist c. 9. It is as you know a law both grounded on custome and on the decision of the Councell of Nice The example of a King wherwith you conclude this point is against your selfe for although she dignity of a King include a supreme right of appeales to be made vnto him yet it is no derogation to his Royall dignity to haue a written law enacted in Parliament for the preseruation of that right against all such as shall either iniustly deny the same or at least shall thinke the practise of them to be inconuenient 3. You say (i) Pag. 146. Antiquity hath denied that any Canon for appeales was to be found in the Councell of Sardica This is an vntruth sufficiently refuted by what hath bene said (k) Sect. 2. 3. and by your owne Confession pretending that the right of Appeales is not by diuine institution but by humane because the decree which the Councell of Sardica made in fauor of them was a humane constitution But that you may not seeme â—o speake without ground you falsify Salmeron (l) Pag. 147. He speaking of the reseruation of cases in the inward court of conscience that is in the Sacrament of pennance sayth (m) In 1. part 5. disp 8. In S. Cyprians tyme non erant casus peculiares conscientiae ipsi Pontifici reseruati No peculiar cases of conscience were reserued to the Pope You to make him speake of the contentions Court to deny that any Appeales were anciently reserued to the Pope peruert his words thus Tempore Cypriani non erant casus peculiares reseruati conscientiae Pontificis In the tyme of Cyprian there were no peculiar cases reserued to the conscience of the Pope or as you english In the dayes of S. Cyprian there was no reseruation of any such cases namely of appeales in vse for of them you speake Answere now Is it all one to say non erant casus peculiares conscientiae ipsi Pontifici reseruati as Salmeron sayth to say non erant casus peculiares reseruati conscientiae Pontificis as you say No there cannot be a more wilfull falsification For 1. you misplace Salmerons words 2. You turne Pontifici into Pontificis And 3 you put conscientiae into the construction of the datiue case which Salmeron hath in the genitiue How can this iuggling be excused 4. You say (n) Pag. 144. The African
2. Whosoeuer shall deny vnto him Peter and his Successor the Princedome of care and power shall neuer be able to depresse his dignity but puffed vp with pride shall drowne himselfe into Hell Your Syllogisme then is vaine the Minor thereof being manifestly false That the African Martyrs dyed out of obedience to the Roman Church I come now to your falsifies and falsifications of the Story and tenour of the foresaid questioned Epistle of Boniface the Second Two especially are very exorbitant first that the Pope denounced or thundred out (z) Pag 148. pag. 150. excommunication against the Churchs of Africa that these Aurelius and S. Augustine all other Bishops of Africa were excommunicate by the Pope for their Opposition against the Church of Rome Which notorious falshood you seeke to make good by a notable falsification (a) Pag. 149. telling vs That our Costerus and Turrian both Iesuites and also M. Harding do greatly magnify our Popes for discharging their office in excommunicating the Bishops of Afrike You neither cite any wordes nor quote any place of Turrian but referre vs in your margent to your Sadeel whome we trust as litle almost as we do your selfe You cite the wordes of the Iesuite Costerus Bene fecerunt Romani Pontifices c. but you peruert them and turne them to another matter and purpose (b) Costerus Enchirid. Controuers de summo Pontifice pag. 159. Costerus proposeth your Protestant Argument The Bishops of Africa in the dayes of S. Augustine did bitterly inueigh against Pope Celestine who after Pope Zozimus challenged authority ouer the African Churches and admitted the Appeales of Clergymen from their Bishops vnto him This is the obiection vnto which he makes Answere in the wordes by you cited Rectè ex officio fecerunt Romani Pontifices c. The Roman Bishops did well and according to their duty and the African Bishops were to blame who euen then as doth testify Boniface the 2. were inclining to a defection from the Roman Church to their owne great losse because soone after they were conquered and came vnder the Dominion of the Arian Wandals Blessed Augustine subscribed not vnto those bitter letters for he did euer beare singular veneration towards the Apostolike see Thus Costerus affirming that the Pope did well in admitting the Appeales of the Clergymen made vnto him and that herein he did discharge the office of a good Pastor but that he did excommunicate Aurelius and all other Bishops of Africa and that in so doing he did discharge his duety this Costerus doth not say No nor that the Africans were Schismatically deuided from the Church of Rome bur only that they seemed euen then to thinke vpon some such thinge M. Harding in like manner sayth (c) Answere to M. Iewelâ—s Challenge fol. 218. A. that the Churches of Africa had continued in Schisme and withdrawne themselues from the obedience of the See Apostolike through the entisement of Aurelius Bishop of Carthage but that all the Churchs of Africa or any one Church was excommunicated by the Pope this M. Harding doth not say So that the Excommunication of all the Churches and Bishops of Africa by the Pope is not recorded by any Author not by Costerus not by Harding not by the foresaid Epistle of Boniface the second it is a meere fiction of your owne head The Africans were no further separated from the Church of Rome then they eloyned themselues from it by their own voluntarily departure and fault But they did not depart from the Obedience of the Roman Church by denying the Christian fayth thereof nor by denying the Popes power and Iurisdiction ouer them but only dissented in a Problematique (d) An expediret ea potestate vti omnibus in locis non sine causa dubitacum est Bellarm. lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif c. 25. §. Ad hoc eorum Question about what was fit to be done by the Pope about the Appeales of African Clergymen of inferiour degree Although this falshood falsification may seeme grosse inough yet the second is greater The Iesuite Salmeron say (e) Pag. 149. you and Sanders do confidently hold that all the African Bishops were seuered from the Church of Rome from the dayes of S. Cyprian vntill the time of the said Boniface the Author of the Epistle Can any thinge be said or deuised more openly notoriously palpably false then this You say in the wordes that presently follow the aboue cited that You doubt not but that we stand halfe agast Verely so it is we stand more then halfe agast not that there be different opinions among our Authors about the said Epistle of Boniface the second but that Protestants can endure that such notorious falsities should be so confidently vttered and layd for grounds and principles in your discourse to iusâ—â—ly their reuolt from the obedience doctrine and discipline of the Roman Church But the Iesuit Salmeron say you and Sanders do confidently so hold If this be true we shall remayne agast at their madnesse thinke their writings worthy of the fire if they do not so hold if they affirme the contrary in plaine termes if these wordes All the African Bishops were seuered from the Church of Rome from the dayes of S. Cyprian vntill the time of Boniface the second which you allege in a distinct letter as verbally theirs be supposititious and forged how ought Protestants to remaine agast What course ought they to take with your writings Sanders then to begin with him doth not say all the Bishops but the contrary in these very wordes (f) Sanderus de visibili Monarch pag. 330. n. 247. Non ergo vt somniant Magdeburgenses aut potiùs calumniantur omnes Africani Patres opposueruâ—t se Pontifici Romano sed potiùs multi cupiebant rem adipsum referri In the Controuersy about Appellations all the African Bishops did not oppofe the Bishop of Rome as the Magdeburgians dreame or rather calumniously report yea rather many of them desired that the matter might be referred to the Pope For though Aurelius Bishop of Carthage and Primate of all Africa may seeme to haue been somewhat crosse and to haue affected an absolute Primacy in matters of discipline and behauiour yet there be many signes wherby it appeareth that others were otherwise minded yea that Aurelius himselfe did acknowledge the Primacy of the Roman Bishop and appealed to him in matters of fayth Thus Sanders Who further against your peremptory affirming that namely S. Augustine concurred with Aurelius in this point he produceth the wordes of Bishop Faustinus the Popes Legat in the Councell of Carthage vnto Aurelius requesting him that about Appeales made by Clergymen of inferior degree vnto Bishops his Holinesse would vouchsafe to write to Venerable Pope Boniface remitting the matter to his deliberation and conclusion ficut Sanctus Augustinus statuere dignatus est as Holy Augustine hath been pleased to determine by his suffrage By which
And Osius admonishing Constantius the Arian Emperor Intermeddle not O Emperor in Ecclesiasticall causes nor take vpon you to command vs in this kinde but rather learne those things from vs. To you God hath committed the Empere the affaires of the Church to vs. And as he that maliciously carpeth at our gouerment resists the ordinance of God so take you heed that in assuming to your selfe those things which belong to the Church you make not your selfe guilty of a most hainous crime for it is written giue to Cesar those things which are Cesars and those which are Gods to God The like reprehension was giuen to the same Emperor by Leontius that famous B. of Cesaraea who had bene present at the Councell of Nice whom Cregorius Presbyter (t) Spoud anno 32â— â—â— â— tearmeth equall to the Angells I wonder said he to Constantius (u) Suid. in Leouâ— that you being appointed to order and gouerneone thing do meddle with others you are chiefe commander in military and ciuill affaires and you presume to ordaine what Bishops shall do in things that belong to Bishops alones And when the Captaine of the hereticall Emperor Valens required the Priests and Deacons of Edessa to submit to the Emperor in matters of religion representing to them that it was madnesse to resist so great a Monarch Eulogius a Priest of the same City answeared pleasantly (x) Theodor. l. 4. hiâ—t c. â—â— What hath Valens together with the Empire gotten also the place and dignity of a Bishop And when Dalmatius the Tribune with a publike Notary was sent by Valentinian the yonger to summon S. Ambrose to a disputation with Auxentius the Arian Bishop and others of his sect in the Emperors pallace before him and his Courtiers (y) L. â— op 3â— I answered sayth S. Ambrose to the Emperor the same that your Father of glorious memory not only answered in words vpon like occasion but also established by his lawes that in causes of fayth and Ecclesiasticall order Priests only are to iudge of Priests yea further that if a Bishop should be questioned for his manners this iudgment should likewise appertaine to Bishops c. When haue you euer heard mâ—st clement Emperor that lay men did iudge of Bishop in matters of fayth You are yet youg in yeares you will by Gods grace and the maturity of age be better informed and then you will be able to iudge what manner of Bishop he is to be accounted that subiects the right of Priesthood to lay men Your Father being a man of riper yeares said It belongs not to me to be a Iudge among Bishops and will your Clemency now say that you ought to be their Iudge So S. Ambrose But what need we further proofes Did not Constantine himselfe whom here you obiect refuse to heare the causes of Bishops answearing (z) Ruffin l. 1. c. 1. S. Greg. l 4. ep 72. That Bishops had power to iudge of Emperors but not Emperors to iudge of Bishops shewing therby that he acknowledged himselfe to haue no power of a Iudge in Ecclesiasticall causes Yea and this very fact of Constantine which you obiect is so farre from yelding any precedent for secular Princes to iudge Ecclesiasticall causes that it manifestly concludeth the contrary for when the Donatists required him to giue them Iudges in the cause of Cecilian B. of Carthage he stood amazed at their impudency He durst not sayth S. Augustine (a) Ep. 166. iudge the cause of a Bishop And Optatus (b) L. 1. cont Parmen He answeared them with a spirit full of indignation you aske of me iudgment in this world of me I say that do my selfe attend the iudgement of Christ You would haue me to make my selfe a Iudge of the Ministers of Christ I that do my selfe expect the iudgement of Christ. Wherfore though Constantine at the importunity of the Donatists granted them Iudges of the Gaules as they required he did it not without making this protestation before hand that it belonged not to him to meddle with the iudgement of Christs Ministers And notwithstanding that the Donatists who demanded Iudges and the Iudges which Constantine assigned them as also Constantine himselfe were then all actually present in France yet he caused the Donatists together with the Iudges which he had giuen them to trauaile to Rome that according to the ancient custome and lawes of the Church (c) Athan. Apol. â— Sozom l. 3. c. 9. And See aboue Chap. 26. the cause might be iudged by the Popes direction and vnder his presidency And this remission of the cause from his owne Court to the Popes tribunall was not by way of commission or delegation from himselfe as from a Superior Iudge to the Pope as to an inferior as you falsly suppose but by way of remission to him to whom he knew that iudicature in right to belong for how could the Emperor that professed himselfe to haue no right of a Iudge in the causes of Bishops giue power and commission vnto others to iudge the cause of Cecilian Wherfore although S. Augustine in regard of the Donatists intention call this remission a delegation yet withall he declareth that the reason of this delegation was because the Emperor durst not iudge the cause of a Bishop which sheweth that it was not a delegation of authority and power but a relegation or remission of the cause to whom the iudgement therof in right appertained Nor doth it import that he remitted not this cause to the Pope alone but to him and other Bishops his Colleagues for he remitted it not to them equally but to the Pope as to the chiefe Iudge and President and to the others as to the Pope Assessors Melchiades sayth S. Augustine (d) Cont. Iulian l. â— c. 2. Bishop of the Apostolike See being President Reticius was present as a Iudge with others And againe (e) Cont. Parmen l. 1. c. 5. By the arbitrement of Constantine the cause was heard by Bishops Iudges ouer whom presided Melchiades B. of the Citty of Rome Behold how exactly S. Augustine attributes to euery one what belonged vnto them Constantine was an Arbitrator the other Bishops present as Iudges assessors to Melchiades and as witnesses of his proceedings Melchiades chiefe Iudge and President And therfore he as hauing full authority did not content himselfe with taking for his Assistents the three French Bishops nominated by the Emperor but by his owne authority added to them other fifteene of Italy whose names Optatus rehearseth (f) Cont. Parmen l. 1. wheras if he had not bene absolute Iudge by his owne authority but only by delegation from Constantine he could not haue added any other Iudges to those three which Constantine nominated Againe his authority appeared in this that none of the Assistants but he in the name of the whole Councell and as President therof pronounced the sentence How innocent sayth S. Augustine (g) Ep. â—â—2
was the definitiue sentence pronounced by blessed Melchlades how entire how prudent how peaceable in so much that S. Augustine greatly commendeth him for it saying (h) Ibid. O blessed man O sonne of Christian peace and Father of Christian people Neuerthelesse those rebellious Donatists rested not but from the iudgement of the Pope appealed againe to the Emperor which he so much misliked that he called it (i) Ep. ad Episc Cathol ad calc gest purgat Cecil Felic A great phrensy incredible arrogancy a thing not fit to be spoken or heard a mad impudency of fury a recourse to a secular iudgement from an heauenly and a contempt of Christes authority And yet out of a great desire he had to gaine them yelding to their importunity or as S. Augustine sayth (k) Ep. 166. giuing way to their peruersnesse and hoping that what he did would be auowed by the See Apostolike he granted them another Councell of 200. Bishops at Arles which hauing duely examined their cause confirmed the Popes sentence therfore gaue them no more satisfaction then the Roman Councell had done Wherfore from this Councell they had recourse againe to the Emperor beseeching him to take the examination of the cause into his owne hands which he did but yet A sanctis antistitibus postea veniam petiturus (l) S. Aug. ep 162. with intention to aske pardon afterwards of the holy Bishops for medling in a cause that belonged not to his Court but to theirs But what did Constantines iudgement appease the fury of those obstinat heretikes No The Emperor sayth S. Augustine (m) Ibid. is chosen Iudge the Emperors iudgement is despised But no wonder for what els could be expected from such rebellious spirits but that as they had refused to stand to the sentence of the Church so also they should contemne the iudgement of the Emperor Who is there then that seeth not how far this history is from prouing that Constantine acknowledged in himselfe any authority to meddle in Ecclesiasticall causes since he durst not iudge the cause of a Bishop and charged the Donatists with neuer heard of impudency arrogancy impiety fury pernersnesse porensy and contemp of Christs authority in flying from the iudgement of the Church to his secular tribunall And that if in this cause he did any way assume to himselfe the person of a Iudge it was with protestation to aske pardon of the holy Bishops and in hope it would be auowed by them for as much as what he did was out of a desire to quiet the Donatists and reduce them to the peace and communion of the Catholike Church And how far this example of the Donatists is from helping your cause or hurting ours S. Augustine will yet better informe you (n) Cont. lic Petil. l. 2. c. 92. Ep. 166. for as when they were condemned by the Church they fled to Cōstantine so when they were repulsed and condemned by him they despised his iudgement and appealed to Iulian an Apostata from Christian religion and a professed enemy to Christ beseeching him to restore vnto them the Churches which Catholike Princes had taken from them and to that end honored him with this Elogy (o) Ep. 166. That in him alone all iustice remained which gaue S. Augustine cause to say vnto them (p) Ibid. If it were in your power you would not now call against vs Constantine a Christian Emperor because he defended the truth but you would rather raise Iulian the Apostata from hell How far these words of S. Augustine may touch you for producing this example of the sacrilegious Donatists as a precedent of your doctrine and Constantine as a paterne for secular Princes to meddle in Ecclesiasticall iudgments I leaue to the readers censure for if as you pretend this example of the Donatists flying from the iudgment of the Church to Constantine be of force to proue that the Popes iudgement will suffer an higher appeale why shall it not also be of force to proue that the iudgement of Constantine will suffer an higher appeale to Iulian the Apostata for the example of these Donatists is a precedent for the one as well as for the other A second history which you obiect (q) Pag. 16◠to proue that the Popes iudgement will suffer an higher appeale is that in the case of Athanasius Constantine chargeth all the Bishops of the Prouince of Tyre to appeare before him without delay and to shew how sincerely and truly the had giuen their iudgements The case is this Diuers hereticall Bishops of the East Arians Meletians and Colluthians assembled themselues at Tyre to accuse Athanasius of many crimes which themselues had maliciously forged and suborned false witnesses to testify against him that so they might seeme to haue iust occasion to abstaine from his communion condemne him Constantine being informed therof at the intreaty of Athanasius call's them to him to yeld accompt of their proceeding Ergo say you the Popes iudgment will suffer an higher appeale A false consequence for S. Athanasius fled from the said Councell of Tyrus vnto Constantine not as to his competent Iudge but as to the Protector of Innocency and of the Church to be maintayned in the possession of his Bishopricke honor life against which his Arian aduersaries were with such violent and insuperable malignity bent as he had no meanes to auoyd so great mischiefs tending to the ouerthrow of Catholike Religion but by imploring the ayde of the supreme secular Power That in this case Clergymen and Bishops may haue recourse vnto the arme of temporal Princes S. Paul (1) Act. 28. Coactus sum appellare Caesarem shewed by his example as (2) Athanas Apolog. 2. ad Constantium S. Athanasius and (3) August Epist 48.50 204. S. Augustine and out of them Suarez (4) Suarez defensio fidei lib. 4. c. 10. n. 5. obserueth Lastly you obiect (r) Pag. 161. fin 162. that When the cause Ecclesiasticall requireth Constantine proceedeth to denounce punishment by his owne authority against whomsoeuer that shall honor the memory of those Bishops Theognis and Eusebius These two Bishops were Arians and great fyrebrands of that blasphemous sect which had bene condemned an athematized by the holy Councell of Nice and moreouer had committed many other most enormous crimes some of which Constantine hauing mentioned in his Epistle to the people of Nicomedia addeth (s) Theod. l. 1. hist. c. 20. If any one shall be so temerarious and audacious as to goe about to praise and honor the memory of those plagues of the Church Theognis and Eusebius he shall presently be punished by me for his folly These words of Constantine shew that he did not threaten punishment to any Ecclesiasticall person but to the people of Nicomedia if they should audaciously presume to honor those Heretikes whom the Church had condemned which was not to assume any Ecclesiasticall authority to
himselfe but to do his duty and what the lawes of God and his Church require at the hands of euery good Christian Prince which is to defend and maintaine the authorities and iudgements of the Church But I must aduertise you of some ignorant mistakes you say (t) Pag. 161. out of S. Augustine that Constantine committed the cause of Cecilian to Melchiades Pope But in three other places (u) Pag. 221. 327. 328. contradicting your selfe and S. Augustine you say he committed it to Pope Iulius shewing therin your ignorance in Ecclesiasticall history for if as S. Augustine truly sayth it was committed to Melchiades how could it be committed to Iulius who was not chosen Pope till aboue 20. yeares after Melchiades his death and betweene whom and Iulius were other two Popes Syluester Marke With like ignorance you say (x) Pag. 161. The Emperor chargeth all the Bishops of the Prouince of Tyre to appeare before him for Tyre hath not many Bishops nor is it a Prouince but a City in the prouince of Phenicia in which the Arians held their wicked Councell against S. Athanasius SECT II. Doctor Mortons second Example of Theodosius examined THat Theodosius acknowledged no subiection to the B. of Rome you proue by his interesting himselfe in Ecclesiasticall affaires Of the Emperor Theodosius say you (y) Pag. 161. we read that he gaue to the Bishop Dioscorus authority and superiority of place to moderate causes in a Councell This you speake of that most godly and religious Emperor Theodosius the elder for here and in your Index of the tenth Chapter prefixed before this your Grand Imposture you name him immediatly after Constantine and before Theodosius the yonger and both in the same Index and page 167. you expresly declare that the Emperor which you obiect against vs immediatly after Constantine is Theodosius the elder And finally because vnlesse by this Theodosius you meane the elder you obiect nothing at all out of him against vs which yet in the places alleaged you professe to do in this Chapter Wherfore I must make bold to tell you that in this your instance you discouer extreme ignorance in Ecclesiasticall history for Theodosius the elder died the yeare 394. which was 50. yeares before Dioscorus was made Bishop How then could he giue to Dioscorus authority and superiority of place to moderate causes in a Councell If you had not bene ignorant and willing to lay hold of any thing true or false to help your selfe in the defence of a bad cause you should haue said that Theodosius not the elder but the yonger sauoring the Arch-heretike Eutyches and seduced by his high Chamberlaine Chrysaphius an Eutychian Heretike gaue authority to Dioscorus an hereticall Bishop of Alexandria of the same sect with Eutyches to moderate causes not in a true Councell but in a sacrilegions Conuenticle at Ephesus in which Eutyches was absolued his heresy approued the Catholike Bishops that had condemned him in a Synod at Constantinople vnder Flauianus Patriarke of that City not permitted to speake all such as were knowne to be zealous maintainers of the Catholike fayth against Eutyches deposed others sent into banishment the Popes Legates thrust out of the Councell the holy Patriarch Flauianus by the faction of Dioscorus barbarously misused beaten and wounded to death the Bishops that figned compelled therto by famin and force of armes the Emperors soldiers ruling all by violence and tyranny and many other outragious villanies committed in so much that this Conuenticle hath neuer deserued the name of a lawfull Councell but by all writers is called Synodus Piratica and Latrocinium Ephesinum The piraticall Synod and the Ephesine theeuery or as Socrates termeth it (z) L. 1. c. 9. 10. Vesanum Ephesi Conciliabulum The frantike Conuenticle of Ephesus And the Acts therof were soone after condemned by Leo Pope (a) Ep. 24. and repealed by the holy Councell of Chalcedon (b) Act. 1. I appeale now to the Reader whether you haue not shewed great ignorance and in the highest degree wronged that most religious Emperor Theodosius the elder in making him patron of the Eutychian heresy and charging him falsly with assembling that sacrilegious Synagogue of Ephesus and most of all in producing him for your Protestant doctrine against the Roman Church to which he so firmely adhered that he held her to be the Head and center of Catholike communion And therfore intending to establish the true fayth and free the whole Empire from the pernicious doctrines of diuers heretikes which liued in those dayes he made that famous Law which Iustinian hath inserted into his Code and marcheth in the front therof (c) Cod. tit 1. L. 1. Our will is that all the people ruled by the Empire of our Clemency shall liue in the same religion which the diuine Apostle Peter deliuered to the Romans as the religion insinuated by him witnesseth vntill this present day and which it is manifest that the high Priest Damasus followeth and Peter of Alexandria a man of Apostolicall sanctity that is to say Peter who being driuen out of his Seat of Alexandria by Lucius the Arian intruder appealed to Rome (d) Socrat. l. 4. c. 36. and had bene newly restored confirmed by Damasus in the Patriarchall seat of that City And the same or not vnlike to this law of Theodosius is that which Gratian that gouerned the Empire together with Theodosius made to reduce all heretikes to the true Church and fayth of Christ He made a law sayth Theodoret (e) L. 5. hist c. 2. by which he commanded the holy Churches to be deliuered to them that agreed in communion with Damasus which commandment as he further expresseth (f) Ibid. c. 2. init was without contradiction executed throughout all Nations By this it appeares that if Doctor Morton had liued in the dayes of Theodosius Gratian they would haue taken from him the Church of Dutham deliuered it to a Bishop of the Romā Cōmunion SECT III. Doctor Mortons third instance of Theodosius the yonger and Honorius examined YOu go on obiecting (g) Pag. 162. out of the Glosse in C. Renouantes Theodosius the yonger and Honorius both Emperors say that the Patriarke of Constantinople hath the same right ouer those in subiection to him which the Pope hath euer his Why do you falsify The Chapter is taken out of the Trullan Synod vnder Iustinian the yonger who liued long after Theodosius Honorius Againe the words of the Glosse are Imperator dicit The Emperor sayth but mention of Honorius or Theodosius there is none that 's your false comment The Glosse citeth the Emperor in Authentica de Ecclesiasticis titulis which was not written by Honorius nor by Theodosius but by Iustinian the elder And how far he was from equalling the B. of Constantinople with the Pope you may vnderstand not only by other his Lawes (h) See Sect. sequent but euen by this very
haue preferred the Emperors in place aboue the Popes which was not to be endured So you But is this all Doth not Bellarmine giue another reason of far more weight Why do you conceale it But be it as Bellarmine coniectureth that if the Popes had bene personally present the Greeke Bishops would haue giuen priority of place to their Emperors how do you proue that in so doing they should haue done well for they would likewise haue placed Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople in a seate equall to Iohn the first Pope of that name but that the supreme dignity of the See Apostllike enforced them to desist from that attempt and to set the Pope in a more eminent throne exalted aboue that of Epiphanius in his owne Church (e) Nicephoe l. 17. c. 27. Nor is it likely that the most religious Emperors of the East who haue professed themselues dutifull and obedient Children to the See Apostolike wold haue taken place of the Popes their spirituall Fathers Pastors if it had bene offered vnto thē by their Bishops But beside Bellarmines reasons there are others As 1. That the Popes being aged men and separated by a large distance of sea and land from the East in which the eight first Generall Councels were held were not fit to vndertake so long iourneys 2. Because as the Fathers of the first Councell of Arles sayd to Siluester (f) Ep. ad Syluestr expressing their griefe that they could not haue his presence at their Coūcell his residence was more necessary at Rome where the Apostles continually sit and where their bloud without intermission giues testimony to the glory of God 3. And for that before the holding of those Easterne Councels the Pope did vsually hold Councels in the West and send his Legates into the East with the votes of the Westerne Bishops arming thē with authority to preside in his place and with direction how to order things in those Easterne Councels As for Vigilius Pope though he were present at Constantinople when the fifth generall Councell was held in that City he would not assist in person because he being then lawfull Pope by election of the Clergy of Rome would giue no occasion of renewing the memory of his entrance into the Papacy by intrusion simony whiles Siluerius his predecessor was liuing and chiefly because seeing the Emperor violently bent to haue the Three Chapters which were the subiect of that Councell condemned though in his particular he condemned them yet for feare of breeding a schisme in the Church he would not be personally present at a Councell in which they should be publikely condemned without the assistance of the Westerne Bishops who earnestly withstood their condemnation CHAP. XXXII Whether Popes haue challenged ciuill subiection from Emperors and Kings Christian or Heathen YOV set downe (g) Pag. 169. as an vndoubted principle of Catholikes that Popes of after ages challeng ciuil subiection of Princes not only Christian but also Ethinck and Heathen vnto them This you proue by examples of Popes and other arguments which I shall briefly examine SECT I. Your first Argument out of Innocent the third examined POpes of after ages say you (h) Pag. 169. haue challenged an absolute power directly or indirectly ouer all secular Princedome not only Christian but also of Ethnick and Heathen Emperors as well by corporall as by spirituall punishments euen to the depriuing them of their Kingdomes and liues And that they may seeme to exact this plenitude of authority by diuine Law Pope Innocent the ihird maketh this Papall Decree concluding the Emperors to be subiect to the Popes because it is written God made two great lights the Sunne to rule the day and the Moone to gouerne the night This argument you take out of an epistle of Innocent written to the Emperor of Constantinople who conceauing that Innocent in a letter had reprehended him for his irreuerence to the Patriarke of Constantinople wondred therat And the cause of his wonder was because S. Peter sayth (i) 1. Pet. 2.13 Be ye subiect to euery humane creature whether it be to the King as excelling or to the rules sent by him to the reuenge of those that do ill Innocent in his answere hauing proued euidently that the Emperor misunderstood S. Peters words addeth that he might haue learned the prerogatiue of Priesthood by what God himselfe spake not to a King but to a Priest Behold I haue constituted thee ouer kingdomes and nations c. But in that whole Epistle he maketh no decree either for deposing or excommunicating Kings or Emperors or for punishing them corporally or spiritually or for depriuing them of their Kingdomes and liues or concerning any other matter but only proueth the receaued doctrine of the ancient Fathers that the Episcopall dignity excelleth the Imperial as for as the Sunne surpasseth the Moone the soule the body Which sayth he to the Emperor if your Imperiall Highnesse did prudently consider you would not cause nor permit the Patriarke of Constantinople a great and honorable member of the Church to sit on the left syde at your footstoole being that other Princes rise with reuerence to their Archbishops and Bishops as is fit they should and appoint them a Venerable seate neare to their owne persons Nor did I write to you by way of reprehension though I might with reason haue reprehended because as there he explicates Christ made Peter and in him his Successors Pastors of his whole flock not exempting Kings or Emperors This is the summe of Innocents Epistle in which you see he doth not so much as check the Emperor but in a sweet and Fatherly way admonish him of his want of respect to the Patriarke of Constantinople Is it not then intolerable falshood to say this Epistle is a Papall decree wherby Innocent and other Popes of after ages challenge an absolute power by diuine Law ouer all Christian and Heathen Kings and Emperors to punish them as well by corporall as by spirituall punishments euen to the depriuing them of their Kingdomes and liues Is any such thing mentioned in that Epistle If this be not dishonest dealing and excessiuely imposterous what is But to iustify this imposture you say (k) Pag. 170. Vpon this Glosse the Deuines and Canonists the popes Parats and Parasites conclude that euery Emperor borroweth his power from the Pope as doth the Moone her light from the Sunne be the Emperor Christian or Ethnick and therfore is to submit himselfe to the Pope and that Not by the order of Charity but by duety of subordination and subiection The Authors whom you are pleased to call The Popes Parats and Parasites and to produce as witnesses of these your falsities are Bozius Bellarmine and Carerius Of which three the two first Bozius and Bellarmine where you cite them are so far from drawing any such conclusion from that Glosse that they make no mention at all of the Glosse And the later sentence
other Popes Those words Away with enuy let the ambition of the Roman height depart were not spoken by S. Hierome to taxe the person of Damasus or his Seate of pride but to signify that albeit his Seat were placed in Rome which being the imperiall City head of the world gloried in her owne greatnesse yet he was and ought to be free from pride as being Successor to a fisher man and a disciple of the Crosse In regard wherof he deemed it no presumption in himselfe to write vnto him that by his authority he might know whose communion to imbrace and whose to auoyd Your second obiection (k) Pag. 206. is a repetition of what you haue formerly sayd of Liberius his fall from the Catholike fayth into heresy by subscribing to the condemnation of Athanasius communicating with the Arians You haue bene answeared that Liberius assented to his condemnatiō not for any error in fayth but for crimes forged against him by the Arians in so much that Athanasius himselfe euen in that excuseth him saying (l) Ep. ad Solit He was compelled therto by force of torments and therfore that which terrors and feares extorted from him ought not to bethought his sentence but that which he pronounced freely when no violence was offered vnto him Thirdly you obiect S. Hierome in despight and indignation calleth Rome Babylon and land of captiuity and tearmeth it a purple whore and strange land wherin he could not sing the Lords song concerning the holy Ghost yea he bespots the whole Clergy of that City with the note of ignorance and at last after the death of Damasus he quit Rome as a land of bondage that he might enioy his liberty in Iudaea among the Christian Iewes Could this be said of a City priuiledged with a perpetuall residence of the holy Ghost and deseruing the title of Motherhood ouer the whole Catholike Church This is your question and my answeare is That S. Hierome when he calleth Rome Babylon a land of captiuity and a purple whore giues those names to Rome not as to the seat of Religion but of the Empire not to the Church but to the Imperiall Court and Senat not to the ecclesiasticall but to the politike state of Rome to the troopes of Courtiers solicitors negotiants finally not so much in regard of secular Christians as of Monkes by reason of the distractions that the noyse confusion and tumult of men and affaires in so great a city brought to Monastical silence recollection for so it is plaine out of his Epistle to Marcella (m) Ep. 16. in which though inuiting her to leaue Rome and go to Hierusalem he call Rome Babylon yet he presently addeth It is true that in that City is the holy Church there are the trophies of the Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the fayth celebrated by the Apostle the Christian name euery day exalted by the depression of Paganisme troden vnder foot But the ambition the power and greatnesse of that City to visit and to be visited to salute to be saluted to flatter and detract to heare and speake nay to see though vnwillingly so great a multitude of men are things farre from the purpose and quiet of those that would follow a monasticall life This sheweth that when S. Hierome cals Rome Babilon purple whore he speakes not of the Church but of the temporall state of Rome And when he cals it a land of captiuity he speakes it in regard of the noyse confusion and tumult not suiting with the retirement of Monkes which inconuenience he noteth also in the City of Hierusalem which otherwise sayth (n) Ep. 13. ad Pauli de instit Monachis he by reason of the places of the Crosse and Resurrection were a dwelling much to be desired by Monkes The second part of your obiection that S. Hierome bespote the whole Clergy of that City with the note of ignorance is your false comment He complaineth only of a few Priests and Deacons of Rome who being iealous of his faour with Pope Damasus and enuiyng the great reuerence which the deuout Ladies of Rome bare to his person Damasus being dead toke boldnesse to raise slanders against him accusing him that he had translated Didymus an hereticall Author that he had conuersed too familiarly with the great Ladies of Rome and persuaded them to quit their Countrey children and friends to leaue the world and shut themselues vp as recluses in the Monasteries of Palestine Which complaint no way toucheth the fayth of the Roman Church nor the succession of S. Peter nor the communion of the See Apostolike nor maketh against the perpetuall residence of the holy Ghost in that Church S. Hierome himselfe crying out (o) Aduers Ruffin l. 3. that her fayth suffereth no delusions and being fensed by S. Pauls authority cannot be altered Your fourth obiection (p) Pag. 207. out of his Epistle to Euagrius of the Deacons of Rome sitting in presence of the Priests is already answeared (q) Aboue Chap. 15. sect 2 But you adde to it (r) Pag. 208. 218. as a fifth Argument that euery Patriarke hath a principality height of a pastorall watch-tower by reason of the greatnesse and dignity of his Patriarkship aboue all Metropolitans and Bishops whatsouer and yet haue they not ouer all Bishops power of iurisdiction but only principality of order If by principality of order you vnderstand priority of place euery Patriarke hath in that sense priority of order ouer all Bishops that are not Patriarkes And in the same sense the Pope hath priority of order ouer all Bishops Patriarkes But if by principality of order you vnderstand the Sacerdotall and Episcopall dignity conferred on them by their ordination consecration your Doctrine is vntrue for the inequality of Bishops cōsisteth not in any principality of Sacerdotall or Episcopall orders which one Bishop hath ouer another but in the inequality of Pastoral power and iurisdiction A Bishop in his orders is equall to his Metropolitan the Metropolitan to his Patriarke and the Patriarke to the Pope himselfe In this sense S. Hierome sayth (s) Ep. ad Euag Whersoeuer there shall be a Bishop either at Rome or at Eugubium at Constantinople or at Rhegium at Alexandria or at Tanais he is of the same merit and Priesthood because all Bishops if we consider only the dignity of their orders and Priesthood are equall euen he of Eugubium a small City in Italy to the Pope Erasmus his Comment vpon this passage of S. Hierome which you bring (t) Pag. 208. to proue that the inequality of Episcopall iurisdiction is not measured by the amplitude of Diocesses I approue not And much lesse do I allow your inference out of his comment that according to the diuine Law the Pope hath not any greater iurisdiction then whatsoeuer other inferior Bishop for Christ when he gaue to S. Peter
Her fayth is built vpon the word of Christ promising (t) Math. 16.18 that the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile against her and (u) Luc. 22.32 that the fayth of Peters See shall neuer faile Wherfore as it is impossible that Christ should faile in the performance of his promise so is it impossible that the necessity of vnion with the Roman Church should not be perpetuall Lastly you bring examples of antiquity (x) Pag. 125. requiring vnion with other Churches as well as with the Roman This Argument you haue prosecuted before (y) Pag 100.101 out of your owne obseruations of antiquity with many examples some of which you repeate here adding others vnto them (z) Pag. 229.230 The answere you haue receaued (a) Chap. 15. sect 9. to which I add that your Argument is as if you persuading rebells to ioyne not only with their Soueraigne but also with other his loyall subiects I shold lay to your charge that you hold loyall subiects to be of equall authority with their Soueraigne It is true that while subiects stand loyall to their Prince he that ioynes in loyalty with them is a loyall subiect But the reason why he is a loyall subiect is not because he ioyneth with them but because both he and they ioyne in obedience and subiection to their Soueraigne In like manner it is true that whatsoeuer Churches are in Communion with other Orthodoxall Churches that agree with the Roman in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike hath alwaies florished (b) Aug. ep 162. they are to be accompted Orthodoxall and Catholike Churches but the reason why they are to be accompted Catholike is not for their agreement among themselues but because they all agree with the Church of Rome the Head and originall Source of Catholike communion for which cause S. Cyprian explicating what a Catholike is makes no mention of other Apostolicall Churches which were extant in his dayes but absolutely defineth (c) L. 4. Ep. 2. 8. that to be a Catholike is to communicate with the B. of Rome And S. Ambrose (d) Orat. de obitu Satyri that to agree with Catholike Bishops is to agree with the Roman Church from which sayth he (e) L. 1. ep 4. ad Imperat. the rights of Venerable Communion do flow vnto all other Churches she being the source and they streames deriued from her as from their natiue fountaine (f) Innocent apud Aug. ap 91. And S. Irenaeus (g) L. 3. c. 3. pronounceth it necessary for all Churches not excepting the Apostolicall to agree with the Church of Rome by reason of her more mighty principality that is because her sayth cannot faile she being the Rock on which the Catholike Church is built (h) Hieron Ep. 57. ad Damas and against which the gates of hell cannot preuaile (i) Aug in Psal cont partem Donati as they haue done against all the other Apostolicall Churches SECT IX S. Hilary B. of Arles acknowledged himselfe subiect to the B. of Rome THe last witnesse you bring (k) Pag. 225. to proue the no-necessity of vnion and subiection to the Pope Church of Rome is S. Hilary B. of Arles in France who though he deserued great commendation for his labors against the Pelagian heresy and defence of S. Augustines workes yet for a tyme he stayned his glory when exceeding the limits of due moderation and insisting in the steps of Patroclus an inuasor of that See he presumed to vsurpe to himselfe the rights of the Metropolitans of Vienna and Narbona ordaining deposing Bishops in their districts a thing which no way belonged to him and had bene forbidden by the Councell of Turin (l) C. 13. This being complained of against Patroclus first to Boniface and then to Celestine Popes lastly to the blessed Pope Leo against Hilary that he had presumed to depose Celidonius a Bishop of the Prouince of Vienna and he being still liuing to ordaine Proiectus in his place he was so far from persisting in this crime to the end of his life that he went himselfe in person to Rome in a most submissiue and penitent manner to make satisfaction for his offence He vndertooke sayth the author of his life (m) Apud Cuiac obseruat l. 5. c. 38. a iourney to Rome on foote and entred into the City without any horse or beast of cariage and presented himselfe to Pope Leo reuerently offering him obedience and humbly intreating that he might ordaine the state of the Churches after the accustomed manner c. but if it were not his will he would not importune And againe (n) Ibid. He applied himselfe wholly to appease the spirit of Leo with a prostrate humility Hauing pleaded his cause being found guilty he departed from Rome without staying his sentence and returned presently to Arles neuer laying any further claime to the iurisdiction which formerly he had vsurped as appeareth out of the Epistle which Leo writ against him to the Bishops of the Prouince of Vienna (o) Leo Ep. 89. wherin hauing fully declared and proued the supreme authority of the See Apostolike to be instituted by Christ himselfe he annulled what had bene iniustly presumed by Hilary and prescribed a rule to be obserued in the creation of Bishops And lest Hilary shold raise tumults seeking to support his cause by force of armes as formerly he had done Leo required of Valentinian the third that if any such attempt were made he would cause it to be suppressed by Aetius commander of the soldiers in France This the Emperor performed writing to Aetius that famous Rescript which afterwards Theodosius the yonger inserted in his new Constitutions intituling it The Law of Theodosius and Valentinian in which he relateth the whole story of Hilary and professeth his great veneration of the See Apostolike and of the Popes supreme authority ouer all Churches Bishops and particularly his right to conuent them before him and prescribe Lawes vnto them ordaining withall that if any Bishop being summoned by him shall refuse to appeare the Gouernor of the Prouince shall enforce him to obey to the end sayth he that in all things that Reuerence be obserued which our Parents bare to the Roman Church This is the history of Hilary truly related out of the author of his life out of the Epistle of Leo out of the Rescript of Valentinian Is it not then vnshamefastnesse in you to say (p) Pag. 225. that we without any proofe would make you belieue that at length Hilary yeilded to the Pope making no further apology for the defence of his cause What Is the relation made by the Author of his life no proofe Is the epistle of that renowned Pope S. Leo the great no profe Is the Rescript of Valentinian inserted into the ciuill law by Theodosius neuer doubted of by any man of learning or iudgment no proofe But you tell vs that Iacobus
free election and therfore that if the Successors of S. Peter should remoue their See from Rome the Roman Church in that case might erre This opinion sayth Bellarmine (e) L. 4. de Pont. c. 4. is not hereticall nor manifestly erroneous but he holdeth and proueth the contrary namely that the See of S. Peter was fixed at Rome by especiall command from Christ and cannot be remoued from thence and therfore that when the Fathers say The Roman Church cannot erre the word cannot is to be taken simply and absolutely without the caution which you falsly ascribe to him You adde (f) Pag. 273. Bellarmine should haue said with you that the Roman Church cannot erre so long as the ancient and sincere fayth is preserued at Rome which is to say that she cannot erre as long as she erres not Bellarmine was of more iudgment then to proue idem per idem But you say (g) Pag. 276. The list of all the Fathers which Bellarmine in the strength of his learning and iudgment hath produced to guard defend the Monarchy of the Church and B. of Rome is of the Greeke Fathers but thirteene of the Latin not aboue eleuen within the space of the first 600. yeares This is notoriously vntrue for in the two Chapters immediatly preceding he produceth the testimonies of aboue 1340. Fathers in the foure first Generall Councells and that vnder Menas and of 26. Popes the greater part of them glorious Martyrs and the rest holy Confessors as S. Iulius S. Damasus S. Siricius S. Zozimus S. Innocentius S. Leo S. Gelasius S. Gregory Were not all these Fathers that liued within the first 600. yeares which you call the primitiue times But what if Bellarmine had produced no more but thirteene Greeke eleauen Latin Fathers Doth not Cardinal Baronius throughout his learned Annals Doth not Iodocus Coccius (h) To. 1. thesau l. 7. art 4.5.6.7.8 Do not Doctor Sanders (i) Visic Monar tot Clau. Dauid tot and other Catholike writers produce testimonies of Popes Councells and of the most religious Emperors and Kinges that haue liued since Christ in great numbers all of them professing their beliefe of the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope and necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome Why do not you subscribe to so great a cloud of witnesses rather then to Martin Luther and a few Sectaries broaching Nouellisme opposing all Orthodoxe antiquity Lastly to close vp your answeres to the Fathers you produce Tertullian (k) Pag. 277. after his defection into Montanisme calling the Pope The blessed Pope and the chiefe Bishop of Bishops but that he did it by Irony and scorne So indeed sayth Massonius a forbidden author But be it true that he spake it by Irony yet that very manner of speach sheweth it was then the custome of the faythfull to giue those titles to the Pope If Tertullian called him so by Irorny and scorne it was because he was an heretike And so you imitating him cauill at vs for instiling the Pope Your Holinesse which title say you (l) Ibid. being first giuen to Pope Leo for his Holinesse sake and sanctity of life is continued to Popes who haue bene most wicked and retayned only in respect of their functions The case is this Benedict the cleauenth (m) Extrau l. 5. C. Dudum calleth Boniface the eight his Predecessor bona memoria of good memory The glosse sayth If a Pope haue defiled the Church with exactions simonies and filthy speaches he is not therfore to be instiled mal◠memoriae not of euill but of good memory according to the ciuill Law determining that regard is not to be had to what he did but to what it was fit for him to do that is sayth the glosse not to his person but to his dignity for although his person haue offended his dignity hath not and his personall offence is not to redound to the domage of the Church And howsoeuer Prelates haue offended they are Presidents and Fathers of the whole community and therfore to be honored as the Philosopher teacheth also the Ciuill Law calling them Gods for the Excellency of their Order and dignity of their office And for the same cause Kings albeit wicked in their liues are instiled Clara memoria vel Inclyta memoria of famous or renowned memory and Emperors Dina memoria of soueraigne or diuine memory To which I adde (n) Act. 24.25 that S. Paul called Festus President of Iury Optime Fest◠Most excellent Festus and this nor for his Vertue or Honesty for he was a wicked man but for his Office the custome being that all Presidents of Prouinces were so instiled (o) Baron Anno 58. n. 33. All this I suppose you will allow for hauing read most of it in the Glosse you except not against it or if you do your exception is without ground Other Prelates therfore although they be of vicious liues may be instiled Bonae memoriae Kings Clarae vel Inclytae memoriae Emperors Diuae memoriae Temporall gouernors may haue the title of Optimi yea and be called Gods for so you call Kings (p) Serm before his Ma. at Durham pag. 14. The Pope only forsoth who is the Vicar of Christ on earth because it displeaseth you must not be saluted by the title of Your Holinesse whiles he liues nor be said to be Bonae memoriae after he is dead Other gouernors must be honored by reason of their dignities and offices The Pope only must be excepted and Doctor Morton to helpe out the matter must falsify the Glosse making it say that an ill Pope after his death is to be intituled Of blessed Memory which words howsoeuer you (q) Pag. 277. set them downe as of the glosse and in great letters to make your falsification more remarkable are not of the glosse but feigned by you And finally whether an ill Pope after his death be or be not to be intituled Bonae or Malae memoriae what makes it to your intent which is to proue that Saluation may be had out of the Roman Church But if your volume had not bene stuffed with such impertinencies it cold not haue risen to so Grand an Imposture CHAP. XXXVII Of the authority of the Epistles of ancient Popes AS the Arians and other Heretikes haue contemned the Epistles of the Bishops of Rome so all orthodoxe Christians haue euer held them in great veneratiō Eusebius Caesariensis (r) L. 3. hist c. 12. writeth that the epistle of Clement Pope to the Corinthians was so highly esteemed that the custome was to reade it publikely in the Churches which also he reporteth (s) L. 4. hist. c. 22. of the Epistle of Soter Pope And how greatly these Epistles were reuerenced may appeare out of S. Irenaeus who highly commending the Epistle of Clement (t) L. 3. c. 3. setteth downe a summary therof And in like manner Clemens Alexandrinus (u) Serm. l.
against this Epistle to be of no force 3. You except (r) pag. 28â— against the Epistle of Pius because you will not belieue him to haue commanded that if any drops were shed out of the Chalice in the Eucharist they should be licked vp and the board scraped You belieue not this because you belieue not the reall presence of the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist but thinke it reuerence inough if your Clerke take home your bread that remaines and crimble it into his potage and drinke vp the wine merily with his guests at dinner and yet some of you tell the people it is the body and bloud of Christ Howsoeuer your Argument is wholly from the matter for this command of Pius is not in his first Epistle which you deceiptfully cite in your margent nor in any of his Epistles but in his decrees which the Church approueth (s) Breuiar Roman Iul. 11. from whence to inferre that his Epistles are apocryphall is a consequence which I suppose you will not grant I am sure euery one will see to be absurd The error which out of Baronius you mention (t) Pag. 282. in two of Pius his Epistles might easily creepe into the copies by negligence or mistake of the Scribe and therfore is no sufficient Argument to disauthorize them and much lesse the rest in which there is no such mistake 4. You reiect (u) Ibid. the Epistles of Soter and Alexander because you cannot thinke the vse of Incense at the Altar nor the expiation of small offences by holy water to be so ancient For your better instruction coÌ„cerning the ancient vse of incense at the altar I remit you to (x) L. 1. de ritib Eccles c. 9. DuraÌ„tius who sheweth how foolishly it is relected by heretikes to Bellarmine (y) L. 2. de Missa c. 15. and Brereley in his Liturgy of the Masse (z) Pag. 40. n. 12 pag. 94. lit D. Concerning the antiquity of holy-water for the expiation of small offences casting out of Diuels and other great miracles wrought by sprinkeling therof read Baronius (a) Spoud Indic V. Aquae Beâ—ed antiq vsus Bellarmine (b) L. 3. de Eccles triumph c. 7. l. 2. de Missa c. 15. Durantius (c) L. 1. de rit c. 21. and Brereley (d) Liturg. pag. 64. lit u. x. pag. 94. l. b. c. They will certify you that both these ceremonies are Apostolicall traditions vsed in the Church from the beginning shew your reiecting of those ancient Epistles because they are mentioned in them to be cauilling without ground 5. Because Cooks findeth in some of those Epistles a word or a phrase which some one Author thinkes not to be so ancient in that sense or forsooth not so elegant and Ciceronian you are pleased to call them all horrid and barbarous (e) Pag. 279. to help out the matter you exemplisy in Caius which is none of the fourteene alleaged by Bellarmine But you consider not that diuers of those Epistles were written in Greeke and that the Latine phrase is not of the authors but of the translators And as Nicolas the first (f) Ep. 8. apud Bin to 3. pag. 682. speaking to the vngodly Emperor Michaell of Latin translated into Greeke sayth If it beget barbarismes the fault is not in the Latin tongue but in the Translators striuing not only to keep the sense but vsing force to render word by word so I say to you if in the Epistles of ancient Popes you find some words or manners of speach not so vsuall the fault is not in the Epistles but in the Translators striuing to render them word by word And to go no further for the confutation of this cauill you obiect against vs (g) Pag. 291. out of an Epistle of Adrian the first that liued almost 800. yeares after Christ these words Consecrationes Episcoporum Archiepiscoporum sicut olitana constat traditio nostra dioecosis existentes in which whether you regard the word olitana or the phrases sicut olitana constat traditio consecrationesnostrae dioecesis existentes you may vnder colour that the phrase of this Epistle is horrid and barbarous reiect it with as much ground as you do the Epistles of Popes that liued in the first 300. yeares after Christ The truth therfore is that you reiect those because they make wholly against you and receaue this because you find something in it which may serue you for an Argument against vs though without ground for Adrian in that Epistle most effectually proueth the authority of the Roman See wherof something hath bene spoken already (h) Chap. 33. sect 2. SECT II. The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of Popes that liued in the second 300. yeares after Christ THere is no stronger Argument then that which is drawne from the confession of the Aduersaries for as Tertullian obserueth (i) In Apologet No man lieth to his owne shame and therfore he is soner to belieued that confesseth against himselfe then he that denieth in his owne behalfe Which truth the Father of the Roman eloquence vnderstood by the light of nature saying (k) Orat. P. Qui. Thy testimony which in another mans cause is litle to be regarded when it is against thy selfe is of great weight And you acknowledge (l) Answere to the Prot. Apol. Epist. Dedicat. that the testimony of the aduersary is the greatest reason of satisfaction Let vs then see whether you wil not beare witnesse for vs against your selues that the Popes of the first 600. yeares after Christ acknowledged and exercised their authority and iurisdiction ouer all the Churches of the world and this chiefly in their Epistles for of most of them there are no other writings extant Their testimonies in this behalfe are plentifully alleaged by Maister Brereley (m) Protest Apologâ—tra 1. sect 3. subdiu 10. sect 7. subd 5. and in particular concerning the Popes of the second 300. yeares of whom our question here is he sayth They Protestant writers consesse and say that in the fifth age the Roman Bishops applied themselues to get and establish dominion ouer other Churches To this end they vsurped to themselues the right of granting priuiledges and ornaments to other Archbishops they confirmed Archbishops in their Sees deposed excommunicated and absolued others arrogating also to themselues power of citing Archbishops to declare their causes before them and that against a Bishop appealing to the Roman See nothing should be determined but what the B. of Rome censured That they appointed Legats in remote Prouinces which were somtimes no meaner men then some one or other of the Patriarkes That they challenged authority to heare and determine all vprising controuersies especially in questions of fayth That they tooke vpon them power of appointing generall Councells and to be Presidents in them and euen by their Deputies when
Bishops I know not what Bishop is not subiect vnto it Doth not this testimony immediatly follow in Bellarmine Yes and it is so euident that Caluin (h) L. 4. Iust. c. 7. § 1â— on the rack of truth is inforced to confesse that S Gregory in no place of his workes vanteth more of the greatnesse of his See then in these very words and that in them he attributeth to himselfe the right of punishing Bishops when they offend Is it not then imposterous to conceale this so cleare an euidence and others brought in by Bellarmine and reiect them all because you haue found a way to cauill at one especially since not only out of S. Gregories workes and the testimonies of your Protestant Brethren it is a truth not to be denyed that he belieued himselfe to haue and practised iurisdiction ouer all Bishops whatsoeuer But you say (k) Pag. 285. If Gregory in some tearmes seeme to speake somwhat loud as though he were very Great yet be confined himselfe to the Constitution of Iustinian He resolueth according to the constitution of Iustinian that the triall of Bishops causes in the first instance belongs to their Metropolitan as the cause of the Metropolitan doth to his Patriarke But withall he teacheth (l) L. 2. ep 6. that they may appeale to the See Apostolike and furthermore addeth (m) L. 11. ep 56. that If a Bishop haue no Metropolitan nor Patriarke ouer him then sayth he his cause is to be heard decided by the See Apostolike which is the head of all Churches And this is agreeable to the profession which Iustinian himselfe made in the Law Inter claras (n) Cod. tit â— l. 8. and in the Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (o) Cod. t is 1. l. 7. In the rest of this Section (p) Pag. 284. you tell vs that â—â—n of those Popes eited by Bellarmine call the Church of Rome and Bishop therof Head of all Churches or one that hath the care of all Churches or one hauing principality They do so and withall so vnanswearably affirme the Vniuersall iurisdiction of the Roman Church that you thought best not to mention their words but to put them off saying The like attributes haue bene anciently ascribed to other Churches and Bishops which how false it is you haue already heard (q) Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. Chap. 35. Chap. 36 sect 3. To giue a good farewell you conclude thus (r) Pag. 285. fin 280. There are diuers other testimonies out of Leo Gelasius and other Popes who breathed out many sentences full of ostentation of their owne greatnesse Hitherto you haue held vs in hand that the primitiue Popes did not challenge any iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church but now you say that S. Gregory in some termes seemes to speake somwhat loud as though he were very Great and that Leo Gelasius and other Popes breathed out many sentences full of ostentation of their owne greatnesse but whatsoeuer they vented out it was typhus saecularis and a swelling impostume which was lanced that it bled withall by the Councell of Carthage vnder S. Cyprian and the Councell of Africke vnder S. Augustine and that selfe-loue bewitching many Popes of the more primitiue tymes they boasted themselues to be the only Vicars of Christ and have bene taxed for their great arrogancy by the ancient Fathers of their owne tymes And afterwards (s) Pag. 303. fin 304. you compare S. Leo and S. Gregory to Adonias that sought traiterously to pull the crowne from his Fathers head and make himselfe King to which he had right This forsooth is the reuerence you beare to the primitiue Popes whom antiquity hath had in so great veneration as of S. Leo and S. Gregory in particular you haue heard (t) Chap. 15. sect 3. Truth which enforceth testimony from her enemies compelleth you to confesse (u) Pag. 172.178.182.287 that the Primitiue Popes were Holy Popes Holy Fathers excellently goodly learned and that many of them are glorious Martyrs and Saints whose memory is blessed And yet the same truth enforceth you heere to confesse that those Popes acknowledged themselues to be the only Vicars of Christ on earth to haue an vniuersall authority and to haue practised the same for which albeit you taxe them with great arrogancy yet in adding that the ancient Fathers of their owne time did the like you passe the limits of modesty and truth And who seeth not the absurd manner of arguing which in proofe hereof you vse Your words are (x) Pag. 286. in titulo sect 13. Our generall discouery of the vanity of your proofes of Papall Monarchy from the mouthes of Popes themselues who haue bene anciently noted of pride Your assumpt then is to disproue the Papall Monarchy from the mouthes of Popes themselues But you produce not any one testimony nor any one word of any one Pope but make a briefe repetition of your Arguments which in their seuerall places haue bene proued to be partly impertinent partly false and partly hereticall Impertinent as of Tertullian False as of the African Councell S. Cyrill S. Basil S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine Hereticall as of Polycrates resisting Victor and of the Arians whom to conceale that they were heretikes you call The Orientalls And finally part of them of such as for a time defended the false doctrine of Rebaptization as S. Cyprian and his Councell of Carthage which though S. Augustine haue answeared (y) L. 6. de Baptism per tot and confuted word by word you take no notice therof but vrge it as currant and of authority against the B. of Rome yet that all may not seeme to be repetitions you bring forth one new Argument (z) Pag. 286. as drawne from the mouthes of Popes themselues which is that one Flaccidius relying on the greatnesse of the Citty of Rome equalled the Deacons of Rome with Priests This you obiect as the testimony of S. Augustine himselfe pointing at the vaine boasting of Rome wheras it is not S. Augustines but of the Author quaestionum noui veteris Testamenti whom heretofore (a) Pag. 52. when he was not for your purpose you reiected as an hereticall author but now his words are of S. Augustine himselfe and an Argument drawne from the very mouthes of ancient and holy Popes Necessity enforceth you to such absurdities for better Arguments are not to be found in such a cause The blindnesse of your zeale permitted you not to see the inconsequence contrariety of your doctrine whiles you professe (b) Pag. 287. that the primitiue Popes were Holy men and yet that they were proud arrogant and challenged dominion aboue others beyond the limits of their owne iurisdiction Yes say you (c) Ibid. why not They were holy Disciples of Christ who ambitiously wished that they might sit the one on the right hand of Christ and on the other on
this example condemneth your Doctrine for if all that are in the Patriarkship of the West be the Popes subiects and haue right to appeale vnto him why do you Protestants who cannot deny your selues to be within his Patriarkship disclaime from his obedience Why do you not submit to your lawfull Superior Why do you forbid appeales and all recorse vnto him And if as here you confesse he hath as much right to the appeales of them which are within his owne Patriarkship as a Parson hath to the tithes of his owne Parish why do you defend that it was lawfull for the Africans whom you acknowledge to be within his owne Dioces (p) Pag. 289. and therfore rather subiect to him then to others (q) Pag. 304. to forbid appeales vnto him Why do you so often inueigh against the Popes for requiring and mantaining their owne right herein 5. You except (r) Ibid. against other appeales because they were of heretikes or other persons notoriously impious as of Basilides Marcion Fortunatus and Felix or Felicissimus for so you should haue said But by this Argument you may as well proue that a King hath no right of Appeales in his kingdome for who knoweth not that not only persons that are wronged by inferior Iudges but also others which haue bene iustly condemned do sometimes appeale the former to be righted and the later in hope to procure their iust condemnation to be reuoked by fauor or by misinforming their Soueraigne Wherfore as it were sophistry to inferie that a King hath not soueraigne authority in his kingdome because some that appeale vnto him are wicked persons so it is to except against the Popes supreme authority because some that appeale vnto him are wicked persons that haue bene iustly condemned by their immediat Superiors Your inference should haue bene that because all sortes of persons nocent and innocent haue appealed to the Pope from all partes of the world it rightly followeth that he is supreme Iudge of the vniuersall Church SECT III. Examples of innocent Appellants IN proofe of the ancient custome of appealing to Rome we produce the examples of S. Athanasius S. Chrysostome Theodoret and Flauianus You answeare (s) Pag. 304. They addressed their requests to the B. of Rome not as to a peremptory Ludge but as to a Patron and arbitrary Days-man And of Theodoret and Chrysostome you had said before (t) Pag. 255. They only required from the Bishops of Rome a subsidiary help as one King may from another and as the B. of Arles may from the B. of Paris But this to be false sophistry I shall easily proue if first I giue the reader a taste of your ignorance concerning the antiquity of Appeales to Rome from remote Nations in generall SECT IV. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the Antiquity of appealing to Rome from remote Nations THeodoret being iniustly deposed from his Bishopricke of Cyre a City bordering vpon Persia appealed to Leo Pope saying (u) Ep. ad Leon. I attend the sentence of your Apostolike throne and beseech your Holinesse to succour me appealing to your right and iust iudgment and to command that I be brought before you and verify that my Doctrine followes the Apostolicall pathes You startling at these so vnanswearable words of Theodoret bid vs (x) Pag. 255. marg lit m. note that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations was very vncouth in those dayes giuing vs therby a good testimony of your ignorance in Ecclesiasticall history for that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations was not very vncouth but very familiar in those dayes and long before those dayes euen from the first ages of the Church who knoweth not that is versed in antiquity For 1. Sixtus Pope that liued 300. yeares before Theodoret ordayneth (y) Ep. 2. that if any Bishop be wronged he appeale freely to the holy and Apostolike See 2. Marcellus the first declareth (z) Ep. 1. ad Episc Antioch Prou. that accoding to the constitutions of the Apostles and their successors all Bishops when there is occasion may appeale to the See Apostolike 3. Felix the second (a) Ep. ad Syn. Alex. As often as Bishops shall thinke themselues wronged by those of their Prouince or by their Metropolitan or haue them in suspicion let them appeale to the See of Rome 4. The same is ordained by Victor (b) Ep. ad Theoph. caterosque Episc Aegyp by Zephyrinus (c) Ep. ad Episc Sicil. by Fabianus (d) Ep. ad Hilar and Melchiades (e) Ep. ad Episc Hispan 5. And what these ancient Popes decreed the holy Councell of Nice related by Iulius (f) Ep. 2. confirmed ordaining that all Bishops accused of grieuous crimes may freely appeale to the See Apostolike fly to it as to a Mother for defence and succour The authority of this Canon is proued by Pisanus (g) L. 3. Conc. Niceni apud Bin. to 1. pag. 350. And that the Nicen Councell made such a decree S. Leo (h) Ep. 25. testifieth and you els where forgetting your selfe acknowledge (i) Pag. 308. marg lit r. 6. The Councell of Sardica related not only by Catholike writers but also by the Centurists decreeth (k) Cap. 4. that if any Bishop being deposed by the next Bishops and protesting that his cause ought to be iudged a new fly for succour to the B. of Rome no other is to be installed in his See after he hath put in his Appeale but that his cause be sentenced by the B. of Rome 7. And when Iohn surnamed Talaia Patriarke of Asexandria was cast out of his See by the Emporor Zeno and Peter Moggus set vp in his place Iohn sayth Liberatus (l) Liberat. 6.18 addressed himselfe to Calendion Patriarke of Antioch and hauing taken from him Synodic all letters of intercession appealed to the Pope of Rome Simplicius 8. When Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople was condemned by the false Councell of Ephesus Valentinian the Emperor writ to Theodosius his Father-in-Law (m) Extat Ep inter Ep. preamb. Conc. Chalced. that Flauianus according to the custome of Councells appealed by petition to the Blessed Bishop of the City of Rome And Liberatus (n) Cap. 12. That sentence hauing bene pronounced against Flauianus he appealed to the B. of Rome by petition presented to his Legates 9. And Leo (o) Ep. 8. writing to the same Flauianus Eutyches protestes that in full iudgment he presented to you a request of appeale and that it was not receaued 10. And Flauianus answering Leo (p) Extat Ep. inter Ep. Leonis ante Ep. 7. Eutyches hath informed you that in the time of iudgment he presented to vs and to the holy Councell heare assembled libells of appeals to your Holinesse which was neuer done by him 11. And the same Leo (q) Ep. 25. writing to Theodosius the yonger beseecheth him that for as much as Flauianus
being wronged by the false Councell of Ephesus had presented a libell of appeale to his Legates he would command a generall Councell to be held within Italy for the Nicen Canons require this necessarily to be done after the putting in of an Appeale To these I adde Theodoret testifying in expresse words that he appealed to Leo Pope These witnesses shew that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations was not very vncouth but very familiar in the dayes of Theodoret and in former ages and that the right of appealing to the Roman See was acknowledged and testified by holy Popes of the primitiue times by generall Councells by Emperors by Bishops and by all ancient writers And the same might be proued by other examples if these were not sufficient to shew your ignorance in denying if not rather your boldnesse in out-facing so knowne a truth SECT V. That S. Athanasius appealed to Iulius Pope and Theodoret to Leo as absolute Iudges and that by their authority both of them were restored to their Churches THat S. Athanasius appealed to Iulius Pope and by his authority was restored to his seat hath bene effectually proued (r) Chap. 38. sect 6. And to what there was said I adde here the testimony of Liberatus who speaking of Iohn Patriarke of Alexandria deposed by the Emperor Zeno sayth (s) In Breuia c. 18. He appealed to the B. of Rome as also Blessed Athanasius did And that Theodoret appealed to Leo as to an absolute Iudge that had power to command him and sentence his cause he himselfe witnesseth as you haue heard (t) Sect. praeced init Neuerthelesse you taking vpon you to know what passed in Theodorets cause better then Theodoret himselfe say (u) Pag. 304. He addressed his requests to the B. of Rome not as to a peremptory Iudge but as to a Patron and arbitrary dais-man one vpon whose authority he depending acknowledgeth in expresse words his reason to wit the integrity of the fayth of the Pope and promising to abide his award with the assistance of others And before you had said (x) Pag. 255. marg lit m. The euent sheweth that there was in this busines no iuridicall proceeding at all Only Theodoret vpon his confession of his Orthodoxe fayth was receaued into communion with Leo as Leo might haue ben with Iohn of Constantinople in like case These are your words to proue that Theodoret appealed not to the Pope as to an absolute Iudge that had authority to annull the sentence of the Councell that deposed him and restore him to his See but only as to an Arbitrator by reason of the integrity of his fayth when as he contrarily in expresse words beseecheth Renatus (y) Ep ad Renat to perswade the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of Rome to vse his Apostolicall authority and command him to appeare before his Councell that is his Consistory because that holy See hath the guidance and gouerment of all the Churches of the world And writing to Pope Leo he sayth (z) In Ep. ad Leon. I attend the sentence of your Apostolike throne and beseech your Holinesse to succour me appealing to your right and iust iudgment and to command that I be brought before you c. And I promise to stand to your iudgment contenting my selfe with that which you shall determine what euer it be And I beseech you that I may be iudged according to my writings If Theodoret had studied to expresse the Popes iudiciall authority to sentence his cause could he haue done it in more cleare and effectuall words then these It is true that as he acknowledgeth the Roman Church to be priuiledged aboue others for many causes so especially for that she hath remained free from all blemish of heresy none hauing euer possessed that See which hath held any thing contrary to truth or which hath not kept the Apostolicall grace entyre and without blemish The reason why he mentioneth the purity of fayth alwayes preserued in the Roman Church is because he had bene accused and deposed as guilty of heresy in his writings And therfore he appealeth confidently to the Pope as to one whose iudgment in matters of fayth is is infallible and to whom the decision of all such Controuersies belongeth acknowledging withall as you haue heard the Roman Church to be the Head of all Churches and the Pope to be his absolute Superior and Iudge with authority to command him and sentence his cause And Leo Pope accordingly vsing the authority of a Iudge declared him free from heresy and restored him to his See wherupon the Senators that assisted at the Councell of Chalcedon said with the approbation of the whole Councell (a) Act. 1. Let the most Reuerend Bishop Theodoret come in because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his See Who then seeth not the insufficiency of your answeare that Theodoret appealed not to the Pope as to an absolute Iudge but made his requests vnto him as to an arbitrary Dais-man for appeales are not made to Arbitrators but to absolute Iudges An Arbitator is he to whom the determination of a controuersy is remitted by agreement of both parties which in Theodorets cause can haue no place for his aduersaries neuer agreed to haue his cause remitted to the Pope If therfore the Pope had not bene an absolute Iudge Theodorets appealing to him had bene in vaine nor could he haue recouered his seat by the Popes sentence for a sentence pronounced without authority is of no effect And though after the Councell of Chalcedon had admitted Theodoret vpon the Popes restitution to take his place amongst the Bishops some of them doubting of his fayth because he had written against Cyrill of Alexandria in fauor of Nestorius and therfore fearing the Pope might haue restored him vpon misinformation vrged him to anathematize Nestorius againe yet that no way helpeth your cause nor derogateth from the Popes authority for when Theodoret had anathematized Nestorius the Councell proceeded not to a new sentence of restitution but subscribing to that of Leo cried out all with one voyce (b) Act. 2. Long liue Archbishop Leo Leo hath iudged the iudgment of God SECT VI. That S. Chrysostome appealed to Innocentius Pope as to an absolute Iudge and by his authority was restored to his Church of Constantinople S. Chrysostome being deposed from his Patriarchall See at the procurement of Eudoxia the Empresse wife to Arcadius Emperor of the East by a Councell of Bishops vnder Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria had recourse by letters of appeale to Innocentius Pope This you deny saying (b) Pag. 307. n. that wheras Bellarmine and Baronius referre you to the story it selfe you can finde nothing lesse in it then the matter of Appeale for say you Chrysostome made his requests not to the Pope alone but to the other Reuerend Bishops within the Roman Prouince together with him But this is a mistake proceeding
from your ignorance for as the Syrians to expresse Mayster or Lord vse the word Rabbi which hath a plurall signification because a person of quality containes in himselfe the authority of many so when we write to an Honorable person it is vsuall to speake vnto him in the plurall number to signify that he hath in himselfe the dignity and authority of many So writ Eusebius B. of Milan to Pope Leo alone (c) Extat inter Ep. Leo. post ep 52. God hath placed yee Prelates of the Apostolike See worthy Protectors of his worship So writ Theodoret to the same Pope alone (d) Ep. ad Leon. Vos enim per â—mnia conuenit esse primos So writ the Bishops of Syria to Iustinian the Emperor (e) Conc. Constant sub Mena. Act. 1. Our Lord preserue yee deuout and zealous guardians of the fayth So writ the Councell of Mopsuestia to Vigilius Pope (f) In Conc. 5. Act. 5. It is conuenient O most Holies that since you hold the chiefe dignity of Priesthood c. And so did Chrysostome write in the plurall number to Innocentius Pope alone as it is manifest both out of the inscription of his Epistle which is singular and directed to Innocentius alone as also out of Paladius (g) In vita Chrysost who cites it as addressed to him alone 2. You say (h) Pag. 307. Chrysostome made his requests to the Pope not to cite the parties complained against but only to write vnto them and this not by any peremptory charge but only by reproofe of their vmust dealing and of admonition c. Heere I accuse you of somthing more then ignorance for the words of Chrysostome to Innocentius are (i) Ep. 1. ad Innocent Vouchsafe to write and ordaine by your authority that these things so wickedly done I being absent and not refusing iudgment may be inualid as of their owne nature they are and that they who haue proceeded so iniustly may be submitted to the punishment of the Ecclesiasticall Lawes And command that I who am innocent and not conuicted of any crime be restored to my Church And againe (k) Ep. â— ad Innocent One thing I beseech your vigilant Soule that albeit they which haue filled all with tumulies be sick of an impenitent and incurable disease if yet they will remedy those things that then they may not be punished nor excommunicated What more expresse forme of appeale or what more euident acknowledgment of the Popes authority iudiciall power then this Doth not Chrysostome beseech Innocentius to disannull by his letters authority the Acts of the Councell which had deposed him To abrogate their sentence pronounced against him to replace him in his Bishoprick and to punish his aduersaries according to the Lawes of the Church but yet to spare them if they would repent Is not this to acknowledge in him the power of an absolute Iudge And is not this extant to be read in Chrysostomes Epistles and in his life written by Palladius You to keep this from your readers set not downe any of Chrysostoms words in the text of your discourse And though in your margent you set downe some of them in Latin in a small letter yet euen that you do not without imposture for you mangle them leauing out those in which he besecheth the Pope to vse his authority in punishing his aduersaries according to the Ecclesiasticall Canons and in restoring him to his Church Againe you are guilty of vntruth in saying (l) Pag. 307. that Chrysostome made not any requests to the Pope to cite the parties complained against For doth he not say (m) Ep. ad Innoc apud Pallad in vita ipsius But yet if the authors of wickednesse will declare for what crimes they haue iniustly deposed me let their euidences be giuen in Let processes be produced let my accusers come let a true and incorrupt iudgment sit I refuse it not I decline it not yea I earnestly desire it let vs be iudged Iâ— his to request the Pope to write to his aduersaries not by any peremptory charge but only by way of reproofe and admonition for their vniust dealing Doth he not beseech him that his aduerlaries may appeare and bring in their euidences against him and that his cause may be tried a new by him as by a iust and in corrupt Iudge But you say (n) Pag. 30â— When all the Pope cold do is performed what the last refuge was he did signify in his letters to the Orientalls saying The only remedy of curing these euills is the calling of a Councell and vntill then the matter is to be committed to the will and pleasure of God Here you are accusable of an iniust reticence of what Innocentius did and how he shewed himselfe alone and without a Councell to be an absolute Iudge for doth not Palladius say (o) In vit Chrys Innocentius decreed that the iudgment of Theophilus should be abrogated and annulled Doth not Sozomen in that very place which you alleage (p) L. 8. c 26. testify that Innocentius condemned those things which were done against Iohn And by this single sentence of Innocentius alone without any Synod Iohn was absolued as Gelasius an Author of the same age reporteth saying (q) Ep. ad Episcop Dardan A Synod of Catholike Bishops hauing condemned Iohn of Constantinople of holy memory the See Apostolike alone because it consented not therunto absolued him Nor did he shew the authority of a Iudge only in absoluing Iohn and condemning his aduersaries but especially in that hearing of his death he excommunicated the Emperor Arcadius the Empresse Eudoxia his wife who had bene the chiefe causes of his condemnation and banishment for as Nicephorus (r) L. 13. c. 33. and Georgius Patriarke of Alexandria (s) In vita Chrys an Author of 1000. yeares antiquity cited by S. Damascens and Photius (u) In Georg. Alex. and followed by Cedrenus (x) In Arcad. Glycas (y) In Annal. in Arcad. other Greeke Authors testify (t) L. 1. de Imaginibus Innocentius hauing seuerely reprehended them both for the enormity of their offence pronounced Excommunication against them in these words And therfore I the meanest and a sinner as Depositary of the Throne of the great Apostle Peter cut off thee her from the participation of the immaculate Mysteries of Christ our God and ordaine that whatsoeuer Bishop or Clerke of the holy Church of God which shall presume to administer them to you after he hath read this my Censure shal be deposed All this is to be read in the history of Chrysostome to which you say Baronius and Bellarmine referre you Had it not then bene honesty to take notice of these particulars but that was not for your purpose This also conuinceth you to speake vntruly when you say (z) Pag. 308. The Pope confesseth insufficiency in himselfe and that the only remedy is in
of the holy Ghost are vnited and so fully agreed in the chiefe question which was most in controuersy that no further speach therof is necessary But that our agreement may be so absolute firme that hereafter there be no difference betweene vs it will not be amisse that we treat of the fyre of Purgatory of the primacy of the Pope of celebrating in leauened or vnleauened bread and of Transubstantiation Those Bishops answeared We O most holy Father haue no licence to treat of these things which words you set downe as the answere of all the Greeke Prelates when as they were spoken only by foure of them who hauing receaued no commission to treat of those Questions refused to make answere vnto them in the name of all their brethren But neuerthelesse which you conceale they declared their owne iudgment concerning the three first to be conformable to the doctrine of the Roman Church adding moreouer that of the fourth which was Transubstantiation they could not treat without the authority of all the Easterne Church How doth this proue that the Greekes in the Councell of Florence agreed not in doctrine with the Roman Church especially since these foure Bishops declared to the Pope that concerning the three first points of the foure proposed by him they belieued as the Roman Church did and concerning the fourth as at that time they did not affirme it so neither did they deny it and sone after not only they but all the rest of the Greeke Bishops and Abbots together with their Emperor in the Letters of Vnion expresly declared that not only in the three first namely of the Popes supremacy of Purgatory of the lawfulnesse of celebrating Masse in vnleauened bread they belieued as the Roman Church did but also in the fourth of Transubstantiation saying that by the Priest vpon the Altar of bread is made the very body of Christ. All this you could not be ignorant of and yet blush not to deny it and to adde another vntruth saying (c) Pag. 331. fin 332. init Yea and their Emperor Palaeologus that was so earnest to peece them together was himselfe but hardly welcomed home to the Greeke Church which was now much more exasperated against the Roman Church in so much that they did now pronounce their Patriarke of Constantinople the supreme and chiefe of all Bishops These your words cannot be freed from a notable imposture for you falsify Bellarmine alleaging these words in a differeÌ„t letter as his The Greekes did now to wit after their returne from the Councell of Florence pronounce their Patriarke of Constantinople the supreme and chiefe of all Bishops Bellarmine speaketh of their fall from the Roman Church the yeare 1054. which was not after the Councell of Florence but almost 400. yeares before it You to perswade your reader that he speakes of their fall after their returne from that Councell cunningly insert into his words this aduerbe Now and falsify the yeare putting in stead of Anno 1054. which Bellarmine hath Anno 1454. Can there be more wilfull fraud then this But you shew no lesse folly then fraud for wheras you say (d) Pag. 331. the Councell of Florence was the yeare 1549. to proue that the Greekes after their returne from that Councell denied the primacy of the Pope you say (e) Pag. 332. Now to wit the yeare 1454. which was in your account 100. yeares before that Councell they did pronounce their Patriarke of Constantinople the supreme and chiefe of all Bishops I deny not that the Greeks a few yeares after the Councell of Florence returned to vomit and that a great part of them still persisteth in the errors which then they abiured I only speake here of your simplicity who to proue that they fell from the Roman Church after their returne from the Councell of Florence say (f) Pag. 332. marg they fell the yeare 1454. which according to your account was 100. yeares before that Councell With these impostures you delude your readers who not doubting of your fidelity take your doctrine vpon your word SECT III. That many of the Grecians at this day are of the Roman Communion and professe subiection to the B. of Rome THat many of the Grecians are at this day accordant in fayth and Communion with the Roman Church professe subiection and obedience to the B. of Rome is a thing notorious for who is ignorant that as in Rome there is a Seminary wherin many youthes of our English nation are trained vp in vertue and learning to the end that being ordained Priestes and returning into England they may help to reduce their Countrey to the Catholike fayth so likewise there hath bene many yeares another of Grecians for the reduction of Greece And who knoweth not that as Cardinall Peron (g) Repliqu Chap. 22. aduertised our late Soueraigne K. Iames in the Iles of Malta Cyprus Candia Xante Chios Naxos and other Greeke and Asian Islands the Roman fayth and Communion hath place euen at this day either wholly or for the greatest part And if it be true that as you affirme (h) Pag. 335. Russia a good part of Polonia Dalmatia and Croatia belong to the Greeke Church and are vnder the iurisdiction of the Patriarke of Constantinople with what forehead can you challenge the inhabitants of these Countreys in generall to dissent in fayth communion from the Church of Rome when it is notorious that in Dalmatia Croatia Polonia as also in Lituania and Transiluania the fayth and Communion of the Roman Church is not only allowed but publikely professed And for the Russians Michaell Hipation and Cyrill with the rest of the Bishops of that Nation haue lately submitted themselues to the same Church as both their Epistle and profession of fayth addressed to Clement the eight in the yeare 1595. abundantly testify (i) Apud Cocci to 1. l. 7. art â— SECT IV. Of the Aegyptians YOur second example of remote nations dissenting from the Roman Church (k) Pag. 304.342.400.409 417. is of the Aegyptians To shew your error herein these euidences may serue for as Iacobus Nauarchus (l) Ep. Asiâ—â— Coccius (m) Tom. 1. l. 7. art 6. and Doctour Sanders (n) Monar Visib l. 7. n. 1121. relate Eugenius Pope hauing actually vnited the Greekes and Latines in the Councell of Florence and wrirten to the Patriarkes of the East to the same effect they in their Epistles to him writ back Honorably Catholikely and resolutely of the Latin Church and authority of the Pope And in particular Iohn Patriarke of Alexandria that is to say of the Christians of Aegypt and of all the countreys which first belonged to the Empire of Aegypt and afterwards to the Prefecture therof styleth the B. of Rome The perfection of Priesthood the Apostolicall Father of all Churches the Prince of Priests the Guide of Pilgrimes that shews the way to the rest the Physitian of the diseased And his Vicar of
hereafter nor to write nor send to vs any writings concerning these things for you treat the Diuines which were lights of the Church otherwise then is fit you honor and extoll them in words but with your deeds reiect them seeking to wrest out of our hands their holy and diuine words with we might vse to confute you Wherfore for as much as concernes vs you haue freed vs from care and therfore going on in your owne wayes write no more to vs of your Doctrine but only for friendships sake if you please All these are the words of Iustus Caluinus related out of the Censure or Epistle of Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople by Chytraeus and Crusius two chiefe Protestants of Germany where Iustus Caluinus liued writ Chytraeus and Crusius being then liuing who might and would haue taxed him of falshood if he had misalleaged them Wherfore I cannot sufficiently admire your boldnesse who to proue that the Grecians accord in doctrine with Protestants and dissent from the Church of Rome dare aduenture to alleage this Censure of the Patriarke out of which it is so manifest not only by the Catholike editions but euen by that of Wittemberg and by the relations of Chyrtraeus and Crusius that the Greekes in very few points of those which are in Controuersy between Protestants and vs dissent from the Roman Church and that they condemne the contrary doctrines of Protestants as hereticall auoid them as heretikes for so you haue heard the Patriarke call them But yet as Iustus Caluinus (y) Pag. 1â— fin rightly obserueth the accordance of the Greekes with the Roman Church in so many chiefe Heads of doctrine is not sufficient to excuse them from schisme and heresy for if they were not guilty of other errors their obstinate denying the holy Ghost to proceed from the Sonne is alone sufficient to make theÌ„ absolute schismatikes and heretikes incapable of saluation as S. Athanasius hath expresly declared in his Creed You therfore haue told a most solemne vntruth in saying (z) Pag. 330. that the Greekes which dissent from the Roman Church haue not ruinated any fundamentall Article of sauing truth SECT III. A particular instance of Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople produced by Doctor Morton to proue that he dissented from the Roman Church examined FOr the corroboration of your former Arguments you produce (a) Pag. 387. Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople as an especiall patterne of disobedience to the Roman Church The case is this The people of Bulgaria hauing sent for preachers to Rome and being instructed by them in the fayth of Christ submitted themselues voluntarily to the Pope and in spirituall things were gouerned immediatly by him as part of his Roman Diocesse (b) Spond anno 869. n. 13. Neuerthelesse because the Grecians challenged the temporall state of that Prouince to belong to the Emperor of the East Ignatius supposing the spiritualty of it to belong in right to his Diocesse vsurped it to himselfe and consecrating a Bishop by his owne authority sent him thither with other Priests for which he was checked by Adrian Pope (c) Spond anno 871. n. 1. and afterwards excommunicated by Iohn the eight if within thirty dayes after notification of the sentence vnto him he did not desist from that vsurpation He died before the arriuall of the sentence at ConstaÌ„tinople (d) Spond anno 878. n. 1. 8. which if he had receaued before his death it is not to be doubted but that he would haue surceased from that claime which he made not out of any desire or intention of opposing the See Apostolike whose authority ouer the Church of Constantinople he acknowledged both in appealing to it against Photius who had intruded himselfe into his Church and also in his epistle to Nicolas Pope (e) Extat Ep. in Syn. 8. Act. 3. And finally that he alwaies liued died in communion of the RomaÌ„ Church appeareth by diuers letters of Iohn the eight written after his death (f) Spond anno 878 n. 8. His example therfore can be no help to your cause SECT IV. The Aegyptians Aethiopians Armenians Russians Melchites Africans and Asians which call themselues Christians and be not of the Roman Communion are absolute Heretikes THe Aegyptians and Aethiopians that are not of the Roman fayth and communion imbrace the Heresy of Eutyches which holdeth but one nature one will and operation in Christ and was for that cause anathematized and cast out of the Church by the holy Councell of Chalcedon twelue hundred yeares since And they which are not of the Roman communion still persist in the same error in so much that when of late yeares Goâ—saluus Rodericius of the Society of Iesus was sent into Aethiopia (g) Pran Sachin Hist Soc. Iesu l. 1. n. 49. to prepare the way for Ioannes Nunnez whom the See Apostolike had sent thither honored with the title and dignity of Patriarke Claudius then King of Aethiopia answeared that he had no need of a Patriarke from Rome hauing in his owne kingdome men that were able to gouerne the Patriarkship of Rome it selfe Moreouer that he would by no meanes approue the Councell of Chalcedon nor allow of Leo Pope and that Dioscorus had done well in excommunicating him Finally the obstinacy of the Aethiopians and Aegyptians in this particular error of Eutyches is the sole cause of their continuance in schisme and separation from the Roman Church for as Cardinall Peron (h) Repliq. Chap. 63. answered our late Soueraigne K. Iames they haue often offered and are all ready at this day to acknowledge the Pope whom they confesse to be the Successor of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles if they might be receaued into his communion without obliging themselues to anathematize Eutyches and Dioscorus The Armenians which are not of the Roman fayth communion are guilty of many heresies They acknowledge but one Nature in Christ with the Eutychians They deny his diuinity with the Arians They affirme the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father alone with the Grecians They rebaptize them that haue bene baptized in the Roman Church with the Donatists And finally they hold many other grosse and damnable heresies related by Prateolus (i) L. 1 tit 67. out of Guido Carmelita and Nicephorus Calixtus who therfore rightly tearmeth them A sinke of all heresies The Russians agree with the Grecians in deniing the holy Ghost to proceed from the Sonne So hath confessed your Minister Thomas Rogers (k) Art 3. propos 3. pag. 25. Moreouer they defend other hereticall Tenets to the number of 40. related by Ioannes Sacranius (l) Elucid error rit Rhuten and Prateolus (m) L. 6. tit 4. Wherunto I adde that Stanislaus Socolouius in the attendance of the King of Polonia whose Diuine he was visiting those Northerne countries and coming to Leopolis the Metropolitan city of Russia reporteth of it (n) Praefat. Censura Orient that although it hath
Pope is the schismatike and not the Councell But I wonder not that you take part with Schismatiks Belike you are of opinion that some obstinate Puritans in Parliament standing out against his Maiesty he and not they are the rebells for the case is alike sauing only that this is a temporall cause and that a spirituall But you demand (h) Pag. 360. with Nilus and Erasmus to what end generall Councells should be called with so much cost trouble and labour if the Pope haue infallibility of iudgment I answere to the same end that S. Peter the first Pope of Rome notwithstanding he had infallibility of iudgment called a Councell at Antioch (i) Act. 15.6.7 If you desire more reasons you haue them in Bellarmine (k) L. 4. de Pont. c. 7. who hath answeared this Argument but you were wise inough to take no notice therof SECT IX Doctor Mortons instances of France and England to proue the no-necessity of Vnion with the Church of Rome THere hath bene published by some of your Nouellists a pamphlet intituled Fasciculus rerum expetendarum fugiendarum stuffed with so many lies that the Author was ashamed to haue his name knowne It is prohibited (l) Indic libro prohib and therfore what you report out of it not to be regarded But your addition (m) Pag. 361. that the Councell of Trent is not admitted within the Kingdome of France and that therfore the French are yet at liberty to belieue as much therof as they list is a famous vntruth for although that Kingdome haue not admitted generally all the decrees made by that Councell for the reformation of Ecclesiasticall discipline yet who knoweth not that as the Catholikes of the world haue so hath that most Christian kingdome with them admitted and imbraced all the decrees of fayth made in the Councell of Trent and that the most Christian King with all his Catholike subiects belieueth them no lesse stedfastly then the decrees of fayth made in the foure first generall Councells which you admit Not vnlike to this is your addition (n) Pag. 361. fin 361. out of B. Gardiners Oration of true obedience that in the time of King Henry the eight all sortes of people in England were agreed vpon this point with most stedfast consent learned and vnlearned both men and women that no manner of persons bred or brought vp in England had ought to do with Rome for albeit some persons infected with Lutheranisme some flatterers for their owne ends soothed King Henry in his opposition to the See of Rome yet who knoweth not that the face of the kingdome was then generally Catholike as for the space of almost 1000. yeares before it had bene And who can be ignorant that in defence of the authority of the See of Rome B. Fisher Syr Thomas More writ most learned bookes which are yet and will euer be most highly esteemed throughout the Christian world and that what they writ with their pens they sealed with their bloud And who knoweth not that Cardinall Pole a man of so great worth that he wanted but two voyces for the Popedome not only writ most learnedly in the same kind but suffered and his friends for his sake great vexations and persecutions at the hands of King Henry for the same cause And that many persons of worth suffered imprisonment and death for the same cause among which were all the Charter-house Monkes of London with their Prior It is therfore a famous vntruth to say It was then the fayth of the Church of England that no person bred or brought vp in England had ought to do with Rome Moreouer you know this Oration of B. Gardiner to be prohibited by the Church (o) In indic lib. prohib and that he ashamed of it retracted it which yet you are not ashamed to obiect CHAP. XLIV Whether Luther and his followers had any iust cause to separate themselues from the Roman Church WE are come to the last Chapter of your Grand Imposture in which to free your selfe from the note of Schisme heresy you brand the Roman Church with both labor to proue that Luther had iust cause to separate himselfe from her Communion and that you continuing in the same separation are more iustifiable then Luther was in his departure from her and may more iustly plead soules saluation then any of them that remaine in Vnion with her Your Chapter you diuide into foure parts and these parts into Theses which I shall examine the more briefly because many of your proofes are repetitions of your former Arguments already answeared SECT I. Whether any Protestants haue held that the Catholike Church before Luthers fall was wholly extinguished YOur first Thesis is (p) Pag. 364. Many Papists in their aduersnesse to Protestant whom they seeke to traduce do impute vnto them this faythlesse Paradoxe as to say that the Catholike Church is sometimes extinguished A false doctrine say you which Protestants neuer taught If Protestants neuer taught this faithlesse doctrine why did Luther when he began to erect your new Church say (q) Praef. in 1. tom cont Reg. Angl. fo 497. He had none to assist him but was left alone and alone stood in the battaile forsaken of all Why did Caluin say (s) Ep. 141. It is absurd that since we haue bene enforced to diuide our selues from all the world we shold now in our very beginnings disagree among our selues Why did he say (t) Respons ad Sadolet It is publike and notorious to all learned and vnlearned that when the Principality of the B. of Rome was erected the kingdome of Christ was prostrated his glory extinguished Religion abolished the Church destroyed and hope of saluation vtterly ouerthrowne Why did Milius say (x) August Confess explic art 7. de Eccl. pag. 137. If there had byn right belieuers before Luther there had bene no need of a Lutheran reformation Why Morgensterne (y) Tract de Eccles p. 141. It is ridiculous to thinke that in the time before Luther any had the purity of Doctrine and that Luther should receaue it from them and not they from Luther It being manifest to the whole Christian world that before Luthert time all Churches were ouerwhelmed with Cymerian darknesse and that Luther was diuinely raised vp to discouer the same and to restore the light of true doctrine And in regard therof Luther boasted saying (z) Ep. ad Argentin anno 1525. Christum à nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari Why did Camierus say (a) Ep. Iesuit part altera Geneu 1601. That error did not only possesse a part of the Church as in time of the Arians but that the whole body of the Church by Apostacy was fallen from Christ Why did Simon de Voyon a Geneuian Minister in his Catalogue of Doctors (b) Praefat. ad Lect. say That in the yeare 605. falshood preuailed and then was the whole
therfore to be contemned as being admitted but of late which is not only a false translation but a manifest peruerting of the sense for Castro speaketh not of the doctrine or lawfulnesse of granting indulgences but de earum vsu of the vse of them which therfore in your english you cunningly omit that ouâ— of him you may proue the doctrine of them to be new Yea and concerning the very vse of them he proueth it to be most ancient by the same arguments Roffensis before him had done concluding that you and all others which contemne a thing practised so many hundreds of yeares by the Catholike Church and established by generall Councels are iustly accounted heretikes So farre is Castro from fauoring Luthers cause The third Author is Bellarmine out of whom you cite these words (n) Pag. 385. Thesaurus Ecclesiae spiritualis est fundamentum indulgentiarum Which words you english Thus The ground of indulgences is the spirituall treasury of workes consisting in the satisfactory and meritorious workes of supererogation done by the faithfull Which treasury to haue bene anciently wanting you proue also out of Bellarmine setting downe these words as his Hoc caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Louanienses This your Doctors of Louaine and some Scholemen as you know affirme was anciently wanting in the Church So you and then you tell vs (o) Ibid. out of Suarez who those Schole men were namely Mayzo and Durandus In this short passage of yours there are almost as many vntruthes and falsifications as words For first the Latin words are not Bellarmines but your owne fathered on him And so also are the English which neuerthelesse you set downe in a different character as his not only disagree from the Latin but containe false doctrine repugnant to all Catholike Diuines and in particular to Bellarmine who in that very place (p) L. 1. de Indulg c. 2. proposit 2. teacheth that meritorious workes as such cannot be applied to others nor belong to the treasure of the Church but only as satisfactory 3. You falsify making Bellarmine to limit the spirituall treasure of the Church to workes of supererogation only which is ignorantly spoken and not taught by Bellarmine nor any Catholike Diuine 4. You father on him falsly those last words Hoc thesauro caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Louanienses for they are not his nor doth he attribute any such doctrine to the Deuines of Louain nor so much as once name them in all that Chapter Is it not then great perfidiousnesse so to abuse and falsify both him and them Nor is your dealing better with Suarez for to omit that in the place you cite he treateth of no such matter nether he nor Bellarmine euer say that Duraud denied this treasure of the Church but only that he held it to consist of the satisfactions of Christ and not of the Saints Which yet he speaketh by way of doubt Theologicall dispute rather then affirmatiuely for coming to deliuer his owne opinion he sayth plainly and resolutely (q) 4. Dist 20. q. 3. Est in Ecclesia c. There is in the Church a spirituall treasure of the passion of Christ and his Saints who suffered farre greater torments then their sinnes deserued And therfore the Church out of this treasure may communicate to one or more so much as may suffice to make satisfaction for their sinnes either in part or in whole according as the Church shall please to communicate this treasure more or lesse which is nothing els but the sufferings of Christ and his Saints communicated to vs to satisfy for our sinnes Wherfore indulgences auaile by way of payment for so much as by Christ his Saints the paine to which we are lyable is paied But if he had held that the spirituall treasure of the Church consisteth of the satisfactions of Christ only that would auaile you nothing for he defendeth Indulgences which you deny and if he erred in any thing he errred not with obstinacy as you do but submitted all his workes to the correction of the holy Catholike Roman Church as you haue read in Bellarmine but conceale it I conclude therfore that the great cloud of witnesses which you haue brought to iustify Luthers doctrin against indulgences is either of Heretikes or of Catholikes in workes prohibited by the Church or if not prohibited abused and falsified by you SECT X. The causes giuen by Doctor Morton in excuse of Luthers departure from the Roman Church THe causes you haue deuised to iustify Luthers departure from the Roman Church are partly impious partly false and imposterous Impious as your excepting against the Masse (r) Pag. 387. to which Luther was persuaded by the Diuell calling it Idolatry as you do And not vnlike to this is your example of Firmilianus (s) Pag. 388. who being for the time an obstinate mantainer of Rebaptization was excommunicated by Stephen a holy Pope and notwithstanding that Stephens sentence was imbraced by all the Catholikes of the world and the doctrine of Firmilianus condemned by the holy Councell of Nice and euer since esteemed hereticall not only by Catholikes but also by Protestants you shame not to iustify Firmilianus (t) Ibid. and all the rest that followed the same heresy with him to condemne Pope Stephen as a Schismatike for excommunicating him Such examples I confesse you may find to defend Luthers departure from the Roman Church The rest of the causes which you alleage (u) Pag. 387. are false and imposterous as that the Roman Church mantaineth new articles of fayth and Satanicall doctrines that she blasphemeth the truth and tyrannically forceth men to subscribe which as they are false and slanderous accusations so you vtter them gratis and without any proofe at all and say nothing to iustify Luther but what a Donatist an Arian or any other heretike neuer so blasphemous will say for himselfe may with as good ground as Luther or you for him But you alleage (x) Pag. 389. Cassander whom you call our Cassander notwithstanding that heretofore you haue had a double admonition (y) See aboue Chap. 2. that he was a wicked heretike Prima classis whose workes being condemned and prohibited by the Church are of no more authority with vs then your Grand Imposture And not vnlike to this is your other example of Stephen Gardiner B. of Winchester as already hath bene shewed (z) Ibid. And as little to your purpose is another example which here you adde (a) Pag. 392. of an Epistle of Robert Grosthead B. of Lincolne taken out of the history of Mathew Paris which was set forth corruptedly by English Protestants and then by the Tigurine Lutherans who haue added many things both in their marginall notes and in the text in selfe against the authority of the Roman Church (b) See Bellar. l. de Scriptor Out of this Epistle of Grosthead to Innocentius the fourth you obiect a long
Catholike Bishop then they did when they were heretikes from the lawes of the Emperors This was the cause why S. Augustine and this sixth Councell of Carthage beseeched Celestine not to grant Clerkes executors to all Appellants And this conuinceth you of an vntruth in saying (b) Pag. 145. fin 151. that the African Fathers call that Papall presumption of Appeales a smoaky secular arrogancy which they will not indure for it is not the Popes clayme of appeales that they qualify with the name of typhe or smoaky secular arrogancy but partly the vexation and insolence of Apiarius and other Priests despising and shaking off the yoake of Episcopall discipline and partly the force military Violence which the executors sent from Rome did somtimes vse in executing the iudgments of the See Apostolike For speaking to Boniface Pope of the insolency of Apiarius they say (c) Conc. Afric c. 101. But we hope by the help of Gods mercy that your Holinesse gouerning in the Roman See we shall no longer suffer this typhe And because the executors did somtimes make vse of secular forces they beseech Celestine (d) Ibid. c. 105. not to grant Clerkes executors to all that demand thē lest the typhe of the world be introduced into the Church Which is agreeable to the decree of the Councell of Ephesus forbidding Iohn Patriarke of Antioch to make vse of any military power to hinder the Bishops of Cyprus from electing to themselues an Archbishop without his consent lest sayth the Councell vnder pretence of executing sacred things the typhe of secular power be introduced into the Church And in the same sense the Author (*) Cap. 26. of S. Fulgentius his life said that Fulgentius commanded nothing with the typhe of secular dominion And no lesse vntruly (e) Pag. 145. fin you make the Africans say in their Epistle to Celestine that they will not indure the Papal presumtion of appeales there being no such thing to be read in that Epistle For what they speake of not induring hath no relation to Appeales but to the crimes of Apiarius As for the wretched Apiarius say they he hauing bene already cast out of the Church of Christ for his infamous crimes by our brother Faustinus we are no more in care for as much as by the meanes of the approbation and moderation of your Holinesse Africa will no longer indure him 5. You say (f) Pag. 155. This Councell denounced excommunication to all that thinke it lawfull to appeale beyond the seas This is another vntruth for the Councell speakes not of Bishops but of Priests and inferior Clerkes only so much you contradicting your selfe had acknowledged a little before setting downe the very words of the Councell thus (g) Pag. 146. If any Priest shall thinke that he ought to appeale beyond the sea meaning to Rome let him not be receaued any longer into the communion of the Church of Africke You reply (h) Pag. 155. that this answeare is a sophistry confuted by the consequence of the Councell for if inferior Clergy were prohibited much more was the same prouision made in behalfe of Bishops This consequence we deny as false sophistry for albeit they proposed this among their requests to Pope Celestine yet they made no decree nor prouision therof nor if they had cold it haue bene of force as being directly contradictory to the Canons of the two famous Councels of Nice and Sardica (i) See aboue Chap. 26. and also to the beliefe of S. Augustine saying (k) Ep. 162. that Cecilian might haue appealed beyond the sea because he was not of the number of Priests or other inferior Clerkes but of Bishops And moreouer he represented to Celestine Pope (l) Ep. 261. that wheras Antony B. of Fussala being depriued of his Bishoprick by the Bishops of Africa and left only with the bare title of Bishop had appealed to Boniface his predecessor he would be pleased to confirme the sentence of the Bishops of Africa because sayth he there had bene many like sentences in Africa euen the See Apostolike pronouncing the iudgmēt or confirming the iudgment of others as of Priscus Victor and Lawrence Bishops of the Cesarian Prouince SECT V. Whether this Controuersy of Appeales wrought in the Africans any separation of Communion from the Roman Church TO make your argument more plausible you say (m) Pag. 148. that by reason of this controuersy between the Africans and the Bishops of Rome Aurelius B. of Carthage his fellow Bishops of Africk with whom S. Augustine did consent were for the space of an hundred yeares separated frō the Church of Rome Of all the vntruths vttered in this your discourse of the sixt Councell of Carthage this is the greatest which therfore you haue reserued to the last place Finis coronat opus For that the African Fathers euen of this sixth Councell of Charthage during the very tyme of this controuersy remained still vnited to the See of Rome is proued 1. By the clause of their Epistle written to Pope Celestine in the end of this controuersy (n) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 646. Our Lord keepe your Holinesse many yeares praying for vs Lord and Brother which were the very worlds of peace and communion vsed in Formed letters that were neuer giuen to any but to Catholikes of the same communion (o) Aug. ep 162.163 2. Out of S. Augustine who in the current of this difference writing to Boniface Pope dedicating one of his chiefest workes vnto him sayd (p) Cont. duas ep Pelag. ad Bonifa l. 1. Thou disdainest not thou who art not high minded though thou presidest higher to be a friend of the humble 3. Out of the testimony which Pope Celestine gaue of S. Augustine after his death (q) Ep. ad Epise Galliae c. 2. Augustine a man of holy memory for his lyfe merits we haue had alwaies in our communion nor hath the rumor of any sinister suspicion euer so much as touched him which Epistle of Celestine to the French is alleaged by Pettus Diaconus (r) L. de incarn grat and by Prosper (s) Cont. Collat c. 42. to iustify S. Augustines doctrine against the Pelagians 4. And the same Prosper (t) L. de promiss predict par 3. c. 38. calles Aurelius Archbishop of Carthage vnder whom the African Councell was held after his death A Father and Bishop of worthy memory and a Citizen of the heauenly country which praise he would not haue giuen him if he had died out of the communion of the Roman Church for Prosper in that very booke (u) Part. 4. c. 5. sayth that a Christian communicating with that Church is a Catholike but if he be separated from it he is an heretike and Antichrist 5. Capreolus immediat successor to Aurelius writing to the Bishops assembled in the Councell of Ephesus (x) Act. Conc. Ephes to 2. c. 9. Wee pray you
so wholly destitute of an vniuersall gouernor on earth that the elergy of Rome may not in many things supply his place as you may learne from S. Cyprian who in sundry occasions aduised with the Clergy of Rome witnesse his epistles to them (d) L. 3. ep 5. 21. l. 5. ep 4. 5. and theirs to him (e) L. 2. ep 7. l. 5. ep 13. But here (f) Pag. 346. you take occasion to calummitate Bellarmine for saying that by the Keyes which Christ gaue to S. Peter and in him to his Successors in vnderstood the principality of Ecclesiasticall power ouer all the Church that when the Pope dieth this power remaineth not formally in the Church excepting only so farre forth as it is communicated to the inferior Ministers but immediatly in the hands of Christ. And when a new Pope is chosen the Keyes are nether brought by him nor giuen to him by the Church but by Christ and this not by a new donation but by the ancient institution for when he gaue them to Peter he gaue them to all his Successors These are Bellarmines words which you cut from the example he addeth for the explanation of his doctrine that you may haue occasion to exclame against him and scoffe saying (g) Ibid. O depth of delusion Will you see a Iugler Yes we see him but too perfectly in Doctor Thomas Morton for doth not Bellarmine say It happeneth in this case as if a King when he makes a Vice-Roy of any Countrey should declare his pleasure to be that the Vice-Roy being dead they should nominate another and that he granteth vnto him now the same power he gaue to his Predecessor What depth of delusion or what iuggling do you find in this case And is not the other wholly like to this And doth not Bellarmine declare it with this very example Wherfore your question (h) Ibid. Whether the keyes of S. Peter do indeed fly into heauen at the death of euery Pope though you make it forsooth to shew your selfe acute and witty is God wot a silly conceipt to which that renowned Doctor Theodorus Studites hath answeared (i) Ep. de imagin saying that when we speake of keeping Peters Keyes at Rome it is not to be vnderstood that Christ gaue any materiall Keyes to him but only that by his mouth he gaue him power to bind and loose And as it is a poore conceipt so it is a cauill to which your selfe must answere in the other example of temporall power for tell vs Do then indeed the Vice-Royes keyes when he dieth fly to the Kings Court But you goe on asking (k) Pag. 346. What power then is it which remaineth formally in the inferior Ministers of the Church at the death of the Pope If it be the Keyes of Principality then is euery inferior Priest a Pope If it be the Keyes only of Order and absolution then shall it not be lawfull for any Bishop to exercise any power of iurisdiction by precept or punishing by excommunication during all the time of the Vacancy So you either not vnderstanding or wittingly concealing Bellarmines doctrine for doth he acknowledge no Ecclesiasticall power but only of principality ouer the whole Church which is proper to the Pope or els of Order and Absolution which is common to euery Priest Doth he not with all Catholike Diuines hold that euery Bishop besides his power to absolue in the inward Court of Conscience hath also power of externall iurisdiction to gouerne and command his Diocesans and inflict punishment vpon them by excommunication and other Ecclesiasticall censures according to the measure of their offences And doth he not sufficiently expresse this power when speaking of the Popes authority ouer the Church he sayth that the Pope being dead it still remaineth in the Church so farre forth as it is committed to inferior Ministers which are the Bishops and other Pastors vnder the Pope And by this it appeares how vntruly you adde (l) Pag. 347. that Bellarmine is driuen forsooth by this your subtle Argument into a most vncouth and extreme corner where neuer any ancient Father before him set so much as the least print of his shoo This you proue (m) Ibid. out of Binius whom you make to say that in the Inter-regnum or vacancy betweene the death of Pope Agapetus and his Successor there was called a generall Councell at Constantinople which is an Act proper to the Papall primacy But as in the rest so in this you want fidelity for Binius sayth not that this Councell was generall but directly the contrary to wit that it consisted of such Bishops only as were neare to Constantinople and some others which at that time were resident in the city Wherfore it was no generall but a particular Councell in which Menas presided not as Vicar of the See Apostolike as Binius mistaketh but only as Patriarke of Constantinople And much lesse did any Legates of the Pope preside with him for albeit the Italian Bishops which had bene Legates to Pope Agapetus assisted at the Councell yet they assisted not as his Deputies for their legation was finished and their commission expired before that time by the arriuall and especially by the death of Agapetus at Constantinople but for honors sake and as Exlegates and not as Legates It is not therfore Bellarmine but you that are driuen into such an vncouth and extreme corner that you haue no way to get out but by fathering on Binius your owne fiction of a generall Councell which Binius neuer dreamed of and which is yet worse by contradicting your selfe for before (n) Pag. 238. lin 11. you had said that this was not a generall Councell These then are your words The Councell vnder Menas was a generall Councell The Councell vnder Menas was not a generall Councell Agree them It resteth therfore that according to Bellarmines Tenet a generall Councell which hath authority to decide controuersies of fayth cannot be called without the Popes authority you hauing not bene able to produce any one example or proofe to the contrary but only your ignorant mistake of a particular Councell for a generall SECT IV. Whether the Roman Church haue at any time a false Head YOur assertion is affirmatiue for proofe you remit vs to your former argumēt already answeared to which you adde heere (o) Pag. 349. init that God neuer ordained a Head no bigger then of a wren to stand vpon the sholders of a man and so litle in respect is one Bishop of one City of Rome to be set ouer the Church vniuersally dispersed throughout the whole world But you confider not that the Church of Christ being the most perfect of all common wealthes ought to haue the most perfect gouerment which is Monarchicall S. Cyptian (p) De vnit Eccl. Optatius (q) L. 2. cont Parmen and S. Hierome (r) L. 1. cont Iouin haue taught that our Sauiour made