and to the publike tranquillity of the common vveale Now let the indifferent reader consider vvhether there be any one word in this supposed letter that carrieth meate in mouth as they say to feede the Protestants faith so that here is an ancient and reuerend Fathers letter cited to no purpose But M. Abbot saith that now a-daies not the King but the Pope is Gods Vicar and his Vicar general for al Kingdomes True it is the Pope is Gods Vicar in al Christian Kingdomes Sext. proem in glossa though there be not one vvord of any such matter in the glosse cited by him but that is in Ecclesiastical matters vvhich nothing hindereth but that the King is also Gods Vicar in temporal affaires for he may be called a Vicar that doth Vicem gerere alterius that is another mans Deputy Lieutenant or Substitute One King may haue many Vicars that is substitutes or deputies to whom he committeth some principal charge King Henry the eight for example hauing giuen him by the Parliament supreme power in both Ecclesiastical and Temporal causes had one Vicar for spiritual causes and many other for the temporal so God hath the Bishop of Rome for Christes Vicar general in causes of the Church and Kinges in the administration of the common vveale And the very Canon cited by M. Abbot would haue taught him so much if he had read it vvith a minde to learne the truth rather then to sucke out some matter of cauil out of it Distinct 96. Si Imperator for therein be these wordes The Emperour hath the priuiledges of his power which he obtained of God for the administration of publike lawes Marke here the Pope acknowledgeth the Emperour to be Gods Deputy and Vicar in the administration of the common lawes vvhich in the Canon that goeth next before is confirmed for there Gelasius an ancient Pope speaketh thus to Anastatius the Emperour Ibidem duo sunt There be two thinges ô Sacred Emperour wherewith this world is principally gouerned to wit the holy authority of Bishops and the power of Princes These two then be both Gods Substitutes and Vicars the one for spiritual causes the other for temporal wherefore M. Abbot reasoneth very childishly vvhen he goeth about to proue that we deny the King to be Gods Vicar because we teach the Pope to be Gods Vicar for vve hold that they both be Gods Vicars though in distinct and different matters Neither lastly can he take any aduantage of the word gouerne if it be in that letter for King Lucius demand was for the Imperial lawes to gouerne the temporal state of his realme vvherefore it is euident that he spake there of temporal gouernement and not of spiritual Now because the maine question is whether Kings haue authority ouer Bishops in Ecclesiastical causes or Bishops ouer Kinges let vs heare some two or three of S. Peter and S. Paules Successours M. Abbots owne vvitnesses deliuer their knowledge thereof The first shal be the same learned and holy Pope Gelasius last named he affirmeth in the same Epistle vvhich vvas written to the Emperour himselfe that the authority of Bishops in spiritual causes doth extend it selfe ouer Kinges and Emperours these be his vvordes Distinct 96. Duo sunt Thou knowest ô Emperour thy selfe to depend on their judgements and that they cannot be reduced to thy wil and pleasure therefore many Bishops fortified with these ordinances and with this authority supported haue excommunicated some Kinges others Emperours And if a particular example be demanded of the persons of Princes blessed Innocentius the Pope did excommunicate the Emperour Archadius for consenting vnto the deposition of S. Iohn Chrisostome And blessed S. Ambrose though a holy Bishop yet not Bishop of the vniuersal Church for a fault that to others did not seeme so grieuous excommunicating Theodosius the great did shut him out of the Church c. Is not this plaine enough and directly to the purpose that Bishops haue power ouer Princes in Ecclesiastical causes and the authority of Gelasius is of such vvaight with M. Abbot shortly after that here he cannot gaine-say it vvith any honesty I vvil joine to him Anacletus vvhom M. Abbot also noteth the next who succeeded immediately after Clement S. Peters Scholler he saith expresly Epistola 1. prope finem That the Church of Rome receiued by our Sauiour Christes order the primacy and preeminence of power ouer al Churches and ouer the whole flocke of Christian people If then M. Abbot vvil allow that Kinges be any of Christes people the Pope hath authority ouer them S. Clement himselfe one of S. Paules Philip. 4. v. 3. coadjutors and whose name is in the booke of life hath left this vvritten among the constitutions of the Apostles Lib. 2. c. 11. Wherefore ô Bishop endeauour to excel in sanctity of workes knowing thy place and dignity thou art Gods Lieutenant and placed ouer al Lordes Priests Kinges and Princes Fathers Sonnes Masters and al Subjects joined together Ibid. cap. 33. And in the same booke touching by the vvay the dignity of Bishops repeateth these memorable wordes out of holy Scripture spoken to Moyses as a King Bishop Exod. 7. v. 1. Ecce constitui to Deum Pharaonis Behold I haue created thee the God of Pharao vvho was King of the land of Aegipt vvhere both Moyses and al the children of Israel then liued see the dignity of a Bishop aboue his owne King And the 38. chapter of the same booke of Clement is formally intituled That Priests are more excellent then Kinges and Princes And finally that the gouernement of the whole Church was committed to Bishops that vessel of election S. Paul is a sufficient witnesse vvho saith Act. 20. v. 28. Take heede to your selues and to the whole flocke wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his owne bloud If then M. Abbot wil allow that Kinges be any of Christs flocke and that he purchased them with his bloud they are to be ruled by Bishops who are placed by the holy Ghost to rule the whol◠flocke of Gods Church Hitherto comparing the Bishop of Rome with temporal Princes I haue proued the prerogatiue of Ecclesiastical gouernement to appertaine to the Bishops Now a word or two of the preeminence of the Church and See of Rome ouer al other Churches vvhich shal be briefly verified euen by the testimony of some of the most ancient and most holy successours of S. Peter and S. Paul to whom M. Abbot attributes so much The afore named Anacletus who succeeded next after their owne Disciple S. Clement hauing shewed that al Ecclesiastical causes belong to Bishops euen as temporal causes doe to the temporal Magistrate Epistola 1. ad omnes Ecclesias addeth that if more difficult questions shal arise as the judgements of Bishops and greater causes let them if any appeale be made
hundreths al his Majesties Ancestors both English and Britans embraced and maintained the same Catholike Roman faith which we now doe The same might as easily be proued of the Churches of Scotland vvho acknowledge Palladius and Patritius for two of the chiefe founders of the Christian faith in that country vvho both were brought vp at Rome and sent into Scotland by Celestinus Bishop of Rome to instruct the Scots in the doctrine of the church of Rome euen as Augustine vvas from S. Gregory into England From which the Scots Church neuer swarued vntil of late yeares Knoxe Buchanan and such like giddy-headed and fiery spirited fellowes seduced them And M. Abbot most ignorantly or impudently affirmeth it to haue beene 1200 yeares after the incarnation of Christ ere the Popes authority could get any acknowledgment there for in the very same hundreth yeare by him named they vvere so farre off from denying the Popes authority ouer them in causes Ecclesiastical that they did acknowledge him to be also their Protectour in temporal affaires For when King Edward the third would haue giuen them Iohn Balial for their King they answered him Walsingham in vita Edw. Anno 1292. That they would not accept of him for such without the Popes consent who had their country in protection as they then pleaded And M. Abbots argument to the contrary is most friuoulous Alexander the King bade the Popes Legate to enter his country at his peril ergo he did not acknowledge the Popes authority By the like argument one might proue that King Philippe and Queene Mary did not acknowledge the Popes authority for they commanded a Legate of his to stay at Calis and to forbeare entrance into this Realme at his peril The Popes Legates then when they be sent about affaires that doe seeme to the Prince and his Councel prejuditious to the temporal state may be refused without disparagement to the Popes supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical And the King of Scots had reason to refuse that Cardinal Legate whose special arrand was to collect mony to maintaine the warres of the holy Land vvhich was not to be spared in his country Besides the very entertainement of such a great State so accompanied was reputed as needlesse so ouer costly for that poore country If M. Abbot haue no better stuffe then this to vphold his badde cause he that best knew his owne meaning and designement hath to the life painted out himselfe where he saith They care not indeede what they say or write so that it may carry a magnifical and braue shew to dazel the eies of them that are not wel acquainted with their lewde and naughty dealing ROBERT ABBOT BVT M. Bishop being out of doubt that he should not preuaile in this first part of his sute therefore addeth the second Or if you cannot be wonne so soone to alter that religion in which it hath beene your misfortune to haue beene bredde and brought vp that then in the meane season you wil not so heauily persecute the sincere professours of the other Where you see the presumption of a base and beggerly vassal I forget here that he is a Doctor of diuinity I consider him as a subject thus to vpbraide his Prince vvith misfortune in his breeding and bringing vp whereas his Majesties bringing vp by the singular prouidence of almighty God hath serued to make him high admirable among other Princes and he hath learned thereby to be indeede a King by casting off the yoke of bondage vvhereby sundry other Princes are enthralled to a beast Yea and by his bringing vp is so wel able to defend the religion he professeth that M. Bishop must stand before him like a dumbe Asse able to say nothing but only to repeate their old cuckowes song The Church the Church The Fathers the Fathers albeit he can make nothing good neither by Church nor Fathers But his sute is that his Majesty vvil leaue off so heauily to persecute them complaining before he haue cause and intreating his Majesty to leaue off before he hath begunne And doth he like a dissembling hypocrite talke of heauy persecution only for an easie imprisonmēt and amersement of goodes vvhen they in most barbarous and cruel sort by infinite vexations and torments by rackes and strappadoes by fire and sword haue spilt and destroied the bloud and liues of so many thousandes of ours only for the profession of the Gospel of Christ but no otherwise doe they complaine of persecution then did of old the Donatists and runnegate Circumcellions And vve say of them as S. Augustine did of the others They suffer persecution Sed pro fatuitate pro vanitate but it is for their foolery Prouerb 22. vers 25. it is for vanity Foolishnesse is bound in the hart of a child saith Salomon but the rodde of correction shal driue it away from him Indeede they doe for the most part play the children it is but their wil or rather vvilfulnesse for which they suffer they can giue no reason why they doe so but what ignorance affordeth them They must follow the Church they wil doe as their fathers and fore-fathers haue done it is fit that a childes stomacke be subdued vvith a rodde and necessary that some course be taken for the subduing and reforming of their wil. WILLIAM BISHOP M. ABBOT concludeth this his clowdy and vvindy Section with a storme of railing calling me in it dumbe Asse dissembling Hipocrite base and beggarly Vassal This last name he giueth me because I shewe my selfe sorry for that it vvas his Majesties misfortune to be bredde and brought vp in the Protestants religion great cause you see vvas giuen him to burst out into so rude and bitter wordes But to qualify this clownish tricke he addeth the excuse of a country Coridon rather indeede accusing then excusing himselfe for why did he forget that I was a Doctor in diuinity or how did he forget it that euen then so wel remembred it He would not forsooth respect it here but by a metaphysical abstraction consider me only as a subject wherein he discouereth a double folly for first who seeth not that any man of neuer so great vvorship or honour may in like sort be called a base vassal if his dignity and degree be excepted Might not M. Abbot himselfe if one should forget his calling and learning be stiled in like manner a base beggarly vassal vvherefore this figure of his may rather be tearmed rustical then rethorical And had he not also forgotten himselfe to be a Doctor in diuinity yea a man of ordinary ciuility he would not haue plaied the part of a furnish and foule-mouthed butterwench by falling into such rude tearmes of scurrillity His second ouer-sight is more queasie and dangerous for if I be a base vassal in that I am a subject then is my Soueraignes honour called in question for none be base in that they are subjects vnlesse their Soueraignes be so meane and obscure
and honour of the See of the most blessed Apostle Peter being preserued inuiting vs also by his letters to assist in person at this reuerend Councel which neither the necessity of the time nor any custome could permit howbeit in our bretheren Paschasius and Lucentius Bishops Bonifacius and Basilius Priests your brother-hood hath me President in your Synode c. these wordes of S. Leo ouerthrow at once al M. Abbots vveake forces for the Emperours supremacy First he declareth that he liked of the Emperours not commandement but counsel and aduise of calling of a Councel marry so to that it be not taken to derogate aught from the right honor of the See of Rome vvithout vvhose sentence according to the ancient Canons no Councel could be celebrated then that the Emperour had no power to command him to come to that Councel and lastly that he in his Legates and not the Emperour was President in that general Councel But to stay yet a while in this matter of calling the Councel for further assurance that the Popes letters and authority did principally moue al Catholike Bishops to meete in general Councels take first their owne declaration therof in formal tearmes thus spake the Fathers assembled in the second general Councel which vvas the first holden at Constantinople in their letters to Pope Damasus Theodoret. hist l. 5. c. 9. By the commandement of letters sent the last yeare by your reuerence vnto the most royal Emperour Theodosius we vndertooke the journey euen to Constantinople And in the Councel of Chalcedon the Bishops of Maesia vvriting vnto the Emperour Leo doe say That many holy Bishops met together in the Citty of Chalcedon Habetur inter Epistolas pertineÌ„tes ad Concil Chal. Per jussionem Leonis Romani Pontificis qui verè caput est Episcoporum By the commandement of Leo Bishop of Rome who is truly the head of Bishops Ioyne hereto the testification of the Emperour Martianus himselfe being one of M. Abbots owne witnesses thus writeth that Godly Emperour In Epist eius praefixa Concil Chalced. ad Leon. PoÌ„t Being called by the prouidence of God to the Empire c. we for the venerable Catholike religion of the Christian faith c. haue thought good in the beginning thereof to speake by our letters to your Holinesse who hold the principality in the Bishoply function of the same Godly faith requesting your Holinesse to remember in your praiers the good estate of our Empire and that also for the extirpation of al wicked errour we may fully purpose to restore vnity and concord among al Catholike Bishops in celebrating of a Councel Te authore by your authority or you being the Authour thereof What can be more manifest then that this most Godly Emperour did agnize and confesse the principal authority of calling general Councels to appertaine vnto the Bishop of Rome whom he professed also to be the supreme Pastour of the vniuersal Church to whom afterward he sent the same Councel when it was ended to haue his confirmation of it as you shal heare anone Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 13. Zozâ—m l. 3. cap. 9. Tripart l. 4. cap. 9. Niceph. l. 9. cap. 5. Al which is exceedingly fortified by an ancient Canon of the Church vrged by Pope Iulius vvho liued an hundred yeares before S. Leo and is recorded by al the approued Ecclesiâ—stical Historiographers for a most ancient and inuiolable rule in Christian religion to wit that no general Councel be holden Praeter sententiam Romani Pontificis besides or without the consent and sentence of the Bishop of Rome thus farre about the authority of calling general Councels Now to that which followeth in M. Abbot Who was President in those general Councels M. Abbot affirmeth the Emperor to haue the Presidency thereof and for proofe alleageth only the example of Constantius the fourth Who saith he was President of the sixt Synode holden in Trullo To which I answere that the penurious man sheweth himselfe very naked and needy of some proofes that is compelled to ouer-leape fiue of the first general Councels and to fal to the yeare 675. after Christ before he can finde out one Emperour that did obtaine the name of President in a Councel To vvhich also I picke an answere out of the Epistle of the Chalcedon Councel vvhich vvas more then two hundred yeares ancienter then the other vnto Pope Leo thus it is there Quibus tu quidem vt caput praeeras in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem Imperatores verò decentissimi ad ornandum praesidebant c. Ouer which Bishops there assembled thou ô Leo wast by them that held thy ranke President as the head is to the rest of the members c. but the Emperours were Presidents most comely to adorne that assembly Where you see two kinde of Presidents in the Councel the Pope in his Legates as the head is ouer the members the Emperour to honour and grace the Assembly And therefore to the Popes Legates it did appertaine principally to propose argue determine and define the questions there debated discussed to vvhich also they did set their handes in the first place To the Emperor it did belong to see due order kept in the Councel vvhere vvere many vvily and vnruly Heretikes that al thinges might be examined quietly and without perturbation or tumult determined who also in the end subscribed after al the Bishops and their Substitutes consentiens consenting imbracing and approuing the same not determining or defining as may be seene in the 18. Action of the said sixt general Councel cited by M. Abbot To make this distinction more perspicuous and certaine let vs heare some Emperours of those daies declare themselues vvhat they did at those general Councels Theodosius the younger sent for his Legate vnto the third general councel holden at Ephesus the Earle Candidianus vvhat to be President there in his place nothing lesse no not so much as to entermeddle in any Ecclesiastical matters but only ad Synodi defensionem to defend the Councel Ex eius Epist ad Synod Ephes In oratione sua ad Synodum The Emperour Martianus was present in his owne person at the fourth Councel kept at Chalcedon where he sheweth what is the proper office of a good Emperour Our endeauour must be saith he to apply the people to the one right Church being first perswaded the true and holy doctrine And therefore let your reuerences expound and declare the true and Catholike faith according to the doctrine of the Fathers in al vnity and concord c. Valentinian the elder being requested to be present at a Councel holden betweene the Catholikes and the Arrians answered Hist 1. Tripart lib. 7. cap. 12. That it was not lawful for him being but a lay person to examine Ecclesiastical matters but the Priests to whom they did belong might meete together among themselues when they pleased and determine of them Of Constantine the great I
beene supreme gouernour of Christes Church To vvhich fallacy it is most easie to answere First that albeit the Patriarke of Constantinople could not so cal himselfe in a lawful good meaning but proudly and wickedly because he had his jurisdiction limited vvithin the boundes of his owne Patriarkship had nothing to doe with any other churches that vvere vvithout it so that his power was in no sence vniuersal that is spred ouer al the world yet this name might in some good sence notwithstāding haue beene giuen vnto the Bishop of Rome as S. Gregory himselfe in one of the same Epistles vvhich M. Abbot citeth doth intimate For vvriting to the Patriarke of Alexandria he saith Lib. 4. Epist 36. Your Holinesse knoweth that by the Councel of Chalcedon vvhich vvas one of the foure first general Councels most highly esteemed off by S. Gregory this name of vniuersallity was offered to me as Bishop of the Apostolike See for as he testifieth Epist 32. of the same booke that name was in honour of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles attributed by many in that Councel vnto the Bishop of Rome yet saith he none of my Predecessours consented to vse it because verily if one Patriarke be called vniuersal the other are made no Patriarkes at al. Briefly then to dispatch this great matter that name vniuersal as it was challenged by Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople who had no right to it in any good sence was presumptuous peruerse and prophane in vvhich consideration S. Gregory so tearmed it Neither vvould he nor any of his predecessours vse that name though in that sence that they had charge and command ouer the vniuersal Church it might haue beene attributed to them yet because it was subject to another construction to wit that the Bishop of Rome was the only truly proper Bishop of euery Diocesse and other named Bishops were not true and proper Bishops there of but the vniuersal Bishops Vicars Suffraganes and Substitutes therefore they vtterly auoided that name as matter of jealousie and scandal choosing the humble stile of seruus seruorum Dei The seruant of Gods seruants For the further satisfaction of the learned reader I wil proue out of S. Gregory in the very same place quoted by M. Abbot both that he wrote against the name of vniuersal Bishop in the later sence And that notwithstanding he refused that name yet that he acknowledged and taught the Bishop of Rome to haue supreme authority ouer al the Church of Christ Touching the first the wordes before alleaged out of his 36. Epistle Lib. 4. Epist 36. doe demonstrate so much to wit If one Patriarke be called vniuersal the other are made no Patriarkes at al vvhich can haue no other sence then that the calling of one Patriarke or Bishop Vniuersal doth signifie him so to be a Bishop in euery place that no other besides him can be truly and properly called Bishop but must be his Vicar and Subdelegate The like saith he in his 34. Epistle to the Emperesse Lib. 4. Epist 34. That his brother and fellow Bishop Iohn striued to be called Bishop alone And in the 7. booke and 69. Epistle to Eusebius he saith Si vniuersalis est restat vt vos Episcopi non sitis If one Bishop be vniuersal it remaineth that you be no Bishops This then is most certaine that S. Gregory spake against the name of Vniuersal Bishop taken in this sence that he was so a Bishop as no other but he could be Bishop in any place Marry if we vnderstand by it one man to haue the general charge of al the Churches in the vvorld yet so as there be also Bishops and Archbishops his brothers who haue the particular and proper gouernement of their seueral Diocesse then S. Gregory telleth vs plainely that S. Peter and his Successours the Bishops of Rome were such these be his wordes Lib. 4. Epist 76. It is manifest to al that know the Gospel that the charge of the whole Church was by our Lordes owne mouth committed to S. Peter Prince of al the Apostles And againe in the same Epistle Behold Peter receiued the keies of the Kingdome of heauen the power of binding and loosing is giuen to him the charge and principality of the whole Church is committed to him vvhich is also repeated in one of the Epistles cited by M. Abbot Lib. 4. Epist 32. And that by S. Peter this vniuersal charge and authority was left vnto the Bishops and See of Rome no man can vvitnesse it more manifestly then S. Gregory hath done First hauing proued out of the word of God S. Peters supremacy he adjoyneth Lib. 6. Epist 201. Therefore though there were many Apostles yet for the principality it selfe the only seate of the Prince of the Apostles hath preuailed in authority As farre as the See Apostolike is euidently knowne to be set ouer al Churches by the authority of God So farre amongst other manifold cares that doth greatly occupy vs when for the consecration of a Bishop our sentence is expected Againe Lib. 2. Epist 69. Lib. 7. Epist 64. For whereas he the Patriarke of Constantinople acknowledgeth himselfe to be subject vnto the Apostolike See of Rome I know not what Bishop is not subject vnto it Moreouer What thing soeuer shal be done in that Councel without the authority and consent of the See Apostolike it is of no strength and vertue Whereas on the other side he saith Those thinges that are once ratified Lib. 7. Epist 69. by the authority of the See Apostolike neede no further strength or confirmation If any man desire to see how S. Gregory himselfe practised that soueraigne authority ouer al the parts of the Christian world let him but reade his Epistles and he shal finde it most perspicuously Magdeburg Centur. 6. In Indice verbo Gregorius euen as their owne great writers of the Centuries doe testifie directing them to the places in his workes where they shal finde the same How devoide then was M. Abbot of al good conscience and honest dealing that vvould vnder the colour of his writing against the name of vniuersal in that sence perswade the simple that S. Gregory vtterly misliked of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Now because that S. Gregory hath beene alwaies highly esteemed and greatly respected of both Latin and Greeke Church for his singular holynes and learning and was besides the principal cause vnder God of the conuersion of vs English-men vnto the Christian faith I wil note out of his workes summarily what was his opinion of many of the questioned points of faith betweene the Protestants and vs because M. Abbot citeth him against vs that euery one may see vvhat religion was first planted amongst vs English-men and continued for a thousand yeares Of the Supremacy and Merit of good workes hath beene spoken already Concerning the sacrifice of the Masse it was daily offered vp to God in his age
wit to take special order that God almighty be truly and sincerely serued for Kinges may and ought to doe that though they be not supreme gouernours in causes Ecclesiastical For albeit it belong not to them to declare the true sence of al questioned places of holy Scriptures nor to determine al doubts rising in diuinity nor briefly to performe such other functions as are proper to the supreme Gouernour of Christes Church yet his Majesty might haue called together the most learned of his subjects of al sides and haue heard vvhich of them could best haue proued their doctrine to haue beene most conformable to the sacred word of God to Apostolical traditions to most ancient general Councels to the vniforme consent of the most holy and best learned Doctors of the primitiue Church and accordingly to haue embraced the same himselfe and by his Princely authority to haue established the same throughout al his Dominions It remaineth then euident That his Majesty might haue taken special order for the true seruice of God notwithstaÌ„ding he haue not supreme authority in Ecclesiastical causes And most false is this assertion of M. Abbots that any law of the Pope doth inhibite him to deale so farre-forth in matters of religion that Canon which he citeth doth only forbidde lay-Magistrates Distinct 96. Si Imperator to meddle with the ordering and judging of Priests and Clarkes and such other Ecclesiastical officers as doe properly belong to Bishops But that Kinges ought to meddle in matters of religion and how farre-forth they ought S. Leo the first a most famous Pope doth in these memorable vvordes declare You must ô Emperour without doubt know Epist 75. ad Leo. August that Kingly power is giuen to you not only for the rule of the world but is principally bestowed vpon you for the defence and aide of the Church that by suppressing wicked attempts you may both defend that which is established and also pacifie those thinges which are troubled But of this point I shal haue occasion presently to speake more at large It followeth ROBERT ABBOT AS touching the reason also vvhich he alleageth why Princes should take special order that God be rightly serued Because of his meere bounty and grace they receiue and hold their Diademes and Princely Scepters The Pope denieth that they hold the same immediately from God but are to receiue them by his mediation and approbation and no longer to hold them then they conforme themselues to his lawes Bulla Pij 5. Ecce nos constituti sumus super gentes regna c. Behold saith the Pope we are set ouer nations and kingdomes to build vp and to plant to pul vp and to destroy c. And therefore what the wisdome of God saith as M. Bishop alleageth by me Kings raigne the same the Pope blasphemously applieth to himselfe Prouerb 8. vers 15. Per me Râ—ges regnant By me Kings doe raigne thus the Pope would haue Princes as very beasts as Nabuchodonoser was not to know of whom they hold their crownes and kingdomes but to thinke that al dependeth vpon him But M. Bishop acknowledgeth here the truth that of God they hold the same and therefore should make it their special care that the same God be honoured accordingly And here vnawares he justifieth our doctrine as touching the Princes supreme authority for the gouernement of our Church the effect whereof we teach to be this to prouide by lawes and to take special order that God be purely and vprightly serued that Idolatry and superstition be remoued that the vvord of God be truly and sincerely taught that the sacraments be duly administred and the Bishops and Pastors diligently performe the seruice and duty that doth appertaine vnto them that the commandements of God be not publikely and scandalously broken for these things we acknowledge the King to be vnder Christ the supreme gouernour of the church within his Dominions and this duty M. Bishop confesseth to appertaine vnto him And thus did the good Kinges of Iudah Dauid Ezechias Iosias c. thus haue Christian Emperours and Princes done thus and no otherwise did Queene Elizabeth and yet for the doing hereof shee was proscribed by the Pope and so much as in him lay depriued of her Crowne and Scepter but the hand of God was with her and shee prospered thereby and died in peace c. WILLIAM BISHOP I Doe many times much muse how men of any sort and fashion specially how professors of Gods truth such as M. Abbot would be esteemed dare put into light such odde paltry shifts and poure out together such heapes of grosse lies A lie it was that I denied to his Majesty such authority as would serue for the taking order how God might be rightly serued in his realme Another lie it is that the Popes lawes doe inbibite Kinges to meddle with matters of religion A third that I affirmed Kinges to hold their crownes immediately from God vvhich though it be true in that sence he taketh it yet is it false that I so said in that place for I meddle not with those tearmes of immediately or mediately The fourth is that the Pope denieth Princes to hold their Diademes and Princely authority immediately from God but are to receiue them by his mediation for euen in the very Canon cited last before by himselfe the Pope acknowledgeth Distinct. 96. Si Imperator That Emperours and Kinges receiue from God the prerogatiue of their power vvhereupon the Glosse plainly noteth that they did not receiue their soueraigne authority from the Pope Which was also obserued in the Canon next before EadeÌ„ distiÌ„ct out of Pope Gelasius wordes And it is further the common opinion of al our Diuines vvherefore vnlesse this counterfait Diuine did meane here to lie for the whetstone I know not what he meant to huddle vp lies so thicke together euery one lowder then the other But saith he Pius Quintus writeth Eccenos constituti sumus super gentes regna Behold saith the Pope we are set ouer nations and kingdomes to build and to plant to plucke downe and to destroy c. therefore they apply to themselues that which the wisdome of God giueth to Kinges By me Kinges doe raigne This is the fift lie that he makes within the compasse of lesse then halfe a side for albeit the Pope vse the wordes spoken to the Prophet Hieremy Ecce nos constituti sumus c. yet doth he not those by King Salomon vttered in the person of Gods vvisdome vvhich M. Abbot deceitfully shuffleth in the place of the other Now the authority committed to the Prophet Hieremy did not make the King of Iuda to hold his crowne of him as al Diuines both Catholikes and Protestants doe grant wherefore though the same be yet remaining in the Church of God as it is not only granted by al Catholike Doctors but euen by the verdict of Caluin himselfe In cap. 10. Cor. vers
of their Church Wherevpon if you demand of a French Catholike of what Church he is his answere wil be that he is of the Catholike Roman Church where he addeth Roman to distinguish himselfe from al Sectaries vvho doe cal themselues somtimes Catholikes though most absurdly and to specifie that he is such a Catholike as doth wholy joine with the Roman Church in faith and religion Euen as the vvord Catholike was linked at first vvith Christian to distinguish a true Christian beleeuer from an Heretike according to that of Pacianus an ancient Authour Epistola ad Simphorian Christian is my name Catholike is my surname so now a daies the Epitheton Roman is added vnto Catholike to separate those Catholikes that joine with the Church of Rome in faith from other sectaries who doe sometimes cal themselues also Catholikes though very ridiculously because they be diuided in faith from the greatest part of the vniuersal world Out of the premises may be gathered that the Roman Church may wel signifie any Church that holdeth and maintaineth the same faith which the Roman doth whence it followeth that M. Abbot either dealt doubly vvhen he said the Roman Church to be a particular Church or else he must confesse himselfe to be one of those Doctors vvhom the Apostle noteth 1. Tim. 1. vers 7. For not vnderstanding what they speake nor of what they affirme Now to this his second sophistication The Roman Church by our rule is the head and al other Churches are members to it but the Catholike comprehendeth al ergo to say the Roman Church is the Catholike is to say the head is the whole body Here is first a mishapen argument by vvhich one may proue or disproue any thing for example I wil proue by the like that the Church of England is not Catholike thus The Church of England by their crooked rule is a member of the Catholike Church but the Catholike Church comprehendeth al where fore to say the English Church is the Catholike Church is to say a member is the whole body Besides the counterfait fashion of the argument there is a great fallacy in it for to omit Fallacia accidentis that vve say not the Church of Rome but the Bishop of Rome to be the head of the Church it is a foule fault in arguing as al Logitians doe vnderstand when one thing is said to be another by a metaphore to attribute al the properties of the metaphore to the other thing For example Christ our Sauiour is metaphorically said to be a Lion Apocal. 5. vers 5. Vicit Leo de tribu Iuda now if there hence any man would inferre that a Lion hath foure legges and is no reasonable creature ergo Christ hath as many or is not indued with reason he might himselfe therefore be wel taken for an vnreasonable and blasphemous creature Euen so must M. Abbot be vvho shifteth from that propriety of the metaphore bead which was to purpose vnto others that are cleane besides the purpose For as Christ vvas called a Lion for his inuincible fortitude so the Bishop of Rome is called the head of the Church for his authority to direct and gouerne the same but to take any other propriety of either Lion or Head when they be vsed metaphorically and to argue out of that is plainly to play the sophister Wherefore to conclude this passage M. Abbot hath greatly discouered his insufficiency in arguing by propounding argumēts that offend and be very vitious both in matter and forme and that so palpably that if young Logitians should stand vpon such in the paruies they would be hissed out of the schooles it must needes be then an exceeding great shame for a Diuine to vse them to deceiue good Christian people in matter of saluation And if after so great vaunts of giuing ful satisfaction to the reader and of stopping his aduersaries mouth that he should not haue a word to reply he be not ashamed to put such bables as these into print he cannot choose but make himselfe a mocking-stocke to the world surely his writinges are more meete to stoppe mustard-pots if I mistake not much then like to stoppe any meane schollers mouth ROBERT ABBOT IT is therefore a meere vsurpation whereby the Papists cal the Roman Church the Catholike and the very same that the Donatists of old did vse Aug. Ep. 48. They held the Catholike Church to beat Cartenna in Africa and the Papists hold it to be at Rome in Italy they would haue the Church to be called Catholike Ibid. breu collat 2. cap. dici 3. not by reason of the communion and society thereof through the whole world but by reason of the perfection of doctrine and sacraments which they falsly challenged to themselues the same perfection the Church of Rome now arrogateth to it selfe and wil therefore be called the Catholike Church Cōt Crescon grammat lib. 2. cap. 37. Epist 48. From Cartenna the Donatists ordained Bishops to other countries euen to Rome it selfe And from Rome by the Papists order must Bishops be authorised to al other churches They vvould be taken to be Catholikes for keeping communion with the Church of Cartenna and so the Papists vvil be counted Catholikes for keeping communion with the Church of Rome They held Ibidem that howsoeuer a man beleeued he could not be saued vnlesse he did communicate with the Church of Cartenna And the Papists hold that there is no saluation likewise but in communicating vvith the Church of Rome The Donatists vvere not so absurd in the one but the Papists are as absurd and ridiculous in the other WILLIAM BISHOP IN the former passage M. Abbot bestowed an argument or two raked out of the rotten rubbish of those walles to vse some of his owne wordes vvhich vvere before broken downe by men of our side Now he commeth to his owne fresh inuention as I take it for it is a fardle of such beggarly base stuffe and so ful of falshood and childish follies that any other man I vveene vvould not for very shame haue let it passe to the print It consisteth in a comparison and great resemblance that is betweene the old doating Donatists and the new presumptuous Papists if M. Abbot dreame not The Donatists saith he held the Catholike Church to be at Cartenna and the Papists doe hold it to be at Rome in Italy False on both sides because we doe not hold it to be so at Rome as they did at Cartenna for we hold it to be so at Rome as it is besides also dispersed al the world ouer they that it vvas wholy included vvithin the straight boundes of Cartenna in Mauritania and her confines so that whosoeuer was conuerted in any other country must goe thither to be purged from their sinnes as S. Augustine testifieth in expresse tearmes Epistola 48. in the very place by M. Abbot alleaged False also in the principal point that the
be referred vnto the See Apostolike Because the Apostles by the commandement of our Sauiour haue ordained that questions of greater difficulty shal alwaies be referred vnto the Apostolike See vpon which Christ built the whole Church saying vnto blessed Peter the Prince of the Apostles thou art Peter vpon this rocke wil I build my Church c. Anacletus his immediate successor Euaristus Pope Martir writing vnto the Bishops of Africke Epistola 1. ad Eccles Africanam speaketh thus Truly your charity following the rule of the wise hath chosen rather to referre vnto the See Apostolike as to the head what ought to be obserued in doubtful matters then to presume your selues by vsurpation and writing to the brethren in Aegipt Epistola 2. doth command certaine Bishops whom he resembleth to adulterers because they had intruded into other Bishops Citties to be cast out of those places and to be made infamous and depriued of al Ecclesiastical honours adjoining That if after these thinges so dispatched they should haue further complaint against them that matter were to be enquired out and to be determined by the authority of this holy See Note how these holy Popes that vvere so nigh vnto the Apostles taught it to belong vnto the See of Rome to determine of the causes of the Bishops of Afrike and Aegipt most remote from them And because the Apostle S. Paul willeth 2. Cor. 13. vers 2. euery word to stand in the mouth of two or three witnesses I vvil take for the third Alexander the first Pope and Martir who succeeded vnto Euaristus he is as plaine and formal in this cause as any of the rest these be his wordes Epist 1. omnibus orthodoxis It is related vnto the primacy of this holy and Apâ—stolike See vnto which the disposition of the highest cases and the affaires of al Churches are by our Lord committed as to the head c. and a little after Our Lord here appointed this holy See the head of the whole Church I omit here the verdict of al others herein because this very matter must be spoken off hereafter againe and againe these three most ancient graue and Godly Martirs al successours of S. Peter and S. Paul vpon whose authority M. Abbot here only insisteth vvil suffice to certifie the indifferent reader that euen from the Apostles daies the Bishop of Rome hath beene taken for supreme judge in al Ecclesiastical causes aswel in the East as West Church To finish this passage thou maist gentle reader by this little see what shamelesse shifts M. Abbot is forced to vse to make any coulourable shew out of antiquity for the lay Magistrates superiority in spiritual causes He is first driuen to cite an vnlearned an vnlikely and an Apocriphal letter of 1400. yeares old vpon the credit of men of our owne age and those most partial too on his owne side the letter bearing date also many yeares after the death of him that is supposed to be the authour of it and when al is done in the same vvorshipful letter there is not one pregnant proofe for any part of their doctrine lastly that his owne chosen witnesses doe deliuer vp most cleare euidence against himselfe he therefore that vvil giue judgement on his side must needes shew himselfe exceeding partial ROBERT ABBOT ANACLETVS Bishop of Rome Dist 1. Episcopus 2. peracta and after him Calixtus ordained that consecration being done al should communicate or else be excommunicated For so say they the Apostles did set downe and the holy Church of Rome obserueth But the Church of Rome that now is maketh it lawful for the Priest to receiue alone the people in the meane time standing gazing and looking on and the fight only must suffice them WILLIAM BISHOP HERE is nothing in manner worth the answering only the cosening deceitfulnesse of the man is to be displaied First Anacletus hath only De consecrat dist 1. Can. Episcopus that Deacons Subdeacons and other Ministers that in solemne feasts attend in holy vestiments vpon the Bishop whiles he doth sacrifice vnto God should in the same solemne feasts communicate or else be debarred of their Ecclesiastical places where is not one word of the lay peoples communicating And therefore that Canon is wholy besides the purpose sauing that it doth teach that then Bishops vsed to offer sacrifice vnto God and that the Clarkes did in holy vestiments serue them at Masse See the Canon and vvonder at the folly of the man In like manner doth the second Canon of Calixtus speake of Ecclesiastical persons that serue at Masse for so saith the Collector De consecrat dist 2. Can. peracta Ecclesiasticis liminibus careat Minister Let the Minister or he that serueth want Ecclesiastical place With which agreeth the glosse vpon the same Canon vvhich also is euident by the very Text for the punishment set downe is Ecclesiasticis carere liminibus To be shut out of the Ecclesiastical mens seates and places vvhich vvere no punishment to a lay man that was not before admitted into any such roome And as it may be seene in the said distinction Cap. Etsi non frequentius De consecrat dist 1. and Cap. Secularis Lay men were commanded about those times to communicate but thrife in the yeare at Easter Whitsontide and Christmasse Briefly here is nothing against the moderne practise of the Church of Rome for both they that solemnely serue at Masse on festiual daies doe receiue and no lay man is denied to communicate on any day either on those feasts or at any time else vvhen he vvil prepare himselfe thereto But to debarre Priests from seruing God in that most high degree be their deuotion and preparation neuer so good vntil they can get some company of the laity to communicate with them is without just cause to robbe God of his soueraigne honour to extinguish the working of his holy spirit in deuout soules and to defraude the whole flocke of the benefit of many most holy and effectual praiers not only of the Priests but also of the people vvho doe not with vs stand gazing on at the time of communion as M. Abbot prophanely conceiteth but humbly kneeling doe then pray most deuoutly and doe in spirit and desire communicate also Briefly there is not one sillable in those Canons sounding to the Protestant sence that Priests should not coÌ„municate if the Clarke or people joine not vvith them but only that the indeuout and slugglish Clarkes should be depriued of their places if vpon high feasts they did neglect to communicate with the Bishop or Pastor ROBERT ABBOT IVLIVS the Bishop of Rome disallowed intinctam Eucharistiam De consecrat 2. cum omne the dipping of the Eucharist the Sacrament of Christs body in the cuppe Because no witnesse thereof was brought out of the Gospel but there is mentioned the commending of the bread by it selfe and the cuppe by it selfe but
Sacrament or else M. Abbot doth fondly alleage his wordes against the real presence wherefore his later paraphrase is a meere trifle and a vaine shift See more of this man and matter in the question of the real presence Let vs proceede ROBERT ABBOT De consecrat dist 2. comperimus THE same Gelasius when he vnderstood that some receiuing only the portion of the sacred body of Christ did forbeare the cuppe of his sacred bloud did forbidde that superstition and willed that either they should receiue the Sacrament whole or be kept from the whole because the diuiding of one and the same mistery cannot come without great sacriledge But now the Church of Rome is so farre off from acknowledging the diuiding of that mistery to be sacriledge as that shee pretendeth to be moued with just causes reasons Concil Trid. Sess 5. Can. 2. such as Christ and his Apostles and the primitiue Church had neuer the vvit to consider off to administer the Sacrament to the people only in one kinde and pronounceth them accursed that say shee erreth in so doing WILLIAM BISHOP NOW we come to Gelasius the Pope indeede and by his very phrase related by M. Abbot you may plainely perceiue that he beleeued firmely the sacred body of Christ and his pretious bloud to be really present in the blessed Sacrament for thus he speaketh We haue found that certaine men hauing receiued the portion of the sacred body doe abstaine from the Chalice of the sacred bloud Neither doe his wordes fit M. Abbots turne for the peoples receiuing vnder one kinde for he speaketh of Priests that doe consecrate both together vvho therefore must receiue both together that he may be partaker of the sacrifice which he himselfe hath offered For as it is said in the Canon next before De consecrat dist 2. relatum est Quale erit illud sacrificium cui nec ipse sacrificans particeps esse dignoscitur what kinde of sacrifice is that whereof he that sacrificeth doth not participate Wherefore it is by al meanes to be obserued that how often the Priest doth sacrifice the body and bloud of our Lord IESVS Christ vpon the Altar so often he exhibite himselfe a partaker of the body bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. These wordes taken out of the Councel of Toledo goe immediately before those wordes which M. Abbot citeth and doe euidently shew that they are to be vnderstood of the Priest only that consecrateth the Sacrament as also the very title would haue told M. Abbot if he had beene disposed to take them right It is that the Priest ought not to receiue the body of Christ without his bloud So that here is not a vvord against the giuing the blessed body of Christ alone to the people But M. Abbot is forced like an euil Apothecary to take quid pro quo as they say one thing for another or else he should not be able to furnish his poore erring customers vvith any sort of pleasing drugges to feede their corrupt tast and grosse humours He doth by a parenthesis enterlace That Christ nor his Apostles nor the primitiue Church had euer the wit to consider any just cause of giuing the Sacrament in one kinde to the people vvhich is spoken too too like a blasphemer to touch our Sauiour Christ Iesus with lacke of vvit skil or due consideration who as diuers ancient Doctors doe testifie ministred the blessed Sacrament himselfe to two of his Disciples at Emaus vnder one only kinde of bread Luc. 24. vers 30. He tooke bread and blessed and brake and did reach it to them and their eies were opened and they knew him and he vanished out of their sight vvhere the circumstances August lib. 3. De consensu Euang. c. 25. Epist 59. ad Paul q. 8. Hier. in Epitaph Paulae of blessing breaking and giuing bread as he did at his last supper and the maruailous operation of it doe very probably proue it to haue beene the blessed Sacrament after which giuen in one kinde IESVS vanished out of their sight * Isichius lib. 2. in cap. 9. Beda in Theophil in eâ—m locum Lucae Opus imperfectuÌ„ in Mat. homil 17. In the Apostles time also very vsually the Sacrament vvas administred in one kinde They were perseuering in the doctrine of the Apostles and in communication of the breaking of bread and praiers vvhere breaking of bread being joined with preaching and praier doth conuince it to be spoken of the blessed SacrameÌ„t Againe saith S. Luke In the first of Sabaoth when we were assembled to breake bread Paul disputed with them c. This assembly vpon a Sonday furnished with S. Paules sermon must needes be to be made for the receiuing of the blessed Sacrament as a August Epist 86. Beda in illum locum S. Augustine and venerable Bede doe testifie In al which places following the expresse letter of the Scripture and the interpretation of many holy Fathers we haue warrant for the administration of the Sacrament to the people vnder one only kinde they then I hope vvanted not wit to know a cause of giuing the Sacrament in one kinde Lastly that in the primitiue Church the Sacrament was receiued vnder one kinde is most manifest by the testimony of b Tertull. lib. 2. ad Vxorâ—m Cyprian sermone de lapsis Ambros de obitu Satyri Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Ambrose and many others who declare how the Christians in those times of persecution carried to the sicke and reserued in their owne houses the blessed Sacrament viz. vnder the forme of bread to receiue it when they were in danger of torments or death for their more comfort and strengthning against those assaults Thus much by the way of administring the Sacrament vnder one kinde vnto the laity out of the practise of the primitiue Church the Apostles and our Sauiour himselfe in answere vnto M. Abbots parenthesis Now ere I take my leaue of this holy and most reuerend Pope Gelasius I vvil note briefly some branches of the Catholike faith which he doth formally deliuer to counterpoise those friuoulous objections vvhich M. Abbot haleth in obtorto collo as the Latin phrase is by the heeles out of his writinges First I haue declared out of him already Epist. ad Anast Imperat. In Epist ad Episcopos Daâ—daniae how that Bishops haue power and authority ouer Kinges and Emperours in Ecclesiastical causes so farre forth as to excommunicate them when vrgent cause so requireth He saith further That the Canons of the Church doe ordaine that from any part of the world appeale may be made to the See of Rome and that from it no man is suffered to appeale Againe That euery Church in the world doth know that the See of blessed Peter the Apostle hath right and power to loose and vnbinde that which is bound by the sentences of what Bishop soeuer as that See which hath lawful authority to judge
of al Churches Item In decreto de libris sacris Ecclesiasticis tom 2. Concil Distinct 15. Sancta Romana c. That the See Apostolike takes great heede that it be not stained with any touch of peruersity or any kinde of contagion Finally Gelasius assisted with seauenty other B shops doth declare the bookes of Wisdome Ecclesiasticus Tobias and of the Machabees to be Canonical Scripture and the Epistles Decretals of the ancient Bishops of Rome to be of sacred and sound authority and to be receiued vvith reuerence al vvhich the Protestants deny ROBERT ABBOT LEO Bishop of Rome speaking of the Martirs saith Epistola 81. That although the death of many Saints hath beene pretious in the Lordes sight yet the death of no innocent person hath beene the propitiation of the world that the righteous receiued crownes but gaue none and that the fortitude of the faithful haue growne examples of patience not gifts of righteousnesse that their deaths as they were seueral persons were seueral to euery of themselues and that none of them by his death paide the debt of any other man because it is only our Lord Iesus Christ in whom al were crucified al dead al buried al raised againe from the dead But now the Church of Rome hath changed that language and telleth vs that there are superabounding passions and satisfactions of the Saints Bellar. de Indulg l. 1. c. 2. Rhem. Annot. in col 1. v. 24 wherein they haue suffered more then is due for their owne sinnes vvhich doe serue to supply the necessity and want of others and that they doe thereby pay the debt of other men that hereof is growne a treasure in the Church of Rome which is to be dispensed and disposed by the Pope and that hence his Indulgences and pardons haue their ground WILLIAM BISHOP HERE are many vvordes of a right reuerend Father cited to smal purpose for the Church of Rome hath not yet changed one sillable of the same her old language Shee doth maintaine with S. Leo That no man how holy soeuer he were hath by his death or otherwise paid the ransome of any other mans sinnes or satisfied God for any one mortal sinne either of his owne or of any other mans but that it is Christ alone who with the price of his pretious bloud hath fully satisfied his Fathers justice for al and euery such deadly offence and for the eternal punishment which was due to the same and this is al that S. Leo teacheth Neuerthelesse we hold and that vvith S. Leo that after the guilt of such sinnes is through Christ released vs yet are we on our owne partes to endure some temporal punishment for the same offences by Christes order and appointment both to apply vnto vs the vertue of his owne sufferinges as also to make vs that are members of his body like vnto him our head Whereupon the Apostle saith Rom. 8. v. 17. That we be the sonnes of God and coheires with Christ Si tamen compatimur vt conglorificemur If yet we suffer with him that we may be glorified with him of this matter see more in the question of satisfaction This to be our doctrine M. Abbot could not be ignorant Page 118. because it is word by word deliuered euen by M. Perkins himselfe in that place Now that S. Leo vvas wel acquainted with such satisfactions as we on our partes are bound to make his learned workes doe yeeld plentiful testimony I wil cite but a place or two thus he answereth vnto Nicetus vvho did write vnto him to know how he should deale with some Christians vvho being taken prisoners of the Infidels had there among them polluted them selues with eating of meates offered vp to Idols Epist 77. c. 5. Let them saith Leo be purged with satisfaction of penance which is not so much to be weighed by length of time as by compunction of the hart And againe speaking of certaine Priests that were doing of penance he saith Wherefore such men as these who haue fallen Epist 99. ad Rusti cap. 2. must relieue themselues in priuate Ad promerendam misericordiam Dei To deserue the mercy of God Vt illis satisfactio si fuerit digna sit etiam fructuosa That the satisfaction may be fruitful to them if it be worthy that is if it be correspondent to their faults alluding to that of S. Iohn Baptist Math. 3. Doe fruites worthy of penance so that by the judgement of S Leo and the ancient practise of his time men that truly repented them of their sinnes vvhereby the guilt and eternal punishment was abolished were afterwardes put to penance and to doe worthy satisfaction and that not only to satisfie the cōgregation or other men as the Protestants fable vvho haue a greater care to please men then God but to be purged of their fault and to deserue mercy at Gods hand as S. Leo doth plainly teach Now that this temporal punishment which is due to euery Christian after the eternal is through Christ forgiuen him may be released and pardoned by the gouernours of the Chuch and principally by the Pope as chiefe Pastor thereof vnder Christ and that through the superaboundant sufferings of some others is a matter so wel knowne to Antiquity that he must needs confesse himselfe a very puny therein that thinketh it to be a new deuise of the late Church of Rome For that S. Gregory the great who liued aboue a thousand yeares past D. Tho. alij in 4. sent dist 20. instituted Stations to diuers Churches in Rome and granted great Indulgences and Pardons vnto al that with due preparation visited the same is so wel knowne that few learned Protestants doe doubt of it or dare deny it S. Leo himselfe vvho vvas S. Gregories Ancestor more then an hundred yeares in the said Epistle to Nicetus doth plainely signifie as much for he leaueth that enjoined penance of the conuerted party Epistola 77. numer 6. to the discreet moderation of the Bishop to be shortned and released as he shal see cause which is properly a Pardon or Indulgence Moreouer Pope Siluester vvho vvas S. Leo his Predecessour by more then an hundred yeares Antiodor l. 4. summae cap. de relaps at the request of S. Helen Constantine the great his mother consecrated a Chappel in Rome called Sancta Croce in Hierusalem the vvhich he did both beautifie and enrich with diuers Relikes of Saints and granted large Indulgences to al that should with deuotion visit the same as the ancient Records of the same place doe testifie And that the Pastours of other Countries yet more ancient then the former were very wel acquainted with this language of this superaboundant passions and satisfactions of some Saints let that most learned Archbishop of Carthage in Afrike glorious Martir S. Cyprian beare witnesse He instructing the Christian prisoners and most noble Confessours for vvhose triumphant sufferinges the vse
proofes for the Princes supremacy the Emperours some times called general Councels ergo they were supreme gouernors in causes Ecclesiastical a doubty argument as you may perceiue by the like A Lord calleth for his tenants being carpenters to build him a house ergo that Lord is the chiefest carpenter in the country If that Lord be not taken for supreme judge in the carpenters occupation though he had ful power to assemble the carpenters together vvhy shal the Emperour be esteemed chiefe gouernour in Ecclesiastical causes for that he hath authority to cal Ecclesiastical persons together Againe al men know that Ecclesiastical persons are in al temporal causes subject vnto temporal Princes who therefore may command them to meete together to compose contentions risen about spiritual causes vvhereby the temporal peace of his country is also much hindred and this may be wel done vvithout any pretence vnto soueraignity ouer them in spiritual matters so that if it were graunted that the Emperour had authority to cal general Councels yet it vvould not follow thereof that he were supreme head in Ecclesiastical causes much lesse can he be taken for supreme gouernour because the Popes gaue vnto the Emperours the cōmon and vsual wordes of courtesie as M. Abbot afterward very childishly reasoneth But let vs come to the ground-worke of the question I affirme then that though Emperour or King for the temporal command he hath ouer his spiritual subjects may cal them together vvhen there is just cause yet the soueraigne summoning of al Bishops Ecclesiastical persons to a general Councel doth not properly or principally belong to the Emperours but vnto the chiefe Pastour among them for very reason teacheth euery judicious man by induction through al societies it is most manifest that the chiefest member of any corporation or assotiation hath by instinct of nature that priuiledge of calling together the rest of that cōpany and corporation wherefore the lay Magistrate that is no proper member of the Ecclesiastical congregation cannot in natural reason and equity haue that power of assembling the Clergy together Besides no Christian Emperor had euer yet so much as temporal dominion ouer al Christendome those Christians then that were not his subjects at al could not be called together by his authority That their Empire vvhen it was at the largest vvas not so large as the bounds and limits of Christian religion S. Leo himselfe is witnesse in these wordes Sermon 1. in Natiuit SS Apost Petri Pauli Rome being made head of the world by the Chaire of S. Peter doth rule ouer more Countries by heauenly religion then by earthly dominion Againe since the Emperours became Christian not one hundred yeares together scarse did one Emperour command ouer al the Empire but lightly one gouerned in the East another ouer the West I would then gladly know to whether of them it belonged to cal general Councels or whether the Church of God must be destitute of such Councels vntil that matter were agreed vpon Further the calling of national prouincial Councels doth according vnto S. Augustine and Antiquity Aug. Ep. 217. Cal. lib. 4. Instit c. 7. n. 8. allowed therein by M. Caluin and the great hundred of * Centur. 4. c. 7. col 534. Magdeburge appertaine vnto the Primates and Metrapolitans of the same nation and prouince therefore by the like proportion it doth not appertaine to the Emperors but vnto the chief Patriarke of the Church to cal a general Councel That S. Leo on vvhose authority M. Abbot here doth stand tooke S. Peter first and after him the Bishops of Rome to be such I wil briefly proue thus he vvriteth Out of the whole world one Peter is chosen Serm. tert de Assumptione sua to haue chiefe charge of the vocation of the Gentils and is placed ouer the other Apostles and al the Fathers of the Church so that albeit there be among the people of God many Priests and many Pastours yet doth Peter peculiarly gouerne them ouer whom Christ doth principally raigne so that al temporal Princes who vvil not deny Christ to raigne ouer them must by S. Leos verdict acknowledge themselues subject in spiritual cases to S. Peter and his successours The same he doth confirme at large in an Epistle to the Bishops of the prouince of Vienna where he concludeth in these wordes To which S. Peter whosoeuer doth deny the primacy Epistola 87. he cannot in any sort diminish his dignity but puffed vp with the spirit of pride he doth drowne himselfe in the gulfe of hel Now least any man should take exceptions against S. Peters successours the Bishops of Rome though he vvould graunt the supremacy vnto S. Peter I adde that S. Leo in that second place doth rather speake of his owne authority vnder the name of S. Peter impugned then by Hilarius Bishop of Vienna then of S. Peters owne time Yet for more cleare demonstration of it Sermon 2. de anniuersario Assumptionis suae take these his wordes The disposition and order of truth doth continue and blessed Peter perseuering in the fortitude of a rocke hath not forsaken the gouernement of the Church which he vndertooke Peter I say doth to this day hold on and continue stil and liueth in his successours which he confirmeth in an hundreth places of his Epistles by me for breuities sake omitted contenting my selfe vvith that which he vvriteth in one letter vnto Anastasius Bishop of the Thessalonians to whom you shal see what authority he giues Epist 82. ad Anastasium Like as saith he my predecessours haue giuen to your predecessours euen so doe I following their example delegate vnto your charity the roome or charge of my gouernement that you imitating our mildenesse may helpe vs in the care which we owe vnto al Churches by the institution of God principally and that you may in a sort represent the presence of our visitation vnto prouinces farre distant from the Apostolical See of Rome For by reason of your nearenesse to them you may more readily see what matters and in what manner either you your selfe may by your diligence compose or else reserue vnto our judgement vvhere going on according to the Canons of the holy Fathers made by the spirit of God to vse his owne wordes he giues to that Bishop of Thessalonia dignity and authority ouer many Metrapolitanes of diuers prouinces That none be chosen without his priuity but al confirmed by his authority Canon 6. Item That if among the Prelates there happen to be question of greater affaires which God forbidde that cannot be ended by the prouincial Synode the Metrapolitan shal then prouide to instruct your brother-hood of the state of the whole businesse and if the parties being present it cannot be appeased by your judgement let it whatsoeuer it be be referred to our knowledge Canon 7. vvhere he giueth him Authority to cal Bishops before him and a Councel also if
shal speake more at large presently This therefore may suffice to satisfie any indifferent reader how the first Christian Emperours were Presidents at Councels that is as may be gathered out of their owne wordes first to honour that assembly with their presence then to see that al things there be peacibly and orderly handled thirdly to learne the true Catholike faith by the definitions of those learned Bishops there assembled fourthly to recommend the same to al their faithful subjects and lastly to defend it against al obstinate Heretikes Al vvhich put together doth not come neare any probable proofe that they are supreme gouernours in Ecclesiastical matters but rather that they are in them to be gouerned For they neither argue determine nor define them but only doe receiue approue and defend them being before decided and defined by the Fathers assembled in the Councel by the Bishop of Rome Indeede Constantius an Arrian Emperour vvas perswaded by the Arrians to take vpon him the supreme judgement in Ecclesiastical causes but he vvas very sharply reprehended therefore by that most valiant champion of Christs Church Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria If saith he the judgement of these matters belong to Bishops In Epist ad Solitar vitam agentes what hath the Emperour to entermeddle with them vvhere he relateth what that blessed Father Hosius vvho was Pope Siluesters chiefe Legate in the first Councel of Nice spoke of that vsurpation of Constantius Who saith he seing the Emperour Ibidem prope finem in decreeing to make himselfe Prince of the Bishops and President ouer their Ecclesiastical judgements may not worthily affirme him to be that abhomination of desolation which is foretold of Daniel In a word then the Protestants treading in the steps of the condemned Arrians vvould haue the lay Magistrates such Presidēts of Councels as haue supreme authority ouer the Bishops judgements vvhich we Roman Catholikes with the consent of al ancient and holy both Bishops and Emperours doe thinke to be very preposterous incommodious and intollerable Now to that trash vvhich M. Abbot chops in by the way by broken and halfe sentences the same Leo saith he professeth his obedience to the Emperours appointment and wil to Theodosius and Martianus for proofe he quoteth Leo vvhere we may gather that a false marchants fingers are to be looked vnto For in the first place there is expresse signification of S. Leo Epist 16. 17. not fulfilling the Emperour Theodosius request vvhich was to haue him present at the second Councel of Ephesus and there was no reason for it these be his owne wordes Albeit no reason doth permit me Epistola Leon. 16. t◠meete at the Episcopal Councel appointed by your piety because I haue no president for it by the example of any of my predecessours and the necessity of the time wil not suffer me to leaue the citty c. yet so farre forth as our Lord wil vouchsafe to helpe I haue applied my endeauour that the decree of your clemency may in some sort be obeied by sending hence some of my brethren who shal supply my place c. Doe you see what profession of obedience S. Leo made to the Emperour Theodosius vvhom he telleth plainly that no reason vvil permit him to obey his appointment and vvil Is not this trow you honest dealing deserues not this man to be wel credited vvhen he citeth the Fathers vvhen as he blusheth not to alleage them and to quote the place distinctly vvhich if you wil but turne vnto you shal finde him to be a man that hath a seared conscience and cares not what he saith so he may deceiue his simple reader Now to the second place there indeede S. Leo hath that the Emperours piety and most religious wil Epistola 57. is to be obeied by al meanes but he doth not make profession of his owne obedience to the Emperour but speaketh indefinitely obediendum est and that not to his appointment and wil as M. Abbot fableth but vnto his Godly and most religious wil that is vvhen he commandeth or desireth any thing according vnto the wil of God Now if you wil but looke into the circumstances of this obedience you shal yet further discouer the deceit of M. Abbot for the Emperour Martianus did write vnto Pope Leo that he would confirme the Councel of Chalcedon with his owne sentence vvhich was before subsigned by his Legates present thereat and that in the first place the Emperour being perswaded as it is set downe in the same Epistle that the Councel should haue greater force to suppresse al Heretikes if it might be taught throughout al Churches that the definition there of did please the See Apostolike Here you may see that the Emperour demanded no obedience of S. Leo but shewed himselfe to haue so great opinion of his judgement authority that it would greatly countenance and commend that general Councel which vvas by al the Bishops and the Emperour himselfe before subsigned A reasonable man can desire no more to proue S. Leo his supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes then the testimony of this godly Emperour Martianus Tom. 1. Concil in Prolog Concil Chal. epist 1. Martian ad Leo. For first he acknowledgeth him to hold the principality among al Bishops Secondly he acknowledgeth him to be the authour of calling general Councels these two points haue beene before rehearsed Thirdly he promiseth S. Leo to assemble the Bishops of the East that they might declare those thinges that be agreable vnto the Catholike faith and Christian religion euen as your Holinesse hath according vnto the Ecclesiastical Canons defined Ibid. epist 2. Sicut sanctitas tua secundum Ecclesiastic as regulas definiuit And lastly al thinges being so defined he doth send vnto S. Leo to confirme the general Councel Doth not this acknowledgement of the Emperour that the Pope is the authour of calling general Councels that he is to direct and instruct them assembled what they are to define and lastly to confirme and ratifie that which is defined euidently proue that the supreme managing and authorising of the highest Ecclesiastical affaires doe belong vnto the Bishop of Rome Now to returne to M. Abbot he shewes the like wordes of Pope Agatho his due obedience to Constantius the fourth I finde no such wordes in that place quoted by him true it is that I haue not his whole letter but the abridgment of it as is standes in the Summe of the Councels Epist Agath ad Constant in Synod 6. art 4. where he thus beginneth That we may briefly intimate to your piety what the vigour of our Apostolike faith doth containe which we haue receiued by tradition from the Apostles Apostolike Bishops and holy Councels by which the foundations of the Catholike Church of Christ are fastned and fortified c. Out of which wordes we may gather that Pope Agatho was ready to satisfie the Emperours request in certifying and instructing him vvhat
was the true Apostolike faith about the questions then handled But forsooth because he did belike vse these curteous vvordes of obedience M. Aâ—bot that lieth at the catch and wants better stuffe is constrained to lay hold on them by which manner of arguing he might proue euery Pope to professe due obedience to euery priuate seruant of God because his ordinary stile is Seruus seruorum Dei The seruant of Gods seruants Now if one had so little wit as hence to argue and gather that the Pope professed obedience or were inferiour to al other seruants of God for if he be their seruant he is bound to obey them would not al the vvorld wonder at his folly And yet this admirable combatant and champion of the host of Ismael is faine to fly to the like miserable shifts and to imploy perforce vvordes that are vttered of custome and curtesie in al Countries for sound proofes If al Italians and French men that vvil say they are your seruants Seruitore di vostre Signoria Monsieur je suis vostre treshumble seruiteur should be taken short at his word and thereby be pressed to your obedience seruice you might soone become a great Signiour ouer many stately seruants that vvould doe what they list But that you may see how M. Abbot can scarsly borrow one weapon out of the true armory of Antiquiry vvhich vvil not serue to wound himselfe I wil here acquaint you vvith some wordes out of the very same Epistle of Pope Agatho to the Emperour Constantius the fourth vvhich doe demonstrate the Church of Rome neuer to faile in matter of faith Did you marke before in those few wordes how he esteemed Apostolike tradition and the definitions of Councels and of the See Apostolike to be the firme foundation of the Church of Christ which alone is sufficient to batter and beate flat to the earth that chiefe fortresse of the Protestants of the al-sufficiency of the vvritten word then hauing deliuered the true faith of the blessed Trinity he annexeth these wordes This is the Apostolical and Euangelical Tradition which the Apostolike Church of God the Mother of your most happy Empire doth hold this is the pure confession of piety this is the rule of the true faith holden aswel in prosperity as in aduersity by the Apostolike Church of Christ which is proued by Gods grace neuer to haue straied from the path of Apostolical Tradition nor euer was corrupted with Heretical nouelties because it was said to Peter I haue praied for thee that thy faith faile not and thou being conuerted confirme thy brethren Here our Lord promised that the faith of Peter should not faile and willed him to confirme his brethren which the Bishops my predecessours as is wel knowne to al men haue alwaies done confidently and I though much inferiour to them yet for the person that by Gods goodnesse I sustaine doe desire to follow them at the heeles this out of Pope Agatho by the way in fauour of our cause because M. Abbot would haue gladly begged an almesse of him to relieue his miserable want Now that which followeth in him out of Tertullian That the Emperor is honoured according to the ancient doctrine of the Church as next vnto God inferiour vnto God only If the good man would haue bethought himselfe a little vvhat kinde of men the Emperours were in Tertullians time and before he vvould not I thinke for very shame haue once offered to proue those Emperours supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical for they were al of them Heathen Idolaters and professed enemies to the Christian religion If then they vvere next vnder God supreme gouernours of Ecclesiastical causes it would follow thereof see the good effect of M. Abbots argument that the Christian religion vvas to be forsaken of al men and Idolatry to haue beene imbraced for that was these Emperors supreme judgement in spiritual matters What meant M. Abbots a Gods name to perswade Christians that Heathen and Idolatrous Emperours such as those were in Tertullians time vvere to be honoured followed in matter of religion before Bishops and Archbishops and next vnto God If those be Tertullians wordes euery man can apply them better then M. Abbot doth to wit that Emperours in temporal causes and in the ciuil gouernement of the common weale are vnder no man but next vnto God but in Ecclesiastical causes those Emperours had nothing at al to doe Now to those wordes which he proposeth as very odious That how much the Moone is lesse then the Sunne so much is the Emperour inferior to the Pope They be not precisely the wordes of the Canon but these That how much difference there is betweene the Sunne and the Moone so much is there betweene Bishops and Kinges The sence he doth not much alter but only sets it out more disdainfully vve allow of the sence being rightly taken to wit that the authority of Bishops is properly to be compared to the brightnesse of the Sunne because it is wholy conuersant in spiritual causes vvhich depend vpon the brightnesse and light of faith and doe formally appertaine to the heauenly Kingdome of the Sunne Christ Iesus Now who sees not that the Emperours power being properly to gouerne the temporal state by the light of natural reason which is very dimme and obscure if it be conferred vnto the light of grace may aptly be resembled to the Moone light the light of heauenly affaires as farre passing in clearenesse the light of vvorldly businesses as doth the brightnesse of the Sunne at noone daies passe the Moone-shine at mid-night Now if vve would search higher towards the most pure Antiquity we shal finde farre greater comparisons betweene the spiritual power of Bishops and the temporal of Emperours I vvil for a tast cite only the sentences of two most authentike Doctors S. Ambrose an ancient and most graue Father saith Bretheren the honour and sublimity of a Bishop Ambros initio sui Pastor citatur dist 96. cap. Si duo Greg. Oratio ad populum perturb cannot be equalled with any comparison The Majesty of Kinges and Diademes of Princes if they be compared to it are farre more inferiour then if the mettal of leade should be compered with gold And S. Gregory Nazianzene maketh no lesse difference betweene them two then there is betweene the soule the body the spiritual power of Bishops as much in his judgement excelling that of Princes as the soule in dignity doth surmount the body so that the Popes comparison alleaged by M. Abbot is very temperate in respect of these of the auncient Fathers vvhich notwithstanding vvere made vpon great judgement The lies and toies that ensue in M. Abbots text are not worth the answering First Catal. TestiuÌ„ he that reportes the Emperour to be the Popes man is an heretical and lying companion and therefore no sufficient vvitnesse Secondly if any Emperour or King out of his owne profound humility or aboundance of zeale towardes
the hope of eternal life is recouered that they who had lost the gift of regeneration condemning themselues by their owne judgement might attaine vnto remission of their sinnes the aide of Gods goodnesse being so disposed that pardon from God cannot be obtained but by the supplication of Priests For the Mediatour of God and Man the man IESVS Christ hath giuen this power vnto the Prelates of the Church that they may both enjoine satisfaction to the penitent and that they may also admit them being by the same holesome satisfaction purged through the gate of reconciliation vnto the communion of the Sacraments Where he further teacheth That they who die without this gift of pardon shal neuer be saued and doth also greatly blame them who deferre their confession til toward the point of death when saith he there is scarce space either for the confession of the penitent or for the reconciliation of the Priest It vvas not then vndoubtedly treason in S. Leos daies to be reconciled by a Priest seing he so often and so much recommended it to al Christian people and held it the only gate to re-enter into Gods fauor for al such Christians as were fallen from the grace they had before receiued in the Sacrament of Baptisme That Bishops Priests Deacons yea and Subdeacons should not marry and if any married man vvere chosen a Subdeacon that he should refraine from the company of his wife S. Leo is very plaine thus he decreeth Epist. 82. ad Anastasium Thes num 4. It is free for men that be not of the Clergie to marry but to shew the purity of perfect continency carnal copulation is not graunted so much as to Subdeacons that they who haue wiues be as though they had them not and they who haue them not doe continue single And if in this order which is the fourth from the head with the Protestants it is no order at al it is meete that chastity be kept how much more is it to be obserued in the first second and third that no man be esteemed worthy either of the place of a Deacon or honour of a Priest or excellency of a Bishop who is discouered not to haue yet bridled himselfe from the pleasure of wiuing This of the continency of Priests Wil you heare S. Leos opinion of the Vowes of religious men and women which the false Father Abbot scornefully tearmeth Monkish Epist 90. ad Rusti Norb. cap. 12. The profession of a Monke saith he vndertaken by a mans owne free choise and desire cannot be forsaken without sinne because that must be performed which we haue vowed to God Wherefore he that forsaking the profession of a single or solitary life is turned souldier or fallen to marriage is to be purged publikely by the satisfaction of penance for albeit warre-fare may be harmelesse and marriage honest yet is it a transgression and offence to haue forsaken the better choise It followeth in the next number Ibid. ca. 13.8 Maidens who not constrained by their parents command but of their owne accord haue made profession of Virginity and receiued the habit if afterwardes they desire to marry they doe sinne though they were not yet consecrated Ibidem 14. but if after both profession and consecration they should fal to marry it cannot be doubted but that they should commit a very hainous crime For if mans decrees cannot be infringed without punishment what shal light vpon them who haue broken the couenants of the diuine mistery How forcibly doth this chast doctrine of S. Leo batter and beate flat to the earth the voluptuous loosenesse of runnegate votaries and giues checkmate to the Protestants for vpholding the same as wel done That you may yet further perceiue what an euil Protestant and a perfect Papist S. Leo was he commendeth highly the Emperour Martianus his vertue and Godlinesse for receiuing with worthy honour the holy Relikes of blessed Flamianus departed who a little before was Patriarke of Constantinople And for praying to Saints you haue heard before Serm. 5. de Epiphania how he encouraged al men Eorum ambire suffragia earnestly and as it were ambitiously to sue for the aide of their praiers Againe he exhorteth his auditours to celebrate vvith him the Saturday following the Vigils of the most happy Apostle S. Peter Ser. 8. de Iejunio decim Who saith he with his praiers wil vouchsafe to helpe our praiers fastings and almes-deedes Behold he made no question but that S. Peter both knew their desires and deserts and would also further them vvith the aide of his effectual praiers In briefe then we haue that the most learned and holy Pope S. Leo the first taught praying to Saints and worshipping of their Relikes the vowes of Monkes and professed Virgins that Priests and al in holy orders should not marry but liue continently that Priests haue power to reconcile and to forgiue sinnes and that euery man who hopeth for any pardon of his sinnes at Gods handes must particularly confesse them in priuate to a Priest and by due satisfaction purge himselfe from them that in the Sacrament there is the same true flesh of Christ which was crucified and did arise from death that Masse is to be said euery holy day wherein the sacrifice of Christs body is offered that S. Peter was the supreme Pastour of Christes Church and that the Bishop of Rome is his lawful successour therein hauing supreme authority ouer both East and West Church These with such like points which may by diligent perusing his most eloquent and diuine workes be gathered doe most perspicuously demonstrate the Church of Rome in his time vvhich vvas neare 1200. yeares agoe to haue held the selfe same language concerning matters of faith vvhich the same Church of Rome at this day speaketh And that M. Abbot in seeking to proue the contrary did but shew himselfe either very ignorant in his workes or ouer studious not to take his Author right as his manner is but to picke some matter of cauil out of him thereby to blinde and deceiue the simple reader Now to the next ROBERT ABBOT PELAGIVS the Bishop of Rome the first of that name admitted a married man to be Bishop of Syracusa only putting in a caution that he should not dilapidare the Church goodes and transferre the same to his wife and children Dist. 28. de Syracusana The danger whereof he signifieth was the cause of that constitution which did forbidde a man hauing a wife and children to be preferred to a Bishopricke otherwise a man is not repelled for hauing wife children saith the Glosse because the Apostles permitted the same But now the Church of Rome Glossa ibidē wil by no meanes admit men to be Bishops or Priests not for that they would auoide the dilapidating of the Church goodes for that is a thing common with the Popes themselues Platina in vita Iohan. 16. To apply al to satisfie the
crowne In eo enim sibi justitiae consortem coronae statuit promeritorem cum operum quibus erat illa repromissa corona habere dignatus est coadjutorem For therein did God appoint man to be copartner of his justice and meritour of the crowne when be vouchsafed to haue him coadjutour of those workes vnto which that crowne of glory was againe and againe promised So that God is the Authour of merits both by giuing man grace to doe them and by ordaining them to such a reward Otherwise saith S. Bernard those which we cal merits might be more properly called the way to the Kingdome not the cause of raigning Obserue that he saith vnlesse you take them otherwise then he had before spoken of them But we must beare with M. Abbot for snatching here and there a sentence out of the Fathers so abruptly otherwise he could make no shew for his part out of them because they vvere so ful and wholy Roman Catholikes Besides the misconstruing of S. Gregories wordes and the corrupting of S. Bernards M. Abbot falsifieth both the Councel of Trent and the Annotations of the Rhemes Testament for the Councel of Trent hath not simply that good workes doe fully satisfie the law of God but with this qualification Pro huius vitae statu As farre forth as the state of this life doth permit And whereas M. Abbot fableth that in those Annotations the justice of God is charged not in respect of his owne promise but in respect of the merit and desert of the workes it is a palpable vntruth as euery man may see that wil but turne to the place for there are these expresse wordes Annot. in 2. Tim. cap. 4. vers 8. Heauen is the goale the marke the price the hire of al striuing running labouring due both by promise and by couenant and right debt vvhere you see as wel Gods promise and couenant as the worth of the workes to be mentioned Which is also set downe distinctly in that very Chapter of the Councel of Trent vvhich M. Abbot cited in these vvordes Eternal life is to be propounded to them that worke wel Concil Trid. sess 6. c. 16. and trust in God both as a merciful grace promised to the sonnes of God through Christ and as a reward or hire by the promise of God to be rendred to their good workes and merits Thus you see how roundly and familiarly M. Abbot is wont to auouch vntruthes and that which testifieth a good conscience in the man euen clearely contrary to his owne knowledge for in the very same both Chapter of the Councel and Annotation vpon the Testament which he alleageth there is to be seene the plaine affirmation of that which he denieth vvhich doth conuince him to be one of the most carelesse men of his credit that euer set pen to paper ROBERT ABBOT Citat in Orthodoxo consensu de sacra Eucharistia cap. 1. ex Lyturg Georgij Cassandri THE same Gregory affirmeth that Missa the Masse was so called for that they were to be dismissed or sent away by the Deacon that did not receiue the holy communion for that they that should not be present at the celebration of the Sacrament were commanded to goe forth therefore saith he vnlesse at the voice of the Deacon after the manner of our Ancestors they that doe not communicate be willed to goe forth the seruice which is called the Masse is not rightly performed But now the Romish Masse is thought to be rightly performed albeit no man communicate but the Priest and vvithout any dismissing of them that doe not adde themselues to the communion the people as was said before being only the spectatours and lookers on WILLIAM BISHOP M. ABBOT is very penurious and wants matter that comes forth with such idle stuffe as this not taken out of S. Gregories owne vvorkes neither for no such fond and vnlearned thing is there to be seene but on the report of one George Cassander a man of smal credit and therefore deserueth no answere Besides these wordes Ite Missa est are not pronounced in the Masse by the Deacon or Priest vntil the communion be wholy past euen at the very end of the Masse when the people are licensed to depart as may be seene in al Masse bookes and the ancient expositours of the Masse vvherefore they could not serue to dismisse any before the holy communion Lastly why on Gods name must they al be sent away that wil not communicate themselues shal they receiue any harme by their beholding either the blessed Sacrament or others receiuing of it deuoutly vvere it not better they assisted the communicants there continuing in praier then to walke abroade idly or is there any reason vvhy the communicants should be offended vvith their presence that no way seeke to disquiet them but rather honour them for their greater feruour in deuotion and assist them with their praiers Idle and irreuerent gazers on we allow not off nor like of their presence at any time of the Masse but I see no cause at al why other orderly and deuout people should be driuen out of the Church at the time of communion ROBERT ABBOT THE same Gregory affirmed That whosoeuer called himselfe Gregor lib. 6. Epist 30. Item lib. 4. Epistola 32.36.38 or desired to be called the vniuersal Bishop was the fore-runner of Antichrist and did propose to himselfe to follow him who despising the legion of Angels that were placed in society with him did endeauour to grow vp to the toppe of singularity that so he might seeme to be vnder none and himselfe alone to be aboue al. He calleth it a new name a name of errour a fond name proude peruerse rash wicked prophane which saith he none of my Predecessours consented to vse by which no man hath presumed to be called that was in truth a holy man Decret Gregorij de foro comp c. Licet But soone after the time of Gregory the Bishop of Rome tooke vpon him that hateful name and hath since continued the same challenging the whole vvorld to be his Dyocesse and is growne to that height of pride as that he doubteth not to proclaime Extrauag de Maio. Obed ca. Vnam Sanctam That it standeth vpon the necessity of saluation for euery soule to be subject to the Bishop of Rome WILLIAM BISHOP THIS is a pretious argument with the Protestants and though it hath beene an hundred times I weene sufficiently answered by ours yet they doe as freshly propose it and as eagerly follow it as if it were not to be satisfied whereas in truth it is but a meere sophistication A vocibus ad res as the learned tearme it from the word vniuersal vnto the supreme authority of gouernement thus The Patriarke of Constantinople cannot be called an vniuersal Bishop nor any Bishop of Rome hath consented to take that name of vniuersal Bishop vpon him ergo no Bishop of Rome hath
Rome vvhereas neither that Church then nor vve now doe reject the true fasting which the Scripture teacheth but only those opinions of fasting vvhich the Montanists first deuised and the Papists haue receiued against the Scripture to forbeare continually by way of religion such and such daies from such and such meates with a minde there in and by their very forbearing to doe a worship to God to satisfie for sinne to merit and purchase the forgiuenesse thereoff and to deserue eternal life WILLIAM BISHOP BEFORE we come to joine issue let this maxime of arguing be obserued He that vvil proue one to be the proper disciple of any Sect-master must doe it by producing the proper and peculiar doctrine of the same sect and not by alleaging such points of doctrine as are common to that sect vvith many others For example if I would proue a Protestant to be an Arrian I must not thinke to performe it by prouing that they beleeued in one God as the Arrians did or that they flie to the touch-stone of the Scriptures as the Arrians did refusing Traditions and that they relied much on the power of temporal Princes setting the Bishop of Romes authority at naught c. for none of these be proper branches of the Arrian sect but common to them with others Marry if I could proue them to affirme the Sonne of God touching his diuinity to be lesser then his Father or after his Father or not of the same substance vvith his heauenly Father I must needes be taken then to speake to the purpose Euen so if M. Abbot doe insist vpon those points of the Montanists errors which were proper to themselues and not common with others prouing vs to maintaine the same I then wil graunt that he acquiteth himselfe like a braue champion But if he doe make al his instances in such general circumstances of fastinges as the Catholike Church then did maintaine as vvel as the Montanists Yea that the Protestants themselues doe in part vphold and defend as wel as the Catholikes then euery man must needes acknowledge and take him for a wrangling Sophister and a vaine bragging writer that crakes of wonders and performes nothing Let vs now descend to his particulars and try what sharpnesse of wit and soundnesse of judgement he sheweth therein The Montanists saith he appointed certaine and standing daies for fasting and forbearing of certaine meates so doe the Papists I graunt vvhat be they therefore Montanists then the Protestants be also Montanists because they appoint certaine and standing daies of fastes as Friday Saturday the Imber and Lent-fasts and many feasts eues vvhich daies they appoint for the forbearing of flesh Is not this a proper peece of Montanisme that is common to so many Nay the Apostles themselues did the like as Tertullian in the same place graunteth vvere they also therefore Montanists see how M. Abbot beginneth to shame himselfe To the next The Montanists did not take any creature or meate to be vncleane but did only by way of deuotion forbeare at certaine times and the Papists doe also the same vvhich I also graunt And doe not the Protestants agree vvith them in the former part thinking no meate to be vncleane Now in the later they doe vvorse for they forbeare flesh at certaine times not of deuotion to chastise their bodies and to please God as the Montanists pretended but for worldly pollicy of fauouring the increase of flesh for the vpholding of the trade of fisher-men and to please their Prince Here let any Godly man be judge whether of these two endes of pleasing God or the Prince be more Christianlike and whether of them doe more sauour of the spirit of God he shal no doubt finde that herein it is much better to concurre with Tertullian then consort with the Protestants And that the best learned in the primitiue Church so thought and so taught I haue proued in the Question of fasting The Montanists being vrged with that place of S. Paul that it was the doctrine of Deuils to command to abstaine from meates answered that it touched Marcion and Tatianus who condemned meates as vncleane in their owne nature the same answere doe the Papists giue which I acknowledge vvillingly What are they thereby become Montanus disciples then vvas S. Augustine as a great Papist so no smal Montanist for he doth in most expresse tearmes so expound that place these be his wordes The Apostle doth in these wordes properly point at Aug. cōt Adimant Manichaeū c. 14. 1. Tim. c. 4. not them who therefore abstaine from such meates that they may thereby bridle their owne concupiscence or spare another mans weakenesse but those who thinke the flesh it selfe vncleane Doe you see how S. Augustine interpreteth those wordes of S. Paul euen as we doe who also answereth to euery of the Protestants objections against set fasting aboue a 1000. yeares before they troubled the world In like manner doth S. Hierome in the very wordes that M. Abbot sets downe for ours thus he writeth Lib. 1. cont Iouin ca. 41. The Apostle doth condemne them that forbidde to marry and command to abstaine from meates c. true but he aimed at Marcion and Tatianus and such other Heretikes that command perpetual abstinence as though the creatures of God were abhominable but we commend euery creature of God and doe only preferre fasting before fulnesse c. So that by this exposition of S. Paules doctrine vve are not proued Montanists but doe imitate therein the principal pillars of the ancient Roman Church S. Augustine and S. Hierome and doe therein also wipe away a sluttish imputation of Iouinian reuiued and set a foote againe by the Protestants that forsooth Lib. 1. cont Iouin cap. 3. We teach the doctrine of Deuils condemned by the Apostles and doe fal into the opinion of the Manichees because we command to abstaine on fasting daies from some kinde of meates which God created to receiue c. but of this more exactly in the Question of fasting Now to the rest of M. Abbots text The Montanists tooke that their fasting to be a seruice and worship to God vvherein they were not deceiued for it is written in the word of God Luc. 2. That Elizabeth a blessed widdow departed not from the Temple by fasting and praier seruing night and day seruing in Greeke Latreuousa that is doing seruice and worship to God as by praier so by fasting Againe by fasting watching and other bodily austerities we doe according to the common exposition of the auncient Fathers Rom. 12. exhibit our bodies to God a liuing bost as the Apostle speaketh holy pleasing God and a reasonable seruice It must needes then be a very holy and most acceptable seruice and vvorship of God that is resembled by S. Paul vnto a liuing and pure sacrifice Canon 5. And in the Councel of Nice it is said That we may offer to God the pure and solemne fast of Lent
censure and touch of reproach vpon the same his worke called Bibliotheca Patrum Lastly concerning the doctrine of Predestination I reade not that the Pelagians were called in question about it nor yet for Satisfaction vvherefore M. Abbot must first out of some good Authors shew their errours therein before he goe about to slander vs vvith the imitation of them but as I am vvel assured of the later so I thinke he wil not in hast performe the former ROBERT ABBOT I Omit many other matters that might here be added perswading my selfe that I said enough to trouble M. Bishop in the prouing of that that he hath so propounded that the principal pillars of the Church of Rome in her most flourishing estate taught in al points of religion the same doctrine that now shee holdeth c. only for conclusion let me aske him what Bishop of Rome there was for the space of a thousand yeares that practised or taught that concerning Pardons which is now practised and taught in the Church of Rome that the Bishop of Rome hath any authority to giue such libels of pardon or that it is in him to giue faculties and authority to others to graunt the like vvith reseruation of special causes to himselfe or that he can for saying such and such praiers or for doing this or that release a man from Purgatory for so many hundred or thousand yeares vvhat Bishop of Rome was there that did proclaime a Iubilee vvith promise that al that would come to Rome to visit the Churches that yeare should haue ful and perfect forgiuenesse of al their sinnes or that did charge the Angels as did Clement the sixt that vvhosoeuer should die in his journey thitherward they should bring his soule into the glory of Paradise Balaeus in Clem. sexto which of them did take vpon him to Canonize a Saint vvho euer beleeued or taught as it is now receiued in the Church of Rome that the Bishops blessing is the forgiuenesse of venial sinnes Sextus in proem in glossa Rhem. Test in Math. 10. vers 12. Other innouations I wil passe ouer to further occasion but concerning these matters in this place I would pray M. Bishop to let vs be satisfied how the principal pillars of the Church of Rome haue in al points taught the same that the Church of Rome teacheth now The truth is that as the name of Theseus shippe continued a long time vvhen as it was so altered by putting in of new plankes and boordes as that it had nothing left of that that was in it when it was first built by Theseus so the Church of Rome stil continueth her name and would be taken to be the same albeit by chopping and changing shee is come to that passe that shee hath in a manner nothing left of that doctrine for vvhich shee vvas first called the Church of Rome But M. Bishop taketh vpon him to proue the contrary let vs now examine what his proofes are WILLIAM BISHOP YOV doe wisely to omit many other matters that you might haue added if they be like vnto these vvhich you haue already put downe for they are proued to be nothing else in manner but falsifications of the ancient Fathers vvritinges or fond illations of your owne bolstered out with a huge and shamelesse troupe of vntruthes the more one omitteth of such baggage and paultry stuffe the more it maketh for his credit Wherefore if M. Abbot had let al this alone no doubt but he should haue saued much of his reputation which by such vnchristian like and vnhonest dealing he is like to leese with the indifferent juditious reader If he perswade himselfe that he hath put me to some paines and trouble to trace out the vntruth of his allegations he is not deceiued for he produceth them so corruptly with such additions substractions misconstructions and euil applications that euery place he cites must needes be turned vnto in the Authours owne workes before a man can repose any trust in him or shal know what answere to make I pray you good Sir if there be any sparke of Christian sincerity left in you let this admonition serue to intreate you not to put your aduersary or reader to such trouble any more Either for loue of the truth or for feare of Gods judgements and rebuke of honest men forbeare to misreport your Authours If it be a shame to bely the Deuil vvhat impudency and impiety is it to bely most reuerend holy and learned Doctors and which much increaseth that hainous crime thereby to blinde Christian people and to draw them along with him to the bottomelesse pit of hel It hath I willingly confesse more troubled me to spend my spare time in discouering vntruthes and dishonest shifts trickes then it should haue done to haue bestowed it in substantial arguing and in round debating of questions in controuersie with short and sound arguments But I hope by this the vpright reader hath seene that M. Abbot was so farre off from troubling me to proue The principal pillars of the Roman Church in her most flourishing estate to haue taught the same doctrine that the present Church of Rome no teacheth that he hath rather furthered it by ministring vnto me so fit an occasion yea omitting others which I could choose my self for my better aduantage I haue not refused to verifie and make good the present doctrine of that Church euen by the testimony of those very authours of vvhich M. Abbot himselfe made choise as of men that spake most against it If then by their verdict who are thought by our aduersaries to be most estranged from vs our cause is confirmed and proued to be most just and veritable vvho is so carelesse of his owne saluation that had rather follow a lying Master leading to perdition then to imbrace so manifest a truth drawing towardes saluation May I not here justly exclaime with the holy King and Prophet and say Psalm 4. O yee Sonnes of men how long wil you be so heauy harted why are you so farre in loue with vanity and seeke after leasing he that is the true light Iohan. 1. who doth illuminate euery man that commeth into this world of his infinite goodnesse and mercy lighten your vnderstanding and incline your harts that you may perceiue and receiue that ingrafted word that truth of Christ preached by his Apostles approued by the most honourable Senate of the ancient Fathers beleeued al the world ouer that hath also continued euer since inuiolably vvhich only and none other can saue your soules Now for a conclusion and vpshot of this matter M. Abbot would faine know What Bishop of Rome for a thousand yeares after Christ had authority to giue any such libel of pardons as are now giuen or that could graunt to others any such faculty with reseruation of special causes to himselfe c. I answere if these be the greatest difficulties that with-hold him from approuing the doctrine
of the present Roman Church he may vpon very smal consideration be reclaimed and brought to reforme his errours For to S. Peter himselfe who was afterwards Bishop of Rome was giuen euen by our Sauiour Christ IESVS ful power and authority to pardon whatsoeuer he saw fit to be pardoned Math. 16. vers 19. To thee I giue saith he the keies of the Kingdome of heauen whatsoeuer thou loosest or doest pardon vpon earth shal be pardoned in heauen And if S. Peter might loose any sinne how hainous soeuer much more might he release some part of the temporal paine which was due to sinne vvhich is properly to giue a libel of pardon the like power had S. Paul who did in the person of Christ 2. Cor. 2. vers 10. Cyprian l. 3. Epist 15. Pardon the incestuous Corinthian by cutting off some part of his penance vvhich otherwise he had beene to suffer for his former sinnes vvhich were then forgiuen S. Cyprian and the Bishops and Clergy in those auncient daies of the primitiue Church did vse to pardon and release the penance injoyned to grieuous offendours after their repentance at the intercession and request of the Confessors and designed Martirs as hath beene before declared The most authentike Councel of Nice doth declare Cōcil Nicen. cap. 12. that it is lawful for Bishops to deale more mildly and fauourably vvith them vvhom they saw to performe their injoyned penance seriously vvhich was to graunt them a pardon Leo. Epist 77 ad Nicetum num 6. The very same doth Leo the great vvho was Bishop of Rome aboue 1100. yeares past teach most plainly willing the Bishop to release of the due penance injoined what he thought good which is properly to giue indulgence or pardon I omit here Pope Siluester his predecessour and S. Gregory the great one of his successours because I haue before alleaged them not doubting but that these few so auncient so graue so learned vvil suffice to satisfie and instruct him that is willing to learne And as for communicating the same authority to others vvho can reasonably doubt of it considering that the power of absoluing from sinne which is farre greater then the other is imparted to al both Bishops and Parish Priests I haue also before proued most manifestly Leo. Epist 82 ad Anastat Gregor lib. 4. Epist 6. ad Episcop Arelat that both S. Leo and S. Gregory most worthy Bishops did as delegate their authority vnto other Bishops so reserue vnto their owne hearing and judgement the causes of greatest difficulty vvherefore M. Abbot if he wil hearken vnto reason cannot choose but hold himselfe therein fully satisfied He recuiles backe to Indulgences and multiplieth his demands about one and the same matter like to a Cooke that hauing but one sort of meate to serue in doth mince it into many mammocks and then make thereof sundry dishes Can the Pope saith he for saying such or such praiers or for doing this or that release a man from Purgatory for an hundreth or a thousand yeares What a question is this if the Pope can distribute indulgences as hath beene before proued no doubt but he can the rather doe it by injoyning the party that receiueth them to say vvithal some praiers or to doe some other good vvorkes for thereby the party doth the better deserue to be made partaker of the other grace But can he release a soule out of Purgatory for a thousand yeares Yes marry can he and that too not for some certaine number of yeares but for euer and euer The reason is for that the soules there are members of the same body that we are and there capable of the same graces of pardon vvhereof also they stand in very great neede according to the truth of Christian doctrine howsoeuer the Protestants doe erroneously thinke the contrary reade the Question of Purgatory And touching the present purpose among many other pardons graunted by S. Gregory the great there is to be seene vntil this day one Altar by him erected in the Monastery of S. Andrewes in Rome where he was himselfe first Nouice and afterwardes Abbot where at vvhosoeuer said Masse for a soule in Purgatory shal deliuer one there-hence Concerning the Iubilee which is free and ful pardon graunted once in fiue and twenty yeares vnto euery one that shal visit seauen Churches in Rome that yeare some fifteene times or thereabouts what new difficulty can there be about that yea it is as the most renowmed pardon that is graunted so the most reasonable for it can be obtained but once in fiue and twenty yeares and then exceeding hardly by vnder going a long costly and painful journey to the citty of Rome and by exercising there al the workes of piety and mercy as fasting praying and giuing of almes making general confession and receiuing the blessed Sacrament and often visiting of many Churches and Altars Those most godly meanes of training men to true repentance and satisfaction for their former faults and amendmēt of their liues if the Protestant religion were acquainted withal there would be among them some checke and stoppe of their vvicked courses But if they vvil needes sinne on themselues and neuer giue ouer nor amend vntil Gods judgments fal vpon them yet let them not be offended at vs that doe aduise al men to labour in time for such indulgences that they may escape the due punishment of their sinnes either in this vvorld or in the next Is it not also most probable and likely if those good soules vvho to doe some satisfaction for their former euil liues and to serue God more deuoutly in those holy places where some of the holy Apostles and an innumerable company of valiant Martirs and holy Confessors liued and died doe die by the way in that Godly purpose that they are carried by Angels to heauen as Lazarus was into Paradise we pray to God to command such by his holy Angels to be brought into Abrahams bosome as may be seene in the Masse for the dead But Balaeus in Latin and Bale the Irish Apostata in English M. Abbots worthy authour reporteth that Clement the sixt himselfe did command the Angels to carry them into Paradise No great regard is to be had vvhat such a lying lewd fellow relates and so I thinke him vnworthy any other answere Touching Canonization of Saints we hold that the Bishops of the prouinces vvhere their vertuous liues and most godly deathes cōfirmed by miracles are best knowne did alwaies from the beginning of christian religion declare and testifie to the Church that they were to be esteemed of al men for Saints Since it hath beene found most expedient that the vvhole course of the life and death of such being by most diligent inquisition tried out and taken in the places of their aboade be afterwardes sent to Rome there to be also throughly examined first and then accordingly to be declared Saints by the highest Pastor of the Church that
any greater cause arise and diuers such other plaine and cleare markes of superiority that euen M. Abbots badde eies may easily serue him to discerne them Seing then S. Leo thought himselfe and his predecessours to haue ful authority and that by the holy Canons made by diuine inspiration to delegate ouer the Churches of the East vvhere was most doubt of his authority such power vnto others Can it be doubted but that he vvas most certainly perswaded that the Bishop of Rome hath and alwaies had supreme command in Ecclesiastical causes al the world ouer And that you may see that S. Leo vvas not only of that opinion but that the best most learned of the East Church of that time were also as fully perswaded of the Church of Romes authority ouer al the world I wil adjoine hereunto the sentence of Theodoretus one of the soundest Catholikes and one of the most learned and famous authours of those daies He being Bishop of Cyrus in Asia doth write vnto Renatus a Priest of Rome thus Theodoret. Epistola 2. The Heretikes haue spoiled me of my Priestly function and seate they haue cast me out of the citties hauing no respect vnto my gray haires nor regard of my time spent in religion wherefore I pray you that you wil perswade the most holy Archbishop Leo that he wil vse his Apostolike authority and command vs to come to your Councel for that holy See doth hold the sterne of gouernement ouer al the Churches in the world Another Epistle this holy Father did write vnto Leo himselfe wherein he saith I doe expect the sentence of your Apostolike See and doe humbly beseech your Holinesse to succour me appealing to your just judgement c. And that you may yet further perceiue that S. Leo his sentence was of force to restore him being a Bishop in Asia to his former dignity and seate these few vvordes out of the Councel of Chalcedon wil sufficiently proue thus speaketh the Councel Actione 1. Let the most reuerend Bishop Theodoret enter in that he may be partner of the Councel because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his Bishopricke Now I come to answere M. Abbots goodly proofes and vvise glosses to the contrary S. Leo saith he would not take vpon him to cal general Councels That is false for he did cal a general Councel in the West witnesse these his wordes vnto Tuilius the Bishop of Asturicensis Epistola 91. numer 17. I haue sent letters to our bretheren and fellow Bishops of Carthage in Afrike Tarragone in Spaine Portugal and France Eisque concilium Synodi generalis indiximus And haue summoned them to meete at a general Councel And that could not escape S. Leo his knowledge vvho vvas most skilful in al Antiquity which by tradition descended vnto one of his successors Pelagius the second who was S. Gregory the great his predecessor to wit Epistola 1 ad Orientales that the authority of calling general Councels was through the priuiledge of S. Peter giuen vnto the See Apostolike But he made request saith M. Abbot vnto Theodosius first and after vnto Martianus the Emperors that they would command a general Councel to be holden in Italy which they would not doe but chose rather another place Be it so for sometimes such mighty Monarkes take more state vpon them then Christian dutie doth permit And as for Theodosius the younger though he were a good Emperour at the first yet afterward it is euident that he assisted the Heretike Eutiches his Patron Dioscorus too farre in that wicked assembly at Ephesus See Actionem primam Concil Chalced. Liberatus cap. 12. the place by him assigned for that general Councel The reason that moued S. Leo to request those Emperours to cal a Councel was not for that he doubted of his owne authority therein but for diuers other good respects First because as I before signified the Bishops to be assembled vvere for the most part the Emperours subjects in temporal affaires and therefore were not vvithout his priuity to be called so farre from their residences And for this cause the Kinges of euery country being aduertised by the Popes Holinesse of a general Councel doe to this day as it appeared in the last general Councel of Trent summon the Bishops of their Realmes to the said general Councel and command them to make choise of some to send thither vvhich doth nothing derogate to the Popes general summoning Besides the Heretikes of those times vvould not obey the Pope nor their lawful Pastours command no more then these of our time wherefore the Emperours power vvhich they dreadded and stoode in more awe off vvas to be joined with the Popes authority wherefore he had good cause to request it Yet that the vnderstanding reader may perceiue how S. Leo euen then did fore-see that some inconuenience might happe to follow of his condescending so farre vnto the Emperours pleasure about the place and time of that Councel he as it were to preuent it doth yeeld his consent in such sort that no great aduantage can be taken of it Epist 41. ad Martian thus he vvriteth to the Emperour Martian I required indeede of your most gratious clemency that the Synode which you thought necessary to be assembled as we also required for the restoring of vnity in the East Church might be for a time deferred that the mindes of men being more settled those Bishops which for feare of enemies are staied at home might also meete but for that you doe zealously preferre Gods cause before the affaires of men and are wisely and Godly perswaded that it wil further the wealth of your Empire to haue the Priests of God in vnity and the Gospel preached without dissention Ego etiam vestris dispositionibus non renitor I doe not withstand or striue against this your ordinance Here you may see that he did not yeeld vpon obedience vnto the Emperours order but moued vpon good consideration would not contend against it his very wordes yet giuing that he might haue withstoode him if he had thought it more expedient for the common good Againe in his letters to the same Councel of Chalcedon he putteth in a caueat by vvhich they might vnderstand that this his condescending to the Emperour should not be taken for a prejudice against the authority of the See of Rome for calling of Councels these be his wordes Epistola 45. ad Synod Chalced. I had wished indeed most dearely beloued that al the Priests of God did agree in one profession of the Catholike faith c. but because many thinges are done of which we often repent c. the religious aduise of our most gratious Emperour is to be embraced mouing your holy brother-hood to assemble your selues together for the ouerthrowing of Sathans sleights and for the restoring of vnity in the Church Beatissimi Apostoli Petri sedis jure atque honore seruato the right