communicated with Cornelius Pope but because as there he expresseth to be in his Communion was to be in the communion of the Catholike Church And writing to Cornelius himselfe he calles the Chayre of S. Peter (u) L. 4. ep 8. the roote and Mother of the Catholike Church and (x) L. 1. ep 3. the principall chayre from whence sacerdotall Vnity is deriued from whence he inferreth that whosoeuer departeth from that (y) L. de vnit Ecclesiae See holds not the fayth nor is in the Church So teacheth ancient Pacianus (z) Ep. 2. for Nouatian as S. Cyprian affirmeth hauing made himselfe an adulterous and contrary Head to Cornelius the lawfull Pope and thereby separated himself from the Roman Church Pacianus for that very cause pronounceth him to haue dyed out of the state of saluation Although sayth be Nouatian hath bene put to death yet he hath not bone crowned And why not because he was out of the peace of the Church out of concord out of that Mother wherof whosoeuer will be a Martyr must be a portion So teacheth Optatus that learned Bishop of Mileuis in Africa when writing against Parmenianus the Donatist he (a) L. 2. cont part Parmen sayth Thou canst not deny out that thou knowest the Episcopall chayre to haue bene first set vp in Rome for Peter in which seat was placed the Head of all the Apostles Peter from whence he hath bene also called Cephas to the end that in this only chayre Vnity might be preserued to all least the other Apostles might attribute to themselues each one his particular Chayre and that he should be a Schismatike and a sinner that would against the only chayre set vp another And againe shewing the Donatists to be Schismatikes and out of the state of saluation because they opposed the Roman Church he (b) Ibid. sayth From whence is it that you attempt to vsurpe to your selues the Keyes of the kingdome you that fight against the chayre of Peter by your bold and sacrilegious presumption Thus writ Optatus 1200. yeares since and by his argument we may now proue Protestants to be Schismatikes no lesse then he did the Donatists So teacheth S. Ambrose (c) De obitu Satyri professing that to communicate with Catholike Bishops and to communicate with the Roman Church is all one And writing to Siricius Pope and acknowledging all those to be Heretikes whom the Roman Church condemneth as such he sayth (d) L. 10. ep 81. Whom your Holines hath condemned knowe that we also hold them condemned according to your iudgment So teacheth S. Hierome who writing against Lucifer the Schismaticall Bishop of Calaris in Sardinia and the Luciferians his followers that boasted themselues to be the true Church sayth to Lucifer (e) Epist. 8. I could dry vp all the riuers of thy arguments with the only sun-shine of the Church but because we haue now reasoned longe I will in few words declare plainly vnto thee my iudgment which is that we are to remayne in that Church which being founded by the Apostles dureth vntill this day And else where declaring what Church he meaneth he aduiseth Demetrias that if she will auoyd the snares of Heretikes she hold fast the fayth of Innocentius Pope sonne and successor in the Apostolicall chayre to Anastasius who had broken the pestilent head and stopped the hissing mouthes of that Hydra which attempted to pollute and corrupt the simplicity of the Roman fayth commended by the voyce of the Apostle And againe writing to Dâ—masus Pope he sayth (f) Ep. 57. I am ioyned in communion with your Blessednes that is to say with Peters Chayre I know the Church is built vpon that Rocke whosoeuer is not in the Arke shall perish at the comming of the floud he that eates the lambe out of this house is prophane whosoeuer gathers not with you scatters that is to say whosoeuer is not of Christ is of Antichrist So teacheth S. Basill In very deed sayth he in a letter to the (g) Ep. 69. per Sabin Diac. Pope that which was giuen by our Lord to thy piety is worthy of that most excellent voyce which proclaymed thee blessed to wit that thou maiest discerne betwixt that which is counterfeyt that which is lawfull and pure and that without any diminution thou maist preach the fayth of our Ancestors It is then certaine in S. Basils beliefe that the assurance which Christ gaue to S. Peter that the gates of hell which are errors and Heresies should neuer preuaile against the Roman Church was not made to S. Peter in his owne person only nor only for his tyme but in him to all his Successors and to them in him is granted that admirable priuiledge of preaching the fayth of Christ pure and without any diminution So teacheth S. Maximus alià s (h) In ep ad Orientales apud S. Tho. in Opuse 1. prope fin Maximianus All the bounds of the earth that haue receaued our Lord sincerely and all Catholikes throughout the whole earth that confesse the true fayth looke vpon the Church of the Romans as vpon a Sunne and shall receaue from her the light of the Catholike and Apostolike fayth and not without cause for Peter is the first that is read to haue made a perfect confession of the fayth our Lord reuealing it vnto him Math. 16. When he said Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God whereupon our Lord said vnto him I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth fayle not And (i) Ibid. againe We professe the Vniuersall Church to be framed and founded vpon the rock of Peters confession according to the sentence of our Sauiour in which Church it is necessary to remayne for the saluation of our Soules and to yield obedience to her keeping her fayth and confession So teacheth S. Augustine who among the Arguments which held him in the Catholike Church reckoneth the succession of Bishops in the Roman See euen from S. Peter vntill his tyme I am kept sayth (k) L. eont epist. Funda c. 4. he in the Church by the succession of Priests from the very See of Peter the Apostle to whom our Sauiour after his resurrectien committed his sheepe to be fed euen to the present Bishop And exhorting the Donatists which bragged that they also had Bishops he (l) Epist. 165. sayth If the order Succession of Bishops be to be obserued how much more assuredly safely indeed do we begin our accompt from S. Peter himselfe vnto whom as he represents the whole Church our Lord said Math. 16. vpon this Rock I will build my Church for Linus succeeded to Peter Cletus to Linus and hauing reckoned vp all the Popes vnto Anastasius who then sate in S. Peters chayre he coÌ„cludeth against the Donatists In this order of succession there is not any one Donatist to be found to which we may adde no nor yet any Protestant Since therefore the Church in
which there is a continued Succession of Bishops from S. Peter cannot be the Protestant Church which hath no such succession but the Roman it followeth that S Augustine held the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church and therefore he grieued to see the Donatists lye cut off from her as branches from the vine Be yee ingraffed on the Vine sayth he to the (m) Psal contra part Donati Donatists It is a griefe to vs to see you so lye cut of number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranke of Fathers who succeeded whom That is the Rocke which the proud gates of hell ouercome not And as in these words S. Augustine sheweth the miserable estate of those then that are diuided from the Roman Church so on the contrary he declareth the happinesse and security of all that are in coÌ„munion which her when speaking of Cecilianus Archbishop of Carthage who had bene condemned by a numerous Councell of Donatist Bishops in Africa he sayth (n) Ep. 162. Cecilianus might haue contemned the conspiring multitude of his enemies because he knew himself to be vnited by communicatory letters both to the Church of Rome in which the Soueraygnty of the See Apostolike hath alwayes florished and to other Countreys from whence the Ghospell came first into Africa So teacheth Possidius Bishop of Calama a familiar friend to S. Augustine whose life he writ and therein reporteth (o) Cap. 18. that when Innocentius and Zozimus had condemned the Pelagians the most religious Emperor Honorius hearing of this sentence of the Catholike Church pronounced against them obeyed it condemning also by his lawes ordayned that they should be ranked among heretikes By which it appeares that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholike Church her iudgment in matters of fayth to be infallible and that the Emperors by their lawes seconded her iudgment comdemning as Heretikes those whom she had condemned So teacheth S. Cyril Patriarke of Alexandria explicating those words of our (p) Math. 16. Sauiour Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it According to this promise of our Lord sayth (q) Apud S. Thom. in Caten ad cap. 16. Math. he â—he Apostolical Church of Peter perseuereth in her Bishops pure free from all seduction circumuention aboue all Prelats bishops aboue all Primats of Churches and people most perfect in the fayth and authority of Peter And whereas other Churches haue bene stayned with the errors of some she alone remayns established firmely vnconquerably silencing and stopping the mouthes of all Heretikes we vpon necessity of saluation neither deceiued nor drunke with the wyne of pryde togeather which her confesse and preach the forme of truth and of holy Apostolicall tradition And (r) Apud S. Thom. Opusc 1. againe Let vs remayne as members in our head the Apostolicall throne of the Bishops of Rome from which it is our part to inquire what we ought to belieue and what to hold And lastly It is sayth the Angelicall (s) Ibid. Doctor proued necessary for saluation to yeild obedience to the Bishop of Rome for Cyril sayth in his booke of Treasures Therefore Brethren if we will imitate Christ let vs as his sheep heare his voyce remayning in the Church of Peter and let vs not be puffed vp with the wynd of pride least peraduenture the crooked serpent for our contention cast vs out as long since he cast Eue out of Paradyse So teacheth S. Peter for his golden eloquence surnamed Chrysologus exhorting Eutyches the Arch-heretike to leaue his heresy and learne the true fayth from the Church of (t) Epist. ad Eutych Rome We exhort thee Reuerend Brother to lend an obedient eare to the letters of the most holy Pope of the City of Rome for as much as the Blessed Peter who liues and rules in his owne seate exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it So teacheth (u) L. de promiss prodict Dei part 4. c. 5. S. Prosper The Apostles Peter and Paul founded the Church of the Gentiles in the Citty of Rome where they taught the Doctrine of Christ our Lord and deliuered it to their Successors A Christian communicating with this generall Church is a Catholike but if he be separated from it he is an heretike and Antichrist So teacheth Arnobius (x) In psal 106. explicating the necessity of remayning in the Roman Church in these few but effectuall words He that goeth out from the Church of Peter perisheth for thirst Whereupon Erasmus sayth (y) Praefat. instruct Comment in Psalterium Arnobius seemes to yeild this honor to the Roman Church that whosoeuer is out of her is out of the Catholike Church So teacheth Iohn an ancient Patriarke of Constantinople (z) In ep ad Orientales who making profession of his fayth to Hormisdas (a) In ep ad Hormisd Pope acknowledged that in the See Apostolike the Catholike Religion is alwayes conserued inuiolable and that they who consent not fully with the See Apostolike are out of the communion of the Catholike Church So likewise teacheth S. Fulgentius Bishop of Ruspa and a famous Doctor of the African Church who togeather which other Bishops his Collegues made this answer to Peter a Deacon that had bene sent out of the (b) L. de incarnat grat c. 11. East The Roman Church enlightned with the words of the two great lights Peter Paul as with radiant beames and honoured with their bodies and which is also the top of the world without hesitation belieues so to iustice and doubtes not to Confesse so to saluation So he teaching that no Christian ought to make doubt of the fayth of the Roman Church Againe a Disciple of his that writ and dedicated his life to Felicianus his Successor reporteth that when Fulgentius going to the (c) Vita S. Fulgent c 11. Extat in Biblioth Pat. Edit Colon. tom 6. wildernes of Thebais to fast arriued at Syracusa Eulalius Bishop of that City dissuaded him with these words Thou doest well in aspiring to greater perfection but thou knowest that without fayth it is impossible to please God and that a perfidious dissention hath separated those Countreyes into which thou art trauelling from the communion of blessed Peter wherfore Sonne returne home least by seeking a more perfect life thou runne hazard of loosing the true fayth By which it is euident that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholike Church and that all such as dissented from her Doctrine were out of the true fayth and incapable of Saluation So teacheth S. Leo the first Pope of that name for his admirable learning wisdome and sanctity surnamed The Great who writing to the Bishops of Vienne sayth (d) Epist. 89. Christ from the See of Peter as from a certaine Head powreth his gifts vpon the
cleare that it is great impiety for a Christian to doubt therof S. Fulgentius sayth (s) De incarnat grat c. 11. that what the Roman Church teacheth the Christian world without hesitation belieues to iustice and doubts not to confesse to saluation S. Peter surnamed Chrysologus exhorteth Eutyches the arch-heretike thus (t) Ep. ad Eutych prafixa Act is Concil Chalced. We exhort thee reuerend brother to lend an obedient eare to the letters of the most holy Pope of the Citty of Rome for as much as the blessed Peter who liues and rules in his owne seate exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it I omit other testimonies no lesse cleare of S. Cyrill of Iohn and Maximianus Patriarkes of Constantinople of Venerable Bede S. Maximus Martyr Theodorus Studites Rabanus and others formerly alleaged (*) Chap. 1. sect 4. From this infallibility of the Roman Church it proceeded that the ancient Fathers and Councels for the decision of all doubts of fayth had euer recourse to the See of Rome and that many learned and holy Doctors haue sent their writings to the Popes of their tyme to be examined by them and approued if their Doctrine were found to be Orthodoxall or reproued if it were erroneous So did S. Augustine to Zozimus the 4. Primates of Africa to Theodorus the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to Innocentius S. Cyril to Celestine Theodoret and the Councell of Chalcedon to Leo the great S. Anselme to Vrbanus S. Bernard to Innocentius Other particulars I omit hauing dwelled long in this point already SECT II. Our second Argument AN other place of Scripture wherwith we proue the Roman Churches indefectibility in fayth are the words of Christ Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I wil build my Church the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it By the gates of hell Origen S. Epiphanius S. Hierome S. Cyril Rabanus and all other expositors vnderstand Heresies and Arch-heretikes by whom as by gates men descend into hell And contrarily by Rock they vnderstand S. Peter and his Successors in the Roman See against which heresies and whatsoeuer persecutions raised by them haue no more power to preuaile then the furious waues of raging tempests against a Rock firmely seated in the middest of the sea They may beate and breake themselues against it but destroy it they cannot And so experience teacheth for howbeit the Heathnish persecutors and other enemies of Christ haue tried their forces against it and all the other Patriarchall Sees haue fallen into heresy yet against the Roman Church God protecting it no persecutions no errors haue preuailed nor euer shall preuaile for she sayth S. Augustine (u) Psal cont part Donati is the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not Neither against the Rockon which Christ builded his Church sayth Origen (x) Tract 1. in Math. nor against the Church it selfe the gates of hell shall preuaile Vpon this Rock sayth S. Hierome (y) Ep. 57. speaking of the Roman See to Damasus I know the Church to be built he that gathereth els where scattereth Our Lord sayth S. Epiphanius (z) In Ancorato made Peter the chiefe of the Apostles a strong Rock vpon whom the Church of God is built and the gates of hell which are heresies and Arch-heretikes shall not preuaile against it for the fayth is euery way fortified in him S. Chrysostome sayth (a) Hom. 55. in Math. Our Sauiour promised to Peter power to forgiue sinnes that the Church hauing for her Pastor and Head a poore fisherman shold amongst the assalts of so many raging flouds remaine immoueable and more firmely fixed and setled then the strongest Rock S. Cyril explicating the same words of our Sauiour sayth (b) Apud S. Thom. in Catena ad c. 16. Math. According to this promise of our Lord the Apostolicall Church of Peter perseuereth in her Bishops pure and free from all seduction and circumuention aboue all Prelates and Bishops and aboue all Primates of Churches and people in the fayth and authority of Peter And wheras other Churches haue bene stayned with the errors of some she alone remaines established firmely and vnconquerably silencing and stopping the mouthes of all heretikes Possessor a famous African Bishop and banished by the Arians consulting Hormisdas Pope about the Doctrine of Faustus Rhegiensis yeldeth this reason (c) Extat Epistola apud Baron Anno 520. It is expedient to haue recourse to the head as often as the health of the members is treated of for who hath a more solicitous care of his subiects or from whom is the resolution of fayth when it is questioned to be required but from the President of that See whose first Rector heard from Christ Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it S. Leo the great (d) Serm. 2. de sua assump The solidity of that fayth which was praysed in the prince of the Apostles is perpetuall and as that remaines which Peter belieued so remaineth that also which Christ instituted in Peter Wherfore the disposition of truth remaineth and Peter perseuering in the strength of a Rock hath not left the gouerment of the Church which he once vndertooke S. Maximianus an ancient Patriarke of Constantinople higly commended by Celestine Pope (e) Ep. ad Theodosium and others (f) Apud Spond anno 431. n. 22. writeth to the Orientalls All the bounds of the earth haue sincerely acknowledged our Lord and Catholikes throughout the whole world professing the true fayth looke vpon the power of the B. of Rome as vpon the Sunne And then speaking of the reward which our Sauiour gaue to Peter for that excellent confession of his fayth he addeth For the Creator of the world amongst all men of the world chose S. Peter to whome he gaue the chayre of Doctor to be principally possessed by a perpetuall right of priuiledge to the end that whosoeuer is desirous to know any diuine and profound thing may haue recourse to the oracle and doctrine of this instruction Iustinian the Emperor maketh this profession of his fayth to Bonifacius Pope (g) Extat inter decreta Bonif. Papae The beginning of saluation is to conserue the rule of right fayth no way to swarue from the tradition of our fore-Fathers because the words of our Lord cannot faile saying Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock c. And the proofes of deeds haue made good those words because in the See Apostolike the Catholike Religion is always conserued inuiolable And the same profession was made by Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to Hormisdas Pope (h) In epist ad Hormisd abiuring the memory of all such as dye out of the Communion of the Roman Church or agree not in all things fully with her S. Gregory (i) L. 6. ep 37. Who knoweth not that the holy Church is strengthned by
professe by acknowledging (c) Ibid. that he ruled ouer them as the Head doth ouer the members and therfore beseeching him to confirme their decrees with his authority they adde (d) Ibid. We pray you to honor our iudgment with your decrees and that as in what concernes the Weale we haue held correspondence to our Head so your Soueraignty wold fulfill vnto your Children what is fit and conuenient These testimonies so cleare and pregnant cannot but conuince the vnderstanding of any impartiall reader that the Councell of Chalcedon beleeued the vniuersall authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome whom therefore the same Councell often calleth (e) Act. 1.2.3 Bishop of the vniuersall Church SECT III. Whether the title of Vniuersall Bishop which the Councell of Chalcedon gaue to the Pope argue in him no more but a generall care of the good of the Church such as belonges to euery Bishop and to euery Christian. OF all the proofes hereunto alleaged you take no notice two only excepted namely of the title of Vninersall Bishop and of the metaphor of a Vine by which the Councell expresseth the vniuersall Church saying (f) In relat ad Leon. that the custody therof is by Christ our Sauiour committed to the Pope These two you call Two postes to support the ruinous Monarchy of the B. of Rome And your answeare to them here (g) Pag. 117.118 and afterwards againe (h) Pag. 236. is that these attributes import no vniuersall power of iurisdiction in the Pope but of prouidence and care which euery Bishop shold haue in wishing and to his power endeauoring the vniuersall good of the whole Church But if the words of the Councell import no more it will follow that the custody of the vniuersall Church that is the gouerment therof was by Christ committed not only to euery Bishop but also to euery Christian man and woman who should wish and to their power procure the vniuersall good of the whole Church But you obiect (i) Pag. 116.117 236. that Eleutherius Pope writing to the Bishops of France sayth The vniuersall Church of Christ is committed to you that you may labor for all men and that according to Binius his exposition the meaning of Eleutherius is that for as much as heretikes oppugne the Catholike and vniuersall Church is belongeth to euery Bishop to haue an vniuersall care to defend and support it And this say you is a true answere indeed But you speake vntruly and interprete falsly for Binius hath no such word as Vniuersall care nor doth he speake of Bishops only but sayth that a care solicitude of defending the vniuersall Church against heretikes belongeth not only to Bishops but to euery Christian for as much as we are commanded by God Eccl. c. 4. to fight fortruth and iustice vntill death How do these words of Binius proue that the Pope hath not or that the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledged him not to haue authority and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church but only a charitable care of her good as S. Paul had and as euery Bishop and euery Christian man and woman according to their power are bound to haue for did not that Councel giue to Pope Leo the title of Vniuersall Archbishop and Patriarke or as you set it downe (k) Pag. 235. of Bishop of the vniuersall Church but these words say you (l) Ibid. were not the words of the Councell but of two Deacons writing to the Councell and of Paschasinus the Popes Legate False for it was giuen to him (m) Act. 3. in foure different petitions of Theodorus and Ischyrion Deacons of Alexandria of Athanasius a Priest of the same City and of Sophronius And the Councell approuing thereof commanded theyr petitions to be registred in the Acts. Moreouer the same title was giuen him by Paschasinus who though he were his legate was a Reuerend Bishop as also by Martian the Emperor the Councell no way excepting therat And did not S. Gregory and after him the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas testify that the whole Councell of Chalcedon with the following Fathers gaue the same title to Leo Pope And did not Leo a man of admirable sanctity learning instyle himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church And did not the Regulars of Constantinople and of Syria and the Bishops of the Patriarkships of Antioch and Hierusalem giue the same tytle to Agapetus Pope in the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas (n) See all this proued aboue Chap. 15. sect 3. Againe did not the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledge in Leo power to restore Theodoret to his Bishoprick of Cyre bordering vpon Persia from which he had bene deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus (o) Act. â— Did it not acknowledge in him authority to depose Dioscorus the greatest Patriarch of the East (p) Act. 3. Did not all those Fathers being the representatiue body of the Vniuersall Church professe (q) In relat ad Leon. that Leo Pope did preside rule ouer them as the Head ouer the members Is this Authority common to euery Bishop Or did Eleutherius or the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledge any such thing But he that will see how imposterously you wrest the testimony of Eleutherius against the vniuersall power and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome and against the meaning of the Councell of Chalcedon let him read the epistle and he shall finde that Eleutherius a litle before the words which you obiect declareth that althought it be lawfull to examine the accusations and crimes obiected against Bishops either before their Metropolitans or before the Bishops of their owne Prouince yet that it is not lawfull to end them there for as much as it hath bene decreed by the Apostles their Successors that the finall decision of Bishops causes is to be referred to the See Apostolike and no others substituted in their places vntill their iudgments be ended at Rome Can there be a more full expression of the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church then to professe him to be the sole supreme Iudge of all Bishops Or can there be a greater imposture then to obiect this epistle of Eleutherius for the contrary SECT IV. Whether the Councell of Chalcedon did giue to the B. of Constantinople priuiledges equall with the B. of Rome YOu obiect heere (r) Pag. 118. and often repeate that the Fathers of Chalcedon did giue priuiledges to the Patriarke of Constantinople equall with the Church of Rome Answeare The Fathers of Chalcedon in absence of the Popes Legates of the Patriarke of Alexandria and of all the Bishopes of Aegypt at the suggestion of Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople renewed the decree of the 150. Fathers made in the first generall Councell of that City which was that the B. of Constantinople shold haue the second place of honor after the B. of Rome And to this decree was added that he should haue equall priuiledges
meanes like a prudent and solicitous Pastor to worke both partes to an accord and establish peace in the Church But finding the Emperor and the Easterne Bishops violent in the prosecution of their decree and that the Bishops of Venice and the regions adioyning as also those of Ireland following his opinion relying on his authority had condemned this Councell of Constantinople and that the Church therby was in danger to be rent in sunder with Schisme and on the other syde considering that the subiect of that Contention was no matter of fayth and neither the one part nor the other any way repugnant to the Councell of Chalcedon as S. Gregory hath noted (y) L. 3. ep 37. but a thing of it selfe indifferent he altered his opinion and yelded to confirme this decree purchasing to himselfe that commendation which S. Augustine (z) Ep. 162. giues to the most famous Gouernors of Gods people both in the old new Testament which is that They tolerate for the good of vnity that which they hate for the loue of equity and imitating the example of S. Leo the great who testifies of himselfe (a) Ep. 14. that for the loue of peace he yelded to confirme the ordination of Maximus B. of Antioch which Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople without any example against the Canons had presumptuously vsurped to himselfe Nor can Vigilius herein be argued of leuity for if he altered his mind he did it vpon iust causes for the auoyding of Schisme and following the example of S. Paul who hauing first giuen his voyce for the abolishing of circumcision (b) Act. 15.11 afterwards vpon iust cause circumcised Timothy (c) Act. 16.3 and yet againe reprehended Peter that by his dissimulation he induced the Gentiles to circumcision and other Iewish ceremonies (d) Gal. 2.11 14. You to proue the no-necessity of subiection to the Pope obiect the standing out of the Easterne Bishops against Vigilius (e) Pag 123. 124. But you might by the like Argument proue that subiects are not bound to obey their Prince because some of them stand out in rebellion against him And as litle to the purpose is your telling vs (f) Pag 123. fin that those Bishops condemned all them that defended the Three Chapters for contrarily we tell you that the Bishops of the West in their Councell at Aquileia condemned all those Bishops and their Councell at Constantinople and had more right to do it then the Easterne Bishops to condemne them for they did it in defence of the Popes authority whose opinion they followed Your vrging (g) Pag. 123. the persecution which Iustinian raised against Vigilius to bring him to confirme the decree of the Easterne Bishops maketh wholly against you for why did both he and the Bishops themselues vrge Vigilius so â—uch to confirme their decree but because they knew that no decree of any Councell can be of force vnlesse it be approued by the See Apostolike (h) See this proued aboue Chap. 17. sect 6. Finally the Popes authority 〈◊〉 effectually proued out of this Councell for as much as by vertue of Vigilius his confirmation it hath obtained the force of a lawfull Councell and deserued the title of the fifth generall wheras without his confirmation it would not haue bene receaued by the Church more then that of Ariminum or the second of Ephesus which the See Apostolike hath reiected And the same is confirmed by Eutichius Patriarke of Constantinople who though he prefided in this Councell yet acknowledged the right of presiding not to belong to himselfe but to Vigilius when inuiting him to the Councell he sayd (i) Ep. ad Vigil in quinta Syn. Collat. 1. Our desire is to haue the Three Chapters examined your Blessednesse presiding ouer vs. SECT IV. Doctor Mortons glosse vpon the Word Obedience TO conclude your discourse of the fifth generall Councell as vntruly ignorantly as you began you say (k) Pag. 124. Idle and vaine is your obiection out of that Synod from one word Obedience which they professed to the Catholike See by not discerning betwene a logicall and a morall obedience for they promised obedience to that See in all her orthodoxe and reasonable perswasions but not to her peremptory commands and conclusions for you may obey S. Augustine by subscribing to his iudgment without submitting to his iurisdiction So you where first you ignorantly make this profession of obedience to the Roman Church to be of the fiâ—â—h generall Councell and alleage Bellarmine for your author who expresly sayth that they are words of the Synod held vnder Menas before the fifth generall Councell 2. Your glosse vpon the word Obedience is idle and false for you wrest it to an improper signification I deny not but that the words of Obedience and Command may be taken improperly as if when your equall or inferior requests you to do a fauor for him or perswades you to your owne good you answeare I will obey your commands vnderstanding by his Commands his requests and persuasions But that the B. of Rome as being gouernor of the vniuersall Church hath true power and authority to Command according to the most first and proper signification of the word and that the greatest Bishops Councels haue acknowledged in themselues obligation to obey in the same sense hath bene already proued (d) Chap. 18. sect 1. False therfore is you glosse that this Councell acknowledged not in themselues obligation to obey the B. of Rome nor in him authority to command but only to persuade You defend an ill cause which vpon no other ground but only to excuse your disobedience to the See Apostolike inforceth you to wrest the words of the Councell to an improper signification And as your glosse vpon the word Obedience is false so is it repugnant euen to common sense for let a generall Councell be called of all the Orthodox Bishops in the world let them condemne an Arius an Eutyches or a Pelagius if your glosse may be allowed any of these heretikes or any other neuer so impious may refuse to submit himselfe and obey their decrees saying He will obey them in all their Orthodoxe and reasonable persuasions but not in their peremptory commands and conclusions and so obey them in nothing at all For what heretike will not say that the decrees of a generall Councell against his heresy are not Orthodoxe and reasonable persuasions but peremptory commands and conclusions Cold this euasion iustify Arius his disobedience or excuse him from heresy No and so neither can your glosse iustify your cause or satisfy any man of iudgment And as your glosse is false so is your dealing imposterous for the words of the Councell truly alleaged by Bellarmine out of whom you cite them are Apostolicam Sedem sequimur obedimus ipsius communicatores communicatores habemus condemnatos ab ipsa nos condemnamus We follow and obey the See Apostolike
These Syr are not Eusebius his words but yours He sayth that they did earnestly exhort Victor to peace to a diligent care of charity towards his neighbours and bitterly reproued him as prouiding vnprofitably for the good of the Church So indeed Eusebius sayth according to the translation of Ruffinus And both of them being Heretikes shew their malice against the See Apostolike in saying that other Bishops did bitterly reproue Victor for comming to giue an example of this bitternesse they bring for their paterne the wordes of S. Irenaeus in all which there is not one bitter word but a gentle remonstrance full of submission to the person of Victor and to the authority of his See for he sayth not that Victor could not but that he should not haue cut off from the body of the Church so many prouinces for so small a cause which is not to argue him of want of power but for vsing his power indiscreetly Irenaeus sayth Eusebius (r) L. 5. hist c. 24. did fitly exhort Pope Victor that he would not vtterly cut off so many Churches from the body of the vniuersall Church of Christ. And wheras you (s) Pag. 132. traduce Christopherson our learned Bishop of Chichester for this translation of Eusebius it is a cauill sprung out of your ignorance for the Greeke verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Eusebius vseth fignifieth to cut off from the whole masse or body and so it is proued out of Ruffinus who translateth thus Irenaus reproued Victor for not doing well in cutting off from the vnity of the body so many and so great Churches And so likewise translateth your learned Protestant-brother Ioannes Iacobus Grynaeus in his Basilean edition of Eusebius And in the same manner translateth Nicephorus (t) L. 4. c. 38. all of them as well skilled in Greeke as your selfe to say no more And indeed how could Irenaeus reproue Victor for exceeding the limits of his power he that crieth out (u) L. 3. c. 3. To the Roman Church all Churches and all the faythfull from all places must necessarily haue recourse by reason of her more powerfull principality Wherfore it was not want of Power that Irenaeus reproued in Victor but indiscreet vsing of his power But that euen in this he was instaken and that Victor failed not euen in point of prudence nor vsed ouer-much rigor appeareth in this that hereby he repressed the Heresy of Blastus by which many were seduced as also because the famous Councell of Nice first many others afterwards confirmed his sentence and condemned the doctrine and practise of Blastus the Asians in this point in so much that all which since that tyme haue persisted in the contrary custome haue bene accounted Heretikes and vnder the name of Quartadecimani registred for such by the Fathers that haue made catalogues of heretikes That the Nicen Councell had iust cause to condemne this Quartadeciman error you dare not deny but you deny the same of Pope Victor yeld a disparity in these words (x) Pag. 132. Be it knowne vnto you that the decree of the Nicen Councell which ordayned that Easter should be kept vpon the Lords day maketh nothing for the Act of Victor his excommunicating the Asian Bishops because as that Councell was celebrated 200. yeares after so had it far more iust and necessary cause to make such a decree by reason of the heresy of Blastus who at that tyme defended an indispensable necessity of obseruing the Iewish ceremonial law The cause then for which you approue the decree of the Nicen CouÌ„cell and condemne that of Victor in the same cause is by reason of the heresy of Blastus who say you at that tyme of the Nicen Councell defended an indispensable necessity of obseruing the Iewish ceremoniall law which wordes present vnto vs an excellent testimony of your ignorance in ecclesiasticall history for Blastus liued not at the tyme of the Nicen Councell as you affirme but 130. yeares before in the very tyme of Victor Pope and of S. Irenaeus who writ against him as S. Hierome testifieth (y) L. de Scriptor And so likewise did Tertullian at the same tyme saying (z) De praescrip c. 53. Blastus seeketh couertly to bring in Iudaisine for he teacheth that Easter is not to be kept otherwise then according to the law of Moyses And with them agreeth Eusebius reporting (a) L. 5. bist c. 14. that Blastus begun to preach and diuulge his heresy in the tyme of Victor Pope Wherfore you saying that Blastus liued not in the time of Victor but of the Nicen Councell which was more then 100. yeares after present vs ignorantly with falshood insteed of truth in lieu of impugning the fact of Victor against your will confirme the same And by the way I will not omit to aduertise the reader of three things The first is that wheras you say (b) Pag. 132. The Nicen Councell was 200. yeares after Pope Victor excommunicated the Asians you cannot be excused from another ignorant mistake for it was not much aboue 120. yeares after that tyme the sentence of Victor being in the yeare 198. and the Councell of Nice the yeare 325. The second is that the sentence of Victor being ratified and confirmed and contrarily the Iewish custome of the Asians anathematized by the three first generall Councels of Nice Constantinople (c) Ca. 7. and Ephesus (d) P. â— act 6 as also by the second of Antioch (e) Ca. 1. the first of Arles (f) Ca. 1. and that Laodicea (g) Ca. 7. and they that obeyed not the sentence of Victor registred for heretikes by Philastrius (h) In catal Haer. S. Epiphanius (i) Haer. 50. S. Augustine (k) L. de Haeres haer 29. Theodoret (l) Haeret. fab l. 3. cap. 5. S. Damascen (m) Haeres 50. and Nicephorus (n) L. 4. c. 36.37.38 you neuerthelesse blush not to approue that hereticall custome and to say (o) Pag. 157. that the Britans and Scots in obseruing it some hundreds of yeares after it was thus condemned did much more orthodoxally then the Roman Church which sheweth that any custome so it be contrary to the practise of the Roman Church is to you Orthodoxall though in it selfe it be damnable and anathematized as hereticall by neuer so many Councells and Fathers as this Asian custome obserued by the Brittans and Scots was 3. And from the same spirit proceedeth your saying (p) Pag. 131. that Pope Victor was the Schismatâ—ke that troubled the peace of the Church and not the Asian Bishops since they for their obstinacy in defending the Iewish custome haue bene by all orthodox Fathers and Councels condemned as heretikes and contrarily Pope Victor euen as M. Whit gift your brother acknowledgeth (q) In his Defence pag. 5â—0 was a godly Bishop and Martyr and the Church at that tyme in great purity as not being long after the
ignorant that the custome is that we be first written vnto that from hence may proceed the iust decision of things If therfore any suspicion were conceaued against the Bishops there it ought to haue bene referred hither to our Church And therupon he denounceth to them that in condemning Athanasius without expecting his sentence they had done contra canones against the Canons namely of the Nicen Councell which he setteth downe in his second Epistle to them and that aswell Athanasius as other Catholike Bishops whom they had condemned in appealing from their Councell to him as he in repealing their Actes in restoring the Appellants to their seates and in summoning their aduersaries to Rome had done quod Ecclesiastici Canonis est according to the Canons of the Church If therfore the holy Popes Iulius Felix Marcus and Liberius that liued soone after the Councell of Nice if S. Athanasius that was personally present if Iohn the learned Orator of the Latines speaking in all their names in the councell of Florence if Socrates Sozomen Theodoret Nicephorus and many other ancient writers deserue to be credited and if they knew how to call things by their proper names there were in the Nicen Councell more then 20. Canons properly so called which is also acknowledged by your Protestant brethren (a) Brereley Prot. Apol. Tract 1. sect 7. subdiu 2. Oecolampadius who chargeth the Latin copies of the 20. Canons as defectiue Caluin M. Iuell and M. Bilson mentioning a Canon of the Nicen Councell concerning the Sacrament and lastly by Doctor Whitgift (b) Brereley ibid. prouing out of the second Councell of Arles S. Hierome and other approued authors diuers Canons which are not to be found in those 20. The testimonies which you obiect for the contrary vrge not Not that of Pope Stephen for though he say that in the Roman Church there are 20. Chapters of the Nicen councell yet he immediatly addeth that it is vncertaine by what negligence the rest are wanting which words you wittingly leaue out mangling the sentence that so he may seeme to fauor your opinion of the 20. Canons Theodoret and Nicephorus speake only of 20. Canons or lawes made pro conformandis moribus for ordering or reforming of manners wheras notwithstanding as Pisanus out of their owne words hath obserued els where they acknowledg that the Arians in condemning Athanasius had infringed the Nicen Canons and that Athanasius in appealing to him had done according to the same Canons Wherfore it the two Patriarkes Cyrill and Atticus knew not of more then 20. Nicen Canons it was because the Arians hauing cast out the Catholike Bishops and possessed their seates as we read in Socrates Sozomen Theodoret and Nicephorus (c) Brereley ibid. had corrupted the Canons of that Councell and suppressed those which declared their proceedings to be vnlawfull contrary to the Nicen Canons And howsoeuer those Patriarkes thought you cannot deny that your 20. Canons were not the only nor all the true Canons of Nice vnlesse you will grant the Canons of Ruffinus which you allow to be corrupt and false for as Osiander confesseth (d) Epit. Cent. 4. pag. 122. those 20. of Ruffinus differ ordine rebus both in order and matter from the others which Cyrill Atticus sent out of the East And the same is yet made more euident out of the Councell of Florence affirming (e) Sess 20. that by the testimonies of many ancient and holy Fathers the African Councell it selfe did know those Canons which they receaued out of the East to be corrupt and false It resteth therfore that neither they nor the other of Ruffinus comprehend all the true Canons of Nice but that there were others declaring the primacy of the Roman Church her authority to call confirme Councells and in particular her right of appeales as Pisanus hath proued whom therfore you abusiuely alleage for the contrary Nor is your dealing better with Turrianus for albeit he grant that as in the Councell of Chalcedon so likewise in that of Nice beside Canons there were among the Actes other Decrees or Constitutions and that of this number are the seuerall Decrees which you set downe out of him yet with what conscience do you conceale the rest for in the words immediatly preceding he sayth In illis Actis c. In those Actes was also contayned that Canon of Appeales which Zozimus Pope in the sixt Councell of Carthage witnesseth to be of the Nicen Councell and which after the Nicen Councell was renewed in the Councell of Sardica C. 7. And is not this very point here in question Our dispute is not verball whether the decree of Appeales to Rome made in the Councell of Nice were a Canon properly so called or a Constitution Words of this kind are by the best authors vsed promiscuously The canons of Councells are somtimes called Canones somtimes Capitula somtimes Leges somtimes Decreta somtimes CoÌ„stitutiones The reall difficulty betweene vs is whether appeales to Rome were decreed in the Councell of Nice by any either Canon properly so called or by any Law or Constitution That they were decreed hath bene proued and that not only ancient writers giue it the name of a Canon but enen Pisanus and Turrianus those very two whome you produce for the contrary I conclude therfore that as this your discourse is a digression from the truth so it is from the purpose and a trifling shift to put of the reall difficulty by reducing it to a question de nomine And that which most sheweth your folly is that by trifling you wholly ouerthrow your cause for you grant (f) Pag. 302. all the examples which our Authors collect out of the Fathers and Councells as though they had bene Canons of the Nicen Councell to be Constitutions of the same Councell though not Canons which is to grant that in the Nicen Councell there was a Constitution wherby Appeales to Rome were decreed for this is one of the examples which our Authors collect out of the Epistles of Iulius out of Socrates Sozomen Theodoret Nicephorus and other ancient writers And this alone is sufficient to shew that as you deny the same without ground so you conclude your digression falsly saying (g) Pag. 303. that the decree which the Popes alleaged for appeales is not to be found at all either among the Canons or the Constitutions of the Councell of Nice SECT III. Whether if there had bene no Canon for appeales to Rome in the Councell of Nice it had bene forgery in Pope Zozimus to alleage a Canon of the Sardican Councell for a Canon of Nice SOme Catholike writers coniecture that the Canons of appealing to Rome which Pope Zozimus directed to the Africans were Canons of the Councell of Sardica but sent by him vnder the title of Nicen Canons You say (h) Pag. 145. These Canons of Sardiâ—a mun be iudged fictions and that it is sufficiently proued to be a falâ—hood
2. Whosoeuer shall deny vnto him Peter and his Successor the Princedome of care and power shall neuer be able to depresse his dignity but puffed vp with pride shall drowne himselfe into Hell Your Syllogisme then is vaine the Minor thereof being manifestly false That the African Martyrs dyed out of obedience to the Roman Church I come now to your falsifies and falsifications of the Story and tenour of the foresaid questioned Epistle of Boniface the Second Two especially are very exorbitant first that the Pope denounced or thundred out (z) Pag 148. pag. 150. excommunication against the Churchs of Africa that these Aurelius and S. Augustine all other Bishops of Africa were excommunicate by the Pope for their Opposition against the Church of Rome Which notorious falshood you seeke to make good by a notable falsification (a) Pag. 149. telling vs That our Costerus and Turrian both Iesuites and also M. Harding do greatly magnify our Popes for discharging their office in excommunicating the Bishops of Afrike You neither cite any wordes nor quote any place of Turrian but referre vs in your margent to your Sadeel whome we trust as litle almost as we do your selfe You cite the wordes of the Iesuite Costerus Bene fecerunt Romani Pontifices c. but you peruert them and turne them to another matter and purpose (b) Costerus Enchirid. Controuers de summo Pontifice pag. 159. Costerus proposeth your Protestant Argument The Bishops of Africa in the dayes of S. Augustine did bitterly inueigh against Pope Celestine who after Pope Zozimus challenged authority ouer the African Churches and admitted the Appeales of Clergymen from their Bishops vnto him This is the obiection vnto which he makes Answere in the wordes by you cited Rectè ex officio fecerunt Romani Pontifices c. The Roman Bishops did well and according to their duty and the African Bishops were to blame who euen then as doth testify Boniface the 2. were inclining to a defection from the Roman Church to their owne great losse because soone after they were conquered and came vnder the Dominion of the Arian Wandals Blessed Augustine subscribed not vnto those bitter letters for he did euer beare singular veneration towards the Apostolike see Thus Costerus affirming that the Pope did well in admitting the Appeales of the Clergymen made vnto him and that herein he did discharge the office of a good Pastor but that he did excommunicate Aurelius and all other Bishops of Africa and that in so doing he did discharge his duety this Costerus doth not say No nor that the Africans were Schismatically deuided from the Church of Rome bur only that they seemed euen then to thinke vpon some such thinge M. Harding in like manner sayth (c) Answere to M. Iewelâ—s Challenge fol. 218. A. that the Churches of Africa had continued in Schisme and withdrawne themselues from the obedience of the See Apostolike through the entisement of Aurelius Bishop of Carthage but that all the Churchs of Africa or any one Church was excommunicated by the Pope this M. Harding doth not say So that the Excommunication of all the Churches and Bishops of Africa by the Pope is not recorded by any Author not by Costerus not by Harding not by the foresaid Epistle of Boniface the second it is a meere fiction of your owne head The Africans were no further separated from the Church of Rome then they eloyned themselues from it by their own voluntarily departure and fault But they did not depart from the Obedience of the Roman Church by denying the Christian fayth thereof nor by denying the Popes power and Iurisdiction ouer them but only dissented in a Problematique (d) An expediret ea potestate vti omnibus in locis non sine causa dubitacum est Bellarm. lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif c. 25. §. Ad hoc eorum Question about what was fit to be done by the Pope about the Appeales of African Clergymen of inferiour degree Although this falshood falsification may seeme grosse inough yet the second is greater The Iesuite Salmeron say (e) Pag. 149. you and Sanders do confidently hold that all the African Bishops were seuered from the Church of Rome from the dayes of S. Cyprian vntill the time of the said Boniface the Author of the Epistle Can any thinge be said or deuised more openly notoriously palpably false then this You say in the wordes that presently follow the aboue cited that You doubt not but that we stand halfe agast Verely so it is we stand more then halfe agast not that there be different opinions among our Authors about the said Epistle of Boniface the second but that Protestants can endure that such notorious falsities should be so confidently vttered and layd for grounds and principles in your discourse to iusâ—â—ly their reuolt from the obedience doctrine and discipline of the Roman Church But the Iesuit Salmeron say you and Sanders do confidently so hold If this be true we shall remayne agast at their madnesse thinke their writings worthy of the fire if they do not so hold if they affirme the contrary in plaine termes if these wordes All the African Bishops were seuered from the Church of Rome from the dayes of S. Cyprian vntill the time of Boniface the second which you allege in a distinct letter as verbally theirs be supposititious and forged how ought Protestants to remaine agast What course ought they to take with your writings Sanders then to begin with him doth not say all the Bishops but the contrary in these very wordes (f) Sanderus de visibili Monarch pag. 330. n. 247. Non ergo vt somniant Magdeburgenses aut potiùs calumniantur omnes Africani Patres opposueruâ—t se Pontifici Romano sed potiùs multi cupiebant rem adipsum referri In the Controuersy about Appellations all the African Bishops did not oppofe the Bishop of Rome as the Magdeburgians dreame or rather calumniously report yea rather many of them desired that the matter might be referred to the Pope For though Aurelius Bishop of Carthage and Primate of all Africa may seeme to haue been somewhat crosse and to haue affected an absolute Primacy in matters of discipline and behauiour yet there be many signes wherby it appeareth that others were otherwise minded yea that Aurelius himselfe did acknowledge the Primacy of the Roman Bishop and appealed to him in matters of fayth Thus Sanders Who further against your peremptory affirming that namely S. Augustine concurred with Aurelius in this point he produceth the wordes of Bishop Faustinus the Popes Legat in the Councell of Carthage vnto Aurelius requesting him that about Appeales made by Clergymen of inferior degree vnto Bishops his Holinesse would vouchsafe to write to Venerable Pope Boniface remitting the matter to his deliberation and conclusion ficut Sanctus Augustinus statuere dignatus est as Holy Augustine hath been pleased to determine by his suffrage By which
Charity only this euery Bishop and euery Christian is bound to haue according to the measure of his ability Or it may be of Iustice and such is the care or charge which euery Bishop hath of his owne Dioces and the Pope of the Vniuersall Church for to him by reason of his office of supreme Pastor belongeth not only a charitable care but the rule gouerment of the vniuersall Church (r) See this proued Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. In this sense Acacius spake when he said (s) Ep. ad Simplic Simplicius Pope had the care of all Churches And the Fathers euermore speake in this sense when they say that to Peter and his Successors in the See of Rome was committed the care of the vniuersal Church In this sense S. Chrysostome said (t) Hom. 87. in Ioan. The care of the whole world was committed to Peter and what he meaneth by Care he explicateth saying (u) Hom. 80. ad pop The gouerment of the Church throughout the whole world was committed to Peter Euthymius (x) Ad c. 21. Ioan. Christ committed to Peter pascendi curam gubernationem the care of feeding and gouerning his flock So Sozomenus (y) L. 3. c. 7. Iulius Pope restored to their seates Athanasius and other Bishops banished by the Arians because the care of all belonged to him by reason of the dignity of his See S. Leo speaking to Anastasius B. of Thessalonica (z) Ep. 84. and making him his Vicar in the East To the end sayth he thou maiest supply the place of my gouerment and help me in that care which by diuine institution I owe to all Churches and in person visit those Prouinces remote from the See Apostolike And to Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople (a) Ep. 46. If they who haue so grieuously offended against Flauianus offer satisfaction let relation therof be made to the See Apostolike that our solicitude may ordayne what is to be obserued S. Gregory (b) L. 4. ep 32. To all that know the Ghospell it is manifest that by the voyce of our Lord the Care and Princedome of the whole Church was committed to Peter Prince of the Apostles And againe (c) L. 7. ep 70. indict 2. By the care of our vndertaken gouerment we are enforced to extend with vigilancy the solicitude of our office S. Bernard (d) Serm. 3. de 7. misericord frag Witnesse Peter to whom the Pastorall care of the whole Church was committed These and a thousand more testimonies conuince that when the ancient Fathers speake of the care of all Churches committed to the B of Rome by Care they vnderstand the Pastorall charge and obligation of ruling and gouerning the Vniuersall Church and therby condemne you of falsity who to the testimony of Victor Vâ—iconsis calling the Roman Church the Head of all Churches answeare (e) Pag. 271. that he calls it not Head of all Churches in power and iurisdiction and that we could neuer proue this out of any ancient Father for you haue heard it proued by their most expresse and vnanswearable words (f) Aboue Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. Yf the fore to expresse this vniuersall authority and iurisdiction of the Pope ouer all Churches they vse somtimes the word Care rather then Gouerment it is because as S. Chrysostome (g) Hom. 3. in Act. speaking of the Pastorall authority of S. Peter ouer the other Apostles hath noted Eminency of spirituall power is a care of subiects not a Lord-like dominion And this sheweth the wrong you do to Costerus (h) Pag. 235. when to disproue the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction you alleage him calling it Care for with what conscience could you possesse your reader that by Care he vnderstands not power and iurisdiction but only a charitable solicitude knowing as you do that in the same Chapter (i) Eâ—chirid Tract de Pont. solut 7. he proueth out of Scripture and Fathers the Pastorall charge of ruling and gouerning the vniuersall Church committed by Christ to S. Peter and his Successors He that readeth this in Costerus and alleageth him for the contrary what can his intention be but to deceaue his readers You (1) Pag. 262. obiect Acacius his deedes full of pride and arrogancy against the Roman Church so that Baronius for his defending Peter Mogg by him established in the Bishopricke of Alexandria against the will of the same Pope Simplicius calleth him a Francirke man violently opposite vnto the Bishop of Rome I answere that Acacius so long as he continued Catholike did both by word and deed acknowledge the supreme authority of the Roman Bishop but it is grosse ignorance in you not to know that afterward he fell to be (2) Euagr. lib. 3. c. 20. Liberatus in Breu. c 18. Niceph. l. 16. c. 17. Spondom An. 484.488 a stiffe mantayner of the Entychian Heretikes namely of Peter Mogg in those dayes the chiefe defender pillar and Patriarke of that damnable Sect for which cause he was excommunicated by the Pope dying obstinate in his sinne his name was blotted out of the Dyptiches euen (3) Spond An. 51â— with the consent of the Bishops of Constantinople his successors wherby we learne this lesson that men so longe as they be Orthodoxe Christians still honor obey the Pope and Roman Church so they are no sooner blasted with the spirit of heresy but they become Frantike opposers therof as your Luther was And wheras to make men belieue that this Acacius was of great authority and esteeme euen in the Latin Church you bid vs remember (4) Pag. 263. that the two Patriarkes Cyrill and Acacius were they that sent the Copies of the Canons of Nice vnto the African Bishops by which our Popes were conuinced of fraude c. We can remember no such matters but wonder how a man so learned as you would be thought could be so childishly mistaken seing Acacius was made Patriarke in the yeare 472. that is fourty eight yeares after the sending of the Nicen CanoÌ„s to the African Bishops the Copies wherof sent by Atticus not by Acacius to haue been imperfect wherein many Canons were wanting we haue already demonstrated As for the decree and sanction of Leo Emperour in behalfe of the Church of Constantinople and Acacius the then Patriarke thereof wherein he termeth the Church of Constantinople the mother of all Christians of the Orthodox Religion whatsoeuer might be the meaning of these wordes in Acacius who moued the Emperour to make that decree his ambitious conceits which Baronius censureth yet according to the mind of the Godly Emperour they import no more then Mother of all Orthodoxe Christians in the Church of Constantinople as is cleere by the text Mother sayth he vnto our Piety and vnto all Orthodoxe Christians and of this Royall Citty the most sacred See You make the Emperor say (5) Pag. 263. the Mother of all Orthodoxall Churches
the Muscouits and Russians though they be of a different nation and haue their seruice in a different tongue are yet esteemed and said to be of the Greeke Church because they imbrace her Doctrine and communion And what more vsual to Protestants themselues then to call Catholikes in what parte of the world soeuer they liue Romanists And lastly to coÌ„firme this manner of speach with secular aswell as with Ecclesiasticall examples who knoweth not that according to the phrase of all writers by the name of the Roman Empire is not vnderstood the Citty and territories of Rome only but also whatsoeuer other Prouinces subiect to the Roman Emperors though neuer so distant from Rome And so in like manner when we say that out of the Roman Church there is no hope of saluation by the Roman Church we vnderstand not the particuler Dioces of Rome but all the Churches of the world which make one Catholike or vniuersall Church of which the Roman is head and the rest members subiect to her And because the Bishop of Rome is head of all Bishops the particuler Church of the Roman Dioces is the mother and mistresse of all Churches In regard whereof she may in a sense not improper be called the Catholike Church as in a fleete of Galleys the chief Galley which hath commaund ouer the rest though it be a particuler Galley is called the Generall and in an army of men though the chiefe commaunder be a particuler man and as a Captaine haue a particuler company of his owne yet he is rightly called the Generall And as none can be a Souldier of that fleete of Galleys vnlesse he be in the chief Galley or in some of the rest subordinate to her nor a souldier of that Army vnlesse he be of the Generalls particuler company or of some of the rest subiect to him so none can be a membâ—r of the Catholike Church vnlesse he be of the particuler Church of Rome or of some other subiect to her And from hence it is that albeit euery Orthodoxe Church may be called a Catholike Church and euery Orthodoxe man a Catholike man yet this denomination agreeth to the Bishop and Church of Rome causally and originally and to other men and Câ—urches participatiuely In regard whereof S. Cyprim (*) L. 4. ep 8. â—alleth the Roman Church The roote and Mother of the Catholâ—ke Church and the originall of Sacerdotall vnity from whence also it followeth that as euery particuler person that is in communion with the Church of Rome is rightly styled Catholike so all others that are not of her communion are Schismatiks or Heretikes SECT III. That in the language of Antiquity The Catholike Church and the Roman Church were two names signifying one and the same thing IT hath euer beene the constant beliefe of all Orthodoxe Fathers and people aswell of the primitiue as of the successiue ages since Christ that the Roman Church is the Catholike Church as hath beene declared and that out of her there is no hope of saluation The whole scope of your Grand Imposture is to impugne this truth and the whole drift and subiect of this Apology shall be to maintayne defend the same truth And that the reader may haue some little taste or prelibatioÌ„ of what shal be more largely proued in the ensuing Chapters I haue thought good to set downe in the frontispice of this worke the beliefe of some of the most famous and renowned Fathers of Gods Church not in myne but in their owne cleare expresse and vnanswerable words First therefore Tertullian speaking of Marcion who had presented a great summe of money to the Church of Rome sayth (*) Cont. Marcio l. 4. c. 4. Marcion gaue his money to the Catholike Church which reiected both it and him when he fell into heresy The same appeareth by that ancient learned Bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa S. Cyprian (a) L. 4. ep 2. who expresseth to Antonianus how great ioy he conceaued to vnderstand that forsaking the Nouatians he wholly agreed with the Catholike Church adhering to Cornelius Pope And againe (b) Ibid. You writ sayth he to Antonianus that I would send a copie of your letters to Cornelius to the end he might vnderstand that you communicate with him that is to say with the Catholike Church And speaking to Cornelius himself (c) L. 4. ep 8. and calling the Roman Church The roote and originall of the Catholike Church he sayth It seemed good to vs that letters should be sent to all our Colleagues at Rome that they should firmely imbrace your communion that is to say the vnity and charity of the Catholike Church Hereby it appeares that in S. Cyprians language and beliefe to communicate with the Roman Church and to communicate with the Catholike Church was one and the selfe same thing And the same appeareth by those Africans whome Nouatus had seduced to forsake Cornelius the true Pâ—pe and adhere to Nouatian the Anti-pope for perceauing that by falling from Cornelius they were fallen from the Catholike Church and become Schismatiks they acknowledged their error and made their recantation in these words reported and commended by S. Cyprian (d) Ep. 46. We acknowledge Cornelius to be Bishop of the most holy Catholike Church chosen by Almighty God and our Lord Iesus Christ We confesse our error we haue beene seduced we haue beene circumuented by perfidiousnes captious loquacity for although we did seeme to haue communication with a man Nouatian the Anti-pope that was a Schismatike and an heretike yet our mind was alwayes sincere in the Church for we are not ignorant that there is one God and one Lord Christ whom we haue confessed and one holy Ghost and that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholike Church In these words S. Cyprian as you see together with those his Africans calleth the Bishop of the Roman Church the Bishop of the Catholike Church and pâ—ofesseth that to be diuided from him is to be diuided from the Catholique Church The same appeares by Cornelius himselfe who speaking of Nouatus that had set vp Nouatian an Anti-pope in opposition to him sayth (e) Apud Euseb l. 6. hist c. 35. Nouatus forsooth would haue vs to think that he had forgotten there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholike Church where by the Catholike Church he vnderstands the Roman Church as the head and Mother of all others The same appeares by S. Ambrose (f) De obitu fratris Satyri who reporting how his holy Brother Satyrus in his returne out of Africa being cast by shipwrack on the Island of Sardinia which he knew to be infected with the Schisme of the Luciferians and desiring to communicate with none but Catholikes called for the Bishop of that place and enquired of him whether he agreed with the Catholike Bishops that is sayth S. Ambrose with the Roman Church And S. Augustine hauing alleaged a sentence of S.
Ambrose to confute Iulian the Pelagian heretike sayth (g) L. 1. cont Iulia. Pelag. c. 2. Here is Ambrose of Milan whom thy Mayster Pelagius so highly commended as to say that in his bookes chiefly the Roman fayth doth shyne so that his very enemy durst not reprehend his fayth and most pure interpretation of Scripture Who seeth not that S. Augustine here by the Roman fayth vnderstands the Catholike fayth And therefore speaking againe of the great constancy of the same Saint of his labours and dangers for the Catholike fayth he sayth (h) Cont. Iulian Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. The Roman world doubteth not to magnify them with him wher againe by the Roman world he vnderstandeth all the Catholikes of the world The same was the beliefe of S. Hierome (i) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. What fayth sayth he doth Ruffinus call his fayth That which the Roman Church holds or that which is cōtayned in Origens books if he answere that which the Roman Church holds then are we Catholikes The same appeares by the Epistle of Theodosius the Emperor to Acatius Bishop of Berōe and other his Collegues to whom he sayth (k) In Synod Ephes to 5. c. 10. It becometh your Holinesse to aske these things of God earnestly and by manifest tokens to shew your selues approued Priests of the Roman Religion The same appeares by Palladius (l) In vita Chrysostomi who writeth of Theodorus Tyanaeus that he fortified his Bishoprick with a wall of piety by perseuering till the end of his life in the communion of the faithfull Romans of whom Paul giueth testimony saying your fayth is renowned throughout the whole world The same appeares by what Victor of Tunes reporteth of Vitalianus a Scythian (m) In Anastas namely that he tooke armes against Anastasius the Emperor and would neuer promise peace vnto him but vpon condition that he should vnite all the Churches of the East to the Roman which plainely sheweth that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholike Church as the Head and center of Catholike Communion and Mother of all Churches The same appeares by Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople who abiuring the memory of Acatius said to Hormisdas Pope (n) Epist ad Hormisd We hope to be in one communion with you declared by the See Apostolike in which there is the integrity of Christian Religion and perfect solidity and we promise not to recite hereafter in the sacred mysteries the names of those that haue separated themselues from the communion of the Catholike Church that is to say that agree not in all things with the See Apostolike And not vnlike to this is the profession of fayth which Iustinian the Emperor sent to Agapetus Pope The same appeares by (o) Ep. ad Agapet apud Bin. to 2. pag. 417.420 S. Augustine testifying (p) Ep. 157. that the Heresy of Pelagius and Celestius by meanes of the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councels hath beene condemned in the extent of the whole world by the Reuerend Prelates of the Apostolike See yea euen by two of them Pope Innocentius and Pope Zozimus And that S. Augustine by the See Apostolike vnderstands the Catholike Church Possidius speaking of the same subiect declareth (q) In vita Aug. c. 18. calling the sentence pronounced by these Popes Ecclesiae Catholicae iudicium The iudgment of the Catholike Church Innocentius sayth he and Zozimus in their seuerall tymes censuring the Pelagians and cutting them of from the members of the Church by their letters addressed to the African Churches of the East and West commaunded them to be anathematized and auoyded by all Catholikes and the most religious Emperour Honorius hearing of this sentence of the Catholike Church pronounced against them condemned them also by his lawes ordayning that they should be ranked among Heretikes The same appeares by Gelasius (r) In decret de Scriptor apocryph an African borne and it is thought a Disciple of S. Augustine testifying that the holy Roman Catholike and Apostolike Church hath not bene preferred before other Churches by any Synodicall constitutions but hath obteyned the primacy by the voyce of our Lord and Sauiour in the Ghospell saying Thou art Peter c. The same appeares by S. Prosper S. Augustines second soule saying (s) L. de promiss praedict Dei part 4. c. 5 The Apostles Peter and Paul founded the Church of the Gentils in the Citty of Rome where they taught the doctrine of Christ our Lord they deliuered it to their Successors peaceable and free from diuision the Christian that communicates with this generall Church is a Catholike but if he be separated from it he is an Heretike and Antichrist The same appeares by the testimony of those two famous Doctors of the African Church S. Fulgentius and Primasius with other their fellow-Bishops 220. in number who being banished by the Arian King Trasamundus out of Africa into Sardinia writ from thence a Synodicall Epistle to the Catholikes of Africa in which they exhort them for the auoyding of Pelagianisme to read the books of S. Augustine of which say they (t) Extat in Bibliotheca Patr. edit Colon. to 6. part 1. pag. 152. Hormisdas of blessed memory a glorious Bishop of the Apostolike See made mention with great commendation of Catholike prayse in the Epistle which he writ in answer to the Consultation of Possessor our holy brother and fellow-Bishop His words are these What the Roman Church that is the Catholike Church holds and obserues concerning freewill and the grace of God may be fully knowne out of diuers books of blessed Augustine chiefly those which he writ to Prosper Hilary These their words conuince that not only in the beliefe of that ancient and holy Pope Hormisdas but also of all the Catholike Bishops of Africa the Roman Church and the Catholike Church the Roman fayth and the Catholike fayth were Synonima's betokening one and the same thing The same appeares by S. Gregory the Great who setteth downe the forme of abiuration which all Bishops returning from Schisme to the Vnity of the Catholike Church were to make expressing it in these words (u) L. 1. epist 30. I Bishop of N. hauing discerned the trappe of diuision wherein I was caught am returned by Gods grace with my pure and free will to the Vnity of the See Apostolike and I vow and promise that I will neuer returne to Schisme but alwayes remayne in the Vnity of the Catholike Church and in the communion of the Bishop of Rome This profession sheweth that as now it is so then it was held to be no lesse then open Schisme to be diuided from the Roman Church And the like profession made by Nicolas the first of that name was afterwards sent by Adrian the second to the eight Councell generall and being read in the first Action was approued and praysed by all the Fathers therof (x) Act. 1. apud Bin. to 3.881.913
whole body of his Church to the end that whosoeuer should be so bold as to depart from the solidity of that See might know himself to be no way partaker of the diuine mysteries And (e) Ibid. that whosoeuer goeth about to diminish the power of the Bishop of Rome endeauoreth with most impious presumption to viâ—late the most sacred strength of the Rock Peter framed by the hand of God And speaking against Hilary Bishop of Arles and all such as are refractary and disobedient to the Successors of Peter and in them to Peter himselfe he (f) Ibid. addeth To whom whosoeuer thinketh the primacy to be denied can no way diminish their authority but puffed vp with the spirit of pride plungeth himselfe headlong into hell And (g) Epist 75. that he who dare oppose the Roman Church built by the voyce of our Sauiour vpon the most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles as vpon a rock is either Antichrist or a Diuel All these sayings of so learned a Doctor and so great a Saint I wish the Protestant reader duly to consider So teacheth the holy Councell of Chalcedon (h) Act. 3. affirming Peter the Apostle to be the rock and head of the Catholike Church and foundation of the true Fayth From whence it followeth that whosoeuer buildeth not vpon the foundation of Peters See is not in the Catholike Church nor in the true fayth without which no man can be saued So teacheth S. Gregory the Great who writing to Bonifacius (i) L. 3. ep 41. sayth I admonish you that whiles you haue tyme of lyfe remayning your soule be not found diuided from the Church of blessed Peter to whome the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen were committed and the power of binding and losing giuen lest his fauour be contemned here he there exclude you from the entrance into lyfe So teacheth S. I sidore a learned Doctor and Archbishop of Seuill (k) Ep. vltima ad Eugenium Episcop Toletanum saying that albeit the Episcopall dignity and power descend from S. Peter to all Catholike Bishops yet especially and by a fingular priuiledge it remayneth for euer to the Bishop of Rome as to a Head higher then the rest of the members whosoeuer therfore sayth he yelds not obedience reuerently to him is separated from the head and makes himself guilty of the schisme of the Acephalists that is of certain heretikes who acknowledged no one particular Head And he addes that the Church belieues this as the Creed of S. Athanasius and as an article of fayth and that whosoeuer belieues it not cannot be saued So teacheth S. Maximus Martyr the greatest Diuine of his age that writ learnedly against the Monothelites pestilent Heretikes that held but one will and operation in Christ and were anathematized in the sixth generall Councell He among other Elogies of the Roman Church hath (l) Epist ad Marinum Diac. this All the bounds of the earth and whosoeuer in any place of the world do confesse Christ our Lord with a pure hart and Orthodox fayth looke vpon the most holy Roman Church and her confession and fayth attentiuely as vpon a Sunne of euerlasting light receauing from her the shining light of spirituall and holy Doctrines c. For from the first comming of the Word Incarnate all the Churches of Christians throughout the world haue had from her their beginning their only and surest foundation against which the gates of hell shall no way preuaile according to the promise of our Sauiour himself that she shold haue the Keyes of Orthodoxall fayth and Confession and open to them that religiously come to the same Roman Church seeking true reall and only piety and contrariwise shut and stop euery hereticall mouth that speaks iniquity against heauen So teacheth S. Aldelmus an ancient Bishop of the Scots whom Venerable Bede highly commendeth for his eloquence for his great knowledge of humane literature of Scripture and Ecclesiasticall rites Among other his works which Bede reckoneth he writ an excellent booke against the error of the Britans who at that tyme differed from the Roman Church in the celebration of Easter And of the same subiect he writ an epistle to Geruntius in which he sheweth the Britans by reason of that their separation from the Roman Church to be in error (m) Epist ad Gerunt If sayth he the keyes of the heauenly kingdome were by Christ giuen to Peter of whom the Poet sayth He is the Porter of heauen that opens the gate to the stars who is he that despising the principall statutes of that Church and condemning the Doctrine which she commands to be obserued can enter into the gate of heauenly paradise And if Peter by a happy lot and a peculiar priuiledge deserued to receyue the power monarchy of binding both in heauen and earth who refusing to obserue the Roman rite of Easter can thinke that he is not rather to be straitly tied with in soluble bonds then any way to be absolued And the same he further proueth out of the priuiledge of not erring granted to the Roman Church when Christ promised to build his Church vpon Peter as vpon an impregnable rock So teacheth Venerable Bede (n) Homil. in die Apost Petri Pauli saying Therfore the blessed Peter confessing Christ with true fayth and following him with true loue receaued specially the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the soueraignty of iudiciall power that all the faythfull throughout the world might vnderstand that whosoeuer do any way separate themselues from the Vnity of his fayth and society can neither be losed from the bonds of their sins nor come within the gate of the heauenly kingdome And speaking of a conference held betwene Colmannus an Abbot and Wilfridus a learned Priest concerning the celebration of Easter Colmannus defending the Iewish rite and Wilfridus the custome of the Roman Church Wilfridus said (o) Beda in histor gent. Ang. l. 3. c. 25. If you disdaine to follow the decrees of the See Apostolike yea and of the vniuersall Church they being confirmed by the holy Scriptures without all doubt you sinne for be it that your Columba was a holy man and of Christ likewise your Fathers yet is their smal number in a corner of a remote Iland to be preferred before the vniuersall Church of Christ And hauing in proofe of the Authority of the Roman Church alleaged the words of Christ promising to build his Church vpon Peter and to giue him the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen Of win king that was present at the conference demanded of the disputants whether both of them agreed in this that those words of our Sauiour were principally spoken to Peter and whether the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to him And they answering Yes the king (p) Ibid. concluded And I say to you that because Peter is that porter I will not gainsay him but so far forth as I
for if Luther had said nothing els Leo would not haue condemned him And to the same end you corrupt Philiarchus who say you will hâ—ue vs to take head of the heresies of Luther teaching that the Church hath no power to create new articles of fayth That word new is an addition of your owne to Philiarchus his text as his Latin words in your margeÌ„t conuince but what wonder since your worke is a Grand Imposture CHAP. V. That the word Roman is no deprauation but a true declaration of the article of the Catholike Church TO declare which is the catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed we say it is the holy Apostolike Roman Church Against this you (g) Pag. 8. 9. 10. obiect that the word Roman is no true exposition and declaration but a notorious alteration and deprauation of the article of the Catholike Church This you proue with eight seuerall arguments set downe in so many sections SECT I. Your first Argument YOVR first is (h) Pag. 9. that because the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed by the accordance of S. Augustine and other our Diuines comprehendeth both the triumphant and the militant Church the word Roman which caÌ„not be a declaration of the Catholike Church as she is triumphant but only as she is militant can no way be a declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed So you forgetting your selfe for heere you hold that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed comprehendeth both the triumphant Church and the militant but els where contradicting your (i) Pag. 365. selfe you define the Church properly Catholike set downe in the Symbolor Creed of the Apostles to be the Church militant videlicet the multitude of Christian belieuers whensoeuer and wheresoeuer dispersed throughout the world and the congregation of Christians assembled in a generall Synod to be the representatiue body of the Church in the Symbol properly called Catholike From whence it followeth against your selfe that the word Roman may be a true declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed which by your owne definition is the multitude of all Christian belieuers dispersed throughout the world for this definition can no way agree to the Church triumphant where the cleare vision of the diuine essence excludeth fayth but to the militant only consisting of all Christian belieuers And because true Christian beliefe is to be found only in the Roman Church it followeth that the woro Roman is a true declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed 2. Be it that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed taken in her whole latitude comprehendeth both the militant and the triumphant yet in your argument you mistake the state of the question for when we declare the Catholike Church to be the Roman Church we speake not of her taken in her whole latitude but only as she is militant And this you know right well for whiles in this Imposture you so often rayle at vs for holding the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church out of which there is no hope of saluation you sufficiently declare that you know vs to speake of the Catholike Church as she is militant only for she only is in hope of saluation the triumphant already enioyeth it I conclude therfore that your argument is grounded on a wilfull mistake of the question which as you cannot defend without contradicting your selfe so neither without wronging S. Augustine for when he sayth that the Catholike Church comprehendeth both the militant and the triumphant he speaketh of her taken in her whole latitude but that the may and euen in the Apostles Creed be taken for the militant only he expresly declareth in his explication of the same Creed where teaching the Catechumenists which is the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed he (k) De Symb. ad Catechum l. 1. c. 6. sayth We belieue the Catholike Church She is the holy Church one Church the true Church the Catholike Church fighting against all heresies she may be opposed but she caÌ„not be ouerthrowne All heresies are gone eut from her as vnprofitable branches cut of from the Vine but she remaynes in her roote in her Vine in her charity the gates of hell shall neuer ouercome her In these words S. Augustine teacheth the catechumenists to belieue that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed is the Church militant built vpon S. Peters Chayre as vpon a rock against which the gates of hell can not preuaile And the same he declareth when speaking to the Donatists he denounceth vnto them that because they were out of the Roman Church they were out of the Catholike Church and out of the state of Saluation Be yee ingrafted sayth (*) Psal cont part Donati he on the Vine It grieueth vs to see you lye so cut of Number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranke of Fathers who succeeded ech other That is the rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not That Church therfore in which there is a neuer interrupted succession of Bishops from S. Peter is in S. Augustines beliefe the Catholike Church Do not you then abuse S. Augustine producing his authority to proue that the catholike church mentioned in the Creed cannot be the Church militant since he so expresly teacheth the contrary yea and not only that she is the militant Church but in particular that she is the Roman Church built vpon S. Peter and his successors and that whosoeuer is diuided from her is an vnprofitable branch cut of from the Vine which is Christ our Lord and therfore no lesse deuoyd of spirituall life then the dead branch is of naturall SECT II. Your second argument YOur second argument (l) Pag. 10 1â—.12 is grounded on a false principle with is that the Catholike Church in her essentiall state is inuisible We know that the essentiall forme of the Church which is Fayth is inuisible to corporall eyes But the Church as you (m) Pag. 36â— confesse is the multitude of all Christian belieuers whensoeuer and whersoeuer dispersed throughout the world and that the congregation of Christians assembled in a generall Synod is the representatiue body therof Wherfore as it were ridiculous to affirme that a multitude of men ioyned in one Common-wealth or the representatiue body therof assembled in Parliament is essentially inuisible because their soules are inuisible or that Christ liuing on earth was inuisible because his Diuinity was inuisible so it is no lesse ridiculous to affirme that the Church in her essence is inuisible because fayth is inuisible for fayth is not the Church but the essentiall forme of the Church as the soule of man is not man but the essentiall forme of man Man consisteth essentially of body aswell as of soule and by reason of his body he is visible for according to the axiome of Philosophers Actiones passiones sunt
suppositorum And so likewise the Church consisteth essentially of the persons that belieue as of matter and of fayth as of forme and by reason of her matter is visible as man is by his body and Christ by his humanity Now wheras to proue that the Church in her essentiall state is inuisible you alleage the whole tenor of the Apostles Creed (n) Pag 11. affirming that the obiect of euery article of that Symbol from beliefe in God vnto beliefe of life euerlasting is vnto vs inuisible and so far as it is belieued is without compasse of sense you speake vntruly and ignorantly for was not the natiuity of Christ visible to corporall eyes did he not visibly suffer in his body when he was whipped crowned with thornes and buffeted Was he not visibly crucified Did he not visibly dye Was he not visibly buried Did he not visibly ascend into heauen the Astpoles beholding (o) Act. 1.9.10.11 him And is he not to come agayne visibly to iudge the quick the dead The example which you alleage of S. Thomas is against your selfe for not only the Diuinity of Christ is the obiect of fayth which S. Thomas belieued but also his humanity and he that belieueth not his humanity aswell as his Diuinity is an heretike To what end I pray you when the Apostles thought that Christ after his resurrection appearing to them was not a man but a Spirit did he shew them his hands and (p) Luc. 24.39.40 syde and bid them feele and see that so they might belieue him not to be a Spirit because said he a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me to haue And to what end did he (q) Ioan. 20.27 bid Thomas put his finger and hand into his wounds but that by feeling them he might belieue the bodie he touched to be the same that he had seene suffer on the Crosse Nor do you bring any thing of moment to disproue this for the definition of fayth which the Apostle giues saying (r) Heb. 11.1 Fayth is an argument of things not appearing is sufficiently verified in these obiectes It sufficeth that fayth be either of things wholly inuisible or els of things visible apprehended vnder inuifible conditions proprieties as those are vnder which we apprehend Christ when we belieue him to be both man and God and those vnder which we apprehend the Scripture when we say it is the word of God or the Church when we belieue her to be the spouse of Christ the house of fayth the temple of God the mansion of the holy Ghost the gate of heauen the treasuresse of spirituall graces And who knoweth not that the Sacrament of baptisme whether we confider the matter which is water or the forme which are words is the obiect of sense and the very essentiall definition of a Sacrament is to be A visible signe of iuuisible (s) Magist in 4. d 1. S. Tho. 3. part q. 60. a 2. 3. corp grace and yet to belieue one Baptisme in remission of sinnes is an article of the Creed expressed in the Councell of Gonstantinople And this discouereth the weaknesse of your argument taken from the predestinat to approue the inuisibility of the Church for though predestination be inuisible as fayth is yet neither the predestinat nor the faithfull are inuisible and therfore if I should grant for argument sake that the Church consisteth of the predestinate only it would not follow that she is inuisible But to proue her inuisibility you (t) Pag. 11. say Diuine Scripture in positine doctrine doth manifest thus much in that speach of Christ to S. Peter Mat 16.19 Vpon this Rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it where the word Church by the iudgment of S. Augustine and the accordance of your owne Doctors doth signify Only the number of predestinat But let vs see how you make good this your charge Our Doctors which you name are Caietan Ferus Stella and Salmeron But Stella in that place neither explicates those words of Christ nor makes any mention of them nor of S. Peter nor of the Church but speakes of particular men prouing out of other words of Christ recorded by S. Luke (u) Luc. 6.47.48.49 that they which haue fayth without good works build their house vpon loose earth which therfore wanting foundation by winds and stormes of tentations is easily ouerthowne wheras they that haue both fayth good works build vpon a firme Rock which is Christ and from thence he inferreth that your Lutheran Brethren teaching that fayth cannot be without good workes build not on Christ the Rock but vpon sand This is Stellas discourse which to be imposterously alleaged by you to proue that the Church consisteth only of predestinat or that she is inuisible no man can deny And no lesse imposterous is your obiection out of Salmeron who speaketh in the same sense that Stella doth is so far from teaching that the Church is inuisible that in the very same disputation which you (x) In 1. Timoth 3. disp 22. q. Porro to 15. obiect he proueth that the house of God which is his Church is visible and conspicuous in her Head or gouernor the Bishop of Rome in her members the faithfull in the word of God which she is commanded to heare in the profession of her fayth which she is commanded to make openly and in her Sacraments wherwith she is sanctified all these being obiects of sense And (y) Tom. 7. tract 6.12.38 â—e furthermore she weth that the church in holy writ is compared to a field that hath wheat and cockle to a floare that hath corne and chaffe to a net that contaynes good and bad fishes to a vine that hath some branches bearing fruit and some that beare none to a body of which some members are liuing and some dead to a fold in which there are both sheep kids to a great house in which there are not only vessels of gold and siluer but also of wood and earth and to the Arke of Noe in which there were liuing creatures both cleane and vncleane And from these parables as also out of other testimonies of holy Scripture he inferreth against your Confession of Augusta as also against the Pelagians the Donatists and all other sectaries that the Catholike Church in this life consisteth both of good bad of predestinate reprobate I know not therfore with what conscience you produce him as a patron of your Doctrine so contrary to his owne Caietan and Ferus I haue not seene but I feare you deale with them as you do with Stella and Salmeron Besides Ferus is a prohibited author Your second obiection is proposed in these (z) Pag. 11. sin 12. words The same may be said of the Church as it is called the flock of Christ Ioh. 10. My sheep heare my voyce where by Sheep are only meant the sanctified
Elect of God as the testimonies of your owne Iesuites the iudgment of S. Augustine and S. Chrysostome do confirme This then is your argument Suarez Tolet and Bellarmine for those are the Iesuites you name S. Chrysostome S. Augustine by sheep in the words of Christ obiected vnderstand only the sanctified Elect of God Ergo the Church consisteth only of predestinat An absurd consequence and falsly fathered on these authors who teach that the name of sheep in holy writ is taken sometimes for the elect and sometymes for the reprobate In this text of S. Iohn which you obiect it is taken for the elect for Christ speakes of those sheep to whom he will giue euerlasting life and which therfore no man shall pluck out of his (a) Ioan. 10.28 hand as Suarez rightly (b) L. 3. de auxil grat c. 16. â—â— 18 obserueth but other sheep there are which the infernall wolfe shall deuour such was Iudas and such are all reprobate Christians And if it were true that by sheep in Scripture were vnderstood the elect only yet your consequence is false and the Doctrine contained in it hereticall and such it is held to be by those very authors which you alleage to patronize it Suarez sheweth (*) De tripl virt Theol. part 1. disp 9. 〈◊〉 6. seqq that the Church is a fold contayning both sheep and kids that is both predestinate and reprobate as Christ himselfe hath (c) Math. 25.33 declared And treating there of the sense of this very place of S. Iohn he prooueth that some wolues are in the Church and some sheep out of the Church this I say he proueth out of the words of S. Augustine whom you alleage for the contrary saying (d) Tract 45. in Ioan. According to prescience and predestination how many sheep are without and how many wolues within how many liue wantonly now that will become Christians how many blaspheme Christ who shall belieue in Christ c. And how many prayse God within who will blaspheme him are chast and will become wantons stand now and will fall And he concludeth that these later notwithstanding they be actually in the Church are reprobat and the former though they be actually out of the Church are predestinate All this and much more to the same effect is alleaged by Bellarmine (e) L. 3. de Eocles c. 7. 9. out of Scriptures and Fathers And the same is deliuered by Tolet in that very place which you cite for the (f) Ad c. 10. Ioan. Aunotat 16. contrary for he sayth that as some who did not as yet belieue were sheep and elect so contrarily some that did actually belieue and were sheep were notwithstanding reprobats as Iudas And lastly S. Chrysostome is so far from holding with you that the Church containes only the sanctified Elect of God that he writeth (g) In Psal 39. thus The whole Church consisteth not of perfect men but hath also those that giue themselues to idlenesse and slouth that lead easy and dissolute liues and willingly serue their pleasures And that in the net of the Apostles which is the Church are contayned good and bad (h) Hom. 45. in cap. 12. Math. fishes Which Doctrine he like wise deliuereth in other places of his workes I conclude therfore that you haue wronged Suarez Tolet Bellarmine S. Augustine and Chrysostome fathering your false Doctrine on them But you proceed (i) Pag. 12. saying A third Scripture we find Rom. 1.9 where the Apostle sayth He that hath not the spirit of Christ the same is not his which sheweth that none is truly a Christian but as he is regenerated by the spirit of Christ. But we find this Scripture to make nothing at all for you for you for who euer is regenerated in the Sacrament of Baptisme receiueth some gifts of the holy Ghost which is the Spirit of Christ And as he is truly a man that is borne of Adam by naturall propagation so is he truly a Christian that is borne of Christ in Baptisme by spirituall regeneration for as therby he receaueth fayth so he is inrolled in the number of Christians and made a member of the mysticall body of Christ which is his Church True it is that all members of the Church are not alike those that with fayth haue sanctifiing grace which is the life of our soules are liuing members they that haue fayth without grace are according to diuers opinions tearmed diuersly some say they are dead members some that because they are dead they are not members properly but improperly or equiuocally and therfore rather to be called partes of the Church then members Others say that they are neither members nor partes but as superfluous or corrupt humors in the body of man These opinions though they differ in words yet they agree in this that fayth being the essentiall forme of the Church all the faythfull be they Saints or sinners predestinat or reprobat are contained in the precincts therof euen as all whether members parts or humors of man are contained in the body of man And as for this different manner of speach Turrecremata Canus and others cited by them and here alleaged by you out of Bellarmine for out of him you tooke them call sinners partes of the Church and not members but only equiuocally because as Suarez rightly (*) De trip virtute Theol. p. 1. d. 9. n. 12. obserueth by members they vnderstand only such partes as liue wheras the name of partes may also agree to those that liue not Wherfore they differ only in the names vnderstanding by partes the very same that the holy Councell of Trent and other Diuines do by members And doubtlesse this manner of speach vsed by the Councell is more proper because sinners hauing fayth hope are not voyd of all motion of spirituall life for as fayth is the beginning of iustification so it vniteth the belieuer in some sort vnto Christ Nor doth Costerus whom here you obiect differ from this opinion for that he denyes not sinners to be dead partes or members of the Church he declareth (k) Enchir iâ— contro 6.2 prope fin when speaking of the Bishops of Sardis and Laodicea that were reprehended the one that he was dead in Spirit the other that he was nether cold nor boat but luke-warme wretched miserable poore blind and naked he affirmeth that notwithstanding this they were both still acknowledged to be Bishops and heads of their Churches And a litle after where he sayth (l) Solut. ad obiect Haerâ—t that sinners are in the Church as humors in the body he sayth withall that they are as wythered bowes on the tree Wherfore vnlesse you will haue the Head to be no member of the body and the wythered bowes no partes of the tree you must consesse that your obiecting of Costerus to proue that sinners and reprobates are no partes of the Church is a grand Imposture And
Pag. 42. r. out S. Hierome these words Petrus nominatur à Petra to signify that Petrus doth not signify a Rock but is a deriuatiue of Petra as Christianus of Christus But S. Hierome hath no such Doctrine but directly the contrary His words are vpon this Rock our Lord founded his Church from this Rock the Apostle Peter tooke his name to wit of a Rock And that this is the true sense of S. Hierome it is plaine out of his Comment vpon Mat. 16 where professedly declaring the words of Christ he sayth that they were not vaine and without effect but that by calling the Apostle Petrus he made him a Rock and that as Christ himselfe being the light granted to his Disciples that they shold be called the light of the world so to Simon which had belieued in Christ the Rock he gaue the name of Petrus and according to the metaphore of a Rock it is truly said to him I will build my Church vpon thee 4. You obiect (q) Pag. 42. c. S. Hilary to proue that not Peter but Christ himselfe is the Rock on which he promised to build his Church The words you bring are Vna hac fidei petra Petri ore confessa Tues Christus filius Dei viui I finde no such words in S. Hilary nor is it likely that he would vse confessa passiuely as in these words you doe But how imposterously you alleage him to proue that S. Peter is not the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church S. Hilary himselfe shall be the iudge O sayth (r) Can. 16. in Math. he in the title of a new name happy foundation of the Church and worthy stone of her Edifice O blessed Porter of Heauen to whose arbitrement are committed the keyes of the eternall kingdome whose iudgments haue authority to preiudge in heauen And els where (s) In Psal 131. he calleth Peter the first Confessor of the sonne of God the foundation of the Church And in that very place which you obiect (t) L. 6. de Trin. that after his confession subiacet he is layd vnder the building of the Church and receaues the Keyes of the heauenly kingdome 5. You obiect (u) Pag. 42.1 S. Epiphanius alleaging out of him these words (x) Haeres 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Rock of faith which shew that Peter is the firme Rock on which the Church is so strongly built that she shall neuer fayle in fayth But he that wil see your vnsincere dealing if he read S. Epiphanius his contexture shall find that in that very place which you cite for the contrary (y) Haeres 59. he affirmeth in most expresse words not once but thrice that Peter is the Rock on which Christ hath built his Church that he is the foundation of the Church and that Christ hath committed to him the charge of feeding his flock The same he teacheth in his Ancoratus (z) Propè inâ—t adding that all questions of fayth are in Peter Wherby is not only signified his supremacy which twice he there expresseth but also his authority to resolue all doubts of sayth and condemne all heresies which he expoundeth to be the gates of hell that shall neuer preuaile against the Church built vpon Peter 6. You say (a) Pag 40. Gregory surnamed the Great speaking of the foundation of the Church hath defined that whensoeuer the word Foundation is in the Scripture vsed in the singular number no other then Christ is signisied therby from whence you inferre that out of the Scripture Peter cannot be proued to be the foundation of the Church But you shall be iudged out of your owne mouth for you confesse (b) Ibid. that Petra a Rock is taken as all one with foundation you also grant (c) Pag. 42. that some of the Fathers vnderstand by Peter Rock you should haue said all for as Maldonate whom you cite (d) Pag. 39. f. marg noteth (e) In c. 16. Math. n. 16. prope fin none but heretikes euer denied it from whence it must follow that since the name of Rock which is all one with foundation is giuen him in Scripture it is all one as if the name of foundation had bene giuen him in Scripture And therfore Clemens Romanus Origen S. Hilary the Councell of Chalcedon Isidorus Pelusiota and others giue him the name of Foundation aswell as of Rock (f) Apud Iod. Cocc to 1. l. 7. art 4. 7. To S. Gregory the Great you ioyne Gregory the seauenth a most holy and learned Pope whom you traduce saying (g) Pag. 40. Hildebrand who in his owne opinion was greater then Gregory the Great and the greatest Dictator that euer possessed the Papall See Anno 1077. inuited Rodulph Duke of Sueuia to rebell against his Liege Lord and Emperor Henry the 4. and sent vnto the same Rodulph a Crowne with this inscription Petra dedit Petro Romam tibi Papa coronam Syr you haue bene formerly admonished by P. R. in his Treatise tending to mitigation against the seditious writings of Thomas Morton Minister of your tradueing and falsly slandering this holy Pope of whose admirable vertnes I may haue occasion to speake hereafter But you are still the same man and tel vs this fable which Baronius (h) Anno 1077. n. 7. apud Spond setteth downe as related by Albertus Stadenfis and Helmoldus two late writers whom he conuinceth of falshood shewing that the Princes of Germany who cold no longer endure the execrable wickednes insolency and oppressions of Henry and being greatly incensed against him for his sacrilegious practises against the See Apostolike wholly renounced him and chose in his place Rodulph Duke of Sueuia without either the aduice or knowledge of Gregory and brought him to Mentz where he was consecrated by Sigefridus Bishop of that Citty So vntrue it is that Gregory either Crowned him or sent any Crowne vnto him or any way incited him against Henry And it is to be noted that wheras you call Henry Rodulphs Liege Lord and Emperor he was neuer Crowned but only by Guibertus an Antipope set vp by himselfe to that end and consecrated by Bishops that were actually excommunicated and deposed But any thing wil serue your turne to make an argument against the Pope be it true or false 8. You obiect (i) Pag. 41. marg these words of Theophylact Confessio ipsa fundameÌ„tam But why do you mangle his words which are Our Lord rewardeth Peter bestowing a great fauour on him which is that vpon him he built the Church for because Peter confessed him to be the sonne of God he said that this Confession which he made shall be a foundation to them that belieue c. Can there be a more grosse falsification then to obiect three words of Theophilact to proue Peter not to be the foundation of the Church and leaue out the former part of the sentence in which he so expresly
Church Wherfore S. Peter in the exequution of his Pastorall charge among other admonitions which he giueth to his subiects putteth the Bishops and Pastors in mind of their dueties alluding to the words feed my sheep by which Christ made him supreme Pastor of Pastors vnder himselfe Feed sayth he (n) 1. Pet. 5.2 the flock of God which is among you prouiding not by constraint but willingly according to God neither for filthy lucres sake but voluntarily nor as ouer-ruling in the Clergy but made examples of the flock from the hart And when the Prince of Pastors shall appeare you shall receaue the incorruptible crowne of glory Now that S. Peter made this exhortation to them as their Superior chiefe Pastor is declared by the second Councell of Nice (o) Can. 4. Peter the chiefe Apostle coÌ„manded Feed the flock of our Lord administring your Bishopricks not by force but voluntarily c. And Haymo (p) Domin 2. post Pascha The chiefe Pastor of the Church admonisheth the other Pastors sayng Seniors that are among you I beseech you c. And the Bishops of the East when they banded themselues against the preuarication of their Patriarch Acacius writ to Pope Symmachus (q) Extat haec Epist inter Oâ—thodox impress Basil to 2â— Thou art euery day taught by thy sacred Doctor Peter to feed the sheep of Christ which are coÌ„mitted to thee throughout the habitable earth not constrained by force but willingly c. CHAP. X. Doctor Mortons obiections against the former Doctrine answeared THESE examples taken out of the holy Scripture expounded by the ancient Fathers conuince that S. Peter in diuers occasions exercised acts of iurisdiction properly belonging to his authority ouer the Apostles and ouer the whole Church And the same will yet more appeare by the futility of the Arguments which you frame to disproue his Supremacy The first is (r) Pag. 46. that be had no Crowne on his head to shew his Empire nor Miter to shew his pastorall dominion ouer the other Apostles for though Peter had no Empire as being no temporall Prince yet as Baronius sheweth (s) Anno 34. 〈◊〉 85. all the Priests in the old testament which represented our Bishops did vse Miters and the high Priest representing the Pope in the law of grace had an especiall Miter odorned with a plate of gold which the Scripture calleth a Crowne (t) Ecclest 45.14 as Iosephus testifieth (u) L. 3. Antiq c. 8. made in a triple forme How then do you proue that S. Peter who call's the Priesthood of the new testament a kingly Priesthood (x) 1. Pet. 2 9. had not a triple Miter or Crowne as his Successor now hath though not so rich by reason of the pouerty in which the Church at those her first beginnings was especially since S. Hierome treating of the Sacerdotall Ornaments of the law of Moyses affirmeth (y) Ep. 128. ad Faâ—iolam that in Christ they are more perfectly consummated 2. You say (z) Pag. 46. that Peter had no Legates à laetere to carry his mandats This is your ignorance for as the Pope sendeth to other Churches his decrees made with the aduice of his Confistory so S. Peter with aduice of the rest assembled with him in the Councell of Hierusalem chose out two prime men Iudas surnamed Barsabas and Silas togeather with Paul and Barnaby to cary the mandats or decrees of that Councell to the Churches of Antioch Syria and Cilicia (a) Act. 15.12.13 Your third Obiection is (b) Pag. 46. No person was admitted a pride which S. Peter abhorred to kisse his feete From whence to inferre that S. Peter was not Head of the Church or that he exercised not any iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles is an argument that deserues no answer the Consequent hauing as little connexion with the Antecedent as an Egg with an Oyster But you are so pleased with it that you repeat it afterwards againe (c) Pag. 160. and both here and there vrge it against the Pope to disproue his supremacy not considering that if it be a sinne in him to admit of that honor yet it is no error in Doctrine nor want of authority and iurisdiction which is the thing you should haue proued but of humility and therfore no more disproues his supreme authority then Pride or other vices disproue the supreme authority of a temporall Monarch or the iurisdiction of any other Bishop But wheras you attribute the admittance of this honor to Pride in the Vicar of Christ you know that (d) De sign Eccles l. 11. c. 9. Bozius whom you cite (e) Pag. 160. effectually proueth that the Pope considering his place and supereminent dignity of being the Vicar and Lieutenant of Christ on earth admitteth lesse honors then any temporall Prince or Bishop whatsoeuer which you conceale that so you may taxe him with pride for suffering his feet to be kissed You might in like manner blame Christ for admitting the same honor from Mary Magdalene (f) Luc. 7 3â— and for suffering the Iewes (h) Math. 21.8 to straw the bowes of the trees and spread their owne garments in the way vnder the very feet of the Asse on which he rid and for not prohibiting the Children to proclame his prayses for at that the Iewes stormed (i) Ibid. Vers 16. as you do at the Popes permitting his feet to be kissed Now that this honor of kissing his feet and that prostrate on the ground is no new thing as Polydore Virgil by you cited in a worke corrupted by Protestants and which you also know to be prohibited affirmeth the history of the holy Virgin Susanna (k) Apud Baro. anno â—94 maketh good And the same is proued by what Tertullian (l) Lib. de poenit c. 9. 100. yeares before that tyme reported of the manner vsed by the Roman Church in receauing of penitents who sayth he did kneele downe to the Priests and to the seruants of God And the same is conuinced by the practise of ancient Christian Emperors and Kings of Iustinus of both the Iustinians the elder and the yonger of Fridericus the first and the second surnamed Aenobarbus of Ludouicus the first surnamed The godly and Ludouicus the second of Luitprandus King of the Lombards of Pipinus Ludouicus Crassus and Ludouicus the seauenth Kings of France of Henry the first and the second kings of England some of them falling downe prostrate on the ground to reuerence the Popes person and kissing his feet and others performing the office of yeomen of his stitrop and leading his horse going themselues on foote by him All which particulars if you please you may read in Baronius (m) Spond in Indicâ— V. Obsequia And this reuerence done to the Pope was not obscurely foretold by the Prophet Isay in two places which are excellently pondered by Iacobus Gordon Huntley (*) Contro 2. c. 26. to
same iorney is both a going and a mission a going as it is performed by him that vndertakes the iorney and a mission as it proceeds from those that sent him euen as the same lesson is both doctrina and disciplina doctrina as it is deliuered by the Maister that teacheth and disciplina as it is receaued by the Scholler that learneth and as in Philosophy the same production is called Actio as it proceeds from the Agent Passio as it is receaued in the subiect And to say that the sending of Iohn with Peter argueth Iohn to be equall in authority with Peter is a great Non sequitur as if you should argue a Chanon to be of equall authority with the Deane or a Cardinall with the Pope if they be sent togeather CHAP. XI Sleights and falsifications of Doctor Morton to shift off the testimonies of Ancient Fathers teaching S. Peters supremacy BELLARMINE to proue S. Peters primacy ouer the other Apostles produceth conuincing testimonies of many Fathers both Greeke and Latin (p) L. 1 de Pont. c. 25. These you vndertake to answer or rather to elude by diuers sleights Some of them as being so cleare that you knew not how to deuise any answer vnto them you wholly omit without any mention of them as of S. Prosper Arator and Aetherianus Others you mention as of S. Leo the great of S. Gregory of Venerable Bede and S. Bernard but put them of with deuises We pretermit say (q) Pag. 50. marg n. 20. you the testimony of Pope Leo wherof reason is giuen hereafter but wheras Bellarmine alleageth two vnanswerable testimonies of S. Leo you are so far from giuing any reason of them that for ought I can find you neuer after mention eyther of them The testimonies of Bede and S. Bernard you reiect as not truly ancient wheras Bede liued almost 1000. and S. Bernard aboue 500. yeares since But the true reason indeed why you reiect them is not want of antiquity but because they clearely conuince your Doctrine of falshood For when S. Bernard the later of these two hath any thing which by misinterpreting his meaning or falsifying you can wrest to your purpose as afterwards you do (r) Pag. 170. 182. S. Bernard is ancient inough S. Gregory you shift of promising to speake of him largely afterwards S. Gregory did disclaime from the title of Vniuersall Bishop in that sense in which Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople did arrogate the same to himselfe Of this indeed you treate at large (s) Pag. 92. seqq but his testimonie which Bellarmine vrgeth in proofe of S. Peters pastorall power ouer the whole Church you neither answere nor so much as mention afterwards 3. Bellarmine citeth out of Eusebius his Chronicon these words Petrus natione Galilaeus Christianorum Pontifex primus Peter a Galilean borne the first chiefe Bishop of Christians He sayth not Peter the first Bishop of the Romans as in the same place he sayth Iames the first of Hierusalem and Euodius the first Bishop of Antioch but Peter the first chief Bishop of Christians which differēce of expression she weth that wheras Iames and Euodius were Bishops of two particular Dioceses Peter was the Bishop of all Christians This is one of the testimonies of Eusebius alleaged by Bellarmine which you conceale without giuing any answer vnto it though you name the place out of which he alleageth it The second is out of Eusebius his history which you are contented to mention that you may pick a quarrell against Bellarmine for you say (t) Pag. 49. marg he miscites the Chapter the 14. for the 13. But by desiring to carpe you discouer your ignorance for in the different versions of Eusebius the Chapters are differently diuided and though the passage which Bellarmine citeth be in the 13. Chapter according to the version of Christophorson yet in that of Ruffinus which he followeth it is in the 14. as he cites it And wheras Eusebius there calleth Peter Reliquorum omnium Apostolorum Principem The Prince of all the other Apostles you answere That it is with this restriction omitted by Bellarmine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his singular vertues sake But what doth this omission auaile your cause or hurt ours The Fathers agree in this that when Christ promised to make Peter the foundation of his Church it was for that excellent confession of his Diuinity and in reward therof as hath bene proued (*) Aboue Nu 11. and so likewise when he actually conferred on him the dignity of supreme Pastor it was a reward of his feruent loue But doth it follow that because this supereminent dignity was promised to Peter and conferred on him for his singular vertues it was nor therfore a primacy of Magistracy and iurisdiction but of order only Is not the office of Pastor of Christs flock an office of Magistracy and iurisdiction but such are the answers which you giue to insoluble arguments yet shame not to charge Bellarmine with vnconscionable dealing in vrging this place of Eusebius against you 4. He vrgeth S. Gregory Nazianzen saying Vides c. You see how among the Disciples of Christ all truly great and high and worthy to be chosen this to wit Peter is called a Rock and hath the foundations of the Church committed to his charge And he that is Iohn is loued more and reposeth on the brest of our Lord and the other-disciples did not take it in ill part that these were preferred before them These are the words of Nazianzen and these very words Bellarmine truly and punctually setteth downe whom therfore you vniustly traduce (u) Pag. 49. marg as deprauing Nazianzen whose words as he corrupteth not so neither doth he peruert his sense for out of them it is euident that as Christ preferred Iohn by louing him more then the rest so in far higher degree he preferred Peter before them and before Iohn also For who seeth not that Nazianzen acknowledgeth a far greater dignity in Peter then in Iohn or any other of the Apostles when he sayth that Christ called Peter a Rock and committed to his charge the foundations of the Church for that is to say that he made him Head and Gouernor therof it being a knowne truth that the foundation in a building is the same that the Head in a politicall body from whence it is that the famous Councell of Chalcedon (x) Act. 3. calleth Peter The foundation of true fayth and the rock and top of the Catholike Church which is a far greater dignity then to leane on Christs brest or any other that was conferred on Iohn or any of the other Apostles 5. Bellarmine (y) L. 1. de Pont. c. 25. vrgeth 3. testimonies out of S. Augustines workes The second you passe ouer without any answer to it or mention of it The third you reiect as taken out of a booke which Bellarmine himselfe and others acknowledge not to be
failing in fayth and confirming his brethren was not personall but belonging to his office and descending with it to his Successors for Peter in his owne person was not to liue till the end of the world and therfore not by himselfe but by his Successors to confirme the faythfull vntill the end of the world The same truth is further proued out of an ancient Treatise intituled A dispute between the Church and the Synagogue written by a learned Author aboue 700. yeares since in which it is said (d) Cap. 19. art 4. Christ seemeth to haue defined that the fayth of the Roman Church shall neuer faile saying to Peter I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth faile not for he foresaw that Peter whose fayth he promised shold neuer faile was to be Bishop of the Roman Church and there to end his lyfe by Martyrdome And what I beseech you are we to thinke him to haue signified to vs but that that Church especially whose Bishop Peter the Head of all Churches after Christ was to be shold alwayes remaine in the confession of one true fayth To these I adde the testimony of Georgius Trapezuntius a learned Grecian who explicating the same words of Christ sayth (*) In illud Ioan. Si eum volo manere c. In them two great Mysteries are plainly expressed the first that only the fayth of Peter his Successors that is to say of the Roman Church shall not fayle The other that the fayth of the rest shall sometimes fayle Wherefore sayth Christ thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren He said Once to shew that the Apostles being confirmed with the grace of the Holy Ghost none of them should erre but that their Successors should for whose confirmation Peter that is to say his Successors are commanded to be conuerted which hath byn effectually performed for the rest of the Churches of the world haue byn often confirmed by the Roman but She neuer by others Finally S. Bernard writing to Pope Innocentius and requiring him to condemne the heresies of Abailardus subscribeth to the same exposition saying (e) Ep. 190. It is fit that all dangers scandals arising in the kingdome of God and chiefly those that concerne fayth should be referred to your Apostleship for I thinke it iust that the ruines of fayth shold be repared there where fayth cannot fayle for that is the prerogatiue of your See for to what other was it euer said I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth faile not and therfore what followeth is required from Peters Successor And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren It is tyme therfore most â—ouing Father that you show your zeale repressing the corruptors of â—ayth Out of these testimonies I inferre against you that whatsoeuer Bellarmine in his Controuersies holdeth to the contrary (f) L. 4. de Pont. c. 3. these words of Christ I haue prayed for thee Peter c. containe no priuiledge of Peter peculiar to his person but a publike prerogatiue belonging to his office and descending to his Successors as Bellarmine in a later worke (g) Apol. c. 14. §. Neque solum expresly declareth And therfore though out of them it cannot be proued but that his Successors in their priuate Doctrine or writing may erre and fall into heresy yet it followeth that they neuer shall nor can erre ex cathedra that is iudicially in their Councels Consistories publike decrees or definitions of fayth made for the whole Church for S. Augustine (h) Epist 16â— truly sayth The heauenly Mayster in the chayre of Vnity hath placed the Doctrine of verity and secured his people that for euill Prelates they forsake not the chayre of holsome Doctrine in which chayre euen they that are ill men are inforced to speake good things There is then in the Church a chayre of holsome Doctrine which is not the chaire in which Christ now sitteth in Heauen for in that there sit no ill men nor any other but himselfe Nor is this Chayre the chayre of euery Bishop for euery Bishop is not inforced to speake truth many haue bene heretikes and inuentors of heresies Wherfore S. Augustine himselfe declareth this chayre of Vnity to be that in which sitteth one Pastor in whom all Pastors of the earth are one I find sayth he (i) L. de Pastor c. 13. all good Pastors in one for surely good Pastors are not wanting but they are in one They that are diuided are many here one is praysed because vnity is commended This one chayre is none els but that of S. Peter There is one chayre sayth S. Cyprian (k) L. 1. ep 8. founded vpon the Rock by the voyce of our Lord. and againe (l) Lib. de Vnit Eccles Christ to manifest vnity constituted one chayre and ordained the originall of this vnity beginning from one giuing the primacy to Peter that so one Church of Christ and one chayre might be manifested c. He that keeps not this vnity doth he thinke himselfe to hold the fayth In the Episcopall chayre sayth Optatus (m) L. 2. contra Parmen was set Peter the Head of all the Apostles to the end that in this only chayre vnity might be preserued to all From this priuiledge obtayned by Christ for S. Peter his chayre it proceedeth that the ancient Fathers haue not doubted to belieue and teach the infallibility of the Roman Church in matters of fayth as also from other grounds of Scripture to be declared hereafter S. Cyprian speaking against the Nouatians sayth (n) L. 1. Ep. 3. They presumed to carry letters from Schismatikes and heretikes to the chayre of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praysed by the mouth of the Apostle and to whom misbeliefe can haue no accesse S. Basil writeth to Damasus Pope (o) Epist. 69. per Sabinum Diac. Surely that which is giuen by our Lord to your Holynesse is worthy of that most excellent voyce which proclamed you Blessed to wit that you may discerne betweene what is counterfeit and what is lawfull and pure and that you may without any diminution preach the fayth of our ancestors S. Ambrose writeth to Siricius Pope (p) L. 10. ep 31. Whom your Holinesse hath condemned know that we also hold them condemned according to your iudgment S. Hierome sayth to Ruffinus (q) L. 1. Apol aduers Ruffin Know thou that the Roman fayth commended by the voyce of the Apostle admitteth no such delusions and that being fensed by S. Pauls authority it cannot be altered though an Angell should teach otherwise S. Augustine writing against the Pelagians and hauing professed that the Bishop of Rome hath from the holy Scriptures authority to declare the true fayth and condemne heresies addeth (r) Epist 157. The Catholike fayth expressed in these words of the Apostolike See is so ancient so grounded so certaine
the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles who with his name receaued the constancy of his minde being called Peter of a Rock to whom by the voyce of truth it is said I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen S. Maximus a famous Martyr the greatest Diuine of his age and a stout Champion of the Church against the Monothelites (k) Epist. ad Marin Diac. Apud Spond Anno 657. n. 2. All the Churches of Christians had their beginning and surest foundation from the Roman Church against which the gates of hell shall no way preuaile according to the promise of our Sauiour himselfe that she should haue the keyes of Orthodoxe fayth and confession and open to them that come to her religiously seeking true piety and contrarily shut and stop all hereticall mouthes that breath out iniquity against heauen Theodorus Studites a man very famous for his learning and constancy in defending the Catholike fayth writing togeather with other his Colleagues to Paschalis Pope (l) Ep. ad Pashal ep ad Naucrat calleth him Porter of the kingdome of Heauen and Rock of the fayth vpon whom the Catholike Churches built And the Roman See The supreme throne in which Christ hath placed the keyes of fayth against whom the gates of hell which are the mouthes of Heretikes haue neuer preuailed nor shall euer preuaile according to the promise of our Lord which cannot faile To these testimonies I adde others of Theodoret and Gelasius alleaged by Bellarmine (m) L. 4. de Pont. c. 3. which make vp more then a full Iury to pronounce you guilty of a solemne vntruth in denying (n) Pag. 55. that what was here spoken to Peter doth accordingly belong to the Pope by the right of Succession for you haue heard the Fathers teaching the contrary Their exposition I embrace and follow as the true sense of holy Scripture detest yours who haue nothing to say against it but to outface it by calling it An error to obiect against it the comment of Abulensis who say you (o) Pag. 55. teacheth that by those words Blessed art thou Simon there was granted to S. Peter an infallible certainty of his soules eternall blessednes which is an excellent priuiledge but no promise of authority made vnto him If Abulensis comment so his comment makes nothing to your purpose for he denies not the Church to be built vpon Peter nor grants that the gates of hell which are heresies shall preuaile against her Againe if he say for I haue not seene him that Christ by saying Blessed art thou Simon granted to S. Peter an infallible assurance of his eternall happines it followeth not that the same assurance passeth to his Successors as the office of Foundation Head and Gouernor of the Church doth for the assurance of eternall happinesse was for his owne peculiat good and therfore granted to him alone and not to his Successors But the office of Head and Gouernor of the Church was promised to him for the good of the whole Church and therfore to passe to his Successors according to the nature of priuiledges which is that when a prerogatiue is granted to a Gouernor for the good of the Community of which he is Gouernor as the office of Head and foundation of the Church was to S. Peter it dieth not with him but still liueth in his Successors Againe that comment of Abulensis if it be his I approue not for it is disproued out of the words themselues which being of the present tense import nothing els but a present blessednes in hauing so great a fauor bestowed on him as by the speciall reuelation of Almighty God to know the Diuinity of Christ and to be the first that made so illustrious a confession therof and as S. Basill (p) Orat. 3. de peccato in proem de iudicio Dei expoundeth to haue his confession rewarded with a promise of building the Church on him and of hauing the keyes of the kingdome of heauen committed to him which sayth he was a far greater blessednes then the other Apostles obtained And in the same sense expound S. Hierome (q) Ad c. 16. Math. and S. Augustine (r) Serm. 10. de verb. Do. serm 31. de verb. Apost But wheras out of the comment of Abulensis be it his or whose you please you charge vs (r) Pag. 56 with lack both of conscience and modesty in violating the sacred writ vnlesse to make good the iurisdiction of our Popes deriuatiuely from S. Peter we can shew that all of them by vertue of their succession from him are so blessed now in their hopes as to be infallibly persuaded that no temptation of Satan shall preuaile against their persons but that they shall be blessed euerlastingly you cannot be excused from fraud folly fraud in changing the state of the question for our assertion is that out of these words of Christ S. Peter and his Successors are secured from erring in their publike decrees and definitions of fayth But that Popes may not erre in manners to the damnation of their soules we neither deduce out of this nor any other place of holy writ nor is it true nor asserted by any Catholike nor necessary for the defence of their iurisdiction or priuiledge of not erring ex cathedra for Christ sayth S. Augustin (s) Ep. 166. hath placed in the chaire of Vnity the doctrine of Verity and secured his people that for ill Prelates they forsake not the Chayre of holsome Doctrine in which chayre euen ill men are inforced to speake good things And els where (t) Ep. 165. hauing reckoned all the Popes from S. Peter to Anastasius who then possessed his chayre he addeth If in all this tyme any traytor had come in by surreption it cold not breed any preiudice to the Church nor to innocent Christians for whom our Lord making prouision sayth of euill Prelates What they say do yee but what they doe do it not for they say and do not And as it is fraud in you to change the state of the question so is it folly to inferre that because Popes may be vicious in their liues they may erre in their publike definitions of fayth or manners to the seduction of others S. Augustine (u) Ep. 137. obserueth it to be an old tricke of Heretikes because they cannot calumniate the Scripture in which they find the Church commended to calumniate those by whom she is defended gouerned to make them odious And Tertullian long before (x) L. de Praescrip obserued the same in the heretikes of his tyme to whom he answered that what they obiected were vitia conuersationis non pradicationis faults of manners not of Doctrine and for this S. Augustine reprehendeth Petilianus the Donatist saying (y) Cont. lit Petil. l. 2. c. 51. Why dost thou call the Apostolike See the chayre of pestilence if for men whom thou thinkest to professe
Successor and so much the holy Councels haue declared He that hath the See of Rome sayth the Councell of Nice (b) Can. 39. ex Graecis Arab. is Head and Prince of all Patriarkes for as Peter was so he is the chiefe to whom power is giuen ouer all Christian Princes and all their people as one that is the Vicar of Christour Lord ouer all people and ouer the whole Christian Church And the generall Councell of Lions (c) In Sâ—xt Decret Cap. Vbi periculum calleth the Pope the Vicar of Iesus Christ the Successor of Peter the Gouernor of the Vniuersall Church the guyde of our Lords slock And in the same sense S. Bernard (d) L. 2. de Confid said Peter walking vpon the water like our Lord shewed himselfe to be the only Vicar of Christ that was to gouerne not one nation but all for many waters are many people By this you see that when we call the Pope The Vicar of Christ we take the name of Vicar antonomastice for him that beareth the person and holdeth the place of Christ as vniuersall Pastor and Gouernor of the whole Church In which sense neither Tertullian attributed that name to S. Paul as Genebrard obserueth in that very place in which you cite him for the contrary (e) Chrou l. 3. pag. 479. â—80 nor doth it in that sense agree to any other Bishop but only to S. Peter and his Successors in the See of Rome which Genebrard also testifieth against you in these words Christ hath no Successors because he still liueth but he hath Vicars and Ministers on earth among which Peter and the Bishops of Rome his Successors haue the Soueraignty as all antiquity without exception hath belieued and therfore with great reason we reckon their Succession which is to continue till the worlds end as one of the markes that hold vs in the lap of the Catholike Church S. Ignatius and Eusebius Pope you likewise abuse for although Deacons be in their degree Ministers and Vicars of Christ yet S. Ignatius sayth it not but only commandeth the Trallians to whom he writeth to reuerence them as our Lord Iesus Christ and as guardians of that place and so much his owne words set downe by you (f) Pag. 242. n. 15. in Greeke declare The testimony of Eusebius you falsify He sayth Caput Ecclesiae Christus est Christ is Head of the Church You corruptly translate There is one Head of the Church Christ to signify that there is no one Head thereof vnder Christ as his chiefe Lieutenant and Vicar on earth which is contrary to the Doctrine of Eusebius in the same Epistle both before and after the words which you obiect And to this you add an other corruption for where Eusebius sayth Priests are Vicars of Christ you in your English leaue out the word Priests for the good will you beare to that name and function Whose Vicar may he be thought to be that deales so imposterously But you obiect (h) Pag. 82. S. Paul to auoyd Schismes among the people will not haue them adhere to any one man no more to Cephas that is Peter then to Paul or Apollos wheras your Roman Cephas would haue taught S. Paul a contrary lesson saying that they who adhere vnto Cephas cannot be called Schismatikes as those who hold of Apollos because Cephas was the Rock whereupon the Church was built Answere That Cephas was the ministeriall Rock on which Christ built his Church is a truth asserted by Christ and by all the Orthodoxall writers that haue liued in the Church therfore with great reason they haue pronounced him that separates himselfe from the communion of the Bishop and Church of Rome to be a sinner a Schismatike an Heretike and not to be of Christ but of Antichrist Their words I need not repeate you haue heard them already (i) Chap. 1. sect 4. And tell vs now did those Fathers teach S. Paul a lesson contrary to our Doctrine So you say but misunderstand S. Paul for S. Augustine and S. Gregory expound him to speake these words against them that contemning Christ did not build their fayth vpon him but vpon men as vpon Heads not subordinate to him (k) L. 4. ep 38 or to vse S. Gregories words extra Christum out of Christ. Paul the Apostle sayth S. Augustine (l) Serm. 13. de verb. Dom. knowing himselfe to be chosen and Christ to be contemned said What is Christ diuided was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of Paul In like manner expound S. Anselme and S. Thomas (m) In eum loc saying that the Apostle speaketh against those that made many Christs and many Authors of grace What force then hath this Scripture against vs who hold S. Peter and his Successors to be Vicars of Christ and reuerence and obey them because they are his Vicars so farre we are from contemning him or setting vp another Head different from him as the false Apostles and some of the Corinthians seduced by them did for which the Apostle reprehendeth them You might with more truth haue proued out of these words with S. Chrysostome (n) In hunc locum that Paul acknowledged S. Peter to be his Superiour because he spake ascending by gradation that so he might place Peter aboue himselfe and next to Christ SECT III. Whether S. Paul reckoning the Ecclesiasticall Orders gaue the Pope any place among them IF S. Paul say you (o) Pag. 82. had bene of our sayth to belieue that the Pope of Rome as Successor of S. Peter is the visible Head of the Church whereas he alleageth the Ecclesiasticall orders twice first Apostles then Prophets after Doctors and againe Some Apostles and some Prophets and some Euangelists he should haue alleaged Peter among them and the vnion with the Bishop of Rome as a true note of the Church Syr you may be pleased to take for an answer the fearfull example which Doctor Sanders (p) Vifib Monarch l. 7. pag. 690. related of one Wright a Doctor of law and Archdeacon of Oxford who after the change of Religion in England being loath to loose his place falling one day in a Sermon on these words of S. Paul said Here you find not one word of the Pope Which when he had vttered being presently strucken with a vehement disease as it were suddainly become dumbe he was carried from the pulpit not to dinner as he had intended but to bed where the eight day after he ended his life I feare that this answer howbeit it is from God will not please you S. Damascen will giue you another For with him I desire to know of you who to flatter Secular Princes grant them the chiefest place of gouerment in the Church making them Heads therof where among the Ecclesiasticall Orders reckoned by S. Paul you with all your wisdome can sind any place for secular Princes or Magistrates or any mention
at all of them It belonges not to Kings sayth S. Damascen (q) Orat. 2. de Imagin to giue lawes to the Church for consider what the Apostle sayth and whom he hath placed in the Church first Apostles after Prophets then Pastors and Doctors in the constitution of the Church he placed not Kings And againe (r) Ibid. Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them for they watch as being to render accompt of your soules And remember your Prelates which haue spoken the word of God to you Kings are not they which haue spoken the word but Apostles and Prophets and Pastors and Doctors The ciuill gouerment belongs to Kings but the Ecilesiasticall constitution to Pastors and Doctors So Damascen whose Doctrine if it please you not you may learne the same lesson from your Grand-maister Caluin teaching that the chiefest place of gouerment in Christs Church belonged to the Apostles and so to Bishops and Priests their Successors And lest you might thinke that there is so much as one word in S. Paul which may argue him to grant vnto secular powers any place of gouerment in the Church Caluin (*) L. 4. Instit c. 3. sect 5. cap. 11. sect 1. specially noteth that by gubernationes gouerments which S. Paul after Apostles and Doctors reckoneth in the seauenth place are not vnderstood ciuill officers but such men as were ioyned to the Preachers for better order in spirituall gouerment But though you in neither of these places where the Apostle speaketh of the Ecclesiasticall dignities can finde any place for secular Princes and Magistrates the Fathers of the Church haue found in both of them a place for the Pope for S. Hierome obserueth (s) In Psal 44. that in the Church Bishops succeed in place of the Apostles and therefore Tertullian (t) L. de praescrip c. 2â— 32. and S. Augustine (u) Ep. 162. haue noted that their Churches were called Apostolicall so long as they continued in the fayth receaued from the Apostles as likewise all others that being afterwards founded agreed with them in Doctrine or as Tertullian speaketh propter consanguinitatem doctrinae Now as S. Peter was Head and Prince of the Apostles so the Roman Church in which he placed his Episcopall Chayre and into which sayth Tertullian (x) L. de praser c. 36. both he and S. Paul powred all their Doctrina togeather with their bloud was and is still by a speciall prerogatiue called The See Apostolike in so much that when the See Apostolike is named without any addition the Roman See is alwayes vnderstood In this language speake S. Hierome (y) L. 2. Apol aduers Ruffin when he said Ironicè to Ruffinus I wonder how the Bishops haue receâ—â—ed that which the See Apostolike hath condemned In this spake S. Augustine (z) Ep. 106. saying Relations concerning this busines were sent by the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the See Apostolike And els where (a) Ep. 162. In the Roman Church hath alwayes florished the Principality of the See Apostolike In the same language spake the Councell of Chalcedon (b) Act. 1. calling Paschasinus the Popes legate The Vicar of the See Apostolike And the Bishops of Dardania in their Epistle to Gelasius (c) Extâ—â— inter epist. Gelasij It is our desire to obey all your commands and to keep inuiolate the ordinations of the See Apostolike as from our Fathers we haue learned to do And S. Bernard (d) L. 2 de Considerat vpon those words of S. Paul He that resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God sayth to Conradus the Emperor This sentence I wish and by all meanes admonish you to keep in yelding reuerence to the chiefe and Apostolicall See From hence it also proceedeth that as S. Hierome (e) Ep. 58. said to Damasus The Bishop of Rome followeth the Apostles in honor and therfore he aboue all other Bishops is called Apostolicus Apostolicall So was S. Leo called in the Councell of Chalcedon (f) Act. 1. The most blessed and Apostolicall man Pope of old Rome which is the Head of all Churches And the Bishops of France (g) Inter op Leonis â—â—to 52. salute him with the title of The most blessed Pope to be reuerenced with Apostolicall honor And Rupertus (h) De diuiâ—â— offic l. 1.27 The Successors of the other Apostles are called Patriarkes but the Successor of Peter for the excellency of the Prince of the Apostles Apostolicus nominatur hath the name of Apostolicall And Hugo Victorinus (i) L. 1. Erud Theol. de sacram Eccles c. 43. The Pope is called Apostolicall because he hath the place of the Prince of the Apostles From hence also his Episcopall dignity is by a speciall prerogatiue called Apostolatus Apostolate or Apostleship So Paschacinus in the Councell of Chalcedon said of Pope Leo (k) Act. 1. His Apostleship hath vouch safed to command that Dioscorus sit not in the Councell So the Bishops of France writing to the same Leo beseech his Apostleship to pardon their slownesse (l) Iuter ep Leon. ante 52. Honorius the Emperor beseecheth Pope Bonifacius (m) Ep. ad Bonifac. that his Apostolate would offer vp prayers to God for the good of his Empire S. Bernard sayth to Innocentius (n) Ep. 190. It is fitting that whatsoeuer dangers or scandals arise in the kingdome of God be referred to your Apostleship All this sheweth that vnder the name of Apostles to whom S. Paul allotteth the first and chiefest place among Ecclesiasticall gouernors are vnderstood S. Peter and his Succcessors who haue the first and chiefest place of gouermentin the Church And this the Fathers Councels haue sufficiently declared by giuing the Pope the title of Apostolicall by calling his place Apostleship and his Church absolutely Apostolicall See This you could not see so dimme sighted you are in beholding any light that shewes the Authority of the Bishop or Church of Rome And this also is thereason why you could not see that S. Paul comprehendeth Peter and the Popes his Successors vnder the name of Pastors for Christ made Peter Pastor of his flock the same dignity remayneth to his Suecessors for why els did the Mileuitan Councell in tyme of the Pelagian heresy beseech Innocentius Pope (o) Aug. ep â—2 to apply his Pastorall diligence to the great perills of the weake members of the Church why did S. Hierome (p) Ep. 57. liuing in Palestine fly to Damasus Pope for resolution of his doubts as a sheep to his Pastor Why did S. Chrysostome say (q) L. 2. de Sacordot that Christ committed to Peter and his Successors the charge of those sheep for which he shed his bloud Why did S. Ambrose (r) Ep. 81. call Siricius Pope a good and rigilant Pastor that with pious solicitude keepes the flock of Christ Why did S. Prosper say (s) l. de ingrat c. 2. that Rome by
adde (b) Ibid. that there was neuer any Rhadamanthus so extreme as at once to pardon and kill and that therfore such mercy is to be cursed because it is cruell by these words you condemne the practice of all Christian Common wealths which when they put Malefactors to death grant them accesse to the Sacraments of Pennance and Eucharist afford them all help and instruction to dye well as the Church doth to Heretikes if they will accept therof for with them she dealeth no otherwise in this case then all Christian Princes do with other malefactors But belike nether heretikes nor other Malefactors must be put to death or if they be the Church must deny them the holy Sacraments that so their soules may perish with their bodies or els you will compare her to Rhadamanthus you will say she pardons and kils at once and curse her mercy canonizing it for cruelty What may we say or thinke of such a man Small reason therfore you had (c) Pâ—g 85. 86. to call the Inquisitions proceeding against heretikes Tyrannous Romish cruelty and Barbarous Romish cruelty And so much the reader will yet better vnderstand if he consider that nether the Inquisitors nor any other Ecclesiasticall persons pronounce nor much lesse execute sentence of death against heretikes and what the secular Magistrate doth in that kinde against Lutherans Caluinists is not by force of any new lawes made against them but according to the lawes which the most godly Christian Emperors haue anciently prouided before any Protestants were exstant in the world for the preseruation of Christian Religion against Iewes Mahumetans and Heretikes But if I were disposed to deale with you by retorsion which kind of argument is familiar to you in this Grand Imposture I cold put you in mind how without any warrant of law for at that tyme you had made no lawes against Catholikes yea and contrary to all lawes of this kingdome and of Christianity in the dayes of K. Henry the eight and Queene Elizabeth you partly sent and forced into banishment and partly consumed with the loathsomnesse of prisons and stench of dungeons many Catholikes of all degrees aswell Ecclesiasticks as Laicks I cold write of your racking and many other wayes cruelly torturing of Priests and lay Catholikes and of your putting to death many of them for crimes composed and maliciously forged against them by your selues you hauing then no lawes wherby to condemne them And I cold reckon the number and specify the cruelty of your Parlament Statutes made since that tyme against all sortes of Catholikes and the seuerity vsed in the execution of them with continuall vexation of innocent people especially by the inferior sort of your officers But for the honor of our Countrey I forbeare the rehearsall of them and wish that the Christian world abroad had not taken so much notice of them as their Histories shew them to haue done But if leauing England I passe to other nations what pen is able to expresse the neuer before heard of inhumane barbarous sacrilegious cruelties of your Geuses in the Iow Countries and your good brethren the Huguenots in France which whosoeuer desires to know more in particular may see liuely presented to his view by M. Richard Verstegan in a booke of pictures intituled Theatrum crudelicatum haereâ—icorum nostri temporis printed at Antwerp Apud Adrianum Huberti Anno 1592. with so many particulars of the tyme place persons and torments that no man euer had the face to question the truth therof nor the relation which Doctor Harding In his proofe of certayne articles of religion against Maister Iuell (d) Fol. 129.130 hath made of the Caluinists at Patâ—é not farre from Orleans throwing 25. infants quick into the fire of their burying of Catholikes aliue at S. Macarius of cutting infants in two of ripping vp the bellies of Priests aliue of drawing out their entrailes by litle and litle and winding them about stakes of cutting of the priuy parts of a Priest then frying them after causing him by violence to swallow them downe and last of all ripping vp his stomach being yet aliue to see what was become of them of their dragging other Priests after their horses then picking out their eyes cutting off their eares noses and priuy parts wearing their eares in their hats as iewels to glory in their malice hanging vp the carcasses of some yet striuing for life dispatching others at once with their pistols hacking and mangling the faces of some cleauing the heads of others in two at a stroke to make tryall of their strength To which you may adde the horible sacriledges the vnspeakeable cruelties fitter for Tygers then men and the monstruous beastlinesse of your French and Holland Brethren at Tillemont in Brabrant Anno 1635. I pretermit the particulars not to soyle my paper with the rehearsall of them If you desire to know them the famous Vniuersity of Louayne next neighbour to Tillemont hath depainted them in liuely colours in their relation you may read them If you had consired these and many other most horrible cruelties of your Ghospelling Bretheren the like wherof haue neuer bene heard among any people neuer so inhumane and sauage and added vnto them your owne outrages committed both in England and Ireland some of which Verstegans Theatrum representeth vnto you you wold surely haue bene ashamed to instile the iust proceedings of the Inquisition or the sentences pronounced against them by Catholike Magistrates Tyrannous Romish cruelty Barbarous Romish cruelty CHAP. XV. Of the signification of the word Catholike and the iudgment of diuers Fathers obiected by Doctor Morton against the Roman Church SECT I. That the word Catholike proues the Roman Church to be the true Church YOv demand (e) Pag. 88. 89 how the Roman Church seing it is Roman that is a particular Church can be called Catholike that is vniuersall or the whole Church And if it be the whole Church how can it be a particular Church distinct from the Church of Greece or Church of France will you make vs beleeue that the thumbe of the hand can be the whole body Syr as we are not so witlesse as to thinke that the thumbe of the hand can be the whole body so nether are we so foolish as to beleeue that the particular Church of the Roman Dioces can be the vniuersall Church We know and so do you to and it hath bene already proued (f) Chap. 1. Sect. 2. 3. that not only the particular Church of Rome may in a true proper acception be called the Catholike Church as Head of all Churches but also that the Roman Church taken as often it is for the collection of all Churches in the world consisting of the Roman as Head and the rest as members may be and is truly and vsually called The Catholike Church and the vniuersall Church Yea it is euident that if according to the Etimology of the name
the Roman eares spare the fayth which was praysed by the voyce of the Apostle He declared his iudgment (y) Ep. 8. when aduising Demotrias to auoyd the cruell tempest of Heresy which rising out of the Easterne parts at that tyme when Anastasius of happy and holy memory goaâ—â—ned the Roman Church attempted to pollute and corrupt the sincerity of that fayth which was commended by the mouth of the Apostle he prescribeth her this rule that the keep fast the fayth of S. Innocentius sonne and Successor to Anastasius in the Apostolicall Chayre He declared his iudgment when he said (z) Proom lib. 2. Comment ad Galat The fayth of the people of Rome is praysed Where is there so great conâ—â—â—rse to Churches and to Martyrs sepulchers Where soundeth Amen like thunder from He euen c. Not that the Romans haue any other fayth then the rest of the Christian Churches but that there is in them more deuotion and simplicity of fayth He declared his iudgment when he said to Marcella (a) Ep. 17. In Rome is the holy Church there are the trophies of the Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the fayth celebrated by the Apostle and gentility trodden vnder foot the Christian name daily aduancing it selfe on high He declared his iudgment when he said (b) Ep. 16. that Peter Patriarke of Alexandria persecuted by the Arians sted to Rome as to the safest hauen of communion These testimonies of S. Hierome declare his iudgment of the Roman Church against which you obiect (c) Pag. 91. that he reproued an ill custome not of the Pope or Church of Rome but of the Deacons of that Church who though few in number yet growing proud in regard they had the treasure of the Church in their custody contrary to the ancient practise of that Church and of all other which was that Priests fitting with the Bishop Deacons should stand they of Rome began to presume by little and little to fit This custome S. Hierome reprehended because it proceeded from pride and wanted authority for sayth he if authority be required greater is the authority of the world then of a Citty which is true in things of this nature that nether concerne fayth nor the Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for who feeth not that a custome no way concerning sayth or iurisdiction but discipline and warranted by all other Churches of the would was of greater authority then a contrary custome brought in by a few Deacons of the Roman Church without any warrant of the Bishop of Rome And who seeth not that these words of S. Hierome are impertinently brought against the Roman sayth or the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome for in them he neither speaketh against the Roman fayth nor maketh any comparison betwene the Church of Rome the rest of the world in point of iurisdiction but only betweene the authority of all the other Churches of the world and the authority of a few Deacons of the Roman Church in a custome no way repugnant to fayth nor touching the iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome And finally who seeth not that your intention is to delude and deceaue your readers For he that hath so many and so pregnant testimonies of S. Hierome in which he expresly declareth that the Roman fayth is the. Catholike fayth that it admitteth no delusions nor can be changed that the way to auoyd heresy is to hold fast the fayth of the Roman Church that we must remaine in her as being that Church which hath Succession from the Apostles that he is the safest port of communion that the Church of Christ is built vpon the Roman See and that he which is not in the communion of the Bishop of Rome gathereth not but scattereth that he is prophane and belongs not to Christ but to Antichrist He I say that hath so many and so forcible testimonies of S. Hierome yet comming to deliuer his iudgment concerning the Roman Church concealeth them all and obiecteth one only testimony wholly impertinent as you do what intention can he be thought to haue but to deceaue men in the most important affaire of their saluation But you reply (d) Pag. 91. This is that testimony of S. Hierome wherin the Fathers of the Councell of Basil did in a manner triumph in opposition to the Popes clayme How proue you this With a sentence of Aeneas Siluius O imposture For you know that the Councell of Basil was a Schismaticall Conuenticle moreouer you know that the words which you obiect are not of the Councell of Basil but of Aeneas Siluius and that he hath retracted them with the whole booke out of which you tooke them Are not then you a deceiptfull merchant to cosen your customers with such false wares Nor do I well see how you can be excused from contradiction for you say (e) Ibid. S. Hierome was a professed and deuout child of the Church of Rome when Rome was yet a true and naturall Mother and no Step-dame Ergo in S. Hieromes dayes the Church of Rome became a Step-dame which could not be otherwise then by falling into error How then is it true that as afterwards you grant (f) Pag. 17â— 19â— the Roman Church remained pure and free from error in fayth 600. yeares after Christ which was not in S. Hieromes tyme but 200. yeares after him SECT III. The iudgment of S. Gregory concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and his title of Vniuersall Bishop YOur scope here is to disproue the vniuersall authority of the Bishop of Rome by the iudgment of S. Gregory refusing and reprehending in Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople the title of Vniuersall Bishop as likewise did Pelagius and Leo Bishops of the same See And first you tell vs (g) Pag. 91. It can be no sufficient argument for concluding a Papall authority to obiect against you the testimonies of Popes in their owne cause It was necessary for you to premit this Caueat for howsoeuer you here pretend that S. Gregory S. Leo and Pelagius did not acknowledge in themselues any superiority or iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church your guilty conscience tels you the contrary and therfore you slight their testimonies as of men partiall and that speake in their owne cause And the like you do afterwards againe with reproachfull and contumelious words for wheras Bellarmine (h) L. 2. de Pont. c. 21. in profe of the ancient practise of appealing to the Pope produceth the testimonies of S. Leo and S. Gregory you (i) Pag. 30â— 304 reiect them as of partiall witnesses and compare them to Adonias who traiterously sought to set the crown on his owne head which is in effect to say that as Adonias traiterously assumed to himselfe the dignity of a King not due vnto him so did these Popes vnlawfully challenge to themselues the dignity of Pastors and Gouernors of
it is he whom you call the learned Iesuit is so far from refuting this double sense of Vniuersalis Episcopus deliuered by Baronius and Bellarmine that in the very place which you nominate (k) Tom. 12. Tract 78. he expresly deliuereth the same but you to make good your word falsily him for say you (l) Pag. 94. he confesseth that a Bishop of the vniuersall Church is one that hath care of the whole Church which terme may agree to euery Bishop This cannot be excused from an vntruth for Salmerons words are Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesia is est qui vacat curae regimini Vniuersa Ecclesia at Episcopus Vniuersalis est qui solus omnibus praeest omnia curare vult He is Bishop of the vniuersall Church that hath the care and gouerment of the Vniuersall Church by which words Salmeron rightly proueth that which is auerred by the two Cardinals to wit that as the Popes before S. Gregory were stiled Bishops of the Vniuersall Church so they had not only a charitable care which belongeth to euery Bishop and to euery lay man and woman but also the gouerment of the whole Church which by vertue of their office of supreme Pastors belonged vnto them This explication of Salmeron you cannot disgest therfore though you set downe truly part of his Latin words in your margent yet in your English of them you fraudulently leaue out regimini gouerment to persuade your readers which either vnderstand not or els seldome looke into your Latin margents that the ancient Popes had not the gouerment of the whole Church but only a charitable care of her good such as euery Bishop lay man is bound to haue Hauing thus falsified Salmeron you do as much for Platina whose words you set downe thus (m) Pag. 97. Bonifacius tertius à Phoca Imperatore obtinuit vt sedes Petri ficut est caput omnium Ecclesiarum ita diceretur haberetur quem quidem locum Ecclesia Constantinopolitana sibi vendicare conabatur And in your text you english them thus Boniface did obtaine of the Emperor Phocas that Rome should haue the same title of Head-ship ouer all other Churches which the Bishop of Constantinople had challenged to his See In these few English words you haue no lesse then three falsifications For 1. Sedes Petri you trāslate not the See of Peter but Rome which fignifieth not the Church but the City that so you may the better pretend that the Roman Church is not the See of Peter nor the Pope S. Peters Successor 2. Platina sayth that The See of Peter is Caput omminm Ecclesiarum The Head of all Churches and this in your english you omit to insinuate that the Roman Church is not Head of all Churches by any right it hath to that title from Christ but only by the concession of Phocas and that obteyned with much importunity by Bonifacius 3. You say Boniface obteyned of the Emperor Phocas that Rome should haue the same title of Head-ship ouer all Churches which the Bishop of Constantinople challenged to his See And these words you set downe in a different character as the words of Platina which is another imposture for Platina's words are Boniface obteyned of Phocas that the See of Peter as it is so it should be called and estemed to be the Head of all Churches which is not to say that Phocas gaue that title to the Roman See but that it belonged vnto it by right and that Phocas preserued the right of that See ordayning that the Patriarke of Constantinople who did falsly challenge to his Church a Head-ship and to himselfe a title of Vniuersall Bishop should desist from that vniust clayme and that the Roman See as it is so it should be called and held to be the Head of all Churches Phocas therfore did not first giue the title of Vniuersall Bishop to the Pope but preserued it to him as his right for it had bene giuen to him long before by the Emperor Martian in the Councell of Chalcedon (n) Act. 3. and by the Clercks of Alexandria whose petitions presented in the same Councell beare this title (o) Ibid. To the most holy and most blessed Vniuersall Archbishop and Patriarke of great Rome Leo and to the holy generall Councell And in the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas the petitions of the Regulars of Constantinople and of Syria of the Bishops of the Patriarkships of Antioch and Hierusalem to Pope Agapete were inserted with this inscription (p) Act. 1. To our holy and blessed Lord the Archbishop of old Rome and vniuersall Patriarke Agapetus And the Angelicall Doctor writeth (q) Opuse cont error Graec. c. 3◠It is read in the Councell of Chalcedon that the whole Synod cried out to Leo Pope Long liue the most holy Apostolike and vniuersall Patriarke Leo. Hereby appeares how falsly you say (r) Pag. 9◠that the title of Vniuersall Bishop was not absolutely ascribed to Pope Leo in the Councell of Chalcedon but with a great restriction as thus Vniuersall Bishop of great Rome which is as much as to deny him to be the Bishop of the Vniuersall Church euen as when the now Roman Emperor is instiled The vniuersall Emperor of Rome he is therby distinguished from the Emperor of Turky of Persia and others Who feeth not the futility of this cauil for as none of these Emperors are Vniuersall ouer the world so neither do they instile themselues nor are by others instiled Vniuersall Emperors But in the Councell of Chalcedon the Pope is not only stiled Patriarke of Rome but also Vniuersall Archbishop and Vniuersall Patriarke absolutely without any addition or restriction which sheweth him to be not only Archbishop and Patriarke of Rome but also of the vniuersall Church for els those titles absolutely and without addition could not agree to him as the title of Vniuersall Emperor without addition agrees not to the Emperor of Rome of Persia or to any other whose Empire is not absolutly Vniuersall throughout the world as the iurisdiction of the Pope is of whom that famous Bishop of Patara in Lycia said to Iustinian the Emperor (s) Apud Liberat in Breu. c. 22. that albeit there were many Kings in the world yet not one of them as the Pope who is ouer the Church of the whole world 2. You reuile the Roman See with most vnseemly termes and are extremely out of patience with Phocas for repressing the insolency of the Bishop of Constantinople and righting the Pope Your words are (t) Pag. 97. The Head of the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction vnder that title as it were vnder a poysoned Miter hath growne far more loathsome by impostumes and swolne with tyranny then it could possible be at the first vsurpation therof being become no lesse intolerable then was that Emperor Phocas of whom Pope Boniface with much importunity receaued that title which Emperor your Cardinall Baronius noteth to haue bene
that all men are to learne from her the Doctrine of fayth deliuered vnto her by the blessed Apostles And this is the reason why Tertullian speaking of Marcion and Valentinus (q) Ibid. c. 30. proueth them to be heretikes because they had fallen from the faith into which they had beleeued in the Roman Church Nam constat c. For sayth he and his words no lesse agree to Luther and Caluin then to Marcion and Valentinus it is manifest that they first beleeued the Catholike Doctrine in the Roman Church vntill in the tyme of the blessed Bishop Eleutherius for their turbulent spirit of nouelty wherwith they did also peruert their Brethren they were often excommunicated and at length cast out for euer to perpetuall ruine By this it appeareth that the Roman fayth was then held to be the Catholike fayth and the Roman Church which Tertullian calleth The Catholike Church (r) L. 4. cont Marcio c. 4. the Head and Mistresse of all Churches in the world for Marcion was borne at Sinope in Pontus and for his heresy and lewdnesse of lyfe excommunicated by his owne Father a holy Bishop who refusing to absolue him he went to Rome to seeke absolution but his Father opposing obteyned it not ValeÌ„tine was as Aegyptian borne and hauing fallen into heresy in Cyprus came to Rome in the tyme of Higinius Pope and feigning himselfe to be a Catholike was receaued into the Communion of the Roman Church but falling often backe into heresy as a dog returning to his vomit was finally cast out of the Church by the blessed Pope Elutherius as you haue heard Tertullian report And why did these heretikes as also Cerdon at the same tyme when they sought absolution from heresy come from so remote countreyes subiect to other Patriarkes and why from all the Easterne Church and why all of them to the Church of Rome in particular but because they knew her to be the Head Mistres of all Churches that had power to absolue all those which had bene excommunicated by any other Bishops whatsoeuer and to be the originall and center of Catholike Communion and that so long as they remayned out of her bosome they nether were nor should be esteemed Catholikes nor to be in state of saluation Herby it appeares how little reason you had to say out of Beatus Rhenaus (s) Pag. 131 1â—â— though Tertullian giue an honorable testimony to the Church of Rome yet be did not esteeme her so highly as wee see her accounted of at this day And since you acknowledge that Rhenanus his mouth for that and other his inconsiderat speeches is gagged by the Index expurgatorius you shew litle iudgment in obiecting his authority against vs. SECT VIII Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church VVHat hath bene sayd sheweth the futility of your argument out of Vincentius Lyrinensis which is like to the two former out of S. Iraeneus and Tertullian And how little support you haue for your cause in the authority of this ancient and learned Father he will testify for himselfe for when the Doctrine of rebaptizing Heretikes at their returne to the Catholike Church defended by Firmilianus Bishop of Cefarea Agrippinus S. Cyprian Bishops of Carthage and many others wrought so great inconueniences that it gaue a paterne of sacriledge to all heretikes and occasion of error to some Catholikes Vincentius declareth how Stephen then Pope of Rome suppressed it by his authority When sayth he (t) L. cont propha haeres nouat c. â— all men euery where exclamed against the nouelty of that Doctrine all Priests in all places ech one according to his zeale did opppse then Pope Stephen of blessed memory Bishop of the Apostolike See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops but yet more then the rest thinking it as I suppose reason so much to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth as he did surmount them in the authority of his place To conclude in his epistle which then was sent to Africa he decreed the same in these words Let nothing be innouated but that which comes by tradition be obserued And (u) Ibid. c. 10. notwithstanding that the contrary doctrine had sayth he such pregnant wits such eloquent tongues such a number of Patrons such shew of truth such testimonies of Scripture but glosed after a new and naughty fashion and that it was decreed in an African Councell yet the authority of the Pope declaring it a nouelty was of so great force that after he had condemned it all those things were abolished were disanulled were abrogated as dreames as fables as superfluous And afterwards (x) Ibid. c. 43. he alleageth as witnesses of his Doctrine diuers Greeke Fathers and addeth to them the authority of S. Felix Martyr and S. Iulius both Bishops of the Roman Church whom to declare their soueraigne authority he calleth The Head of the world And he concludeth Ibid. c. 45. Least in such plenty of proofes any thing should be wanting wee haue added for a conclusion a double authority of the See Apostolike the one of S. Sixtus a venerable man that now honoresh the Church of Rome the other of Pope Celestine of blessed menory his predecessor And their decrees he calleth Apostolicall and Catholike decrees SECT IX Other Obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared YOur obseruations are (y) Pag 101. seqq that S. Athanasius S. Augustine the Councels of Constantinople of Aegypt and of Cauthage reckoning diuers Bishops to shew their agreement in fayth with them name not only the Pope but other Bishops and write both to him them and consult with him and them as with their fellow Bishops which you say is to giue the Bishop of Rome so many mates and to equalize other Bishops with him But who seeth not what poore stuffe these your obseruations are For if one concerning matters of fayth should consult with his parish Priest and his Bishop would it follow that he equalizeth the parish Priest with the Bishop and maketh him his mate Or if you writing to the King and his Counsell I should lay to your charge that by consulting with his Maiesty and his Counsell you giue his Maiesty so many mantes as he hath Counsellors and equalize them in power and dominion with him would you not thinke mâ— a trifling and indeed a childish opponent how then shall wee thinke otherwise of you that by like consequence go about to equalize other Bishops with the Pope among themselues CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome THAT the Councell of Nice acknowledged the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ouer all Bishops is proued 1. Because Iulius a most holy Pope in his third Epistle which S. Athanesius hath inserted into his second Apology writing to the Arians and declaring vnto them the right of the Roman See to haue the
hearing and finall decision of the causes of Bishops fayth Are you ignorant that the custome is that wee be first written vnto that from hence may proceed the iust decision of things And therfore if any suspicion were conceyued against your Bishops there it ought to haue bene referred hither to our Church And then declaring vnto them that this authority of the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged by the Councell of Nice he denounceth vnto them that in condemning Athanasius without expecting his sentence they had done contra Canones against the Canons to wit of the Nicen Councell which he setteth downe at large in his second epistle to them that as well Athanasius in appealing from their Councell to him as also he in repealing their actes in restoring to their seates Athanasius the other Bishops whom they had deposed and in summoning their aduersaries to appeare at Rome yeld account of their proceedings had done quod Ecclesiastici Canonis est according to the Canons of the Church 2. The same is proued by the testimony of Innocentius the first whom S. Augustine S. Hierome and other Fathers of that age highly commend He ordayneth (z) Ep. ad Victric Rhotomag Epise that if any difference arise betweene Priests their cause be iudged by the Bishops of the same Prouince but that greater causes be referred to the See Apostolike as the Nicen Councell hath ordeyned 3. The same is proued out of S. Leo the Great who writing to Theodosius the yonger (a) Ep. 4â—â— and representing vnto him the sacrilegious proceeding of the second Councell of Ephesus which he by his owne authority had called and impiously maintained that Flauianus the holy Patriarke of Constantinople which in that Councell had bene iniustly deposed and many wayes wronged fled to him for redresse presenting a Writ of Appeale to his Legates intreateth his assistance for the calling of a generall Councell in Italy adding that the Nicen Canous necessarily require the calling of a Councell after the putting in of an Appeale This sheweth that the Councell of Nice decreed the lawfulnesse of appeales from generall Councels to the Pope Nor are you ignoraÌ„t thereof for afterwards (b) Pag. 308. you bring these very words of S. Leo against Appeales to him but not without great Eclypse of iudgment for in them two things are clearly expressed the one that according to the Nicen canoÌ„s Bishops wheÌ„ they are wronged may lawfully appeale to the Pope the other that after the putting in of an Appeale to him a generall Councell ought to be called that to the greater satisfaction of all parts the cause may be fully examined reiudged by the common consent of the Church which no more preiudicateth the Popes Authority then it doth the Kings that after an appeale made to Maiesty a Parliament be called for the decision of the cause for as the King is Head of the Parliament so is the Pope of a generall Councell And hereby it appeares how litle iudgment you shew in obiecting the African Councell to proue that the Councell of Nice denyed appeales to Rome both because your selfe alleaging this testimony of the Nicen Councell out of S. Leo proue them to be lawfull as also because the African Councell is wholly against you as hereafter shall be proued (c) Below Chap. 27. 4. That the Councell of Nice acknowledged the vninersall authority and iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome is proued out of Socrates a Greeke historian of aboue 1200. yeares standing who speaking of the Arian Councell at Antioch (d) L. 2. c. 5. proueth it to be vnlawfull because Iulius Bishop of Rome was not there nor sent any in his steed although the acclesiasticall canon forbids to rule the Churches without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome And Sozomen (e) L. 3. c. 9. Iulius reprehended them the Arians that they had secretly altered the fayth of the Nicen Councell and that against the lawes of the Church they had not called the Pope to their Synod for there was a sacerdotall law which pronounceth all things to be inualide that are done without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome And Theodoret (f) L 2. hist c. 4. Iulius Bishop of Rome following the canon of the Church commanded them the Arian Bishops to come to Rome and summoned the Diuinâ— Athanasius to answeare for himselfe in iudgment And the same is reported by Nicephorus Now this Canon so vniformely auouched by these Greeke historians which forbiddeth Bishops to be deposed or any Ecclesiasticall decrees to be made without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome can be of no other then of the Nicen Councell or els of that of Sardica which confirmed the decrees of the Councell of Nice and is reputed as an appendix vnto it both because as you haue heard Innocentius afflirmeth the Councell of Nice to haue made such a law as also for that since the Apostles tyme vntill the tyme of those two Councels there had bene held no other generall Councell in the Church And finally because Iohn that learned Disputant of the Latines in the Councell of Florence (g) Sess 20. in their name answeareth Marcus Ephesius the disputant of the Greekes that the most ancient epistles of Iulius and Liberius Popes which Iulian Cardinall of S. Sabina had shewed to the Grecians in that Councell did conuince that blessed Athanasius being persecuted by the Arians in their Councell at Antioch writ to Felix Marcus Iulius and Liberius all of them successiuely Popes of Rome for a true copy of the Actes of Nice which were kept entire and incorrupt at Rome all those that were in the East being corrupted by the Arians and that their answere was They wold not send the originall acts which being written in Greeke and Latine and subscribed by the Nicen Fathers and sealed with their seales were kept by the Bishop of Rome with great veneration but that they wold send him copied out seuerally such Canons as were for his purpose And moreouer he sheweth that when Athanasius had appealed from the Councell of Antioch to the See of Rome and that the Arians obiected it vnto him as a thing vnlawfull Liberius promised to send him copied out the Nicen decree for the lawfulnesse of appealing to Rome and that Iulius in his Epistle sharply rebuked the Arians for hauing presumed to call a Councell without his allowance shewing theÌ„ out of a decree of the Councell of Nice that no Councell could euer be held without the authority of the Bishop of Rome And lastly Pisanus (h) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 345.346 in proofe of these Nicene decrees produceth the testimonies of the Councell of Constantinople of Marcus of Stephanus and Innocentius Popes of Athanasius and the Bishops of Aegypt of other Orientals of Marianus Scotus Iuo Carnotensis and Gratianus All which with the rest here alleaged shew your vnshamefastnesse in vrging the Councell of Nice against Appeales to Rome which were so
to the Sunne starres to the Heauens and water to the Ocean These sufficiently shew that you by confessing that this Canon of the Councell of Constantinople was neuer admitted by the Church of Rome discouer your folly in insisting so much on a Canon which for want of due confirmation is inualid SECT VII That the Bishops of Constantinople knew this Canon to be of no force YOu aske (a) Pag. 112. Which of the Fathers for the space of 60. yeares after opposed against this Canon What one Bishop before Pope Leo thought is not most equall I answeare that this Canon was so farre from being allowed either by the Popes or other Fathers of that tyme that because it was not confirmed by the See Apostolike it presently dyed and the Patriarkes of Constantinople acknowledged themselues still subiect to the Pope and the Pope exercised his iurisdiction ouer them as formerly he had done For this Councell of Constantinople being held in the tyme of Nectarius Patriarke of that Citty S. Chrysostome that was his immediat Successor being deposed at the procurement of Eudoxia the Empresse by a Councell of Bishops held at Constantinople vnder Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria had recourse by letters of appeale to Innocentius Pope beseeching him to disanull by his letters and authority the Actes of that Councell to abrogate their sentence of condemnation iniustly pronouÌ„ced against him to restore him to his Bishopricke and punish his aduersaries according to the Canons of the Church yet not with such rigor but that if they did repent he would be pleased to spare them All these particulars are the requests of S. Chrysostome expressed in his letters to InnoceÌ„tius (b) Ep. 1. 2. ad Innocent in which who seeth not that he acknowleged in him the power of an absolute Iudge not only ouer himselfe but also ouer Theophilus the greatest Patriarke of the East and ouer the whole Councell that had condemned him Chrysostome was no sooner thrust out of his See and sent into banishment but his enemies set vp Arsacius in his place who liuing not much aboue a yeare Innocentius would neuer admit him to his communion and after his death commanded his name to be razed out of the records of the Church After Arsacius succeeded Atticus Chrysostome yet liuing Him likewise Innocentius excommunicatated and notwithstanding that he sent many embassages to procure absolution he could neuer obteyne it vntill he had inrolled the name of Chrysostome in the records of the Church as Innocentius ordeined (c) Theod. l. 5. c. 34. Sone after him succeded Nestorius who being fallen into heresy was by the authority and command of Pope Celestine excommunicated deposed in the first Councell of Ephesus (d) See the next Chap. sect 1. In his place Maximianus a man of excellent vertue was ordained by the Legates of the See Apostolike and confirmed by Celestine Pope and who in acknowledgment of the See Apostolike writ a famous Epistle to the Orientals Part of his words you haue heard aboue (e) Chap. 1. sect 4. After him succeeded Flauianus who hauing condemned Eutyches in a Synod at Constantinople and being therfore deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus by meanes of Dioscorus an hereticall Patriarke of Alexandria appealed to Leo Pope Fliuianus saith Liberatus (f) In breuiar c. 22. appealed to the Apostolike See by petition presented to his Legates The same is testified by Leo himselfe (g) Ep. 24. and by Valentinian the third to Theodosius his Father in law (h) In Ep. preamb. Concil Chalced. These examples are so many testimonies of your ignorance You aske which of the Fathers for the space of 60. yeares after the Councell of Constatinople opposed against this Canon or what one Bishop before Leo thought it not equall But we contrarily demand of you which of the Bishops of Constantinople in whose fauor this Canon was made for the space of 70. yeares which passed betweene the two Councells of Constantinople and Chalcedon did clayme any priuiledge of honor ouer the other Patriarkes of the East or any exemption from the Popes iurisdiction by vertue of this Canon Or what Pope in those 70. yeares did thinke it equall The examples alleaged conuince that the most famous Bishops of Constantinople which liued in that tyme knew the Canon to be of no force since in the wronges done them by other Patriarkes and Councells of the East they neuer alleaged it in their owne defence but still appealed to the Popes of those tymes as to their lawfull Iudges and the Popes thought their appeales to be most equall and iust absoluing them condemned their aduersaries And finally that this Canon tooke no effect is a thing evident by the answere which the Popes Legates made when Anatolius B. of Constantinople attempted to haue it renewed in the Councell of Chalcedon for hauing said that it was not to be found in the Code of the Canons of the vniuersall Church they added (i) Act. 1â— If the Bishops of Constantinople haue enioyed it what would they haue more And if they haue not enioyed it why do they now require it CHAP. XVIII The third Councell Generall being the first of Ephesus belieued the supreme Authority and Iurisdiction of the B. of Rome ouer all Bishops SECT I. Of the deposition and condemnation of Nestorius by the Command of Pope Celestine and whether the style of ancient Popes were to Command CELESTINE Pope being informed of the blasphemous Doctrine of Nestorius Patriarke of Constantinople who held that in Christ there were two persons diuine and humane and that therfore the B. Virgin Mary was the mother of man only and not of God condemned it first at Rome and then made Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria his Vicar in the East giuing him Commission to publish and execute his sentence at Constantinople This he signified to Nestorius himselfe (k) Conc. Ephes to 1. c. 17. sin We haue sent sayth Celestine the forme of this iudgment together with the whole processe to our holy fellow-Bishop of Alexandria to the end that he being made our Vicar may notify this our Decree vnto all And giuing Commission to Cyrill to publish and execute his sentence he sayth (l) Ep. ad Cyril in Conc. Ephes to 1. c. 16. Adding to thee the authority of our See and vsing with power the representation of our place thou shalt execute exactly and seuerely this sentence namely that if within ten dayes told after signification of this admonition made to Nestorius he do not in expresse words anathematize his wicked Doctrines c. thy Holinesse shall prouide for that Church without delay and declare him to be wholly cut off from our body Who seeth not that these words of Celestine import a command to Cyrill And in conformity to this command Cyrill writ to the Clergy people of Constantinople (m) Conc. Ephes to 1. c. â—5 We are constrayned to signify to Nestorius by Synodicall letters
he sent to the Councell instructions in writing what forme they ought to obserue in their iudgment And finally the Councell it selfe acknowledged that the Pope presided in it You say they to Leo (m) In relat ad Leon. presided in this assembly as the head doth to members exhibiting your good will by those that held your place And the faythfull Emperor presided for ornament sake and to see good order kept that is to hinder by his secular power such tumults and murders as had bene lately committed in the second false Councell of Ephesus Who seeth not that the whole Councell in these words acknowledged the Pope to be their Superior and themselues to be his subiects since they professe that he ruled ouer them at the head doth ouer the members SECT II. That the Councell of Chalcedon by the authority of Leo Pope deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus and restored Theodoret. THe supreme authority of the Pope is yet further proued out of the Councell of Chalcedon For Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople hauing reckoned vp the enormities of Eutyches requested Leo Pope to confirme the sentence of condemnation which in a Coūcell at Constantinople he had pronounced against him Moued then saith he (n) In ep praeambul Concil Chalced most holy Father with all these attempts of Eutyches with those thinges which haue bene done and are done against vs and against the holy Church worke confidently according to your courage as it belongs to the Priesthood and making the common cause and the discipline of the holy Churches your owne Vouchsafe to confirme by your writings the condemnation which hath bene regularty made against him Leo according to this petition of Flauianus condemned Eutyches and depriued him of his dignity Dioscorus sayth the Councell of Chalcedon writing to Leo (o) Relat. ad Leon. by the decrees of his tyranny hath declared Eutyches innocent and restored to him the dignity wherof he was depriued by your Holinesse What els is this but to say that albeit Eutiches had bene condemned by Flauianus his owne Bishop and lawfull Iudge yet afterwards when Flauianus by Eutyches his negotiation being deposed in the false Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo Pope and Leo declaring him innocent deposed Eutyches the Councell of Chalcedon imbraced this sentence of Leo and attributed to him the finall deposition of Eutyches as to the supreme Iudge that had power to reiudge the iudgments of other Bishops Which power Valentinian the third writing to Theodosius acknowledged and declared in this very cause of Flauianus We ought sayth he (p) In ep praeamb Conc. Chalced. to preserue inuiolable in our dayes the dignity of particular reuerence to the blessed Apostle Peter that the holy Bishop of Rome to whom antiquity hath attributed the Priesthood aboue all may haue place to iudge in matters of fayth and of Bishops c. For therfore according to the custome of Councells the Bishop of Constantinople Flauianus appealed to him in the contention which is risen about points of fayth The same power was like wise acknowledged by the Councell of Chalcedon in the cause of Theodoret Bishop of Cyre who being deposed by the second Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo and was restored by him and therupon admitted to take his place in the Councell of Chalcedon Let the right Reuerend Bishop Theodores come in say the Emperors officers (q) Conc. Chalc. act 1. that he may haue part in the Synod because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his Rishoprick and the most sacred and religious Emperor hath ordayned that he assist in the holy Councell Now that the Emperor ordayned not this as challenging any authority ouer Bishops but only as one that by his officers assisted at the Councell to execute the Popes decrees and to see peace and good order kept you haue heard the Councell testify (r) Sect. praeced and he himselfe declared the same saying to Pope Leo (s) In ep praeamb Concil Chalced. Our desire is that peace be restored to the Churches by this Councell celebrated vnder your authority The authority then is in the Pope not in the Emperor And when the cause of Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria came to be examined the Councell inquiring of the Popes Legates what charge they had against him Lucentius one of them answeared (t) Act. 1. Euagr. l. 2. c. 18. Dioscorus must yeld an account of his Iudgement because hauing no right to do the office of a Iudge he attempted it and presumed to hold a Synod without the authority of the See Apostolike a thing which nether was nor cold euer lawfully be done And Paschasinus another of the Legats (u) Act. 1. Wee haue here the commandes of the blessed and Apostolike Prelate of the City of Rome which is the Head of all Churches wherby his Apostolate hath vouchsafed to command that Dioscorus Archbishop of Alexandria sit not in the Councell but yet that he be admitted to be heard Wherupon the Councell commanded him not to sit as a Iudge among the Bishops but to stand in the middest as a person accused to answeare for himselfe (x) Euag. l. 2. c. 4. And the Councell hauing heard his whole cause condemned him requesting the Popes Legates to pronounce the sentence of condemnation against him (y) Act. 3. We beseech your Holinesse who haue the place and primacy of the most holy Pope Leo to pronounce the sentence against him Wherupon the Legates Paschasinus Lucentius and Bonifacius pronounced it in these words (z) Ibid. Therefore Leo the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of the great and ancient Rome hath by vs and by this present Synod together with the thrice blessed and worthy of all praise Peter the Apostle who is the Rock and Head of the Catholike Church and the foundation of the right fayth deposed Dioscorus from the Episcopall dignity and depriued him of all Sacerdotall function To this sentence all the Bishops subscribed And it is to be noted that wheras many most enormous crimes of Dioscorus are there rehearsed (a) Ibid. yet that which the Councell iudged to exceed all the rest was that he had presumed to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of great Rome Leo which enormity of his the whole Councell exaggerating to Leo sayd (b) Relat. ad Leon. And after and aboue all these things he hath extended his phrensy euen against him to whom the guard of the Vine hath bene committed by our Sauiour that is to say against your Apostolike Holinesse and hath dictated an Excommunication against you that seeke to vnite speedily the body of the Church In which words the Councell plainly professeth that the custody and charge of the whole Church signified vnder the name of a Vine was giuen to the Pope by our Sauiour and that he because he is Head of the Church laboreth to vnite the body thereof which also they
THAT the seauenth and eight Generall Councells belieued the B. of Rome to be the Head and Gouernor of the Vniuersal Church is a truth not to be denied In the second Action of the seauenth Synod was read and approued the Epistle of Adrian Pope to Tharasius in which speaking of S. Peters See he sayth Whose seate obtayning the primacy shineth throughout the whole world and is the Head of all the Churches of God In the eight Synod the profession which all Schismaticall Bishops returning to the Catholike Church were to make is expressed in these words (f) Apud Bin. to 3. pag. 923. Can. l. 6. c. 6. pag. 200. The begiuning of saluation is to conserue the rule of right fayth and no way to swarue from the tradition of our Fore-fathers because the words of our Lord cannot fayle saying Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it And the proofes of deeds haue made good these words for as much as in the See Apostolike the Catholike religion is alwayes conserued inuiolable We therfore desiring not to be separated from the fayth and doctrine of this Sea and following in all things the constitutions of the Fathers and chiefly of the holy Prelates of the See Apostolike anathematize all heresies c. And a litle after Wherfore following the See Apostolike in all things and obseruing all her constitutions we hope to deserue to liue in one communion which the See Apostolike teacheth in which there is the true and entire solidity of Christian religion we promise likewise not to recite in the sacred mysteries the names of those which are separated from the communion of the Catholike Church that is to say which agree not to the See Apostolike What you thinke Doctor Morton I know not but sure I am that if you who deny the Roman Church to be the Head and gouernesse of all Churches you that liue out of her Communion you that refuse to obey her constitutions you that professe not to follow her doctrine had liued in tyme of the seauenth and eight Synods they would haue anathematized you and condemned your doctrine as hereticall And this is the reason why you conceale these many other passages of those Councells in which the same truth is deliuered and many other points of your Protestant Doctrine condemned SECT II. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the eight Generall Councell IN your eight Chapter in the title of the eight Section you say (g) Pag. 127. The beliefe of the Article Viz. The Catholike Roman Church without subiection wherunto there is no saluation damneth the eight Councell which you call generall consisting of 383. Bishops in the yeare 870. This is your title in proofe wherof you cite Binius (h) Tom. 3. p. 143. in your margent but ignorantly and falsly for the Councell which Binius there setteth downe is not the eight generall held the yeare 870. vnder Basilius the Emperor and Adrian the second Pope of that name but a particular Synod consisting of certaine Greeke Bishops assembled the yeare 692. by the industry of Calinicus Patriarke of Constantinople in the tyme of Sergius Pope Iustinian the yonger in his pallace called Trullum hath neuer bene esteemed a lawfull Councell but alwayes reproued as a false and erraticall assembly as Binius proueth (i) To. 3. pag. 154. 155. and I shall presently declare (k) Sect. seq Againe you say The eight generall Councell consisted of 383 Bishops and giue Binius for your Author But you are mistaken wrong Binius for he (l) Tom. 3. pag. 910. proueth out of Nicetas and Anastasius who was present at the eight Councell that it consisted only of 102. Bishops Nor will it serue you for an excuse that Bellarmine sayth it consisted of 383. Bishops for you bring not him for your author but Binius who affirmeth and proueth the contrary And in what sense Bellarmine speaketh you might haue learned if you had obserued what Binius noteth out of Anastasius namely that many other Bishops agreed to this Synod though they were not present at it But let vs go on What was done say you (m) Pag. 127. in this fourth Synod of Constantinople you may vnderstand from your owne men Here I must request you to call to mind that els where you say (n) Pag. 235. marg lit â— the Councell vnder Menas was the fifth Councel of Constantinople How then can the eight general Councel which you say was held the yeare 870. be the fourth Councell of Constantinople since in this other place alleaged you affirme the Councell vnder Menas held the yeare 553. to be the fifth Councell of Constantinople for therby you ignorantly make the fifth Councell of Constantinople to haue bene held aboue 300. yeare before the fourth SECT III. Whether the eight generall Councell condemned the Saturday fast allowed by the Roman Church YOu tell vs (o) Pag. 1â—7 that we may vnderstand from our Binius that these Bishops of the eight generall Councell condemned a custome of the saboth fast in lent then vsed in the Church of Rome and therupon made they a Canon inhibiting the Church of Rome from keeping that custome any longer And you adde (p) Ibid. This Canon sayth your Surius is not receaued because it reprehendeth the Church of Rome the mother-Church of all other Churches So you And your readers especially of the vulgar sort by this your expression what will they conceaue but that the Roman Church did in those tymes fast the Sundayes in Lent for as by the Saboth day Protestants especially the vulgar vnderstand no other day but Sunday so by the Saboth fast what will they vnderstand but the Sunday fast which was neuer vsed nor allowed in the Roman Church but condemned in the Councell of Gangra as an hereticall obseruation of the Eustathians (q) See Spond anno 319. n. 9. The fast which this Canon inhibiteth is the Saturday fast which as then it was so notwithstanding this Canon is still vsed by the Roman Church in Lent and not prohibited out of Lent Nor was that Canon made by the eight generall CouÌ„cell to whom you ignorantly ascribe it but by the Trullan Synod as Binius and Surius testify whom therfore you abuse in fathering on them your owne ignorant mistake of the Trullan Synod for the eight generall Councell And so much the more because both of them with all Catholike Diuines hold the Trullan Canons to be illegitimate and of no force for as much as no Legates of Sergius then Pope were present at that Synod nor was it assembled by his authority or consent but absolutely reproued and condemned by him notwithstanding the barbarous violence of Soldiers and other meanes vsed by the Empetor to extort a confirmation from him and his successors as Venerable Bede (r) L Dâ— sex aetat in iustinian iuniore who liued at that tyme
Paulus Diaconus (s) L. 6. e. 4. and other historians testify and you may read in Baronius (t) Anno 692 Bellarmine (u) L. 1. de Binius (x) Tom. 3. pag. 152. and Canus (y) L. 5. de loc c. vlt. who rightly obserue that as not by the Pope so neither by any of the Patriarkes of the East nor by any authority of antiquity it hath bene receaued as a true Councell but held to be and so Bede (z) Loco cis calls it Erratica Synodus An erring Synod in so much that the Greeke Historians Theophanes Zonaras Cedrenus Glycas and others thought best to bury it in silence neuer reckoning it among the Councells nor making any mention at all of it And with great reason for how Almighty God punished both the wicked Patriarke Calinicus and the Emperor who pleaseth may read in Baronius (a) Anno 691. All which being true as it is it must follow that you shew great ignorance or els lack of Conscience in attributing to the eight generall Councell a decree of this impious Conuenticle and obiecting it against a religious custome of the Saturday fast in Lent piously obserued by the Roman Church from the Apostles tyme. If it be an abuse why did not the seauen first Oecumenicall Councels take notice of it Do not the Greeke authors with one voyce cry out that in thinges of this nature which are not repugnant to fayth or good manners the variety of ancient customes vsed in diuers Churches is to be obserued And did not S. Hierome being consulted about this very custome of the Saturday fast long before the Trullan Synod answeare (b) Ep. 28. Let euery countrey abound in their owne sense and reuerence the precepts of their Fore-fathers as Apostolicall lawes And did not S. Ambrose (c) Spond anno 384. n. 6. in this very particular aduise Monica S. Augustines Mother to obserue the custome of whatsoeuer place she was in And do not both he and S. Augustine (d) Apud S. Aug. ep 86. professedly proue against you and such as you are that wheras the Easterne Church from the tyme of the Apostles fasted not but feasted on Saturdayes contrary to the custome of the Westerne Church both of them did it vpon good and pious considerations declared by the ancient Fathers (e) Apud Baro. an 692. And doth not S. Augustine (f) Loco cit shew that variety to be a singular ornament to the Church And do not the Councells of Agatha (g) C. 22. and Eliberis (h) C. 26. subscribe to that custome of the Roman other Westerne Churches What authority then had those Trullan Bishops to make themselues Iudges of the Roman Church and of all the Churches of the West ouer whom they had no authority as your selfe well knoweth And hereby is discouered your folly that not contenting your selfe with proposing heere this Argument so impertinent and friuolous you repeate it afterwards againe saying (i) Pag. 220. 221. that S. Augustine approuing the custome of the Easterne Church wounds the Papacy and signifies that the Roman Church had not then any peremptory authority to determine all causes for the Roman Church then did and still doth allowe variety of Customes in diuers Churches though sometimes contrary to her owne when they are not repugnant to fayth or good manners Such was the Easterne custome of not obseruing the Saturday-fast which therfore she allowed How then doth S. Augustine wound the Papacy in allowing the Orientalâ—s to obserue their custome since the Roman Church agreeth with him in allowing the same To proue out of S. Augustine that the Roman Church had not then authority to determine all Ecclesiasticall causes you should haue shewed that he held endlesse and indeterminable any cause which she had once determined or that he allowed what she had once condemned which whiles you do not you spend your breath in vaine Finally wheras you aske (k) Pag. 127. Whether the Church of Rome would at this day swallow and disgest such an hoat morsell as the Trull an decree was you insinuate that then she could and did swallow that morsell which how false it is you haue heard since neither Sergius Pope nor any of his successors could euer be brought to confirme that deceee or the Synod that made it which alone sheweth the transcendent authority of the Roman Church in those dayes for want of whose allowance and confirmation that Synod was then and euer since hath bene reproued as an impious Assembly whose decrees therfore you are ill aduised to obiect in fauor of your cause against the Roman Church CHAP XXIII Doctor Morton defendeth the hereticall custome of the Asian Bishops against Victor Pope BELLARMINE and other Catholike writers to proue the authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome practised ouer the Easterne Church in the first ages after Christ among other examples alleage the sentence of excommunication pronounced by Victor Pope against Polycrates and many other Asian Bishops for not celebrating the feast of Easter vpon the Sunday as the Roman Church did but according to the Iewish computation at the full moone of March on what day soeuer it sell wheras witnesse Eusebius (l) Lib. 5. hist c. 22. the rest of the Churches throughout the whole world insisting in the Apostolicall tradition and custome did neuer obserue their Easter on any other day then that on which our Lord arose from death which was on Sunday And so it was decreed to be kept by the Councells of Palestine of Rome of Pontus of France of Osraena of Achaia and of other Bishops almost Innumerable (m) Euseb Ibid. To which I adde out of Tertullian (n) De praescrip c. 53. that Blastus by persuading the obseruation of that Iewish custome did endeauour to bring Iudaisme againe into the Church which also Eusebius testifieth saying (o) L. 5. hish c. 14. Blastus hauing drawne many into error did labor to bring in a new Sect for the destruction of truth Vpon these grounds Victor excommunicated him and the Asian Bishops for their obstinate defence of that custome which Pius his predecessor had forbidden You obiect (p) Pag. 130. that the Asian Bishops stood out a long time against Victor and contemned his excommunication and that Polycrates pleading their cause in his Epistle to Pope Victor alleaged that they had receaued their custome from S. Iohn who leaned an our Lords brest that it was practised by Philip the Apostle and continued by Polycarp Thraseas and Sagonius all of them Bishops and Martyrs and that Polycrates himselfe hauing liued 65. yeares in the communion of the faythfull was nothing moued with those terrors meaning of excommunication which were vrged against him and the rest And you adde (q) Pag. 131. out of Eusebius that this Act of Victor did not please all other Bishops who did greatly reproue him for troubling the peace of the Church
Apostles And wheras you (r) Pag. 131. appeale to our consciences and bid vs in all our reading shew vnto you if we can that Polycrates and other Asian Bishops so excommunicated by Pope Victor were held by any other Catholike Bishops of those tymes to be therby without the state of saluation we contrarily appeale to the conscience of any christian man whether it be not damnable doctrine to mantaine as you do that these Qartadeciman heretikes after they knew themselues to be excommunicated by the Pope and anathematized by so many Councels if they repented not but persisted obstinatly in the defence of their heresy cold be in state of saluation And lastly wheras you add (s) Pag. 131. that wee full well know that S. Hierome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiasticall writers numbred Polycrates among those who did aduance the Catholike fayth we know that you speake ignorantly and vntruly for S. Hierome in that his Catalogue doth not only number Catholikes but also diuers heretikes that writ of Ecclesiasticall affaires as Eusebius Caesariensis whome the same S. Hierome (t) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. cals The ring-leader of the Arians And so likewise he numbreth Nouatianus Donatus and Photinus whom in that very Catalogue he acknowledgeth not only to be heretikes but authors and propagators of seuerall heresies And in no other condition doth he number Polycrates whom he commendeth not for aduancing the Catholike fayth as you affirme but hauing set downe a piece of his epistle written to Pope Victor in defence of his error sayth He reports it to shew the wit and authority of the man where by authority he vnderstands not authority of right but of fact that is the credit which Polycrates had among the Quartadecimans CHAP. XXIV Doctor Morton in opposition to the Roman Church defendeth the Hereticall Doctrine of Rebaptization FIRMILIANVS B. of Caesarea in Cappadocia with other Asian Bishops out of their great hatred to heresy decreed in their Councells of Iconium Synnada that Baptisme giuen by Heretikes was inualid and therfore that Heretikes returning to the Catholike Church were to be baptized a new This Doctrine from Asia crept into Africa and Agrippinus B. of Carthage hauing layd the first grounds therof Cyprian with other African Bishops afterwards imbraced the same so far that for the authorizing therof they assembled a Councell of 80. Bishops at Carthage All which notwithstanding that doctrine as being contrary to the tradition and practise of the Catholike Church was forbidden by Stephen then Pope of Rome in these words Nihil innouetur sed seruetur quod traditum est Let no innouation be made but that obserued which hath come by tradition Firmilianus with other Bishops of Asia notwithstanding this prohibition persisted still in their error and were for that cause excommunicated by Stephen Wherat Firmilianus storming in his fury spued out reprochfull and contumelious words against him But Cyprian although he defended the same error yet not as a doctrine of fayth nor condemning the contrary nor censuring the Pope or the rest that defended it as any way guilty of Heresy for as S. Augustine writing against the Donatists and excusing Cyprian (u) L. 2. de Bapt. t. 18. l. 2. c. 4. sayth If he held that opinion it was before it was condemned by a a generall Councell to which he would most easily haue submitted his iudgment if any such had bene held in his tyme. And moreouer if he held it it was with so great temper that as both he himselfe (x) Ep. ad Iuba in Conc. Carthag and S. Augustine (y) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18. 19. l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9 alibisaepe for him testifieth for the defence therof he neuer forsooke the communion of the Roman Church but as S. Peter dissented from S. Paul concerning the circumcision of Gentils newly conuerted and yet both of them still remayned in Catholike vnity and peace so likewise though Cyprian touching rebaptization differed in opinion from Stephen yet he still remayned in communion with him And therfore when the Donatists defended their heresy by the authority of Cyprian and his Councell S. Augustine answeared (h) Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 32. l. 2. c. 31. alibi saepe that Cyprians patronage could not auaile them because they were out of the communion of the Roman Church in which Cyprian liued and dyed This is the controuersy as it passed betweene Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and Stephen Pope briefly related And you in obiecting it against the Popes authority shew impiety folly and falshood Impiety 1. In taking part with Firmilianus Cyprian in their opposition to Pope Stephen and approuing their doctrine which you know to be erroneous that soone after being condemned by a generall Councell it hath euer since bene held for an absolute heresy not only by Catholikes but also by Protestants And doth not S. Augustine say (i) L. 2. de Bapt. c. 2. that albeit Cyprian Bishop Martyr were a man of great fame and merit yet not of greater then Peter the Apostle and Martyr in whom the principality of the See Apostolike was so eminent which sheweth that Cyprian ought to haue borne respect to Stephen Pope sitting in the See inuested in the authority of Peter Prince of the Apostles And doth he not shew (l) L. 2. Cont. Crescon c. 32. that Cyprian erred herein and that the Epistles which he writ of this subiect are of no force because the contrary was decreed by the authority of the whole Church which is to be preferred before the authority of Cyprian or of any one man whatsoeuer And doth he not (m) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 23. seqq learnedly confute the Epistle which Cyprian writ to Pompeius in defence of his error And wheras you to iustify Cyprian obiect (n) Pag. 134. that he gathered a Councell of 87. Bishops which concluded contrary to the Pope and his Councell celebrated in Italy you know that S. Augustine doubted (o) L. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. whether any such Councell were euer held and if it were whether the greater part of the Votes were not against Cyprian because the Donatists could reckon but 50. Asian and 70. African Bishops that adhered to Firmilianus and Cyprian (p) S. Aug. cont Crescon l. 3. c. 3. wheras many thousands held with Stephen Pope against them And the same S. Augustine (q) L. 6. de Bapt. per tot answeareth and confuteth seuerally euery one of the verdictes of the Bishops which were said to be giuen in that Councell assembled by Cyprian 2. You cannot be excused from impiety in obiecting (r) Pag. 137. against the Popes authority the words which Firmilianus and Cyprian in their passion let slip from their mouthes against Stephen for S. Augustine (s) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 25. held them vnworthy to be mentioned and couered them with this excuse The things which
wordes sayth Sanders it is apparent that S. Augustine would haue had the matter of Appeales referred to the Pope and ordered as he should thinke best So that whereas you cite Sanders saying All the African Bishops were seuered from the Church of Rome his true wordes import the direct contradictory Non omnes Episcopi Africani All the Bishops of Afrike did not oppose the Roman Bishop You also alleage him de visibili Monarch pag. 368. n. 411. where he hath nothing to your purpose but only alleageth the wordes of Eulalias of Carthage his recantation We anathematize all those that proudly lift vp their neckes against the Holy Roman and Apostolical Church From these wordes can you gather your dismal assertion that All the African Bishops from the dayes of Cyprian vntill Boniface the second that is for three hundred yeares were excommunicated by the Pope and seuered from the Communion of the Roman Church The Iesuite Salmeron sayth no more then (g) Salmeron tom 12. tract 68. §. Ad Canonem that in the dayes of S. Cyprian the African Bishops began to be seuered from the Roman Church and that in the dayes of Pope Innocent and Aurelius Bishop of Carthage they were bitter and displeased against the Church of Rome But he doth not say that all the African Bishops were so nor that they withdrew their Communion and obedience from the Roman Church Yea in the dayes of S. Cyprian though he and fourescore African Bishops were displeased with Pope Stephen because he did strongely and constantly oppose their impious doctrine of Anabaptisme yet they neuer proceeded to make a Schisme and separation from the Roman Church Contrariwise the very same fourescore Bishops who had made a decree for Anabaptisme met together againe as S. Hierome doth testify (h) Hieron Dialog cont Lucifer Illi ipsi Episcopi qui Rebaptizandos haereticos cum Cypriano statuerunt ad antiquam consuetudinem reuâ—luti nouum emisâ—re decretum and repealed their decree which might haue caused their separation from the RomaÌ„ Church So false is it that all the Bishops of Africa from the dayes of S. Cyprian vntill the time of Boniface the second were seuered from the Church of Rome that euen those very Bishops of those dayes were not seuered By the Epistle of Boniface the second grant it be true no more is proued then that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage superbirâ— cepit was somewhat arrogant and proud against the Pope and that Eulalius of Carthage did against the example of his other Predecessors imitate Aurelius therin as he doth testify saying in the said Epistle of Boniface that he felt himselfe Peccatis Aurelij praegrauatum ouer-burthened with the sinnes of Aurelius But that all the Christians of Africa namely those many Martyrs that suffered persecution vnder the Arian Wandalls were tainted with this bitternes of distast and Schismaticall dis-vnion against the Roman Bishop is a fable by your selfe newly coyned and vented abroad Now to the third point proposed although the Epistle of Boniface do not iustify your slander against all the Bishops Martyrs of Africa that they were excommunicated by the Pope and out of the communion of the Roman Church yet there be many Arguments that may seeme to euince that the same is counterfeit the relation thereof being incoherent First you (i) Pag. 148. The Epistle of Boniface the second wherin about the yeare 606. the same Pope complaineth c. say that the reunion of the Church of Africa to the Church of Rome happened about the yeare 606. and in the time of Boniface the second These thinges hange not togeather and consequently are false for Boniface the second dyed in the yeare 531. that is almost an hundred yeares before the yeare 606. Secondly the said Epistle of Boniface the Second affirmes that Eulalius his reconciliation with the Church of Rome was performed in the daies of Iustine the Emperour (k) Iustini elementissimi Principis Orientis sacrarum literarum exemplaria ad voâ— destinauimus that this Emperour writ letters to the said Boniface about it Now Iustine the Emperour was dead three or foure yeares before Romiface the Second was chosen Pope Thirdly the Epistle of Boniface is written to Eulalius Bishop of Alexandria But the Bishop of Alexandria in the dayes of Boniface the second was not named Eulalius but Timothaeus an Heretike and an Aduersary of the Roman Church You saw this difficulty and to auoyd it feare not to do against the command of the Holy Ghost (m) Vide titulum Psalmi 58. Augu. tract 117. in Ioan. Ne corrumpaes Tituli inscriptionem For the Title of that Epistle in Surius being Epistola eiusdem Bonifacij ad Eulalium Alexandrinum Episcopum (n) Pag. 248. in marg at x you change it and make it to be Epistola Bonifacij ad Alexandrum Episcopum the Epistle of Boniface to Bishop Alexander nor do you tell vs of what Church or See this your Alexander was Bishop Fourthly in the time of Boniface the secoÌ„d Gilimer the Arian Wandal was King of Africa during whose reigne there was no Catholike Bishop in Carthage (o) See Baron Anno 620. seqq nor in any Church of Africa but only Arians Finally your Apostata-Bishop of Spalato Antonius de Dominis in his (p) De Repub. Eccles. lib. 4. c. 8. n. 34. London-writings which he published vnder your nose with your so great approbation and applause doth so lay about him against the Epistle of Boniface that you who are so stiffe a defender therof had best to stand aside for feare of knocks In the Controuersy about Appellations sayth he (q) Communio inter Africam Romam non est abrupta the Communion between Africa and Rome was neuer broken as Baronius and Binius do proue very well The reconciliation or recantation made by the Church of Carthage vnto Boniface the Second which some one hath faigned (r) Mara est impostura is a meere Imposture as the said Authors demonstrate Thus he May you not number this man among the Children of the Tribe of Dan and angry fellowes who doth so peremptorily auerre the Epistle of Boniface to be a meere forgery and a grand Imposture with greater reason then you haue done Bellarmine for only saying I suspect it is counterfeit In fine these Arguments abundantly shew that this Epistle of Boniface may be questioned and reiected and yet all the other Epistles of ancient Popes set downe in the Body of our Councells cells subsist firme against which the like implicancies and incoherencies cannot be vrged As for Bishop Lindan he speaketh against them who discard this Epistle voluntarily and without euident proofes saying that they might aswell infringe the credit of any ancient history which his inference is of no force against them who refuse it as counterfeit not voluntarily but constrained by the pregnant incompossibilities thereof with other knowne vndeniable truthes CHAP. XXVIII Whether the Britans
deinde neque hoc habet Papa propter ordinem charitatis sed propter subiectionem subordinationem ad deponendos Reges disponendum de regnis which you set downe (l) Pag margi as Bellarmines is not his but patched vp of diners words taken out of seuerall places of his and knit into one sentence to make him dance after your pipe speake as best fitteth your designe Yea Bellarmine out of that very Epistle and out of those very words of Innocent which you obiect proueth els where (m) L Pont that the Pope hath no temporall dominion ouer Christian Princes whome therfore you slander falsly fathering on him the contrary to make him all Catholikes as much as in you lieth hatefull to Christian Princes The third author which is Carerius I haue not seene but how vnsincerely you haue heretofore cited him in this very matter F. Persons in his Treatise tending to Mitigation against the seditious writings of Thomas Morion Minister hath shewed long since (n) Ch 162.17 And because he truly obserueth that you hardly cite any Author without some sleight or other I suspect that here you deale no otherwise with Carerius SECT II. Your second Argument out of Hieremy the Prophet examined SEcondly you say (o) Pag. 170. Popes exact of Emperors be they Christians or Ethnickes subiection and subordination when they meane to dispossesse them of their kingdomes or depriue them of their liues from pretence of Scripture alleaging in their Bulls for their warrant that saying of the Prophet Behold I haue constituted thee aboue nations and kingdomes to plant and roote on t to build and destroy Ierem. 1. So they Wherunto also accordeth the decree of Boniface the eight Good God that the world should be so bewitched by them as to account them Pastors of the Church who feed their people with thornes swords daggers and pistolls For what els meane these grosses wherby the word of God is so notoriously prophaned for patronizing of rebellions and murders All these are your words false I am sure and slanderous and whether not also rayling virulent let the Reader iudge My intention heere is not to dispute what authority the Pope hath ouer Kings and Emperors in temporall matters I write against you and my intention only is to shew that as in other matters so also in this you wrong the Popes and falsify the Fathers with other Catholike authors And to begin with S. Bernard you say (p) Pag. 170. He writing to Pope Eugenius (q) L. 2. de Considerat condemneth the Papall Glosse to his face teaching that in this text vnder the figuratiue speach of rurall sweat is expressed the spirituall labour c shewing therby that your Popes might haue proued for their aduantage out of that text rather a right to become gardeners and carpenters for roting out weeds and destroying of buildings then Generalls of Hoasts for conquest and subiection of kingdomes That S. Bernard out of this text gathereth no power of Popes to depose Kings or other secular Princes or people I grant He only admonisheth Eugenius that being placed in a seat of eminēcy from whence as from a watch-tower he beholdeth all he neither giue himselfe to idlenesse his function being an office of spirituall labor nor be puffed vp with pride but gouerne in humility which he calleth The chiefest gemme among all the ornaments of the high Priest and to that end representeth vnto him the admonition which S. Peter gaue to all Prelats (r) 1. Pet. 5.2 not no dominier in the Clergy but to become paternes of the flock from the hart and the example of Christ who was in the middest of his Disciples as one that wayted (s) Luc. 22.27 But yet to shew against you that Eugenius had spirituall iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church he sayth to him (t) L. 2. de Consid What person bearest thou in the Church of God Who art thou A great Priest the chiefe Bishop Thou art the Prince of Bishops thou the heyre of the Apostles thou art Abel in primacy Nōe in gouerment in Patriarkship Abraham in order Melchisedech in dignity Aaron in authority Moyses in iudicature Samuel in power Peter and by Vnction Christ. Thou art he to whom the keyes were giuen to whom the sheepe committed There are other porters of Heauen and Pastors of flocks but thou as in a different so in a far more glorious manner hast inherited both those names They haue their seuerall flockes assigned vnto them to thee all are committed one flock to one shepheard Thou art not only Pastor of the sheep but Pastor of all Pastors Dost thou aske how I proue it Out of the word of our Lord for to which I will not say of the Bishops but euen of the Apostles were the sheepe committed so absolutely and without exception If thou louest me Peter feed my sheepe What sheep Of this or that City or Countrey or Kingdome My sheep sayth he To whom is it not manifest that he designed not any but assigned all where no distinction is put no exception is made c. The power of others is confined within certaine limits Thy power extendeth euen to them that haue receaued power ouer others If there because canst not thou shut vp Heauen to a Bishop Canst not thou depose him from his Bishoprick and deliuer him to Satan All these words are S. Bernards which I haue transcribed that the reader may see he belieued the Pope to be Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church and acknowledged in him absolute power to depose Bishops which you could not be ignorant of but conceale it because it toucheth your copie-hold and mention only deposing of Princes of which S. Bernard speaketh not one word Yea more ouer he doth not only acknowledge that the Pope hath power to depose Bishops but withall sheweth how falsly you alleage him to proue that in the text of Hieremy nothing is expressed but spirituall labor vnder the figuratiue speach of rurall sweat for writing to the same Pope Eugenius (u) Ep. 237. he requesteth him to depose the Bishops of Winchester Yorke as intruders and wicked men that opposed the Archbishop of Canterbury a religious Prelate and of good fame and out of this very text of Hieremy proueth his authority to do it for to that end sayth he (x) Ibid. thou art placed ouer nations and kingdomes to pull vp and destroy to build and to plant which power he declareth againe in another Epistle (y) Ep. 239. out of the same text of Hieremy speaking to Eugenius of deposing a wicked Bishop of the Ruthenians Nor is it S. Bernard only that interpreteth Hieremy in this sense for 630. Bishops assembled in the Councell of Chalcedon (z) In relat ad Leo. alleage the same text to iustify their deposing of Dioscorus and require Leo Pope to confirme the same The like interpretation is made by 32. Bishops in the
in any thing he had erred and acknowledgeth in the Pope authority of a Iudge We are ready sayth he to be iudged by you prouided that they which slander vs may appeare face to face with vs before your Reuerence Doth all this import nothing but a request of louing and brotherly visitation or consideration Could S. Basil in more effectuall words expresse the Popes power and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church then by requesting him to send his Legates with authority to annull the Acts of a generall Councell as that of Arimin was No they are testimonies so forcible that with no glosse can be eluded But you reply (u) Pag. 194. against Bellarmine that he will needes haue S. Basil to desire the Popes Decree wheras Baronius readeth Counsell or Aduice Here againe you cauill for the Greeke word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by interpretation of Budaeus signifieth voluntatem sententiam iudicium Why then was it not lawfull for Bellarmine to say S. Basil desired the Popes decree for to desire him to giue his sentence and iudgement what was it els but to acknowledge in him the authority of a Iudge with power to sentence to iudge to decree Ecclesiasticall causes in the East Which power he also declareth in other places of his workes for do not both he (x) Ep. 73. al. 74. and S. Gregory Nazianzen (y) Epist ad Clede testify that Eustathius B. of Sebaste by vertue of Liberius his letters presented to the Easterne Bishops in the Councell of Tyana and by vertue of his command intimated in them was receaued into the communion of the whole Easterne Church and restored to his See Eustathius sayth S. Basil to the Bishops of the West hauing bene cast out of his Bishoprick because he was deposed in the Synod of Melitine aduised himselfe to find meanes to be restored trauailing to you Of the things that were proposed to him by the most Blessed Bishop Liberius and what submission be made we know not Only he brought a letter that restored him which being shewed to the Councell of Tyana he was reestablished in his Bishops seat Againe doth not S. Basil (z) Ep. 77. compare the Church to a body wherof the Westerne part by reason of the Roman See is the Head and the Eastern the Feet And doth he not from this very Metaphor denominate the B. of Rome Head of the vniuersall Church and all other Bishops fellow-members of the same body (a) Ep. 70. ad Episc transmar edit Paris an 1603. Againe doth he not beseech Pope Damasus (c) Ibid. to send Legates with order to examine the accusations laid to his charge and to appoint a place for him to meet them that his cause might be iudged by them and he punished if he were found guilty And doth he not require the same Pope (d) Ep. 74. to giue order by his letters to all the Easterne Churches that they admit into their communion all such as hauing departed from the Catholike truth shall disclaime from their Errors and to renounce the Communion of them that shall persist obstinatly in their nouelties And lastly declaring the Popes authority in determining all doubts and controuersies of fayth he sayth In very deed that which was giuen by our Lord to your Piety is worthy of that most excellent voyce which proclamed you blessed to wit that you may discerne betweene that which is counterfeit and that which is lawfull and pure and without any diminution may preach the fayth of our Ancestors I conclude therfore that if S. Basil beleeued aright the Pope hath authority to restore Bishops deposed to their Sees to send Legates with power to dissolue the Acts of generall Councels to condemne hereticall doctrines to iudge the causes of Bishops to punish delinquents And is this nothing els but charitable aduice but perswasion but counsell Is it not to vse authority to exercise iurisdiction But you obiect (f) Pag. 1â—6 that S. Basil in his owne name and in the name of his fellow Bishops in the East hauing written often to Pope Damasus and other Westerne Bishops and sent to Rome foure seuerall legations requiring helpe and comfort from them in their afflictions could not receaue any answeare in so much that S. Basil taxeth them with supercilious pride haughtinesse and that they did neither know the truth nor would learne it This you obiect out of Baronius from whom you might haue taken the solution which is that S. Basil was oppressed and as it were ouerwhelmed with waues of sorow and affliction not only for the common calamity of the Orientall Church but also for his owne particular for as much as by Eustathius B. of Sebaste and others who hiding the venime of their heresy feigned themselues to be Catholikes he was accused and defamed of heresy in the East and brought into suspition euen with his owne Monkes and his dearely beloued Neocaesarians And this made him likewise not to be well thought of in the West in so much that Damasus Pope for a time desisted from that familiar communication by letters which Basil expected and differred the sending of Legates to examine his cause and cleare the truth which he had required greatly desired Yet as you (g) Pag. 198. confesse was he then a member of the Catholike Church and held communion with the Church of Rome both in fayth and charity Nor was Damasus so wholly wanting to his comfort but that euen then when he was suspected of heresy vpon his letters he called a Councell at Rome in which he condemned Apollinarius Vitalis and Timotheus (h) Baron anno 373. Sozo l. 6. c. 25. called Vitalis to Rome and excommunicated Timotheus as he testifieth in his Epistle to the Easterne Bishops (i) Apud Theodo l. 5. histor c. 11. expressing withall the profession which they had made to him of their beliefe of the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Now if S. Basil in these afflictions and grieuing at the intermission of such communicatory letters from the Westerne Bishops and chiefly from Damasus as he expected let fall from his mouth some hasty words as other holy men whom Baronius (k) An. 373. nameth in like occasions haue done is that by you to be reproached vnto him or is it any argument of his deniall of the Supremacy of the B. of Rome which he hath taught so clearely so constantly so effectually in so many places of his workes Yea albeit S. Basil gaue a litle way to the motions of nature yet by vertue he soone recalled himselfe retracting what he had said as his letters full of humility written soone after to Damasus the other Westerne Bishops expresse You sayth (l) Ep. 1. in addiâ— he are praised by all mortall men that you remaine pure and without blemish in fayth keeping entire the doctrine taught you by the Apostles It is not so with vs among whom there are some
de Pont. c. 2. it is defended by Gerson and Almain Doctors of Paris as also by Castro and Adrianus sextus and that it is tolerated by the Church Do not you then ouerlash saying that Bellarmines opinion is part of our beliefe necessary to saluation when he so expresly teacheth the contrary SECT VI. S. Hieroms iudgment concerning the necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof HE declared his iudgment (z) Ep. 77. when to assure himselfe to be in the communion of the Catholike Church he regarded not the communion of Paulinus in whose Patriarship of Antioch he liued but professed himselfe to stick fast to the communion of Damasus Pope that is to the chaire of Peter vpon which sayth he I know the Church to be built You answeare (a) Pag. 203. that by chaire he meant not the See and Bishoprick of Rome but the true Doctrine of fayth then preached at Rome euen as Christ spake of the chaire of Moyses that is sayth S. Hierome the law of Moyses This satisfieth not both because whē some Fathers expound fayth to be the Rock on which Christ built his Church they exclude not but include the person of Peter and chiefely because S. Hierome followeth not that exposition but euer vnderstāds the person of Peter his See to be the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church Christ sayth he (b) Ad cap. 16. Math. gaue to Simon that belieued in him the name of a Rock and according to the Metaphor of a Rock it is rightly said to him I will build my Church on thee And a litle after Christ did not then actually build his Church on Peter but promised to build it on him afterward saying I will build my Church on thee and I will giue to thee the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen Wherfore as he promised not to deliuer the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to Fayth but to Peter and his Successors so on him and them he promised to build his Church And the same is manifest out of the contexture of this his Epistle to Damasus for doth he not say I am ioyned in communion to your Blessednesse that is to the chaire of Peter vpon this Rock I know the Church to be built Whosoeuer shall eate the Lambe out of this house he is prophane If any one shall not be in the arke of Nöe he shall perish in the deluge These words conuince that S. Hierome by the chaire of Peter vnderstands not fayth but the Church built on him and his Successors for the house out of which no man can eat the lambe that is offer sacrifice is not fayth to which the denomination of a house cannot agree but the Church built vpon Peter which S. Ambrose (c) In 1. Timoth 3.15 calleth The house of God wherof Damasus was then Gouernor And the same is euident out of S. Hierome himselfe for fayth is not the Arke of Nöe but the Church of Peter out of which whosoeuer shall be at the comming of the deluge shall perish And I cannot but admonish you of a fraudulent reticence for being you make so great accompt of Erasmus produce him for your only author (d) Pag. 204. that S. Hierome by the chaire of Peter vnderstandeth fayth why do you conceale that vpon this very passage Erasmus sheweth S. Hierome to condemne your doctrine of falshood Here sayth he (e) Anotat in Ep. 77. S. Hieron Hierome seemeth to be wholly of opinion that all Churches ought to be subiect to the Roman See or surely not diuided from her which peculiarly glorieth in this Apostle that had the soueraignty among the Apostles and which is so Orthodoxall that of all Orthodoxall Churches she is the chiefest in dignity This you know to be the true meaning of S. Hierome but shift it of repeating often and with great variety of words that if S. Hierome pointed out the Church of Rome as the Arke of Noah yet therby he conceaued not a perpetuity therof that Virgin Hierusalem may become a harlot and that she hath no priuiledge neuer to apostatate But this euasion I haue already disproued (f) See aboue Chap. 12. sect 1. 2. by the promise of Christ made to S. Peter and his Successors that their fayth shall not faile and that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against the Church built vpon them To this I adde that S. Hierome acknowledgeth Damasus to be his Pastor (g) Ep 77. and therfore Pastor of the vniuersall Church for when he writ that Epistle he was an inhabitant of Palestine which being in the Patriarkship of Antioch Paulinus that was then Patriarke of Antioch was actually his Pastor and he actually a sheep of Paulinus therfore could not at the same time be actually a sheep of Damasus if the sheep of the Patriarkship of Antioch were not actually subiect to the pastorall authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome Yes say you (h) Pag. 202. He might be held a sheep of the B. of Rome in respect of his baptisme But this I deny for he that being baptized in one Dioces leaueth that and becometh an inhabitant of another eo ipso becometh a sheep of that Dioces which he inhabiteth and leaueth to be a sheep of the former in which he was baptized And as the Bishop vnder whom he was baptized can haue no authority ouer him after he hath left his Dioces vnlesse he be superior in power and iurisdiction to the Bishop whose Dioces he now inhabiteth so neither could Damasus be actually Pastor to S. Hierome hauing left the Dioces and Patriarkship of Rome and inhabiting that of Antioch if Damasus had not had pastorall authority ouer the sheep of the Patriarkship of Antioch Now to your obiections The first is (i) Pag. 205. S. Hierome twited and taunted Damasus saying But away enuy and let the ambition of the Roman height depart which he did not say so much in regard of Damasus his owne pride otherwise an excellent godly Pope as for the pride of the Roman top or height namely the ambition of his state This is impertinent and vntrue Impertinent for were it true as it is not that S. Hierome reprehended the pride of the Roman Church pride is not an error in fayth but a fault in manners and therfore no warrant for you to disauow the fayth or forsake the Communion of the Roman Church It is also vntrue for S. Hierome doth not only not twite Damasus but professeth himselfe to be ioyned in communion with his Blessednesse And much lesse doth he taunt his See which he acknowledgeth to be the Rock on which the Church is built And indeed who but you would haue charged S. Hierome with twiting and taunting Damasus an excellent godly Pope whom you acknowledge to be his pastor and spirituall Father that not for any fault of his owne but for faults feigned by you against
citation and application of these attributes you deale not vprightly as is to be seene in Canisius from whom you tooke them (b) Catechisinit in Encorn Pat. But leauing that to the readers examination your owne answeare destroyeth it selfe for those ascriptions you confesse import no authority But doth the title of Rector or Gouernor import no authority As the power authority of the Head of a Colledge or Gouernor of a cōmonwealth cannot be better or more effectually expressed then by saying He is Rector of the Colledge or Gouernor of the Common-wealth so if S. Ambrose had studied to confute your answeare and expresse the Popes Monarchicall power authority ouer the whole Church he could not haue done it more effectually then by stiling him Rector or Gouernor of the house of God which is his Church for that title neuer was nor can euer be giuen to any other but to the Pope of Rome whom Christ hath made Pastor Gouernor of his whole flock (c) Ioan. 21.15 seqq And to this S. Ambrose alludeth (d) L. 10. ep 81. when writing to Siricius Pope he calls him A watchfull and pouident Pastor that with pious solicitude defends the flock of Christ from wolues that is from heretikes 3. What S. Ambrose his iudgment was concerning the infallibility of the Bishop and Church of Rome he declareth when writing to Siricius Pope of certaine heretikes whom he had condemned he sayth (e) Ibid. Whom your Holinesse hath condemned know that we also hold them condemned according to your iudgment S. Ambrose was fare more learned then Siricius and yet by reason of the infallibility of the Roman Church in determining causes of fayth and condemning heresies he submitteth to the iudgment of Siricius Impertinently therfore do you obiect (f) Pag. 214. to proue S. Ambrose his no-subiection to the Church of Rome that the Pope asked his iudgment concerning the day of Easter for a Counsellor may be more learned then a King the King may aske his iudgment and yet the authority of determining the cause is not in the Counsellor but in the King And the Counsell or though he be more learned is subiect and bound to obey the King as S. Ambrose was and acknowledged himselfe bound to obey Siricius Nor do you find vs to hold that the Pope in his determinations ought not to proceed prudently asking the aduice of learned men 4. To proue that S. Ambrose acknowledged no subiection to the Church of Rome you report (g) Pag. 214. out of Baronius that certaine Clergy-men of Milan 670. yeares after the death of S. Ambrose called the Bishoprick of Milan S. Ambrose his Church and withstood Petrus Damianus the Popes Legate alleaging that the Church of Ambrose had bene alwaies free in it selfe and neuer subiect to the lawes of the Pope of Rome But why do you conceale the truth of this history The ancient splendor and beauty of the Church of Milan being defaced and greatly decayed partly by the impurity of Clergy-men that being infected with the heresy of the Nicolaites liued incontinently and obstinatly defended the same to be lawfull and partly by Simoniacall Priests the people of Milan sent Legates to the Pope beseeching him to commiserate the lamentable state and cure the desperate diseases of that famous Church The Pope not Leo the Ninth as you mistake but Nicolas the second between whom and Leo there were other two Popes Victor and Stephen condescending to so iust a request sent two holy and learned men Petrus Damiani Cardinall of Ostia Anselme B. of Luca as his Legates to visit that Church and armed them with his owne authority to correct the offenders and ordayne whatsoeuer should be thought expedient for the reformation of so great disorders The Legates being ariued at Milan had no sooner intimated their Commission but the people stirred vp by those lewd and factious Clergy-men began to oppose them alleaging that the Church of Ambrose had bene alwais free in it selfe and neuer subiect to the Lawes of the Pope of Rome These are the only words which you cull out of Baronius whole narration leauing out what precedeth and making no mention of what followeth which is that Petrus Damiani stepping vp into the Pulpit after he had quieted the people proued effectually the soueraigne authority granted by Christ to the Roman Church ouer all Churches that whosoeuer denies that authority is an heretike The people giuing eare to his words were appeased and with one accord promised to do whatsoeuer he should ordayne There was present a great number of Clergy-men and scarce any of them that had not bene promoted to orders by Simony For the remedy of so great a mischiefe the Legats required from Guido the Archbishop an inuiolable caution and promise not to admit any from thence forward to holy orders for money and also to roote out the heresy of the Nicolaites Wherunto he willingly yeilded with imprecation of Gods wrath and reuenge on himselfe if he performed it not He gaue this caution in writing the Priests and Clerkes subscribed vnto it Which being done he prostrated himselfe on the ground asking pennance of the Legates for his offence And in like manner the Clergy-men admitting pennance were reconciled in tyme of Masse and receaued new ornaments from the Bishops hand hauing first made a profession of their fayth in which they anathematized all Heresies extolling themselues against the holy Catholike and Apostolike Church particularly those of the Nicolaites and Symonians This is the story and what greater folly can there be then to argue that S. Ambrose a most holy and learned Doctor opposed the authority of the Roman Church because a few lewd hereticall Clergy-men of Milan 670. yeares after his death disclaimed from the obedience of the B. of Rome to the end they might hold on their damnable courses and escape that punishment which their offences so iustly deserued And can there be a greater Imposture then to alleage a few rash words vttered by the people at the instigation of those heretikes to conceale that they togeather with the people Archbishop being admonished by the Popes Legats acknowledged their error with harty sorrow and promise of amendment and obedience to the See Apostolike By this a iudicious reader will perceaue that you neither regard what you alleage true or false nor stick to patronize vice and heresy in them that with you will oppose the Bishop and Church of Rome But you that follow them in their disobedience why do you not also follow them in their repentance When Theodosius in excuse of the great slaughter he had made at Thessalonica alleaged to S. Ambrose that King Dauid also had offended committing adultery and murther S. Ambrose answeared (h) Paulinus in vita Ambros Sequutus es errantem sequere poenitentem As you haue followed Dauid in his finne so follow him in his repentance And if he were now liuing he would
meanes not that Athanasius was the top or head of all but omnium nostrum of vs all as the Latine translation hath that is to say of all the Orthodoxe Pastors which in those Easterne parts applied themselues to remedy the calamities of that distracted Church 2. You say (l) Ibid. Cyrill in a Councell the first of Ephesus is called The Head of the assembly True he presided in that Councell as Vicar to Pope Celestine whom therfore Cyrill and the whole Councell acknowledged to be their Head (m) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 1 3. You say (n) Pag. 243. S. Chrysestome calls Antioch The head City of the whole world S. Chrysostome by the whole world vnderstandeth not all the nations vnder heauen but the East only as a litle before he had declared speaking of Flauianus He knew well that the busines of his embassy to the Empetor was not for one City but for all the East for of all the cities seated in the East our City is the Head and mother If you can shew that the Fathers and Councells when they call the Roman Church The head of all Churches and the B. of Rome The Head of all the holy Prelates of God explicate themselues to speake of the West only or of any part of the world your answeare shall be accepted but vntill then it shall stand for sophistry as it is and you well know it to be The rest of your answeares to the titles giuen to Popes by the ancient Fathers are of the same straine but to dwell in the examination of euery patticular is a superfluous labor especially the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome being vnanswearably proued by the Titles which I haue declared But you obiect (n) Pag. 258. that of later times blasphemous titles are giuen to the Popes by their Parasites and swallowed vp by them as their spirit and vitall breath I cannot but meruaile that a man of your learning yeares and calling should make such obiections in good earnest which consist merely in your owne violent wresting of words contrary to the sense meaning of them that spake them and contrary I dare say to your owne knowledge for you cannot be so simple as to thinke that those titles were euer giuen to any Pope in that sense in which you misconstrue them But your good will to the Bishop and Church of Rome is such that so you may make them hateful to your readers you regard not how you delude them nor how you wronge our Authors First then the Pope is called Sponsus Ecclesiae The bridegroome of the Church This title you except against (o) Pag. 246.251 as blasphemous because the Church (p) Ioan. 3.29 is called The Spouse of Christ But why may not the name of Bridegroome which is one of the titles of Christ without blasphemy and without wrong to Christ be giuen to his Vicar on earth in an inferior degree as the name of Light of the world another of his titles is without blasphemy or wrong to him giuen to his Apostles (q) Math. 5.14 Shall we thinke that 500. Reuerend Bishops in the second Generall Councell of Lions (r) C. vbi peric De elect in 6. blasphemed when they approued that title vnto the Pope Shall Doctor Morton now after 350. yeares come to controle them and teach them how to speake But you aske (s) Pag. 246. how S. Bernard did like of this diuinity He say you writing vnto Pope Eugenius admonisheth him not to call himselfe the Bridegroome of the Church which is the spouse of Christ for sayth he Nemo committit sponsam suam Vicario No man will commit his spouse to his Vicar Can there be a more wilfull falsification S. Bernard hath no such words They are yours and directly contrary to S. Bernards words and Doctrine who in that very Epistle (t) Ep. 237. sayth to Eugenius Tibi commissa est Domini tui sponsa The spouse of thy Lord is committed to thee And to Innocentius Pope (u) Ep. 191. To thee is committed the spouse of Christ thou art a friend of the Bridegroome It belongs to thee to present a chast Virgin to one man Christ. In what sense therfore S. Bernard admonished Eugenius (x) Ep. 237. to call the beloued spouse of Christ Princesse not my Princesse these passages of his giue sufficiently to be vnderstood and our authors haue declared (y) See Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. c. 31. Nor can this diuinity seeme strange to any man that is a Diuinor for although there be but one chiefe Bridegroome of the Church which is Christ and in respect of him all Bishops are but Paranymphes friends of the Bridegroome yet who knoweth not what Demetrius B. of Bulgaria writing to Constantinus Cabasilas hath rightly obserued that as in carnall marriage the Bridegroome by a ring weddeth himselfe to his Bride so a Bishop hath a ring giuen vnto him to signify the spirituall mariage betweene him his Church And as euery particular Bishop without any wrōg to Christ is a Bridegroome of his particular Church vnder Christ cooperating extrinsecally with him to beget children vnto him by preaching his word administring his Sacraments so likewise in the same sense the Pope is Bridegroome of the vniuersall Church and she his spouse without any wrong to Christ 2. You obiect (z) Pag. 251. out of Bzouius Innocentius the eight was called by Abrahamus Polonus Regno vnctione Christus prae participibus sui◠In Royalty and vnction Christ aboue his fellowes This title also you will haue to be blasphemous because S. Paul (a) Heb. 1.9 giues that name to Christ But what then say you to S. Bernard who (b) L. 2. de consider at calls Eugenius Pope Peter in power in Vnction Christ Did he not know how to speake Did he blaspheme And if he did not why do you misinterpret Polonus his words who spake in the same sense S. Bernard did 3. You obiect (d) Pag. 251. The Orator of the Venetians called Paul the second Celestiall Maiesty But what say you to Bassianus B. of Ephesus who in his petition to the Emperors Valentinian and Martian (e) In Conc. Chalced. Act. 11. sayth I cast my selfe at your Diuine feet quatenus dignetur Vestra caelestis Potestas c. that your celestiall Power may vouchsafe to write to the Councell c. Et vestram Diuinitatem exoro And I beseech your Diuinity c. What to that learned Doctor Theodorus Studites and his fellow Regulars saying (f) In Ep. ad Michael Imper to Michael the Emperor If your diuine Magnificence seeme to doubt of any thing or not to belieue the declaration is piously to be required from the Pope What to the Bishops of the Councell of Mopsuestia saying (g) Ep. ad Vigil to Vigilius Pope The things which concerne the state of the Churches are to be referred to your Diuinely
and practised the same authority 7. Not vnlike to these are the answeares you giue to S. Athanasius (x) Pag. 254. S. Chrysostome (y) Pag. 255. and Theodoret who being iniustly deposed from their Bishoprickes appealed to to Iulius Innocentius and Leo Popes with manifest acknowledgment of their authority ouer all Bishops and Churches of the world as shall be proued SECT II. Others of Doctour Mortons Answeares to the ancient Fathers examined SOme Easterne Bishops who with great scandall of the Church and perturbation of the people refused to insert the name of Chrysostome into the Dyptikes or tables of publike records were for that cause excommunicated by Innocentius with command that they should not be admitted into the peace and communion of the Roman Church vntill they restored him This though it be an Argument of the supreme power of the B. of Rome you wrest it to a contrary sense Among them that refused to restore the name of Chrysostome were Alexander Patriarke of Antioch and Acacius Bishop of Beroë but these two to the end they might be admitted into the Communion of the Roman Church restored his name and performed what els Innocentius in ioyned them (a) Spond anno 408. n. 11. Of these two you are silent they were not for your purpose But because some others stood out for a time you lay hold on them who vpon due examination will proue as litle to your purpose as the two you conceale Your first example (b) Pag. 258.259 is of Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria who stood out vntill the end of his life But God that would not haue a man so well deseruing of his Church to die in the state of excommunication ordained by his prouidence that the soule of Theophilus could not depart out of his body vntill an Image of S. Chrysostome being brought vnto him he adored it doing pennance for his former error and by that meanes restored himselfe to the peace of the Church This his recantation is reported by Isidorus Diaconus and out of him by S. Iohn Damascen (c) L. 3. de imag prope fin Wherfore your deniall of it is a falsity framed without ground by your selfe out a desire that Theophilus should haue died out of the Communion of the Roman Church as you liue Your second example (d) Pag. 257. is of Atticus Patriarke of Constantinople who being excommunicated for the same cause persisted sometime in his error but at length moued by the example of Theophilus and Maximianus a Bishop of Macedonia making intercession for him (e) Baron anno 408. Innocentius yeilded to absolue him prouided that he would himselfe aske absolution and restore the name of Chrysostome Hereupon Atticus witnesse Theodoret (f) L. 5. hist. c. 34. sent many embassages to Rome to obtaine the communion of Innocentius but could neuer obteine it vntill partly by perswasion of the Emperor and partly fearing a tumult of the people he restored the name of Chrysostome and writ letters to Cyrill B. of Alexandria persuading him to do the like Wherfore Baronius truly sayth (g) Anno 425. that Atticus restored Chrysostome by the command and compulsion of Innocentius and not by the distraction and tumultuosnesse of the people only as you comment for if he feared the tumult of the people it was in regard the people were incensed against him for not restoring Chrysostome as Innocentius had commanded And if as you obiect (h) Pag. 258. he called two Bishops that had died in the communion of the Roman Church Schismatikes he spake in passion seing himselfe excōmunicated by the B. of Rome and knew as you also do that he spake vntruly for if it were thought Schisme to be in the communion of the Roman Church as you say he did why did he so earnestly desire and send so many Embassages to be admitted into her communion Was is to make himselfe a Schismatike Nay was it not to free himselfe from schisme Why do not you imitate him Your third example (i) Pag. 259.260.261 is of Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria who if for a tyme he obeyed not Innocentius in restoring the name of Chrysostome it was because he iudged the command of Innocentius to be against the Canons witnesse his owne words alleaged by your selfe (k) Pag. 259. fin But his iudgment was erroneous and because what he did was out of a pious zeale as he conceaued God reduced him by a miraculous Vision wherin he saw himselfe cast out of the Church by Chrysostome and a troupe of Saints that assisted him therin but that the Blessed Virgin Mary did make intercession for him as one that had defended her honor against Nestorius Cyrill moued with this vision condemning his owne iudgment concerning Chrysostome and calling a Prouinciall Synod restored his name to the sacred records as the other Patriarkes had done To this you make two replies first (l) Pag. 261. you call this A tale of Nicephorus a fabulous Author that liued 800. yeares after Cyrills death But you wrong Nicephorus for he reportes it out of Nicetas that liued almost 500. yeares nearer Cyrills tyme then himselfe and out of other ancient historians Hoc sayth he (m) L. 14. c. 28. in arcana Nicetae Philosophi historia apud alios inueni 2. You reply (n) Pag. 261. that Cyrills restoring Chrysostome cannot any whit serue our turne because he did not simply by submission to the Popes decree but by vertue of a Vision in a dreame Surely you seeme to haue bene in a dreame when you deuised this answeare for there cannot be a greater Argument of the Popes authority then that God by a miraculous vision should notify to Cyril that by reason of his resistance made to the decree of Innocentius he was out of the Church And in how great Veneration did Cyrill hold the B. of Rome he I say that being greatly exasperated against other Bishops for the name of Chrysostome yet neuer let slip from his mouth any the least irreuerent word against Innocentius And who can be ignorant that he firmely belieued the supreme authority of the Roman See when he presided in the Councell of Ephesus as Vicar to Celestine Pope (o) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 1. Without whose order as he durst not depart from the Communion of Nestorius so he executed on his person punctually what Celestine commanded And finally his beliefe was that saluation cannot be had out of the Roman Church (p) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 4. SECT III. Doctor Mortons Answere to the testimony of Acacius examined A Cacius Patriarke of Constantinople writing to Simplicius Pope professed that the care of all Churches belonged to him You answeare (q) Pag. 161. fin 162. The vniuersall care of all Churches was applied to S. Paul in the dayes of Peter and to other Bishop in whom there was no Monarchicall Popedome This satisfieth not for the vniuersall care of all Churches may be of
themselues were absent These testimonies of your owne Brethren are so many sharpe wedges in the hart of your cause and shew in you either ignorance or lack of cōscience in denying so manifest a truth Nor do your Writers testify this of those Popes in generall but in particular euen of those very twelue whose testimonies you heere seeke to elude Of Iulius whom you (n) Pag. 2841 call the first man of the inquest they say (o) Brerel ibid. n. 60.61 that wheras the Ecclesiasticall canon decreed that no Councell should be celebrated without the sentence of the B. of Rome Iulius made challenge therby for which Danaeus reproueth him and other Bishops of Rome M. Cartwright and the Centurists say of him (p) Ibid n. 63. that in the Councell of Antioch he ouer-reached in claiming the hearing of causes that apperteyned not to him and M. Symonds (q) Ibid. n. 64. that he decreed that whosoeuer suspected his Iudge might appeale to the See of Rome And wheras in his Epistle to the Easterne Bishops extant in the second Apology of S. Athanasius he expresseth the authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome ouer all others in these words An ignoratis c. Are you ignorant that the custome is we should be first written vnto and that from hence the iust decision of things should proceed And that if any suspicion were conceaued against your Bishops there you should haue written to this Church for the things which I signify to you we haue receaued from the blessed Peter You answeare (r) Pag. 184. Iulius plainly speaketh of document and instruction receaued from Peter not of dominton or iurisdiction which may be an answere to many of the rest But this answeare is refuted not only by the ancient historians as afterwards you shall heare but also by the Centurists who set downe these very words of Iulius (t) Cent. 4. col 746. and (u) Col. 529. reprehend him for them and out of that his Epistle shew that with the authority of a Iudge he summoned the Easterne Bishops commanding them to come to Rome assigned them a day of appearance before him to be iudged and hauing heard the whole cause gaue sentence rebuking the Eusebians and by the preregatiue of his See restored the Catholike Bishops to theirs The same Epistle is alleaged by D. Philippus Nicolai (x) De reg Christ. l. 2. pag. 149. a learned Protestant who out of Socrates Sozomen and the Epistle it selfe witnesseth that Iulius doth more then once declare himselfe alone by especiall priuiledge to be Bishop of the primary See and that by diuine ordinance the right of calling Councells and of iudging the causes of Bishops and other weighty affaires of that nature belonged to him alone I conclude therfore that Iulius speaketh not of document and instruction receaued from Peter but of authority and iurisdiction Not vnlike to this answere is your affirming (y) Pag. 284. fin 285. that the Bishops of the East challenged Iulius for writing to them alone by his owne authority for there is no such challenge in their Epistle (z) Extat Ep. apud Bin. to 2. pag. 401. Yea as Sozomen (a) L. 3. c. 7. testifieth and the beginning of the Epistle it selfe sheweth in it they professe the primacy of the Roman Church though otherwise falsly obiecting to Iulius the breach of the Canons a thing not to be wondred at for they that wrot were Arians in hatred of him because he had annulled their Councell of Antioch and restored Athanasius And as the Epistle was written by Arians so it is also reported by Socrates and Sozomen from Sabinus a Macedonian Heretike who tooke part with the Councel of Antioch against the Pope and against the Councell of Nice to which as also to Athanasius and to the Blessed Trinity it selfe he was a professed enemy In regard wherof their Epistle is of no more weight then if Lutherans or Caluinists should now write the like And hereby it appeareth how vntruly you say (b) Pag. 185. that Some of the testimonies of ancient holy Popes expressing the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Roman See may be confuted and indeed confounded by as ancient opposisions of the Orientalls against Pope Iulius c. for those Orientalls were heretikes Hauing thus shifted off the testimony of Iulius whom you call the first man of the inquest you passe immediatly to S. Gregory the last of the twelue which Bellarmine alleageth omitting all the rest And wheras he out of the works of this holy Pope produceth diuers testimonies clearely conuincing the subiection of all Churches to the Roman you omitting the rest as being vnanswearable find meanes to except against one (d) Pag. 284. which is Who doubts but that the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the See Apostolike which the most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother Eusebius Bishop of the same City continually protest This testimony of S. Gregory you reject vpon pretence that the Epistle is supposititious and counterfeit Some of the Popes alleaged by Bellarmine say you speake not but their counterfeites as the last Iurist Pope Gregoryin an Epistle wherin Eusebius B. of Constantinople is said to haue bene subiect vnto him when as as our Doctor Reynolds hath proued there was no Eusebius B. of Constantinople in the dayes of S. Gregory But to Doctor Reynolds I oppose the most eminent Cardinall Peron a man of greater renowne learning authority who answeareth (e) Replip l. 1. Chap. 34. 1. That Cyriacus which was then Bishop of Constantinople might haue two names and be called Eusebius Cyriacus as S. Hierome was called Eusebius Hieronymus 2. That Eusebius might be there taken adiectiuely and signify pious or religious as when Arius (f) A pud Theod. l. 1. hist c. 5. writ to Eusebius B. of Nicomedia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Farewell Eusebius truly Eusebius that is truly religious And 3. that it is an error of the Exemplarist who of eiusdem ill written and blotted made Eusebius for the ancient copies of this Epistle current for the space of 200. yeares after S. Gregory make no mention of Eusebius but read simply and our brother B. of the same City as it appeares out of the relation of Amalarius Fortunatus who liued 800. yeares since and setteth downe this whole Epistle of S. Gregory word by word (f) De dini offic l. 4. c. 2. in Biblioth Pat edit Colon to 9. part 1. and his testimony alone liuing 800. yeares nerer S. Gregories tyme then Doctor Reynolds or your selfe is a sufficient proofe of the authority of this Epistle against you both But what Though you except against this Epistle yet in the next which no man hath doubted of S Gregory in like manner sayth (g) L. 7. ep 64. For wheras he the B. of Constantinople being accused of a certaine crime profefieth himselfe subiect to the See Apostolike if any fault be found in
Bishops I know not what Bishop is not subiect vnto it Doth not this testimony immediatly follow in Bellarmine Yes and it is so euident that Caluin (h) L. 4. Iust. c. 7. § 1â— on the rack of truth is inforced to confesse that S Gregory in no place of his workes vanteth more of the greatnesse of his See then in these very words and that in them he attributeth to himselfe the right of punishing Bishops when they offend Is it not then imposterous to conceale this so cleare an euidence and others brought in by Bellarmine and reiect them all because you haue found a way to cauill at one especially since not only out of S. Gregories workes and the testimonies of your Protestant Brethren it is a truth not to be denyed that he belieued himselfe to haue and practised iurisdiction ouer all Bishops whatsoeuer But you say (k) Pag. 285. If Gregory in some tearmes seeme to speake somwhat loud as though he were very Great yet be confined himselfe to the Constitution of Iustinian He resolueth according to the constitution of Iustinian that the triall of Bishops causes in the first instance belongs to their Metropolitan as the cause of the Metropolitan doth to his Patriarke But withall he teacheth (l) L. 2. ep 6. that they may appeale to the See Apostolike and furthermore addeth (m) L. 11. ep 56. that If a Bishop haue no Metropolitan nor Patriarke ouer him then sayth he his cause is to be heard decided by the See Apostolike which is the head of all Churches And this is agreeable to the profession which Iustinian himselfe made in the Law Inter claras (n) Cod. tit â— l. 8. and in the Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (o) Cod. t is 1. l. 7. In the rest of this Section (p) Pag. 284. you tell vs that â—â—n of those Popes eited by Bellarmine call the Church of Rome and Bishop therof Head of all Churches or one that hath the care of all Churches or one hauing principality They do so and withall so vnanswearably affirme the Vniuersall iurisdiction of the Roman Church that you thought best not to mention their words but to put them off saying The like attributes haue bene anciently ascribed to other Churches and Bishops which how false it is you haue already heard (q) Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. Chap. 35. Chap. 36 sect 3. To giue a good farewell you conclude thus (r) Pag. 285. fin 280. There are diuers other testimonies out of Leo Gelasius and other Popes who breathed out many sentences full of ostentation of their owne greatnesse Hitherto you haue held vs in hand that the primitiue Popes did not challenge any iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church but now you say that S. Gregory in some termes seemes to speake somwhat loud as though he were very Great and that Leo Gelasius and other Popes breathed out many sentences full of ostentation of their owne greatnesse but whatsoeuer they vented out it was typhus saecularis and a swelling impostume which was lanced that it bled withall by the Councell of Carthage vnder S. Cyprian and the Councell of Africke vnder S. Augustine and that selfe-loue bewitching many Popes of the more primitiue tymes they boasted themselues to be the only Vicars of Christ and have bene taxed for their great arrogancy by the ancient Fathers of their owne tymes And afterwards (s) Pag. 303. fin 304. you compare S. Leo and S. Gregory to Adonias that sought traiterously to pull the crowne from his Fathers head and make himselfe King to which he had right This forsooth is the reuerence you beare to the primitiue Popes whom antiquity hath had in so great veneration as of S. Leo and S. Gregory in particular you haue heard (t) Chap. 15. sect 3. Truth which enforceth testimony from her enemies compelleth you to confesse (u) Pag. 172.178.182.287 that the Primitiue Popes were Holy Popes Holy Fathers excellently goodly learned and that many of them are glorious Martyrs and Saints whose memory is blessed And yet the same truth enforceth you heere to confesse that those Popes acknowledged themselues to be the only Vicars of Christ on earth to haue an vniuersall authority and to haue practised the same for which albeit you taxe them with great arrogancy yet in adding that the ancient Fathers of their owne time did the like you passe the limits of modesty and truth And who seeth not the absurd manner of arguing which in proofe hereof you vse Your words are (x) Pag. 286. in titulo sect 13. Our generall discouery of the vanity of your proofes of Papall Monarchy from the mouthes of Popes themselues who haue bene anciently noted of pride Your assumpt then is to disproue the Papall Monarchy from the mouthes of Popes themselues But you produce not any one testimony nor any one word of any one Pope but make a briefe repetition of your Arguments which in their seuerall places haue bene proued to be partly impertinent partly false and partly hereticall Impertinent as of Tertullian False as of the African Councell S. Cyrill S. Basil S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine Hereticall as of Polycrates resisting Victor and of the Arians whom to conceale that they were heretikes you call The Orientalls And finally part of them of such as for a time defended the false doctrine of Rebaptization as S. Cyprian and his Councell of Carthage which though S. Augustine haue answeared (y) L. 6. de Baptism per tot and confuted word by word you take no notice therof but vrge it as currant and of authority against the B. of Rome yet that all may not seeme to be repetitions you bring forth one new Argument (z) Pag. 286. as drawne from the mouthes of Popes themselues which is that one Flaccidius relying on the greatnesse of the Citty of Rome equalled the Deacons of Rome with Priests This you obiect as the testimony of S. Augustine himselfe pointing at the vaine boasting of Rome wheras it is not S. Augustines but of the Author quaestionum noui veteris Testamenti whom heretofore (a) Pag. 52. when he was not for your purpose you reiected as an hereticall author but now his words are of S. Augustine himselfe and an Argument drawne from the very mouthes of ancient and holy Popes Necessity enforceth you to such absurdities for better Arguments are not to be found in such a cause The blindnesse of your zeale permitted you not to see the inconsequence contrariety of your doctrine whiles you professe (b) Pag. 287. that the primitiue Popes were Holy men and yet that they were proud arrogant and challenged dominion aboue others beyond the limits of their owne iurisdiction Yes say you (c) Ibid. why not They were holy Disciples of Christ who ambitiously wished that they might sit the one on the right hand of Christ and on the other on
without their help that they made thēselues executors of his authority caused the letters of restitution which he he had grāted to Bishops iniustly deposed to be obeyed SECT VI. Doctor Morton to crosse the Popes Authority in restoring Bishops deposed takes part with the Arians and iustifies their impious proceedings against S. Athanasius and other Catholike Bishops TO proue the Popes authority of restoring Bishops by his letters authority alone we haue for precedents the examples of the great Prelates Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria Paul of Constantinople Marcellus Primate of Ancyra in Galatia Asclepas B. of Gaza in Palestine Lucius of Adrianopolis in Thracia who being iniustly deposed by the Arians appealed to Iulius Pope and he by his authority restored them to their seats You not knowing how otherwise to auoid the force of these examples haue thought best to take part with the Arians against S. Athanasius to iustlify their opposition against Pope Iulius mantaine their contempt of his authority To this end you say (h) Pag. 290. Among those Easterne Bishops which condemned Athanasius in the Councell of Antioch there were many orthodoxe There were indeed in that Councell according to the relation of S. Athanasius (i) De Synod and Socrates (k) L. 2. c. 5. 90. Bishops and according to S. Hilary (l) L. de Syn. 97. or if we beleeue Sozomen (m) L. 3. c. 5. 96. Of this number there were only 36. Arian Bishops These only were they that plotted the deposition of Athanasius these only made the decrees of that Councell and subscribed to them as Iulius in his Epistle afterward written to them and out of it Athanasius (n) Apolog. 2. testify These only were they that capitulated with Iulius Pope to haue communion with him not vpon condition that he should communicate with those Bishops whom they had ordeyned as you ignorantly affirme but vpon condition that he should abandon the communion of Athanasius and the other Catholike Bishops which being deposed by them had appealed to him for redresse and by his authority recouered their Churches againe And because the decrees of that Councell were made by Arians only they haue euer bene held to be absolutely hereticall The Arians sayth Sozomen (o) L. 8. c. 20. after they had with calumnies circumuented Athanasius and cast him out of his Church of Alexandria fearing lest things might be brought about againe made this Canon endeauoring to haue their plots against him remaine indiscussed The same is expresly affirmed by S. Chrysostome (p) Apud Niceph. l. 13. n. 18. against whom when his aduersaries that had deposed him to iustify their fact and blame him for returning to his Church alleaged a Canon of this Councell of Antioch he answeared It is not a Canon of the Church but of the Arians And the same is testified by the holy Pope Innocentius (q) Apud Niceph. l. 13. c. 31. so much commended by S. Augustine Wherfore you cannot be excused from an vntruth in saying that among those Easterne Bishops that condemned Athanasius reproued the Pope for restoring him there were many Orthodoxe for none of the Orthodoxe Bishops consented therto But that the Arians who had spit in the face of Christ and trampled his Diuinity vnder their feet should also contemne the Pope his Vicar on earth ti 's no wonder as neither it is that you should therin bandy with them for no heretike euer fell from the Church but he toke the Pope for his enemy at the same tyme. 2. To iustify your disobeying and resisting the authority of the Church of Rome and Bishop therof you say (r) Pag. 295. lit O. marg text The Orientals to wit the Arian Bishops resisted and excommunicated the Pope and in proofe herof you set downe in your margent these words as of Sozomen l. 3. c. 7. Illi Iulium Episcopum Romanum quòd cum Athanasio Paulo communicaret abdicarunt Sozomen there hath no such words He sayth They obiected to Inlius as a crime that he communicated with Athanasius and the Bishops that were with him and accused him that in annulling their Councell and abrogating their sentence he had done against the Ecclesiasticall Law so they called the hereticall Canon which themselues had made in the Councell of Antioch to iustify their impious proceedings and promised to communicate with him on condition he would confirme the deposition of Athanasius and the Orthodoxe Bishops which had fled to him for succor 3. You say (s) Pag. 306. fin 307. The Popes command to the Orientals who had deposed Athanasius to receaue him againe was answeared with contempt and they argued à paribus with him What els cold be expected from sacrilegious Arians or what from you but to obiect against vs their resistance to the Bishop and Church of Rome as lawfull to make good yours not vnlike to theirs But what did all their arguing auaile them for notwithstanding their contempt and all the resistance they were able to make by themselues and by the power of Constantius the Arian Emperor their abettor and patron Athanasius Paul and the other Bishops whom they had deposed were by vertue of Iulius his letters restored to their Churches and their restitution imbraced as iust by vniuersall consent of all the Catholikes in the world in so much that when the Arians meeting at Philippopolis required the Orthodoxe Bishops assembled in the Councell of Sardica to abstaine from the Communion of Athanasius and those other Catholike Bishops protesting that otherwise they would haue no communion with them the godly Bishops there assembled and representing all the Orthodoxe Bishops of the world answeared (t) Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. that they neuer had nor would now abstaine from their Communion and principally because Iulius B. of Rome hauing examined their cause had not condemned them But that the Arians were not so refractary to the Popes authority as you are and would make them to be to countenance your error is a truth easily proued for at last Vrsacius and Valens the two principall aduersaries of S. Athanasius departed from their pursuite and went to Rome to aske pardon of the Pope They came in person sayth Seuerus Sulpitius (u) Hist. sacraae l. 2. to aske pardon of Iulius B. of Rome And themselues in the Act of their Pennance (x) Athan. Apol. 1. Your Piety in your naturall goodnesse hath vouchsafed to pardon our error And at the end of their Act they made this protestation (y) Athanas ibid. Moreouer we promise that if vpon this occasion those of the East or Athanasius himselfe shall maliciously appeale vs in iudgment we will not depart from what you shall ordaine 4. You tell vs (z) Pag. 306. lit k. out of Sozomen The restoring of S. Athanasius to his Bishoprike againe by Iulius was only by his communicatory letters to declare that he thought him worthy to be restored for if we inquire
after the authority wherby Athanasius was restored it was by the command of the Emperor Constantius as the same historian recordeth These are your words then which none can be more vntrue for that Iulius in his letters did not only giue his aduice declaring that he thought Athanasius worthy to be restored but operatiuely exercised his power authority and by vertue of them effectually and absolutely restored Athanasius and those other Bishops is a truth not only acknowledgeth by your Protestant writers as you haue heard (a) Chap. 37. sect 2. but in it selfe so certaine that I thinke no man but Doctor Morton could haue the face to deny it Iulius B. of Rome sayth Socrates (b) L. 2. c. 11. by reason of the priuiledge of his Church aboue others defended their cause and sent them back with letters written to the Easterne Bishops wherby each of them might be restored to their place and reprehended seuerely those that had rashly deposed them And they going from Rome and relying vpon the letters of Iulius recouered their seates againe Which is also expressed in the title of that Chapter The B. of Rome sayth Sozomen (c) L 3. c. 7. hauing examined their complaintes and found that they agreed touching the Decrees of the Councell of Nice receaued them into his communion and because by reason of the dignity of his See the charge of all belonged to him he restored to each of them his Church And in the title of that Chapter Athanasius Paul by the letters of Iulius receaued their seates againe Are not these words cleare inough But yet moreouer doth not Nicephorus say (d) L. 9. c. 8. that Iulius by the greatnesse of his See and out of the ancient priuiledge prerogatiue therof knowing that the charge of all Bishops whersoeuer belonged to him as to a Iudge armed ech of them with powerfull letters and sending them back into the East restored their Churches vnto them And do not he and Sozomen adde (e) Ibid. that he rebuked the Arians for that they had rashly deposed those Bishops and troubled the Churches not standing to the decrees of the Councell of Nice and commanded that some of them in the name of all should on a set day appeare at Rome to giue account of the iustice of their sentence and threatned not to let them passe without punishment vnlesse they did cease to innouate And doth not Felix Pope (f) Ep. ad Athanas cet Episc Aegypt who liued soone after that tyme deliuer the same in most cleare and effectuall words And finally do not he Theodoret (g) L. 2. hist c. 4. Sozomen (h) L. 3. c. 7. and S. Athanasius himselfe (i) Apolog. 2. out of the vndoubted Epistle of Iulius report that Iulius following the Ecclesiasticall Law commanded the Arian Bishops to come to Rome and summoned the diuine Athanasius canonically to present himselfe in iudgment and that as soone as he receaued this citation he transported himselfe in diligence to Rome but the Authors of the tragedy went not because they knew their lies would be openly discouered How thinke you now Did not Iulius with the authority of a Iudge restore those Orthodoxe Bishops to their Churches and that by the prerogatiue of his See and because the charge of all Bishops belonged vnto him Did he not command and Canonically cite both Athanasius and his aduersaries to appeare in iudgment at Rome and appoint them a day for it And finding Athanasius to be free from the crimes which his enemies had maliciously forged against him did he not threaten to punish them vnlesse they desisted to innouate and trouble the Churches Is this nothing but to declare that he thought those Orthodoxe Bishops worthy to be restored Is it not to exercise the authority of a Iudge And this sheweth the falshood of your addition (k) Pag. 306. fin that the authority wherby Athanasius was restored was the command of the Emperor Constantius For he being an Arian was so far from commanding him or any of those Catholike Bishops to be restored that as Socrates writeth (l) L. 2. c. 12. when he heard that Paul B. of Constantinople was restored by the letters of Iulius he stormed therat and caused the Prefect of the City by his secular power to thrust him out againe as he in his owne person once before had done (m) See Spon anno 342. n. 7. 8. And the Arian crew supported by him so molested Athanasius that they enforced him to fly againe to Rome and Constantius himselfe perseuered in persecuting him as long as he durst which was witnes Sozamen (n) L. 3. c. 19. and Theodoret (o) L. 2. c. 11. 12. vntill Athanasius and Iulius made complaint therof to his brother Constans a Catholike Emperor who assisting the Ecclesiasticall authority of Iulius with his Imperiall power writ threathing letters to Constantius and so effectuall that he durst resist no longer but permitted Athanasius according to the iust sentence giuen by Iulius to returne to his Church and affisted him therin And how far Constantius was from hauing any power to restore Bishops or to forbid them from returning to their seates appeareth in this that when he commanded the Bishops assembled at Ariminum (p) Socrat. l. 2. c. 29. not to dissolue their Councell but to expect his answere they sent a peremptory message vnto him and neglecting his command as of one that had no authority to meddle in Ecclesiasticall affaires presently dissolued their Councell and returned to their Churches Let the reader now iudge how many vntruthes you haue told in this one history and whether you may not be thought guilty of impiety in defending and canonizing the outragious proceedings of blasphemous heretikes and iultifying the sacrilegious violence offered to Catholike Bishops for not subscribing to their heresy and finally in answearing (q) Pag. 285. that the testimonies of ancient Popes in proofe of their authority may be confuted and indeed confounded by as ancient oppositions as of the Orientals against the authority of Pope Iulius Such examples we allow you to mantaine your doctrine and disobedience to the Bishop Church of Rome But I presume that euery vnderstanding Protestant will disclaime from such an Aduocate and thinke that by such precedents his cause is not defended but disgraced condemned and parallalled with Arianisme SECT VII Other passages of Doctor Morton examined BEllarmine in proofe (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 18. of the Popes authority alleageth that Sixtus the third deposed Polychronius You say (a) Pag. 195. margin lit l. He numbreth him as one of the eight Patriarkes which Nicolas the first of that name reckoneth in his Epistle to Michaell the Emperor This is another vntruth The eight Patriarkes which Bellarmine mentioneth out of the Epistle of Nicolas were of Constantinople namely Maximus Nestorius Acacius Anthymus Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus Petrus All these were deposed by the Bishops of
and a professed enemy to the Roman Church as all heretikes are against Appeales to Rome obiecteth the Councell of Chalcedon in which sayth he it was decreed that if a Clerke haue a cause against a Clerke it is to be iudged by the Bishop if against a Bishop by the Archbishop if against an Archbishop by the Primate or of the Bishop of Constantinople To this obiection the holy and learned Pope Nicolas the first answeared neere 800. yeares since (m) In Ep. ad Michael Imper. that by Primate which is there in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifies a Prince is meant the B. of Rome This explication Turrianus (n) Pro Ep. Rom. Pont. l. 3. c. 4. Bellarmine (o) L. 2. de Pont. c. 2◠and Binius (p) Tom. 2. pag. 129. confirme both because the title of Prince more fitly agreeth to him then to any other Primate as also because it cannot be shewed that in time of the Councell of Chalcedon there were especially in the East any Primates distinct from the Archbishops and Patriarkes Wherfore the sense is that if a Bishop haue a cause with his Metropolitan it is to be iudged by the Pope or by the B. of Constantinople if the parties be neerer to him and willing to stand to his iudgment This say you (q) Pag. 309. it false for the Canon vseth a Climax or gradation from Clerke to Bishop from Bishop to Archbishop from Archbishop to Primate or the B. of Constantinople from whence you inferre that if our exposition be true the B. of Constantinople is aboue the Pope as a Generall is aboue a Coronell because in gradation of Appeales the last is alwaies the highest and most excellent A thing not only contrary to the Councell of Chalcedon which acknowledgeth the Pope to be supreme Head of the whole Church (r) In relat ad Leon. but neuer so much as dreamed of by any of the Greekes nor by the Bishops of Constantinople themselues who by their claime of equal priuiledges neuer challenged authority aboue the Pope nor equall with him ouer the whole Church but only that as he by the institution of Christ is supreme Iudge of all causes ecclesiasticall throughout the world so they in the second place vnder him and by his permission might haue authority to iudge throughout the East the causes of all that should be willing to accept of their iudgement which authority the Pope though intreated by the Councell of Calcedon refused to grant vnto them as being a wrong to the other Patriarkes And therefore Bellarmine (s) L. 2. de Pont. c. 22. out of Leo and Liberatus rightly obserueth that this Canon obiected by Nilus was neuer receaued in the Church as being vnlawfully made in absence of the Popes Legates who presided in the Councell This is the substance of this controuersy in the prosecution wherof you falsify the Councell of Calcedon and are guilty of some other errors of which I shall briefly aduertise you 1. Therfore Bellarmine truly sayth that custome the best interpreter of lawes plainly sheweth it was neuer lawfull to appeale to the B. of Constantinople but only from places within his owne Patriarkship and that no example can be giuen of an Appeale made to the Easterne Church out of the West South or North. You to crosse Bellarmine say (t) Pag. 310. that the Councell of Calcedon speaketh generally of euery Church and in proofe therof falsify the Councell adding to the beginning of the Canon these words In quacunque Ecclesia In euery Church putting them downe in a different character as the words of the Canon and citing both it and them out of Binius who hath this Canon (u) Tom. 2. pag. 129. of three different versions and yet no such words in any of them 2. You haue hitherto pretended afterwards repeate againe that no one man can be Head of the whole Church on earth Yet now vpon condition that the Pope may not haue that dignity you are contented to allow it the B. of Constantinople For you say (x) Pag. 302. fin We confesse that the supreme right of appeales is proper to a Monarke it being as essentiall a part of his Monarchy to haue the right of appeales as it is for him to be a Monarke from whence it will follow that you here granting to the B. of Constantinople a supreme right of appeales from all the Churches of the world make him a Monarke ouer all the Churches of the world 3. Out of the gradation which the Councell maketh from Clerke to Bishop from Bishop to Archbishop from Archbishop to the Pope or the B. of Constantinople you inferre the Bishop of Constantinople to be aboue the Pope which is a senselesse paradoxe collected from a false groūd for if because an Archbishop is to be iudged by the Pope or by the B. of Constantinople you may inferre the B. of Constantinople to be equall with the Pope or aboue him you may by like consequēce inferre that in an army a Coronell is equall to the Generall or aboue him because a cōmon soldier is to be iudged by his Captaine the Captaine by his Generall or by his Coronell for in this gradation the Coronell is the last and therfore by your rule the highest and most excellent With such sophistry you answeare our arguments and frame your owne 4. Bellarmine sayth The Councell is to be vnderstood of the first iudgement But this say you (y) Pag. 311. euidently crosseth the Popes exposition False for the Pope alloweth to the B. of Constantinople permissiuely the first iudgement of Easterne causes if the parties be willing to accept of his iudgment but not the second by way of appeale out of his owne Patriarkeship 5. Why do you conceale what Bellarmine and Binius adde namely that if we should grant to you your inference out of this Canon it would not follow that the B. of Constantinople is of equal authority with the Pope for the Popes power extendeth not only to right them which are wronged by their Metropolitans but also to iudge the Metropolitans and Patriarkes themselues and to right thē euen when they are wronged by whole Councels of Bishops as the examples of Athanasius Chrysostome Flauianus Theodoret and others conuince SECT IX The rest of Docter Mortons Arguments against Appeales to Rome THe rest of your instances against appeales as of Fortunatus and Felicissimus (z) Pag. 311. taken from S. Cyprian of the Councell of Mileuis (a) Pag. 321. of the cause of Cecilian (b) Pag. 324.325 from S. Augustine haue ben already (c) Chap. 25.26 30. sect 2. answered One only remaineth taken from an Epistle as you say (d) Pag 318. of Damasus Pope It is not among the epistles of Damasus but of S. Ambrose and yet his it cannot be for in it mention is made of him as of a third person Wherfore whos 's the epistle is is a
cause of Gods wrath against them to be their obstinacy in defending their error against the holy Ghost he ordained by his prouidence that vpon the very day of Pentecost their Citty of Constantinople should be taken by the Turke their Emperor slaine and their Empire wholly extinguished A thing which S. Brigit foretold (o) Reuel l. 7. c. 19. almost 100. yeares before it happened denouncing to them that their Empire and dominions should not stand firme vnlesse with true humility they did submit themselues to the Roman Church and fayth All this you were ignorant of or if you were not dissemble it and quarrell at vs for reporting that the Greekes in the Councell of Florence renounced their errors and submitted themselues to the Church of Rome and Bishop therof Some say you (p) Pag. 338. would scrape acquaintance with the Greeke Church in the yeare 1549. (*) You should say 1439. at the Councell of Florence as though all then had bene subiects to the Pope So you but with what conscience you know and so do we for not only Catholike writers but your Protestant brethren M. Marbeck (q) Common plac pag. 258. and Osiander (r) Epit. Centu. 15. pag. 477. testify that in the Councell of Florence the Grecians Armenians and Indians were vnited to the Church of Rome And the same is apparent out of the Councell it selfe (s) In lit vnionis in which after the Grecians had abiured their two chiefe errors the one concerning the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father alone and the other of Purgatory they made open profession of their obedience and subiection to the B. of Rome in these words (t) In lit vnionis Mareouer we define that the holy Apostolike See and B. of Rome hath the primacy throughout the whole world and that the same B. of Rome is the successor of Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and the true Vicar of Christ and Head of the whole Church and that he is the Father and Doctor of all Christian and that to him was giuen by our Lord Iesus Christ full power of feeding and gouerning the vniuersall Church as it is also declared in the Acts of the Oecumenicall Councells and in the sacred Canon Benewing moreouer the order set downe in the Canons concerning the other Venerable Patriarkes that the Patriarke of Constantinople be the second after the B. of Rome And the like profession of their beliefe they had made before in a priuat Session of their owne in the Emperors Pallace none of the Latins being present (u) Conc. Flor. sess vlt. apud Bin. to 4 pag. 474. fin 475. init To this profession subscribed the Emperor of the Grecians all their Bishops assembled in that Councell he of Ephesus only excepted and not only they that were then liuing but also Ioseph their Patriarke who before the end of the Councell finding himselfe strucken with deathes dart set downe in writing this profession of his fayth which after his death was found in his closet (x) Ibid apud Bin pa. 474. I Ioseph by the mercy of God Archbishop and Oecumenicall Patriarke of Constantinople new Rome because I am come to the end of my life by the mercies of God according to my duety I publish by this writing my verdict to my beloued Children For I professe that I hold and belieue and giue full assent to all those thinges which the Catholike and Apostolike Church of our Lord Iesus Christ of old Rome shall iudge and ordaine And I refuse not to grant that the most Blessed Father of Fathers the chiefe Bishop Pope of old Rome is the Vicar of our Lord Iesus Christ and that there is a Purgatory for soules Would you thinke gentle Reader that any Christian man could put on so brazen a face as to deny that the Grecians in the Councell of Florence were vnited to the Church of Rome or that they acknowledged themselues subiect to the Pope as to one whom the sacred Councells declare to haue the primacy throughout the whole world to be the successor of S. Peter the true Vicar of Christ the Head of the whole Church the Father and Doctor of all Christians and that to him was giuen by Christ full power of feeding and gouerning the vniuersall Church Are not these their very words And yet you Doctor Morton deny all this saying (y) Pag. 331. Vpon due examination you your selues find the Grecians there to haue bene so farre from subiection to the Pope that they would not permit him to constitute a Patriarke among them professing that they could do nothing without the consent of their owne Church So you with your wonted fidelity both for that you set downe the first part of these words in a different character as the Grecians answeare to the Pope when as they are not their but your words and contrary to truth for that the Grecians vnited themselues to the Latines and acknowledged their subiection to the Pope and Church of Rome is there testified by a publike declaration (z) In lit vnio apud Bin. to 4 pa. 476.476 in the Letters of Vnion subscribed by Ioannes Palaeologus the Emperor and by all the Prelates Greekes and Latines that were present in the Councell And after this perfect accord was made the Pope calling vnto him the Grecian Bishops not by way of command as not willing to irritate them but of perswasion to that which was most decent and conuenient exhorted them before their departure to choose a new Patriarke in place of him that was deceased that they might not returne home without a Head They answeared that the custome of the Grecians was to choose and consecrate their Patriarke at Constantinople and that the Emperor who was not ignorant of their ceremonies and customes would not permit them to doe otherwise Wherupon the Pope vrged no further but with all courtesy dismissed them How can you inferre from this that the Greeke Bishops denied subiection to the Pope It mattereth not where their Patriarke was chosen since as you haue heard they acknowledged both themselues him as being members of the vniuersall Church to be subiect to the Pope as to their Head and to be gouerned by him as sheepe by their Shepheard and as children by their Father But you say (a) Pag. 331. They were farre from subiecting themselues in doctrine for when some few points were propounded they answeared the Pope that they had no licence to treat of such matters This is an other euasion as vntrue as the former For the next day after that the Greekes being conuinced had yeilded to the Latines in that mayne controuersy concerning the Procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne for the decision wherof that Councell was chiefly called the Pope desired to haue some of their Bishops sent vnto him They sent foure to whom the Pope said (b) Tom. 4 pag. 474. We by the grace
of the holy Ghost are vnited and so fully agreed in the chiefe question which was most in controuersy that no further speach therof is necessary But that our agreement may be so absolute firme that hereafter there be no difference betweene vs it will not be amisse that we treat of the fyre of Purgatory of the primacy of the Pope of celebrating in leauened or vnleauened bread and of Transubstantiation Those Bishops answeared We O most holy Father haue no licence to treat of these things which words you set downe as the answere of all the Greeke Prelates when as they were spoken only by foure of them who hauing receaued no commission to treat of those Questions refused to make answere vnto them in the name of all their brethren But neuerthelesse which you conceale they declared their owne iudgment concerning the three first to be conformable to the doctrine of the Roman Church adding moreouer that of the fourth which was Transubstantiation they could not treat without the authority of all the Easterne Church How doth this proue that the Greekes in the Councell of Florence agreed not in doctrine with the Roman Church especially since these foure Bishops declared to the Pope that concerning the three first points of the foure proposed by him they belieued as the Roman Church did and concerning the fourth as at that time they did not affirme it so neither did they deny it and sone after not only they but all the rest of the Greeke Bishops and Abbots together with their Emperor in the Letters of Vnion expresly declared that not only in the three first namely of the Popes supremacy of Purgatory of the lawfulnesse of celebrating Masse in vnleauened bread they belieued as the Roman Church did but also in the fourth of Transubstantiation saying that by the Priest vpon the Altar of bread is made the very body of Christ. All this you could not be ignorant of and yet blush not to deny it and to adde another vntruth saying (c) Pag. 331. fin 332. init Yea and their Emperor Palaeologus that was so earnest to peece them together was himselfe but hardly welcomed home to the Greeke Church which was now much more exasperated against the Roman Church in so much that they did now pronounce their Patriarke of Constantinople the supreme and chiefe of all Bishops These your words cannot be freed from a notable imposture for you falsify Bellarmine alleaging these words in a differeÌ„t letter as his The Greekes did now to wit after their returne from the Councell of Florence pronounce their Patriarke of Constantinople the supreme and chiefe of all Bishops Bellarmine speaketh of their fall from the Roman Church the yeare 1054. which was not after the Councell of Florence but almost 400. yeares before it You to perswade your reader that he speakes of their fall after their returne from that Councell cunningly insert into his words this aduerbe Now and falsify the yeare putting in stead of Anno 1054. which Bellarmine hath Anno 1454. Can there be more wilfull fraud then this But you shew no lesse folly then fraud for wheras you say (d) Pag. 331. the Councell of Florence was the yeare 1549. to proue that the Greekes after their returne from that Councell denied the primacy of the Pope you say (e) Pag. 332. Now to wit the yeare 1454. which was in your account 100. yeares before that Councell they did pronounce their Patriarke of Constantinople the supreme and chiefe of all Bishops I deny not that the Greeks a few yeares after the Councell of Florence returned to vomit and that a great part of them still persisteth in the errors which then they abiured I only speake here of your simplicity who to proue that they fell from the Roman Church after their returne from the Councell of Florence say (f) Pag. 332. marg they fell the yeare 1454. which according to your account was 100. yeares before that Councell With these impostures you delude your readers who not doubting of your fidelity take your doctrine vpon your word SECT III. That many of the Grecians at this day are of the Roman Communion and professe subiection to the B. of Rome THat many of the Grecians are at this day accordant in fayth and Communion with the Roman Church professe subiection and obedience to the B. of Rome is a thing notorious for who is ignorant that as in Rome there is a Seminary wherin many youthes of our English nation are trained vp in vertue and learning to the end that being ordained Priestes and returning into England they may help to reduce their Countrey to the Catholike fayth so likewise there hath bene many yeares another of Grecians for the reduction of Greece And who knoweth not that as Cardinall Peron (g) Repliqu Chap. 22. aduertised our late Soueraigne K. Iames in the Iles of Malta Cyprus Candia Xante Chios Naxos and other Greeke and Asian Islands the Roman fayth and Communion hath place euen at this day either wholly or for the greatest part And if it be true that as you affirme (h) Pag. 335. Russia a good part of Polonia Dalmatia and Croatia belong to the Greeke Church and are vnder the iurisdiction of the Patriarke of Constantinople with what forehead can you challenge the inhabitants of these Countreys in generall to dissent in fayth communion from the Church of Rome when it is notorious that in Dalmatia Croatia Polonia as also in Lituania and Transiluania the fayth and Communion of the Roman Church is not only allowed but publikely professed And for the Russians Michaell Hipation and Cyrill with the rest of the Bishops of that Nation haue lately submitted themselues to the same Church as both their Epistle and profession of fayth addressed to Clement the eight in the yeare 1595. abundantly testify (i) Apud Cocci to 1. l. 7. art â— SECT IV. Of the Aegyptians YOur second example of remote nations dissenting from the Roman Church (k) Pag. 304.342.400.409 417. is of the Aegyptians To shew your error herein these euidences may serue for as Iacobus Nauarchus (l) Ep. Asiâ—â— Coccius (m) Tom. 1. l. 7. art 6. and Doctour Sanders (n) Monar Visib l. 7. n. 1121. relate Eugenius Pope hauing actually vnited the Greekes and Latines in the Councell of Florence and wrirten to the Patriarkes of the East to the same effect they in their Epistles to him writ back Honorably Catholikely and resolutely of the Latin Church and authority of the Pope And in particular Iohn Patriarke of Alexandria that is to say of the Christians of Aegypt and of all the countreys which first belonged to the Empire of Aegypt and afterwards to the Prefecture therof styleth the B. of Rome The perfection of Priesthood the Apostolicall Father of all Churches the Prince of Priests the Guide of Pilgrimes that shews the way to the rest the Physitian of the diseased And his Vicar of
The small extent of the Protestant Church proueth her not to be the Catholike Church VVHen first you began to appeare in the world Luther complained (g) Pref. in 1. tom cont Reg. Augl fol. 497. that he was alone that he alone stood in the battaile forsaken of all and holpen by none The Centurists (h) Sleid. praef hist. confesse that your beginning was slender and almost contemptible Luther bearing the brunt of all the world Then you boasted your selues to be the Pusillus Grex which Christ speaketh of in the Ghospell (i) Luc. 12.31 But now Luthers brood being increased partly by his disciples and partly by the accession of many new Sects sprung from him knowing that the Catholike Church according to her name must be vniuersally spread throughout the whole world whersoeuer Christ is acknowledged you haue thought best to lay claime to all those Sectaries and to shake hands with anciēt heretikes that you may seeme to haue a Church of large extent If as Bellarmine (k) Cap. 14. Apolog. aduertised our late Soueraigne you draw into your Church all the Nestorians Eutychians and other heretikes of the East and South of which I haue spoken if all the Hussites Lutherans Zuinglians Suinkfeldians Anabaptists Confessionists Caluinists Brownists Familians Arians Samosatens and many other Sects with are at this day in the Prouinces of Europe by you named (l) Pag. 341. they will I confesse make a great rable of Sectaries that are so farre from being one Church that they anathematize and damne each other to the very pit of hell (m) See Coccius to 1. l. 8. art 7.8.9.10 Againe these sectes being confined some to one and all which here you claime as parts of the Protestāt Church to a few Prouinces of Europe and yet those not wholly theirs none of them nor all of them togeather can be the Catholike Church for she sayth S. Augustine (n) Ep. 170. ad Seuer cont Gaud. l. 3. c. 1. must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secundum totum that is diffused through out the whole world as well where these Sects are as where they are not The Catholike Church sayth he (o) Cont Lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 104. hath this certaine marke that she is knowne to all nations the Sect of Donatus is vnknowne to many nations and therfore that cannot be she So likewise the sects of Luther of Caluin of Zuinglius c. are vnknowne to many nations and therfore no one of them nor all of them togeather can be she By this Argument Optatus proued the Donatists and by the same we proue Protestants not to be the Catholike Church because she is not only in a corner of Africa or in a few Prouinces of Europe where they are but in many other places of the world where they are not Which passage of Optatus therfore I know not to what end you alleage (p) Pag. 342. vnlesse it be to proue your Church to be a Conuenticle of heretiks The same Argument S. Augustine vseth (q) De vnit Eccles c. 20. The Catholike Church by the denine and most certaine testimony of holy Scriptures is designed to be in all nations And therfore whatsouer is alleaged vnto vs by them that say Heere is Christ there is Christ if we be his sheepe we must rather heare the voyce of our Shepheard who sayth Belieue them not for these are not to be found in many places where she is and she who is euery where is also whersoeuer they are This therfore euidently proueth the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church for she is not only in England Scotland Denmarke Norway Swedland in a part of Germany Polonia Bohemia Hungaria France Heluetia and Ireland which are all the Prouinces you cold name for the extent of your Church but in the rest of the world where you haue no footing for her Communion hath place either wholly or in part in all the Nations of Europe in the East and West Indies in the Philippines in Iaponia in Chyna in Persia in all the islands of the Ocean and Medeterranean and in many of the South Sea in Greece Aegypt in Aechiopia Armenia Assyria and finally in all the foure parts of the world whersoeuer the Christian name is acknowledged And vntill you can shew your Protestant Congregation to haue the same extent you must confesse that she is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not vniuersally spread ouer all the parts of the Earth and therfore not the Catholike Church Whosoeuer sayth S. Augustine (r) Ibid. c. 4. do so dissent from the Church which is the body of Christ that their communion is not with the whole whersoeuer diffused but with themselues seuerally in some part it is manifest that they are not the Catholike Church SECT II. Whether the Protestant Church be free from Error in Doctrine TO proue that your Church is free from Error in doctrine you say (s) Pag. 342. The greatest error you can impute vnto Protestants is that they for their fayth immediatly depend vpon Christ Iesus as the Head of the Catholike Church In these words you seeme tacitly to insinuate that we depend not immediatly vpon Iesus Christ as the Head of the Catholike Church which is an vntruth that needeth no refutation We impute not that to you as your greatest Error nor as any Error at all we stedfastly belieue that Iesus Christ is the only principall immediat Head of the Catholike Church But we impute to you as an Error in fayth that you belieue not the B. of Rome to be the Lieutenant and Vicar of Christ and vnder him the secondary and ministeriall Head of the Catholike Church on earth But this is not your only error in fayth for you hold many other old condemned heresies as with Simon Magus that only fayth iustifieth With Acrius you deny Purgatory and prayer for the dead With Iouinian you equall Mariage with Virginity yea and preferre it surpassing him therin With Virgilantius you deny inuocation of Saints all religious Veneration of their relikes With Manichaeus you deny free-will With the Iconoclasts you pull downe and breake the Images of Christ and his Saints and deny that honor is to be exhibited vnto them With Berengarius you deny Transubstantiation All these to omit that you reiect fiue of the Sacraments race out of the Canon of holy Scripture diuers canonicall bookes are heresies anciently condemned and anathematized by the whole Church of Christ And if S. Augustine say (t) De haeres fin that whosoeuer holdeth any one heresy is not a Catholike Christian and S. Athanasius (u) In Symbolo that whosoeuer holdeth not the Catholike fayth entire and inuiolate cannot be saued what may we thinke of them that hold so many certaine and vndoubted heresies or what Christian hart can forbeare to compassionate their estate SECT III. Doctor Mortons pretended purity of Manners in his Protestant Church TO proue that
so wholly destitute of an vniuersall gouernor on earth that the elergy of Rome may not in many things supply his place as you may learne from S. Cyprian who in sundry occasions aduised with the Clergy of Rome witnesse his epistles to them (d) L. 3. ep 5. 21. l. 5. ep 4. 5. and theirs to him (e) L. 2. ep 7. l. 5. ep 13. But here (f) Pag. 346. you take occasion to calummitate Bellarmine for saying that by the Keyes which Christ gaue to S. Peter and in him to his Successors in vnderstood the principality of Ecclesiasticall power ouer all the Church that when the Pope dieth this power remaineth not formally in the Church excepting only so farre forth as it is communicated to the inferior Ministers but immediatly in the hands of Christ. And when a new Pope is chosen the Keyes are nether brought by him nor giuen to him by the Church but by Christ and this not by a new donation but by the ancient institution for when he gaue them to Peter he gaue them to all his Successors These are Bellarmines words which you cut from the example he addeth for the explanation of his doctrine that you may haue occasion to exclame against him and scoffe saying (g) Ibid. O depth of delusion Will you see a Iugler Yes we see him but too perfectly in Doctor Thomas Morton for doth not Bellarmine say It happeneth in this case as if a King when he makes a Vice-Roy of any Countrey should declare his pleasure to be that the Vice-Roy being dead they should nominate another and that he granteth vnto him now the same power he gaue to his Predecessor What depth of delusion or what iuggling do you find in this case And is not the other wholly like to this And doth not Bellarmine declare it with this very example Wherfore your question (h) Ibid. Whether the keyes of S. Peter do indeed fly into heauen at the death of euery Pope though you make it forsooth to shew your selfe acute and witty is God wot a silly conceipt to which that renowned Doctor Theodorus Studites hath answeared (i) Ep. de imagin saying that when we speake of keeping Peters Keyes at Rome it is not to be vnderstood that Christ gaue any materiall Keyes to him but only that by his mouth he gaue him power to bind and loose And as it is a poore conceipt so it is a cauill to which your selfe must answere in the other example of temporall power for tell vs Do then indeed the Vice-Royes keyes when he dieth fly to the Kings Court But you goe on asking (k) Pag. 346. What power then is it which remaineth formally in the inferior Ministers of the Church at the death of the Pope If it be the Keyes of Principality then is euery inferior Priest a Pope If it be the Keyes only of Order and absolution then shall it not be lawfull for any Bishop to exercise any power of iurisdiction by precept or punishing by excommunication during all the time of the Vacancy So you either not vnderstanding or wittingly concealing Bellarmines doctrine for doth he acknowledge no Ecclesiasticall power but only of principality ouer the whole Church which is proper to the Pope or els of Order and Absolution which is common to euery Priest Doth he not with all Catholike Diuines hold that euery Bishop besides his power to absolue in the inward Court of Conscience hath also power of externall iurisdiction to gouerne and command his Diocesans and inflict punishment vpon them by excommunication and other Ecclesiasticall censures according to the measure of their offences And doth he not sufficiently expresse this power when speaking of the Popes authority ouer the Church he sayth that the Pope being dead it still remaineth in the Church so farre forth as it is committed to inferior Ministers which are the Bishops and other Pastors vnder the Pope And by this it appeares how vntruly you adde (l) Pag. 347. that Bellarmine is driuen forsooth by this your subtle Argument into a most vncouth and extreme corner where neuer any ancient Father before him set so much as the least print of his shoo This you proue (m) Ibid. out of Binius whom you make to say that in the Inter-regnum or vacancy betweene the death of Pope Agapetus and his Successor there was called a generall Councell at Constantinople which is an Act proper to the Papall primacy But as in the rest so in this you want fidelity for Binius sayth not that this Councell was generall but directly the contrary to wit that it consisted of such Bishops only as were neare to Constantinople and some others which at that time were resident in the city Wherfore it was no generall but a particular Councell in which Menas presided not as Vicar of the See Apostolike as Binius mistaketh but only as Patriarke of Constantinople And much lesse did any Legates of the Pope preside with him for albeit the Italian Bishops which had bene Legates to Pope Agapetus assisted at the Councell yet they assisted not as his Deputies for their legation was finished and their commission expired before that time by the arriuall and especially by the death of Agapetus at Constantinople but for honors sake and as Exlegates and not as Legates It is not therfore Bellarmine but you that are driuen into such an vncouth and extreme corner that you haue no way to get out but by fathering on Binius your owne fiction of a generall Councell which Binius neuer dreamed of and which is yet worse by contradicting your selfe for before (n) Pag. 238. lin 11. you had said that this was not a generall Councell These then are your words The Councell vnder Menas was a generall Councell The Councell vnder Menas was not a generall Councell Agree them It resteth therfore that according to Bellarmines Tenet a generall Councell which hath authority to decide controuersies of fayth cannot be called without the Popes authority you hauing not bene able to produce any one example or proofe to the contrary but only your ignorant mistake of a particular Councell for a generall SECT IV. Whether the Roman Church haue at any time a false Head YOur assertion is affirmatiue for proofe you remit vs to your former argumēt already answeared to which you adde heere (o) Pag. 349. init that God neuer ordained a Head no bigger then of a wren to stand vpon the sholders of a man and so litle in respect is one Bishop of one City of Rome to be set ouer the Church vniuersally dispersed throughout the whole world But you confider not that the Church of Christ being the most perfect of all common wealthes ought to haue the most perfect gouerment which is Monarchicall S. Cyptian (p) De vnit Eccl. Optatius (q) L. 2. cont Parmen and S. Hierome (r) L. 1. cont Iouin haue taught that our Sauiour made
confirmed by the B. of Rome (b) Ibid. l. 3. c. 5.8 30. that all former Councells haue required their doctrines to be confirmed and authorized by him Why do you then produce him as a witnesse for the contrary Gerson and Canus are both falsified by you for Gerson in the place you cite hath no such doctrine but the contrary which els where he expresseth (c) To. 1. in Consider de paâ—â— Consid 1. saying Constat quod in materijs fidei terminandis error non cadit in Concilio generali c. It is manifest that in deciding controuersies of fayth a generall Councell cannot erre And the Doctors yeild the reason because of the speciall assistence of the holy Ghost and of Christ gouerning the Church and not permitting it to erre in those things which it cannot attaine by humane industry Canus sayth that generall Councells lawfully gathered may erre in fayth as the second of Ephesus did This is his second conclusion which you lay hold of concealing that in his third conclusion which he presently addeth he sayth That a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope cannot erre and condemneth your doctrine as absolutely hereticall Is it not then extreme perfidiousnesse to Father on him the contrary and to make Catholike Doctors Patrons of your Errors But to declare what is necessary that a generall Councell may not erre you adde (d) Pag. â—66 fin 367. The difference betweene the Roman Church and the Church of the Protestants is no more but this that the Romanists say that all generall Councells may erre except they be confirmed and authorized by the Pope but Protestants say that all generall Councells may erre except they be directed by the spirit of Gods word This indeed you say and yet leaue the question vnansweared for we likewise say that euery Councell which is not directed by the spirit of Gods word may erre The question is how it may be knowne when a Councell defineth according to Gods word and when not for Gods word may be misinterpreted Wherof Tertullian speaking truly said (e) L. de praescrip An adulterate glosse doth as much outrage to the truth as a false pen. And S. Hilary (f) L. 2 de Triâ— init There haue bene many who haue interpreted the heauenly words otherwayâ—â— then the truth did require according to the sense of their own will not for the establishing of truth for heresy is not in the writing but in the vnderstanding the fault is not in the word but in the sense And doth not S. Hierome likewise say (g) In Ep. ad Gal. c. 1. The Ghospell is not in the words but in the sense And doth not S. Augustine cry out (i) In Ioan. tract 13. Heresies and peruerse doctrine which entangle soules cast them headlong into hell haue their birth nowhere but from good Scriptures ill vndeestood And againe (k) De Gen. ad lit l. 7. c. 9. Heretikes were not heretikes but that misunderstanding the Scripture they defend obstinatly their owne false opinions against the truth therof And in another place (l) Ep. 2â—â— All heretikes which receaue the Scriptures thinke they follow them when they follow their owne Errors Of the same subiect Lyrinensis discourseth largely and learnedly (m) Chap. 1â— 30.37 shewing that the Diuel alleaged Scriptures against Christ that all Heretikes alleage them against the Church in defence of their errors which made S. Hierome say (n) In Ep. ad Gal. c. 1. that there is great daÌ„ger in speaking in the Church for feare lest by a wrong interpretation the Ghospell of Christ be made the Ghospell of man or which is worse the Ghospell of the Diuell And speaking of the Luciferians (o) Aduers Lucifer versus fin who boasted of the Scriptures as Protestants doe Let them not statter themselues to much because they seeme to haue Scripture for what they affirme for euen the Diuell hath alleaged Scriptures which consist not in reading but in vnderstanding Wherfore it is not sufficient to alleage Scriptures We alleage them and you alleage them but we disagree concerning the true sense and meaning of them from whom shall we learne it If Luther may as your fore-man speake for you all you and none but you and that by your priuate spirit must deliuer the true sense of them We sayth Luther (p) L. de serâ—â— arbit receaue nothing but the Scriptures and them so also that we our selues only haue certaine authority to expound them As we vnderstand them so was the meaning of the Holy Ghost what others bring be they neuer so great neuer so many preceedeth from the spirit of Sathan and from a mad and alimated mind So Luther And as he challenged to himselfe this priuiledge of deliuering the true sense of Scripture so his disciples haue challenged the same to themselues This spirit it is which hath hatched so many viperous sects no lesse disagreeing among themselues then all of them straying from the truth And yet you all boast of Scripture and all proclaime that you follow the word of God And no maruaile for the Diuell sayth Lyrinensis (q) Cap. 37 3â— knoweth right well that when wicked errors are to be broached the readiest way to deceaue is to alleage stifly the authority of diuine Scripture What then shall Catholike men Children of our Mother the Church do Let them interpret the diuine Canon according to the tradition of the vniuersall Church The truth of Scripture sayth S. Augustine (r) Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 33. is held by vs when we do that which pleaseth the vniuersall Church whom the authority of the same Scriptures recommendeth And againe (s) Ibid. c. 31. Whosoeuer feareth to be deceaued through the obscurity of this question let him consult with that Church which the holy Scripture hath designed without any ambiguity This Church it is of which God pronounced by the mouth of Isay (t) Isa 54.17 Thou shalt iudge euery tongue that resisteth thee in iudgment Of this Christ hath promised (u) Math. 16.18 that the gates of hell which are Errors shall not preuâ—ile against her Of this he hath said (x) Math. 18.17 that whosoeuer heares her not is to be held as a Heathen a Publican In this he hath placed (y) Ad Ephes 4.11 17. Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastors and Doctors c. that we may not be litle Children wauering and carried away with euery blast of doctrine This Church these Pastors these Doctors all Christians must heare and imbrace their exposition of Scripture as the true meaning of the holy Ghost Christ himselfe hauing said (z) Luc. 10.6 that who heareth them heareth him and S. Iohn (a) â— Ioan. 4.6 by this marke distinguisheth Orthodoxe people from Heretikes that the Orthodoxe heare and obey the Pastors and Doctors of Gods Church which heretikes refuse to do We are sayth he of God he that knoweth God heareth vs He
from error in their definitions of fayth hath bene the beliefe of all Orthodoxe antiquity (m) See aboue Chap. 12. sect 1. 2. Nor do you produce here any thing to the contrary which hath not bene proued to be imposterous excepting only that here you charge the new Church of Rome for so you call it with belieuing the conclusion of the Pope in matters of fayth to be infallible albeit he vse no diligence at all for the directing of his iudgment which is say you the strong breath of an Anabaptisticall and Enthusiasticall spirit We are well assured what spirit guydeth your pen. Do you find this doctrine authorized by the Church of Rome In what Councell By what Pope In your margent you cite Valentia in the seauenth Chapter of his Analysis which is to cite at randome and falsly for that worke of Valentia consisteth of eight bookes you specify none of them nor are the words you obiect to be found in the seauenth Chapter of any one of those eight bookes I find some such in the third Chapter of his last booke where as also afterwards againe (n) Analy l. 8. c. 10. he professedly disputeth what meanes the Pope is bound to vse in his definitions of fayth and whether the infallibility of his iudgment depend vpon those meanes In which question Valentia teacheth nothing but what is the most receaued opinion of Deuines and most agreeable to truth There seemeth to be some disagreement in this point among the Schoole-Doctors some saying that the Pope cannot erre if he proceed maturely hearing the counsell of Pastors and Learned men Others of which number Valentia is affirming that he cannot erre though he define alone without deliberation and consultation But these two opinions differ in words only not in reality of truth for when the authors of the former opinion say that to define the Pope is bound to proceed maturely taking the aduice of a Councell or of men wise learned and skilfull in the matter which is to be determined to the end he may not erre they say not this to signify that the infallibility of his definition consisteth in or proceedeth from the wisdome and learning of his Counsellors but only to shew that he is bound to proceed prudently and maturely And so likewise when Valentia and authors of the second opinion say that if the Pope should define alone without a Councell of Bishops or aduice of other learned men he could not erre they say it not to deny that he is bound to vse such meanes but to signify that the infallibility of his definition consisteth not in them but in his owne authority and warrant which he hath from Christ of not erring And this is the meaning of Valentia as in that very place he expresly declareth Nor do I see what you can find therin either absurd or vntrue But if you curiously demand Whether the Pope may erre in case he proceed to define inconsideratly and rashly Valentia and all Catholike Doctors will answeare that your Question implieth a Condition impossible for the Pope in his definitions cannot proceed immaturely The Philosophers say Qui dat formam dat consequentia ad formam He that giues the forme giues also the dispositions necessary for the forme And he that giueth the end giueth also such meanes as are necessary for the attaining of the end Wherfore Christ hauing made promise to the See Apostolike that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her and that the successors of S Peter shall not faile in confirming their brethren it belongeth to his diuine prouidence so to direct gouerne and assist him that he proceed not to define without sufficient deliberation and maturity If sayth S. Augustine (o) De vtil ered c. 10. the prouidence of God be not the Gouernesse of humane affaires no regard is to be bad of religion But if all this variety of Creatures do I know not with what interior knowledge mooue vs to seeke God and to serue God surely we ought not to be diffident but that there is some authority constituted by the same God wheron we relying as vpon a certaine step may ascend vnto God SECT VII Whether there be in the Scripture any Prophesy that the Church of Rome shall fall from the fayth THat Christ hath prophesied of the Church of Rome that she shall neuer fall from the fayth hath bene alredy proued (p) Chap 12. sect 1. 2. Your third Thesis to the contrary is that there is not in all the Scripture any prophesy of the fall of any Church Christian from the fayth Pag. 377. but only of the Church of Rome from which it may somtime be necessary to depart Which is in effect to say that there is in the Scripture a prophesy that the Church of Rome shall fall from the fayth In proofe of this you remit vs to the testimony of two Iesuits Ribera and Viegas that the city of Rome shall in the end of the world be the seat of Antichrist which is not their doctrine but a calumnious slander of yours They hold with the ancient Fathers that not Rome but Hierusalem shall be the Seat of Antichrist The Euangelist sayth Ribera (r) Ad cap. 11. Apocalyp n. 20. fin 21. init calling Hierusalem a great city signifieth not obscurely that she shall be great at that time in power and in number of Citizens to wit when Antichrist shall raigne in her being receaued of the Iewes and honored as the true Messias This city both because she killed our Lord and because then she shal be the Court of Antichrist full of all wickednesse and impiety he calleth Sodome and Aegypt c. for what sinne and impiety will she not be guilty of Antichrist raigning in her So Ribera from whom Viegas dissenteth not Say now Can there be a more shamfull imposture then to impute to these learned Authors your owne falsities theron to ground your calūnies against the Church of Rome as vpon truthes asserted by them Such Arguments are indeed fit proofes to iustify your departure from her But were it true that the City of Rome in the end of the world shall be the Seat of Antichrist doth that any way iustify your present departure from the Roman Church Looke back vpon what hath bene sayd you shall find how little those words Goe out of Babilon my people make for you and that euen according to your Protestant Expositors they are wholly against you In your fourth Thesis (s) Pag. 378. which is That the Church of Rome hath long bene and still is the most schismaticall Church of all other Churches Christian that carry in them a visible face of a Church you bring nothing but what hath bene already answeared point by point SECT VIII Whether Luther were iustly excommunicaeed TO proue that he was iniustly excōmunicated you say (t) Pag. 381. Luthers excommunication by Pope Leo must haue bene either for manners or
therfore to be contemned as being admitted but of late which is not only a false translation but a manifest peruerting of the sense for Castro speaketh not of the doctrine or lawfulnesse of granting indulgences but de earum vsu of the vse of them which therfore in your english you cunningly omit that ouâ— of him you may proue the doctrine of them to be new Yea and concerning the very vse of them he proueth it to be most ancient by the same arguments Roffensis before him had done concluding that you and all others which contemne a thing practised so many hundreds of yeares by the Catholike Church and established by generall Councels are iustly accounted heretikes So farre is Castro from fauoring Luthers cause The third Author is Bellarmine out of whom you cite these words (n) Pag. 385. Thesaurus Ecclesiae spiritualis est fundamentum indulgentiarum Which words you english Thus The ground of indulgences is the spirituall treasury of workes consisting in the satisfactory and meritorious workes of supererogation done by the faithfull Which treasury to haue bene anciently wanting you proue also out of Bellarmine setting downe these words as his Hoc caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Louanienses This your Doctors of Louaine and some Scholemen as you know affirme was anciently wanting in the Church So you and then you tell vs (o) Ibid. out of Suarez who those Schole men were namely Mayzo and Durandus In this short passage of yours there are almost as many vntruthes and falsifications as words For first the Latin words are not Bellarmines but your owne fathered on him And so also are the English which neuerthelesse you set downe in a different character as his not only disagree from the Latin but containe false doctrine repugnant to all Catholike Diuines and in particular to Bellarmine who in that very place (p) L. 1. de Indulg c. 2. proposit 2. teacheth that meritorious workes as such cannot be applied to others nor belong to the treasure of the Church but only as satisfactory 3. You falsify making Bellarmine to limit the spirituall treasure of the Church to workes of supererogation only which is ignorantly spoken and not taught by Bellarmine nor any Catholike Diuine 4. You father on him falsly those last words Hoc thesauro caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Louanienses for they are not his nor doth he attribute any such doctrine to the Deuines of Louain nor so much as once name them in all that Chapter Is it not then great perfidiousnesse so to abuse and falsify both him and them Nor is your dealing better with Suarez for to omit that in the place you cite he treateth of no such matter nether he nor Bellarmine euer say that Duraud denied this treasure of the Church but only that he held it to consist of the satisfactions of Christ and not of the Saints Which yet he speaketh by way of doubt Theologicall dispute rather then affirmatiuely for coming to deliuer his owne opinion he sayth plainly and resolutely (q) 4. Dist 20. q. 3. Est in Ecclesia c. There is in the Church a spirituall treasure of the passion of Christ and his Saints who suffered farre greater torments then their sinnes deserued And therfore the Church out of this treasure may communicate to one or more so much as may suffice to make satisfaction for their sinnes either in part or in whole according as the Church shall please to communicate this treasure more or lesse which is nothing els but the sufferings of Christ and his Saints communicated to vs to satisfy for our sinnes Wherfore indulgences auaile by way of payment for so much as by Christ his Saints the paine to which we are lyable is paied But if he had held that the spirituall treasure of the Church consisteth of the satisfactions of Christ only that would auaile you nothing for he defendeth Indulgences which you deny and if he erred in any thing he errred not with obstinacy as you do but submitted all his workes to the correction of the holy Catholike Roman Church as you haue read in Bellarmine but conceale it I conclude therfore that the great cloud of witnesses which you haue brought to iustify Luthers doctrin against indulgences is either of Heretikes or of Catholikes in workes prohibited by the Church or if not prohibited abused and falsified by you SECT X. The causes giuen by Doctor Morton in excuse of Luthers departure from the Roman Church THe causes you haue deuised to iustify Luthers departure from the Roman Church are partly impious partly false and imposterous Impious as your excepting against the Masse (r) Pag. 387. to which Luther was persuaded by the Diuell calling it Idolatry as you do And not vnlike to this is your example of Firmilianus (s) Pag. 388. who being for the time an obstinate mantainer of Rebaptization was excommunicated by Stephen a holy Pope and notwithstanding that Stephens sentence was imbraced by all the Catholikes of the world and the doctrine of Firmilianus condemned by the holy Councell of Nice and euer since esteemed hereticall not only by Catholikes but also by Protestants you shame not to iustify Firmilianus (t) Ibid. and all the rest that followed the same heresy with him to condemne Pope Stephen as a Schismatike for excommunicating him Such examples I confesse you may find to defend Luthers departure from the Roman Church The rest of the causes which you alleage (u) Pag. 387. are false and imposterous as that the Roman Church mantaineth new articles of fayth and Satanicall doctrines that she blasphemeth the truth and tyrannically forceth men to subscribe which as they are false and slanderous accusations so you vtter them gratis and without any proofe at all and say nothing to iustify Luther but what a Donatist an Arian or any other heretike neuer so blasphemous will say for himselfe may with as good ground as Luther or you for him But you alleage (x) Pag. 389. Cassander whom you call our Cassander notwithstanding that heretofore you haue had a double admonition (y) See aboue Chap. 2. that he was a wicked heretike Prima classis whose workes being condemned and prohibited by the Church are of no more authority with vs then your Grand Imposture And not vnlike to this is your other example of Stephen Gardiner B. of Winchester as already hath bene shewed (z) Ibid. And as little to your purpose is another example which here you adde (a) Pag. 392. of an Epistle of Robert Grosthead B. of Lincolne taken out of the history of Mathew Paris which was set forth corruptedly by English Protestants and then by the Tigurine Lutherans who haue added many things both in their marginall notes and in the text in selfe against the authority of the Roman Church (b) See Bellar. l. de Scriptor Out of this Epistle of Grosthead to Innocentius the fourth you obiect a long
passage in which he acknowledgeth in most effectuall words his beliefe of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome For in the very first words of his Epistle he sayth Be it known to your Wisdome that I obey the Apostolike mandats with filiall affection deuoutly reuerently and that I make resistance to those things which are against the Apostolike mandats zealing the honor of my Father for to both I am bound ex diuino mandato by the commandment of God for the Apostolike mandats neither are nor can be any other then the doctrines of the Apostles and of our Lord Iesus Christ Maister and Lord of the Apostles whose place and person our Lord the Pope chiefly holdeth in the Hierarchy of the Church A iudicious reader would thinke it a hard matter for any man out of these words and doctrine of Grosthead to frame an argument against the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome and yet are you so witty that you haue done it but by what art By cutting and mangling the Bishops words as the reader will see if he please to compare them with the Latin set downe in your Margent and euen that Latin mangled and falsified as it is you thought best not to english because it would haue giuen light to a iudicious reader to see your dealing What you adde (c) Pag. 394. of the Bishops not receauing a Prouision sent by the Pope maketh nothing for you for by the whole discourse of his Epistle it appeareth that he iudged the Prouision to be procured fraudulently by surreption therfore not to be a true mandate of the See Apostolike and vpon that ground he made resistance vnto it which the ciuill (d) Cod. Si cont ius L. Etsi Canon law (e) De rescript C. Dilectus in such cases declare to be lawfull without any impeachment to the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome SECT XI Whether Protestants had any Professors of their fayth before Luther THere is no way more expedite or effectuall to conuince heretikes to be such their doctrines to be prophane nouelties then to require of them a Catalogue of primitiue Fathers and learned men which haue agreed with them and dissented from the Roman Church in all those points in which they dissent from her as contrarily there is no way more effectuall for an Orthodoxe man to proue himselfe to be such then to shew that the Fathers Doctors of Gods Church in all ages from the beginning haue professed and taught the same doctrine he professeth and teacheth To this triall S. Athanasius challenged the Arians Behold sayth he to them (f) In decret Nic. Syn. cont Euseb we haue proued the succession of our doctrine deliuered from hand to hand from-Father to sonne you new Iewes you children of Caiphas what predecessors of your names can you shew To the same triall that most religious Emperor Theodosius prouoked the heretikes of his time for as Sozomen recordeth (g) L. 7. c. 11. hauing called together the chiefe of the Nouatians Arians and Macedonians he demanded of them whether they thought that the ancient Fathers which gouerned the Church before those dissensions in matter of Religion fell out were holy and Apostolicall men whether they did allow of their expositions of holy Scripture and would accept of them as of competent Iudges for the triall of their cause and ending of all controuersies Those Heretikes highly praysed the doctrine and expositions of the Fathers but yet could not agree among themselues to haue the bookes of the Fathers produced and their owne doctrines tried by them Wherupon Theodosius forbid them all exercise of their religion and inflicted other punishments vpon them With him accorded herein the Emperor Iustinian publishing by an especiall Law (h) L. 5. 6. that to confute the lyes of impious Heretikes and represse the madnesse of those that giue assent vnto them it is necessary to manifest vnto all what the most holy Priests of God haue taught and to follow them How often doth S. Augustine stop the mouthes of the Pelagians (i) Cout Iul. Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. l. 2. versus fin l. 5. c. 17. cont duas Ep. Pelag. l. 4. c. 12. with the testimonies of almost all the famous Bishops and Doctors both of the East West specifying them by their names somtimes twelue somtimes fourteene together adding to them the rest in generall The same kind of Argument was vsed by S. Leo the Great (k) Ep. 97. when hauing vrged against the Nestorians and Eutychians the testimonies of the holy Fathers Athanasius Hilary Ambrose and Chrysostome Theophilus Alexandrinus Basil the great and Cyril he concludeth thus to the Emperor to whom he writeth To these testimonies if you vouchsafe to attend you shall find that we teach no other thing then what our holy Fathers haue taught throughout the whole world and that no man dissenteth from them but impious heretikes Lastly the same manner of arguing from the testimonies of Fathers was vsed in the sixth generall Councell against the Monothelites in the second of Nice against the Image-breakers and in the Councell of Florence against the error of the Grecians denying the holy Ghost to proceed from the Sonne To this triall learned Catholikes haue often challenged the Sectaries of this age to that end haue set forth Catalogues of the most learned Doctors of Gods Church from the very time of Christ shewing them to haue bene members of the Roman Church and to haue belieued and taught the now Roman fayth not only in the generall heads wherin Protestants agree with vs but also in each of the seuerall points in which they dissent from vs to haue held them to be hereticall and confuted them as such euen as we do alleaging their testimonies at this day against Protestants The truth of this is to be seene in Iodocus Coccius a German who as it is declared in the Preface to his first Tome being in his youth a Lutheran afterwards partly by frequenting the Sermons of Catholike Preachers partly by hearing disputations in Schooles partly by obseruing the meruailous concord of Catholiks and the fatall discord of Protestants in matters of fayth partly by considering seriously and weighing with himselfe that the Churches of Protestants were confined to a few Prouinces and not spread ouer the whole world as the Church of Christ (l) Isa 49. was prophesied to be and that they wanted succession and continuance being newly sprung vp and lastly by a diligent perusall of the writings of ancient Fathers whom be found to agree wholly with vs and dissent from Protestants abandoned them and abiuring their doctrine east himselfe into the armes of his Catholike Mother the Roman Church And aswell for the confusion of heretikes confirmation of Catholikes as also to yeild vnto all men a reason of his fayth he vndertooke an immense labor in which he spent 24. yeares of reading the
and I may say fatall crime of the writers of his Coate false citation and misinterpretation of Authors What iniury hath he done the dead whose soules are blessed in heauen and whose ashes are reuerenced on earth to make them defend a doctrine in opposition to which they emptied euery veine in their most acred bodies What cruelty to the liuing by a pretended obedience to the authority of the primitiue times to inforce them to belieue the errors of the present Doth he hope his Volumes shall fall only into the hands of the ignorant or els of the negligent so far that any doctrine shall posse for currant which his fancy hath bene pleased to coyne Did he intrust others to make scrutiny into Authors for his purpose so aduenture his reputation to the world on an vncertaine and perhaps vnfaythfull euidence Or did he belieue according to the rule of the worst Statesmen any allegation how iniurious soeuer most iust if it serued the aduancement of his designe For certainly he hath giuen the world an example of such a courage that no good Writer will euer follow in daring thus to be disproued by any Reader who hath the benefit of a Library and the patience to compare truth with falshood For without giuing credit to the testimonies I here alleage if any man will search into the Authors themselues he shall find them mangled as that (*) Procrustes apud Plutarch in Theseo Tyrant did his ghests who with most barbarous torment shortned or lengthned their bodies according to the proportion of his bed No man writes short of his sense but is extended on the rack no man beyond but is mutilated without mercy This discouery of his vnhappy practise I wish may beget his conuersion not confusion But should he be so enamoured on his error as not to be remoued by the most forcible Arguments of Truth I hope Reader in thee to reape some fruit of my labor The Almighty in distribution of his benefits will not be directed by humane iudgment Let his diuine wisdome therfore bestow the fruit of my study where on whom he pleaseth for to his glory I must consecrate that with whatsoeuer I am Only Curious Reader I must beg thy pardon that in endeauouring to write busines I haue neglected language which like that musick Poets ascribe to the Syrens hath bene often treacherous to the hearer Elegancy of speach is a gift in which the wicked share equally with the good and the most sacred tongue that euer spake disdained to adulterate truth with any fallacy of an artificiall Phrase The policy of some Republikes hath expeld their Orators as subiects whom the power of eloquence rendred formidable the multitude being easy to receaue any impression through the eare and Oratory being a weapon as sharpe to destroy as defend the State Nor doe I value the cunning of language worthy the industry of the serious It may be of consequence where well directed but truth needs not borrow any ornament of language to make it selfe more amiable That which I aime at is thy satisfaction and that the Church of God which is on earth no other but the Roman may shine vnclouded in the sight of men as it hath euer bene most pure in the eye of God And that all mankind whom error hath misled may re-vnite themselues into her fayth guided by which the innocent can only hope for perseurance to glory and the repentant a way to mercy An Addition COurteous Reader I had almost forgotten to aduertise thee that wheras Doctor Morton hath made two Editions of his Grand Imposture the Edition which I shall cite in this Apology is the second reuised and supplied and printed at London by George Miller for Robert Milbourne 1628. A table of the Chapters and Sections of this Booke CHAP. I. GEnerall principles premised for the better vnderstanding of this Apology Pag. 1. The importance of the subiect Sect. 1. ib. Whether the Roman Church be truly called the Catholike Church and in what sense Sect. 2. pag. 4. That in the language of antiquity the Catholike Church and the Roman Church were two names signifying one and the same thing Sect. 3. pag. 7. That whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church is out of the state of saluation Sect. 4. pag. 13. CHAP. II. Of Doctor Mortons manner of alleaging Authors in generall pag. 27. CHAP. III. Whether the now Roman Church hath composed a new Creed pag. 36. CHAP. IV. Whether the now Roman Church haue added any new Articles to the Creed of the Apostles pag. 38. CHAP. V. That the word Roman is no deprauation but a true declaration of the article of the Catholike Church pag. 40. Doctor Mortons first Argument against the precedent doctrine answeared Sect. 1. ibid. His second Argument answeared Sect. 2. pag. 43. His third Argument answeared Sect. 3. pag. 52. His fourth Argument answeared Sect. 4. pag. 54. His fifth Argument answeared Sect. 5. pag. 56. His sixth Argument answeared Sect. 6. pag. 58. His seauenth Argument answeared Sect. 7. pag. 59. His eight Argument answeared Sect 8. pag. 60. CHAP. VI. That the Roman Church is the Head and mother of all Churches pag. 61. CHAP. VII S. Peters primacy defended pag. 72. CHAP. VIII Abuses and wronges offered by Doctor Morton to the ancient Fathers and other Catholike writers pag. 81. CHAP. IX S. Peter exercised his authority and iurisdiction of supreme Pastor and Gouernor ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church pag. 88. CHAP. X. Doctor Mortons Arguments against the former doctrine answeared pag. 93. CHAP. XI Sleights and falsifications of Doctor Morton to shift of the testimonies of ancient Fathers teaching S. Peters supremacy pag. 107. CHAP. XII The authority of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth proued to be infallible pag. 117. Our first Argument Sect. 1. pag. ibid. Our second Argument Sect. 2.125 S. Pauls subiection to S. Peter and his acknowledgment therof Sect. 3. pag. 132. Other Arguments of Doctor Morton answeared Sect. 4. pag. 140. Priuiledges granted to other of the Apostles and not to S. Peter obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 5. pag. 143. What estimation S. Paul had of the Roman Church Sect. 6. pag. 152. Why S. Paul did not entitle his Epistles Catholike Epistles Sect. 7. pag. 159. Other Arguments out of S. Paul and other Catholike Authors answeared Sect. 8 pag. 162. CHAP. XIII Whether S. Iohn the Euangelist conceaued himselfe subiect to the Roman Church pag. 166. Whether Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist Sect. 1. ibid. Whether S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter were subiect to the B. of Rome S. Peters Successor Sect. 2. pag. 173. CHAP. XIV Why the Epistles of S. Iames Iohn and Iude are intituled Catholike Epistles pag. 177. Of the name Catholike Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the title of Vicar of Christ belong to the Pope and in what sense Sect. 2. pag. 180. Whether S. Paul reckoning the Ecclesiasticall orders gaue the Pope any place among
them Sect. 3. pag. 182. Doctor Mortons rayling against the Inquisition Sect. 4. pag. 187. CHAP. XV. Of the signification of the word Catholike the iudgment of diuers Fathers obiected by Doctor Morton against the Roman Church pag. 195. That the word Catholike proues the Roman Church to be the true Church Sect. 1. ibid. The iudgment of S. Hierome concerning the Church Catholike Sect. 2. pag. 198. The iudgment of S. Gregory concerning the Supremacy of the B. of Rome and his title of vniuersall Bishop Sect. 3. pag. 201. S. Dionyse his iudgment concerning the supremacy of the Roman Church Sect. 4. pag. 302. S. Ignatius his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 5. p. 303. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 6. p. 304. Tertullian his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 7. pag. 308. Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 8. pag. 311. Other obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared Sect. 9. pag. 312. CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the B. and Church of Rome pag. 313. Doctor Mortons obiections against the precedent doctrine answeared Sect. 1. pag. 318. CHAP. XVII The second generall Councell held at Constantinople belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome pag. 324. By what authority this Councell was called Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Primacy of the Pope be Primacy of Authority and Iurisdiction or of Order only Sect. 2. pag. 328. Whether the names of Brother Collegue and Fellow-Minister which the Pope giueth to other Bishops and they to him argue them to be of equall Authority and Iurisdiction with him Sect. 3. pag. 330. A friuolous cauill of Doctor Morton against Bellarmine answeared Sect. 4. pag. 335. Of the Decree of this second Councell generall made in fauor of the Archbishop of Constantinople Sect. 5. pag. 336. That no Canon of any Councell can be of force vntill it be confirmed by the See Apostolike Sect. 6. pag. 338. That the Bishops of Constantinople knew this Canon to be of no force Sect. 7. pag. 340. CHAP. XVIII The third Councell generall being the first of Ephesus belieued the supreme authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome ouer all Bishops pag. 343. Of the deposition and condemnation of Nestorius by the command of Pope Celestine and whether the style of ancient Popes were to command Sect. 1. ibid. The Councell of Ephesus acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the cause of Iohn Patriarke of Antioch Sect. 2. pag. 351. Of the Ordination of the Bishops of Cyprus treated in the Councell of Ephesus Sect. 3. pag. 352. Whether it may be gathered out of the Councell of Ephesus that the authority of the Pope is aboue a generall Councell Sect. 4. pag. 353. CHAP. XIX The Councell of Chalcedon belieued the supreme authority of the B. of Rome pag. 355. That Leo Pope called the Councell of Chalcedon by his authority and presided in it by his Legates Sect. 1. ibid. That the Councell of Chalcedon by the authority of Leo Pope deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus restored Theodoret Sect. 2. pag. 356. Whether the title of Vniuersall Bishop which the Councell of Chalcedon gaue to the Pope argue in him no more but a generall care of the good of the Church such as belongs to euery Bishop and to euery Christian Sect. 3. pag. 360. Whether the Couneell of Chalcedon did giue to the B. of Constantinople priuiledges equall with the B. of Rome Sect. 4. pag. 362. Falsifications and vntruths of Doctor Morton discouered his Arguments answeared Sect. 5. pag. 367. CHAP. XX. The fifth Councell generall belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop Church of Rome p. 375. Doctor Mortons ignorance and contradictions concerning this Councell Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons ignorance further discouered and his falsifying of Binius Sect. 2. pag. 377. Of the matter treated in the fifth generall Councell Sect. 3. pag. 381. Doctor Mortons glosse vpon the word Obedience Sect. 4. pag. 383. CHAP. XXI Of the sixth generall Councell pag. 385. That it acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the fixth Councell condemned Honoriu Pope as an Heretike Sect. 2. pag. 387. CHAP. XXII Of the seauenth and eight generall Councells pag. 391. That these two Councells acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the eight generall Councell Sect. 2. pag. 392. Whether the eight generall Councell condemned the Saturday-fast allowed by the Roman Church Sect. 3. pag. 394. CHAP. XXIII Doctor Morton defendeth the hereticall custome of the Asian Bishops pag. 397. CHAP. XXIV Doctor Morton in opposition to the Roman Church defendeth the hereticall Doctrine of Rebaptization pag. 402. CHAP. XXV. Other Arguments of Doctor Morton out of S. Cyprian answeared pag. 408. CHAP. XXVI The Councells of Carthage and Mileuis acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome pag. 411. CHAP. XXVII Appeales to Rome proued out of the African Councell which was the sixth of Carthage p. 419. The state of the question Sect. 1. ibid. That the Nicen Canons were more then twenty in number And that the Canons concerning appeales to Rome were true Canons of the Nicen Councell Sect. 2. pag. 421. Whether if there had bene no Canon for appeales to Rome in the Councell of Nice it had bene forgery in Pope Zosimus to alleage a Canon of the Sardican Councell for a Canon of Nice Sect. 3. pag. 426. Vntruthes and falsifications of D. Morton discouered and his obiections answeared Sect. 4. pag. 429. Whether this Controuersy of appeales wrought in the Africans any separation of Communion from the Roman Church Sect. 5. pag. 437. CHAP. XXVIII Whether the Britans and Scots not celebrating Easter after the manner of the Roman Church were for that cause separated from her communion p. 450. CHAP. XXIX Of the great reuerence of ancient Christian Emperors and Kings to the Pope pag. 454. CHAP. XXX Whether Christian Emperors haue inuested themselues in Ecclesiasticall affaires pag. 461. Constantine the Great inuested not himselfe in Ecclesiastical causes Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons second Example of Theodosius examined Sect. 2. pag. 469. Doctor Mortons third instance of Theodosius the yonger and Honorius examined Sect. 3. pag. 471. Doctor Mortons fourth instance of Theodosius and Valentinian examined Sect. 4. pag. 473. Doctor Mortons fifth instance of Iustinian examined Sect. 5. pag. 475. CHAP. XXXI Of the authority and place of Emperors in Councells pag. 480. CHAP. XXXII Whether Popes haue challenged ciuill subiection from Emperors and Kings Christian and Heathen pag. 483. Doctor Mortons first Argument out of Innocent the third examined Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons second Argument out of Hieremy the Prophet examined Sect. 2. pag. 486. Doctor Mortons third Argument out of the examples of diuers Popes examined Sect. 3. pag. 490. Doctor Morton contradicteth himselfe Sect. 4. pag. 494. CHAP. XXXIII
Doctor Mortons late Sermon preached in the Cathedrall Church of Durham answeared pag. 495. The sense of S. Pauls words which Doctor Morton tooke for his text declared Sect. 1. pag. 496. Ancient Popes obiected and falfified by Doctor Morton Sect. 2 pag. 501. Other Fathers and Catholike authors obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 3. pag. 507. Doctor Morton slaundereth Vrban Pope and with him all Catholikes Sect. 4. pag. 510. Doctor Morton obiecteth the Bull of Maundy-thursday Sect. 5. pag. 512. Other slanderous accusations of Doctor Morton answeared Sect. 6. pag. 514. The same matter prosecuted Sect. 7. pag. 517. CHAP. XXXIV Doctor Mortons doctrine condemneth the Saints and Martyrs of God pag. 522. S. Policarpe obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 1. ibid. S. Cyprian obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 2. pag. 523. S. Athanasius obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 3. pag. 525. S. Basils beliefe of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome proued and Doctor Mortons obiections answeared Sect. 4. pag. 528. Whether S. Hilary excommunicated the Pope Sect. 5. p. 533. S. Hieroms iudgment concerning the necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof Sect. 6. pag. 536. S. Ambrose his iudgment concerning the necessity of Vnion and subiection to the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 7. pag. 545. S. Augustines iudgment concerning the necessity of Vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof Sect. 8 pag. 552. S. Hilary B. of Aries acknowledged himselfe subiect to the B. of Rome Sect. 9. pag. 558. CHAP. XXXV Of titles attributed to the Pope p. 561. CHAP. XXXVI The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of ancient Fathers discouered pa. 571. Some of his answeares examined Sect. 1. ibid. Others of Doctor Mortons answeares to the Ancient Fathers examined Sect. 2. pag. 574 Doctor Mortons answeare to the testimony of Acacius examined Sect. 3. pag. 577. Doctor Mortons answeare to Vincentius Lyrinensis confuted Sect. 4. pag. 581. Doctor Morton in his answeare to Optatus contradicteth himselfe Sect. 5. pag. 582. Other vntruthes of Doctor Morton discouered his cauilling against the title of Holinesse giuen to the Pope Sect. 6. pag. 583. CHAP. XXXVII Of the authority of the Epistles of ancient Popes pag. 587. Of the Epistles of Popes liuing within the first 300. yeares after Christ Sect. 1. pag. 588. The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of Popes that liued in the second 300. yeares after Christ Sect. 2. pag. 592. CHAP. XXXVIII The vniuersall iurisdiction of the B. of Rome proued by the exercise of his authority ouer other Bishops pag. 600. The Popes vniuersall authority proued by the institution confirmation of Bishops And of the vse and signification of the Pall or mantle granted to Archbishops Sect. 1. p. 601. A shift of Doctor Morton reiected Sect. 2. pag. 604. The Popes power of instituting and confirming Bishops proued by examples Sect. 3 pag. 605. The Popes power of deposing Bishops without a Councell proued by examples Sect. 4. pag. 608. The Popes power of restoring Bishops without a Councell Sect. 5. pag. 611. Doctor Morton to Crosse the Popes authority in restoring Bishops deposed takes part with the Arians and iustifies their impious proceedings against S. Athanasius other Catholike Bishops Sect. 6. pag. 612. Other passages of Doctor Morton examined Sect. 7. pa. 618. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning excommunication And of Heretikes excommunicating the Pope Sect. 8. p. 621. Adrian and Nicolas Popes obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 9. pag. 623. Of the deposition of Flauianns Patriarke of Antioch Sect. 10. pag. 624. Doctor Morton in defence of his doctrine chargeth ancient Bishops which exercising Acts of authority out of the limits of their owne iurisdiction Sect. 11. pag. 631. CHAP. XXXIX Of Appeales to Rome decreed in the Councell of Sardica pag. 635. Whether the Councell of Sardica were a generall Councell Sect. 1. ibid. Other obiections of Doctor Morton against Appeales to Rome answeared Sect. 2. pag. 637. Examples of innocent Appellants Sect. 3. pag. 638. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the antiquity of appealing to Rome from remote nations Sect. 4. pag. 639. That S. Athanasius appealed to Iulius Pope and Theodoret to Leo as to absolute Iudges and that by their authority both of them were restored to their Churches Sect. 5. p. 641. That S. Chrysoftome appealed to Innocentius Pope as to an absolute Iudge and by his authority was restored to his Church of Constantinople Sect. 6. pag. 643. That Flauianus appealed to Leo Pope as to an absolute Iudge Sect. 7. pag. 648. Of Nilus equalling the B. of Constantinople with the Pope in his right of Appeales Sect. 8. pag. 650. The rest of Doctor Mortons Arguments against Appeales to Rome Sect. 9. pag. 653. CHAP. XL. Whether the Easterne Churches be at this day accordant in Communion with Protestants pag. 654. The state of the question Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Grecians of the primitiue and successiue times agreed in Fayth and Communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome and particularly at the Councell of Florence Sect. 2. pag. 655. That many of the Grecians at this day are of the Roman Communion and professe subiection to the B. of Rome Sect. 3. pag. 662. Of the Aegyptians Sect. 4. pag. 663. Of the Aethiopians Sect. 5. pag. 664. Of the Armenians Sect. 6. pag. 665. Of the Russians Sect. 7. pag. 666. Of the Aslyrians Sect. 8. ibid. Of the Antiochians Sect. 9 pag. 668. Of the Africans Sect. 10 pag. 669. Of the Asians Sect. 11. ibid. CHAP. XXXXI That in the forenamed countries there are no Christians that agree in fayth Communion with Protestants pag. 669. The Grecians which are not of the Roman communion are absolute Heretikes And Doctor Morton falsifieth Catholike Authors to excuse them Sect. 1. pag. 670. Of the Lutherans of Germany writing to Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople to be admitted into the communion of the Greeke Church and his answeare to them Sect. 2. pag. 674. A particular instance of Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople produced by Doctor Morton to proue that he dissented from the Roman Church examined Sect. 3. pag. 678. The Aegyptians Aethiopians Armenians Russians Melchites Africans and Asians which call themselues Christians and be not of the Roman communion are absolute Heretikes Sect. 4. pag. 679. CHAP. XXXXII. Doctor Mortons plea for his Protestant Church pag. 683. The small extent of the Protestant Church proueth her not to be the Catholike Church Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Protestant Church be free from error in doctrine Sect. 2. pag. 686. Doctor Mortons pretended purity of manners in his Protestant Church ect 3. pag. 687. That Protestants by Schisme haue diuided themselues from the Catholike Church Sect. 4. pag. 688. CHAP. XXXXIII Of the Head of the Roman Church compared to the body therof pag. 691. Whether it be matter of fayth that the Pope is aboue a Councell Sect. 1. ibid. Whether it be matter of fayth that this
those monstrous Titles wherewith you slaunder our Doctrine most fitly agree to your owne deliuered in your Grand Imposture But before I come to ioyne issue with you concerning the particulers it will not be amisse to examine briefly in generall whether the ancient Fathers and Doctors of Gods Church whom you acknowledge to haue liued vpon earth in the true fayth and now to be most glorious Saints in heauen were of your beliefe concerning the Roman Church or of ours for they being lights of the world (x) Math. 5.15 whom God hath raised in all ages and placed on the candlesticke of his Church to enlighten our wayes and deliuer vnto vs the true sense and meaning of his holy word that we may not be like children wauering and caried away with euery blast of heretical (y) Ephef 4.14 Doctrine I suppose that as there is no wiseman who will not desire to be rancked among them in the next world and to stand with them at the later day so there is none that will not desire to be in this world a member of the same Church and a professor of the same fayth which brought them to that happines especially knowing as we doe that there is bur one Church in which and one fayth by which meÌ„ may be saued for to thinke that so many men so eminently learned and that vsed so great meanes both of study and prayer to attaine to the knowledge of truth and of the right way to heauen haue all erred not liuing in the true Church which leades to saluation but in an erring Synagogue that leades to euerlasting ruine and damnation is a conceipt that I thinke no Christian and I am sure no prudent man can harbour in his brest which yet he must doe that will credit your Doctrine as the ensuing proofes will declare SECT II. Whether the Roman Church be truly called the Catholike Church and in what sense ALthough the Name of Catholike Church whether we regard the etimology or the most proper and vsuall acception of the word Catholike signify not any particuler Church but the Vniuersall spread ouer the whole world yet with-all it is true that euery particuler Church may in some sense be called Catholike for as euery particuler Orthodoxe man hath the denomination of a Catholike man because he professeth the Catholike fayth and is a member of the Vniuersall Church so for the same reason and in the same sense both the particuler Church of Rome and all others orthodoxall may be called Catholike Churches In this sense the Christians of Smyrna writing to the Churches of Pontus (z) Euseb l. 4. histor c. 14. addresse their Epistle To the Church of God at Philomelium and to all other the holy Catholike Churches throughout the world In the same sense Constantine (a) In Apolog 2. Athaâ—asij the Emperour calleth the Church of Athanasius The Catholike Church of Alexandria by reason of the Catholike fayth which it preserued entire whiles many other Churches of Aegypt were infected with Arianisme And so likewise (b) Cont. ep Fund c 4. S. Augustine with whom agree (c) Epist. 1. Pacianus and Cyrill of Hierusalem (d) Cateches 18. sayth that if a stranger come into a Citty infected with Heresy and enquire for the Catholike Church euen the Heretiks themselues will not direct him to any Church of theirs but to a Church in which Catholikes meete to serue God In this sense as other particuler Churches so also the Roman euen as she is a particuler Church limited to the Dioces of Rome may haue the name of A Catholike Church But when we say No man can be saued that is not a member of the Roman Church we speake not of the Roman Church in this sense for Catholikes of other Dioceses may be saued aswell as of the Roman but by the Roman Church we vnderstand the Vniuersall Church comprehending both that of the Roman Dioces and all other particuler Churches that professe subiection to her follow her Doctrine and imbrace her communion for all these by adherence to her and vnion with her make one mysticall body of Christ and one holy Catholike or vniuersall Church of which she is the Head and the rest members For the better vnderstanding of this we are to consider seuerall dignities vnited in the person of the Bishop of Rome He is Bishop Arch-bishop Patriarke and Pope As he is Bishop his iurisdiction is confined to the Citty of Rome and other townes within her territories of which the Roman Dioces consisteth As he is Archbishop he hath subiect vnto him some few others the chiefest of which is the Bishop of Ostia As he is Patriarke the extent of his authority is ouer all the Westerne or Latin Church And finally as he is Pope that is to say the Successor of S. Peter and the chiefe Vicar or Lieutenant of Christ vpon earth he is the supreme Pastor Gouernor of the whole Church of God which is vniuersally spread ouer the face of the earth wheresoeuer the name of Christ is known which therfore is absolutely and without limitation called the Catholike Church In regard of this transcendent authority of the Bishop of Rome he is rightly stiled Bishop of the Vniuersall or Catholike Church to whom therefore all the members of the Church aswell Pastors as people by the institution of Christ owe subiection and obedience And as he is the head and Father of all Bishops so the particular Church of the Roman Dioces is the head and Mother of all Churches Now that not only the particuler Church of the Roman Dioces but also the whole body of the Catholike or vniuersall Church consisting of the Roman as head and the rest as members is likewise rightly and in a true and proper sense stiled the Roman Church I proue out of S. Augustine saying (e) De percato orig l. 2. c. 17. that against the Pelagians not only the Councels of Bishops and the See Apostolike but also vniuersam Romanam Ecclesiam the whole Roman Church and the Roman Empire were most iustly incensed where by the Roman Church he vnderstands the vniuersall or Catholike Church spread ouer the world as by the Roman Empire he vnderstands the Empire of the Romans spread ouer the world And the same I proue by examples For when we speake of the Iewish people or the Iewish Church we vnderstand not the tribe of Iuda only but all the rest of the tribes that were ioyned therwith S. Iohn Baptist was of the tribe of Leui S. Paul of the tribe of Beniamin and that holy widow Anna mentioned by S. Luke (d) Cap. 2.36 of the tribe of Aser and yet they all are rightly called Iewes parts of the Iewish people and members of the Iewish Church by reason of their adherence to and communion with the principall tribe which was that of Iuda Likewise vnder the name of the Greeke Church are not comprehended the naturall Greeks only for
know and am able I desire to obey his ordinances in all things least peraduenture if I coming to the gates of the kingdome of heauen there be none to open vnto me he being offended with me that is knowne to keep the keyes So teacheth Aponius in his learned Commentary vpon the Canticles (q) In Cant. lib. 2. saying It is manifest to all the earth where the pasture of holsome doctrine was reuealed to Peter to wit when Christ asking he answered Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God c. These pastures the Iew sees not nor the Gentill nor yet any heretike whatsoeuer for they follow not that Pastor whom Christ the Prince of Pastors hath left as his Vicar in the world So teacheth Theodorus Studites a holy Abbot and very famous for his learning and constancy in maintayning the Catholike fayth against heretikes who with diuers Regulars his Collegues writing to Paschalis Pope among other titles calls him The (r) Ep ad Paschalem Papam chief Priest of Priests Pastor of the sheep of Christ Porter of the kingdome of heauen and Rock of the fayth vpon whom the Catholike Church is built And the Roman Church he (s) Ibid. calles The supreme throne in which Christ hath placed the keyes of fayth against whom the gates of hell which are the nouthes of heretikes haue neuer preuailed nor shall euer preuaile the fountaine of Orthodoxall truth the quiet hauen of the Vniuersall Church against all hereticall stormes the chosen Citty of refuge for saluation And els where speaking of the Heretikes of his tyme he (t) Ep. ad Naucrat sayth I protest here before God and man they are diuided from the body of Christ and the supreme See in which Christ hath deposited the keyes of fayth against which the gates of hell that is to say the vnbrideled mouths of heretikes haue neuer preuailed nor shall preuaile euen to the end of the world according to the promise of our Lord which cannot fayle And (u) In opere de cultu imag againe So great is the fayth of the Romans that there is seene to be the impregnable rock of fayth founded according to the promise of our Lord. These two later testimonies are set downe and highly commended by that learned Patriarke of Constantinople Gennadius Scholarius who addeth to them this verdict of his (x) In defens Concil Florent c. 5. sect 17. owne If that diuine See belieue not aright Christ lyes when he sayth Heauen and earth shall passe but my words shall not passe for in these words he promised his Church to be with her and that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her So teacheth Rabanus that learned Bishop of Mentz (y) Apud S. Thom. in Catena ad c. 16. Matth. Therfore Peter specially receaued the keyes of the kingdom of heauen and the Soueraignty of iudiciall power that all the faythfull throughout the world might vnderstand that whosoeuer in any sorte separate themselues from the vnity of his fayth and society can neither be absolued from the bonds of their sins nor enter into the gate of the kingdome of heauen And the same power of the Roman Church to shut the gates of heauen against all those that diuide themselues from her communion he expresseth againe in a Poeme which he writ in prayse of the holy Crosse to Gregory the fourth of that name The same teacheth Petrus (z) Baron anno 105◠Damiani a Bishop of excellent learning and of a most holy and austere lyfe that liued six hundred yeares since and was sent by Nicolas the second together with S. Anselme Bishop of Luca to Milan to extinguish the heresies of the Simonians and Nicolaits wherwith diuers clergy men of that Citty being infected to the end they might auoyd the correction and censure of the Roman Church pretended that the Church of Ambrose was free and not subiect to the lawes of the Pope of Rome for the cōfutation of which error Petrus Damiani made a learned oration in which he prooued effectually the supreme authority granted by Christ to the Roman Church aboue all Churches and that whosoeuer denies her authority is an heretike And this his Oration tooke so good effect that those licentious Clergymen abandoning their heresy submitted themselues to the Roman Church with promise neuer to depart againe from her Communion So teacheth S. Bernard who (a) In ep ad Innocent 2. writing against Schismatikes giueth this rule to distinguish between them and Catholiks Those that are of God are vnited willingly to Innocentius the true Pope And he that stands out against him either belongs to Antichrist or is Antichrist himself To omit the like testimonies of many other holy and learned Doctors so writeth our famous Arch-bishop of Canterbury (b) De Eucharist conc Boreng Lanfrancus that liued almost six hundred yeares since deliuering his owne and their Verdicts in these words worthy to be noted The Blessed Doctors if not in the same words yet in the same sense haue vnanimously taught in many places that euery man which dissenteth from the Roman and vniuersall Church in Doctrine of fayth is an heretike If therfore the Blessed Doctors those I say whom Protestants with vs acknowledge to haue liued and died in the true sayth and to haue bene members of the Catholike Church and lights of the world haue all agreed in this and these be their expresse Tenents faithfully deliuered in their owne words that whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church is to beheld as an Heretike of peruerse iudgment or as a Schismatike and self-liking presumptuous man That he which standeth out against the See of Rome neither is in the Church nor holds the true fayth That vpon necessity of saluation we ought to remayne as members in our Head the Apostolicall throne of the Bishop of Rome That if we imitate Christ we are as his sheepe to heare his voyce remayning in the Church of Peter That he who opposeth the Chayre of Peter is a Schismatike and a sinner That he agrees not with the Catholike Church That he is a prophane person That he gathereth not but scattereth That he is not of Christ but of Antichrist That he shall perish at the comming of the floud That he perisheth for thirst That a perfidious dissension hath separated him from the Communion of S. Peter That he is an Heretike and Antichrist That he can no way be partaker of the diuine mysteries That he is either Antichrist or a Diuell That in the next world he shall haue the entrance of lyfe shut vnto him That he is guilty of the heresy of the Acephalists That he gainsayth S. Peter the Porter of Heauen That he cannot be admitted into the gate of heauenly paradise That he is an Heretike speaking iniquity against Heauen That he cannot be loosed from the bonds of his sinnes That he either belongs to Antichrist or is Antichrist himself These be the very Tenents of
the most famous Doctors and Saints of God These M. Doctor the censures which not I but they inflict on your Doctrine And now I desire to know with what conscience you taxe this their and our doctrine as false pernicious impious Schismaticall Hereticall scandalous damnable blasphemous sacrilegious Antichristian c. Or with what title you goe about to defend your owne departure from the Roman Church and to persuade others that being out of her they are in state of saluation If you answer that you haue departed from the now Roman Church because she hath departed from the true fayth which the Roman Church anciently professed that 's an excuse common to all heretikes and can no more iustify you then it could the Pelagians the Donatists or other ancient Heretikes who would neuer haue departed from the Roman Church but vpon pretence that she had fallen from the true fayth And moreouer it is absolutely false for as the Fathers censure condemne all that are out of the Roman Church as incapable of saluation so shall you heare them (c) Chap. 12. sect 1. 2. constantly affirme and prooue that it is as impossible for the Roman Church to fall from that fayth which she once receiued from the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul as it is for the word of Christ to fayle or for Christ himself to be a lyer In profe of this truth I might yet further insist by other most forcible arguments but partly not to detayne the reader and partly because diuers of them shall be touched in the current of this Apology I will immediatly passe to the examination of your Grand imposture first in generall then in particular CHAP. II. Of Doctour Mortons manner of alleaging Authors in generall Num. 7 AMONG many vnworthy sleights vsed in other your workes and particularly in this your Grand Imposture one is to maske Protestants with the names of Our Authors and Our owne men and therupon to vrge against vs their testimonies as of Authors whose Doctrine we are bound to allow and maintaine Wheras you know right well that they are not our but your men and your owne Protestant brethren and that their workes are in particular and by name condemned and forbidden by the Roman Church Of this you haue bene formerly (a) By M. Brierley in the Aduertisment before his Protest Apology admonished and yet notwithstanding in this your Grand imposture you hold on your wonted course as confidently as if you neuer had bene admonished of your vnconscionable dealing therin Of this and other your like slightes I thought fit to giue the reader notice that before hād he might haue some tast of your manner of writing in generall the particulars wherof will more clearly appeare hereafter in their due places One of the Authors whom in your former workes you haue vrged against vs as a Catholike writer is George Cassander borne at Bruges in Flanders and a pestilent heretike as being infected not only with the errors of this age and with an other peculiar to himself against the holy Ghost but also with the old condemned heresy of Apelles and others that liued afterwards vnder Zeno the Emperor called Pacifiers which heresy of his hath bene learnedly confuted not only by Ioannes à Louanio a Catholike Diuine but also by your Grand-Maister Iohn Caluin in a speciall booke written against him And for these his Heresies he is by name censured and condemned as an heretike primae (b) In indice lib. prohib classis Of all this you haue bene particularly admonished by a learned Antagonist of yours (c) F. Persons in his treatise tending to mitigation pag. 238. seqq and since againe by M. Brierley (d) Loco cit wishing you in your future writings not to vrge against vs the testimonies of Cassander as being of an hereticall and condemned Author Who would not thinke this warning sufficient to stay the hand of any man that hath regard I will not say of honesty but at least of his owne credit And yet you without taking any notice at all of these Caueats confidently vrge in this your Grand imposture the testimonies of Cassander not once (e) Pag. 135. h. 389. o 400. b. 410. q. but often not as of an Heretike but as of a Catholike nor as of a Grammarian for he was no more but as of a graue and learned Diuine Can this dealing be excused With no lesse want of sincerity and conscience you alleage against vs Paulus Venetus (f) Pa. 382. m. a seditiour fryar of Venice burnt a few yeares since at Rome for heresy and diuers others whose workes you know to be expresly and by name condemned by the Catholike Church as 1. Nilus a Bishop of Thessalonica (g) Pag. 333. l. who besides his hereticall Doctrine against the Holy Ghost whom he holdeth not to proceed from the Sonne but from the Father alone was a professed enemy to the Roman Church and writ two speciall Treatises against the Popes supremacy and Purgatory and is therfore challenged for a Protestant by Illyricus and reiected by Bellarmine and all Catholike writers 2. Faber (h) Pag. 77. b. whose workes are censured and condemned by the Vniuersity of Paris as Illyricus testifieth and in regard therof he is claymed by him for a Protestant 3. Controuersiae (i) Pag. 163. l. 382. m. memorabiles 4. Acta Concilij (k) Pag. 34. q. 338. y. 382. m. Tridentini 5. (l) Pag. 361. b. 382. k. 336. c. 388. l. Fasciculus rerum expetendarum fugiendarum All which are workes of Protestāts deceiptfully set forth without names of authors and aswell they as Nilus prohibited by the Church A second sleight of yours is to cite as Catholike authors diuers others who if they were not absolute heretikes yet were tainted with erroneous and hereticall doctrines whose bookes are therfore iustly condemned and forbidden As first Beno (m) Pa. 388. l. a feigned Cardinall and a Schismatike who to become gracious with that sacrilegious and dissolute Emperour Henry 4. vnaduisedly and vntruly vttered certaine speaches in disgrace of Religion and the Apostolike See 2. Cornelius Agrippa (n) Pag. 85 u. 385. * who was no Diuine but a Lawier and a Magician from his youth as he himself professeth And though he was afterwards ashamed of what he writ in that kind yet his other booke De vanitate scientiarum which is the worke you cite by the very title well sheweth his arrogant presumption and is iustly condemned by the Church 3. Iosephus Scaliger (o) Pag. 37. marg fine a man not vnlike to Agrippa and a condemned Author 4. Franciscus Duarenus (p) Pag. 45. c. a lawier and as the most eminent Cardinall Peron (q) Repliq. Chap. 34. pag. 270. aduertised our late Soueraigne K. Iames a professed enemy to the Pope and Church of Rome 5. Nicolaus Augustus Thuanus (r) Pag. 85. x. 385. b. 389. u. 404. f.
Nilus Faber Cornelius Agrippa Erasmus Aenaas Siluius Cusanus and Polydore Virgill M. Brierley in the Aduertisement prefixed before his Protestant Apology hath giuen you in particular and by name speciall warning not to obiect them in your future wrytings against vs as being prohibited authors whose testimonies are of no more authority with vs then your owne Grand imposture or then the testimonies of diuers other Protestants whom in the same worke you alleage against vs. This may serue to giue the reader a taste of your manner of wryting in generall which how vnfitting a man of your place yeares and learning it is the ensuing Chapters will better declare CHAP. III. Whether the now Roman Church hath composed a new Creed Num. 8 YOVR first charge is a that the Roman Church in her Councell of Trent (q Pag. 3. by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth set forth for the confirmation of the same Councell hath composed a new Creed cōsisting of more then twenty articles of the now Roman fayth These your words contayne two vntruthes for neither hath the Councell of Trent composed any new Creed nor is there mention of any such Creed or articles in the bull of Pius set forth for the confirmation of that Councell Among other Bulls of his commonly annexed to the Coūcell there is extant a profession of the Catholike fayth to be made by all Ecclesiasticall persons that haue charge of soules and by all Doctors and professors of whatsoeuer Artand faculty of learning in which they oblige themselues by oath to obserue all the decrees of the Councell of Trent and of all other Oecumenicall that haue bene held in the Church of God and to anathematize all heresies condemned by them This profession you are pleased to call a new Roman Creed of more then twenty articles But if that be a Creed which consisteth of Articles you that haue composed and sweare to a new beliefe which your selues call The 39. articles are chargeable with a new Creed of your diuising But that we call the bull of Pius the fourth a Creed or the profession of our fayth contained in it Articles you cannot shew and therfore your tearmyng it a new Creed is a silly conceypt voyd of truth and a fit foundation for a Grand Imposture And no lesse vntruly you charge vs with adding in our Creed to the article of the Catholike Church the word Roman For that article of our Creed I belieue the holy Catholike Church is set downe without any such addition in all our Missals Breuiaries Primers and Catechismes And that which most of all declareth your cauilling is that in this very profession of our fayth set downe in two different bulls of Pius the 4. the Creed vsed by the Roman Church is read without any addition of the word Roman It is true that out of the Symbol of Creed when we explicate which is the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed we say it is the Roman Church which to be true appeareth euidently by the testimonies of antiquity out of which I haue already proued The Catholike Church and the Roman Church to be tearmes conuertible CHAP. IV. Whether the now Roman Church haue added any new articles to the Creed of the Apostles Num. 9 YOV say (a) Pag. 7. It is a doctrine acknowledged in our owne schooles that the Church hath no power to create new articles of fayth yet afterwards you set downe as our doctrine (b) Pag. 383. out of Philiarchus that the Church hath power to create new articles of fayth and that the contrary is one of Luthers Heresies These two propositions of yours I know not well how to saue from contradiction that I leaue to you In the thing it selfe there is neither difficulty nor difference of opinions among Catholikes for if by new articles of fayth you vnderstand doctrines newly reuealed as none but God can be the author of diuine reuelation so none but God can make articles of fayth and in this sense all Catholike Diuines agree But if by articles of fayth you vnderstand not new reuelations but such Verities as are contayned implicitly and virtually in the word of God but not as yet explicitly declared vnto vs so likewise all Catholike Diuines agree that the Church hath power to make articles of fayth that is to explicate and declare vnto vs some verities of fayth which before were not so clearly deliuered nor vniuersally receaued as such So she hath declared the epistle to the Hebrewes and that of S. Iames to be canoicall and as our learned Roffensis hath well (c) Ad articul 18. Lutheri obserued there are many things of which no question was made in the primitiue Church which yet doubts arising against them are now accleared by the diligence of posterity So in the first Councell of Constantinople the holy Ghost was explicitly declared to proceed from the Father and the Sonne So the three Creeds of Nice of Constantinople S. Athanasius adde by way of declaration many Verities which are not expresly but implicitly or virtually contained in the Creed of the Apostles And so likewise neither the celebration of Easter after the manner of the Roman Church nor the validity of Baptisme ministred by heretikes were of necessary beliefe vntill the Councell of Nice had declared them to be such In this sense the Canonicall law (d) Gloss in Extrau d◠Verb. signif tit 14. c. 4. expresseth that the Church hath power to make articles of fayth to wit by confirming and declaring them to the faithfull This power Luther denied to the Church and Pope Leo the X. in his bull against him condemned him for it But you to iustify Luther falsify Leo. Luthers assertion is this (e) Apud Bin. to 4. pag. 654. Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus non esse statuere articùlos fidei imò nec leges morum seu bonorum operum It is certaine that it is no way in the power of the Church or the Pope to appoint articles of fayth nor lawes of manners or good workes You to iustify Luther and traduce the Pope for condemning this his assertion leaue out the later part of Luthers article adde nouos in the middest and omit prorsus setting it downe thus (f) Pag. 383. Certum est ait non esse in manu Ecclesiae statuere nouos asticulos fidei Luther maintaynes as certaine that it is not in the power of the Church to ordayne new articles of fayth You cut of the later part of his article to conceale the impiety of his Doctrine denying the Church all power of making lawes either to reforme abuses or refrayne men from sinne by the practise of good workes And so likewise your leauing out of prorsus and putting in of nouos is to persuade your reader that the Pope condemned Luther for denying the Church power to coyne new articles of fayth that is to broach new reuelations which is an vntruth
here by the way I must aduertise you of a sleight which you often vse and it is that when in the explication of any point of Doctrine you finde diuersity of opinions among Catholike Diuines some speaking more probably or properly and others lesse you conceale the former and set downe the latter as here you do calling it the accordance of our owne Doctors and from thence frame arguments against vs as from a ground which we are not to deny But who seeth not this manner of arguing to be fraududulent For by denying that opinion or manner of speech as any Catholike may do such arguments need no solutions but of themselues fall to the ground For example I may refuse to allow the opinioÌ„ of those Diuines which say sinners are not members but partes of the Church I may also reiect Costerus his manner of speach tearming them superfluous humors and therby it will appeare that your obiecting these authors to proue that sinners are not members of the Church is an argument of no force especially since they differ not from other Diuines which hould wicked men and reprobats to be members of the Church really but only in manner of speach as hath bene shewed To the testimonies of Scripture you adde (m) Pag. 1â— some Fathers who so expresly condeÌ„ne your doctrine that no man but your selfe could be so inconsiderate as to make them patrons of it S. Ambrose teacheth and proueth out of S. Paul (n) 1. Tim. 2.20 that as in a great house there are some vessels of siluer and gold and some of wood and earth so in the Church there are some good and perfect signified by the siluer and gold and some bad and reprobate signified by the vessels of wood and earth And of this truth saith he I thinke no man to doubt The same Doctrine he like wise expresseth in other his workes S. Augustine whom in the second place you obiect condemneth your Doctrine in these words (o) Tract 6. in Ioan. We confesse that in the Catholike Church there are both good and bad the good are corne the bad chaffe The Church hath in her strong men and weake she hath iust and iniust (p) Serm. 107. de temp In the Church there are many reprobates mingled with the good and both of them are gathered as into a net and swimme together in this world without difference vntill they come to the shore where the euill shall be seuered from (q) De Ciuit. Deil. 18 c. 49. the good With S. Augustine accordeth S. Bernard prouing out of the same parable of the Net contayning good and bad fishes that in the Church militant there are iust men and sinners elect and (r) Serm de conuers ad cleriâ—os c. 17. eoist 11. reprobate S. Gregory sayth (s) Hom. 11. in Euangel That the holy Church on earth is rightly compared to ten Virgins of which some are wise and some foolish because in her the good are mingled with the wicked the elect with the reprobate These testimonies conuince that wheras you here confesse (t) Pag. 13. your Doctrine in this poynt to be one of the Tenents for which Iohn Husse was burned in the Councell of Constance you by making the Fathers guilty of the same Tenet do what you can to cast them into the same fier with him that so they may be burnt for heresy as he was The accusations you being against them to proue them guilty of Iohn Husse his heresy are First because S. Ambroses words say you are (u) Pag. 12. All that are in the Church fight for Christ intimating that the wicked fight against Christ. Why do you wrest S. Ambroses words to a false sense his words are Omnes qui sunt in Ecclesia Deo militant which signify nothing els but that all which are in the Church are Gods soldiars and fight vnder his colours But all that fight vnder Gods colours fight not as good soldiars many suffer themselues to be ouercome and lose that crowne which no man shall gaine but he that ouercometh These are the reprobats of whom it is true that albeit for the present many of them be in gods campe which is his Church yet before their death they shall runne away as Iudas did and be damned with him Out of S. Augustins worke de Genesi ad literam c. 2. you obiect these words (x) Pag. 12. The Catholike Church is so called because it is in euery part perfect But S. Augustine in that place hath no such words And you are very forgetfull for a litle before you told (y) Pag. 9. vs out of S. Augustine that to hold the Catholike Church here vpon earth to consist of them that are perfect was the heresy of the Pelagians And yet now speaking of the same Church you set downe as S. Augustins words that the Catholike Church is so called because it is in euery part perfect which is to make S. Augustine say and vnsay as you doe but the truth is that these later words are not his but yours and so the contradiction must rest vpon you not vpon him In like manner you say (z) Pag. 12. that the Church of Christ consisteth only of the predestinate and sanctified elect of God But els where you tell vs (a) Pag 340. that the Aegyptians Aethiopians Armenians Russians and others among whom there are some guilty of some fundament all heresies are partes of the Catholike Church and in state of saluation And againe both in this Grand Imposture (b) Pag. 330. and in your Treatise of the kingdome of Israel in the Tract of the Church (c) Sect. 4. pag. 8. your Tenet is that those who professe Iesus Christ to be the Sauiour of the world although they do indirectly by wickednesse of life or heresy in doctrine deny their owne profession yet are they to be accounted Christians true members of the Church consist only of the predestinate and sanctified elect of God how can it be verified that heretikes are true members of the Catholike Church since it is the constant Doctrine of S. Augustine and all the fathers that heretikes are wholy out of the Church and neither sanctified nor predestinate but miscreant reprobates and out of the state of saluation Your doctrine therfore is that the Church consisteth of the sanctified and predestinate only and yet withall that it consisteth also of Arians and other heretikes who are damnable reprobates Reconcile these two Againe you Protestants esteeme your selues to be all true members of the Church yet among you there are some drunkards adulterers vsurers and theeues If therfore you be all in the number of the sanctified and elect of God some of you be strange Saints But to returne to your obiections out of S. Augustine the other two testimonies which you (e) Pag. 12. lit 0. bring are nothing to your purpose for he only sayth that the predestinate cannot be seduded nor diuided
not to remoue it from thence or whether without any commandment from Christ he chose Rome for his See out of his owne free election as he might haue chosen Milan or any other city That he had such a command from Christ is affirmed learnedly proued by (u) De triplici virt Theol. d. 10. sect 3. n. 10. Suarez (x) L. 2. de Pont. c. 12. Bellarmine (y) Institut mor. part 2. l. 4. c. 21. §. Secunda sent Azor and by the greatest part of Catholike Diuines with many forcible testimonies of antiquity According to this opinion which is the more probable pious learnedly proued by Suarez it followeth that the Roman Church euen as Roman is by Diuine institution the See of S. Peter and his Successors and that therfore it is not left free for them to remoue their See from Rome to any other place But to giue you your greatest aduantage be it that S. Peter receaued no such commandment from Christ but that it was free for him to chose for his See either Rome or any other Citty and that his successors may also freely transferre their See from Rome Yet this affoards no help to your cause for though according to this opinion it be no matter of fayth that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman be the Catholike Church yet specificatiuè and absolutely it is for albeit S. Peter might haue placed his See els where yet it is matter of fayth that de facto he placed his See at Rome and that whiles his Successor continueth his See there the Roman Church is de facto the Head Mistresse of all Churches and that whosoeuer is not a member vnited to this Head is out of the Catholike Church This you should haue disproued but wilfully mistake the state of the question and because it is not matter of fayth but of opinion that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman is the Catholike Church you inferre that specificatiuè and absolutely it is not matter of fayth but only of opinion that she is the Catholike Church which is as good a consequence as that an Aethiopian absolutely is not a man because formally as black he is not a man With such arguments you delude ignorant Readers that want learning to discerne your sleights SECT V. Your fifth Argument YOur fifth argument to proue that the Roman Church is not the Catholike Church (z) Pag. 18.19.20 is because there was a Catholike Church which had Apostles Martyrs and Confessors blessed Saints of God before the Roman Church was founded yea and before the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed or the Apostolicall Creed it selfe composed All this though it be granted as true is yet of no force against our Doctrine which is that S. Peter was ordained by Christ Pastor of his whole flocke and therefore Gouernor of the vniuersall Church from whence it followeth that whatsoeuer Apostles Martyrs Confessors or other faythfull liued in the Church of Christ after S. Peter was made Head thereof were members of the vniuersall or Catholike Church subiect to Peter though for a tyme there were no one particular Church which was head of al Churches because S. Peter as yet had not made choyce of any particular seate as afterwards he did at Antioch and therfore the Church of Antioch whiles he sate there was the Head and Mother Church to whom all other Churches were bound to professe vnion and obedience In regard wherof that Holy Pope Innocentius the first greatly commended by S. Augustine (a) Epist. 18. Alexand. Episc Antioch sayth that the See of Antioch had not giuen place to the See of Rome but because what Antioch obtayned only by the way Rome obtayned absolutely and finally To which I adde that if the Successor of S. Peter should now remoue his See from Rome to Milan as S. Peter did from Antioch to Rome not the Church of Rome but that of Milan should be the Catholike Church as the Head and Mother Church of the world But because by the prouidence of God S. Peter fixed his seat left it to his Successors at Rome whiles they continue it there the Roman Church by reason of his See is the Head Mother Church of the world to which sayth (b) L. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus all Churches and all the faythfull from euery place are of necessity to agree by reason of this her more powerfull principality I conclude therfore that you ignorantly or wittingly mistake the state of the question for the Roman Churches being or not being the Catholike Church as the Head and Mother Church of the world no way dependeth on her being founded before or after the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed but vpon being the See in which S. Peter Prince of the Apostles liued and dyed and which he left to his Successors for the Bishop of that See being S. Peters Successor succeedeth him in his supreme authority and that authority maketh the Roman Church the Head of the world which dignity it hath euer enioyed since S. Peter sate there and shall enioy whiles his Successor continueth there which shal be to the end of the world To haue spoken to the purpose you shold haue proued that the Saints which departed this life before the Roman Church was founded were separated from the communion of S. Peter and from the Church of which he was Head which if they had bene they had no more bene Saints then you now are SECT VI. Your sixth Argument YOur sixth Argument is a mere sophisme Al Catholike Diuines accord as in a matter of fayth that the Catholike or vniuersall Church (c) Pag. 20.21.22 mentioned in the Apostles Creed hath a prerogatiue of continuing in the true fayth vntill the end of the world according to Christs promise made to S. Peter Secondly and that the Roman Church whiles the Successors of S. Peter continue their seate at Rome cannot fayle in fayth But that S. Peter fixed his seat at Rome by the commandement of Christ there to remaine to the end of his life and in his Successors to the end of the world although it be a most pious and probable opinion held by the greatest and best part of Diuines yet it is not expresse matter of Fayth because no such precept of Christ appeareth in Scripture or tradition and therfore some Diuines stick not to grant that the fixing of S. Peters See at Rome was a thing proceeding merely from his owne free will and election consequently that it is in the power of his Successors to transport it from Rome to Antioch or any other City In which case as Rome shold not then be the See of S. Peter but Antioch so neither should the Bishop of Rome be the supreme Gouernor of the whole Church nor the Church of Rome the Catholike Church as the Head and mistresse of all others as now
Peter And againe those letters were not of Orthodoxe Bishops but of the Arians assembled in their false Councell at Antioch who with an hereticall pride stomaked at the Authority of the Bishop of Rome because as Sozomene there reporteth by the dignity and prerogatiue of his See he had restored to their Church Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria Paul of Constantinople and other Catholike Bishops whom they had deposed and rebuked them sharply for their vniust proceedings against them But yet their writing was more tolerable then yours for though to magnify themselues they alleaged that the Doctors of Christian Religion came first from the East to Rome yet withall they acknowledged (m) Sozom. ibid. that the Roman Church obtayned the prize of honour from them all as hauing bene from the beginning the Metropolitan of Religion A truth which you here conceale and euery where deny But you tell vs (n) Pag. 29. 30. that Bellarmine groundeth the motherhood of the Roman Church on a false principle taken out of the counterfeit epistles of Anacletus which is that all the Apostles had their Episcopall ordination of Pastorship from Peter which principle is denyed by Azor and Suarez Heere you speake vntruly and contradict your selfe for as you confesse (o) Pag. 38. Bellarmine groundeth the monarchie of S. Peter vpon those words of our Sauiour Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock will I build my Church c. And on the same passage as also vpon those other words Iohn 21. feed my lambes feed my sheepe by which Christ made him Pastor of his whole flock not only Bellarmine but all Catholikes with the ancient Fathers ground their beleefe of the Monarchy of S. Peter and of the vniuersall authority and motherhood of the Roman Church Wherfore Bellarmine here alleaged by you out of those passages of Scripture supposeth the supremacy of the Roman Church as vndoubted matter of fayth and from thence inferreth probablie as a singular priuiledge of S. Peter that all the Apostles had theyr Episcopall ordination from him and proueth the same not only out of the epistle of Anacletus which you are pleased (p) Pag. 29. 34. to call counterfeit and bastardly grounding your selfe on the testimony of Cusanus in a prohibited worke and which you know he himselfe hath retracted but out of the expresse testimonies of S. Cyprian of Innocentius the first in his epistles to the two Councels of Carthage and Mileuis of Iulius the first and Leo the Great all which you imposterously conceale This deduction of Bellarmine though it follow probably yet not so necessarily that the authority of the Roman Church any way dependeth theron And therefore other learned Diuines and in particular Azor and Suarez who no lesse firmely beleeued the Roman Church to be the mother of all Churches then Bellarmine did are herein of a different opinion from him holding that the Apostles were not ordayned Bishops by Peter but immediatly by Christ himselfe which say you (q) Pag. 29. 31. they mantayne vpon the oracles of God out of direct Scriptures accompanied with the consent of S. Augustine and many other Diuines And because you would haue vs beleeue that in their opinion none of the Apostles were ordayned by Peter you set downe in a different letter these words as theirs (r) Pag. 30. mitio Mathias had his ordination to the Bishoprick which Iudas lost not by the hands of Peter but by lot immediatly from God and S. Paul his not by S. Peter but by a voyce from Heauen euen immediatly from Christ. But your dealing is insufferable for these words are not theirs but feigned by your selfe and falsly fathered on them And as the words are not theirs so nether is the Doctrine for when they say The Apostles were ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ they speake not of Mathias and Paul but only of those twelue which Christ called and conuersed with in his life tyme as Suarez expressly declareth (s) De trip virt Theol. disp 10 sect 1. n. 7. prouing withall that both Mathias and Paul were not ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ but by the Apostles s their imposition of hands which also for as much as concerneth S. Paul he confirmeth with the testimonies of S. Chrysostome and S. Leo. Againe whereas you say they mantayne that the Apostles were ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ out of direct Scriptures accompanied with the consent of S. Augustine you cannot be excused from an vntruth for albeit Suarez in proofe of his opinion alleage the glosse vpon those words of the Apostle God placed in his Church first Apostles c. yet he neither vrgeth these words of S. Paul nor any other text of Scripture to that purpose nor any testimony of S. Augustine sauing one out of the booke of Questions of the old and new Testament which you ought not to regard because when it is alleaged against you you reiect it with contempt (t) Pag. 50. marg as hereticall contrary to S. Augustine but because you conceaue that here it makes for your purpose you will haue it to be S. Augustines So inconstant and contradictorious are you to your selfe And I must here also aduertise you of your absurd manner of arguing whiles you frame a syllogisme (u) Pag. 30. fin 31. assuming for your Maior proposition out of Bellarmine that all the other Apostles were ordayned Bishops by S. Peter and out of Suarez Azor for your Minor that all the other Apostles were not ordayned by S. Peter which being two contradictories as there is no man so senselesse that wil defend two opinions playnly contradictory so there is no man so foolish that will grant both the premises of this your syllogisme which yet he must do that will allow your argument to be good He that will defend Bellarmines opinion will deny your Minor and he that will hold with Azor and Suarez will deny your Maior and so your consequent in both the opinions is false for what els can a consequent be that is inferred out of two premises contradictory to themselues Moreouer you say (x) Pag. 34. fine 35. The nation of Brittayne by our owne accounts receaued the Ghospell Cardinall Baronius and Suarez acknowledging thus much out of most ancient records by the preaching of Ioseph of Arimathia in the 35. yeare of Christ two yeares before Peter did found the Church of Antioch where he was seated 7. yeares before he founded the Church of Rome that is to say in Brittany was planted a Church nine yeares before there was any Church in Rome and hereby so much her elder sister So you not without ignorance and falsehood for you set downe this acknowledgment in a different character as the words of Baronius and Suarez which yet are not theirs nor of any of the other authors whom you name but your owne fiction They indeed acknowledge that Ioseph of Arimathia came into Brittany but that his coming
was the 35. yeare of Christ before S. Peter founded either the Church of Rome or of Antioch is your addition falsly imposed on them For though according to the computation of Baronius Lazarus with his sisters Mary and Martha were driuen out of Hierusalem in the 35. yeare of Christ and together with Ioseph of Arimathia by the prouidence of God came to Marsils in France yet nether Baronius nor Suarez nor any one of the authors ancient or moderne which you obiect sayth that Ioseph planted that yeare a Church in Brittaine You name Gildas but he neither mentioneth Ioseph of Arimathia nor saith that Christian religion was planted in Brittaine in the tyme of Tiberius Caesar as you by misplacing his words make him say but speaketh of the great calamities and desolation of that Iland caused by the warres which the Romans made vpon the Brittans not in the tyme of Tiberius nor of Caius for in their tymes the Romans had no warres with the Brittans but of Claudius in the third yeare of whose Empire those warres began and continued 40. yeares togeather vntill the tyme of Domitian Interea c. In the meane tyme sayth (y) In epist de excidia Britan c. 6. Gildas that is during those warres there appeared and imparted it selfe to this cold Iland more remote from the visible sunne then other Nations that true and inuisible sunne which in the tyme of Tiberius Caesar had manifested himselfe by the fame of his preaching and miracles to the whole world I meane Christ vouchsafed to impart his precepts Gildas then is wholly against you for although he say that in the tyme of Tiberius Caesar Christ manifested himselfe and imparted his precepts to the world yet he discribeth the first planting of Christian Religion in Brittaine not in the tyme of Tiberius but of the Roman warres in tyme of Claudius by occasion wherof there was continuall going and comming from Rome to Brittaine and as Christian Religion was then planted did daily increase in Rome so from thence it was also kindled in Brittaine especially there being many Brittains at that tyme inhabiting in Rome some for their pleasure some to flye the warres and vnquiet state of their owne Countrey and some taken by force and caried thither for hostages as Caractacus King of the Silures and much Nobility with him as Cornelius Tacitus reporteth (z) Annal. l. 12. And from hence it is that Holin shead (a) In descrip Britan. to 1. c. 9. and Cambden (b) In sua Britan. p. 162. Protestant historians affirme that one Claudia Ruffina a noble Brittish Lady wyfe to Pudens the Senator and the first hostesse of S. Peter in Rome sent from thence diuers bookes and messages to her frendes in Brittaine and was therby a great helpe to their conuersion To which I add that S. Peter being come to Rome in the second yeare of Claudius to teach and conuert the Western parts of the world when all the Iewes were by publike proclamation banished from Rome he tooke that occasion to goe into France and preached the Ghospell to the French and from thence passing into Brittaine as Metaphrastes (c) Apud Sur. die 23. Iun. pag. 862. out of Greeke antiquities recordeth preached founded Churches and ordained Priests Deacons there which is also testified by that famous holy Pope Innocentius the first saying (d) In epist. ad Decen The first Churches of Italy France Spayne Affrica Sicily and the bordering Ilands were founded by S. Peter or by his Schollers or successors Which caused Guilielmus Eysengrenius (e) Cent. 1 p. 7. d. 8. to affime that the first Christian Churches of England were founded by S. Peter And finally S. Peter himselfe appearing to a holy man in the tyme of King Edward the Confessor shewed him how he had preached in England and the care he had of that Church and Nation as Alredus Rhieuallis (f) Apud Sur. 5. Ianuar. pag. 131. left written 500. yeares since And from that care it proceeded that as Dorotheus (g) In Synopsi Mirmanus (h) In theâ—â—ro de conuers gent. pag. 4â— and Baronius (i) Martyrol 15. Martij out of the Greeke Martyrologe affirme Aristobulus his disciple and a knowne Christian in Rome was sent by him into Brittaine and there made Bishop By all which it appeares that the Brittish Church was not first founded by Ioseph of Arimathia the 35. yeare of Christ in the raigne of Tiberius but by S. Peter in the time of Claudius after he had founded the Church of Rome placed his seat there and consequently that the Church of Rome is most truly and properly Mother of the Church of Brittaine not only by reason of the second conuersion of our nation by Fugatius and Damianus sent by Eleutherius the 13. Pope after S. Peter and also of the third conuersion by S. Augustine and his companions sent by S. Gregory the Great whom therfore Bede calleth the Apostle of England but also in respect of the first preaching and founding of a Christian Church in this Iland it hauing bene wrought by S. Peter his disciples other Roman Christians cooperating therto And so much the more if it be true that S. Paul assisted S. Peter therin going from Rome into Brittaine to preach as Theodoret (k) In psal 106. l. 5. de curandis Graec. affect Sophronius (l) Serm. de Natali Apost Venantius Fortunatus (m) In carm and others affirme As for Ioseph of Arimathia his comming into England I grant it to be true though it be not affirmed by any ancient writer but only by Capgrauius Polydore Virgil other late historians Tradition is sufficient to confirme me in the beliefe therof Yet withall it is certain that he came not the yeare of Christ 35. as you without any proofe at all suppose but hauing come out of Iury into France with S. Mary Magdalen and her company after he had liued there sometime and seene her great austerity of contemplatiue and solitary life and rigor of pennance which she vsed went ouer into Brittaine either sent by S. Peter or by his owne free election And though it be likely that by preaching the Ghospell he increased the number of Christians in the Brittish Church yet the chiefe intention of his comming was to begin that kind of solitary and heremiticall life which he had seene practised by S. Magdalene in France as Cambden (n) In descrip Brit. pa. 162. obserueth Ioseph sayth he and his companie did take vpon them a solitary life that with more tranquillity they might attend to holy learning and with a seuere kind of conuersation exercise themselues to the bearing of Christs Crosse From hence it followeth that the Roman Church is Mother to that of Brittaine not only by reason of the supereminent authority and power which she hath ouer her aswell as ouer all other Churches of the world but also in antiquity she being planted
before there was any Church at all in Britaine and most especially because she begot and founded the Brittish Church Wherfore with great reason K. Henry the eight confesseth (o) Lib. de 7. Sacram. contra Luther art 2. that all the Churches of the faythfull acknowledge and reuerence the most holy See of Rome for their Mother And our late Soueraigne K. Iames of famous memory in the Summe of the conference before his Maiesty affirmeth (p) Pag. 75. that the Roman Church was once the Mother Church and consequently that as well the Church of Brittaine as all others were her daughters which right she being once possessed of cold neuer lose vnlesse you will make false the words of Christ who promised that the gates of hell which are false and hereticall Doctrines shall neuer preuaile against her Lastly I will not omit to put you in minde of two other slâ—ights The one is that wheras you know all antiquity to haue belieued and left expressed in their workes that the Roman Church is The head and Mother of all Churches and that it were not difficult if needfull to set downe their testimonies in their owne words you mention no other authority for our beliefe of that truth but the late Councell of Trent The other is that you runne on in your owne mistake calling it in vs a mad point of genealogizing to conclude that Rome must be mother to those Daughters of S. Peter which were begotten 7. yeares before she was borne and which therfore you call (q) Pag. 31. 36. Mothers grand-mothers and Aunts to her If by motherhood you vnderstand antiquity of tyme though it were indeed a mad point of Genealogizing to call the Roman Church Mother in respect of any Church that was founded before her yet in this very sense of Motherhood it is false that the Roman Church is a daughter to the Brittish for the Brittish was founded after the Roman But you know that by Motherhood we vnderstand superiority and iurisdiction and therfore as it were a mad manner of arguing to inferre that Caesarea in Palestine is not Superior in iurisdiction and mother to the Church of Hierusalem after which she was founded so it is in you to inferre that the Roman Church is not superior in iurisdiction and Mother to all Churches because she was founded after some of them CHAP. VII S. Peters Primacy defended TO proue that S. Peter was not of the now Roman fayth coÌ„cerning his owne primacy you (r) Pag. 38. seqq obiect those words of our Sauiour Mat. 16. vpon this Rocke for in them say you (s) Pag. 38. the fayth of S. Peter did not conceiue any Monarchicall or supreme iurisdiction promised vnto himselfe by Christ The natiue obuious and true sense of these words of Christ deliuered by the agreeing coÌ„sent of ancient Fathers Councels and all Orthodoxe writers is that Christ spake them to Peter in reward of that admirable confession of his fayth wherby he proclamed Christ to be The Sonne of the liuing God made him an impregnable Rock and promised to build his Church vpon him as vpon a foundation so firme and immoueable that the gates of hell which are errors and heresies should neuer preuaile against it This sense you cannot disgest therfore seek to elude it by abusing and falsifying the Fathers and other expositors For the better vnderstanding hereof it is to be noted that wheras you alleage some Fathers affirming that the rock on which Christ promised to build his Church is the fayth and confession of Peter and others saying that it is Christ himselfe these their expositions are no way contrary either in themselues or to our Doctrine for as Bellarmine (t) L. 1. de Pont. c. 10. §. Nemo dubitat obserueth no man doubts but that Christ is the chiefe foundation of the Church and that so much may be gathered out of these his words for if Peter be a secondary foundation supplying the place of Christ on earth it followeth that Christ himselfe is the first and chiefe foundation or as S. Augustine (u) In Psal 86. and S. Gregory (x) L. 28 Moral c. 9. call him Fundamentum fundamentorum The foundation of foundations Agayne they are not to be vnderstood of the person of Christ abstracting from the Confession of Peter but including it as the obiect confessed nor of Peters confession abstracting from Peter himselfe but including him as the person that confesseth Wherfore the sense is that Christ promised to build his Church vpon himselfe confessed by Peter or which is all one vpon Peter confessing Christ and for the confession he made of Christ Which to speake in the Schoole language is to say that Christ built his Church causally vpon Peters confession and formally vpon his person because that excellent confession of Peter was the cause which moued Christ to chose Peters person for the foundation of his Church The confession of Peter sayth S. Hilary (y) Cau. 16. in Mathaeum hath receaued a worthy reward declaring what reward it was he addeth O in the title of a new name happy foundation of the Church and worthy stone of her edifice O blessed Porter of Heauen c. And againe (z) Lib. e. de Trim. This is he that in the silence of all the other Apostles beyond the capacity of humane infirmity acknowledging the sonne of God by the reuelation of the Father merited by the Confession of his fayth a supereminent place 2. S. Basil (a) L. 2. Cont. Eunom Because Peter excelled in fayth he receaued the building of the Church on himselfe 3. S. Ambrose (b) Serm. 47. Peter for his deuotion is called a rock and our Lord is called a Rock for his strength he rightly deserueth to be a partaker in the name that is partaker in the worke for Peter layd the foundation in the house 4. S. Hierome (c) In cap. 16. Math. Because thou Simon hast said to me Thou art Christ the Sonne of God I also say to thee not with a vayne or idle speach that hath no effect for my saying is doing therfore I say to thee Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And againe (d) Ibid. He rewardeth the Apostle for the testimony he had giuen of him Peter had said Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God His true confession receaued a reward c. 5. S. Chrysostome (e) In psal 50. Heâ—re what he sayth to Peter that Pillar that foundation and therfore called Peter as being made a Rock by fayth 6. Theophilact (f) Ad cap. 1â— Math. Our Lord rewardeth Peter bestowing on him a singular fauour which is that he built his Church vpon him By these testimonies of Fathers it appeares that to say Christ built his Church vpon the confession of Peter is not to deny that he built it on the person of Peter but to expresse the cause for
which he built it on his person Euen as when we say The valor of a Captaine got the victory we say it not to signify that his valor in abstracto got the victory without his person but to expresse the meanes wherby he got it And in like manner when S. Hierome and S. Ambrose (g) Ep. 61. Ad Pamma aduers error Ioâ—n Hierosol S. Ambros l. de fide resurrect said Not Peter but his fayth walked vpon the waters it was not to deny that his person truly and formally walked on them but to declare that the cause which made him walke on them was not the naturall vertue or actiuity of his body but the fayth he had giuen to the words of Christ And so likewise it is in our case for as these two propositions The fayth of Peter walked on the waters and Peter walked on the waters are both true but in a different sense for the fayth of Peter walked on them causally as being the cause why Peter walked and the person of Peter walked on them truly properly and formally So likewise are these two both iointly true though in a different sense The Church is built vpon the person of Peter and The Church is built on the fayth or confession of Peter because the primacy of Peters fayth confession was the cause which moued Christ to choose Peter for the fouÌ„dation of his Church rather then any of the other Apostles to that end he gaue him the name and solidity of a Rock that the gates of hell might neuer preuaile against the Church built on him In like manner when S. Augustine and other expositors teach that Christ is the Rock or foundation on which the Church is built their exposition differeth not from the former in substance but only in manner of speach for as Salmeron (h) Tom. 4. part 3. Tract 2. and Suarez (i) Defens fid l. 3. c. 11. n. 11. haue well obserued their meaning cannot be that the Rock on which Christ promiseth to build his Church for the future is his owne person formally considered as in himselfe both because on him it was already built from the tyme of his incarnation as also because he speaketh not to himselfe but to Peter saying Thou art Peter c. And therefore as when in the words immediatly preceding he called Peter by his owne name Simon the Sonne of Iohn he spake to Peter in particular so likewise he did when immediatly he added and I say to thee that thou art Peter that is a Rock and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And the same is yet made more euident by other profes which Bellarmine (k) L. 1 de Pont. c. 10. §. Primo pronomen alleageth Wherfore the sense is that Christ promiseth to build his Church on himselfe obiectiuely that is to say as confessed by Peter which exposition differeth not from the former and is expressly deliuered by S. Ambrose (l) In c. 3.1 ad Cor. in these words The true and approued sense is that the Church is built by God vpon Christ but yet as confessed by Peter and not by any other which is as if it were said vpon thee confessing Christ and vpon the confession which Peter made of Christ or vpon Christ confessed by Peter So S. Ambrose and so also S. Augustine saying (m) L. 1. Retract c. 21. Afterwards I expounded thus these words of our Lord Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church that it should be vnderstood to be built vpon him whom Peter confessed saying thou art Christ c. And that by this exposition S. Augustine intendeth not to deny the Rock meant by Christ in those words to be S. Peter is a truth that may not be denyed both because in that very place he sayth that This sense is celebrated by many in the verses of S. Ambrose saying The Cock crowing the Rock of the Church washed out his offence as also because he there affirmeth that in other places of his workes he had expounded those words not of Christ but of Peter as the rest of the Fathers do which exposition he recalleth not but leaueth to the readers discretion to choose which of the two he liketh best Let the reader chose sayth he (n) Ibid. which of these two senses is the more probable From whence it must needes follow that albeit he doubted whether of those two senses agreeth best to the words of Christ in that place yet of the truth to the thing it selfe to wit that Peter is the Rock on which Christ built his Church he neuer doubted If he had thought that to be a false sense he had done very absurdly in not recalling it but leauing to the readers choyce to follow eyther that or the other for it had bene to leaue it in his choyce to follow a true sense or a false an orthodoxe verity or an hereticall error which though you do yet none but such as you will presume S. Augustine to haue done By this it appeares that all those testimonies of Fathers Popes and other authors which you to make a florish heap vp in the foure first Sections of your fourth Chapter to proue that the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church is not Peter but the Confession of Peter or Christ for either of both will serue your turne so that Peter be excluded are impertinently alleaged for the meaning of them is that the Church is not built vpon Peter meerely as he was a weake man and abstracting from his confession of Christ but vpon him as confessing Christ and for his confession and in reward therof And so likewise it is built vpon Christ not excluding Peters confession but vpon him as confessed by Peter All which is euident out of those very Fathers and expositors which you produce for the contrary For they so fully and so vnanswerably auouch Peter to be the Rock on which Christ built his Church and you so certainly know it to be true that much against your will you are inforced vpon the rack of truth to confesse so much though you do it mincingly saying (o) Pag 42. We may not dissemble thus much that some Fathers doe expound by Rock Peter You should haue said All Fathers and all Councels which treat of that subiect and all Catholike expositors And I must intreat the reader here in prudence to consider how vnaduisedly you alleage Catholike approued authors against this truth which no vnderstanding Protestant will in his iudgment beleeue that any of them euer denyed it being a mayne and euen the greatest point of difference betweene vs and you and which being decided the rest would easily follow Wherfore it caÌ„not be but that you wrong the Catholike authors which you cite in fauor of your doctrine and the like you do to the ancient Fathers To examine euery particular were an endlesse labour for your falsifications for the most part consist
in a very few words cut off and dismembred from their contexture whereas to shew your finistrous dealing the whole context must be set downe as it lyeth Yet some of them I will present to the readers view by which he may make coniecture of the rest 1. You begin with Baronius saying (p) Pag 38. When Luther Caluin and others aduentured to expound this of Christ and of fayth in him as the Sonne of God your two grand Cardinals oppose What do they oppose The one say you speaking of Baronius opposeth his owne passion calling it impudent madnesse in Protestants to expound the Rock to signify Christ So you vntruly and sundry wayes abusing Baronius for in that very place (q) Anno 33. n. 19. seqq he expressly affirmeth Christ to be the Rock on which the Church is built and a little before (r) Anno 31. n. 24.25.26 he had professedly proued the same out of the Syriack in which our Sauiour spake and shewed by the testimonies of Fathers that as Christ is the primary Rock or foundation on which the Church is built so he communicated to Peter his owne name of a Rock and the honor of being next to himselfe the secondary and ministeriall foundation in the structure of his Church And as witnesses of this truth he alleageth Tertullian S. Basil S. Hierome S. Leo Hypolitus Opiatus expressly affirming that the name of Cephas signifieth a Rock and is the same that Petrus or Petra which he further proueth (s) Anno 33. out of the testimonies of S. Cyprian Tertullian Origen S. Epiphanius S. Hilary S. Hierome S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Cyril S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome S. Leo and of the Councell of Ephesus all of them affirming that Christ by Rock on which he was to build his Church vnderstood S. Peter And this they teach in as plaine and effectuall words as either Baronius or any Catholike liuing at this day is able to expresse And as Baronius citeth the words of these Fathers so he might of the rest for they were of the same beliefe as likewise all the generall CouÌ„cels which to auoid prolixity he omitteth but yet expresseth their doctrine in generall in these words All the Ecclesiasticall Orthodox writers that haue liued since the aforesaid Fathers alâ— the Synods that euer haue bene lawfully assembled in the hely Ghost haue no lesse constantly and ingeniously professed the same truth to wit that Peter is by Christ our Lord made the foundation of the Church By this it appeares how vntruly you say that Barenius opposeth his owne passion against the exposition of Protectants denying Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built since he confuteth it with the testimonies of all the Fathers of all generall Councels and of all Orthodox writers You by saying he opposeth his owne passion would persuade your readers that he had nothing els to say against their exposition but only to call it Impudent madnesse Whether he might not with reason haue called it so iudge your for what els can it be to deny that to be the true sense of our Sauiours words which all Fathers Councels haue professed to be the true and lawfull sense of them But you to haue a better colour of inueighing against Baronius say that he calls the exposition of Protestants Impudent madnes which is not true for he hath not the word impudent that 's your addition to his text 2. Hauing thus wronged Baronius you passe to Bellarmine saying (t) Pag. 38. that he to proue Peter to be the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church obtrudeth the consent of our owne schoole saying that by Rock it meant Peter it is the common opinion of all Catholikes He sayth so indeed but sayth he nothing els doth he not proue it out of twenty seuerall passages of the new Testament so expounded by the ancient Fathers Doth he not proue it out of the agreeing consent of the most famous Doctors aswell of the Greeke as of the Latin Church If this be to obtrude the consent of our owne schoole then your selfe being the iudge our schole consisteth not only of all the Catholikes of later ages but of Christ of his Apostles of his Euangelists and of the ancient Fathers of the Greeke and Latin Chuurch for all these Bellarmine alleageth These we acknowledge to be our schoole and from these maysters we haue learned our Doctrine And yours being contrary to this it is soon vnderstood out of what schole from what Maister you and your grand Tutors Luther and Caluin haue learned it 3. Hauing thus handled Baronius and Bellarmine you passe to Roffensis our learned Bishop of Rochester who in tyme of K. Henry the eight writ in defence of this Doctrine against Luther and sealed what he writ with his bloud Of him you say (u) Pag. 38. fin p. 39. he approueth the same exposition that Peter is the Rock on which the Church is built saying In this truth triumpheth as though it were as cleare as the Sunne which sunne-shyne we Protestants alas aur blindnesse cannot discerne but rather iudge that it hath bene and is mistaken by you for moone-shine through some defect in your faculties of sight So you taunting that learned Bishop and with him all Catholikes telling vs of his insultation but not without imposture for the insultation is not his but Luthers who though he bring nothing against this exposition as Roffensis sheweth foolishly insulteth vpon the Pope the ancient Fathers and all Catholikes for expounding Peter to be the Rock Adeste huc c. Come hither Pope sayth (x) Art 25. Luther and all you Papists melt and cast all your studies into one if perhaps yee be able to vnty this knot At least this authority stands victorious triumphant against you This insultation of Luther it is which Roffensis iustly retorteth on him Thou sayth (y) Adart 25. Luthert he to Luther vpbraydest these things to the Orthodox members of the Catholike Church and I will returne thee thine owne words Come hither Luther with all thy Lutherans cast all your studies into one and yet you shall neuer euince but that Christ foretold truth when he said he was to build his Churh vpon a Rock namely Peter This authority stands victorious against you and triumpheth and shall triumph ouer you And how true this speach of Roffensis is who knoweth not for in other Bishopricks euen in the greatest Patriarchall seates there haue bene many heretikes and not a few of them Arch-heretikes as in the See of Hierusalem Iohn the Origenist Salustius Arsenius Heraclius Hilarius In the See of Antioch Paulus Samosatenus Eulalius Euzoius Ioannes Domnus Petrus Gnapheus Macarius In the See of Alexandria Gregorius Sergius Cappadox Lucius Dioscorus Timotheus AElurus Moggus and others In the See of Constanâ—inople Macedonius Acacius Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus Petrus Aâ—astasius Anthymus Theodorus and others And who knoweth not that
affirmeth that Christ to reward his fayth built his Church vpon him 9. And no lesse deceiptfully you alleage (k) Pag. 39. g. the RomaÌ„ glosse (l) Gloss Decret part 1. d. 10. in Cap. Dominus no fler to proue that not Peter but his confession without any relation to his person is the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church for the glosse sayth Christ would haue his owne name of Petra a Rocke giuen to Peter c. therfore called him Petrus And the Chapter on which this glosse is made is taken out of an Epistle of S. Leo in which he not only affirme (m) Ep. 83. Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built but addeth that whosoeuer denyeth this truth is impiously presumptuous and plungeth himselfe into Hell To these and otherlike obiections out of the Fathers and other Catholike authors you ad some confirmations of your owne The first is None say you (n) Pag. 41. will deny but that there was meant in Peters Confession that matter which he confessed but Peter confessed not himselfe but Christ saying Then art the Sonne of the lyuing God Ergo his confession had relation to Christ and not to himselfe A false and senslesse consequence for euery confession hath relation not only to the matter as to the obiect or thing confessed but also to him that coÌ„fesseth as to the agent from which it proceedeth and therfore to inferre that when Christ answering Peter and rewarding his confession sayd vnto him Thou art Peter c. he meant not Peter but himselfe to be the Rock is as senslesse an inference as to say that when Thomas cryed out vnto Christ (o) Ioan. 20.28 My Lord my God and Christ in reward of his confession sayd (p) Ibid. vers 29. Blessed art thou Thomas he pronounced not Thomas blessed but himselfe which was the matter Thomas beleeued 2. You obiect (q) Pag. 42. fin 43. All the Apostles and Prophets are called foundations wherby is not meant their persons or dominions but their doctrines I grant that Christ S. Peter the rest of the Apostles and Prophets are foundations on which the Church is built Christ is the chiefe and primary foundation by his owne power and strength Of him the Apostle sayth (r) 1. Cor. 3.11 Other foundation no man can lay besyde that which is layd which is Christ Iesus whome therfore S. Augustine (s) In Psal 86. and S. Gregory (t) L. 28. Moral c. 9. call Fundamentum fundamentorum The foundation of foundations Besydes Christ the Apostles and Prophets are also secondary foundations of the Church for the Prophets by fore-telling Christ and the Apostles by preaching his sayth and doctrine vphold the body of the Church to wit the faythfull who therfore are called (u) Ephes 2.20 Domostikes of God built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner-stone and for this cause the wall of the Citty of the Church is sayd (x) Apoc. 1.24 to haue 12. foundations and in them the 12. names of the 12. Apostles Among these secondary foundations Peter hath the first and chiefest place The rest of the faythfull in respect of him are ordinary stones he an impregnable Rock as being built immediatly vpon Christ and the rest by meanes of him in regard wherof it was sayd to him alone and to no other of the faythfull or Apostles Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And therfore S. Augustine sayth (y) Serm. 15. de Sanct. Our Lord called Peter the foundation of the Church for which cause the Church with reason worshippeth this foundation vpon which the height of the ecclesiafticall edifice is raysed 3. You say (z) Pag. 42. that when the Fathers expound by Rock Peter they meane ether a primacy of order or honor or els a priority of Confession in Peter not of Authority and Dominion and the same you repeate afterwards saying (a) Pag. 110. The similitude of head and members hath no colour of superiority but of priority of place or of voyce And this reason you alleage (b) Pag. 41. why though the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake yet he alone answered as being the mouth of the rest I grant that Peter spake in the name of the rest but to inferre that therfore Christ when he answered Peter saying Thou art Peter made him not a Rock or promised not to make him the foundation of his Church is a Non sequitur I grant also that the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake that he answered as the mouth of the rest not because he had any Commission from them but because out of his great feruor he preuented the rest and spake for them as their head and Superiour as Christ somtimes did for all his Apostles (c) Math. 9.11 Luc. 6.2 and as the Rector is wont to answere in the name of the whole Colledge So sayth S. Cyrill of Alexandria (d) L. 4. in Ioan. c. 18. They all answere by one that was their Superiour And againe (e) Ibid. l. 12. cap. 64. when our Sauiour asked his Disciples whom doe you say that I am Peter as being Prince and head of therest first cryed out Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God So S. Cyrill of Hierusalem (f) Catech. â—â— All the Apostles being silent for this doctrine was aboue their strength Peter Prince of the Apostles and the chiefe preacher of the Church sayth vnto him Thou art Christ c. And in the same sense S. Cyprian (g) L. 1. ep 3. sayth Peter on whom our Lord built his Church speaketh for all in the voyce of the Church And S. Augustine (h) Serm. 31. de verb. Apost c. 1. Peter bearing the figure of the Church most feruent in the loue of Christ chiefe in the order of Apostles and holding the Princedome of the Apostleship often answers one for all And againe (i) Tract 124. in Ioan. That in his answere he bare the person of the Church for the primacy of his Apostleship and for the primacy which he had among the Disciples And whereas you to elude this exposition of the Fathers say (k) Pag. 42. 110. that when they expound by Rock Peter or pronounce him to be the head and Captaine of the rest they meane not primacy of authority and iurisdiction but of order or honor is a distinction that caries with it its owne confutation and shall be effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 1. hereafter CHAP. IX S. Peter exercised his Authority and Iurisdiction of supreme Pastor and Gouernor ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church TO disproue S. Peters authority ouer the other Apostles you obiect first (a) Pag. 45.46 that S. Gregory vpon those words of the Apostle (b) Rom. 9.12 I will magnify my office in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentils
and how great seuerity and zeale of iustice towards those that offend giues this fact of Peter as an example (s) L. 1. ep 24. From whence it is sayth he that Peter by authority from God hauing the Principality of the holy Church refused to be ouermuch reuerenced by Cornelius that did well but when he found the fault of Ananias and Saphyra he presently shewed how farre he was growne in power aboue the rest for he tooke away their liues with a word and shewed himselfe to be the chiefest in the Church against sinne And he addeth that Peters zeale in punishing declared the force of his power The same is deliuered by S. Bernard (t) Epist â—â—8 who speaking to Eugenius Pope of his power ouer the whole Church and in particular to depose Bishops when they deserue it sayth He that holds the place of Peter can with one blow kill Ananias and Simon Magus with another and to speake more plainly it belongs only to the Bishop of Rome to pronounce a peremptory sentence for the deposing of Bishops because though others be called to a part of solicitude yet he only hath the fulnesse of power c. How thinke you Doctor Morton whether is it fit that we belieue these renowned Doctors of Gods Church teaching vs that the sentence of death pronounced by S. Peter against Ananias and Saphyra was an act of his ordinary power and iurisdiction or you denying it 3. He exercised his authority vpon Simon Magus who witnes (u) L. 1. c. 2. l. 3. initio S. Irenaeus was the Prince and father of all heretikes The holy Apostle detected his wickednesse first at Samaria and excommunicated him (x) Act. 8.18 seqq and afterwards as S. Hierome (y) In catal script in Simone Petro. and Theodoret (z) Haeret. Fabul l 1. report went to Rome to oppose him and there condemned his Doctrine The Doctrine of Simons sorcery seruing the Angels sayth Tertullian (a) L. de Praescrip was reckoned among Idolatries and condemned by Peter the Apostle in Simon himselfe And S. Augustine (b) L. de haeres haer 1. At Rome the blessed Apostle Peter killed Simon the Magician by the true power of almighty God And Marianus with all the Regulars of Syria in their petition presented to the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas (c) Act. 1. God sent Agapete Pope of old Rome to Constantinople for the deposition of Anthymus and the fore-named heretikes as hereofore he sent great Peter to the Romans for the destruction of the sorcery of Simon And S. Bernard (d) Serm. 1. in die Potri Pauli What more powerfull then Peter who with the breath of his mouth ouertoke Simon Magus in the ayre and receaued the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen in so singular a manner that his sentence goes before the sentence of heauen And to declare that the power of Peter still liueth in his Successors he sayth (e) Epist. 138. He that holds the place of Peter can at one blow kill Simon Magus Nor was it voyd of mystery that the first Arch-heretike with his heresy shold be condemned at Rome by Peter where all the heretikes and heresies of ensuing ages were to be condemned by S. Peters Successors 4. He shewed himselfe to be Head and Prince of the Apostles in asking and answearing often-times in the name of them all When Christ exhorted the Apostles to perfection Peter answered for all (f) Math. 19.27 Behold we haue left all things and followed thee what therefore shall we haue And when some of the Disciples forsaking Christ he asked the rest will you also be gone Peter as representing the person of them all answered (g) Ioan. 6.58 O Lord to whom shall wee goe thou hast the words of eternall life Vpon which passage S. Cyrill writeth (h) L. 4. in Ioan. c. 28. It was not fitting they should answeare confusedly and therfore giuing example of wisdome and modesty to future ages they answere by one that was gouernor and greater then the rest And to another question of our Sauiour Peter answered sayth S. Cyrill (i) L. 12. in Ioan. c. 64. as Prince and Head of the rest The same is testified by S. Cyprian by S. Cyrill of Hierusalem and S. Augustine (k) See aboue nu 23. Now that Peters answering for all was an act declaratiue of his iurisdiction is proued by the example of Christ our Lord for as oftentimes the Deane because he is Head and Superior of the Chapter answereth for all the Canons and in name of them all so Christ because he was Head Mayster of all the Apostles in diuers occasioÌ„s answered for them The Pharisees demanded of them (l) Math. 9.11.12 Why doth your Mayster eat with Publicans and sinners Christ answered for them They that are in health need not a Physitian but they that are ill at ease And when the same Pharisees saw the Apostles plucking eares of corne on the sabboth day and asked them (m) Luc. 6.2 why they did so Christ answered for them defending their fact by the example of Dauid Wherfore as Christs answering for all the Apostles shewed him to be their Head and Mayster so Peters answering for the other Apostles declared him to be Mayster and Rector of the Apostolicall Colledge 5. Among the Christians newly conuerted at Antioch there arose a dispute whether the law of Moyses were to be obserued or no for decision of this doubt Paul Barnaby and some others went vp to Hierusalem to the Apostles and Priests and chiefly to S. Peter to whom as to the Head of the Church and supreme Iudge of Controuersies the resolution of that doubt chiefly belonged Wherupon S. Paul himselfe speaking of this his iorney sayth (n) Gal. 2.2 I went vp to Hierusalem c. And Theodoret (o) Epist ad Leon. Paul the preacher of truth and the trumpet of the holy Ghost ranne to great Peter to bring from him a resolution of such doubts as arising about the obseruation of the Law did minister occasion of strife to them that were at Antioch How much more need then haue we that are weake and contemptible to runne to your Apostolicall seat to fetch salues for the sores of the Church And S. Chrysostome (p) Hom. 87. in Ioan. sayth Paul went to Peter prae alijs aboue others and that by reason of his authority as S. Hierome expresseth (q) Ep. 11. ad Augustinum And S. Ambrose (r) In cap. 1. ad Gal. because our Sauiour had committed to him the charge of the Churches Nor did S. Pauls going to Peter and the other Apostles and Priests togeather with him any way derogate from this supreme authority as the bringing of a suite to the Parliament derogateth not from the supreme Authority of the King who is Head of the Parliament Wherfore Peter as Head of the Church for the determination of that doubt assembled a Synod
at Hierusalem (s) Act. 15.7 seqq which as it was the first Christian Councell so was it the pattern of all others that since that tyme haue bene held in the Church of Christ For from this Councell it proceeded and euer since hath bene the custome of generall Councells that the Pope presiding by himselfe or by his legates first declareth the fayth of the Roman Church all Bishops subscribing and condemning the contrary And this is done to the imitation of this Apostolicall Synod in which Peter spake first and the rest following him confirmed his sentence Paul and Barnaby by relating the great signes and wonders God had done among the Gentils by them and Iames both by shewing the sentence giuen by Peter to accord with the words of the Prophets and by giuing this verdit of his owne (t) Act. 15.19 I iudge that they which of the Gentils are conuerted to God are not to be disquieted c. These are the wordes which you obiect (u) Pag. 64. to proue that not Peter but Iames gaue sentence in the Apostolicall Synod but without ground for the word I iudge contaynes no definitiue sentence not expresseth any authority but only signifieth It seemes to me or my verdict is the contrary were to make Iames Superiour to Peter which no man euer said Besides that the definitiue sentence was giuen by Peter the ancient Fathers expresly affirme none of them so much as insinuating that is was giuen by Iames. All the multitude sayth S. Hierome (x) Ep. 89. ad Aug. c. 2. held their peace and into his Peters sentence Iames the Apostle and all the Priests togeather did passe And long before him Tertullian (y) L. de pudicitia In that controuersy of keeping the law Peter by instinct of the holy Ghost spake of the vocation of the Gentils And hauing set downe S. Peters words he addeth This sentence both losed those things that were omitted of the law and bound those that were reserued It was therfore the authority of Peter that did bind and lose in that Councell for which cause S. Hierome (z) Ibid. calls S. Peter The Prince or author of the decree And finally the sentence of Peter was confirmed and ratified by the whole Councell and sent to Antioch by Paul and others chosen to that purpose to the end they might publish it as an Ordinance of the holy Ghost 6. Peter exercised his pastorall function by promulgating the Ghospell both to the Iewes and Gentils To the Iewes for he first of all the Apostles vpon the very day of Pentecost immediatly after the receauing of the holy Ghost preached vnto them Iesus Christ (a) Act. 2.14 seqq and exhorting them to pennance at that one Sermon conuerted about 3000. soules He spake sayth S. (b) Ad cap. 2. Act. Chrysostome as the month of all and the other eleuen stood by approuing with their testimony what he sayd Peter also was the man that first preached to the Gentils and that by speciall Commission from God as he declared in the Councell of Hierusalem saying (c) Act. 15.7 Men brethren you know that of old dayes God among vs chose that by my mouth the Gentils shold heare the word of the Ghospell and beleeue And to this end when God sent Cornelius the Centurion vnto him to be instructed he shewed vnto him that maruelous vision (d) Act. 10 1◠which is described in the Acts of the Apostles to declare that the tyme of founding the Church among the Gentils was now come And by bidding him kill and eat he declared him to be the Head of the Church for eating is an action that belongs to the head Hereupon Peter out of hand preached the Ghospell to Cornelius and other his friends and kindred and baptized them (e) Act. 10.35 seqq Againe who but Perer foūded the Churches of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithinia in which Constantinople is who founded the Patriarchall seates of Antioch where the faythfull were first called Christians but Peter Who the other seates of Alexandria and Rome the one by S. Marke his Disciple and the other by himselfe but Peter For Christ according to his promise chose him to found his Church and as S. Ambrofe sayth (f) Serm. 47. first of all to begin it both amongst the Iewes and Gentils giuing him therby the same place in his Church which the foundation hath in a materiall building and by that meanes notifying his supereminent dignity vnto vs for as S. Chrysostome wisely obserueth (g) In cap. 2. Act. One thing it is to open a gate that is shut giue begining to a worke as S. Peter did and another thing to prosecute the same worke after it is begun as the rest of the Apostles did 7. Peter of all the Apostles wrought the first miracle after the ascension of Christ in confirmation of the Ghospell which he had promulgated curing a man that was lame from the wombe of his mother (h) Act. 3.7 which S. Ambrose interpreteth to be an act of his supreme Pastorall power the healing and consolidating the lame mans feete betokening him to be the firme and solide foundation of the Church Because Peter sayth S. Ambrose (i) Serm. 68. is the Rock on which the Church is built with great reason he first healeth the feete that as he holdeth the foundation of fayth in the Church so likewise in man he may confirme the foundations of his limbes It was Peter also that raised Tabitha from death (k) Act. 9.40 working that kind of miracle first before any other of the Apostles And that aswell in working these first miracles as by performing other admirable things in the first place before the other Apostles he exercised his iurisdiction and authority S. Chrysostome expresseth in these words (l) Hom. 21. in Acta Peter walking as a Captaine in his army did consider which part was vnited and well ordered and which wanted his presence See how diligently he runnes vp and downe and is found to be the first in euery place When an Apostle is to be chosen he 's the first When the Iewes are to be certified that the Apostles are not druncke when the lame man is to be cured when the Ghospell is to be preached he is before others When the Princes and Ananias are to be proceeded against and when cures are to be made by a shadow Peter is the man and when miracles are to be wrought he steps out first where there is danger and where gouerment is necessary there Peter is but when things are in peace and tranquility they are left to all the Apostles indifferently Lastly Peter by the iudgment of our Lord was appointed to feed his flock whē he said vnto him (m) Ioan. 2◠26.27 feed my lambes feed my sheep By lambes he vnderstandeth the faythfull people by sheep which are the dammes of the lambes the Bishops and other Pastors of the
this purpose where withall he sheweth that Caluin to auoyd the force of the former corrupteth the facred text The like is also gathered out of the other words of the same Prophet (n) Cap. 60.14 speaking of the great power and maiesty of the kingdome of Christ on earth which is his Church where he mentioneth this promise made vnto it The Children of them that humbled thee shall come crouching to thee and all that detracted from thee shall adore the steps of thy feet in which words is plainly foretold the adoration of the Church and of her visible head on earth an honor which Caluin vpon this very place confesseth not to exceed that which is due to the Church because it is giuen to Christ who is adored in the Church and Leo de Castro vpon the same text out of a very ancient record of the order of S. Benedict concerning the customes of the Catholike Church reporteth that Kings in ancient tymes going to the Synods of Bishops did prostrate themselues before them and kisse the ground not rising vntill the Bishops descending from their seats did take them vp in their armes and place them in thrones answerable to their Princely dignity To this purpose also make the testimonies of S. Hierome (o) Ep. ad Pammach aduers error Ioan. Hieroso who speaking of S. Epiphanius sayth A great number of all ages and sexes did flock vnto him offering their little ones and kissing his feet and of S. Chrysostome (p) Hom. 14. in priorem ad Timoth exhorting the people to prostrate themselues at the feet of the monkes kisse them Draw neare touch their holy feet for it is a far greater honor to touch their feet then to touch the heads of other men It was therfore in the puter tymes of the Church no disparagement to the greatest Princes to prostrate themselues either to the Pope or to Bishops or to other holy seruants of Christ and to kisse the hemms of their garments and their feet because as Alexander the great (q) Apud Ioseph do antiq l. â—1 〈◊〉 vlt. adoring Iaddus the high Priest of the Iewes knew and testified that he did in him exhibite that honor to God whose Priest he was so Christian Emperors and Kings when they adore the Pope kissing his feete do it to honor Christ in him to whome that honor redoundeth euen as the honor done to an Embassador redounds to the king his Mayster And as Princes by exhibiting this honor to the Vicar of Christ no way disparage their royall greatnesse so neither is the acceptance therof any note of pride in the Pope for he accepts it not for his owne sanctity or for any other personall quality as he is a priuat man but only for the publike authority and spirituall power which he receaueth from Christ and which properly and principally is of Christ who is honored and adored in his Vicar as Tertullian noteth saying (r) Vbi sup cap. 10. When thou castest thy selfe downe at the feet of thy brethren thou touchest Christ thou adorest Christ And therfore the Pope hath on his shooe a Crosse which the faythfull kisse to signify that they exhibite not that honor to him but in him to Christ whose person he representeth And finally wheras you obiect (s) Pag. 46 that S. Peter abhorred this pride when Cornelius prostrated himselfe vnto him I answere with S. Hierome (t) L. Aduers Vigilant that Cornelius conceaued Peter to be some God as the Lycaonians thought of Paul Barnaby and therfore prostrated himselfe to honor him with the supreme adoration of Latria due to God alone as it appeareth out of S. Peters answer to him (u) Act. 10.26 Arise for I also am a man This kind of adoration if any man should offer to the Pope he would admonish and forbid him as S. Peter did Cornelius But yet if it be granted that as some Fathers expound Cornelius adored not S. Peter as a God but as a man yet S. Peter with great reason forbid him for he adored him not in respect of Christ whose Vicar he was but in respect of himselfe and in like case the Pope would also forbid any man to adore him but he knoweth and so do you that the cause why Catholikes exhibit that honor to him is the excellent power giuen him by Christ or rather Christ himselfe gouerning his Church in his Vicar which adoration is good and pleasing to God both as it is exhibited by the faythfull and as it is admitted by the Pope Your fourth Obiection is (x) Pag. 46. that S. Peter had no Canon to direct the Apostles Syr the Apostles being guided by the holy Ghost needed no humane Canons nor constitutions for their owne direction But for the direction of all ecclefiasticall Pastors they made Ecclesiasticall Canons which S. Peter as their Head confirmed and deliuered by word of mouth to S. Clement his Disciple and Successor in the Roman See he committing them to writing left them to posterity as Canons of the Apostles I know that your Magdeburgian Centurists cauil against them as false suppositious but withall I know that diuers of those Canons are alleaged by many ancient Fathers by many Councells and confirmed by later Canons of the Church and inserted word by word into them as Franciscus Turrianus hath learnedly demonstrated x (y) L. 1. pro Canon Apostol vindicated them from the Magdeburgian calumnies Your fifth and sixth Arguments are (z) Pag. 46. that S. Peter made no clayme nor yet admittance of any appeale from the other Apostles no reseruation of any great case as by speciall prerogatiue due to himselfe to wit of admitting any out of the Dioces of another absoluing those that are excommunicated by another of Canonizing Saints of confirming Synods of granting plenary Indulgences c. Who seeth not the futility of these obiections For first the Apostles being confirmed in grace neither did nor could wrong their subiects in which case only Appeales are lawfull 2. I haue already shewed (a) Chap. â— that the resolution of that great case concerning the obseruation of the law of Moyses was reserued to S. Peter and that he resolued the same in the Synod of Hierusalem presiding in it and when the Pope personally presideth in a Councell there needeth no other confirmation 3. When Christ made Peter Head of his whole Church he gaue him power to bind lose throughout the whole world and therby power to excommunicate delinquents in whatsoeuer Dioces of other Bishops and likewise to absolue them from the guilt of sinne in the Sacrament of pennance as also to binde by excommunication and absolue from the same and finally to release the penalty due to sinnes by Indulgences out of the Sacrament for the power of binding and losing which he gaue to Peter he limited not to the Sacrament of Penance only But whether Peter exercised this power of excommunicating and pardoning by
his owne name of Shepheard and togeather which the name that power which he alone had to to wit of being Pastor of his whole flock what els S. Cyril saying (m) In l. thesau apud S. Thom. Opuse 1. that as Christ receaued of his Father the scepter of the Church ouer all Princedome and most full power ouer all that all be subiect vnto him so also he committed the same power to Peter and his Successors and that what was his he fully committed to Pâ—ter and to none els but to him alone what S. Leo affirming (n) Serâ—â— 3. dâ— Assamp sua that albeit in Gods people there be many Priests and many Pastors yet Peter gouerneth them all as Christ also doth principally rule them what Euthymius and Theophilact (o) In c. 21. Ioan. that Christ committed to Peter the charge and gouerment of his flock throughout the whole world what Oecumenius (p) Adc. 1. Act. that the gouerment of the Disciples was committed to Peter what S. Bernard (q) L. 2. de confiderat that euery one of the other Apostles receaued their seuerall ships but that Peter receaued the gouerment of the whole world and that to him was committed grandissima nauis that maruelous great ship to wit the vniuersall Church spread ouer the whole world and that to him the pastorall charge of the whole Church was committed Finally and what S. Eucherius that ancient Bishop of Lyons saying (r) In vigil S. Pet. Extat in Bibliothee Pat. edit Colon to 5. par 1 pag. 712. that Christ first committed to Peter his lambes and then his sheep because he made him not only a Pastor but Pastor of Pastors Peter therfore sayth he feedeth the lambes and the sheep he feedeth the yong ones and the dammes he gouerneth the subiects and the Prelates and is therfore Pastor of all for besyde lambes and sheep there is nothing in the Church What thinke you Doctor Morton do these Fathers acknowledge in Peter no other primacy but of order Can there be any thing more cleare then that they belieue him to haue authority power and iurisdiction ouer the whole Church as President and Gouernor therof were these men of your beliefe But you obiect (s) Pag. 51. Iames and Iohn whom S. Paulcalleth chiefe Apostles S. Chrysostome interpreteth Princes Oecumenius Heads Ergo they were also Gouernors ouer the other Apostles and Monarkes ouer the whole Church or els Peter was not How followeth this In the Empyre there are many Princes Ferdinand the Emperor and many others Ergo they are all equall to Ferdinand and all Emperors or els Ferdinand is no Emperor In the kingdome of Naples there are many Heads the Viceroy and the Gouernors of diuers Prouinces and Cities ergo these Heads are all equall in authority haue power ouer the whole kingdome or els the Viceroy hath not These consequences are absurd and yours is no lesse It is true that ech of the Apostles are Princes ouer the whole earth by reason of their Apostolicall power but as Bishops they are only Heads of their seuerall flocks and therfore in iurisdiction not equall to Peter Paul Andrew and Iohn sayth S. Gregory (t) L. 4. epist. 38. what are they but Heads of seuerall flocks but Peter is the chiefe member of the holy and vniuersall Church And S. Bernard (u) L. 2. de considerat Iames contented with the Bishopricke of Hierusalem yeldes the vniuersality to Peter And againe speaking to Eugenius Pope of his authority receaued from S. Peter (x) Ibid. Thou alone art Pastor of all Pastors Dost thou aske how I proue this By the words of our Lord for to which I will not say of the Bishops but euen of the Apostles were all the sheep so absolutely and without exception committed If thou louest me Peter feed my sheep what sheep the people of this or that City or countrey or kingdome he sayth My sheep who seeth not manifestly that he designed not some but assigned all Nothing is excepted where no distinction is made And so likewise the other title Prince of all the Apostles is an attribute which agreeth not to Iames nor to Iohn nor to any other of the Apostles for though Iames Iohn be chiefe Apostles and Princes in respect of that transcendent authority which as Apostles they had from Christ to preach and ordaine Bishops throughout the whole world yet neither the one nor the other is nor euer is called seuerally by himselfe Prince of all the Apostles as Peter is And so likewise when Peter and Paul togeather are called Principes Apostolorum Princes of the Apostles it is not in respect of any authority and iurisdiction common to them both ouer all the other Apostles but in respect of their great labors in preaching and propagating the fayth of Christ for when there is speach of the extent of their authority and iurisdiction Paul seuerally by himselfe is neuer called Prince of the Apostles as Peter is All the Apostles being silent sayth (y) Cathâ—c 11. S. Cyril of Hierusalem Peter Prince of the Apostles sayth c. And S. Ephrem (z) Serm. de Transfigu Dom. As Moyses by the commandment of God was Prince of the congregation of the Hebrewes so is Peter of the Church of the Christians And as Moyses was Prince of the old testament so is Peter of the new And Cassianus (a) L. 3. de Incarnat c. 12. Let vs aske that chiefe Disciple amongst the Disciples and Mayster amongst Maysters which gouerning the Roman Church as he had the Princedome of fayth so likewise of Priesthood Speake therfore and tell vs O Peter Prince of the Apostles c. In which words Peter is called Prince of the Apostles because he was the chiefe among them and had the soueraignty of Episcopall and Sacerdotall dignity aboue the rest But by the way I must aduertise you of your abusing S. Ambrose and S. Cyprian In your Margen (b) Pag. 10 you obiect certaine words of S. Ambrose in Latine and comming to english them in your text you set downe in lieu of them others of your owne in a different character as of S. Ambrose which neither are his nor of the same sense with his as the iudicious reader will perceaue if he compare S. Ambrose his Latin with your English With S. Cyprian you deale in the same manner for you make him say that Christ before his resurrection did build his Church vpon Peter An ignorance of which S. Cyprian was not guilty He sayth that Christ speaking to Peter said vpon this Rock I will build my Church which words he spake before his resurrection and they containe no more but a promise of building his Church vpon Peter for the future which promise he fulfilled not vntill after his resurrection when he gaue to Peter the actuall charge of feeding his lambes and his sheep (c) Ioan. 21.16.17 Nor doth S. Cyprian contradict this in the
leg c. 3. n. 23. from whom Salas learned his Doctrine de legibus call's it A reall priuiledge which he confirmeth with the example of a priuiledge that being granted to a certaine Bishop in the Canon law with expression of his name is notwithstanding supposed to passe to his Successors Now that this prayer of Christ was not made for Peter as for a priuate but as for a publike person that was supreme Head and Gouern or of the Church and consequently for the common good and benefit of the Church that therfore by vertue therof the Popes his Successors haue an infallible prerogatiue of not erring in their publike definitions of fayth to the seducing of others is the agreeing consent of the ancient Fathers in their expositions of this passage of S. Luke And 1. three holy Popes in their epistles Lucius the first to the Bishops of Spayne and France Felix the first to Benignus and Marke to S. Athanasius out of this prayer of Christ made for S. Peter gather the infallibility of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth But because Protestants hold for suspected the authority of these epistles I omit them and passe to such as by Protestants are granted to be vndoubtedly of those Popes to whom they are attributed 2. Therfore Agatho a most holy Pope and whom God graced with Miracles in his Epistle to the Emperor (q) Extat Act. 4. Apud Bin. to 3. pag. 12. Constantine Pogonat which was read in the sixt generall Councell and approued (r) Act. 8. 18. as the suggestion of the holy Ghoâ—t dictated by the mouth of the holy and most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles speaking by Agatho sayth Our Lord promised that the fayth of Peter should not faile and commanded him to strengthen his brethren which that the Popes my Apostolicall predecessors haue euer performed is a thing notorious to all This testimony sheweth that not only Agatho but all the Fathers of that Councell belieued this priuiledge of not erring in sayth and confirming others to haue bene obtained by Christ not only for S. Peter but for all his Successors and that this is a truth suggested by the holy Ghost and dictated by S. Peter speaking by Agatho 3. S. Gregory (s) L. 6. ep 37. Who is ignorant that the holy Church is strengthned by the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles who in his name receaued the constancy of his mind being called Peter of a Rock to whom by the voyce of truth it is said Confirme thy Brethren And els where (t) L. 4. ep 3. he proueth against Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople the authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer the vniuersall Church by the Commission giuen to S. Peter his predecessor It is manifest to all such as know the Ghospell that the charge of the whole Church is committed to the Apostle Peter Prince of all the Apostles for to him it is said Feed my sheepe And so him it is said I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth fayle not thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren Which testimony conuinceth thaâ— Christ prayed not for S. Peter as for a priuate person buâ— as for the Head of his Church and consequently for his Successors in him 4. S. Leo the great (u) Serm. 2. de Natali Apost Petri Pauli The danger of tentation was common to all the Apostles they all equally needed the protection of Gods help but our Lord taketh a speciall care of Peter and prayeth peculiarly for his fayth that the state of all the rest might be more secure if the mind of the Chiefe were not corquered The strength then of all is fortified in Peter God so dispensing the ayde of his grace that the assurance and strength which Christ gaue to Peter might by him redound to the Apostles And he addeth that as Peâ—er confirmed the Apostles so it is not to be doubted but that still he affordeth his help to his Successors in the Roman chayre and as a pious Pastor confirmeth them with his admonitions and ceaseth not to pray for them c. 5. Leo the ninth (x) Ep. ad Michael Imper. c. 7. The false deuises of all heretikes haue bene reproued confuted and condemned by the See of the Prince of the Apostles which it the Roman Church and the hartes of the Brethren strengthned in the fayth of Peter which hath not fayled hitherto nor shall euer fayle hereafter And the same sense of these words of Christ is deliuered by Nicolas the first (y) Ep. ad Michael Imp. and Innocentius the third (z) In Cap. Maior de Bap. If you answere that these testimonies are of Popes speaking in their owne cause I reply that they speake in the cause of God and his Church and are worthy of all credit both because they were men most eminent in learning sanctity as also because in this exposition they agree with the Fathers both of the sixth generall Councell and the rest for S. Ambrose sayth (a) Ad ca. 22. Luc. Behold what our Lord said and vnderstand it Peter is sifted he fall's into tentations but after his tentation is made Gouernor of the Church and therfore our Sauiour before hand signifieth why afterwards he chose him to be Pastor of his flock for he said vnto him And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren You see then that in S. Ambrose his iudgment Christ prayed for Peter as for the Pastor of his flock and that for Peter to confirme his brethren is to performe the office of Pastor and Gouernor of the Church which office as it was no lesse necessary afterwards then in S. Peters tyme so it descended from him to his Successors A truth which Theodorus Studites with other his brethren being pressed with the outragious persecutions of â—eretikes professe in their epistle to Paschalis Pope in these words (b) Apud Baron anno 817. Heare O Apostolicall Head made by God Pastor of his sheep porter of the kingdome of Heauen and Rock of the fayth vpon whom the Catholike Church is built for thou art Peter adorning and gouerning the See of Peter Christ our God said to thee And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren Behold now the tyme behold the place ayde vs c. Thou hast power from God because thou art Prince of all fright away the hereticall wild beasts c. And Theophilact (c) Ad cap. 22. Luc. expounding the same words The plaine sense of them is this because I hold thee as Prince of my Disciples when thou after thou hast denied me shalt weep and come to repentance confirme the rest for this becometh thee that next to me art the Rock and fortresse of the Church And we may vnderstand it not to be spoken of the Apostles only but of all the faythfull that shall be till the end of the world Which addition of Theophilact sheweth that this priuiledge giuen to Peter of not
and againe (o) In c. 1. ad Gal. he went to him as to one greater then himselfe and that not in a vulgar manner but as he obserueth out of the Greeke Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to behold and admire him as a personage of great excellency and maiesty as men goe to behold and admire great and famous Cities for which cause and to satisfy himselfe with a perfect view of his person and behauiour notwithstanding his great employments he stayed 15. dayes with him If therfore the generall accord of sacred expositors be of weight this 1. place of S. Paul which you produce to disproue his subiection to S. Peter is so farre from disprouing it that it strongly proueth it and his owne acknowledgment therof Againe 14. yeares after this time sayth S. Paul I went vp to Hierusalem according to reuelation to conferre with them the Ghospell which I preach among the Gentils From this place you argue (q) Pag. 5â— that S. Paul held himselfe equall in authority with S. Peter for S. Hierome whom you alleage out of Salmeron sayth it is one thing to conferre an other thing to learne for among them that conferre there is equality What equality of iurisdiction and power No for a subiect may conferre with his Superiour a Collegiall with his Rector but of Doctrine and learning only as S. Hierome there declareth adding that betweene him that teacheth and him that learneth he that learneth is the lesser to wit in knowledge And therfore I grant that S. Paul went not to learne of S. Peter he had learned his Ghospell by reuelation immediatly from Iesus Christ the same Maister that taught S. Peter Nor did he receaue from S. Peter or the other Apostles power or authority to preach for that likewise he had immediatly from Christ in this sense he sayth (*) Gal. 2.6 The Apostles added nothing to me Neuerthelesse because he had not conuersed with Christ in mortall flesh nor learned his Doctrine from the other Apostles which had bene instructed by him before his death lest the Gentils to whom he preached being incensed against him by false Apostles might haue any doubt of the truth of his Doctrine or of his Commission to preach for their satisfaction and that his preaching might not be in vaine and without profit to the hearers he went to Hierusalem and conferred his Ghospell with the chiefe Apostles to the end that the Gentils might be certified of the truth of his Doctrine knowing it to haue their approbation and to be the same that they preached But you that borow your argument from Salmeron (r) In Ep. ad Gal. Disput â—2 why do you conceale what followeth in his Comment If sayth he it was needfull for so great an Apostle of Christ to conferre his Ghospell with the Apostles and Peter how much more necessary was it that Luther and Caluin should haue brought theirs to be conferred with the See Apostolike With what pillars of the Church did they conferre it as Paul did or with what Miracle did they proue it they that could neuer persuade themselues so much as to come to the See Apostolike and Roman Church the mother of all Churches to conferre nor to the Oecumenicall Councell of Trent that was gathered for their soules health sake that was free and open to them that did courteously intreat them and with a safe conduct inuite them to come So Salmeron whose words you thought best not to mention both because they shew your Doctrine to be destitute of lawfull authority and also because they refute the fabulous report which you (s) Pag. 404. make out of Thuanus your historian that diuers Protestants came to the Councell and desired of the Popes Legates liberty to dispute but could not be admitted for Samleron was present at the Councell as one of the Popes Diuines who therfore knew what passed in the Councell better then Thuanus And to Salmerons testimony I adde your owne confessions in the late Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of Scotland against the pretended Generall assembly holden at Glascow (t) Pag. 13. and in your Apology of the Church of England which also expresseth the reasons why you refused to come set downe in your owne words and refelled by Doctor Harding in his Confutation of the same Apology (u) Part. ad Chap. 7. fol. 293. seqq How far therfore you are from the Doctrine example of S. Paul in this point not only Salmeron but Venerable Bede and S. Anselme (x) In cap. 2. ad Gal. haue declared out of S. Augustine whose words both they and Salmeron set downe to this purpose If the Apostle Paul himselfe sayth S. Augustine (y) L. 28. contra Paust c. 4. being called from Heauen after the Ascension of our Lord had not found the Apostles liuing that by communicating and conferring his Ghospell with thew he might shew himselfe to be of the same society the Church would giue no credit at all vnto him But when they knew that he preached the same Doctrine which they did that he liued in communion and vnity with them and did worke Miracles as they did our Lord therby commending him he deserued so great authority that his words at this day are heard in the Church euen as if Christ were heard to speake in him as he most truly said With these Fathers accordeth S. Hierome (z) Epist 89. quae est 10. inter epist. August defining that Paul had not had security of preaching the Ghospell if it had not bene approued by Peters sentence and the rest that were with him So S. Hierome whose testimony with the rest shew how beggarly a cause you haue since those very Scriptures which you produce in defence therof are so many verdicts against you A third text of S. Paul (*) 2. Cor. 12.11 you set downe thus I am nothing inferior vnto the Chiefe of the Apostles But I cannot commend your translation for none but Peter is Chiefe of the Apostles to whom therfore S. Paul compares not himselfe in the singular number as you here and els where falsifiing his words make him to say but to the Chiefe Apostles in the plurall number and yet not that in authority and iurisdiction of which he speaketh not but in the dignity of an Apostle in his great labors in his Miracles in his reuelations in his dangers and iourneys vndertaken for the preaching of Christ as the Context before and after sheweth S. Ambrose Theodoret S. Anselme S. Thomas Aquinas and other expositors declare (a) In eum locum But you vrge the testimonies of Fathers (b) Pag. 60. fin vpon this text of S. Paul And first that S. Ambrose saith (c) In 1. Cor. c. 12. Paul was no lesse in dignity then Peter You falsity S. Ambrose there compares not Paul with Peter in particular but speaking of him and the rest in generall sayth that albeit he were called to the
Apostleship after them all yet in the dignity and function of an Apostle in preaching and in working of miracles he was not inferior to them And to shew how imposterously you bring this his testimony against S. Peters primacy he addeth that Though Andrew followed our Sauiour before Peter yet Andrew receaued not the primacy but Peter 2. You obiect (d) Pag. 60. fin S. Maximus saying Whether Paul or Peter is to be preferred is vncertaine Here againe you falsify For to insinuat that S. Maximus preferred Paul before Peter you peruert the order of his words placing Peter after Paul which S. Maximus doth not but contrarily Paul after Peter Againe he compares them not in authority but only in sanctity of life and merits Howbeit sayth he all the most blessed Apostles obtaine equall grace of sanctity in the sight of God yet I know not how Peter and Paul by a peculiar prerogatiue of fayth in our Sauiour surpasse the rest c. But which of the two is to be preferred is vncertaine for I thinke them to be equall in merits because they are equall in their death You make no mention of merits to persuade your reader that S. Maximus compares them in authority and so much the more you are to be blamed because in that very place he sayth that Paul hath the key of knowledge to preach and teach but Peter the key of power which is to say that Paul excelled in knowledge but Peter in authority And therfore els where he sayth (e) Hom. 3. in Nat. Apost Pet. Paul Peter was of so great merit in the sight of our Lord that after the rowing of a small boat the gouerment of the whole Church was committed to him and that (f) Hom. 1. de eisdem As Christ was a Rock so be made Peter a Rock and built his Church vpon him and gaue him charge of feeding his sheep and lambes which out of his mercy he had redeemed Wherfore as certaine as it is that S. Maximus held S. Paul to be a member of Christs Church and one of the sheepe which he redeemed so certaine it is that he held him subiect to S. Peter as to his Head and Pastor 3. You obiect (g) Pag. 60. fin out of S. Chrysostome Paul that I say no more was equall to Peter You still falsify S. Chrysostome sayth Paul was equall to Peter in honor to wit of an Apostle for of that he speaketh you leaue out in honor to inferre that he equaleth Paul with Peter in authority and iurisdiction which cannot be excused from imposture for one thing it is to be equall with Peter in the honor of Apostleship in which all the Apostles were equall vnto him and another to be equall to him in authority which none of the Apostles were Among the most blessed Apostles sayth S. Leo (h) Ep. 48 in the likenesse of honor there was difference of power and though the election of them all were a like yet it was granted to one that be should surpasse the rest from whence as from a patterne hath proceeded the distinction of Bishops The same is declared by S. Maximus (i) Serm. vlt. de Apost Pet. Paul yea and by S. Chrysostome himselfe in this very place which you obiect saying (k) In ep ad Gal. 1.18 Paul went to Peter as to one greater and elder then himselfe And (l) Hom. 87. Ioan. he went to see him because he was the mouth and Prince of the Apostles and head of the whole company These testimonies as they demonstrate Chrysostome to haue belieued that S. Peter surpassed Paul in authority so they conuince you of imposture in putting on him the contrary 4. You attribute (n) Pag. 60. fin to S. Hierome (o) In Psal 44. these words The titles of these two Apostles are equall they are Chiefes of the Church But S. Hierome vpon that Psalme hath no such words nor maketh any comparison between Peter and Paul nor any mention at all of them 5. You obiect (p) Pag. 61. init out of S. Basils epistles but at randome naming none in particular that S. Peter and Paul are Pillars of the Church And what of that As among many great one may be greater then another so of two Pillars one may be higher then another By those 7. Pillars mentioned in the Prouerbes (q) Prou. 9.1 some of the Expositors vnderstand the 7. Sacraments which yet are not all equall for Baptisme exceedeth the rest in necessity and the Eucharist in Excellency Others vnderstand the Doctors of the Church whom Daniel compareth to starres (r) Dan. 13.3 which yet witnesse S. Paul (s) 1. Cor. 15.42 are vnequall in their light And hereby is shewed the futility of your argument that S. Paul held Iames and Iohn to be equall in iurisdiction with Peter because speaking of them three he cals them all Pillars 6. You obiect (t) Pag. 61. init out of Casaubon that Eucherius calleth Peter and Paul Two Princes of the Christians But S. Hierome (u) In Psal 44. calleth all Bishops Princes of the Church and yet all Bishops are not equall in iurisdiction for Bishops are subiect to Archbishops Archbishops to Patriarkes Patriarkes to the Pope and so was Paul to Peter But let Eutherius speake for himselfe Christ sayth he (x) In vigil S. Pet. first committed to Peter his lambes and then his sheep because he made him not only a Pastor but Pastor of Pastors Peter therfore feedeth the Lambes the sheep he feedeth the yong ones and the Dammes he gouerneth the subiects and the Prelates and is therfore Pastor of all for besyde lambes and sheep there is nothing in the Church So Eucherius shewing how Casaubon and you abuse him and that if Paul be a sheep of Christs flock he is subiect to Peters pastotall authority A fourth text of Scripture you obiect (z) Pag. 59. which are those words of S. Paul They saw that the Ghospell of the vncircumcision was committed to me as the Ghospell of the circumcision vnto Peter Your glosse is that the ordinary ministration of these two Apostles was distinct Peter hauing for his Diocesse the Iewes and Paul the Gentiles which was of infinit extent larger But by the like argument you might inferre that S. Paul by calling Christ The minister of Circumcision (a) Rom. 15.8 and himselfe Doctor of the Gentiles (b) 1. Tim. 2.7 signified that himselfe had a distinct ordinary ministration from Christ a Dioces of farre larger extent then his Wherfore this clause implyes not any diuision of the authority of their ordinary Ministery nor yet that the Diocesse of Peter was confined to the Iewes or of Paul to the Gentiles for both of them preached to Iewes Gentiles It cōtaines nothing els but a speciall testimony of the blessing of God vpon S. Peter to persuade the Iewes and vpon S. Paul to persuade the Gentiles and yet not
so but that all the other Apostles had likewise authority to preach vnto them both But you oppose (c) Pag. 59. that S. Ambrose (d) In Gal. 2â— from hence cellecteth two different Primacies the one of Peter and the other of Paul S. Ambroses words are As Paul receaued a primacy of founding Churches among the Gentiles so Peter had the primacy of founding the Church a dignity farre greater then to preach and found Churches among the Gentils and that implieth the subiection of S. Paul and all other Prelates of the Church vnto him 2. You say (e) Pag. 59. Chrysostome argueth from these words of S. Paul that both he and Peter had the same dignity and Oecumenius wisheth his reader to obserue that Paul herein equalled himselfe to Peter I answeare The false Apostles excepted against S. Pauls Doctrine and authority to preach because he had not conuersed with Christ nor bin trayned vp in his schole before his passion as the other Apostles had and by that meanes seduced some of the Galathians as it appeares out of the first Chapter of his epistle to them Wherfore in the second Chapter he certifies them that he went to Hierusalem to conferre his Ghospell with the chiefe knowne Apostles and was receaued by them into their society as being an Apostle no lesse then they were and one that had learned his Doctrine by reuelation and receaued his authority to preach from the same mayster that taught and authorized them And herein only S. Chrysostome and Oecumenius say that S. Paul is equall to the rest compares himselfe to Peter the chiefest of them for sayth Oecumenius (f) In cap. 2 ad Gal. though he speake this of Peter praedicationis causa to authorize his owne Doctrine with the Galathians yet he respecteth and honoreth Peter farre aboue himselfe that is to say as Head of the Apostles for so he had called him a little before and (g) Ad c. 1. Act. As one to whom the gouerment of the Disciples was committed and that had power to command them all And how cold S. Chrysostome meane any other thing he that said (h) In c. 2. ad Gal. hom 87 in Ioan. Paul went to Peter as to one greater then himselfe as to the mouth and Prince of the Apostles and Head of the whole company that in matters belonging to authority Paul giues the primacy to Peter (i) Hom. 35. in c. 14.1 ad Cor. that Peter surpassed the rest of the Apostles in authority by many degrees (k) L. 2. de Saâ—ord that he was chiefe of the Apostles had the whole world subiect to him (l) Orat. 5. aduers Iudaeot that Christ deliuered to him the gouermeÌ„t of the Church throughout the whole world (m) Hom 80. ad Antioch the charge of feeding those sheep which he had redeemed with his bloud (n) L. 2. de Sacord 3. You obiect (o) Pag. 61. S. Gregory saying Paul was made the Head of Nations and obtayned the principality of the whole Church S. Paul I grant obtayned the principality of the whole Church as the rest of the Apostles did because they were all Princes ouer the whole Church as S. Hierome and others collect out of those words of the Psalme (p) Psal 44.17 Thou shalt make them Princes ouer all the earth And this is the principality which S. Chrysostome declared S. Paul to haue (q) Hom. 18. in epist ad Rom when he said all preaching the affayres of the world all mysteries and all dispensations were committed to him But this argueth not that the Princedome and authority of S. Paul or the other Apostles was independant and without subordination to S. Peter for as S. Hierome (r) In psal 44. obserueth The Church hath Bishops insteed of the Apostles and as their Successors in their Episcopall authority which therfore in that respect are Peers and Princes of the Church yet not without due subordination for all Bishops are subiect to the Pope and so were Paul and the other Apostles to Peter And this S. Gregory himselfe to shew your imposture in obiecting him for the contrary declareth saying (s) L. 4. ep 38. Peter the Apostle is the chiefe member of the holy and vniuersall Church Paul Andrew Iohn what are they but Heads of seuerall flocks SECT IV. Other arguments of Doctor Morton answeared IN prosecution of the same matter you obiect (m) Pag. 62.63.64 that Paul named Iames before Peter saying Iames Cephas and Iohn wherby you will haue Paul to mate and equall Iames Iohn with Peter for it had bene ill manners in him to name Iames before Peter if Peter had bene Iames his Superior as it would be thought ill manners in a Catalogue of Bishops to reckon the Bishop of Colen before the Pope You argue from an vncertaine ground for S. Chrysostome in his commentary S. Ambrose and S. Hierome both in the text and commentary read Peter Iames and Iohn and so likewise doth S. Hieromâ— in other his workes (n) Contrâ— Heliud l. de Scriptor Eccles in Paulo It is therfore credible that S. Paul in naming them obserued the same order but if he named them otherwise it is no argument to proue that he equalled Iames in authority with Peter first because as S. Chrysostome (o) In cap. 1. ep ad Gal. noteth S. Paul in that very Epistle professeth himselfe to yeld greater honor to Peter and shew more loue to him then to the rest in saying that he went vp to Hierusalem not for any of them but for his sake alone 2. because ascending by gradation he placeth Peter aboue himselfe and next vnto Christ I am Paules and I Apolloes but I of Cephas and I of Christ 3. If it be true that he named Iames before Peter he did it not to equall them in authority and much lesse to preferre Iames before Peter but in regard of the priority of the knowledge which Iames receaued of the great grace giuen to Paul for when he came the first tyme to Hierusalem to giue the Apostles notice of his calling and of the great fruit of his labors he found none of them there but Iames. Put now the like case and it will neither be ill manners nor any derogation to the Popes authority to name him after the Bishop of Colen or of Milan 4. Because it is certaine that in all other places of the new Testament in which there is a Catalogue of all the Apostles in generall or of some in particular Peter is still named in the first place and if here as you say he is named before Peter because he was Bishop of Hierusalem it is no argument to proue him Superior or equall in authority to Peter S. Bernard (q) Serm. 3. de 7. misericord fragm nameth Paul Mathew before Peter and yet in that very place expresly sayth that the Pastorall care of the whole Church was committed to
teach the people out of it for as S. Hilary sayth (r) Can. 13. in Math. the Church is the ship in which the word of life is placed and preached and which they that are out of it cannot vnderstand but lye like sand barren and vnprofitable and the preaching of Gods word out of the ship of Simon in particucular signifies that Christ dwelleth in that society which keepes the fayth and communion of Peter and makes his See the pastorall chayre from whence by Peter and his successors he teacheth the doctrine of his Ghospell Our Lord sayth S. Ambrose (s) Serm. 11. goeth only into that ship of the Church of which Peter is Mayster our Lord saying Vpon this rock I will build my Church And then he addeth that the Church of Peter is the Arke of Nōe to shew that out of his Church none can be saued Which Doctrine S. Hierome likewise deliuereth comparing the Roman Church to the Arke of Nōe out of which whosoeuer is shall perish at the coming of the floud Moreouer howbeit other ships be tossed yet sayth S. Ambrose Peters ship is not tossed in her wisdome sayleth perfidiousnesse is absent (t) L. 5. in c. 5. Luc. fayth fauoureth for how cold that ship be tossed of which he is Gouernor that is the strength of the Church And S. Bernard (u) L. 2. de consider The sea is the world the ships the Churches From whence it is that Peter walking on the waters like our Lord shewed himselfe to be the only Vicar of Christ which was not to gouerne one nation but all for many waters are many people and therfore wheras each of the others hath his peculiar ship to thee he speakes to Eugenius Pope S. Peters successor is committed that one mighty great ship made of them all to wit the vniuersall Church of the whole world I conclude therfore that the ship of S. Peter is the pastorall Chayre from whence the doctrine of Christ is to be learned by all and the Arke of Nōe out of which none can be saued and that therfore betweene his ship and that in which S. Paul sayled as also betweene the priuiledges granted to the one and to the other there is as much difference as betweene the eternall saluation of all Gods elect and the corporall lyfe of a few Mariners and passengers that sayled with S. Paul Your seauenth and principall Obiection is (x) Pag. 65. If S. Peter had written of himselfe as S. Paul did of himselfe saying I haue the care of all the Churches this one wold haue seemed to you a firmer foundation then the word Rock or any other of those Scriptures wherby you labour to erect a Monarchy on S. Peter and by your consequence vpon the Pope ouer all Churches in the world Answere There are two kindes of solicitude and care one proceeding from the obligation of iustice the other merely out of the zeale of Charity The supreme care which S. Peter had both of all Churches and of their Pastours was of obligation of iustice because he had iurisdiction ouer them all as being supreme Pastor ouer the whole flock of Christ and therfore as the Pastor hath obligation of iustice to gouerne his flock and attend to the good therof so had S. Peter to attend to the good gouerment of the vniuersall Church and whatsoeuer persons therof which function was not committed to S. Paul nor did Christ promise to build his Church on him as he did on S. Peter and therfore that care he had of the vniuersall Church proceeded from his great zeale of Gods glory and feruorous charity which made him trauell so much in the conuersion of soules SECT VI. What estimation S. Paul had of the Roman Church YOu say (y) Pag. 65. S. Paul had not by farre so great estimation of the Roman Church as we would make the world belieue How proue you this because say you Dionysius Bishop of the Corinthians witnesse Eusebius (z) L. 2. c. 24. sayth that Peter and Paul both founded the Church of Corinth and that of Rome This then is your argument Dionysius Bish of Corinth sayth Peter and Paul founded the Churches of Corinth and Rome Ergo S. Paul had not by farre so great estimation of the Church of Rome as we would make the world belieue A witlesse consequence It is true that we account it a great honor and happinesse for the Church of Rome to haue bene founded by those two most glorious Princes of the Apostles and so it was also to the Church of Corinth But the Church of Rome was not only founded but moreouer ennobled by them for as Tertullian (a) L. de Praescr c. 36. obserueth they powred into her all their doctrine togeather with their bloud and enriched her with the inestimable treasure of their sacred bodies But her chiefest dignity and that which maketh her absolutely the Head and Mother of all Churches is that S. Peter the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church fixed his seate at Rome and ending his life there left the same dignity to his successors and they as occasion required ceased not to send their pastorall admonitions to the Corinthians for when not long after S. Peter and Paul had founded a Church among them they fell into errors and dissentions among themselues S. Clement Pope successor to S. Peter writ vnto them sayth S. Irenaeus (b) L. 3. c. 3. potentissimas literas most effectuall letters reducing them to peace and shewing them the Doctrine which they had newly receaued from the Apostles And to the same purpose Soter Pope not long after writ also vnto them And that the Corinthians acknowledged these epistles of the Roman Church to be sent vnto them as from their Mother Church whose doctrine they were to imbrace and receaued them as such appeareth in this that is Dionysius their Bishop and Eusebius (c) L. 4. hist. c. 22. out of him testify they held them in so great veneration that they vsed to read them publikely in the Churches for the instruction of the saythfull But this you could not see or if you did see it were willing to conceale it as not being for your purpose 2. Wheras we in commendation of the Roman fayth and Church are wont to alleage those words of S. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (d) Rom. 1.8 I giue thankes to my God through Iesus Christ for all you because your fayth is renowned throughout the whole world you say (e) Pag. 66. that we vpon this commendation of the fayth of those Romans vse in a manner to triumph as though that Encomium with the same fayth were hereditary to that Church or as if at that day Catholike and Roman had bene all one If in this testimony of S. Paul we triumph and hold the Catholike fayth and the Roman fayth to be all one and hereditary to the Church of Rome we do therin nothing more then
striue earnestly against his error for the Catholike truth The reason therfore why Pelagius after he had deceaued the Councell of Palestine endeauored also to deceaue the Roman Church by a feigned profession of his fayth sent to Innocentius Pope was because it was the constant beliefe of all Christians in those dayes that the Roman Church as being heyre of the fayth commended by S. Paul could not approue any doctrine but what was truly orthodoxall and Catholike as Pelagius in that his profession acknowledgeth saying (t) In fin Symb. ad Dâ—â—â— apud Hieron to 4. Baron anno 417 This o most blessed Pope is the fayth which I haue learned in the Catholike Church and which I haue alwayes held and do bold Wherin if I haue said any thing ignorantly or vnwarily I desire to be corrected by you that hold the fayth and chayre of Peter If this my confession be approued by the iudgment of your Apostleship whosoeuer layes an aspersion on me shall shew himselfe to be ignorant or malicious or els not to be a Catholike but he shall not proue me to be an heretike With this profession Pelagius sought to deceaue the Roman Church but could not because Zozimus sayth S. Augustine (u) Proximè cit considered what iudgment the fayth of the Romans commended by the Apostle had made of him in the tyme of Innocentius his predecessor For which cause Procopius truly said (x) L. 1. de bello Goth. If euer any surely the Romans chiefly are they that haue had the Christian fayth in veneration I conclude therfore that if the holy Fathers haue vnderstood the Scriptures aright the fayth of the Roman Church is proued to be infallible not only by the Scriptures formerly alleaged (y) Supra hoc â—ap but by this very passage of the Apostle Nor do Tolet or Sà whome heere you obiect (z) Pag. 66. say ought to the contrary for if they obserue that when the Apostle sayth to the Romans your fayth is published euery where it is an hyperbole because the sense is not that the fayth which they belieued was then actually preached throughout the whole world but that is was a thing knowne and published throughout the whole world that they had belieued they say nothing but what is true for the Apostle cold not say that the Roman fayth which was the fayth of Christ was then actually preached in all partes of the world as neither it is yet at this day but that it was publikely knowne throughout all the world that the Romans had receaued the fayth of Christ because in common speach and morall reputation that which is diffused ouer a great part of the world and famously knowne is said to be euery where And this publike fame was of great moment for the conuersion of other nations for Rome being the Head of the world whither all sorts of people vnder that vast Empyre had recourse for discharg of their tributes and accompts of their offices they cold not but haue knowledge that the Romans belieued in Christ And as Tolet noteth out of S. Chrysostome but you to detract from the Romans what prayse you can conceale it this publike same and knowledg of their beliefe was an example and a great motiue for other nations to receaue the fayth of Christ Now wheras you adde (a) Pag. 60. It is an obiection now a dayes breathed into the mouth of euery vulgar Papist that at that day Catholike and Roman were all one the testimonies of antiquity which I haue formerly brought in profe therof shew that none but he which is not so much as vulgarly read in Ecclesiasticall history can be ignorant of so certaine a truth Wherfore you speake vntruly when you say it is an insultation of ours easily checked with a paralell of the like if not of a larger commendation of the Church of Thessalonica by the same Apostle 1. Thessal 1.2 We giue thankes alwayes to God for you all making mention of you in our prayers remembring without ceasing your worke of fayth And againe v. 8. From you sayth he sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia but also in euery place your fayth to Godward is spread abroad c. This is your paralell which is easily disparalelled for as Baronius obserueth (c) Anno 58. out of S. Chrysostome the Romans being Head of the world their fayth was a forcible motiue to bring other nations to belieue in Christ And therfore S. Leo (d) Serm. 1. in Nat. Apost Pet. Paul had reason to say that S. Peter Prince of the Apostles not by humane counsell but by diuine ordination came from Antioch to Rome to preach the Ghospell and fixe his chayre in that Citty that so the chiefe seat of religion might be where the Head of superstition had bene and that the fayth from thence as from the top of the Empyre might be diffused throughout the world And S. Anselme (e) â—n c. 1. ad Rom. that S. Paulgiuing thankes to God for the fayth of the Romans sayth I giue thanks to God for all the faithfull in the first place for all you because you are the chiefest the Roman Church hauing the primacy among all Churches And wheras the Apostle sayth The fayth of the Romans is published throughout the whole world the same S. Anselme noteth (f) In c. 1. ad Thessal that he sayth not so to the Thessalonians but You are made a paterne to all that belieue in Macedonia and Achaia and from you the word of our Lord was bruted not only in Macedonia and Achaia but also in â—uery place that is sayth he in euery place neare to you And hereby it appeareth that the Romans for the example of their fayth and the profit that redounded therby to others were preferred by S. Paul before the Thessalonians as farre as the whole world ouer which the conuersion of Rome was quickly spread exceedeth Macedonia Achaia with a few bordering Prouinces which only had notice of the Thessalonians And therfore S. Paul giueth a further prayse to the Romans (g) Rom. 15.15 I am assured of you that you are also full of loue replenished with all knowledge so that you are able to admonish one another And againe (h) Rom. 16.19 Your obedience is published into euery place none of which prayses he gaue to the Thessalonians But lest we should gather any preeminence of the Roman Church because the Epistle to the Romans among all S. Pauls epistles hath the first place you preoccupate this obiection telling vs (i) Pag. 67. that the epistle to the Thessalonians and others were written before that to the Romans Be it so but we aduertise you with S. Anselme (k) Praefat. in ep ad Rom. It is to be belieued that they which collected S. Pauls epistles into one body iudged that the epistle to the Romans ought to haue the first place because it was
addressed to that Citty which was then Head of the whole world and because the Roman Church still vntill this day hath the soueraignty of all Churches And in his commentary of the eight verse of the first Chapter Here againe sayth he it is manifest that the â—pistle to the Romans ought to be placed first because the Romans among all the faythfull are the chiefest because the Roman Church hath the soueraignty among all Churches SECT VII Why S. Paul did not intitle his Epistles Catholike Epistles THat S. Paul in his epistle to the Romans hath giuen sufficient testimony of the preeminency of the Roman Church aboue all others is a thing manifest if not you but the ancient Fathers may be the iudges Them you must giue vs leaue to follow and forsake you fighting against S. Paul and them Against this truth you frame yet two Arguments more The first is (l) Pag. â—â— that whereas the epistles of S. Iames Peter Iude and Iohn are intituled Catholike epistleâ— if S. Paul had bene possessed with the spirit of the now Bishop of Rome he would haue intituled the Church of Rome the Catholike Church and at least inscribed his epistle Catholike The second is (m) Ibid. that he giueth not to the Roman Church so much as the title of a Church which yet in his prefaces to the Corinthians Galathiâ—ns and Thessalonians he giues to those Churches To the first I answere that the Apostles themselues did not giue to any of their epistles the name of Catholike epistles That title is prefixed to the epistles of Iames Peter Iohn Iude by the Church for diuers reasons which you may reade in Salmeron (n) Disp 1. in Ep. S. Iacobi and chiefly because as S. Augustine (o) De fide oper c. 14. witnesseth they were written against the heresy of Simon Magus defending Iustification by only fayth wherin Protestants are his heires And for that cause their epistles insist so much on good workes and the keeping of Gods Commandements and shew that fayth without charity is dead and fruitlesse And for the same cause S. Iohn (p) Ep. 1. vers 24. 27. admonisheth the faythfull to abide in that Doctrine which they haue heard from the beginning because many seducers are gone out into the world And S. Iude (q) Vers 4.8 seqq exhorteth them to stand to their old fayth shewing them by examples that it is damnable not to be constant in it To your second Argument I might answere with 8. Chrysostome that they which were but a small number newly conuerted and weake S. Paul salutes them by the name of a Church to comfort them but not those that were more in number and of longer standing as the Romans were when he writ vnto them For this reason I say that as S. Paul did not salute the Ephesians Philippians Colossians by the name of a Church in expresse words so neither did he the Romans but only virtually and implicitly saying (r) Rom. 1.7 To all that are at Rome the beloued of God called Saints which title cannot agree to any congregation but to a true Church of Christ as (s) Tom. 13. disp 7. in ep ad Rom. Salmeron learnedly proueth and you contradicting your selfe acknowledge saying (t) Pag. 7â— sin S. Paul to shew that the Church rather doth consist in the professors then in the place omitteth the name of a Church and mentioneth only the persons saying To the Saints at Colosse To them at Rome beloued of God called Saints But because you mention Salmerons solution I will giue the reader notice how fouly you abuse and fallify him He giues three solutions to this Argument The first he most approueth and this you wholly pretermit to persuade your reader that he giues not three but only the two later and therfore wheras he begins the second thus Posset secundò commode dici you leaue out fecundo that this may seeme not to be his second solution but his first and to the same end you say allata alia solutione ad hunc redit that hauing brought another solution he returnes to this saying but the first solution in my iudgment is more soâ—de which words containe a most notorious falsification for he returnes not to this which you make the first by leauing out secundò but to the first of the three which you neuer mention And wheras he sayth that the first solution is in his iudgment the more solide you by falsifying apply this his saying to the second against which because you can make a shift to cauill you would haue your reader thinke it is Salmerons first solution and that he thought it to be the most solide of all the three But of what import to your cause is this iugling Marry that because in the second solution Salmeron mentioneth the factions that were then in Rome betweene the Iewes and Gentiles you may inferre that S. Paul did thinke Rome to be as other Churches subiect to the alteration of Schismes and factions and in proofe therof you say (u) Pag. 69. that not only our Professors among themselues but also Popes and Antipopes were distracted into diuers Schismes and factions c. One of our deuout Doctors reckoning the number of these Schismes to haue ben twenty an other accounting the continuance of one of them to haue endured fifty yeares Our Deuout Doctor whom you mention to proue that there hath ben twenty schismes in the Roman Church is Stapleton The place in which you cite him is his thirteenth booke De princip Doctrin Cap. 15. wheras in that worke he hath but twelue bookes in all But be it that there haue ben twenty Schismes in the Roman Church Schisme is not a sinne against fayth but against Charity If then Antipopes or other professors of the Roman Church haue broken the bond of charity was it therfore lawfull for you to renounce the fayth of the Roman Church If Schismes be a lawfull cause of departure who can stay in your Protestant congregation diuided subdiuided into Lutherans Caluinists Zwinglians Brownists and a thousand other Sects vnder these new ones daily arising among you as Separatists and Socinians all which are diuided not only in poynt of charity but in the very substance of fayth And surely you are ill aduised to obiect the Schismes of the Roman Church in iustification of your departure from her for since as our Authors haue aduertised nether the persecutions of heathen Emperors nor the Gothes and Vandals nor the Turke nor any sacks or massacres by Alaricus Gensericus Attila Borbon and others nor the emulation of secular Princes were they Kings or Emperors nor the many Schismes and diuisions betweene the lawfull Popes and Antipopes nor the manifold difficulties dangers in their elections nor the great vices which haue bene noted in some of their persons nor any scandall haue had power to ouerthrow the Roman Church as they haue done the Churches
Eusebius Nebrissensis proueth the like by examples of other natioÌ„s And to what he sayth I adde the reason which Blessed Augustinus Triumphus a holy and ancient wryter that liued 400. yeares since yieldeth (l) De Potest Ecclesiact c. 7. art â— why S. Paul in the Popes buls is somtimes placed on the right hand of S. Peter S. Paul sayth he was lesse then Peter greater then Peter and equall to Peter He was equall to Peter in the office of preaching lesse then Peter in Ecclesiasticall power for Peter alone was Cephas that is Head of the whole Church but he was greater then Peter in the prerogatiue of his election to the Apostleship for he was chosen by Christ after his resurrection glorification for this cause Paul in the Popes bulls is placed on the right hand Peter on the left So he Hauing now answered the arguments which hitherto you haue brought out of S. Pauls epistles and shewed that by alleaging them you conuince your owne Doctrine of falshood and proue ours I must craue pardon if I aske you a question concerning his Epistle to the Romans which Optatus asked the Donatists concerning some other of his epistles and S. Augustine concerning them all How dare you sayth Optatus (m) L. â— cont Parmen read S. Pauls epistle to the Romans in whose communion you are not You sayth S. Augustine (n) L. 2. de Baptism c. 6. that haue it and read it and say that you liue according to it why doe you not communicate with the Church to which it was sent Answere why haue you separated your selues c Choose which you will If then that is when Donatus when Luther when Caluin began the Roman Church was polluted with errors it was perished for a Church that holds false pernicious schismaticall hereticall blasphemous and Antichristian Doctrine with which you often charge the Roman Church cannot be a true Church of Christ but a Synagogue of Satan from whence then had Donatus Luther or Caluin his begining where was he Cathechized where baptized where ordayned I conclude therfore as Optatus did against the Donatists Know that you are cut of from the holy Church And I say to you as S. Augustine did to them (p) L. de vnit Eccles c. 12. You haue the epistle to the Romans but we read it and beleeue it and haue the Roman Church in our communion from which we grieue with him (p) Psal cont part Donati to see you lye cut of she being that Rock which the prowd gates of hell ouercome not CHAP. XIII Whether S. Iohn the Euangelist conceaued himselfe subiect to the Roman Church YOVR Tenet is (r) Pag. 73. that S. Iohns fayth did not conceaue the Article of subiection to the Roman Church In proofe therof you assume that in his booke of Reuelation he reuealeth the City of Rome to be Babylon that Autichrist shall haue his seate there which though it were granted yet I see not which way it followeth that Iohn did not acknowledg himselfe subiect to S. Peter or â—o his Successors in the Church of Rome But let vs examine the particulers of your Doctrine and proofes SECT I. Whether Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist THat the City of Rome is Babylon mentioned in the Reuelation say you (s) Ibid. is the gener all consent of our owne Iesuits and other Diuines But in proose hereof you can find no other Iesuits nor Diuines to alleage but Ribera Viegas and the Rhemists whom you abuse and falsify to make them serue your turne as I shall now declare The Rhemists say you (t) Pag. 74. do thus farre grant as to say The great Antichrist shall haue his seat at Rome as it may well be though others thinke that Hierusalem rather shall be his principall soat But your Iesuits Ribera and Viegas both of them Spanish Doctors and publike professors do confidently auerre the contrary and the one is so bold as to hold him to be a most notable foole that shall deny it But good Sir by your leaue this is a most notable vntruth That which Ribera sayth is that towards the end of the world Rome shall be burned not only for her former sinnes of Idolatry and persecuting of Christ vnder the Pagan Emperors but also for other sinnes that in the end of the world she shall commit vnder Pagan Kings and that this is so certaine out of the Apocalypse that no man though neuer so foolish can deny it This Ribera sayth and it may well be said that he who out of these words of Ribera inferreth as you do that the City of Rome is to be the seat of Antichrist or that Ribera sayth so is I will not say a notable foole but whether he deserue not that name I leaue to the readers censure The Doctrine of Ribera Viegas the Rhemists is that when S. Iohn calleth Rome Babylon he neither speaketh of the Church or Pope of Rome nor yet of the Citty of Rome as she is vnder the gouerment of Christian Emperors or in obedience of the See Apostolike for in that estate the hath sayth S. Hierome (u) L 2. cont louin wiped out the blasphemies written in her forehead by the confession of Christ. In that estate (x) Ep. 17. ad Marcell there is in Rome the holy Church there are the triumphant Monuments of Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the fayth praysed by the Apostle and gentility troden vnder foote the name of Christ daily aduancing it selfe on high Wherfore when S. Iohn calleth Rome Babylon Ribera Viegas and the Rhemists with the ancient Fathers expound him to giue her that name as she was the head of Paganisme the mother of superstition and Idolatry and persecuted the Church and Popes of Rome being drunke with the bloud of the Saints Martyrs of Christ Iesus (*) Apoc. 17.6 as she did vnder Nero and Domitian in S. Iohns tyme afterwards vnder other Pagan Emperors when she put to death thirty Popes successiuely one after another and as she shall do againe in the end of the world for both Ribera and Viegas hold that the Citty of Rome shall then fall from the obedience of the See Apostolike and from the fayth of Christ and that as well for her enormous sinnes anciently committed vnder the heathen Emperors as also for other like which in the end of the world she shall commit vnder heathenish Kings she shall be burn's and consumed with fyre But that Rome euen then vnder pagans Emperors was or hereafter vnder Heathenish Kings shall be the seate of Antichrist neither Ribera nor Viegas affirme nor any way insinuate as it may appeare out of their words which you here set downe in Latin (y) Pag. 74. marg for those words Roma sedes Antichristi which you attribute to Ribera are not his but foysted in by your selfe to Father on him your owne fiction
their Bishop with the multitude of Saints being departed out of it shall be consumed with fire before the reigne of Antichrist or in the very beginning therof as (r) Riber a cap. 17 n. 20. in vers 16. Ex hoc quod nunc ait Apostolus intelligitur Roman euertendam antequam Antichristus regnare incipiat vel certè ipso initio regni eius Ribera and (s) Viegas in cap 17. n. 5. Viegas reach In this supposition why may not the Pope with that multitude of holy Christian Romans be truly and verily the Bishop and Church of Rome Why should that multitude of Roman Christian and Saints be titulus sine re and not a very glorious and venerable Church Why should the Pope then cease to be Bishop more then the Bishop of Canterbury should in case Canterbury should be destroyed into ashes Will you say vpon this contingent that the Bishop of Canterbury shall be the man in the moone the sheepheard of Vtopia to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You might haue learned from Cusanus (t) Epist 2. ad Bohemos whome you cite often and highly commend that if by any accident the Citty of Rome should fayle the truth of the Church shall remaine there where the Principality and seat of Peter shal be Nor is your example of the Emperor of Rome (u) Pag. 77. any helpe to your Argument For albeit the Roman Empyre be now in part decayed or weakned in respect of that power and greatnesse which anciently it had yet it still remayneth so that the name succession of the Roman Emperors at this day is famous in the world els why did our late Soueraigne King Iames inscribe his Monitory Prefation Sacratissimo atque inuictissimo Principi ac Domino Rodulpho secundo Romanorum Imperatori semper Augusto c. And why els doth the Church of Rome in her Office (x) In die Parasceues Sabbatho Sancto pray for the Roman Emperor Nor the Authors which you alledge for the contrary do say ought els though you falsify Salmeron to make his words found otherwise for wheras he speaking of the Roman Empire as it anciently was sayth Imperium illud Romanum iamdiu euersum est that Empire of Rome to wit with that ancient splendor maiesty and power which once it had is long since destroyed you leaue out illud and make him say absolutely The Roman Empire is long since destroyed wheras in the words next following he expresly affirmeth that there is still a Roman Emperor and that he is so called although what now be possesseth be but a very small shadow of the ancient Empire Lastly I will not omit to put you in minde of your weake manner of arguing throughout all this Section for how doth it follow that because Ribera and Viegas hold that Babylon out of which the faythfull are commanded to depart is the City of Rome as she shall be idolatrous in the end of the world you may now lawfully reuolt from the Church of Rome Againe who obligeth me to allow of their exposition I might retort your Argument vpon your selfe and tell you that Babylon signifies not Rome but Geneua and proue it by the testimony of Castalio a prime brother of yours who liued there and was a speciall friend of Beza They sayth he speaking of the Geneuian brethren (y) Apud Rescium pag. 54. are proud puft vp with glory and reuenge We may with lesse danger offend Princes then exasperate these fiery Caluinists their life is infamous and villanous they are Maisters of art in reproches lyes cruelty treachery and insufferable arrogancy They name their Geneua The holy City and their assembly Hierusalem but in very truth we should call it O Babylon Babylon O infamous Sodome and children of Gomorrha If you like not this exposition yet I know no reason why if you will belieue Ribera and Viegas expounding Babylon in the Apocalyps to be Rome you may not as well belieue your brethren Vdalricus Velenus (z) Lib. de hac r◠and Henricus Buntingus (a) It iner de it iner Petri. denying it and so much the more because S. Augustine Tyconius Bede Arethas Primasius Ansbertus Haymo S. Anselme and S. Thomas (b) Apud Riber in vers 8. cap. 14. Apoc by Babylon vnderstand not Rome but the society of all the wicked in generall from whose vices the faithfull are commanded to depart (c) S. August Breuic Collat. collat 3. Others vnderstand Paganisme which because it adoreth a confused multitude of Gods is rightly named Babylon that signifies Confusion others Mahometisme the mother of fornication and all filthinesse Others Constantinople the Metropolitan of Turcisme And others the chiefe City of the Chaldaeans which is properly called Babylon These expositions with their Authors and reasons you may read in Cornelius à Lapide (d) Ade 17. Apoc. Suarez (e) Defens fid l. 5. c. 7. and Peron (f) Replic Chapit 15. But the truth is that all these senses as likewise that of Ribera being purely allegoricall afford no solid foundation to build matter of fayth vpon but are merely coniecturall And therfore if S. August say (g) Ep. 48. Who dares with an vnbridled licence produce for himselfe that which is couched in an allegory vnlesse he haue places more cleare by whose light to illustrate that which is obscure we may with iust reason reproue you for grounding your departure from the Roman Church vpon the allegoricall sense of those words of the Apocalyps Get forth of Babylon my people and so much the more because the Authors whose exposition you take for your ground admonish you that by Babylon is not vnderstood the Church of Rome but the City that not as it is Christian but as it was idolatrous in S. Iohns tyme and shal be againe in the end of the world But any thing will serue your turne be it true or false if by sleights you can wrest it against the Pope and Church of Rome SECT II. Whether S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter were subiect to the Bishop of Rome S. Peters Successor SVarez treating of the authority of S. Peter and his Successors moueth this question (h) De trip virtute disp 10. sect 1. Whether the Apostles that suruiued S. Peter were subiect to S. Peters successor in the See of Rome His answeare is I remember not that I haue read any thing of this point in Authors but it seemes to me to follow out of what hath bene said that they were inferior in iurisdiction and consequently subiect therin to the Bishop of Rome although in other excellencies and prerogatiues they were superior to him For the same power and iurisdiction that was in S. Peter descended to his Successours who therfore in three things surpassed the Apostles there liuing 1. In the obiect of their power for the charge and gouerment of the whole Church belongeth primarily to the Successor of S. Peter which as I haue
said belonged not to the other Apostles 2. That power did extend to all Bishops because the reason of order and Ecclesiasticall vnity so required 3. The power of the Bishop of Rome was alwaies ordinary and to continue perpetually in the Church not so in the other Apostles This is Suarez his Doctrine which I haue set downe in his owne words that the reader perusing yours and comparing them with his may see how you falsify for both in your Latin margent English text you leaue out (i) Pag. 79. the reason wherwith he proues his assertion and set downe for his only ground that he cannot remember to haue read in any author any thing of this point wheras he proues it out of what he had formerly said And doth he not here againe proue it out of the power and iurisdiction which was in S. Peter ouer the whole Church descended from him to his Successors And doth he not from thence inferr three prerogatiues which his Successors had ouer the other Apostles two of which you conceale And though you set downe the third yet it is in your Latin Margent only and so dismembred from Suarez his context that the reader will not easily vnderstand the force therof Againe who is so blind that sees not your absurd manner of arguing which is this (*) Pag. 78. 79. Suarez opinion is that S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter was subiect to Linus his Successor ergo S. Iohns fayth did not conceaue the Pope to haue iurisdiction ouer all other Bishops and Pastors in the Catholike Church You might as well haue inferred that because Yorke hath a Minster London hath a Bridge for this is as good a consequence as yours But hereby the Reader may see with what silly Sophistry you delude or to vse your owne words against your selfe with what vntempered morter you daube vp the consciences of your followers Now as for Suarez his assertion that the iurisdiction of S. Peters Successor was greater then the ordinary Episcopall iurisdiction of the other Apostles a iudicious Reader wil easily conceaue to be no such improbable Doctrine if he reflect that the Successor to euery Bishop is inuested in all the Episcopall authority of his predecessors and therfore Linus being Successor to S. Peter it must follow that 8. Peter being in Episcopall authority and iurisdiction superior to all the other Apostles Linus had the same authority and iurisdiction ouer those that suruiued S. Peter And this S. Chrysostome seemeth to haue expressed (k) L. 2. de Sacerd 1â— when he said Christ committed to Peter and to Peters Successors the charge of those sheep for the regayning of which he shed his bloud from which number I trust you will not excluded S. Iohn or any other of the Apostles that suruiued S. Peter And what els did S. Cyril meane when he said (l) Apud S. Thom. Opusc cont error Graec. c. 32. As Christ receaued from his Father most ample power so he gaue the same most fully to Peter and his Successors And what Paschasinus when in the presence and with the approbation of the Councell of Chalcedon (m) Act. 1. he affirmed the Pope to be inuested in the dignity of Peter the Apostle And what meant S. Bernard (n) L. 2. de considerat when he said to Eugenius Pope Thou art Peter in power and by vnction Christ the sheep of Christ were not so without exception committed to any Bishop nor to any of the Apostles as to thee thou art Pastor not only of the sheep but Pastor of all Pastors And what meant S. Leo (o) Serm. 2. â— Anniuers suae assump when he said The ordinance of truth standeth and S. Peter continuing in the receaued solidity of a Rock hath not left the gouerment of the Church for truly he perseuereth and liueth still in his Successors And againe (p) Ibid. In the person of my humility he is vnderstood he honored in whom the solicitude of all Pastors with the sheep commended to him perseuereth and whose dignity in an vnworthy heyre fayleth not And what S. Peter surnamed Chrysologus (q) Ep. ad Eutychet when he exhorted Eutyches to heare obediently the most blessed Pope of Rome because S. Peter who liueth in his owne See and is stil president in the same exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it And what the Legates of Celestine Pope in the Councell of Ephesus (r) P. 2. Act. 2. No man doubtes for it hath bene notorious to all ages that the holy and most blessed Peter Prince and Head of the Apostles piller of the fayth foundation of the Catholike Church liues and decides causes yet vnto this day and for all eternity by his Successors And what Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria writing to S. Gregory (s) Apud Greg. l. 6. ep 37. that Peter Prince of the Apostles sitteth still in his owne Chayre in his Successors And what S. Gregory himselfe reporting (t) Dial. l. 3. c. â— that Agapet Pope comming to Constantinople the friends of a man that was lame and dumbe beseeching him to cure that man by the authority of Peter the Apostle Agapet by the same authority cured him And what the Fathers of the sixt Councell generall when commending the Epistle of Agatho Pope they said (u) Act. 18. The paper and inke appeared but it was Peter that did speake by Agatho And finally what Constantine Pogonate when writing to the Roman Synod (x) Apud 6. Syn. Act. 18. he admired the relation of Agatho at the voyce of the diuine Peter himselfe It followeth then that if Linus was inuested in the Episcopall dignity and power of Peter if S. Peter still liue and rule in his owne See and decide causes in his Successors if he speake by them and their voyce be to heard as his voyce to be subiect to Linus was no other thing then to be subiect to S. Peter and to disobey Linus was to disobey S. Peter who did speake by Linus and gouerne in his owne See by him Wherfore as the Apostles owed subiection to S. Peter whiles he liued so those that suruiâ—â—â— him did to Linus hauing the place of Peter for 〈◊〉 â—â—â—rian â—alles the Roman See L. 4. â—p 2. CHAP. XIV Your fifth Chapter with diuers Arguments answered SECT I. Of the Name Catholike AFTER a discourse made from an Argument ab authoritate negatiuè which euery Logician knowes to be of no force you say (a) Pag. 81. We begin at the word Catholike and desire to vnderstand why the epistles of Iames and Iohn and Iude were called Catholike or vniuersall as well as the two Epistles of Peter if the word Catholike were so proper to the Roman Chayre seing that the Epistles of Iames Iohn and Iude were not sent to or from Rome nor had any relation to Peter there Before I answere I desire you to remember that the name Catholike by the ancient Fathers is giuen
the See Apostolike is made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world Why did the Bishops of the East say to Pope Symmachus (t) In volum Orthodoxograph impres Basileae You are taught dayly by Peter your sacred Doctor to feed the flock of Christ which is committed to you throughout the whole world Why did Amator an African Bishop write to Siluerius Pope in banishment (u) Ep. ad Siluer What do you thinke becomes of vs when such things are done to the chiefe Pastor Why did that Emperor Leo surnamed the wise say (x) Serm. de S Petro. that Christ made Peter Prince of Pastors and required of him the care of feeding his flock as a returne of his loue Why did the Emperor Constantine Pogonate and the sixth Councel generall call Agatho the vniuersall Arch-pastor (y) Ep. ad synod Apost in ◠synodo Act. 18. You say they to the Councell of the West and the vniuersall Arch-pastor by your procurators haue bene present at our Councell Why did the second generall Councell of Lions (z) Sext. decret C. Vbi peric call Gregory the tenth Gouernor of the vniuersall Church and guyde of our Lords flock And finally why did S. Bernard (a) L. 2. de considerat say to Eugenius Pope To you are committed the sheep not of one City or countrey but all the sheep of Christ without exception What thinke you M. Doctor These Fathers and Councels found the Pope among the Pastors reckoned by S. Paul and beleeued him to be the Arch-pastor and Pastor of all Pastors vnder Christ but you that shut your eyes against the light cold not discerne him The same I say of the name and title of Doctor which all antiquity hath acknowledged to be due to S. Peter and in him to his Successors S. Hypolitus Martyr sayth (b) Orat de consummat mundi Peter the Prince the Rock of fayth he the Doctor of the Church the chiefe of the Disciples S. Chrysostome calleth him (c) Orat. Encom in Pet. ac Paul Doctor of the Apostles and Mayster of the world And the Councell of Florence (d) In lit vnion with the accord both of the Latin and Greeke Church defineth the Bishop of Rome to be The Successor of blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles the true Vicar of Christ the Head of the whole Church the Father and Doctor of all Christians Nor doth this title agree to him as it doth to others but in a far more noble and excellent manner for S. Augustine speaking of his Chayre sayth (e) Ep. 160. The heauenly Mayster hath placed in the Chayre of Vnity the Doctrine of verity To you sayth S. Basil to Damasus Pope (f) Ep. 69. per Sabin Diac it is giuen by our Sauiour to discerne betweene what is counterfiete and what is pure and without any diminution to teach the fayth of our Ancestors And S. Hierome (g) L. 1. Apol. aduers Ruffin That though an Angell should preach otherwise then the Roman Church teacheth he were not to be beleeued Wherof Maximianus Patriarke of Constantinople yeldeth the reason saying (h) Ep. ad Oriental The Creator of the world among all the men of the world selected S. Peter to whom he granted the Chayre of Doctor to be principally possessed by a perpetuall right of priuiledge that whosoeuer is desirous to know any profound and diuine thing may haue recourse to the oracle and Doctrine of this instruction Nor is there any man that can deny this truth if he credit the auncient Fathers teaching that the priuiledge giuen to S. Peter of confirming his Brethren did not dye with him but was in him grāted to his Successors In regard wherof the Councels haue sent their decrees to the Pope to be cōfirmed by him S. Hierome S. Augustine Theodoret S. Cyril Venerable Bede S. Anselme S. Bernard and many other of the most learned Doctors of Gods Church haue submitted their writings to the seuerall Popes of their tymes to be examined approued or reproued according to their iudgment SECT IV. Doctor Mortons rayling against the Inquisition YOu obiect (i) Pag. 83. 84 that S. Peter as an Elder exhorteth the Elders or Bishops feede the flock of God not dominiering ouer Gods heritage What may be inferred from hence say you we may vnderstand in your second Challenge But you must giue vs leaue not to learne the sense of this Scripture from your Challenge but from the Ancient Doctors of Gods Church who out of it shew that S. Peter had practised the authority of Supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church But because S. Peter writing to Bishops commanded them not to dominiere in the Clergy (k) See aboue Chap. 9. fin you take occasion to raile against the Romish Inquisition first by making a relation of your owne (l) Pag. 85. no lesse false then spitefull of imprisonment famishment torment and ropes to strangle prisoners and all in tenebris workes of darknesse employed against all beleeuers receyuers defenders and fauorers of heretikes And to this your relation you add another like of Cornelius Agrippa (m) Ibid. whom you know to be a Magician an heretike and a forbidden author and yet you are not ashamed to call his lyes Our Confession And to the same purpose you bring Thuanus (n) Ibid. whom we owne not but bequeath him to you as one who by praysing the Huguenots and theyr Doctrine and by speaking against the Pope and Church of Rome sufficiently declareth what he is Now as for the thing it selfe who seeth not the absurdity of your argument which reduced to a few words is The inquisition is seuere in punishing heretikes especially such as hauing abiured their heresy before a Iudge relapse into the same againe and are in danger to infect others Ergo saluation may behad out of the Roman Church or Ergo it is lawfull to depart from her fayth communion or Ergo the Roman Church is not the Head of all Churches for these are the poynts in proofe wherof your grand Imposture wholly insisteth That you know all these illations to be absurd t' is not to be doubted but you are contented that men of learning and iudgment should know you to be absurd so that therby you may make the Roman Church hatefull to simple soules that want learning and iudgment to discerne your Impostures That Iews Mahumetans and Heretikes hate the Inquisition t' is no wonder Malefactors hate their Iudges theeues the gallowes How sayth S. Augustine (o) Ep. 166. can he that hath an ill suite prayse the Iudges by whom he hath bene conuicted And els where (p) Tract 11. in Ioan. ep 48. 50. he declareth that as they which blasphemed the God of Sidrach Misach and Abdenago were iustly punished by the Edict of Nabuchodonosor so heretikes because they draw men from Christ are in like manner iustly punished according to the lawes made against
Catholike and (g) Cont. Gand. l. 3. c. 1. Serm. 131. de temp ep 170. the interpretatioÌ„ of S. Augustine the Catholike Church be that which is vniuersally spread ouer the world the Roman Church and none els but she is the Catholike Church for Vniuersality agreeth to none but to her all Sects lurking in corners Wherfore you not only inconsideratly but against your selfe produce S. Augustine here (h) Pag. 89. and Optatus afterwards (i) Pag 341. to proue that your Protestant Church is the Catholike Church S. Augustine sayth (k) L de pastor c. 8. Not all heretikes are spread ouer the face of the earth yet there are heretikes spread ouer the whole face of the earth some heere some there yet they are wanting no where they know not one another One fact for example in Africa another heresy in the East another in Aegypt another in Mesopotamia In diuers places they are diuers One Mother Pride hath begot them all as our one Mother the Catholike Church hath brought forth all faythfull people dispersed throughout the whole world So said S. Augustine to the Donatists and so say we to you There are diuers sectcs in the world Wiclefists in Bohemia but in any other part of the world they are not There be Lutherans in Germany in Denmarke c. but in the rest of the world they be not There are ridged Caluinists in Geneua France and Scotland to whom you may ad your English Puritans but in other parts of the world they are not There are Protestants a more temperate sort of Caluinists in England but out of England they are not These therfore and all other sects of heretikes whatsoeuer are confined to a few Countries and therfore none of them can be the Catholike Church which is vniuersally spead ouer the whole world as the Roman Church is therfore she and none els but she is the Catholike Church Optatus speaking also to the Donatists sayd (l) L. 2. contra Parmen You will haue the Church to be where you are and you will haue it not to be where you are not that it may be with you you will haue it to be in a corner of Africa and that it may not be with vs you will not haue it to be in allmost innumerable Ilands Prouinces and Countries where we are and you are not So we say to Protestants you will haue the Catholike Church to be in England where you are but you will not haue it to be in so many other countries of Europe Africa Asia and America almost innumerable where we are you are not If your Church be the Catholike Church if it be vniuersally spread ouer the face of the earth as the Catholike Church must be we say to you as S. Augustine did to the Donatists (m) Ep. 163. Giue vs formed letters to men of your fayth and communion in all parts of the earth This you cannot do but we can for we are not only in Countries almost innumerable of Europe Africa Asia and America where you are not but we are also in England in France and all other Countries in which you are We therfore can giue you letters of communion to men of our Religion professing the fayth liuing in the communion of the Roman Church throughout all the world as well in places where you are as where you are not The Roman Church therfore â—â—e al one and â—onâ— but she is vniuersally spread ouer the face of the earth whersoeuer the name of Christ is knowne and therfore if Christ haue any Catholike Church on earth none but she is the Catholike Church The words which you obiect out of the Conferâ—nce of Carthage which in some copies are ioyned to Optâ—tus are neither his nor S. Augustine but of Balduinus a late Protestant writer of small credit But be they whose you please they are not pertinent to your purpose for no man doubts but that as the Church of Christ began at Hierusalem where his Ghospell was first preached by S. Peter and from thence by degrees spread ouer the world so whosoeuer is in communion of this Church vniuersally spread hath God for his Father and the Catholike Church for his Mother as S. Augustine professed himselfe to haue But withall he teacheth (n) Psal cont part Donat. and so doth all Antiquity that this Catholike Church so spread ouer the world is built vpon S. Peter and his Successors as vpon a Rock which the proud gates of Hell cannot ouercome and so doth S. Hierome saying (o) Ep. 57. to Damasus of the Roman See I know the Church to be built vpon this Rock In regard wherof he â—â—â—â—â—nceth all them that are not in the communion of the Bishop of Rome not to be of Christ but of Antichrist And for the same cause S. Augustine (p) Psal cont part Donat. grieued iâ— see the Douâ—tistâ—l ye cut of from the Roman Church and exhorted them as â—eunite themselues to her as branches to their Vine SECT II. The iudgment of S. Hierome concerning the Church Catholike WHat his iudgment was you haue partly heard 〈◊〉 â—â—eliâ—â—â—â—â— the Roman See to be the Rock on which the Catholike Church is built he was in her communion and (q) Ep. 57. â—eld you that refuse her communion to be a prophane person belonging to 〈◊〉 â—â—brist he held her to be The 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 whosâ—â—uer els shall be found at the â—â—â—â—ing 〈…〉 shall 〈◊〉 His iudgment was (r) Dial. cont Lucifer that if Christ 〈…〉 Church diffused throughout the world as the 〈◊〉 is â—hat wâ—s ordiâ—â—â— only as the sect of the Lucifâ—riâ—nâ— against whom he writeth was or only in a few Northerne parts of the world as your Protestant Congregaâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 fit iâ—â—e â—â—â—â—creding pâ—orâ— His iudgment was (s) Ibid. that 〈◊〉 â—orâ—â—ayne in that Church which being founded by the â—postles dâ—â—â—th vntill this day which is none els but the Roman 〈◊〉 in her alone there hath bene and still is a neuer interrupted Succession of Bishops from S. Peter vnto Vrban the eight who 〈◊〉 gâ—â—â—â—â—eâ—h that Church wheras there is no other Church founded by the Apostles in which Succession is not either wholly decaied or hath not bene often interrupted and broken of by heretikes or Arch-heretikes those Churches being wholly possessed by them His iudgment was that which he declarâ—â— when he said of Ruffinus (t) L. 1. Apol. aduers Ruffin Which fayth doth he call his is If that which the Roman Church holdeth then we are Catholikes And speaking to Ruffinus (u) Ibid. Know that the Roman fayth commended by the voyce of the Apostle admitteth not such delusions though an Angell should teach otherwise thâ—â—â—â—â—â—eth bene on â—â—â—â—iuered it cannot be altered being sensed 〈◊〉 Paul â—â—thority He declared his iudgment when he said to such as you are (x) Ep. 6. ad Pammach Ocean Whosoeuer thou are that auouchest noâ— Sects I pray thee haue respect to
the vniuersall Church hauing no right therunto A most vngodly comparison for these two Popes were of the most holy learned and renowned Prelates that euer sate in the Chayre of S. Peter since his tyme whose sanctity God hath testified with most illustrious miracles and whom all posterity hath iustly honored with the surname of Great S. Leo is he that with great care and vigilancy suppressed the Manichees that came flying out of the Africa to Rome other places of Italy that vsed singular industry to roote out the Donatists in Africa the Pelagians in France the Priscilianists in Spaine writing to the Bishops of greatest learning and fame that were then liuing in those Countries to be watchfull and assemble Councells for the condemning and extirpating those heresies and like wise he himselfe against the errors of Nestorius Eutyches Dioscorus assembled in the East that famous Councell of 630. Bishops at Chalcedon who all acknowledged him to be their Head and themselues his members and children and that to him the gouerment of the Church was committed by our Sauiour (k) In relat ad Leon. and who esteemed his words as the words of S. Peter and his iudgments as oracles of God crying out all which one voyce (l) Act. 1. Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo Leo hath iudged the iudgment of God Nor was S. Gregory of lesse renowne for to omit the admirable humility wherwith he refused the dignity of supreme Pastor the conuersion of our English nation and other great workes which he performed for the good of the Church the excellent bookes he writ for which he hath deserued the title of Doctor of the Church and the many famous miracles wherwith God declared his sanctity who is ignorant of the admirable Elogies wherwith ancient writers haue celebrated his prayses Among others that famous Archbishop of Toledo and Primate of Spayne S. Hildephonsus writeth of him (m) In lib. de viris illust that in sanctity he surpassed Antony in eloquence Cyprian in wisdome Augustine by the grace of the holy Ghost was endowed with so great light of humane science that in former ages none had bene equall vnto him And Petrus Diaconus testifieth (n) Vit. S. Greg. that he saw the holy Ghost in forme of a doue at his care inspiring him whiles he was writing which alone might haue made you forbeare the traducing of so admirable a man But returning to our question this very euasion of yours to wit that the testimonies of Popes are no sufficient argument to conclude a Papall authority because they speake in their owne cause sufficiently conuinceth that you know them to haue acknowledged such authority in themselues and that when you deny it you speake without all ground of truth for who can think that S. Leo S. Gregory and many other Popes renowned Martyrs and glorious Confessors most eminent in humility and all kind of vertue and to whose sanctity God added the seale of diuine miracles should with a Luciferian pride arrogate to themselues Pastorall authority power ouer the Church of God throughout the whole world if that dignity had not bene giuen by Christ to S. Peter and in him to them I deny therfore that when they maintayne their authority they speake in their owne cause They speake in the cause of God as witnes your selfe (o) Pag. 4◠S. Paul did when he said (p) Rom. 11. I will magnify myne office in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentiles And the like did S. Gregory when vpon that text he collected a generall lesson for the defence of his owne iurisdiction against such as you are saying (q) L. 4. ep 36. The Apostle teacheth vs so to carry humility in our hart that we do keep and preserue the dignity of that order wherunto we are called Wherfore as if a Vice-Roy should defend maintaine the dignity of his place for the seruice of the King his Maister and the repression of seditious persons he that should oppose him and resist his authority vnder color that he speaketh in his owne cause would be accounted no better then a rebell so no other reckoning is to be made of him that reiects the testimonies of Popes the Vicars and Lieutenants of Christ on earth because they defend their authority for they do it to defend the honor of Christ their Maister to magnify their office with S. Paul and with S. Gregory to preserue the dignity of that order wherunto they are called which dignity S. Augustine (r) Ep. 92. and the whole Councell of Mileuis acknowledge to be taken out of the authority of holy Scriptures But here by the way I desire to be resolued of a doubt You confesse (s) Pag. 301. that power of appeales if it be right and proper is a most certaine argument of dominion Againe you cōfesse (t) Pag. 303. marg fin n. 8. that S. Gregory excommunicated Iohn a Greeke Bishop of the first Iustinianaea because he had presumed to iudge Adrian Bishop of Thebes after he had appealed to the See Apostolike which conuinceth S. Gregory to haue belieued that the Bishops of the Greeke Church might lawfully appeale from their owne Metropolitans and from their Patriarke of Constantinople to the See Apostolike that the same See had true and proper right to admit their appeales and re-iudge their causes which it could not haue if the Pope had not true proper authority ouer the Greeke Church How then can you deny that S. Gregory belieued himselfe to haue that authority or that he practised the same Yea that he had power and iurisdiction not only ouer the Greeke Church but also ouer the vniuersall Church practised the same is a thing so certaine that your Protestant brethren Friccius Peter Martyr Carion Philippus Nicolai the Centurists and Osiander (u) Apud Brier Protest Apol. Tract 1. sect 7. subdiu 9. à n. 11. ad 29. shew out of his writings these particulars That the Roman Church appointeth her watch ouer the whole world that the Apostolike See is the Head of all Churches that the Bishop of Constantinople is subiect to the Apostolike See that S. Gregory challenged to himselfe power to command Arch-bishops to ordayne or depose Bishops that he assumed to himselfe right for citing Arch-bishops to declare their causes before him when they were accused and also to excommunicate depose them giuing commission to their neighbour Bishops to proceed against them that in their prouinces he placed his Legates to examine and end the causes of such as appealed to the Roman See that he vsurped power of appointing Synods in their prouinces and required Arch-bishops that if any cause of great importance happened they should referre the same to him appointing in prouinces his Vicars ouer the Churches to end smaller matters and to reserue the greater causes to himselfe All this is testified by your owne brethren to which Doctor Sanders
(x) Visib Monarch l. 7. à n. 433. ad 541. addeth much more of the same kind out of S. Gregories owne workes and in his owne words as that the See Apostolike by the authority of God is preferred before all Churches That all Bishops if any fault be found in them are subiect to the See Apostolike That she is the Head of fayth of all the faythfull members That if any of the foure Patriarkes had done against the Popesletters that which was done by the Bishop Salona so great a disobedience could not haue passed without a most grieuous scandall That the See Apostolike is the head of all Churches That the Roman Church by the words which Christ spake to Peter was made the Head of all Churches That no scruple nor doubt ought to be made of the fayth of the See Apostolike that all those things are false which are taught contrary to the Doctrine of the Roman Church That to returne from Schisme to the Catholike Church is to returne to the communion of the Bishop of Rome That he which will not haue S. Peter to whom the keyes of heauen were committed to shut him out from the entrance of lyfe must not in this world be separated from his See That they are peruerse men which refuse to obey the commands of the See Apostolike I conclude therfore with Doctor Sanders that he which readeth all these particulars and more of the same kinde that are to be found in the workes of S. Gregory and yet with a brasen forehead feareth not to interpret that which he writ against the name of Vniuersall Bishop so as if he could not abide that any one Bishop should haue the chiefe seate and supreme gouerment of the whole militant Church that man sayth he seemes to me either to haue cast of all vnderstanding and sense of a man or els to haue put on the obstinat peruersnesse of the Diuell How comes it then to passe that you are not ashamed to vrge here and els where so often in this your grand Imposture S. Gregories refusing the name of vniuersall Bishop as an argument to disproue his authority and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church especially since it hath bene so often and so fully answered by vs But because here you insist so much theron I will for the readers satisfaction briefly declare in what sense Pelagius and S. Gregory refused that title and how to better your argument you abuse and falsify our Authors The title of Vniuersalis Episcopus Vniuersall Bishop may be taken two wayes first for a Bishop that challengeth an vniuersall power ouer all other Bishops clayming to himselfe a right of hearing and determing all Ecclesiasticall causes in his owne and their Diocesses leauing them no other right to exercise any Episcopall iurisdiction power but only such as they shall receaue frō him as his Vicars In this sense S. Gregory conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to stile himselfe Vniuersall Bishop as it appeareth out of his plaine and expresse words in diuers of his Epistles (z) L. 4. ep 32.34 36.38 l. 7. ep 70. to which the margent will direct you And in this sense he calleth the name of vniuersall Bishop A prophane and Antichristian title 2. It may be taken in the same signification with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae so that it signify a Bishop to whom belongeth the gouerment of the vniuersall Church and the determining of all such causes as appertaine to her in generall without taking away or hindering the ordinary power and right of other Bishops and leauing each of them in their seuerall places degrees with full power and authority to iudge and determine all Causes Ecclesiasticall belonging to their Diocesses and within them In this sense the tytle of Vniuersall Bishop is not condemned by S. Gregory as new or prophane or any way vnlawfull but agreeth to the Pope no lesse then the title of Bishop of the vniuersall Church And therfore as S. Gregory (a) Ep. ad omnes Episc stileth himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church so likewise when Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria writing to him (b) L. 4. ep 36. gaue him the title of vniuersall Bishop he acknowledged (c) L. 4. ep 36. that in this sense he might lawfully accept therof and that the Councell of Chalcedon and the following Fathers had giuen it to his predecessors But yet he refused it out of his great humility as also he denied himselfe to be a Priest (d) L. 4. ep 31. and as S. Paul called himselfe the greatest of sinners (e) 1. Tim. 1.15 and thought himselfe vnworthy to be called Apostle (f) 1. Cor. 15. ◠And chiefly lest he might be thought to accept of it in the former sense vnlawfull iniurious to other Bishops in which he conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to vsurpe it And finally that therby he might better represse his insolency This doctrine is deliuered by Baronius and Bellarmine of whom because they declare Vniuersalis Episcopus in this second sense to be all one with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae you say (g) Pag. 94. They would gladly confound these two titles therby to proue their Popes to be proper Monarkes ouer the whole Church because some predecessors of S. Gregory haue bene called Bishops of the vniuersall Church which is their peruerse error refuted by one of their learned Iesuits But you must pardon me if I tell you that this is a shamefull vntruth for Baronius and Bellarmine deliuer the same double acception of Vniuersalis Episcopus which I haue declared and likewise affirme that in one of them it may be attributed to the Pope but not in the other which is not to confound but to distinguish that confusion and mistake may be auoyded And the thing it selfe is euident for if the title of Vniuersalis Episcopus might not be taken in a sense vnlawfull S. Gregory would not haue condemned it in Iohn of Constantinople as a new prophane Antichristian title And againe if it might not be taken in a sense lawfull neither the Councell of Chalcedon nor the following Fathers (h) Apud S. Greg. l. 4. ep 36. would haue giuen it to the Bishops of Rome The former sense is vnlawfull because it taketh away all ordinary power and iurisdiction due to other Bishops in their Diocesses The second is lawfull because it leaueth to them their ordinary power and iurisdiction From whence it followeth that as S. Gregory in this second sense did instile himselfe Episcopum Vniuersalis Ecclesiae (i) Ep. ad omnes Episcop so if Vniuersalis Episcopus be taken in the same sense it is also lawfull and due to the Bishops of Rome and in this sense he taketh it when he sayth that the Councell of Chalcedon and the following Fathers gaue it to his predecessors But the former sense he condemned as prophane and Antichristian reprehended in Iohn of Constantinople And Salmeron for
it selfe but one Church gouerneth another as the Metropolitan doth the Suffragans the Roman Church as being the Head and Mother Church ruleth all others of the world Nor is this explication of lesse force becauss he sayth that she gouerneth in the region of the Romans for he sayth it not to limit her gouerment but to expresse the place in which she is seated and from whence she gouerneth all other Churches I conclude therfore that by calling her the Church that gouerneth and not limiting her gouerment to anyone Church or nuÌ„ber of Churches he declareth her to be Head Gouernesse absolutely of all Churches for as S. Bernard speaking of this subiect sayth (m) L. 2. de consider at Where there is no limitation nothing is excepted And in this sense Theodoret long before had said (n) Ep. ad Leon. The Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the whole world This to be the genume sense of S. Ignatius his words Casaubon and you peraduenture did see and therfore to giue an expedite solution you reiect the whole Epistle saying (o) Pag. 100. marg No man skilfull in Greeke would belieue it to be written by S. â—gnatius But this solution is exploded by Euscbius (p) L. 3. hist. c. 30. and S. Hierome (q) L. de Scriptor who might be Casaubons and your Maysters in Greeke and yet affirme S. Ignatius to be the Author of this Epistle and transcribe a part therof yeÌ„t to be found in it as also doth S. Irenaeus (r) L. 4. aduers haeres apud Baron anno 109. to shew the admirable spirit and feruor of that holy Bishop Hauing proposed these arguments of Casaubon you obiect out of your owne obseruations (s) Pag. 100. that S. Ignatius exhorting the Trallians vnto obedience to Bishops instanceth equally in Timothy S. Pauls scholler as in Anacletus Successor to S. Peter Answere You may by the like argument proue that S. Ignatius equalleth Priests in authority with Bishops for exhorting the Trallians to obedience he instanceth as well in Priests as in the Bishop Obey sayth he (*) Ep. ad Trallianos the Bishop the Priests Who then seeth not your argument to be a childish Sophisme SECT VI. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church I Renaeus say you (t) Pag. 100. for direction in the right of Traditions referreth as well to Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna as to Linus Bishop of Rome Tertullian also to secure Christians in the Doctrine of the Apostles prescribeth vnto them that they consult with the Mother Churches immediatly founded by the Apostles naming as well Ephesus in Asia and Corinth in Achaia as Rome in Italy and for the persons mentioning as well Polycarpe ordayned by S. Iohn as Clemens by Peter The like argumeÌ„t you make out of Vincentius Lyrinensis But all of them imposterously and against your selfe And first to begin with S. Irenaeus these words Discite ab Apostolicis Ecclesijs Habetis Romae Linum which you alleage as of S. Irenaeus (u) L. 2. c. 3. I find not in him It is true that both he and Tertullian teaching the Christians of their tyme to auoyd heresy warned them that the true fayth was to be learned from the Apostolicall Churches that is from the Churches founded by the Apostles themselues or by Apostolicall men as Timothy Polycarpe and other their disciples that preached the same fayth they learned from the Apostles their Maysters But withall they taught them that the chiefe Church they were to adhere vnto and by whose authority they were to confound all Heretikes was the Roman Church All men sayth S. Irenaeus (x) L. 3. c. 3. may behold the tradition of the Apostles that is the fayth deliuered by them to their Successors in euery Church if they be desirous to heare the truth and we can number the Bishops that were made by the Apostles in Churches and their Successors euen vnto vs who neither taught nor knew any such thinge as rauing heretikes do broach c. But because it were a long businesse to number the Successions of all Churches we declare the tradition of the most great most ancient and most knowne Church founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which tradition and fayth it hath from the Apostles coÌ„ming to vs by Succession of Bishops and thereby we confound all them that any way ether by euill complacence of themselues or vaine-glory or blindnesse or ill opinion do gather otherwise then they ought Lo here how Catholikes in S. Irenaeus tyme did confound all heretikes by the fayth of the Roman Church and by the Succession of Bishops in that See And he yeldeth the reason saying (y) Ibid. for to this Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality all Churches must necessarily agree that is to say all the faythfull of what place soeuer in which Church the tradition and fayth of the Apostles hath bene alwayes conserued And in confirmation of this he reckoneth by name all the Popes from S. Peter to Eleutherius who at that tyme gouerned the Church (z) Ibid. And by that orderly and neuer-interrupted Succession he proueth the Roman Church to haue conserued vnto his daies the fayth pure and entyre as it was preached by the Apostles By this Succession that Doctrine and truth which the Apostles preached in the Church hath come to vs And this is a demonstration conuicing that it is one and the same quickening fayth which from the Apostles tyme vntill this day is conserued and delinered in truth And againe relating to this place and speaking of the same Succession of Bishops in the Roman Church which he calleth the principall Succession he declareth all those that withdraw themselues from it to be Schismatikes or heretikes They that are in the Church sayth he (a) L. 4. c. 41. ought to obey those Priests which haue their Succession from the Apostles which togeather with the Succession of their Bishoprikes haue receaued the assured grace of truth according to the good will of the heauenly Father And we ought to hold suspected all others that withdraw themselues from the like Principall Succession and ioyne togeather in some other place We ought I say to hold them as heretikes of a peruerse iudgment or as Schismatikes and selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes or els as Hypocrites that worke for lucre and vaine-glory If then S. Irenaeus in his dayes thought it an argument sufficient to conuince all Heretikes that they had fallen from the true fayth preached by the Apostles because they had fallen from the Succession of Bishops in Peters See to which all the Churches and faythfull of the world must necessarly agree how much more conuincing is the same Argument against Protestants to whom we shew not the Succession of twelue Popes in S. Peters See as S. Irenaeus did to the heretikes of his tyme but almost of 240. You were not ignorant of the force
certainly allowed and decreed by it 5. The same is confirmed out of the Councell of Sardica which being held soone after that of Nice made three decrees concerning Appeales The first (i) Cap. 3. that if in the cause of a Bishop who conceaues himselfe to be wronged a new iudgement be required the Bishop of Rome is to giue the Iudges The second (k) Cap. 4. that if a Bishop deposed by the next Bishops say his cause ought to be iudged againe none is to be installed in his See vntill the Bishop of Rome haue pronounced vpon it The third (l) Cap. 5. that a Bishop accused may haue recourse to Rome by way of appeale These Canons of Sardica sufficiently declare the beleefe of the Nicen councell touching the authority of the Bishop of Rome for as Harmen opulus writeth (m) In Epit. Can. By the aduice of the Emperor and of the Bishop of Rome the Synod if Sardica was assembled consisting of 341. Fathers which confirmed the fayth of the Councell of Nice and published the Canons Wherfore these canons touching appeales extant in the Councell of Sardica are either the very Nicen canons inserted into that of Sardica or declarations of them for the Sardican Councell consisting for the most part of the same Bishops that the Nicen did it is a senselesse thing to say that when those Bishops in their Councell at Sardica so expresly and so effectually declare the Bishop of Rome to be the supreme iudge of all Bishops they professe a new doctrine contrary to that which a litle before they had professed in the Councell of Nice 6. The authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer the whole Church is yet further declared in the Nicen Councell decreeing thus (n) Can. 39. ex 80. Graec. Arab. A Patriarke is so ouer all those that are vnder his power as he that hath the See of Rome is Head and Prince of all Patriarkes for he is the chiefest as Peter was to whom power was giuen ouer all Christian Princes and all their subiectes as being the Vicar of our Lord ouer all people and ouer the vniuer sall Church 7. The same is proued by the order of subscribing in the Councell for Victor and Vincentius being not Bishops but simple Priests because they were Legates to the Pope presided in the Councell togeather with Osius B. of Corduba and subscribed in the first place before all the Bishops and Patriarkes which they could not haue done but only in regard they represented his person who was Superior to all Bishops and Patriarkes 8. Though Constantine the Emperor was a great cause of the Bishops meeting in the Councell of Nice both because he persuaded that meanes of Concord as also because he defrayed their charges and by his letters called them together yet he called them not by his owne authority but as Ruffinus sayth (o) L. 1. c. 1. fin apud Spond Anno 325. n. 5. ex Sacerdotum sententia by the determination or decree of the Priests as in like manner he called an other Councell of 275 Bishops at Rome at the same time in which it is said Siluester gathered the whole Councell with the aduice of the Emperor The same is testified by Damasus in Syluesters life and by the sixt generall Councell saying (p) Act. 18. Constantine and Syluester worthy of prayse called the famous Councell of Nice And how can it be thought that it was called by any other authority then of the Pope seeing S. Athanasius and the Bishops of Aegypt in their Councell at Alexandria witnesse (q) Ep. Synod ad Felic that the Nicen Councell made a decree that no generall Councells should be held without the allowance of the B. of Rome and this decree it is which Iulius Pope the next but one to Syluester alleaged against the Arians (r) Ep. ad Orientales rebuking thē sharply that they had infringed it by calling their Councell at Antioch without his allowance which is also testified by Socrates Sozomen and Theodoret as you haue heard 9. And as this Councell was called by Syluester Pope so that it required confirmation from him we are certified by the Roman Councell vnder Felix the third (s) In ep Synod Felic c. 3. and by the Councell of Nice it selfe saying (t) In summ Conc. Nice Placuit c. It hath seemed good that all these Acts and decrees be sent to Syluester B. of Rome And in their letter to Syluester (u) Apud Baron An. 325. ex collect Crescon Whatsoeuer is determined in the Nicen Councell we beseech you that it may be seconded with the confirmation of your mouth And that Syluester accordingly confirmed their decrees we may learne from a Councell of the Bishops of Italy held at Rome in which he presiding sayd (x) Apud Bar. An. 325. Bin. to 1. pag. 382. Whatsoeuer is determined by the 318. holy Priests at Nice in Bithinia for the strength of the holy Catholike and Apostolike Church we with our mouth accordingly confirme and all those that shall dare to dissolue the definition of the holy and great Councell assembled at Nice in the presence of the most religious and venerable Prince Constantine the Emperor we anathematize them And all answeared So be it SECT I. Doctor Mortons Obiections against the precedent Doctrine answeared THough you either could not or would not find any thing of all that which hath bene alleaged out of the Councell of Nice in proofe of the Popes authority yet you cold find two argumēts to obiect against it The first is (y) Pag. 105. seqq The Councell of Nice decreeth that the ancient custome goe on to wit that the Patriarke of Alexandria haue power ouer Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis because the B. of Rome hath so accustomed To this argument Bellarmine hath answeared (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. that the Canon speakes of the Patriarke of Alexandria with restriction assigning to him the Prouinces of Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis and of the Pope without restriction not prescribing any lymits to his iurisdiction nor ordeyning any thing concerning the authority of the Roman Church but making her a rule and patterne for the gouerment of other Churches commanding that the B. of Alexandria haue power ouer those three prouinces because the B. of Rome hath accustomed so to allow or permit And this canon is so explicated by Nicolas the first (a) Ep. ad Michael Imper that liued almost 800. yeares since and for his learning and sanctity hath deserued the surname of Great And the same explication is confirmed by the practise both of the Roman and of the Alexandrian Church For if according to your construction the Roman Church by this canon be proued to haue no superiority of iurisdiction ouer the Church of Alexandria or other Easterne Churches but only ouer those which are within the Patriarkeship of the west how comes it to passe that S. Athanasius Patriarke
ruleth the whole body And therfore your answere is no lesse contrary to reason then if you should tell vs that in a politicall body as in a Colledge the Rector which is Head of the house hath no other superiority ouer his fellow-Collegials but only priority of place or of voyce nor the Gouernor of a City ouer the Citizens nor the Vice-Roy ouer the inferior officers of the kingdome And so much the more reprehēsible is this your sophistry because you know that the holy Councell of Chalcedon speaking to Leo Pope sayth (z) Inrelat ad Leon. You rule ouer vs as the Head doth ouer the members And (a) Ibide We beseech you to honor our iudgment with your decrees and that as in what concernes the weale we haue had correspondency to our Head so your Soueraignty would fulfill to your Children what concernes decency Do not these Fathers here expresly acknowledge Leo to be the ruler and Gouernor of the Vniuersall Church and beseech him to confirme and authorize their decrees If he had not power and authority ouer the whole Church why did S. Ambrose one of the Bishops to whom these Orientals addressed their letter as the inscription (b) Apud Theodoret. l. 5. hist c. 9. declareth speaking of this very Pope Damasus say (c) In cap. 3. prior ad Timoth Though all the world be Gods yet the Church is called his house wherof at this day Damasus is Gouernor If the Pope haue not iurisdiction ouer all Bishops euen the greatest Patriarkes of the East and power to annuall their decrees and the decrees of their Councells why did S. Chrysostome (d) Ep. 1. ad Innocent when he was deposed from the See of Constantinople in a Councell held by Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria write to Innocentius Pope beseeching him to annull the Acts of that Councell and punish them that had so iniustly condemned him Why did Theodoret Bishop of Cyre deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus appeale to Pope Leo (e) Ep. ad Renat ep ad Leo. acknowledging that the holy Roman See hath the sterne of gouernment ouer all the Churches of the world If the rule and gouerment of the vniuersall Church belong not to the Pope why did the Bishop of Patara in Lycia vpon the expulsion of Pope Siluerius from his See (f) Liberat. in Breui c. 12. represent vnto Iustinian the indignity of that fact saying that albeit there be many Kings and Princes in the world yet none of them ouer all the earth as the Pope is ouer the Church of all the world If the gouerment of the vniuersall Church belong not to him why did the Emperor Valentinian the third (g) Cod. l. 7. 8. instile him Rector of the vniuersaloty of Churches Why doth the same Emperor and Theodosius decree (h) Constit. Nouel tit 24. that all those things shall be lawes which haue beue or shall be ordayned by the Pope of the eternall Citty and that presumption attempt nothing against his authority for so say thoy the peace of the Church shall be maintayned by all if the vniuersality acknowledge her Rector If the Pope haue no superiority ouer other Bishops but only priority of place or of voyce why did Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria Paul of Constantinople with many others of the East in their wrongs appeale to Iulius Pope as to their Iudge (i) Socrat. l. 2. c. 11. how came he to replace them in their seates but (k) Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. by the soueraignty of his Church and (l) Nicepho l. 9. c. 8. because the charge of all belonged to him But to returne to the Councell of Constantinople Those Fathers in their letter to Damasus made sufficient acknowledgment of his authority ouer them (m) Apud Theodoret. l 5. c. 9. when they demanded from him the confirmation of their decrees of fayth and in particular that of the deposition of Timothy Patriarke of Alexandria condemned for heresy All these things say they being lawfully decreed according to the Canons of the Church we beseech your Holiness to approue them To which petition Damasus answeared (n) Apud Theodoret. ibid. c. 10. Wheras your charity most honoured children yeldeth due reuerence to the Apostolike See it shall turne you to great honor c. But what need was there to require from one the deposition of Timothy seeing he was long since deposed here with his Maister Apollinarius by the iudgment of the See Apostolike and in the presence of Peter Bishop of Alexandria SECT III. Whether the name of Brother Colleague and fellow-Minister which the Pope giueth to other Bishops and they to him argue them to be of equall authority and iurisdiction with him YOu obiect (o) Pag 110.111 that the Fathers of this second Councell generall write not to the Pope alone but to him with other Bishops of the Roman Synod whome they acknowledge to be their Colleagues and fellow members and therby cut the Roman Head into so many peeces as there were Bishops to whom they inscribed their Epistle It is a prime Argument of yours which you often repeate and strongly insist on (p) Pag 63. fin 64.83.84.110.111.116.141.268 that because Bishops are ioyned in society with the Pope or because they call him Brother Colleague and fellow-Minister as also because he writing to them calleth them his Brethren Colleagues there is no inequality of power betweene the Pope and them but that they are all equall with him Whiles you giue to the Pope say you (q) Pag. 63. fin 64. an absolute iurisdiction cum plenitudine potestatis ouer all Bishops how can you suffer him to be mated or equaled with others Bishops as Paul did Peter by ioyning in society with him Iames and Iohn 2. Here (r) Pag. 110.111 you inferre that because the Orientall Bishops that had bene present at the second Councell generall writing to Damasus Pope and other Bishops assembled at Rome call both him and them their Brethren and Colleagues they acknowledge not any authority or iurisdiction in the Pope more then in themselues or in the other Bishops to whom they write 3. You frame the like Argument (s) Pag. 116. out of the Councell of Ephesus because it calles Celestine B. of Rome Fellow-Minister 4. And out of S. Epiphanius (t) Pag. 241. who called Pope Hormisdas Brother 5. And out of S. Cyprian you tell vs (u) Pag. 268. that he neuer calleth the Pope Bishop of Bishops Father of Fathers High Priest of Christ and Monarke of the vniuersall Church as he would haue done if he had belieued his Monarchy but contrariwise in all his Epistles saluteth Pope Cornelius with only Charissime frater Most deare Brother taketh his Vale with the same Most deare brother farewell And when in his Epistles to others he falleth into mention of him he exceedeth not these Epithets Ourfellow brother Cornelius Our Colleague or fellow
were more then maruell if the Church of Rome should admit any Canon that may any way derogate from her presumption This your answere is as if the lower house of Parliament should enact a law against the Kings iust and lawfull authority or at least without his knowledge and the King not admitting therof you should iustify their acte saying a It were more then maruell if the King should admit any acte that may any way derogate from his presumption Were this loyalty Were this good Doctrine Yet such is yours for concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires the Pope hath the same place in a generall Councell that a King hath in his Parliament And as no Statute enacted in Parliament can be of force vnlesse it be confirmed by his Maiesty so no Canon nor decree of a Councell can be of force vnlesse it be confirmed by the Pope SECT VI. That no Canon of any Councell can be of force vntill it be confirmed by the See Apostolike FOr who knoweth not that as Socrates shewing the decrees of the Arian Councell at Antioch to be of no force sayth (h) L. 2. c. 5. Iulius B. of Rome was not there nor sent any in his steed wheras the Ecclesiasticall Canon commandes that no decrees be made for the Churches without the sentence of the B. of Rome Which Doctrine is els where repeated by himselfe (i) L. 2. c. 13. and by Epiphanius Scholasticus in the Tripartite saying (k) L. 4. c. 9. Councells must not be held without the allowance of the B of Rome And by Sozomen (l) L. 3. c. 9. who writes that Iulius rebuked the Arians for that against the lawes of the Church they had not called him to the Synod there being a Sacerdotall law which declareth all Actes to be inualid that are made without the allowance of the B of Rome The reprehension of Iulius which these Historians mention is exstant in his first Epistle to the Orientalls where he sayth The Nicen Canons command that by no meanes Councells be held without the B. of Rome And in his secōd Epistle which S. Athanasius hath inserted into his second Apology speaking to the Arians Are you ignorant that the custome is that if any exceptions were taken against the Bishops there we should first haue bene written to that what is iust might be determined from hence And how ancient this custome is Marcellus the first a holy Pope and Martyr testifieth saying (m) Ep. ad Epise Antioch Prouin The Apostles ordeyned that no Synod should be held without the Authority of the See of Rome Which ordination of the Apostles the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian confirmed by a speciall law in these words (n) Const Nouel Theo. tit 24. We decree that according to the ancient custome nothing be innouated in the Churches without the sentence of the Reuerend Pope of the City of Rome And in like manner Iustinian in his Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (o) Cod. tit 1. l. 7. We preserue the estate of the Vnity of the most holy Churches in all things with the most holy Pope of ancient Rome to whom we haue written the like because we will not haue any thing to passe concerning the affayres of the Church which shall not be also referred to his Blessednesse because he is the Head of all the holy Prelatet of God And in his letter to the Pope (p) Cod. tit 1. l. 8. We wil not suffer that any thing be treated of belonging to the estate of the Church though cleare and manifest which shall not also be referred to your Holynesse who are the Head of all Churches Vpon this ground it was that Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria was accused and by the Popes command punished in the Councell of Chalcedon (q) Act. 1. for that he had temerariously presumed to hold a Synod without the authority of the See Apostolike which neither was nor could euer lawfully be done And Euagrius in the history of the same Councell reportes (r) L. 2. c. 18. that the Senators demanding of Leo's Legates what charge there was against Dioscorus they answered that he must yeld an account of his iudgment because against right he had vsurped the person of a Iudge without the B. of Romes permission Wherupon by the iudgment of the Synod he was commanded as a person guilty to stand vp in the middest of the place and accused of many crimes as the same Narration declareth Againe from this ground it proceeded that as the Fathers of Chalcedon testify (s) Act. 10. in generall Councells the Legates of the See Apostolike were alwayes wont to speake and confirme the decrees made in the first place before all other Bishops And as all those Councells generall and particular which haue required and obtained Confirmation from the See Apostolike haue euer bene held valid and reuerenced throughout the Christian world so contrarily all those that haue wanted this confirmation haue bene reiected and condemned as vnlawfull and spurious assemblies The Councell of Ariminum for number of Bishops was exceeding great and yet for want of this confirmation the profession of fayth made by them in that Councell as also the Councell it selfe haue euer bene reputed inualid The number of Bishops assembled at Ariminum sayth Damasus with many other Bishops (t) Theod. l. 2. c. 22. Sozom. l. 6. c. 23. ought to haue no force of preiudice for as much as that profession of fayth was made without the consent of the B. of Rome whose sentence before others ought to haue bene attended Againe for want of this confirmation the second Councell of Ephesus hath alwayes bene condemned as a piraticall Synod And that famous Martyr Stephanus Iunior speaking of a Councell held by the Image-breakers vnder Constantinus Copronymus answered (u) Apud Damas edit Pacis an 1603. part 2. pag. 491. How can this Councell be called Oecumenical which was not allowed by the B. of Rome without whose authority no Ecclesiasticall decrees can be made In like manner Pelagius predecessor to S. Gregory speaking of Iohn B of Constantinople sayth (x) Ep. 1. That intituling himselfe Vniuersall he presumed to call a general Councell wheras the authority of calling generall Synods hath bene consigned by a singular priuiledge to the Apostolike See of blessed Peter c. And therfore sayth he (y) Ibid. to the Bishops of that Councell all that you haue decreed in that no-Synod of yours for Synod so attempted it could not be but a Conuenticle I ordaine by the authority of blessed Peter that it be annulled and abrogated And S. Gregory speaking of this sentence of Pelagius sayth (z) L. 4. op 38. l. 7. ep 70. Our Predecessor Pelagius of blessed memory hath disanulled by a sentence entirely valid all the actes of that Synod except what concerned the cause of Gregory B. of Antioch Finally to adde more proofes for the confirmation of a truth so certaine were to adde light
the proud but consent with the humble Wherfore this Canon first made in the Councell of Constantinople and afterwards renewed in the Councell of Chalcedon was neuer confirmed but still resisted by the See Apostolike and therfore hath alwayes remained inualid That sayth Gelasius (m) De Anathem vinculo which the See Apostolike consented not to the Emperor imposed it not nor Anatolius vsurped it but all was put into the hands of the See Apostolike and therfore what the See Apostolike confirmed of the Councell of Chalcedon hath remained valid and what that See hath reiected could neuer obteyne any force and she hath annulled that only which the Synodicall assembly adiudged to be vsurped against order It resteth therfore that albeit this decree haue many other nullities yet this one of the want of confirmation from the See Apostolike abundantly conuinceth the inualidity therof as hath bene already proued And because Anatolius knew that if it were once vnderstood that this Canon was resisted and condemned by the See Apostolike it would be condemned by the iudgment of all Catholikes in the world he craftily suppressed the letters of condemnation as Leo in his answere to the Emperor Martian testifieth (n) Ep. 59. I writ to your Glory and to the B. of Constantinople letters which euidently shewed that I approued those things which had bene defined in the Councell of Chalcedon concerning the Catholike fayth But because by the same letters I reproued those things which by occasion of the Synod had bene vnlawfully attempted he Anatolius rather chose to conceale my applause then to publish his owne ambition And to Pulcheria the Empresse (o) Ep. 60. Wheras the most religious Emperor hath willed me to write letters to all the Bishops which assisted at the Councell of Chalcedon to confirme what was there defined concerning the rule of fayth I haue willingly performed it lest the deceipt full dissimulation of some might breed any doubt of my sentence although by meanes of the B. of Constantinople to whom I had largely testified my ioy what I had written might haue come to the knowledge of all if he had not rather chosen to conceale my contentment then to publish the rebuke of his owne ambition Wherfore it is euident that as this Decree when it was first made in the Councell of Constantinople remayned inualid for want of Confirmation from the See Apostolike (p) See aboue Chap. 17. sect 5. 6. so for the same want it tooke no effect when it was renewed in the Councell of Chalcedon in so much that Anatolius was enforced to desist from his clayme and excuse the attempt he had made laying the blame on others as it is cleare out of these words of Leo to him (q) Ep. 7â— This thy fault which to augment thy power thou hast committed as thou sayest by the persuasion of others thy Charity had blotted out better and more sincerely if thou hadst not imputed wholly to the Counsell of thy Clergy that which could not be attempted without thy allowance c. But deare Brother I am glad that thy Charity protesteth thou art now displeased with that which euen then ought not to haue pleased thee The profession of thy loue and the testimony of the Christian Prince is sufficient to re-admit thee into common grace nor doth thy amendment seems late that hath gotten so reuerend a surety This recantation of Anatolius sheweth that his attempt of hauing the second place after the Pope and enioying the like priuiledges after him was vnlawfull and proceeded merely from his ambition SECT V. Falsifications and vntruthes of Doctor Morton discouered and his Arguments answeared VVHat you produce in defence of this Canon are either falsifications vntruthes or friuolous cauills for first you falsify Azor (r) Pag. 118. His words are The Canons and decrees of Councells which are either of fayth or of the law of God or of nature the Pope can neither annull nor alter but if the decrees and Canons be of those things which belong to human right he may annull them or alter them in whole or in part And this sayth he is the common opinion of Diuines and Canonists You very honestly mangle his words not mentioning the first part of them in which he sayth The Pope can neither annull nor alter the decrees of Councells which are of matters of fayth or of things commanded by the law of God or nature And wheras he addes that the Pope can annull or alter the Decrees of Councells which are of human right you in your english leaue out those words which are of human right to persuade your Reader that Azor sayth and that our Diuines and Canonistes with common consent allow the Pope power to change the Decrees of fayth and annull the precepts of God and of nature whereas he speaketh only of lawes that concerne Ecclesiasticall discipline which according to diuers occasions and circumstances may be altered for the good of the Church If this be not an imposture what is 2. You obiect (s) Pag. 12 1â—9 The Fathers of Chalcedon thought that the Church of Rome got the primacy not by diuine but by humane right to wit because Rome was the chiefe Impâ—riall seat Answere There are two causes of the primacy of the Roman Church the one immediate the other mediate The immediate cause is the dignity of S. Peter wherwith Christ honored him when he made him the foundation of his Church (t) Math. 16.18 and the Pastor of his flock (u) Ioan. 21. vers 15.16.17 And so much the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledged when they called the Popes Epistle The speach of the See of S. Peter (x) In alloquut ad Imperat and when they said to Leo (y) In relat ad Leon. Dioscorus hath extended his phrensy against him to whom the custody of the Vine which is the Catholike Church was committed by our Sauiour that is to say against your Apostolike Holinesse The same truth the Mileuitan Councell in which S. Augustine was Secretary had professed not long before acknowledging the Popes authority to be of diuine right when speaking to Innocentius they said (z) Aug. ep 92. that his authority was taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures And Gelasius with a Councell of 70. Bishops (a) In decreto de lib. Apocryph The Roman Church hath not bene preferred before other Churches by the constitutions of Synods but hath obtained the primacy by the voyce of our Lord and Sauiour in the Ghospell And as the same Gelasius rightly obserueth (b) Ep. ad Episc Dardan Milan Rauenna Sirmium Treuers and Nicomedia were for a long tyme seates of the Empire and yet the Fathers neuer thought that any Primacy was therfore due to the Bishops of those Cities Neuerthelesse it may be said in a true sense that the mediate and remote cause of the Primacy of the Roman Church that is to say the cause which moued S. Peter
to place his See at Rome rather then in any other Citty was the dignity of Rome To the end sayth S. Leo (c) Serm. 1. de Apost Pet. Paul that the light of truth which was reuealed for the saluation of all nations might from the Head of the world be communicated more effectually to the whole body Of this cause the Fatherâ— of Chalcedon speake when they say (d) Act. 15. Rome got the Primacy because it was the chiefe seate of the Empire And both these causes are comprehended by the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian in their Law made a litle before the Councell of Chalcedon in these words (e) Nouel Theodos tit 24. Three things haue established the primacy of the See Apostolike the merit of S. Peter who is Prince of the Episcopall society the dignity of the City and the Synodicall authority 3. You obiect (f) Pag. 118. The Fathers of Chalcedon gaue priuiledges to the Patriarkes of Constantinople equall to the Church of Rome This we deny for in the Councell of Chalcedon there was no mention made of equal priuiledges this clause was afterwards added by Anatolius or by the Clerkes of Constantinople (g) See this proued aboue in this Chap. sect 4. and to this S. Gregory seemeth to relate when he sayth (h) L. 5. ep 14. The Councell of Chalcedon in one place hath bene falsified by the Grecians And the Fathes of Chalcedon neuer intended by this Canon to giue the Patriarkes of Constantinople any priuiledge of exemption from their obedience and subiection to the Pope but only to grant them precedency before the other Patriarkes of the East as hath bene proued (i) In this Chap. sect 4. And the same is manifest out of the writings of Leo Pope who though in his epistle to the Fathers of Chalcedon and in diuers others which he writ to the Emperor Martian to Pulcheria the Empresse to Anatolius himselfe and to diuers other Bishops of this subiect he speake against Anatolius for his ambitious attempt yet in none of them doth he say or insinuate that those Fathers gaue to Anatolius or that Anatolius himselfe euer aspired to equality of priuiledges with the B. of Rome but only reprehended him for wronging the Patriarkes of Alexandria and Antioch in procuring himselfe to be preserred before them The same is yet further proued because when Rome was fallen into the hands of the Gothes and Wandals the Patriarkes of Constantinople making vse of the tyme and setting this Canon on foote againe procured the Emperor Zeno to establish by a law that the Patriarke of CoÌ„stantinople shold haue the precedency before the other Patriarkes And the like they obtayned from Iustinian after the recouery of Rome when he ordayned (k) Nouel 131. that the Archbishop of Constantinople shold haue the second place after the holy See Apostolike and be preferred before all the other See Lastly the same is proued by the subiection which the Patriarkes of Constantinople acknowledged to the Pope after the Councell of Chalcedon and by the authority which he exercised ouer them for not long after that tyme when Acacius B. of Constantinople an enemy to the Councell of Chalcedon had fallen into the faction of heretikes the Churches of the Patriarkeship of Constantinople had recourse to Symmachus Pope as to their Pastor as Superior to their Patriarke Seeing your Children perish sayd they (l) Ep. Eccles Orient ad Symach in volum Orthodox impress Bafil in the preuarication of our Father Acacius delay not or rather to speake with the Prophet stumber not but make hast to deliuer vs. And when the same Acacius for his adhering to Peter Moggus an hereticall inuasor of the See of Alexandria was deposed by Felix Pope though he stood out as long as he liued contemning the Popes sentence sent vnto him to Constantinople yet the Emperor Iustine that succeeded Anastasius caused Felix his sentence to be executed on him after his death making his name to be razed out of the Records of the Church and from the recitall in the sacred mysteries Wee haue giuen order sayth Iustine to Hormisdas Pope (m) Epist. ad Hormisd that the Reuerend Church of Constantinople and many others accomplish your desire in razing out the names of those whom you haue commanded to be taken away from the sacred records And in conformity to this Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople writing to the same Hormisdas said (n) Epist ad Hormisd I anathematize Acacius somtime Bishop of this City and promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred mysteries the names of them that are excluded from the communion of the Catholike Church that is to say that agree not in all things with the See Apostolike And Theodorus Anagnostes reporteth (o) Ad calc hist. Eccles Theodor. ex edit Robert Stopha that when Anastasius the Emperor vrged Macedonius Patriarke of Constantinople to abrogate the Councell of Chalcedon he answeared he could not do it without a generall Councell in which the B. of Rome must be president And when Anthymus B. of Trebizond inuaded the See of Constantinople Agapetus Pope being arriued thither deposed him euen in the City of Constantinople it selfe and in the sight of Iustinian the Emperor and excommunicated the Empresse Theodora that protected him and with his owne hands ordained Menas in his place the truth of all which is auerred by Iustinian himselfe (p) Nouel 42 by Marcellinus Comes (q) In Chron. by Liberatus (r) Breuiar c. 12. and Victor of Tunes (s) In Chron. edit per Ioseph Scâ—lig And did not Menas Patriarke of Constantinople make open profession of obeying the See Apostolike in all thinges (t) In Conc. Constan sub Meâ— Act. 4. And when Iohn the first Pope of that name was arriued at Constantinople Iustine the Emperor inuiting him to sit in a seat by Epiphanius Patriarke of that City that they might seeme both to be of equall dignity Iohn refused to sit vntill according to the prerogatiue of his See a throne was prepared for him aboue Epiphanius (u) Nicoph l. 17. c. 9. which passing in the City of Constantinople it selfe and in Epiphanius his owne Church and that many yeares after this decree of the Councell of Chalcedon was made euidently sheweth that it neuer tooke effect since neither Epiphanius nor any of the other Patriarkes here named liuing after the Councell of Chalcedon claymed any right of Equall Priuiledges therby but all of them remained subiect to the Pope as before the Councell they had bene And that which purreth this out of al doubt is that albeit the Patriarkes of Constantinople at length obtained that precedency before the other Patriarkes of the East which in the Councells of Constantinople and Chalcedon they labored for yet neuerthelesse euen then they still acknowledged themselues subiect to the Pope witnesse S. Gregory who writing to Iohn B. of Syracusa sayth (x) L. 7. ep â—4 Who doubts but
apud Author cit that he with them all might reioyce in the peace restored to the Church by his meanes And in another to Xistus his successor (g) Apud Euseb l. 5. hist c. 4. he declareth the Popes authority ouer all those Bishops beseeching him to pardon their offence restore them to his communion I writ to Stephen sayth he an Epistle for all those Bishops To conclude you adde another falshood saying (h) Pag. 135. that we grant Stephen Pope to haue excommunicated not only Firmilianus with other Eastern Bishops but also S. Cyprian and you proue it by the testimony of Cassander and hereticall and prohibited Author whome you contrary to your owne knowledge cite as a Catholike writer that so you may haue some colour to call his lies our Confessions as here you doe And indeed what man of common sense can persuade himselfe that the Roman Church would honor S. Cyprian as a glorious Saint and Martyr as she doth if he had died out of her communion and especially if he had contemned her excommunication Lastly I must aduertise you of another absurdity whiles you tell vs (i) Pag. 138. that we should aduise in this case rather with Firmilianus a Bishop liuing in the dayes of S. Cyprian then with S. Augustine who came 150. yeares after for this is to tell vs that we must rather belieue Firmilianus a party and for a tyme guilty both of the heresy of the Quarta decimans of Rebaptization then S. Augustine an Orthodox Doctor and an impartiall witnesse But yet if we aduise with Firmilianus he will condemne you 1. Because he retracted his errors before his death returning to the communion of the Roman Church and witnesse S. Basil (k) De Spir. S. ad Amphil. c. 29. was admitted among the Catholike Bishops in the Councell of Antioch held against Paulus Samosatenus And 2. because in his Epistle to Cyprian he acknowledgeth Stephen to be successor of S. Peter on whom the foundations of the Church were layd And the reason which he yeldeth for his not obeying Stephen is that he must rather obey God then man (l) Extat apud Pamel pag. 198. which is a reason not to be giuen but by one that knowes himselfe bound to obey him that commands if his command be not contrary to the commandment of God as he thought Stephens to be though erroneously as you haue heard CHAP. XXV Other Arguments of Doctor Morton our of S. Cyprian answeared FRom this your mayne Argument of the opposition of Firmilianus and S. Cyprian you passe to other obiections shewing as you say (m) Pag. 134. in tit sect 4. the full opposition of S. Cyprian and other Bishops against Stephen B. of Rome But seeing you acknowledge (n) Pag. 291. alibi the Roman Church to haue bene pure and free from error for the space of 600. yeares and the Popes that liued in S. Cyprians time to be glorious Saints and Martyrs of Christ (o) Pag 172.178.181.287 with what conscience do you make S. Cyprian fully opposite to them and to differ in masters of fayth from them for what els is that but to make S. Cyprian an heretike that so he may seeme to be like to your selfe Now to your obiections of the full opposition of S. Cyprian to Pope Stephen The first is (p) Pag. 134. that S. Cyprian impugned the Popes pretended power of appeales to Rome in proofe wherof you produce ignorantly the examples of Fortunatus and Felicissimus for they appealed not to Pope Stephen but to Cornelius betwene whom and Stephen sate Lucius another Pope Againe the obiection is impertinent for the definitions of Councells confirmed by the Popes and the decrees of the Popes themselues ordeyne that maior causes that is to say of fayth and of Bishops be referred to the See Apostolike but that minor causes that is of the liues manners of Priests and inferior clerkes be finally sentenced ended in their owne prouinces by their Bishops and Metropolitans or by the Councells of their Prouince This is declared by S. Augustine who speaking of Cecilianus B. of Carthage that had bene condemned in Africa by a Councell of 70. Bishops sayth (q) Ep. 162 There was no question then of Priests or Deacons or other Clerkes of the inferior order but of the Colleagues that is so say of Bishops who might reserue their causes intire to the iudgment of the other Colleagues and principally of the Churches Apostolike and therfore that Cecilian might haue contemned the multitude of his enemies conspiring against him for as much as he saw himselfe vnited by communicatory letters with the Roman Church in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike had alwayes florished This sheweth the futility of your obiection For Fortunatus and Felicissimus were not Bishops but simple Priests who hauing bene iudged by their owne Bishops ought not to haue appealed to Rome and therfore Cornelius reiected their appeale and excommunicated them as S. Cyprian declares in that very Epistle which you obiect and returned Felicissimus back into Africa with other his associates sent by Fortunatus for Fortunatus himselfe went not in person to Rome as you mistake but sent Felicissimus with other Schismatikes like himselfe And that S. Cyprian by complaining to Pope Cornelius of these rebellious sugitiâ—â—s did not deny his power of appeales not the subiection of the African Churches to the See of Rome his words in that very Epistle (r) Ep. 55. three lines before to goe no further plainly declare when speaking of these Schismatikes he sayth They presume to saile to the Chaire of Peter and the principall Church from whence sacerdotall Vnity is deriued and to carry betters from schismaticall and prophane persons not hauing in mind that the Romans are they whose fayth was praised by the mouth of the Apostle and to whome vnfaithfulnes can haue no accesse Your second obiection is (s) Pag. 134. that the Councell of Carthage did deny to any whomsoeuer the title of Bishop of Bishops This is an vntruth for the words are not of the Councell but of S. Cyprian who speaketh only of his fellow Bishops of Africa assembled with him in that Councell and to them only he directs his speach wishing them to deliuer their opinion freely without regard to the authority which he as their Primate had ouer them But in what sense soeuer you take the words they are of no force as being vttered in an erroneous Councell which the Church hath condemned which S. Augustine (t) L. 6. de Baptism per tot hath confuted from which S. Cyprian himselfe afterwards disclaymed retracting his error Your third is (u) Pag. 134. that S. Cyprian would not acknowledge the name of Pope per antonomasiam to be proper to the B. of Rome as we teach because at the tyme of his Martyrdome being demanded of the Proconsull Art thou he whom the Christians call their Pope He answeared
interuene that could not without much difficulty passe the seas for the debility of sexe or of age or other impediments In regard wherof they requested the Pope not to be facill in admitting appeales of that nature 2. You obiect (z) Pag. 146.151 If it were granted that the Canons for appeales were to be found in the Councell of Sardica yet the Popes Monarchy would stil stand vpon but humane authority for the grant of appeales made in that Synod to Iulius Pope was but vpon fauor not vpon duty not an old custome but a new constitution If it please you say they so much to honor the memory of Peter let vs write to Iulius B. of Rome c. And againe If you all be pleased c. From these words you inferre that the graÌ„t of appeales to Rome is no more but ad placitum and that if the Pope for his pretension could haue drawne a two edged sword ex iure diuino he would not haue fought with this wodden dagger of humane Constitution This wodden Argument you thinke to be of such moment that for want of better you repeate it afterwards againe (a) Pag. 302.303 Your reasoÌ„ I know not for the very words which you obiect shew that the Councell of Sardica did not ground appeales to Rome vpon humane Constitution but vpon diuine right for what is it to honor in the Pope the memory of Peter but to acknowledge him to be S. Peters Successor and consequently Head of the Church And therfore what in their Canon they expresse in these words That we may honor the memory of Peter let it be written to Iulius B. of Rome c. they declare in their Epistle to the same Iulius saying It is very good and fit that from all Prouinces the Bishops haue reference to their head that is to the See of the Apostle Peter Wherfore as the dignity of Head of the Church had belonged to the See of S. Peter from all antiquity by diuine institution as the African Fathers in the Councel of Mileuis haue declared (b) Aug. ep 92. professing the Popes authority to be taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures so likewise had the right of Appeales implicitly conteined in that dignity And on this right was grounded the custome of appealing to Rome from all antiquity as it appeareth out of the Epistle of Iulius Pope (c) Apud Athan. Apolog 2. written to the Arians before the Councell of Sardica Are you ignorant sayth he that the custome is that we be first written to that from hence may proceed the iust decision of things and therfore if there were any suspicion conceaued against the Bishops there you should haue written to vs. And by this right it is that Athanasius Paul and other Bishops of the East being driuen from their seates by the Arians appealed to Iulius Pope before the Councell of Sardica and he restored to each of them their Churches by the prerogatiue of his See and because the charge of all belonged to him (d) Socra l. 2. c. 12. Sozom. l. â— c. 7. Wherfore the Councell of Sardica did not then first institute appeales to Rome as you pretend but only reduce into a written law that which had belonged to the See of Rome by diuine right and had bene formerly practised by custome only And this written Law it is which Osius proposed to be made saying If is please your Charity that we honor the memory of Peter c. In which sense Nicolas the first truly said (e) Ep. ad Michael Imper. The priuiledges of the Roman See were giuen by Christ our Lord celebrated and honored by the Councels but not giuen by them And before him Gelasius an African and scholler to S. Augustine with a Councell of 70. Bishops (f) In Decret de Apocryph Scriptur The holy Roman Church hath not bene preferred before others by any constitutions of Synods but hath obtained the primacy by the voyce of our Lord and Sauiour in the Ghospell saying Thou art Peter c. And the same truth had bene professed long before that tyme by Iulius Pope in his first Epistle to the Easterne Bishops in the cause of Athanasius (g) Extat apud Bin. to 1. pag. 399. Nor is it new for a Councell to make a written decree for the presetuation and obseruance of that which formerly had bene practised in the Church by custome only why els did the first Councell of Constantinople speaking of the ordination of Bishops by their Metropolitans say (h) Apud Theodoreâ— l. 5. hist c. 9. It is as you know a law both grounded on custome and on the decision of the Councell of Nice The example of a King wherwith you conclude this point is against your selfe for although she dignity of a King include a supreme right of appeales to be made vnto him yet it is no derogation to his Royall dignity to haue a written law enacted in Parliament for the preseruation of that right against all such as shall either iniustly deny the same or at least shall thinke the practise of them to be inconuenient 3. You say (i) Pag. 146. Antiquity hath denied that any Canon for appeales was to be found in the Councell of Sardica This is an vntruth sufficiently refuted by what hath bene said (k) Sect. 2. 3. and by your owne Confession pretending that the right of Appeales is not by diuine institution but by humane because the decree which the Councell of Sardica made in fauor of them was a humane constitution But that you may not seeme â—o speake without ground you falsify Salmeron (l) Pag. 147. He speaking of the reseruation of cases in the inward court of conscience that is in the Sacrament of pennance sayth (m) In 1. part 5. disp 8. In S. Cyprians tyme non erant casus peculiares conscientiae ipsi Pontifici reseruati No peculiar cases of conscience were reserued to the Pope You to make him speake of the contentions Court to deny that any Appeales were anciently reserued to the Pope peruert his words thus Tempore Cypriani non erant casus peculiares reseruati conscientiae Pontificis In the tyme of Cyprian there were no peculiar cases reserued to the conscience of the Pope or as you english In the dayes of S. Cyprian there was no reseruation of any such cases namely of appeales in vse for of them you speake Answere now Is it all one to say non erant casus peculiares conscientiae ipsi Pontifici reseruati as Salmeron sayth to say non erant casus peculiares reseruati conscientiae Pontificis as you say No there cannot be a more wilfull falsification For 1. you misplace Salmerons words 2. You turne Pontifici into Pontificis And 3 you put conscientiae into the construction of the datiue case which Salmeron hath in the genitiue How can this iuggling be excused 4. You say (n) Pag. 144. The African
And Osius admonishing Constantius the Arian Emperor Intermeddle not O Emperor in Ecclesiasticall causes nor take vpon you to command vs in this kinde but rather learne those things from vs. To you God hath committed the Empere the affaires of the Church to vs. And as he that maliciously carpeth at our gouerment resists the ordinance of God so take you heed that in assuming to your selfe those things which belong to the Church you make not your selfe guilty of a most hainous crime for it is written giue to Cesar those things which are Cesars and those which are Gods to God The like reprehension was giuen to the same Emperor by Leontius that famous B. of Cesaraea who had bene present at the Councell of Nice whom Cregorius Presbyter (t) Spoud anno 32â— â—â— â— tearmeth equall to the Angells I wonder said he to Constantius (u) Suid. in Leouâ— that you being appointed to order and gouerneone thing do meddle with others you are chiefe commander in military and ciuill affaires and you presume to ordaine what Bishops shall do in things that belong to Bishops alones And when the Captaine of the hereticall Emperor Valens required the Priests and Deacons of Edessa to submit to the Emperor in matters of religion representing to them that it was madnesse to resist so great a Monarch Eulogius a Priest of the same City answeared pleasantly (x) Theodor. l. 4. hiâ—t c. â—â— What hath Valens together with the Empire gotten also the place and dignity of a Bishop And when Dalmatius the Tribune with a publike Notary was sent by Valentinian the yonger to summon S. Ambrose to a disputation with Auxentius the Arian Bishop and others of his sect in the Emperors pallace before him and his Courtiers (y) L. â— op 3â— I answered sayth S. Ambrose to the Emperor the same that your Father of glorious memory not only answered in words vpon like occasion but also established by his lawes that in causes of fayth and Ecclesiasticall order Priests only are to iudge of Priests yea further that if a Bishop should be questioned for his manners this iudgment should likewise appertaine to Bishops c. When haue you euer heard mâ—st clement Emperor that lay men did iudge of Bishop in matters of fayth You are yet youg in yeares you will by Gods grace and the maturity of age be better informed and then you will be able to iudge what manner of Bishop he is to be accounted that subiects the right of Priesthood to lay men Your Father being a man of riper yeares said It belongs not to me to be a Iudge among Bishops and will your Clemency now say that you ought to be their Iudge So S. Ambrose But what need we further proofes Did not Constantine himselfe whom here you obiect refuse to heare the causes of Bishops answearing (z) Ruffin l. 1. c. 1. S. Greg. l 4. ep 72. That Bishops had power to iudge of Emperors but not Emperors to iudge of Bishops shewing therby that he acknowledged himselfe to haue no power of a Iudge in Ecclesiasticall causes Yea and this very fact of Constantine which you obiect is so farre from yelding any precedent for secular Princes to iudge Ecclesiasticall causes that it manifestly concludeth the contrary for when the Donatists required him to giue them Iudges in the cause of Cecilian B. of Carthage he stood amazed at their impudency He durst not sayth S. Augustine (a) Ep. 166. iudge the cause of a Bishop And Optatus (b) L. 1. cont Parmen He answeared them with a spirit full of indignation you aske of me iudgment in this world of me I say that do my selfe attend the iudgement of Christ You would haue me to make my selfe a Iudge of the Ministers of Christ I that do my selfe expect the iudgement of Christ. Wherfore though Constantine at the importunity of the Donatists granted them Iudges of the Gaules as they required he did it not without making this protestation before hand that it belonged not to him to meddle with the iudgement of Christs Ministers And notwithstanding that the Donatists who demanded Iudges and the Iudges which Constantine assigned them as also Constantine himselfe were then all actually present in France yet he caused the Donatists together with the Iudges which he had giuen them to trauaile to Rome that according to the ancient custome and lawes of the Church (c) Athan. Apol. â— Sozom l. 3. c. 9. And See aboue Chap. 26. the cause might be iudged by the Popes direction and vnder his presidency And this remission of the cause from his owne Court to the Popes tribunall was not by way of commission or delegation from himselfe as from a Superior Iudge to the Pope as to an inferior as you falsly suppose but by way of remission to him to whom he knew that iudicature in right to belong for how could the Emperor that professed himselfe to haue no right of a Iudge in the causes of Bishops giue power and commission vnto others to iudge the cause of Cecilian Wherfore although S. Augustine in regard of the Donatists intention call this remission a delegation yet withall he declareth that the reason of this delegation was because the Emperor durst not iudge the cause of a Bishop which sheweth that it was not a delegation of authority and power but a relegation or remission of the cause to whom the iudgement therof in right appertained Nor doth it import that he remitted not this cause to the Pope alone but to him and other Bishops his Colleagues for he remitted it not to them equally but to the Pope as to the chiefe Iudge and President and to the others as to the Pope Assessors Melchiades sayth S. Augustine (d) Cont. Iulian l. â— c. 2. Bishop of the Apostolike See being President Reticius was present as a Iudge with others And againe (e) Cont. Parmen l. 1. c. 5. By the arbitrement of Constantine the cause was heard by Bishops Iudges ouer whom presided Melchiades B. of the Citty of Rome Behold how exactly S. Augustine attributes to euery one what belonged vnto them Constantine was an Arbitrator the other Bishops present as Iudges assessors to Melchiades and as witnesses of his proceedings Melchiades chiefe Iudge and President And therfore he as hauing full authority did not content himselfe with taking for his Assistents the three French Bishops nominated by the Emperor but by his owne authority added to them other fifteene of Italy whose names Optatus rehearseth (f) Cont. Parmen l. 1. wheras if he had not bene absolute Iudge by his owne authority but only by delegation from Constantine he could not haue added any other Iudges to those three which Constantine nominated Againe his authority appeared in this that none of the Assistants but he in the name of the whole Councell and as President therof pronounced the sentence How innocent sayth S. Augustine (g) Ep. â—â—2
was the definitiue sentence pronounced by blessed Melchlades how entire how prudent how peaceable in so much that S. Augustine greatly commendeth him for it saying (h) Ibid. O blessed man O sonne of Christian peace and Father of Christian people Neuerthelesse those rebellious Donatists rested not but from the iudgement of the Pope appealed againe to the Emperor which he so much misliked that he called it (i) Ep. ad Episc Cathol ad calc gest purgat Cecil Felic A great phrensy incredible arrogancy a thing not fit to be spoken or heard a mad impudency of fury a recourse to a secular iudgement from an heauenly and a contempt of Christes authority And yet out of a great desire he had to gaine them yelding to their importunity or as S. Augustine sayth (k) Ep. 166. giuing way to their peruersnesse and hoping that what he did would be auowed by the See Apostolike he granted them another Councell of 200. Bishops at Arles which hauing duely examined their cause confirmed the Popes sentence therfore gaue them no more satisfaction then the Roman Councell had done Wherfore from this Councell they had recourse againe to the Emperor beseeching him to take the examination of the cause into his owne hands which he did but yet A sanctis antistitibus postea veniam petiturus (l) S. Aug. ep 162. with intention to aske pardon afterwards of the holy Bishops for medling in a cause that belonged not to his Court but to theirs But what did Constantines iudgement appease the fury of those obstinat heretikes No The Emperor sayth S. Augustine (m) Ibid. is chosen Iudge the Emperors iudgement is despised But no wonder for what els could be expected from such rebellious spirits but that as they had refused to stand to the sentence of the Church so also they should contemne the iudgement of the Emperor Who is there then that seeth not how far this history is from prouing that Constantine acknowledged in himselfe any authority to meddle in Ecclesiasticall causes since he durst not iudge the cause of a Bishop and charged the Donatists with neuer heard of impudency arrogancy impiety fury pernersnesse porensy and contemp of Christs authority in flying from the iudgement of the Church to his secular tribunall And that if in this cause he did any way assume to himselfe the person of a Iudge it was with protestation to aske pardon of the holy Bishops and in hope it would be auowed by them for as much as what he did was out of a desire to quiet the Donatists and reduce them to the peace and communion of the Catholike Church And how far this example of the Donatists is from helping your cause or hurting ours S. Augustine will yet better informe you (n) Cont. lic Petil. l. 2. c. 92. Ep. 166. for as when they were condemned by the Church they fled to Cōstantine so when they were repulsed and condemned by him they despised his iudgement and appealed to Iulian an Apostata from Christian religion and a professed enemy to Christ beseeching him to restore vnto them the Churches which Catholike Princes had taken from them and to that end honored him with this Elogy (o) Ep. 166. That in him alone all iustice remained which gaue S. Augustine cause to say vnto them (p) Ibid. If it were in your power you would not now call against vs Constantine a Christian Emperor because he defended the truth but you would rather raise Iulian the Apostata from hell How far these words of S. Augustine may touch you for producing this example of the sacrilegious Donatists as a precedent of your doctrine and Constantine as a paterne for secular Princes to meddle in Ecclesiasticall iudgments I leaue to the readers censure for if as you pretend this example of the Donatists flying from the iudgment of the Church to Constantine be of force to proue that the Popes iudgement will suffer an higher appeale why shall it not also be of force to proue that the iudgement of Constantine will suffer an higher appeale to Iulian the Apostata for the example of these Donatists is a precedent for the one as well as for the other A second history which you obiect (q) Pag. 16◠to proue that the Popes iudgement will suffer an higher appeale is that in the case of Athanasius Constantine chargeth all the Bishops of the Prouince of Tyre to appeare before him without delay and to shew how sincerely and truly the had giuen their iudgements The case is this Diuers hereticall Bishops of the East Arians Meletians and Colluthians assembled themselues at Tyre to accuse Athanasius of many crimes which themselues had maliciously forged and suborned false witnesses to testify against him that so they might seeme to haue iust occasion to abstaine from his communion condemne him Constantine being informed therof at the intreaty of Athanasius call's them to him to yeld accompt of their proceeding Ergo say you the Popes iudgment will suffer an higher appeale A false consequence for S. Athanasius fled from the said Councell of Tyrus vnto Constantine not as to his competent Iudge but as to the Protector of Innocency and of the Church to be maintayned in the possession of his Bishopricke honor life against which his Arian aduersaries were with such violent and insuperable malignity bent as he had no meanes to auoyd so great mischiefs tending to the ouerthrow of Catholike Religion but by imploring the ayde of the supreme secular Power That in this case Clergymen and Bishops may haue recourse vnto the arme of temporal Princes S. Paul (1) Act. 28. Coactus sum appellare Caesarem shewed by his example as (2) Athanas Apolog. 2. ad Constantium S. Athanasius and (3) August Epist 48.50 204. S. Augustine and out of them Suarez (4) Suarez defensio fidei lib. 4. c. 10. n. 5. obserueth Lastly you obiect (r) Pag. 161. fin 162. that When the cause Ecclesiasticall requireth Constantine proceedeth to denounce punishment by his owne authority against whomsoeuer that shall honor the memory of those Bishops Theognis and Eusebius These two Bishops were Arians and great fyrebrands of that blasphemous sect which had bene condemned an athematized by the holy Councell of Nice and moreouer had committed many other most enormous crimes some of which Constantine hauing mentioned in his Epistle to the people of Nicomedia addeth (s) Theod. l. 1. hist. c. 20. If any one shall be so temerarious and audacious as to goe about to praise and honor the memory of those plagues of the Church Theognis and Eusebius he shall presently be punished by me for his folly These words of Constantine shew that he did not threaten punishment to any Ecclesiasticall person but to the people of Nicomedia if they should audaciously presume to honor those Heretikes whom the Church had condemned which was not to assume any Ecclesiasticall authority to
Authentica which out of the Glosse you obiect We ordaine sayth he (i) Authen de eccles tit c. 2. according to the definitions of the holy Councells that the most holy Pope of the elder Rome is to be the first of all Prelates and that the most blessed Archbishop of Constantinople new Rome shall haue the second place after the holy See Apostelike of old Rome and shall be preferred before all the other Sees But you vrge the Glosse alleageth the Emperor saying that the B. of Constantinople hath the same right ouer those in subiection vnder him which the Pope hath ouer his True but the same Glosse declareth which you conceale that this similitude of rights between them is not in all respects but in quibusdam in some which the Glosse nominateth Yf you compare them precisely as Bishops of their peculiar Dioceses of Rome and Constantinople or as Patriarkes he of Constantinople hath the same rightes in his Dioces and Patriarkeship of Constantinople that the Pope considered precisely as Bishop and Patriarke hath ouer his Dioces of Rome Patriarkeship of the West But besides these two dignities the Pope is Chief of all Prelates and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church to which titles the B. of Constantinople hath no right but in regard of them is inferior to the Pope and subiect to him And so much you might haue vnderstood if from the Glosse you had turned your eyes to the texts of that and the precedent Chapter which declare that the Pope is aboue the B. of Constantinople and hath power to depose him when there is cause And you might also haue called to minde that many Patriarkes of Constantinople haue bene deposed by diuers Popes among them Anthymus by Agapet in the very City of Constantinople in the presence of Iustinian which neither he nor Theodora the Empresse that protected Anthymus would haue permitted if they had not acknowledged the subiection of the Patriarke of Constantinople to the B. of Rome SECT IV. Doctor Mortons fourth instance of Theodosius and Valentinian examined THe Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian say you (k) Pag. 162. in their letters to Cyrill require all Bishops without exception to be present at the Councell of Ephesus as they meane to auoid the sentence of condemnation vpon themselues Wherupon Pope Leo is glad to returne an answeare excusing his not coming by the exigence of time and his other instant occasions within his owne Dioces which would not permit him to be absent from his See and therefore hopeth his owne words to obtaine so much pardon and fauor that his Legates may be accepted of in his stead These your words are full of ignorance and falshood for first the letters of Theodosius and Valentinian to Cyrill were to call him and other Bishops to the first Councell of Ephesus which was held finished in the tyme Celestine Pope nine yeares before Leo was created B. of Rome Is it not then palpable ignorance to say that Leo is glad to returne an answeare excusing his not comming by the exigence of time and his other instant occasions within his owne Dioces when as the letters were written nine yeares before he had any Dioces at all and were neither directed to him nor any way concerned him 2. If Theodosius and Valentinian called the Bishops to the first Councell of Ephesus it was not by their owne authority but by the authority of Celestine Pope (l) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 2. Bar. anno 430. 3. Howbeit Theodosius in the yeare 449. which was 19. yeares after the writing of that letter to Cyrill by his owne authority assembled the Piratioall Synod of Ephesus in fauor of the Eutychian heresy yet knowing that no Councell can be valide which is not celebrated by the consent and authority of the B. of Rome he writ to Leo then Pope inuiting him to it And this letter it is which you ignorantly confound with the other written to Cyrill who was dead siue yeares before the writing of this to Leo. But Leo knowing the error of Eutyches to haue bene condemned already in a Councell at Constantinople and to be in it selfe so manifestly impious that as he writ to the holy Patriarke Flauianus (m) Ep. 1◠another Councell might no way seeme necessary for the condemnation of it and withall fore-seeing the great mischiefes that were like to ensue out of the Councell intended by Theodosius endeauored to diuert him wholly from that purpose or at least to perswade him that if a Councell were called it might be held in Italy But seeing he could draw the Emperor to neither of these conditions least on his part any thing should be wanting which might seeme auaileable for the destruction of Heresy and peace of the Church he sent Legates in his steed to preside in the Councell at which himselfe could not be present for the reasons expressed in diuers of his epistles (n) Ep. 12.17.18 in which also he declareth that he sent them armed with his authority either to restore Euches to the Catholike communion if he would renounce his errors and aske pardon of them as by libell presented to the See Apostolike he had promised to do or els to pronounce the last sentence of condemnation against him But wheras you to make good that the calling of Councells belongs to Emperors say (o) Pag. 162. Leo's owne words are that he hopeth to obtaine so much pardon and fauor that his Legates might be accepted of in his steed you speake not truly for his words are Because you know that my presence at Rome importeth for the common good so that saluâ Clementiae Vestrae veniâ by the good leaue of your Clemency I might not deny my selfe to the loue and requests of the Citizens thinke me to be present in these my brethren whom I haue sent in my steed and giuen them full instructions what ought to be obserued And it is to be noted that these words are not spoken by Leo to the Emperors as out of your discourse it may seeme to our English reader but to Pulcheria a woman who witnesse the Apostle (p) 1. Cor. 14.34 may not speake in the Church much lesse assemble Councells or moderate Ecclesiasticall causes Nor do they import any subiection to her in ecclesiasticall affaires but are merely words of ciuill respect and vrbanity fit to be vsed to the person of so great a Lady And your illation out of them that Emperors haue power to moderate Ecclesiasticall causes and assemble Councells is a consequence that suiteth not well with your iudgment and learning SECT V. Doctor Mortons fifth instance of Iustinian examined THe last Emperor you obiect is Iustinian Who say you (q) Pag. 162. will hardly please vs because he authorized vnder his owne hand the Code or bookes of Constitutions and Pandects for the regulating of the Clergy as well as of the Laity That this will hardly please vs you proue out
of Baronius saying that herein he is iustly reproued by many as one inuading vpon and intruding into the office of diuine Causes He is indeed reproued by diuers that thinke him to haue made ecclesiasticall lawes by his owne authority But by others he is iustly excused and in particular by Baronius (r) Anno 528. alleaging for his iustification as you confesse (s) Pag. 166. that he being a man wholly illiterate his Ecclesiasticall Constitutions were made by Epiphanius and Menas Patriarkes of Constantinople but publised in his name to the end they might be better obserued which was no way hurtful but profitable to the Church whose lawes were neglected and contemned by vicious Emperors and hereticall Prelates and people which at that tyme abounded in the East and especially by the Patriarkes of Constantinople many of them hauing bene infected with heresy This is apparent out of the expresse testimonies of Iustinian himselfe who not once but often professeth (t) Nou. 1 de Monast monach Nou. 81.123.133.137 that concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires he decreed nothing but according to the prescript of the holy Canons and therfore Iohn the second Pope of that name in an Epistle to him (u) Extat apud Baron anno 534. approueth and confirmeth his Lawes being informed by two Bishops Hypatius and Demetrius his Legates that they were made by the interuention and consent of Bishops according to the Doctrine of the See Apostolike decrees of the holy Fathers Wherfore Iustinian in those constitutions did nothing but what a Catholike and religious Prince might lawfully do without preiudice to the authority of the See Apostolike or inuesting himselfe in any part of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction Moreouer that by his Lawes he intended not to derogate any thing from the authority of the Bishop or Church of Rome his Lawes themselues beare witnesse We preserue sayth he in his law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (x) Cod. tit 1. L. 7. the estate of the vnity of the most holy Churches in all things with the most holy Pope of old Rome to whom we haue also written the like for we will not suffer any thing to passe concerning the affaires of the Church which shall not be referred to his Blessednesse because he is the Head of all the holy Prelates of God And in the Law Inter claras (y) Cod. tit 1. L. 8. into which is inserted that famous Epistle which he sent by Hypatius and Demetrius with a solemne Embassage to Pope Iohn against Cyrus and Eulogius Legates of the Acemites he sayth Yielding honor to the Apostolike See and to your Holynesse which is and euer hath bene our desire and honoring your Blessednesse as it becometh vs to honor our Father we haue speedily giuen notice to your Holynesse of all things that belong to the ecclesiasticall state for we haue had great care to preserue the Vnity of your Apostolike See and the state of the holy Churches of God c. And thersore we haue made hast to subiect and vnite all the Priestes of the East partes to the See of your Holynesse nor do we suffer that any thing belonging to the state of the Churches be is neuer so cleare and vndoubted be vnknowne to your Holynesse who are the Head of all the holy Churches To these restimonies of Iustinian you haue deuised diuers answers 1. With some petty Protestant Lawier you cauill at his Epistle to the Pope and the Popes answere to him as fictitious (z) Pag. 256. But this to be a calumny is learnedly proued by the two famous lawiers Alciatus (a) Parerg. l. 4. c. 24. and Cuias (b) Obseru l. 12. c. 16. 2. By Liberatus a writer of the same tyme (c) In Breu. c. 20. who reportes Iustinians embassage sent to the Pope by Hypatius and Demetrius and the Popes answeare to him which are extant in the same Law 3. By the testimony which Iustinian himselfe giues therof in his Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (d) Cod. tit 1. L. 7. and in his Epistle to Agapet Pope 4. By Leunclauius a Protestant Lawier who hath translated and printed Iustinians Epistle to the Pope and the Popes answeare to him as the eight Law of the Code 2. Wheras Iustinian call's the Pope The chief and Head of all Bishops and the Roman Church The Head of all Churches you answeare (e) Pag. 256. that we haue heard how common the word Caput hath bene without any sense of Monarchy We haue indeed heard you say (f) Pag. 50. 110. that the similitude of Head and Members implieth no superiority of iurisdiction but only of order that is of priority of place of voyce and the like But you also haue heard (g) Chap 11. Chap. 17. sect 2. how vntrue and repugnant not only to the beliefe of antiquity but euen to common sense this is 3. You obiect (h) Pag. 256. If this Rescript of Iustinian be taken so rigidly as we would haue it it is contradictory to another Constitution of his in which he grants the chiefe right in ecclesiasticall causes to belong to the Gouernor of euery Prouince We know that as while Iustinian was Catholike he made no Lawes but with the consent of Bishops and confirmation of Popes so if after he fell into heresy and contemned the authority of the Church he made lawes repugnant to the Catholike fayth and discipline of the Church t' is no wonder That proueth against you that heretikes are they which make lawes contrary to the fayth and discipline of the Roman Church and that if Iustinian had still remained a Catholike he would haue made no such lawes as he did not before he fell into heresy 4. You obiect (i) Pag. 166. Iustinian before he fell into heresy banished two Popes Siluerius and Vigilius To proue that he banished Siluerius you set downe these words as of Baronius Siluerium Papam mittit in exilium Iustinian sendeth Siluerius Pope into banishment But you abuse Baronius He hath no such words nor attributes the banishment of Siluerius to the Emperor but sayth he was sent into exile by Bellisarius and Antonina his wife partly at the instigation of the hereticall Empresse Theodora offended with him because he would not replace in the See of Constantinople Anthymus an Eutychian heretike and an inuader of that See whom therfore Agapet Pope had iustly deposed and partly for certaine crimes forged against him by her and Vigilius Yea Baronius (k) Anno 538. witnesseth that the Bishop of Patara comming to the Emperor and shewing him how displeasing it was to God that the Pope who is ouer the Church of the whole world to whom no King in the world is comparable should be driuen from his See he presently commanded him to be recalled from the place of banishment to Rome that the accusations against him of Treason might be examined But if Baronius had said that Iustinian
himselfe euen before his fall into heresy had banished not only Vigilius as he doth but also Siluerius as Bozius by you cited sayth he did doth it therfore follow that he had done well May not among Catholikes Children sometimes forgetting their duety rise against their Parents and subiects against their Superiors spirituall or temporall May not Catholike Princes be in passion displeasure against Bishops and vpon suspicions mistakes and misinformations do against them that which afterwards they must repent as King Henry the second did the death of S. Thomas of Canterbury Did not Constantine misinformed by the Ariaus banish S. Athanasius (k) Athan. Apol. 2. Socrat l. 2. c. 22.23 Epipha haer 66. And was not S. Chrysostome condemned by a Councell of Catholike Bishops and banished out of a Catholike Citty by Arcadius a Catholike Emperor at the instance of Eudoxia his wyfe a Catholike Empresse And yet both he and she were so far from not beliueing the supreme authority of the Roman Church or thinking it lawfull to liue out of her communion that being for this fact excommunicated by Innocentius Pope they humbled themselues and crauing absolution with sorrow for their fault obtained it What therfore Iustinian did in his wrath either against Siluerius or Vigilius is no Argument to proue his no subiection to the B. of Rome whom he called and acknowledged to be his Father but it proueth that in laying violent hands on Vigilius he behaued himselfe not like a child but like an enemy and persecutor of the Church For which offence as also for the great wronges he offered to Eutychius a most holy Patriarke of Constantinople for his heresy auarice and cruelty God punished him with a suddaine death And albeit Nicephorus (l) L. 17. c. 31. report that he died penitent and in hope therof the sixth Synod Agatho Pope and S. Gregory (m) Apud Baron amo 565. with other late writers make honorable mention of him yet Euagrius Procopius (n) Apud Baron ibid. eye witnesses of those times report otherwise The truth will be knowne at that day when the secrets of all hartes must be reuealed Lastly you obiect (o) Pag. 256. that Iustinian which made a Law declaring the Roman Church to be the Head of all Churches shewed his authority in breaking it when he called the Church of Constantinople the Head of all other Churches This obiection hath no other ground but your mistake for Iustinian speakes of the Church of S. Sophia which is the Cathedrall Church of Constantinople and this he call's The Head of all other Churches not of the whole world but of that Patriarkeship as it appeareth by the contexture following and by his other Lawes (p) Cod. tit 1. L. 7. 8. in which he declareth the Pope to be Head of all the holy Prelates of God and ordaineth that the See of Constantinople be second after Rome We ordaine sayth he (q) Nou. 131. according to the definition of Councells that the holy Pope of old Rome shall be the chiefe of all Prelates and that the blessed Archbishop of Constantinople new Rome shall haue the second place after the See Apostolike of old Rome If therfore the Church of Constantinople be the second after Rome she cannot be Head of the Roman Church and therfore not Head of all Churches of the world CHAP. XXXI Of the Authority and place of Emperors in Councells THAT no Councell is valid which is not called and approued by the B. of Rome is a truth already demoÌ„trated (r) Chap. 17. sect 6. as also that the first eight generall Councells in particular were assembled confirmed by his authority (s) Chap. 16. seqq Cusanus his Concordia which you obiect for the contrary is of no force as being a prohibited booke and which you know Cusanus himselfe hath retracted Concerning Priority of place in generall Councells whether it be due to the Pope or to Emperors some ghesse may be had by what already you haue heard (t) Chap. 29. 30. for if the Episcopall dignity be aboue the Imperiall as far as gold is aboue lead and the soule aboue the body and if Christian Kings and Emperors be sheep of Christs fold the Pope their Pastor if they his children and he their Father will you say that priority of place is due to the lesser dignity aboue the greater that the sheepe ought to sit aboue their Pastor or the Children aboue their Father Constantine the Great said to the Bishops in the Councell of Nice (u) Ruffin l. 1. c. 1. Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. S. Greg. l. 4. ep 72. God hath placed you as Gods ouer vs and we being men haue no power to iudge you that are Gods but you are to iudge vs men For Leo de Castro vpon those words of Isay (y) Ep. 60.14 The children of them that humbled thee shall come crowching to thee out of an ancient Record of the order of S. Benedict concerning the customes of the Catholike Church reporteth that Kings in ancient times going to the Synods of Bishops did prostrate themselues before them and kisse the ground not rising vntill the Bishops desâ—eding from their seates did lift them vp in their armes So far were the greatest Princes in those dayes from thinking that priority of place was due to them either before the Pope or other Bishops And vpon the same motiue it was that Emperors and Kings neuer signed the Actes of generall Councells but either after all the Bishops as Constantine Pogonate did in the sixth Councell or at least after the Popes Legates and all the Patriarkes as in some others in which for honors sake it was granted to Emperors to signe before other Bishops inferior to Patriarkes And if the most religious Emperors and Kings haue held the Pope in so great veneration that because they knew him to be the chiefe Vicar and Lieutenant of Christ on earth they haue honored him with kissing his feet and performing the office of yeomen of his stirrop (z) See about Chap. 10. If Iustine the Emperor receauing Iohn the first Pope of that name in the City of Constantinople adored him prostrate on the ground (a) Spond anno 525. n. 1. if Iustinian the elder did the like to Pope Agapetus (b) Spond anno 536. n. 5. and the younger Iustinian hauing his Imperiall crowne on his head and meeting Constantine Pope fell downe prostrat as his feet and kissed them (c) Spond an 710. n. 1. how can it be conceaued that these Emperors and Kings did thinke priority of place to be due to theÌ„selues aboue the Pope Oh but say you (d) Pag. 163. when we aske the question why none of your Popes were euer personally present in any of the first generall Councells though they were present in the same City as was Vigilius when the fifth generall Councell was celebrated Bellarmine answeareth that the Greek Bishops would
Councell of Hierusalem and reported in that of Constantinople vnder Menas (a) Act. 4. to iustify their sentence of deposition against Anthymus B. of Trebizond And Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria (b) Ep. ad Epiphan apud S. Hieron Ep. 67. a familiar friend to S. Hierome as their mutuall Epistles declare out of the same text proueth the power of condemning heresies giuen by Christ to his Church which sayth he we see now performed for the Church of Christ with the Euangelicall sword hath cut off the heads of Origens serpents And finally this text is alleaged to the same purpose by Petrus Cluniacensis (c) L. 6. ep 14. Alexander of Hales (d) Part. 3. q. 40. memb 2. the Irrefragable Doctor and Maister to S. Thomas of Aquine All which sheweth that either the Fathers and Councells vnderstood not the words of the Prophet or els that you deny the true sense misinterpreting them in fauor of your false Doctrine But returning to S. Bernard That which most of all discouereth your ignorance if not rather fraud is that you say Boniface the eight prophaneth the word of God notoriously for patronizing of rebellions and murders making from pretence of Scripture a Decree to dispossesse Emperors Christian and heathen of their kingdomes depriue them of their lines It is to be noted that this decree of Boniface on which you are pleased to inflict so seuere a censure are the very words of S. Bernard taken out of his fourth booke of Consideration to Eugenius Wherfore you must confesse that S. Bernard prophaned the word of God notoriously for patronizing rebellions and murders and dispossessing Kings of their kingdomes and liues or els you must acknowledge that you wrong and slander Pope Boniface who sayth nothing but what S. Bernard said before him and in S. Bernards owne words I cannot but vehemeÌ„tly suspect that a man of your reading could not but know that the words were S. Bernards but because you durst not for shame of the world impute such horrible wickednesse to so glorious a Sainct and whom Caluin himselfe (e) L. 4. de Consid c. 11. §. 11. acknowledgeth to speake in those his bookes of Consideration as if Truth herselfe did speake you lay it on Boniface Pope that so you may haue some colour to raile freely at him in his name to charge S. Bernard with that impiety of which neither of them both was guilty The second Father whom you alleage is S. Gregory who as he is frequent in Moralls so he explicateth these words of Hieremy in a morall sense of pulling vp Vices and planting vertues by preaching in the soules of the hearers But that they may haue another more litterall sense the Fathers and Councells haue informed you Nor was S. Gregory so ignorant as to thinke he had no other way to reforme the disorders of Bishops and others vnder his charge but by preaching only for his writings his practise and your owne confessions beare witnesse to the contrary (f) See aboue Chap. 15. sect 3. Your third profe is out of Lyra to whose words you adde gratis the aduerbe Tantùm to inferre that Bishops haue no other meanes to represse vices and remedy disorders in their subiects but only by preaching which if it were true how could the Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon haue deposed Nestorius and Dioscorus not to mention a thousand such exaÌ„ples of which Ecclesiasticall histories are full Yea the word denuntiare which Lyra vseth doth not obscurely import so much for not only preachers but ecclesiasticall Prelates denounce punishment to offenders to deterre them from sinne And so do secular Iudges when they threaten them with corporall chastisements SECT III. Your third Argument out of the examples of Popes examined SOme Popes say you (g) Pag. 171. haue not bene idle but haue put their positions in practise by deposing Kings and Emperors sporting themselues with tossing the crownes from their heads not for any note of heresy but only for not subiecting themselues to the Popes dignity and dominion Why do you not tell vs that when 200. Bishops in the Councell of Ephesus and 630. in the Councell of Chalcedon deposed Nestorius and Dioscorus they did it to sport themselues with tossing the myters of Patriarkes from their heads If any Popes haue deposed Kings or Emperors my assumpt is not either to defend or dispute by what right they did it The first Pope whom you accuse (h) Pag. 171. 174. is Zacharias who being chosen by diuine ordination (i) See Anestasius Platiâ—a Yllescas in his life performed heroical acts for the publike good of the Church He bare singular loue to the clergy and people of Rome and generally to all Christians being ready to spend his life for them He built repaired and adorned with rich furniture many Churches within without Rome He reduced to peace all Italy which he found in combustion of warrs going himselfe in person to effect it He established confirmed Bishopricks and setled the affaires of Christian religion in Germany He was of a most sweet and malde disposition adorned with all vertue and goodnesse slow to anger most ready to mercy and compassion rendring to no man euill for euill but to the imitation of Christ ouercoming euill with good in so much that being made Pope he aduanced to honors those who formerly had bene his enimies and bestowed rewards on them And finally for his singular vertues he is reuerenced as a Saint and his feast yearely celebrated by the whole Church of God (k) Martyrol Roman 15. Martij The second Pope you traduce is Gregory the seauenth who say (l) Pag. 171. 174. you deposed Henry the third Now this Gregory whom you so often and so intemperatly reuile (n) Pag. 40. 171. 174. 179. was one of the most admirable Prelates that hath possessed the chaire of S. Peter A man sayth Nauclerus (o) Chronol genral 37. religious fearfull of God a louer of iustice and equity constant in aduersity and that for God feared not to enterprise whatsoeuer was iust A man sayth Schafnaburgensis (p) Hist. rerum German an 1977. of great constancy and inuincible courage against auarice The signes and wonders which God did worke by the prayers of Gregory and his most feruent zeale for God and the lawes of the Church did sufficiently defend him against the poysoned tongues of his detractors He was sayth Otho Frisingensis (q) L. 6. hist c. 32.34.36 alwayes most constant in Ecclesiasticall rigor a paterne to his flock shewing by his example that which in words he taught a valiant champion that feared not to oppose himselfe as a wall for the house of God and whose death bred no small griefe to the Church because she saw herselfe depriued of so worthy a Pastor who among all Priests and Bishops of Rome was of most especiall zeale and authority A man in whose defence S. Anselme that
famous Bishops of Luca renowned for his learning and sanctity and illustrious for miracles in his life and after his death writ against Guibertus the Antipope set vp by the wicked Emperor Henry the fourth and among other praises giueth him the same that S. Cyprian in like occasion gaue to the holy Pope Cornelius I may affirme sayth he of Gregory our Father that which Blessed Cyprian writ of Cornelius He was made Bishop by the iudgment of God and of his Christ by the testimony of almost all nay to speake more truly of all the Clergy without exception by the verdict of the people that were present by the Colledge of ancient Priests and good men none other being created before him when the place of Alexander that is when the place of Peter and the degree of the Sacerdotall chayre was vacant And how true this testimony of S. Anselme is appeareth by the formall words of his election set downe by Platina (r) In vita Gregorij 7. wherin Cardinalls Bishops Abbots Priests all degrees of Ecclesiasticall men and laicks made choyce of him as of a man modest sober chast of singular learning of great piety wisdome iustice constancy and religion How thinke you Doctor Morton was this man likely to sport himselfe with tossing the crownes of Kings and Emperors from their heads You plead (s) Pag. 174. that his proceeding against Henry was not for any note of heresy but only for not subiecting himselfe to the Popes dignity and dominion Read the testimonies of graue writers almost 40. in number (t) Apud Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. c. 13. cont Barcla 〈◊〉 9. Genebrard in Chronico an 1087. many of which liued in his tyme and you shall find that Henry is censured as an Arch-pirate an Arch-heretike an Apostata a persecutor of soules more then bodies and for his behauiour and manners that he contemned the Princes of the Empire oppressed the Nobles exalted base fellowes and married to them the daughters of Noble men at his pleasure that not contenting himselfe with ordinary sinnes be inuented and committed others neuer heard of before in the world and to many men altogether incredible And with these authors Caluin agreeth saying (u) L. 4. Instit c. 11. sect 13. that he was light temerarious of no iudgment of great boldnesse of dissolute life and that he had all the Bishoprickes he might haue added and all the Archbishoprickes and Abbacies of Germany in his Court partly exposed to sale partly to prey and rapine Finally so abhominable was his lust so execrable his simony so great his oppression of Germany his life in all respects so flagitious and his person for that cause so hatefull that as Vrspergensis reporteth (x) Chron. an 1106. when he died there was not any one found in the whole Christian world that sorowed for his death nay that did not exceedingly reioyce therat euen as Israel reioyced at the drowing of Pharao in the red sea or as the people of Rome exulted in the triumphs of their Emperors Much more in this kind is reported by the afore-cited Authors to which Marianus Scotus an historian of that tyme addeth (y) Chron. an 1075. that the Catholikes which liued then in the Church seeing and hearing the horrible and vnheard-of crimes of Henry inflamed with the zeale of God for the house of Israel in imitation of the Prophet Helias sent messengers to Alexander then gouerning the See Apostolike and complained expressing their griefe with sighs and lamentations both by letters and words Wherupon sayth William B. of (z) L. 1. debello sacro c. 13. Tyre Gregory his successor before he proceeded against him sent thrice vnto him and with the loue and affection of a Father admonished him seeking to reclaime him winne him to his owne good but preuailed not I appeale to the iudgement of any impartiall Reader whether you haue not slandered and wronged Gregory in the highest degree saying that he sported himselfe with tossing the Emperors crowne from his head and this not far any note of heresy but only for not subiecting himselfe to his dignity and dominion Beware in tyme lest you which possesse the place of a Bishop be not punished by God as William B. of Maestricht was who sayth Lambertus Scafnaburgensis (a) Hist. râ—rum Germ. being suddainly surprised with a most grieuous sicknesse cried outwith miserable shrikes before all that by the iust iudgement of God he had lost both this present and eternall life for hauing taken part with the Emperor in his sacrilegious enterprises and in hope of gaining his fauor wittingly reproached the most holy B. of Rome a man of Apostolicall vertue and innocency Not vnlike to this was the miraculous punishment of Imbrico B. of Ausburg for the same fault related by Bartholdus (b) In Chron. an Historian of the same time And finaliy our holy Archbishop of Canterbuty S. Anselme if he were liuing would say to you as he did to Wâ—lramus that he would refraine from saluting you for taking part with Henry the Emperor against Gregory that being no lesse a crime then to take part with the successor of Nero and Iulian the Apostata against the successor and Vicar of Peter the Apostle I haue dwelled a while in this history of Gregory because of all the fower Popes against whom you here except you raile most intemperatly against him for therby the reader may vnderstand that as you slander him so you do also the rest for how excellent and godly a Prelate Zacharias was you haue heard and of the other two Historians report no lesse Of Innocentius they write that he was one of the most excellent Popes for good life and rate learning in many kindes that for many hundreds of yeares held the See of Rome to which his many workes full of singular erudition piety and contempt of the world giue witnesse By his meanes Liuonia receaued the fayth of Christ He built repaired adorned many Churches with rich gifts He sounded and endowed with great reuenewes that famous Hospitall of Sancti Spiritus in Saxia in which so many diseased and sicke persons euen to this day are cured and so many poore children and orphans bred vp and mantained He confirmed the religious orders of S. Dominick of S. Francis of the Heremits of S. Augustine of the Carmelites of the Croched Friers for the redemption of Captiues and others which haue yeilded innumerable men that with their sanctity and learning haue bene a most singular ornament to the Church of Christ and to whom the whole world is in debted for their great labors vndertaken for the glory of God for the conuersion of Infidels reduction of heretikes reformation of manners among Catholikes and for the excellent monuments of their workes in all faculties of learning Finally so great was the fame of Innocentius his sanctity and excellent gouerment that among other authors Blondus writeth (c) Dâ—cad 2. l. 7.
the Pope is now subiect he being an absolute Prince himselfe what could you haue answeared You must haue confessed that you had ouer shot your marke and out of a desire to be speaking against the Pope misinterpreted the words of your text wrested them to a false sense contrary to the true meaning of the Apostle S. Bernard a man endowed with the spirit of God commended by Caluin (r) L. 4. Instit. c. 7. §. 22. cap. 11. §. 11. and Melancthon (s) Art 5. 27. and estemed by your selfe as a Saint was so far from thinking that these words of the Apostle import any subiection of Popes to temporall Princes that contrarily out of them as out of a sacred Canon he teacheth the Emperor Conradus to yield obedience to the Pope as to his Pastor and spirituall Father Legi c. I haue read sayth he (t) Ep. 2â—3 to the Emperor Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers and he that resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God Which sentence I wish and admonish you to obserue in exhibiting reuerence to the chiefe and Apostolike See and to the Vicar of blessed Peter as you will haue it yielded to you by the whole Empire And in other places he reckoneth vp the chiefe Kings of the Christian world professing obedience to Innocentius the second Pope of that name as to the Pastor and Bishop of their soules (u) Ep. 124. 126. prope fin as children to their Father and members to their Head (x) Ep. 125. To S. Bernard I adde other ancient holy and learned Expositors who by Higher Powers vnderstand not the Temporall Magistrat only but also the spirituall and proue that S. Paul in these words commandeth obedience of subiects to all Superiors as well spirituall as temporall So Primasius S. Remigius S. Anselme Lyra and Carthusianus (y) In eum locuin And in confirmation of this sense Primasius by the sword giuen to higher powers vnderstandeth not only the materiall but also gladium spiritus the spirituall sword giuen to S. Peter wherwith he punished Ananias and Saphira The same sense is followed by S. Basil (z) Constit Monast c. 23. who confirmeth the same out of another passage of the Apostle (a) Heb. 2â— 17 where speaking to all Christians without exempting any temporall Power neuer so high he sayth Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them for they watch as bring to render account of your soules Which inference is also made by that holy learned Pope Gregory the seauenth who explicating your text sayth (b) L. 1. regist Ep. 22. Seeing therfore the Apostle commands obedience to worldly powers how much more to spirituall and those that haue the place of Christ among Christians And if these Expositors be not of credit with you Iohn Caluins doctrine is (c) L. 4. instit c. 10. §. 5. that if obedience must be exhibited to secular Princes for conscience sake it must also be yielded to Ecclesiasticall Superiors Wherfore the more probable Exposition is that the Apostle by Higher Powers vnderstandeth not the temporall Magistrate only but speaketh generally of all Powers as well spirituall as temporall and requireth obedience vnto them both in their degrees Which being true you can no more inferre out of his words that the Pope is subiect to temporall Princes then the contrary especially he being not noly a temporall Prince but also a spirituall so great that as the B. of Patara admonished Iustinian the Emperor (d) Liberat in Breu. c. 22. Albeit there be many Kings in the world yet none of them as the Pope who is ouer the Church of the whole world More proofes in this kind are not needfull You haue heard (e) Aboue Chap. 29. the Councell of Nice declaring the dignity of the B. of Rome as being the Vicar of Christ and gouernor of the vniuersall Church to surpasse the dignity of Kings You haue heard (f) Ibid. the most religious Emperors Kings professing obedience vnto him as children to their Father and sheepe to their Pastor And if S. Pauls words be true (g) Heb. 7.7 that without all contradiction the lesse is blessed by the greater the dignity of an Emperor who is blessed consecrated and crowned by the Pope must be lesser then the dignity of the Pope that blesseth and crowneth him This you will better vnderstand if you call to minde that the holy Martyr S. Ignatius teacheth Christians next after God to honor the Bishop (h) Ep ad Smyrnen And that all people who euer they be Soldiers Princes yea the Emperor himselfe must obey the Bishop to the end that vnity and order may be obserued in all (i) Ep. ad Philadelph And why els do the learned Fathers S. Martin S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose and S. Gregory the great preferre the Episcopall and Sacerdotall dignity before the regall and Imperiall (k) See aboue Chap. 29. Why did S. Nazanzen (l) Orat. ad ciues timore perculsos Princ. irasc call the Emperor A sheepe of his sacred flock and say vnto him The law of Christ hath made you subiect to my power and to my Tribunall for we Bishops haue an Empire also and that more perfect then yours vnlesse you will say that the spirit is inferior to the flesh and heauenly things to earthly And what els do the greatest Monarkes of the world but make profession of this when the Priest sitting and couered they kneele downe with all humility at his feet and confesse their finnes vnto him Is not this to acknowledge that they come as persons guilty to accuse themselues and that the Priest in that court of conscience is their lawfull Superior and Iudge This S. Chrysostome expressed saying (m) L. 3. de Sacerd. that Priests as if they were already transported into heauen and exalted aboue humane nature haue a Princedome which giueth them power to bind soules in comparison wherof the power of Kings is as far inferior as earth to heauen and the body to the soule This S. Ambrose when he said (n) L. de dignit Sacerd. c. 2. You see the heads of Kings and Princes humbled to the knees of Priests and that kissing their hands they belieue themselues to be protected by their prayers This Basilius the Emperor (o) Orat. in fine Conc. Gen. 8. when alluding to the words of Christ spoken to his Apostles (p) Ioan. 20.23 Whose sinnes you forgiue they are forgiuen he professed that Bishops and Pastors haue the power of binding and losing in the Church and that all lay men are to be sanctified to be bound and lesed from their bonds by them And finally this professed Constantine the great when he said (q) Ruffin l. 1. c. 1. S. Greg. l. â— ep 72. that Bishops were constituted by God as Gods among men and therfore had power to iudge of Emperors I conclude therfore that if the doctrine of the
5. Martin the first praying the Emperor to vouchsafe to read his letters The Epistle is not of Martin alone but of the whole Roman Synod which hauing condemned the Monothelites sent their decrees to Constans the Emperor desiring and exhorting him for his confirmation in the Catholike fayth to read them attentiuely by his Lawes condemne and publikely declare the Monothelites to be heretikes Can there be a more childish illation then to inferre from hence that Martin acknowledged himselfe subiect to the Emperor If a Prouinciall Synod gathered by the Archbishop of Canterbury should send the like instruction to a Peere of this Realme his spirituall subiect exhorting him to read it would it therfore follow that the Archbishop did acknowledge himselfe subiect to that Peere Who then seeth not your arguing to be trifeling 8. You say (e) Impost pag. 179. serm pag. 5. Adrian the first deuoted himselfe to the Emperor by letters as one in supplication fallen downe prostrate at the soales of his feet O Imposture Adrian writ that Epistle to Constantine and Irene his Mother against the Image-breakers heretikes of that time whose heyres you are And hauing proued effectually out of Scriptures and Fathers the veneration due to sacred Images with all loue as if he were at Constantinople present with them and prostrate at their feet beseecheth and requireth them before God and coniureth them for so are his words which you alter and mangle that renouncing and detesting the craft of those wicked heretikes they would cause the sacred Images to be restored and set vp againe in the Churches of Constantinople and of all Greece to the end they might be receaued into the vnity of the holy Catholike Apostolike and irreprehensible Roman Church But that it may appeare how you abuse your readers and hearers inferring from hence that Adrian acknowledged subiection to the Emperor it is to be obserued that in that very Epistle he often calleth Constantine and Irene His belieued children and exhorteth them by the examples of Constantine the great Helena his Mother and the rest of the Orthodoxe Emperors to exalt honor and reuerence the holy Catholike Apostolike Roman Church as their spirituall Mother from which all Churches haue receaued the documents of Fayth to embrace her doctrine to admit of her censure to loue honor and reuerence the Successor of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles to whom our Sauiour gaue the keyes of heauen with power to bind and loose on earth And as he hauing receaued from Christ the principality of the Apostleship and pastorall charge sate first in the Apostolike See so by commandment from God he left it with all the power and authority that Christ had giuen to him to his Successors for euer and therfore that the sacred Scripture declareth of how great dignity that chiefe See is and how great Veneration is due vnto it from all faithfull throughout the world So Adrian as if he had written purposely to shew your lack of iudgment and honesty that would aduenture to produce his Epistle as a selected Argument against the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome and vent it for such both in your Imposture and againe in your late Sermon before his Maiesty And not vnlike to this is an other obiection you make (f) Impost pag. 179. serm pag. 5. out of an Epistle of Agatho Pope to Constantine in the sixth Councell generall 9. You cull certaine Latin words out of two Epistles of S. Gregory the great and patching them vp into one English sentence adding to them these two adiectiues of your owne Vestris and Vestrae you make him say As for me I performe obedience vnto your commands wherunto I am subiect Both the Epistles out of which you botch vp this sentence are written to Mauritius who though he were a Catholike Emperor yet S. Gregory sticketh not to compare him to Nero and Dioclesian and reprehendeth him sharpely for his tyrannizing ouer the Roman Church the Head of all Churches and seeking to subiect her to his earthly power against the commandment of Christ who committed his Church to S. Peter when he gaue him the keyes of the kingdome of heauen The one of those Epistles he writeth against the arrogancy of Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople styling himselfe Vniuersall Bishop And as he praiseth Mauritius for desiring the peace of the Church to hinder the garboiles of warres and in the procuring therof professeth himselfe ready to obey his commands so he reprehendeth him for not repressing the pride of Iohn wherby not he alone but the peace of the whole Church was disturbed And if in the other he also professed obedience to the same Emperor it was only in temporall affaires and because with humble and submissiue words he sought to worke him to his owne good whom he cold not dissuade nor otherwise hinder from publishing an iniust Law wherby he prohibited soldiers and all such as had bene employed in publike accompts of the Common wealth to become Monkes And therfore in one of the Epistles which you obiect (g) Pag. 179. 234. he declareth to the Emperor that he vsed not his Episcopall authority nor speaketh in the right of the Common wealth but writeth as a priuat person yet adding that he stood greatly astonished at such a Law because it did shut vp the way to heauen vnto many Wherfore he dealt earnestly with him to abrogate the Law or els permit it to be moderated so that it might stand without preiudice to Christian liberty Wherunto the Emperor at length yielded as S. Gregory declareth saying (h) L. 7. ep 11. indict 1. Qua de re Serenissimus Christiantssimus Imperator omnimodò placatur concerning which matter our most Clement and most Christian Emperor is wholly pleased And therfore S. Gregory hauing corrected the Law and reduced it to a reasonable lawfulnesse and temperate moderation to wit that they which had borne offices of charge in the Common wealth and desired to become Monkes should not be receaued vntill they had giuen vp their accompts and obtained publike discharge for the same and that soldiers should not be admitted to Monasticall habit vntill they had ended three yeares of probation in their secular apparell Wherfore though S. Gregory yielded to publish the Law yet withall he shewed his Pastorall power and care in limiting and moderating the Emperors law according to the law of God Which if you had not concealed the futility of your obiection wold haue bene apparent to euery reader But you say (i) Impost pag. 179. Heere wee are arrested by your Cardinall in the name of this Pope Gregory from his Deeree concerning the Monastery of Medardus enioyning that whatsoeuer secular Prince should violate that same Decree should forthwith he depriued of his honor As if this one Act of this only Pope were so authentike and of so suffecient authority in it selfe as to be made a Precedene for euer vnto all Popes of succeeding
the charge of feeding his sheep and lambes (u) Ioan. â—1 15 16. gaue him an vniuersall Pastorall power and iurisdiction ouer his whole flock throughout the world which power and iurisdiction therfore S. Augustine and the whole Councell of Mileuis (x) Apud Aug. ep 92. acknowledge Innocentius Pope to haue from the authority of the holy Scriptures that is by diuine Law from the mouth of Christ himselfe Your sixth obiection is (y) Pag. 208.209 that S. Hierome disagreed from the Roman Church in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine You told vs euen now (z) Pag. 205. that the Church of Rome was then sound in fayth If therfore S. Hierome disagreed from her in matter of necessary and Catholike Doctrine S. Hierome was an heretike for all doctrine contrary to the Catholike fayth is heresy But you regard not what you say of that renowned Doctor if you may make him like to your selfe in disagreeing from the Church of Rome in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine But let vs heare in what he disagreed Because S. Hierome sayth that although formerly all other Churches in the East did account S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall yet it was not receaued as Canonicall in the Latine or Roman Church From whence you tooke these words I know not for no such are to be found in his Epistle to Euagrius out of which you alleage them Part of them I find in his Commentary vpon Isaias and in his Epistle to Dardanus where he saith The Epistle to the Hebrewes is receaued as Canonicall by all the Greeke Churches though the custome of the Latines receaue it not But that the Roman Church receaues it not is an imposterous addition of yours to S. Hieromes text for when he sayth The custome of the Latines receaues it not that by the custome of the Latines he vnderstands not all the Latine or Roman Church he declareth saying (a) Ep. ad Euag. All the Greekes receaue the Epistle to the Hebrewes nonnulli Latinorum and many of the Latines Yea when he infinuateth that some of the Latines receaued it not he speaketh not of the Latines of his time but of some that liued before him as Tertullian S. Cyprian Lactantius Arnobius who in their workes are not found to alleage this Epistle But since the tyme of Lactantius the Latine Fathers haue bene so far from making any doubt that it is Canonicall that Philastrius (b) In Catal. haeres a Latine Father and Bishop of Bressa in Italy more ancient then S. Hierome ranketh them among heretikes that deny it to be Canonicall And in S. Hieromes time Innocentius Pope (c) Eup. ad Exuper and soone after him Gelasius with a Councell of 70. Bishops (d) Decret de lib. sacr Eccles reckon the Epistle to the Hebrewes in the number of Canonicall Scriptures If therfore Gelasius Pope with a Councell of 70. Bishops and Innocentius belieued it to be Canonicall with what forehead do you say that the Roman Church denied it to be Canonicall or how can it be thought that S. Hierome differed in any point of Catholike beliefe from the Church of Rome he that prescribeth to Demetrias (e) Ep. 8. ad Demetriad as a secure way to auoid the snares of heresy that she hold fast the fayth of S. Innocentius Pope And finally how cold he dissent from the Roman Church in this or any other point of necessary and Catholike doctrine he I say that so often commendeth and recommendeth (f) Ep. 6.8.68 the Roman fayth and defineth him to be a Catholike that holds the fayth of the Roman Church (g) Aduers Ruffi l. 1. What followeth of this you know namely that by affirming S. Hierome to disagree from the Roman Church in matter of necessarie and Catholike doctrine you make him an heretike Is not then your Argument a Grand Imposture And no lesse it is that the Councell of Trent hauing defined the bookes of Hester Daniel Baruch Ecclesiasticus Wisdome Iudith Tobias and the two bookes of the Machabies with all their parts as they are in the vulgar edition to be canonicall you (h) Pag. 209. in disproofe therof obiect these words as of Bellarmine S. Hierome sayd of these bookes that they were not within the canon of scriptures for Bellarmine in that place maketh no mention of Hester Daniel Baruch And though he grant S. Hierome to haue bene of opinion that the other bookes mentioned were not canonicall yet why do you conceale his reason which is that S. Hierome was of that opinion because the Church had not then defined the contrary in any generall Councel And how do you proue that S. Hierome in that his opinion disagreed from the Roman Church in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine since it was no matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine to belieue these bookes to be Canonicall vntill the Church had defined it in a generall Councell as in S. Hieromes time she had not done sauing only of the booke of Iudith which afterwards he receaued vnderstanding that the Councell of Nice had so declared But from hence you take occasion (i) Pag. 302. fin 303. to inueigh against Bellarmine and other our Doctors for imputing to the Councell of Nice a decree wherby they condemne Protestants as sacrilegious persons for not admitting the booke of Iudith into the number of Canonicall scriptures and alleaging S. Hierome as a witnesse to proue that which he neuer spake and for profe of a doctrine which himselfe doth vtterly abandon In this charge you are twice reproueable first for saying that we falsly impute that constitution to the Councell of Nice for that the CouÌ„cell did make such a Constitution S. Hierome witnesseth saying (k) Praefat. in Iudith Librum Iudith Nicena Synodus in numero sanctarum scripturarum legitur computasse The Nicen Councell is read to haue reckoned the booke of Iudith in the number of holy scriptures The same is testified by Rupertus (l) De diuin offic l. 12. c. 25. who repeating S. Hieromes doctrine concerning this booke and almost his words sayth Hoc volumen c. This booke is not canonicall among the Hebrewes but by the authority of the Councell of Nice it is receaued for the instruction of holy Church Secondly you are reproueable in preteÌ„ding that S. Hierome in these words declareth not that booke to be canonicall for being requested to translate it out of the Chaldean tongue in which it was written into Latin he sayth The Iewes reckoned this booke among the hagiographes whose authority is sufficient to decide controuersies And theÌ„ opposing against them the authority of the Nicen Councell he addeth But because the Councell of Nice is read to haue registred this booke in the number of holy scriptures I haue yeilded to your request In these words he plainly she weth the Church to be of a different beliefe from the Iewes touching this booke to receaue
it in that sense in which the Iewes did not receaue it to wit as sufficient to decide controuersies of fayth And in confirmation herof he numbreth this booke among other canonicall scriptures saying (m) Ep. ad Principiam Ruth Hester Iudith were of so great renowne that they gaue names to sacred volumes And in other his workes he often citeth it as diuine scripture (n) Ep. 9. ad Salu. Ep. 22. ad Bustoch in Isa c. 14. But to proue that he held it apocryphall you obiect Stapleton (o) Pag. 303. Salmeron Lindanus Acosta whom you call our lesse precipitant Authors Stapleton you falsify citing him l. 2. de authorit Script cap. 4. for he hath no booke so intituled and much lesse any such words as you set downe for his Yea he is so far from saying that S. Hierome denieth this booke to be canonicall that he sayth directly the contrary for discoursing (p) De princip doct l. 9. c. 6. how some bookes of scripture which before the definition of the Church had bene held apocryphall or doubtfull were afterwards by her authority certainly beleeued to be canonicall he exemplifieth in this of Iudith which saith he S. Hierome moued by the authority of the Councell of Nice held to be Canonicall hauing formerly accounted it to be apocryphall This is Stapletons doctrine Are you not ashamed to produce him as a witnesse for the contrary And as little truth hath your citation of Salmeron for he alleageth S. Hieromes words expresly declaring that the rule to distinguish Canonicall Scriptures from apocryphall is the authority of the Church Wherupon Salmeron truly sayth that if S. Hierome should deny this booke to be Canonicall his authority alone could not be preualent against the whole streame of Ancient Fathers holding the contrary Their testimonies you may read in Iodocus Coccius Lindanus and Acosta I haue not seene but you that haue dealt so with Stapleton and Salmeron may be presumed to deale no better with them SECT VII S. Ambrose his iudgment concerning the necessity of Vnion and subiection to the Bishop and Church of Rome S. Ambrose declared his iudgment when reporting (q) Orat. de obitu Satyri how his holy brother Satyrus in his returne out of Africa was cast by ship wrack vpon the isle of Sardinia infected with schisme he said Satyrus not esteeming any fauor to be true but that of the true fayth called vnto him the Bishop of that place and asked him whether he agreed with the Catholike Bishops that is sayth S. Ambrose with the Roman Church This sheweth that S. Ambrose and Satyrus belieued the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church and all that were not in her Communion to be schismatikes You answeare (r) Pag. 213. that the reason why Satyrus would not communicate with any Bishop that agreed not with the Roman Church was because Sardinia was then diuided into diuers schismes by hereticall spirits No maruell therfore though Satyrus asked of a Bishop whose fayth he suspected whether he belieued as that Church did whose fayth was known to be truly Catholike euen as if in tyme of rebellion the Citizens of some one City for example Yorke were more generally knowne to professe loyalty to their Soueraigne an honest man comming into the kingdome might aske the inhabitants whether they agreed with the City of Yorke therby to know whether they were loyall subiects and yet it would not follow that therfore Yorke is the head of the kingdome This your answeare framed to puzzell an ignorant reader is easely reiected Satyrus did well know and it was generally knowne both in the East and West that at that time not only the Church of Rome but also that of Milan of which Ambrose his owne brother was then actually Bishop and famous ouer all the world was sound in fayth and truly Catholike Why then did not Satyrus to informe himselfe whether that Sardinian Bishop were Catholike aske him whether he agreed with the Bishop and Church of Milan but because he knew that neither the Church of Milan nor any other but the Roman was the head of Catholike Communion as S. Ambrose himselfe teacheth saying (s) L. 1. Ep. 4. ad Imperat. From the Roman Church the rights of Venerable Communion do flow to all And why els did he say this but because he knew that neither to the Church of Milan nor to any other but the Roman Christ hath promised that her fayth shall not faile (t) Luc. 22.31 and that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her (u) Math. 16.18 In regard wherof it is said that not to the Church of Milan but to her all Churches and all the faithfull from all places must haue recourse (x) Iren. l. 3. c. 3. And vnlesse you can shew that Yorke hath an especiall Priuiledge from God not to faile in her loyalty as the Roman Church hath not to faile in the Catholike fayth and profession therof your example is impertinent Yorke may faile in loyalty and therfore to be a citizen of Yorke and to be a good subiect are not termes conuertible But the Roman Church can neither faile in the Catholike fayth nor in the profession therof and therfore to be a Catholike and to agree with the Roman Church as in themselues they are so were they held by S. Ambrose by his brother Satyrus and by the generall accord of antiquity to be all one (y) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 3. 2. S. Ambrose declared his iudgment when he called Damasus Pope Rector of the house of God which is his Church (z) In cap. 3. prioris ad Tâ—moth You answeare that we mistake the words respectiuely spoken to one person Pope Damasus and circumstantially for one tyme as if they were absolutely so meant for the persons of all Popes at all times This answeare is not respectiuely but absolutely insufficient for what dignity superiority or power of gouerment had Damasus ouer the whole Church in his person and for his tyme which euery Pope hath not had in his person and for his time The power of Ruler Gouernor of the whole Church which Damasus had was by his Popedome And as he by the right of his Popedome was so all his predecessors and successors in that See haue by the same title and right bene Rectors and Gouernors of the whole Church This is so certaine that you passing lightly ouer this first answeare fly to a second (a) Pag. 212.213 that the title of Rector or Gouernor of the whole Church argueth not Damasus to be Head of the Church because Athanasius Basil Gregory Nazianzen haue receaued titles equiualent if not more excellent as of Prop and Buttresse of the Church and fayth Eye of the world and others in which ascriptions say you there is not any acknowledgment of authority but a commendation of their care and diligence iudgment and directions in behalfe of the whole Church In the
in like manner answere you that as you haue followed some wicked Clergy-men of his Church in their disobedience to the See Apostolike so follow them in their repentance and both he and they would condemne you of great perfidiousnesse in proclaiming their sinne and concealing their amendment 5. You obiect (i) Pag. 214.215 that S. Ambrose refused to follow the Church of Rome in the custome of washing the feet of infants is baptized which say you the Church of Rome iudged to be superfluous but contrariwise Ambrose and the Church of Milan held to be necessary Your custome is to borrow Arguments from Catholike writers and suppresse their solutions This you borow from Bellarmine (k) L. 2. de Pont. c. 16. as you do many others In him read the answere It shall suffife me to tell you that the Roman Church obligeth not other Churches to vse or omit all the rites and ceremonies which she vseth or omitteth in administration of the Sacraments or other Ecclesiasticall offices In such as are of themselues indifferent she commandeth nothing as you haue heard (l) ChaÌ„p 2â— sect 3. but leaueth freedome to other Churches to follow their owne customes Such was the ceremony of washing the feet of infantes baptized which though she practized not she condemned not and therfore it was free for the Church of Milan to vse it without any disobedience at all to the Church of Rome If you had not bene minded to trifle you should haue proued that S. Ambrose disobeyed the Roman Church in matter of fayth as you do This you cannot proue both because S. Augustine hath testified (m) Cont. Iulia Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. that in the workes of Blessed Ambrose the Roman fayth greatly shineth also because he himselfe defineth a Catholike Bishop to be one that a greeth with the Roman Church (n) Orat. de obitu Satyri and protesteth to Siricius (o) L. 10. ep 81. that whom the Roman Church condemneth he following her iudgment holdeth in like manner condemned of which number you are one SECT VIII S. Augustines iudgment concerning the necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof S. Augustines iudgment was that the Roman Church is the Head of all Churches which he professed saying (p) Ep. 162. In her hath alwaies florished the Princedome of the See Apostolike Princedome I say not only Principality of Order as you comment but of true power and authority ouer all the Churches of the world as hath bene effectually proued (q) Chap. 17. sect 2. and the ensuing testimonies of S. Augustine shall further confirme For heerein he declared his iudgment when together with all the Fathers of the Mileuitan Councell to which he was Secretary he writ to Innocentius Pope (r) Ep. â—2 For as much as God by the gift of his principall grace hath placed you in the Apostolike See and granted you to be such in our dayes as we ought rather to feare that it should be imputed to vs for a crime of negligence if we should conceale from your Reuerence those things which for the Church ought to be represented to you then to imagine that you can receaue them disdainefully or negligently we beseech you to apply your Pastorall diligence to the great perills of the weake members of Christ. You deny not but that S. Augustine with the whole Councell in these words requireth the Popes Pastorall diligence for the repressing of the Pelagian heresy in Palestine and Africk but your answere is (s) Pag. 218. that Iohn the first writing to an Arch-bishop granteth that the charge of the Church for the helpe of all in repressing of heresies was committed to him as well as to himselfe that euery Patriarke hath a Principality and height of a Pastorall watch-tower aboue all Metropolitans and Bishops and yet haue they not ouer all Bishops power of iurisdiction But these euasions I haue already proued to be vaine and not without Imposture (t) See aboue Chap. 19. sect 3. That euery Bishop ought to concurre to the help of all in repressing of heresy we deny not but we deny that euery Bishop hath a watch-tower of pastorall authority to iudge and condemne heretikes whersoeuer out of his owne Dioces as S. Augustine and the Mileuitan Fathers acknowledge the Pope to haue out of his Dioces and Patriarkship of Rome requiring him to condemne by his pastorall authority the Pelagians in Africk Palestine And that the Popes power herein exceedeth the iurisdiction of all other Bishops S. Augustine professeth writing to Boniface Pope (u) Cont. duas Epist. Palag l. 1. c. 1. Thou disdainest not to be afrend of the humble though thou be placed in a higher gouerment And againe (x) Ibid. The pastorall watch is common to vs all that haue the office of Bishops but thou art supereminent in a higher degree And yet further he declareth this supereminent power and iurisdiction of the Pope to extend it selfe ouer all the world writing to Optatus (y) Ep. 157. Pelagius and Celestius by the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councels with the helpe of God who vndertakes the protection of his Church haue bene condemned in the extent of the whole world by two reuerend Prelats of the Apostolike See Pope Innocentius and Pope Sozimus If then S. Augustine belieued aright the Pope hath Pastorall power to represse and condemne heretikes throughout the whole world which other Bishops haue not their pastorall power being confined to the limits of their owne Diocesses Your obiections against this are 1. (z) Pag. 219.210 That S. Augustine speaking of Stephen B. of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage calleth theÌ„ Two Bishops of most eminent Churches Ergo the B. of Rome hath not iurisdiction ouer the B. of Carthage for there cannot be Two most Eminents Your consequence is vntrue and such you must confesse it to be for the B. of Rome being Patriarke of all the West the B. of Carthage is subiect vnto him as you forgetting your selfe afterwards acknowledge (a) Pag. 2â—9 Wherefore S. Augustine calling Stephen and Cyprian two Bishops of two most eminent Churches intended not to deny the subordination of Cyprian to StepheÌ„ nor of the Church of Carthage to that of Rome but only to signify that as the Roman Church is most eminent by reason of her Patriarchall power ouer the West and her Primacy ouer the whole world so the Church of Carthage is also most eminent though in an inferior degree by reason of her Primacy ouer all Africa And in this sense both those Churches â—â—e most-Eminent the one ouer all Africa and the other ouer all the world Your second obiection of the Saturday-fast (b) Pag. 220. your third of the deniall of Appeales out of Africa to Rome (c) Pag. 221. your fourth concerning the cause of Cecilian (d) Ibid. your fifth of the Epistle to the Hebrues whether in S. Augustines
dayes the Roman Church held it canonicall (e) Pag. 222. are all repetitions of your former Arguments which in their due places haue bene answeared (f) Chap. 22. sect 3. Chap. 25.26 tot Chap. 30. sect 1. Chap. 34. sect 6. But to them you adde here a Consideration of your iudicious Casaubon (g) Pag. 223. requiring vs who accompt the only note of Schisme to be diuided from the Roman Church and Pope thereof to answeare Why S. Augustine who in seauen Bookes besides many other places confuted the Schismaticall Donatists yet neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope or of the infallibility of his iudgement whereby to reduce them to the vnity of the Church and truth Your iudicious Casaubon shewed great lack of iudgment in making this Argument and that he had not read S. Augustine or if he had that he did not vnderstand him or if he had read did vnderstand him then you know what he sheweth in concealing the truth For throughout all those seauen Bookes against the Donatists there is nothing which S. Augustine so often obiecteth nor so much vrgeth against them as their separation from the Roman Church repeating the same not once or twice but almost in euery Chapter of some of those bookes For when the Donatists did striue to defend their heresy of rebaptization by the authority of S. Cyprian S. Augustine answeared (h) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18.19 l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9 Contra Crescon l. ◠c. 32. l. 2. c. 3. alibi saepè that Cyprians patronage could not auaile them because they were out of the Communion of the Roman Church in which S. Cyprian liued died And doth he not in other his writings against the Donatists often vrge the succession of Bishops in the Roman Church If sayth (i) Ep. 165. he the order and succession of Bishops be to be obserued how much more assuredly and safely indeed do we begin our accompt from S. Peter himselfe to whom as he represented the whole Church our Lord sayd (k) Math. 16.18 Vpon this Rock I will build my Church For Linus succeoded to Peter Cletus to Linus c. And so reckoning all the Popes vnto Anastasius who then sate in the chaire of S. Peter he concludeth against the Donatists In this order of succession there is not one Donatist to be found to which I adde no nor yet one Protestant And reckoning the motiues that held him in the Church among them he setteth downe the succession of Bishops in the See of Rome There are sayth he (l) Cont Ep. Fundam c. 4. many thinges which with greatest reason hold me in this Catholike Church 1. The vniforme consent of people and nations which is not to be found in the Protestant Church confined to a few Northern countreyes in a corner of the world 2. A certaine authority begun by miracles which Protestants confesse themselues not to haue 3. The succession of Priests euen from S. Peter vntill this present Bishop Wherfore since that Church in which there is a continued succession of Bishops from S. Peter cannot be the Protestan Church which hath no such succession but the Roman it followeth that S. Augustine held the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church And therefore expressing to the Donatists how much he grieued to see them ly cut of from this Church he said (m) Psal cont part Donati It greeueth vs to see you ly so cut of Number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranck of Fathers who succeeded whom That 's the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not Here againe S. Augustine sheweth the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church built vpon Peter and his successors as vpon a rock against which heresies schismes which are the proud gates of hell shall neuer preuaile and all that are out of her communion to be as branches out of from the Vine and deuoid of all spirituall life And as he held all that are out of the Roman Church to be in miserable state so contrarily he held all that liue in her Communion to be most hapy and secure from error in fayth for so he deemed Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage to be notwithstanding all the plots and conspiracies of the Donatists against him He might sayth S. Augustine (n) Ep. 162. contemne the conspiring multitude of his enemies because he knew himselfe to be vnited by communicatory letters both to the Church of Rome in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike hath alwaies florished and to other Countries from whence the Ghospell came first into Africa These few passages among many others shew that your iudicious Casaubon failed much in iudgment and truth when he aduentured to say that S. Augustine in his workes against the Donatists neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope nor of the infallibility of his iudgment wherby to reduce them to the vnity of the Church and truth And as he vrged the authority of the See Apostolike against the Donatists so hath he testified that by the same authority taken from the authority of holy Scriptures (o) Aug. Ep. 91. the Pelagians were condemned who therfore seeing themselues esteemed as Heretikes throughout all the Westerne Church in which they liued sought to the Churches of the East hoping to be admitted into their Communion as the Protestants of Germany writing to Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople did (p) See Iustus Caluinus Apol. pro Eccl. Rom. pag. 10. whom therfore we may check with S. Augustines words written against Iulian a chiese mantainer of the Pelagian heresy I thinke sayth he (q) Cont. Iulia l. 1. c. 4. that part of the world ought to suffice thee in which our Lord would haue the chiefe of the Apostles to be crowned with a most glorious Martyrdome To the Gouernor of which Church Blessed Innocentius if thou woldst haue giuen care thou hadst ere this freed thy dangerous youth from the Pelagian snares for what answeare could that holy man giue to the African Councells but that which from ancient times the Roman Church with all others perseuerantly holdeth And els where he noteth (r) L. 2. de grat Christi pecc orig c. 8. that albeit Pelagius had drawne others into error he could neuer deceaue the Roman Church for the most Blessed Pope Sozimus considered what opinion his predecessor worthy to be imitated had of his proceedings and what iudgment the fayth of the Romans to be commended in our Lord had made of him But you obiect (s) Pag. 225. It is mere sophistry to inferre a necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome to be professed of all Christians at all times because the Fathers required it in their times By this Argument a Pelagian a Donatist an Eutychian or any other Heretike may iustify his departure from the Roman Church pretending as you do that the necessity of vnion with her was not for all times
Pastor of the sheepe not of one City nor of one Countrey but of all the sheep of Christ without any exception or limitation (g) See all this proued aboue Chap. 14. sect In this sense the name of Pastor was neuer giuen to any other Apostle or Bishop but only to S. Peter and his successors The rest of the Apostles sayth S. Bernard (h) L. 2. de confideras obtayned each of them their peculiar flocks Iames contented with Hierusalem yieldes the vniuer sality to Peter And long before him Eucherius that famous and learned Bishop of Lions (i) Hom. in Vigil S. Pe◠Christ first committed to Peter his Lambes and then his sheepe because he made him not only a Pastor but Pastor of Pastors Peter therfore feedeth the Lambes and the sheepe he feedeth the yong ones and the dammes he gouerneth the subiects and the Prelates and is therfore Pastor of all for besides Lambes and sheep there is nothing in the Church Your euasion (k) Pag. 243. n. 20. that if by Pastor we vnderstand curam studium care and study towards the good of the vniuersall Church in this all other Bishops are Pastors as well as the Pope is impertinent for charity obligeth not only Bishops but euery Christian man and woman to haue a care and study towards the good of the vniuersall Church according to their abilities But the Pope is not only bound to a charitable care and study as all others are but by reason of his Pastorall office and function is the guide and Gouernor of the vniuerfall Church throughout the whole world And vntill you can shew the like Pastorall power and iurisdiction attributed to any other Bishop you must confesse his title of Pastor to be without parallell The like hath bene proued (l) Aboue Chap. 14. sect 3. of his titles of Doctor of Pope (m) Chap. 23. of Vicar of Christ (n) Chap. 14. sect 2. of Apostolicall man (o) Chap. 14. sect 3. and Apostolate applied to his person and function and of Apostolicall See to the Roman Church Nor is it hard to proue the same of all the other titles mentioned by Bellarmine He is called Father of Fathers and Prince of Priests which titles though they may in a true sense be giuen to euery Patriark and Archbishop in respect of other Bishops subiect to them and to euery Bishop in respect of the inferior Pastors of his Dioces yet not in the same sense in which they are giuen to the Pope In like manner the name of Pontifex and Summus Pontifex are sometimes giuen to other Bishops but not as to the Pope for he is called by the foure Primats of Africa (p) See Spond anno 646. n. 1. their Synods Pater Patrum Summus omnium Praesulum Pontifex the Father of Fathers and the chiefe Bishop of all Bishops And Venerable Bede (q) L. 1. hist Angl. c. 1. sayth of S. Gregory that in toto orbe gerebat Pontificatum that his Episcopall power was ouer the whole world which S. Anselm◠also expressed dedicating his booke De incarnatione to Vrbanus Pope with this inscription Domino Patri vniuersae Ecclesiae in terra peregrinantis Summo Pontifici Vrbano To the chiefe Bishop Vrbanus Lord Father of the vniuersall Church militant on earth Where do you find any parallell to this title of the Pope The like I say of the title of Rector domus Dei Ruler or Gouernor of the house of God for albeit each of the Apostles were Rulers and Gouernors of the Church and so S. Andrew is so called in the Collect vsed on his festiuall day yet the ordinary Episcopall authority and iurisdiction of none of them nor of any other Bishop whatsoeuer but only of S. Peter and his successors extends to the rule Gouerment of the vniuersall Church For which cause Valentinian the third intituleth the Pope Rector of the Vniuersality of Churches And both he and Theodosius say (s) Constit. Nouell Tit. 24. So the peace of the Church shall be conserued by all if the Vniuersality acknowledge her Rector And Theodoret being deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo Pope because sayth he (t) Ep. ad Renat The holy Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the world Where do you find the title of Ruler or Gouernor of the Church attributed to any other Apostle or Bishop in this sense The same I say of the title of Head of the Church for in the Nicen Councell (u) Can. 39. ex Graec. Arab the B. of Rome is called Head and Prince of all Patriarkes The Councell of Sardica (x) Insert in fragment Hilar citatur expresseth the same in their Epistle to Pope Iulius à Nicol. c. i◠Ep. ad Episc Gal. It is very good fit that from all the Prouinces the Bishops haue reference to their Head that is to the See of the Apostle Peter In the Councell of Ephesus (y) Part. 2. Act. 2. when the Legates of Celestine Pope arriued thither they gaue thankes to the Fathers there assembled that by their holy and religious voices they had shewed themselues holy members to the blessed Pope their holy Head The Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon (z) In relat ad Leon. call Leo Pope their Head themselues his members and acknowledge him (a) Ibid. to rule ouer them as the Head doth ouer the members And his Legates in the same Councell said (b) Act. 1. We haue the commands of the Pope of Rome who is the Head of all Churches and the Councell contradicted not but presently obeyed his commands S. Prosper sayth (c) L. De ingrat c. 2. Rome the See of Peter is made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world possessing by religion what it doth not by force of armes which S. Leo also expresseth saying (d) Serm. 1. in Nata Apost Petri Pauli Rome by the sacred See of Peter being made Head of the world hath a larger extent of gouerment by diuine religion then by earthly dominion Eugenius B. of Carthage (e) Vict. Vticen l. ◠calls the Roman Church The Head of all Churches S. Fulgentius (f) De incarn grat c. 11. The Top of the world And Ennodius sayth (g) Lib de Synod sub Symmacho habit The dignity of the See Apostolike is Venerable throughout the whole world whiles all the faithfull are subiect vnto it as being the Head of the whole body Iustinian intituleth the Pope (h) Cod. Tit. 1. L. 7. The Head of all the holy Prelates of God and the Head of all Churches And the Bishops of the lower Maesia (i) Apud Bin. to 2. pag 154. professe Leo B. of Rome to be Truly the Head of all Churches You answere first (k) Pag. 242. that S. Basil calls Athanasius Top or crowne of the head of all S. Basill
noting the wordes in a distinct letter as the very phrase of his Sanction manifestly against his meaning For in that very Sanction or Decree he declareth that the cause that moued him to publish it was to disanull the attentats and Innonations against the Venerable Churches aswell those wherof the Patriarke Acacius hath the Priesthood as those placed in other sundry Prouinces which second part about other Churchs and Prouinces you (6) Pag. 26â— leaue out in your Marginal Latin to deceiue the Reader in making him to thinke that Constantinople is stiled absolutely Mother of all Orthodoxall Churches that thereby you may more colourably elude the like Titles attributed vnto the Roman Church So as nothing is related or alleaged by you without fraudulency and falshood SECT IV. Doctor Mortons Answeare to Vincentius Lyrinensis confuted VIncentius to proue that the Latine Churches agreed in Doctrine with the Churches of the East produceth as witnesses Felix and Iulius Popes calling them the Head of the world and S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose The sides of the world You to put off this testimony offer violence to Vincentius his words (k) Pag. 271. interpreting him to meane by Head of the world not the Bishop but the City of Rome But knowing this to be a false comment you adde as a second answeare (l) Ibid. that if he vnderstood the B. of Rome to be the Head of the Catholike Church we must also belieue that Cyprian of Carthage and Ambrose of Milan were alwayes to continue the sides of the Catholike Church This we deny for the Churches of Charthage and Milan haue no promise from Christ that the gates of Hell shall not preuaile against them nor that their fayth shall not faile as the Roman hath (m) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 1. 2. But to bolster vp one falsity with another you say (n) Pag. 271. If Lyrinensis by Head of the world vnderstood the Ecclesiasticall Orbe he cold meane no more then that the Pope is Head of the Westerne part therof But this hath bene already disproued (o) See Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. Chap. 3â— by the testimonies of Councells and Fathers Greeke and Latine directly affirming that the B. of Rome is Head of all Churches and faythfull whatsoeuer throughouth the whole world and that his spirituall power extends euen to them whom the temporall forces of Rome could neuer subdue And to goe no further for proofes Lyrinensis himselfe declared this (p) Cap. 9.10.11 when he said that all Priests in all places made resistance to the doctrine of Rebaptization defended by Agrippinus Cyprian but Stephen B of Rome more then the rest thinking it reason to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth so much as he was superior to them in the authority of his place And what els doth he throughout that whole Treatise but declame against you who haue brought nouelties into the Church contrary to that ancient truth which you found in it when Luther began and when as Caluin professeth you made a separation from the whole world SECT V. Doctor Morton in his Answeare to Optatus contradicteth himselfe OPtatus proueth the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church by the succession of Bishops in the chaire of Rome numbring them all from S. Peter to Siricius that liued in his time (r) L. 2. cont Parmen and defineth all them to be schismatikes and sinners that are separated from the communion of that only singular chaire You answeare (s) Pag. 269. that Optatus by One chaire meant not the particular chaire of Rome but the whole vniuersall Church But the contrary is euident for he reckoneth not the succession of Bishops in any other Church but only in the Roman and sayth (t) L. 2. cont Parmen that the Episcopall chaire was set vp in Rome for Peter to the end that in that chaire vnity might be preserued to all and that he might be a schismatike and a sinner that against this only chaire should set vp another What expression can be more effectuall to proue you to be a schismatike and a sinner then these words of Optatus who condemned the Donatists (u) Ibid. of bold and sacrilegious presumption for fighting against this Chaire of Peter as you do But you reply (x) Pag. 269. The particular Church of Rome is but a portion of the vniuersall Church and therfore Optatus obiecteth against the Donatists their want of vnion with the Churches of Asia commended by S. Iohn in the Reuelation as well as with Rome This you repeate afterwards againe (y) Pag. 273. and had obiected the same before (z) Pag. 100. 101. 229. 230. Your answere you haue receaued already (a) Chap. 15. sect 9. Chap. 34. sect 8. to which I adde that as he who should obiect to rebells their want of vnion with their Prince his loyall subiects doth not therby deny the supreme authority of the Prince ouer all the subiects of his dominions so Optatus obiecting to the rebellious Donatists the want of vnion with the Roman Church and other Orthodoxall Churches of Asia subiect to her doth not therby deny her authority ouer all the Churches of the world But you say (b) Pag. 270. Rome hauing departed from the sincerity of the Apostolicall profession as Asia hath done the departure from that must dissolue necessity of Vnion with Rome You grant then that the Asians haue fallen from the Apostolicall profession as Rome hath done and Rome if we belieue you hath fallen so far that her doctrine is false impious hereticall blasphemous damnable sacrilegious Antichristian Satanicall c. Ergo the Asians hauing fallen from the Apostolicall profession as Rome hath done their doctrine is also damnable hereticall blasphemous Satanicall c. And yet afterwards you say (c) Pag. 407. the Asians haue continued visible partes of the Catholike Church and Protestants stand in Christian vnity with them I conclude therfore that when it is for your purpose the Asians are truly professed Christians and partes of the Catholike Church and Protestants stand in Christian Vnion with them and when it is not for your purpose they haue fallen from the sincerity of the Apostolicall profession as Rome hath done from whence it must follow that it is as vnlawfull to be in vnion with them as with Rome whose doctrine to you is Hereticall blasphemous c. SECT VI. Other vntruthes of Doctor Morton discouered his cauilling against the Title of Holinesse giuen to the Pope YOu set downe (d) Pag. 273. this Thesis as of Bellarmine When the Fathers say that the Church of Rome cannot erre the word cannot is not to be taken absolutely and simply but with this cantion so long as the Apostolicall See continueth at Rome This is not a Thesis of Bellarmine but of a few other Deuines who hold that S. Peter fixed his See at Rome not by diuine ordination but by his owne
free election and therfore that if the Successors of S. Peter should remoue their See from Rome the Roman Church in that case might erre This opinion sayth Bellarmine (e) L. 4. de Pont. c. 4. is not hereticall nor manifestly erroneous but he holdeth and proueth the contrary namely that the See of S. Peter was fixed at Rome by especiall command from Christ and cannot be remoued from thence and therfore that when the Fathers say The Roman Church cannot erre the word cannot is to be taken simply and absolutely without the caution which you falsly ascribe to him You adde (f) Pag. 273. Bellarmine should haue said with you that the Roman Church cannot erre so long as the ancient and sincere fayth is preserued at Rome which is to say that she cannot erre as long as she erres not Bellarmine was of more iudgment then to proue idem per idem But you say (g) Pag. 276. The list of all the Fathers which Bellarmine in the strength of his learning and iudgment hath produced to guard defend the Monarchy of the Church and B. of Rome is of the Greeke Fathers but thirteene of the Latin not aboue eleuen within the space of the first 600. yeares This is notoriously vntrue for in the two Chapters immediatly preceding he produceth the testimonies of aboue 1340. Fathers in the foure first Generall Councells and that vnder Menas and of 26. Popes the greater part of them glorious Martyrs and the rest holy Confessors as S. Iulius S. Damasus S. Siricius S. Zozimus S. Innocentius S. Leo S. Gelasius S. Gregory Were not all these Fathers that liued within the first 600. yeares which you call the primitiue times But what if Bellarmine had produced no more but thirteene Greeke eleauen Latin Fathers Doth not Cardinal Baronius throughout his learned Annals Doth not Iodocus Coccius (h) To. 1. thesau l. 7. art 4.5.6.7.8 Do not Doctor Sanders (i) Visic Monar tot Clau. Dauid tot and other Catholike writers produce testimonies of Popes Councells and of the most religious Emperors and Kinges that haue liued since Christ in great numbers all of them professing their beliefe of the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope and necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome Why do not you subscribe to so great a cloud of witnesses rather then to Martin Luther and a few Sectaries broaching Nouellisme opposing all Orthodoxe antiquity Lastly to close vp your answeres to the Fathers you produce Tertullian (k) Pag. 277. after his defection into Montanisme calling the Pope The blessed Pope and the chiefe Bishop of Bishops but that he did it by Irony and scorne So indeed sayth Massonius a forbidden author But be it true that he spake it by Irony yet that very manner of speach sheweth it was then the custome of the faythfull to giue those titles to the Pope If Tertullian called him so by Irorny and scorne it was because he was an heretike And so you imitating him cauill at vs for instiling the Pope Your Holinesse which title say you (l) Ibid. being first giuen to Pope Leo for his Holinesse sake and sanctity of life is continued to Popes who haue bene most wicked and retayned only in respect of their functions The case is this Benedict the cleauenth (m) Extrau l. 5. C. Dudum calleth Boniface the eight his Predecessor bona memoria of good memory The glosse sayth If a Pope haue defiled the Church with exactions simonies and filthy speaches he is not therfore to be instiled mal◠memoriae not of euill but of good memory according to the ciuill Law determining that regard is not to be had to what he did but to what it was fit for him to do that is sayth the glosse not to his person but to his dignity for although his person haue offended his dignity hath not and his personall offence is not to redound to the domage of the Church And howsoeuer Prelates haue offended they are Presidents and Fathers of the whole community and therfore to be honored as the Philosopher teacheth also the Ciuill Law calling them Gods for the Excellency of their Order and dignity of their office And for the same cause Kings albeit wicked in their liues are instiled Clara memoria vel Inclyta memoria of famous or renowned memory and Emperors Dina memoria of soueraigne or diuine memory To which I adde (n) Act. 24.25 that S. Paul called Festus President of Iury Optime Fest◠Most excellent Festus and this nor for his Vertue or Honesty for he was a wicked man but for his Office the custome being that all Presidents of Prouinces were so instiled (o) Baron Anno 58. n. 33. All this I suppose you will allow for hauing read most of it in the Glosse you except not against it or if you do your exception is without ground Other Prelates therfore although they be of vicious liues may be instiled Bonae memoriae Kings Clarae vel Inclytae memoriae Emperors Diuae memoriae Temporall gouernors may haue the title of Optimi yea and be called Gods for so you call Kings (p) Serm before his Ma. at Durham pag. 14. The Pope only forsoth who is the Vicar of Christ on earth because it displeaseth you must not be saluted by the title of Your Holinesse whiles he liues nor be said to be Bonae memoriae after he is dead Other gouernors must be honored by reason of their dignities and offices The Pope only must be excepted and Doctor Morton to helpe out the matter must falsify the Glosse making it say that an ill Pope after his death is to be intituled Of blessed Memory which words howsoeuer you (q) Pag. 277. set them downe as of the glosse and in great letters to make your falsification more remarkable are not of the glosse but feigned by you And finally whether an ill Pope after his death be or be not to be intituled Bonae or Malae memoriae what makes it to your intent which is to proue that Saluation may be had out of the Roman Church But if your volume had not bene stuffed with such impertinencies it cold not haue risen to so Grand an Imposture CHAP. XXXVII Of the authority of the Epistles of ancient Popes AS the Arians and other Heretikes haue contemned the Epistles of the Bishops of Rome so all orthodoxe Christians haue euer held them in great veneratiō Eusebius Caesariensis (r) L. 3. hist c. 12. writeth that the epistle of Clement Pope to the Corinthians was so highly esteemed that the custome was to reade it publikely in the Churches which also he reporteth (s) L. 4. hist. c. 22. of the Epistle of Soter Pope And how greatly these Epistles were reuerenced may appeare out of S. Irenaeus who highly commending the Epistle of Clement (t) L. 3. c. 3. setteth downe a summary therof And in like manner Clemens Alexandrinus (u) Serm. l.
against this Epistle to be of no force 3. You except (r) pag. 28â— against the Epistle of Pius because you will not belieue him to haue commanded that if any drops were shed out of the Chalice in the Eucharist they should be licked vp and the board scraped You belieue not this because you belieue not the reall presence of the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist but thinke it reuerence inough if your Clerke take home your bread that remaines and crimble it into his potage and drinke vp the wine merily with his guests at dinner and yet some of you tell the people it is the body and bloud of Christ Howsoeuer your Argument is wholly from the matter for this command of Pius is not in his first Epistle which you deceiptfully cite in your margent nor in any of his Epistles but in his decrees which the Church approueth (s) Breuiar Roman Iul. 11. from whence to inferre that his Epistles are apocryphall is a consequence which I suppose you will not grant I am sure euery one will see to be absurd The error which out of Baronius you mention (t) Pag. 282. in two of Pius his Epistles might easily creepe into the copies by negligence or mistake of the Scribe and therfore is no sufficient Argument to disauthorize them and much lesse the rest in which there is no such mistake 4. You reiect (u) Ibid. the Epistles of Soter and Alexander because you cannot thinke the vse of Incense at the Altar nor the expiation of small offences by holy water to be so ancient For your better instruction coÌ„cerning the ancient vse of incense at the altar I remit you to (x) L. 1. de ritib Eccles c. 9. DuraÌ„tius who sheweth how foolishly it is relected by heretikes to Bellarmine (y) L. 2. de Missa c. 15. and Brereley in his Liturgy of the Masse (z) Pag. 40. n. 12 pag. 94. lit D. Concerning the antiquity of holy-water for the expiation of small offences casting out of Diuels and other great miracles wrought by sprinkeling therof read Baronius (a) Spoud Indic V. Aquae Beâ—ed antiq vsus Bellarmine (b) L. 3. de Eccles triumph c. 7. l. 2. de Missa c. 15. Durantius (c) L. 1. de rit c. 21. and Brereley (d) Liturg. pag. 64. lit u. x. pag. 94. l. b. c. They will certify you that both these ceremonies are Apostolicall traditions vsed in the Church from the beginning shew your reiecting of those ancient Epistles because they are mentioned in them to be cauilling without ground 5. Because Cooks findeth in some of those Epistles a word or a phrase which some one Author thinkes not to be so ancient in that sense or forsooth not so elegant and Ciceronian you are pleased to call them all horrid and barbarous (e) Pag. 279. to help out the matter you exemplisy in Caius which is none of the fourteene alleaged by Bellarmine But you consider not that diuers of those Epistles were written in Greeke and that the Latine phrase is not of the authors but of the translators And as Nicolas the first (f) Ep. 8. apud Bin to 3. pag. 682. speaking to the vngodly Emperor Michaell of Latin translated into Greeke sayth If it beget barbarismes the fault is not in the Latin tongue but in the Translators striuing not only to keep the sense but vsing force to render word by word so I say to you if in the Epistles of ancient Popes you find some words or manners of speach not so vsuall the fault is not in the Epistles but in the Translators striuing to render them word by word And to go no further for the confutation of this cauill you obiect against vs (g) Pag. 291. out of an Epistle of Adrian the first that liued almost 800. yeares after Christ these words Consecrationes Episcoporum Archiepiscoporum sicut olitana constat traditio nostra dioecosis existentes in which whether you regard the word olitana or the phrases sicut olitana constat traditio consecrationesnostrae dioecesis existentes you may vnder colour that the phrase of this Epistle is horrid and barbarous reiect it with as much ground as you do the Epistles of Popes that liued in the first 300. yeares after Christ The truth therfore is that you reiect those because they make wholly against you and receaue this because you find something in it which may serue you for an Argument against vs though without ground for Adrian in that Epistle most effectually proueth the authority of the Roman See wherof something hath bene spoken already (h) Chap. 33. sect 2. SECT II. The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of Popes that liued in the second 300. yeares after Christ THere is no stronger Argument then that which is drawne from the confession of the Aduersaries for as Tertullian obserueth (i) In Apologet No man lieth to his owne shame and therfore he is soner to belieued that confesseth against himselfe then he that denieth in his owne behalfe Which truth the Father of the Roman eloquence vnderstood by the light of nature saying (k) Orat. P. Qui. Thy testimony which in another mans cause is litle to be regarded when it is against thy selfe is of great weight And you acknowledge (l) Answere to the Prot. Apol. Epist. Dedicat. that the testimony of the aduersary is the greatest reason of satisfaction Let vs then see whether you wil not beare witnesse for vs against your selues that the Popes of the first 600. yeares after Christ acknowledged and exercised their authority and iurisdiction ouer all the Churches of the world and this chiefly in their Epistles for of most of them there are no other writings extant Their testimonies in this behalfe are plentifully alleaged by Maister Brereley (m) Protest Apologâ—tra 1. sect 3. subdiu 10. sect 7. subd 5. and in particular concerning the Popes of the second 300. yeares of whom our question here is he sayth They Protestant writers consesse and say that in the fifth age the Roman Bishops applied themselues to get and establish dominion ouer other Churches To this end they vsurped to themselues the right of granting priuiledges and ornaments to other Archbishops they confirmed Archbishops in their Sees deposed excommunicated and absolued others arrogating also to themselues power of citing Archbishops to declare their causes before them and that against a Bishop appealing to the Roman See nothing should be determined but what the B. of Rome censured That they appointed Legats in remote Prouinces which were somtimes no meaner men then some one or other of the Patriarkes That they challenged authority to heare and determine all vprising controuersies especially in questions of fayth That they tooke vpon them power of appointing generall Councells and to be Presidents in them and euen by their Deputies when
being wronged by the false Councell of Ephesus had presented a libell of appeale to his Legates he would command a generall Councell to be held within Italy for the Nicen Canons require this necessarily to be done after the putting in of an Appeale To these I adde Theodoret testifying in expresse words that he appealed to Leo Pope These witnesses shew that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations was not very vncouth but very familiar in the dayes of Theodoret and in former ages and that the right of appealing to the Roman See was acknowledged and testified by holy Popes of the primitiue times by generall Councells by Emperors by Bishops and by all ancient writers And the same might be proued by other examples if these were not sufficient to shew your ignorance in denying if not rather your boldnesse in out-facing so knowne a truth SECT V. That S. Athanasius appealed to Iulius Pope and Theodoret to Leo as absolute Iudges and that by their authority both of them were restored to their Churches THat S. Athanasius appealed to Iulius Pope and by his authority was restored to his seat hath bene effectually proued (r) Chap. 38. sect 6. And to what there was said I adde here the testimony of Liberatus who speaking of Iohn Patriarke of Alexandria deposed by the Emperor Zeno sayth (s) In Breuia c. 18. He appealed to the B. of Rome as also Blessed Athanasius did And that Theodoret appealed to Leo as to an absolute Iudge that had power to command him and sentence his cause he himselfe witnesseth as you haue heard (t) Sect. praeced init Neuerthelesse you taking vpon you to know what passed in Theodorets cause better then Theodoret himselfe say (u) Pag. 304. He addressed his requests to the B. of Rome not as to a peremptory Iudge but as to a Patron and arbitrary dais-man one vpon whose authority he depending acknowledgeth in expresse words his reason to wit the integrity of the fayth of the Pope and promising to abide his award with the assistance of others And before you had said (x) Pag. 255. marg lit m. The euent sheweth that there was in this busines no iuridicall proceeding at all Only Theodoret vpon his confession of his Orthodoxe fayth was receaued into communion with Leo as Leo might haue ben with Iohn of Constantinople in like case These are your words to proue that Theodoret appealed not to the Pope as to an absolute Iudge that had authority to annull the sentence of the Councell that deposed him and restore him to his See but only as to an Arbitrator by reason of the integrity of his fayth when as he contrarily in expresse words beseecheth Renatus (y) Ep ad Renat to perswade the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of Rome to vse his Apostolicall authority and command him to appeare before his Councell that is his Consistory because that holy See hath the guidance and gouerment of all the Churches of the world And writing to Pope Leo he sayth (z) In Ep. ad Leon. I attend the sentence of your Apostolike throne and beseech your Holinesse to succour me appealing to your right and iust iudgment and to command that I be brought before you c. And I promise to stand to your iudgment contenting my selfe with that which you shall determine what euer it be And I beseech you that I may be iudged according to my writings If Theodoret had studied to expresse the Popes iudiciall authority to sentence his cause could he haue done it in more cleare and effectuall words then these It is true that as he acknowledgeth the Roman Church to be priuiledged aboue others for many causes so especially for that she hath remained free from all blemish of heresy none hauing euer possessed that See which hath held any thing contrary to truth or which hath not kept the Apostolicall grace entyre and without blemish The reason why he mentioneth the purity of fayth alwayes preserued in the Roman Church is because he had bene accused and deposed as guilty of heresy in his writings And therfore he appealeth confidently to the Pope as to one whose iudgment in matters of fayth is is infallible and to whom the decision of all such Controuersies belongeth acknowledging withall as you haue heard the Roman Church to be the Head of all Churches and the Pope to be his absolute Superior and Iudge with authority to command him and sentence his cause And Leo Pope accordingly vsing the authority of a Iudge declared him free from heresy and restored him to his See wherupon the Senators that assisted at the Councell of Chalcedon said with the approbation of the whole Councell (a) Act. 1. Let the most Reuerend Bishop Theodoret come in because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his See Who then seeth not the insufficiency of your answeare that Theodoret appealed not to the Pope as to an absolute Iudge but made his requests vnto him as to an arbitrary Dais-man for appeales are not made to Arbitrators but to absolute Iudges An Arbitator is he to whom the determination of a controuersy is remitted by agreement of both parties which in Theodorets cause can haue no place for his aduersaries neuer agreed to haue his cause remitted to the Pope If therfore the Pope had not bene an absolute Iudge Theodorets appealing to him had bene in vaine nor could he haue recouered his seat by the Popes sentence for a sentence pronounced without authority is of no effect And though after the Councell of Chalcedon had admitted Theodoret vpon the Popes restitution to take his place amongst the Bishops some of them doubting of his fayth because he had written against Cyrill of Alexandria in fauor of Nestorius and therfore fearing the Pope might haue restored him vpon misinformation vrged him to anathematize Nestorius againe yet that no way helpeth your cause nor derogateth from the Popes authority for when Theodoret had anathematized Nestorius the Councell proceeded not to a new sentence of restitution but subscribing to that of Leo cried out all with one voyce (b) Act. 2. Long liue Archbishop Leo Leo hath iudged the iudgment of God SECT VI. That S. Chrysostome appealed to Innocentius Pope as to an absolute Iudge and by his authority was restored to his Church of Constantinople S. Chrysostome being deposed from his Patriarchall See at the procurement of Eudoxia the Empresse wife to Arcadius Emperor of the East by a Councell of Bishops vnder Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria had recourse by letters of appeale to Innocentius Pope This you deny saying (b) Pag. 307. n. that wheras Bellarmine and Baronius referre you to the story it selfe you can finde nothing lesse in it then the matter of Appeale for say you Chrysostome made his requests not to the Pope alone but to the other Reuerend Bishops within the Roman Prouince together with him But this is a mistake proceeding
from your ignorance for as the Syrians to expresse Mayster or Lord vse the word Rabbi which hath a plurall signification because a person of quality containes in himselfe the authority of many so when we write to an Honorable person it is vsuall to speake vnto him in the plurall number to signify that he hath in himselfe the dignity and authority of many So writ Eusebius B. of Milan to Pope Leo alone (c) Extat inter Ep. Leo. post ep 52. God hath placed yee Prelates of the Apostolike See worthy Protectors of his worship So writ Theodoret to the same Pope alone (d) Ep. ad Leon. Vos enim per â—mnia conuenit esse primos So writ the Bishops of Syria to Iustinian the Emperor (e) Conc. Constant sub Mena. Act. 1. Our Lord preserue yee deuout and zealous guardians of the fayth So writ the Councell of Mopsuestia to Vigilius Pope (f) In Conc. 5. Act. 5. It is conuenient O most Holies that since you hold the chiefe dignity of Priesthood c. And so did Chrysostome write in the plurall number to Innocentius Pope alone as it is manifest both out of the inscription of his Epistle which is singular and directed to Innocentius alone as also out of Paladius (g) In vita Chrysost who cites it as addressed to him alone 2. You say (h) Pag. 307. Chrysostome made his requests to the Pope not to cite the parties complained against but only to write vnto them and this not by any peremptory charge but only by reproofe of their vmust dealing and of admonition c. Heere I accuse you of somthing more then ignorance for the words of Chrysostome to Innocentius are (i) Ep. 1. ad Innocent Vouchsafe to write and ordaine by your authority that these things so wickedly done I being absent and not refusing iudgment may be inualid as of their owne nature they are and that they who haue proceeded so iniustly may be submitted to the punishment of the Ecclesiasticall Lawes And command that I who am innocent and not conuicted of any crime be restored to my Church And againe (k) Ep. â— ad Innocent One thing I beseech your vigilant Soule that albeit they which haue filled all with tumulies be sick of an impenitent and incurable disease if yet they will remedy those things that then they may not be punished nor excommunicated What more expresse forme of appeale or what more euident acknowledgment of the Popes authority iudiciall power then this Doth not Chrysostome beseech Innocentius to disannull by his letters authority the Acts of the Councell which had deposed him To abrogate their sentence pronounced against him to replace him in his Bishoprick and to punish his aduersaries according to the Lawes of the Church but yet to spare them if they would repent Is not this to acknowledge in him the power of an absolute Iudge And is not this extant to be read in Chrysostomes Epistles and in his life written by Palladius You to keep this from your readers set not downe any of Chrysostoms words in the text of your discourse And though in your margent you set downe some of them in Latin in a small letter yet euen that you do not without imposture for you mangle them leauing out those in which he besecheth the Pope to vse his authority in punishing his aduersaries according to the Ecclesiasticall Canons and in restoring him to his Church Againe you are guilty of vntruth in saying (l) Pag. 307. that Chrysostome made not any requests to the Pope to cite the parties complained against For doth he not say (m) Ep. ad Innoc apud Pallad in vita ipsius But yet if the authors of wickednesse will declare for what crimes they haue iniustly deposed me let their euidences be giuen in Let processes be produced let my accusers come let a true and incorrupt iudgment sit I refuse it not I decline it not yea I earnestly desire it let vs be iudged Iâ— his to request the Pope to write to his aduersaries not by any peremptory charge but only by way of reproofe and admonition for their vniust dealing Doth he not beseech him that his aduerlaries may appeare and bring in their euidences against him and that his cause may be tried a new by him as by a iust and in corrupt Iudge But you say (n) Pag. 30â— When all the Pope cold do is performed what the last refuge was he did signify in his letters to the Orientalls saying The only remedy of curing these euills is the calling of a Councell and vntill then the matter is to be committed to the will and pleasure of God Here you are accusable of an iniust reticence of what Innocentius did and how he shewed himselfe alone and without a Councell to be an absolute Iudge for doth not Palladius say (o) In vit Chrys Innocentius decreed that the iudgment of Theophilus should be abrogated and annulled Doth not Sozomen in that very place which you alleage (p) L. 8. c 26. testify that Innocentius condemned those things which were done against Iohn And by this single sentence of Innocentius alone without any Synod Iohn was absolued as Gelasius an Author of the same age reporteth saying (q) Ep. ad Episcop Dardan A Synod of Catholike Bishops hauing condemned Iohn of Constantinople of holy memory the See Apostolike alone because it consented not therunto absolued him Nor did he shew the authority of a Iudge only in absoluing Iohn and condemning his aduersaries but especially in that hearing of his death he excommunicated the Emperor Arcadius the Empresse Eudoxia his wife who had bene the chiefe causes of his condemnation and banishment for as Nicephorus (r) L. 13. c. 33. and Georgius Patriarke of Alexandria (s) In vita Chrys an Author of 1000. yeares antiquity cited by S. Damascens and Photius (u) In Georg. Alex. and followed by Cedrenus (x) In Arcad. Glycas (y) In Annal. in Arcad. other Greeke Authors testify (t) L. 1. de Imaginibus Innocentius hauing seuerely reprehended them both for the enormity of their offence pronounced Excommunication against them in these words And therfore I the meanest and a sinner as Depositary of the Throne of the great Apostle Peter cut off thee her from the participation of the immaculate Mysteries of Christ our God and ordaine that whatsoeuer Bishop or Clerke of the holy Church of God which shall presume to administer them to you after he hath read this my Censure shal be deposed All this is to be read in the history of Chrysostome to which you say Baronius and Bellarmine referre you Had it not then bene honesty to take notice of these particulars but that was not for your purpose This also conuinceth you to speake vntruly when you say (z) Pag. 308. The Pope confesseth insufficiency in himselfe and that the only remedy is in
the iudgment of a Councell for in case of an appeale two things are necessary the first is to iudge whether the cause be lawfull if it be to admit of the appeale to annull the sentence pronounced against the Appellant and restore the cause to the same state in which it was before his condemnation This Innocentius performed in the cause of Chrysostome He admitted his appeale he absolued him he annulled the Councell that condemned him he excommunicated the Emperor and the Empresse by whose procurement he had bene condemned and vpon their repentance absolued them All this he did without a Councell shewing that he acknowledged not insufficiency in himselfe nor thought the only remedy to be in a Councell The second thing required in case of an Appeale is to proceed to a new iudgment naming Iudges either of Bishops of the adioyning Prouinces or els by sending Legates from Rome with authority to iudge the cause together with the Bishops of the Prouinces adioining or if the weight of the cause require it to call a general Councell in which it may be determined with satisfaction of the whole Church as the Councell of Nice hath prescribed (a) Leo Ep. 25. This also was exactly performed by Innocentius Pope in the appeale of Chrysostome Innocent sayth Palladius (b) In vit Chrysost hauing receaued both parties into his Communion determined that the iudgment of Theophilus should be abrogated and annulled saying They should hold another Synod irreprouable of the Prelates of the West and East This was Innocentius his desire which as Sozomen reporteth he proposed by fiue Bishops (c) L. 8. c. 28. and two Priests of the Roman Church to Honorius and Arcadius wishing them to appoint a time and place for the Councell but could not effect it not for want of Ecclesiasticall authority to call the Bishops as you misinterpret but because as Sozomen declareth (d) Ibid. the enemies of Chrysostome opposed it being supported by the temporall power of Arcadius and Eudoxia without whose consent a Councell could not be held the cities in which it should be held being subiect to them and at their command Wherfore Innocentius did not acknowledge any Ecclesiasticall authority in the Emperor to call a Councell as you comment but only requested him as being Lord of the Empire to appoint a time and place when and where in some City of his the Councell might be held which he by his spirituall power intended to call It resteth therfore that whatsoeuer you haue obiected out of this history of Chrysostome against the Popes authority is nothing but vntruthes and ignorant mistakes among which I will score vp one other which is that in this matter of Appeales to Rome you say (e) Pag. 307. m. both your Cardinalls Baronius and Bellarmine giue for instance the example of Chrysostome B. of Antioch Those Cardinalls were not so ignorant as to call Chrysostome B. of Antioch that 's your mistake fathered on them He was a Priest of the Church of Antioch and after the death of Nectarius Patriarke of Constantinople by a Councell of Bishops chosen Patriarke of that Imperiall City and by meanes of the Emperor Arcadius brought from Antioch thither and there consecrated Bishop SECT VII That Flauianus appealed to Leo Pope as to an absolute Iudge AN other example of appealing to Rome is of Flauianus to which you answere two things shewing ignorance in the one and falshood in the other Ignorance in saying (f) Pag. 308. fin 309. iuit that of this same Flauianus you haue said inough already You haue indeed already spoken of Flauianus inough to the discredit of your cause (g) Pag. 296.297 but not of this same Flauianus for Flauianus of which there you spake was B. of Antioch and liued in tyme of Damasus Pope But Flauianus of which now you speake was B. of Constantinople and liued in time of Leo the Great 70. yeares after the other Is it not then too great a mistake in a man that professeth so much learning to shift of what we alleage in proofe of Appeales from the example of the one by what you haue said of the other especially their cases being farre different To ignorance you adde falshood saying (h) Pag. 308. fin It will be a hard matter for you out of the example of Flauianus to collect a right of appeale to the Pope from his appeale to a Synod To proue that Flauianus appealed not to the Pope but to a Synod you rehearse in your margen a Latin sentence of Leo writing to Theodosius the Empetor which you English not because Leo sayth not that Flauianus appealed to a Synod that 's your false comment but expresly affirmeth that he put vp a petition of Appeale to his Legates which was not to appeale to them but to him whose person the Legates represented Yea the very words of Leo which you recite directly testify that he which required a Councell was not Flauianus but Leo himselfe yielding for his reason the Nicen Canons which command that after the putting in of appeale in causes of such weight the calling of a generall Councell is necessary Moreouer that Flauianus appealed and not to a Synod but to the Pope is a truth declared not only by the words of Leo but testified also by other writers Flauianus sayth Liberatus (i) Cap. 1â— appealed to the Apostolick See by petition presented to his Legates And the Emperor Valentinian the third writing to Theodosius the second Emperor of the East (k) In eppraeambul Concil Châ—lced We ought in our dayes to preserue to the Blessed Apostle Peter the dignity of reuerence proper to him inuiolate that the Blessed Bishop of the City of Rome to whom antiquity hath yeilded the Priestood ouer all may haue way to iudge of Bishops and of fayth for therfore Flauianus B. of Constantinople following the custome of Councells hath appealed to him by petition in the contention moued concerning fayth And if you belieue not these witnesses belieue the Centurists who testify against you (l) Cent. 5. col 778. that somtimes Bishops condemned in Synods appealed to the See of Rome as did Flauianus in the Councell of Ephesus What testimonies more expresse then these Is it not manifest out of Liberatus out of Valentinian out of the Centurists yea and out of the very words of Leo which you produce for the contrary that Flauianus appealed not to a Synod but to him Who but Doctor Morton could deny so inuincible a truth And no lesse apparent it is that antiquity acknowledged in the Pope authority to iudge of Bishops and of fayth and that appeales vnto him were ordained by the ancient Councells for why els did Valentinian say to Theodosius his Father-in-Law that Flanianus appealed to the See Apostolike according to the custome of Councells SECT VIII Of Nilus equalling the B. of Constantinople with the Pope in his right of Appeales NIlus an hereticall Bishops of Thessalonica
thing vncertaine Many thinke it to be of Damasus and his you will haue it to be But the contrary is manifest for the epistle speaketh of Bonosus an Arch-heretike who had bene condemned by Iudges appointed in thē Councell of Capua which was not held in time of Damasus but of Siricius successor to Damasus It is therefore euident that the request of Bouosus which you obiect out of this epistle to haue his cause heard againe could not be to Damasus his first condemnation being not vntill after Damasus his death When you can shew this epistle to be of Damasus you shall receaue an answeare which it were easy to giue you now if I listed to spend time in refuting your tedious discourse of racking the verbe Competit to a strict sense and which not one but many wayes is deficient as all your arguments for the most part are Your addition (e) Pag. 318. marg l. that if the epistle be not of Damasus it is certainly of some Pope and that all hold it so is affirmed by you gratis and as easely denied by me CHAP. XL. Whether the Easterne Churches be at this day accordant in Communion with Protestants SECT I. The state of the Question THE nine first Sections of your fourtenth Chapter you spend in prouing that the Grecians Aegyptians Aethiopians Assyrians Armenians Russians Melchites and other remote nations at this day dissent from the Roman Church and are accordant in Communion with Protestants The foundation of your whole discourse you lay in these words (f) Pag. 330. Whatsoeuer Christians haue not ruinated any fundamental article of sauing fayth set downe in our ancient Creeds and are vnited vnto the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus our Lord by a liuing fayth all Protestants esteeme them as true members of the Catholike Church and notwithstanding diuers their more tolerable errors and superstitions to be in state of saluation albeit no way subiect or subordinate to the Roman Church These are your words which containe in themselues open implication namely that one may be vnited to the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus by a liuing fayth and be in state of saluation and yet be out of the Catholike Church which to be none els but the Roman and that out of her there is no saluation hath bene already proued (g) Chap. 1. sect 2.3.4 From this false principle you deduce that the Grecians Asians Aegyptians Assyrians Aethiopians Africans Melchites Russians and Armenians notwithstanding their separation from the Roman Church are at this day truly professed Christian Churches (h) Pag. 379. partes of the Catholike Church (i) Pag. 406. fin 407. init faythfull Christians professing the fayth of the ancient Fathers (k) Pag. 417. in state of saluation and raile bitterly at the Church of Rome for denying the same But how great ignorance and impiety you shew and how many most shamefull vntruthes you vtter in the prosecution of this Argument it is easy to declare Some of them I shall present to the Readers view And to proceed methodically I will reduce what I am to say to two heades 1. I will proue that as the Christians of these remote nations anciently were so many of them at this day are accordant in beliefe and communion with the Roman Church yeild obedience to the Pope as to the Vicar of Christ on earth and as to the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church 2. That the inhabitants of these nations which are not Roman Catholikes are not of one beliefe or Communion with Protestants but wholly dissent from them holding most blasphemous and damnable heresies acknowledged for such by Protestants themselues From whence it will follow that you affirming them to be faythfull Christians of the same beliefe with the ancient Fathers charge the ancient Fathers with blasphemous heresies and make them incapable of saluation SECT II. Whether the Grecians of the primitiue and successiue times agreed in fayth and Communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome and particularly at the Councell of Florence THat the Greekes in the first Councell of Constantinople and afterwards in that of Calcedon endeauored to giue to their Patriarke of Constantinople the second place of dignity in the Church next after the Pope and before the other Patriarkes we acknowledge But that they sought therby to exempt themselues from their obedience and subiection to the Pope hath bene effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 5. Chap. 19. sect 4. I speake not this to deny that anciently there were of the Grecians many Heretikes which opposed the Roman Church and by her authority were condemned and that eight Patriarkes of Constantinople in particular as also Eutyches an Arch-heretike of the same City were anathematized and east out of the Church for heresy And wheras the Westerne Church by the example and diligence of the Bishops of Rome was preserued from heresy the Churches of the East new heresies daily springing vp were so pitifully torne and ten in peeces that S. Hierome complaining therof to Pope Damasus said (m) Ep. 57. Because the East striking against it selfe by the ancient fury of the people teares in litle morsells the vndeuided coate of our Lord wouen on high and that the foxes destroy the vine of Christ in such sorte that it is difficult among the drie pits that haue no water to discerne where the sealed fountaine and the inclosed garden is I haue therfore thought that I ought to consult with the Chaire of Peter and the fayth praised by the mouth of the Apostle This was the miserable state of the Easterne Churches in those dayes being gouerned somtimes by Catholike Bishops that acknowledged subiection to the Church of Rome and somtimes by Heretikes that opposed her authority vntill at length Photius hauing iniustly driuen Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople from his See and intruded himselfe into his place and being for that cause often excommunicated by Nicolas the first and Iohn the eight Popes of Rome to mantaine his iniust title withdrew himselfe from their obedience and to the end he might haue some colour to perseuer in that separation cauilled at the doctrine of the Roman Church which teacheth that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Sonne and writ against it And the Greekes following him in this error separated themselues from the Communion of the Roman man Church Yet not so but that they haue often eleauen times sayth S. Antoninus (n) Hist. par 2. tit 22. c. 23. acknowledged their error and reconciled themselues to her and especially thrice in most solemne manner in three seuerall Councells of Barium in Apulia of Lions in France and of Florence in Tuscany but still returning to their error against the holy Ghost and disobedience to the Church of Rome as dogs to their vomit Almighty God punished them with a heauy hand deliuering them vp to a miserable captiuity seruitude vnder the Turke And that they might know the
proceeds from the Father alone which error of the Greekes is also testified and learnedly confuted by that famous Cardinall Bessarion and by Gennadius Scholarius in two speciall Treatises of this subiect and before them by S. Thomas of Aquine (d) Opusc contr error Graec. against whom writ Nicolaus Cabasilas whose booke is extant in the Vatican was soone after confuted by Demetrius Cidoinus a Greeke Catholike And to omit other Protestant writers Thomas Rogers in his booke of the 39. Articles perused by the authority of the Church of England allowed to be publike sayth (e) Art 3. propos 3. pag. 25. This discouereth all them to be impious to erre from the way of truth which hold and affirme that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father but not from the Sonne as this day the Grecians the Russians the Muscouites mantaine and in proofe therof he alleageth other Authors Finally the same is testified by Kekerman (f) Sistem Theolog. pag. 63. and Doctor White (g) Way Ep. Ded. n. 8. affirming that the Latin Greeke Churches brake vpon the Controuersy of the proceeding of the holy Ghost From hence it followeth that the Greekes which are not of the Roman Communion are absolute Heretikes and erre fundamentally for what error can be more fundamentall then that which is immediatly against the blessed Trinity God himselfe This you could not be ignorant of but that you may not seeme to be absurd in professing that Protestants are accordant in communion with heretikes you seeke to free the Grecians from heresy which you haue no other meanes to performe but by falsifying Catholike Authors 1. Therfore to this end you alleage (h) Pag. 334. lit q. marg these words as of Cardinall Tolet Gracus intelligens dicit Spiritum sanctum procedere per Filium quod non aliud significat quà m quod nos dicimus And in your text you english them thus The vnderstanding Greekes saying that the holy Ghost proceedeth by the Sonne signify therby nothing but what we our selues professe O egregious imposture Tolet there explicating these words of S. Iohn qui à Patre procedit expresly condemneth the Greekes of error in that point and proueth out of S. Cyrill that these words of S. Iohn confute their error Locus prasens c. This present passage sayth he (i) In caput 15. Ioan. Annot 25. doth no way fauor the error of the Grecians but rather confuteth and ouerthroweth the same for out of these words it is plaine that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne and the Father which Cyrill though an vnderstanding Grecian confesseth saying that the holy Ghost is of the Sonne and of the Father and that he proceedeth from the Father but by the Sonne Which signifieth nothing els but what we say These are Tolers words in which you see he chargeth the Greekes with error in their beliefe of the holy Ghost and therby conuinceth you of an vntruth in saying (k) Pag. 334. that Tolet freeth them from heresy in this point But to make good this vntruth you corrupt his words for whereas he speaking not of the later Greekes but only of that ancient and Orthodoxe Father S. Cyrill sayth Cyrillus Graecus intelligens c. Cyrill an vnderstanding Grecian sayth in this point no other thing but what we professe you both in your Latin and English leaue out Cyrillus as if Tolet had not mentioned him and translate Graecus intelligens in the plurall number The vnderstanding Greekes which you do purposely to perswade your reader that Tolet speaketh not of S. Cyrill nor of any particular man but in generall of the Later Grecians and freeth them from that error of the holy Ghost with which you haue heard him so expresly charge them Can there be a more wilful falfication then this 2. But your dealing with others is no better You cite (l) Pag 331. lit a. Castro to proue that the Greeks haue bene diuided many hundreds of yeares from the Latines But because you would haue your Reader conceaue that Castro holds them not to be heretikes and out of the state of saluation you set downe these words as his Per multas annorum centurias Graci à Latinis diuisi with is a plaine falsification for Castro's words are Duodecima haeresis est quae negat Spiritum sanctum procedere à Patre à filio Hanc haeresim docuerunt tutati sunt Graeci per multas annorum centurias itae vt haec fuerit vna ex praecipuis causis propter quas à Romana Catholica Ecclesia diuisi sint The twelth heresy is that which denieth the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Sonne This heresy the Greekes haue taught and mansained many hundreds of yeares in so much that this is one of the chiefest causes for which they are diuided from the Roman and Catholike Church Here therfore you māgle Castro's words And to mantaine your vndertaken falsity that the Greekes notwithstanding their diuision from the Roman Church are partes of the Church Catholike and in state of saluation you conceale that he affirmeth them to be heretikes and that the chiefe cause of their diuision from the Roman Church is their heresy concerning the holy Ghoast 3. With like preiudice of conscience you cite (m) Pag. 335. Azor who in that very place (n) Instit. l. moral part 1. l. 8. c. 20. §. Decimo directly affirmeth the Greekes to be heretikes and that although some thinke that concerning their beliefe of the fire of Purgatory and some other few points of fayth they differ not from the doctrine of the Roman Church really and in sense but only in words and in that respect are not heretikes but schismatikes yet he concludeth that whatsoeuer their beliefe concerning these articles is they are Heretikes and perhaps in these very points because they erre culpably in them but that wee often call them Schismatikes because we retaine the ancient manner of speach for first the Greekes diuided themselues often from the Church by schisme and in progresse of time brought heresies into the Church 4. You cite (o) Pag. 334. Suarez saying that the Greekes are schismatikes because they erre in those things which belong to the vnity of the Church though indeed they be heretikes also because they deny the vnity of the Head And immediatly before he had alleaged out of S. Hierome that all Schismatikes feigne to themselues some heresy to the end they may seeme not to haue departed from the Church without cause Agayne he expresly sayth (p) De Deo trino vno l. 10. c. 1. n. 2. that the Greeks erre in holding the holy Ghoast not to proceed from the sonne and that for this error among many others the Greeke Church hath diuided it selfe from the Roman Church denying obedience to the Pope These are the Authors which you produce to saue the Greekes from the infamous note of heresy wherin you
hereafter nor to write nor send to vs any writings concerning these things for you treat the Diuines which were lights of the Church otherwise then is fit you honor and extoll them in words but with your deeds reiect them seeking to wrest out of our hands their holy and diuine words with we might vse to confute you Wherfore for as much as concernes vs you haue freed vs from care and therfore going on in your owne wayes write no more to vs of your Doctrine but only for friendships sake if you please All these are the words of Iustus Caluinus related out of the Censure or Epistle of Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople by Chytraeus and Crusius two chiefe Protestants of Germany where Iustus Caluinus liued writ Chytraeus and Crusius being then liuing who might and would haue taxed him of falshood if he had misalleaged them Wherfore I cannot sufficiently admire your boldnesse who to proue that the Grecians accord in doctrine with Protestants and dissent from the Church of Rome dare aduenture to alleage this Censure of the Patriarke out of which it is so manifest not only by the Catholike editions but euen by that of Wittemberg and by the relations of Chyrtraeus and Crusius that the Greekes in very few points of those which are in Controuersy between Protestants and vs dissent from the Roman Church and that they condemne the contrary doctrines of Protestants as hereticall auoid them as heretikes for so you haue heard the Patriarke call them But yet as Iustus Caluinus (y) Pag. 1â— fin rightly obserueth the accordance of the Greekes with the Roman Church in so many chiefe Heads of doctrine is not sufficient to excuse them from schisme and heresy for if they were not guilty of other errors their obstinate denying the holy Ghost to proceed from the Sonne is alone sufficient to make theÌ„ absolute schismatikes and heretikes incapable of saluation as S. Athanasius hath expresly declared in his Creed You therfore haue told a most solemne vntruth in saying (z) Pag. 330. that the Greekes which dissent from the Roman Church haue not ruinated any fundamentall Article of sauing truth SECT III. A particular instance of Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople produced by Doctor Morton to proue that he dissented from the Roman Church examined FOr the corroboration of your former Arguments you produce (a) Pag. 387. Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople as an especiall patterne of disobedience to the Roman Church The case is this The people of Bulgaria hauing sent for preachers to Rome and being instructed by them in the fayth of Christ submitted themselues voluntarily to the Pope and in spirituall things were gouerned immediatly by him as part of his Roman Diocesse (b) Spond anno 869. n. 13. Neuerthelesse because the Grecians challenged the temporall state of that Prouince to belong to the Emperor of the East Ignatius supposing the spiritualty of it to belong in right to his Diocesse vsurped it to himselfe and consecrating a Bishop by his owne authority sent him thither with other Priests for which he was checked by Adrian Pope (c) Spond anno 871. n. 1. and afterwards excommunicated by Iohn the eight if within thirty dayes after notification of the sentence vnto him he did not desist from that vsurpation He died before the arriuall of the sentence at ConstaÌ„tinople (d) Spond anno 878. n. 1. 8. which if he had receaued before his death it is not to be doubted but that he would haue surceased from that claime which he made not out of any desire or intention of opposing the See Apostolike whose authority ouer the Church of Constantinople he acknowledged both in appealing to it against Photius who had intruded himselfe into his Church and also in his epistle to Nicolas Pope (e) Extat Ep. in Syn. 8. Act. 3. And finally that he alwaies liued died in communion of the RomaÌ„ Church appeareth by diuers letters of Iohn the eight written after his death (f) Spond anno 878 n. 8. His example therfore can be no help to your cause SECT IV. The Aegyptians Aethiopians Armenians Russians Melchites Africans and Asians which call themselues Christians and be not of the Roman Communion are absolute Heretikes THe Aegyptians and Aethiopians that are not of the Roman fayth and communion imbrace the Heresy of Eutyches which holdeth but one nature one will and operation in Christ and was for that cause anathematized and cast out of the Church by the holy Councell of Chalcedon twelue hundred yeares since And they which are not of the Roman communion still persist in the same error in so much that when of late yeares Goâ—saluus Rodericius of the Society of Iesus was sent into Aethiopia (g) Pran Sachin Hist Soc. Iesu l. 1. n. 49. to prepare the way for Ioannes Nunnez whom the See Apostolike had sent thither honored with the title and dignity of Patriarke Claudius then King of Aethiopia answeared that he had no need of a Patriarke from Rome hauing in his owne kingdome men that were able to gouerne the Patriarkship of Rome it selfe Moreouer that he would by no meanes approue the Councell of Chalcedon nor allow of Leo Pope and that Dioscorus had done well in excommunicating him Finally the obstinacy of the Aethiopians and Aegyptians in this particular error of Eutyches is the sole cause of their continuance in schisme and separation from the Roman Church for as Cardinall Peron (h) Repliq. Chap. 63. answered our late Soueraigne K. Iames they haue often offered and are all ready at this day to acknowledge the Pope whom they confesse to be the Successor of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles if they might be receaued into his communion without obliging themselues to anathematize Eutyches and Dioscorus The Armenians which are not of the Roman fayth communion are guilty of many heresies They acknowledge but one Nature in Christ with the Eutychians They deny his diuinity with the Arians They affirme the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father alone with the Grecians They rebaptize them that haue bene baptized in the Roman Church with the Donatists And finally they hold many other grosse and damnable heresies related by Prateolus (i) L. 1 tit 67. out of Guido Carmelita and Nicephorus Calixtus who therfore rightly tearmeth them A sinke of all heresies The Russians agree with the Grecians in deniing the holy Ghost to proceed from the Sonne So hath confessed your Minister Thomas Rogers (k) Art 3. propos 3. pag. 25. Moreouer they defend other hereticall Tenets to the number of 40. related by Ioannes Sacranius (l) Elucid error rit Rhuten and Prateolus (m) L. 6. tit 4. Wherunto I adde that Stanislaus Socolouius in the attendance of the King of Polonia whose Diuine he was visiting those Northerne countries and coming to Leopolis the Metropolitan city of Russia reporteth of it (n) Praefat. Censura Orient that although it hath
S. Peter Head of the Apostles to the end that all being subiect to one occasion of schisme among them might be taken away This passage you alleaged out of S. Hierome in your laâ—e Sermon preached at Durham before his Maiesty (s) Pag. 42. to proue the necessity of Bishops against the Scots A Bishop then is necessary to appease the contentions that may happen among your Ministers But contentions and strifes may also arise among Bishops An Archbishop therfore is necessary to quiet them But they may likewise arise betweene Archbishops as they did betweene Theophilus Chrysostome Flauianus and Dioscorus Cyril and Nestorius who shall end them If you say a generall Councell who shall summon that Councell Not a temporall Prince for no one hath power ouer all nations from whence the Bishops are to be called besides that temporall Princes are often at variance among themselues And when a generall Councell is called what if the Bishops agree not or decline from the truth as in the Councel of Ariminum the second of Ephesus they did Who shall compose their differences and iudge their causes vnlesse some one Head of the whole Church be appointed by Christ whose iudgement is infallible and to whose censure all are bound to submit Wherfore the Puritans argument propounded by M. Cartwright (t) Second Reply part 1. pag. 58â— concludeth euidently against you that This point of keeping peace in the Church is one of those which requireth aswell a Pope ouer all Archbishops as one Archbishop ouer all Bishops in a Realme From this vnity of the Head the Church of Christ vniuersally spread ouer the earth takes her vnity Euen as there are sayth S. Cyprian (u) De vnit Eccles many beames of the sunne and one light many bowes of one tree and yet one strength founded in one roote and many brookes flowing from one fountaine a vnity therof conserued in the spring euen so the Church of our Lord casting forth her light displaieth her beames euery where throughout the world and yet her light is one she extends her bowes ouer the whole earth and spreads her flowing riuers farre and neere and yet there is one Head one beginning and one fruitfull and plentifull Mother And lest you might answeare that this one Head of the whole Church mentioned by S. Cyprian is none other but Christ he declareth himselfe saying (x) Ibid. Our Lord to manifest vnity hath constituted one chaire ordained by his authority that vnity should haue beginning from one And explicating who this one is he sayth (y) Ibid. Vpon Peter being one he buildeth his Church and to him commendeth his sheepe to be fed c. The primacy is giuen to Peter that the Church may be shewed to be one And therefore he cals the Chaire of Peter (z) Ep. 55. The principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity proceedeth S. Augustine (a) L. de pastor c. 13. Our Lord committed his sheepe to Peter to commend vnity in him There were many Apostles and to one it is sayd feede my sheepe S. Leo (b) Serm. 3. de assump sua Peter being one is chosen out of the whole world to be constitated ouer the vocation of all nations ouer all the Apostles and all the Fathers of the Church to the end that although there be many Priests and many Pastors in the people of God yet Peter may peculiarly gouerne them all whom Christ also principally ruleth And S. Bernard speaking to Eugenius Pope (c) L. 2. de consider Thou being one art Pastor not only of the sheepe but of all Pastors c. Christ committed all his sheep to one to commend vnity in one flock and in one shepheard Where there is vnity there is perfection If therfore Christ committed his whole flock to Peter being one if one Head among twelue Apostles were necessary to take away occasions of Schisme among them their number being but small how much more necessary was it that for the same cause the whole Church which by reason of the multitude of Bishops and people is more liable to schisme should be gouerned by one Head Who although he be a weake man Christ praying for him (d) Luc. 22.32 hath secured vs that his fayth shall not faile and to the end he may confirme all his brethren hath placed him (e) Aug. ep 166. in the chaire of Vnity in which euen ill men are enforced to speake good things And though he be but one yet he is assisted by other Bishops as his Coadiutors and they by inferion Pastors that so the Bishops watching ouer the inferior Pastors and the supreme Pastor ouer the Bishops the gouerment of the Church labor therof might be diuided among many and yet chiefly committed to one to whom the rest were to haue recourse as the Apostles had to Peter Among the most Blessed Apostles sayth S. Leo (f) Ep. 84. there was in the likenesse of honor a difference of power And although the election of them all was alike yet it was granted to one that he should be aboue the rest in authority from which modell the distinction of Bishops hath proceeded with great prouidence it hath bene ordained that all should not claime all things to themselues but that in seuerall Prouinces there should be seuerall Bishops whose sentence should hold the first ranck among their brethren and againe that others constituted in the greater cities should haue a more ample charge and that by them the gouerment of the vniuersall Church might flow to the seat of Peter and that none might euer dissent from their Head This was the doctrine of that renowned Father and the same hath bene the beliefe of all Orthodoxe Christians And you that oppose it by telling vs a tale of a wrens head placed vpon the sholders of a man shew your selfe not to vnderstand the things of God (g) Math. 16.13 but to measure them by your shallow capacity not considering that according to his promise the supreme Pastor to whom he hath committed the charge of his flock is gouerned by the holy Ghost in his consultations of fayth and that as without his assistance no multitude of Prelates is able to gouerne the whole Church so with his helpe one may performe it as experience teacheth But you obiect (h) Pag 350. 1. That we cannot haue certitude of any B. of Rome because his ordination dependeth vpon the intention of the Ordainer then which what can be more vncertaine This you had obiected before and haue receaued your answere (i) Chap. 5. sect 7. And S. Cyprian (k) L. 4. ep 9. hath told you that to raise such doubts is to doubt of the prouidence of God and to rebell against his ordination 2. You obiect (l) Pag. 350. Iohn the twelth wanting yeares and other conditions necessary for that dignity tooke possession of the Roman Church by intrusion and that therfore in his time the
Church had no true visible Head such as we require because of him it could not be said This is the B. of Rome This obiection you borowed from Baronius (m) Anno 955. who though he acknowledge that the electâ—on of Iohn was void because no true forme was obserued in it yet you passe ouer what he addeth as not being for your purpose namely that the Church afterwards consented to his election wherby the defects that interuened in his former election were supplied and he receaued and reuerenced as true Pope by the whole Church And wheras you say that this Pope was for his life monstrous it hath bene proued (n) Abouâ— Chap. 12. sect 2. that the ill liues of Popes or other Bishops are not Arguments to disproue their authority God is able to teach by Balaams Asse and the Euangelist tells you (o) Ioâ—â— 11.49 that notwithstanding Caiphas was a wicked man yet because he was high Priest he prophesied or rather God by him And our Blessed Sauiour foreseeing that Cauillers would arise hath by S. Augustine (p) Ep. 165. long since answered this your Argument to a wrangling Donatist and in him to you saying If any traitor in those dayes had by surreption crept into that ranck of Bishops which is deduced from S. Peter himselfe euen to Anastasius or Vrbanus who at this present sitteth in that chaire it could worke no preiudice to the Church and to innocent Christians for whom our Lord prouideth saying of wicked Prelates Do yee what they say but what they doe doe it not for they say and do not c. And speaking to Petilianus another Donatist after he had reprehended him for separating himselfe from the Roman Church with sacrilegious fury he addeth (q) Cont. lit Petil. l. 2. c. 51. Why dost thou call the Apostolike See the chaire of pestilence If in respect of the men whom thou thinkest to speake the Law and not to fulfill is did our Lord Iesus Christ for the Pharisees of whom he sayth they say and do not any way wrong the chaire in which they sate Nay did he not commend that chaire of Moyses and reprehend them preseruing entire the honor of the Chaire If you would thinke vpon these things you would not for the men whom you defame blaspheme the Apostolike Chaire with which you do not communicate So S. Augustine to Petilianus and so we to you SECT V. Whether the Roman Church at any time be diuided into many Heads HOw ill aduised you are to obiect either the multitude or the long continuance of Schismes which haue bene in the Roman Church you haue heard (r) See aboue Chap. 7. prope sin Chap. 12. sect 7. But because in time of Schisme when there are two or three that pretend right to the chaire of S. Peter the faithfull cannot certainly know which of them is true Pope you aske (s) Pag. 352. What resolution our Church can haue in such a case adding moreouer (t) Pag. 353. that our article of belieuing this only singular Roman Pope without which fayth none can be saued damneth two of the three parts of our Roman Church at that time Your question is a doubt springing from ignorance and your addition an vntruth To your question S. Antoninus (u) Part. 3 â—is 21. c. 2. seqq hath answeared who treating of the schisme which happened in time of Vrban the sixth against whom the French Cardinalls â—earing his seuerity and flying to Anagnia created a new Pope calling him Clement the seauenth prescribeth this rule that in time of Schisme when two or more at the same time hold themselues to be true Popes it is not necessary for saluation to belieue any one of them determinatly to be the true Pope but disiunctiuely him that hath bene Canonically assumpted And which of them determinatly that is faythfull people are not bound to know but may follow the iudgment of their Prelates and Superiors To which Gerson (x) De modo hab se temp Schism addeth that in this case it is temerarious iniutious and scandalous to hold as excommunicated or out of the state of saluation those that adhere to either part or that carry themselues noutrally and that it is lawfull to communicate with either party and to obey either of those Popes as occasion shall serue while the right of neither is certainely knowne And this he confirmeth by the answere which S. Ambrose gaue to S. Augustine concerning the lawfulnesse of fasting or not fasting on Saturdaies according to the diuersity of times places and persons I conclude therfore that your so often repeating as an article of our fayth that for saluation it is necessary to belieue that this determinat man is true Pope and true Head of the Church if you speake of belieuing it with diuine fayth you confesse the contrary to be held by many of our learned Diuines and that their opinion hath neuer bene censured by the Church But if you speake of belieuing it at least with morall certainty it is granted by all Catholike Diuines when there is but one determinat person whom the whole Church receaueth and obiecteth as her vndoubted Head and as the Vicar of Christ vpon earth But yet neither that is necessary in time of Schisme when of two or three it is doubtfull which is the true Pope for then it is sufficient to belieue him to be true Pope which is Canonically chosen without determining any of them in particular as S. Antoninus and Gerson haue taught instructing you how to carry your selfe in such a case But I feare you haue no desire to learne SECT VI. Whether the Roman Church be doubtfully headed TO proue that the Roman Church is doubtfully headed you alleage (y) Pag. 354.355.356 that after 1600. yeares it is not yet determined whether the supreme Iudge in our Church be the Roman Pope or a Councell collecting from thence that the Roman Church should not take vpon her to determine Controuersies of fayth against Protestants before she haue satisfied Protestants in this one whether Pope or Councell be indeed the supreme Iudge So you as you are wont for you are not ignorant that this diuision is inadequate since beside the Pope alone without a Councell and a Councell alone without the Pope there is a third member which is the Pope together with a Councell whose iudgment in matters of fayth all Catholikes hold to be infallible Nor did any euer defend that a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope can erre either in definitions of fayth or manners This is the sense and meaning of Catholike Doctors when they say The Church cannot erre for by the Church they vnderstand not the Pope alone without a Councell nor a Councell alone without the Pope but both of them together as they make one whole Church consisting of the Pope as Head and of the Councell as the representatiue body therof This is that supreme Iudge which
world ouerwhelmed in the dregs of Antichristian filthinesse abhominable traditions and superstitions of the Pope And of our English Protestants why did Iuel say (c) Apol. part 4. c. 4. The truth was vnknowne at that time and vnheard of when Martin Luther and Hulderick Zuinglius first came vnto the knowledge and preaching of the Ghospell Why Perkins (d) Expos of the Creed pag. 307. That during the space of 900. yeares the Popish heresy spread it selfe ouer the whole world and for many hundred yeares an vniuersall Apostacy ouerspread the whole face of the earth I conclude therfore that when you deny that the Church of Christ was extinguished before Luthers time you out-face and coÌ„tradict your best learned brethren domestick forraine Nor is it a sufficient answere to tell vs (e) Pag. 406. of a sentence of Caluin in which he acknowledgeth the Church not to be perished in Africke Aegypt Asia and among the Grecians for you haue heard the testimonies not of Caluin only but of many others If Caluin deny that which together with them he affirmed he contradicteth himselfe And since both he and you hold the Church to be inuisible I desire to know how you came to find out and see in Africa and Greece a Church that is inuisible and indeed that is not in being for in those nations there is no Church but of Roman Catholikes all the rest which in them beare the name of Christians being absolute heretikes (f) See aboue Chap. 41. sect 4. But you say (g) Pag. 369. To charge Protestants with holding a decay error from fayth in the whole Catholike Church vnto Bellarmine seemed in effect to be a lewd slander You vnderstand not Bellarmine or els wittingly misinterpret his meaning He rightly obserueth (h) L. 3. de Eccles milie c. 11. that Protestants hold two Churches the one visible the other inuisible wherof you speaking say (i) Pag 10. fin 11. init that by some you are slandered with making two Churches But this to be no slander Bellarmine proueth out of the Centurists whose doctrine it is And the same I proue against you out of other Protestants We say quoth Whitaker (k) Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 14. fol. 125. there are two societies of men in the world that is two Churches To the one the predestinat belong to the other the Rebrobate The one of these he affirmeth to be wholly inuisible the other visible (l) Ibid. q. 2. c. 1. q. 1. c. 3.7.8 q. 4. c. 1.3 The same is stifly mantained by Fulke (m) In cap. 3. Math sect 3. in c. 22. sect 3. When Caluin and other Protestants say The Church cannot perish they speake of the inuisible Church which Bellarmine and all Catholikes hold to be a Platonicall idea and a mere Chimaera no where existent but in your deluded fancies The true Church of Christ all Catholikes with the holy Councell of Nice hold to be One and that Bellarmine proueth to be visible And you sayth he hold that to haue perished and your inuisible Church only to haue remained which in his doctrine and in verity is to say that the true Church of Christ on earth wholly perished nothing remayning but a Chimaera of a supposed inuisible Congregation which hath no reall existence but only fantastike in your imaginations And that you wrong Bellarmine in producing him as a witnesse that an absolute decay of the Catholike Church was neuer taught by Protestants you may not deny for afterwards (n) Pag. 406. you confesse and proue out of his words that he as also Bozius parifieth you with the Donatists which held the Catholike Church to haue wholly perished throughout the world and to haue remained only in a few Professors of their Sect in a corner of Africa which doctrine differeth not from yours who hold the Catholike-Church to haue bene vtterly destroied for many yeares and now to haue no being but where your Protestant professors are Wherfore I aske you as S. Augustin (o) L. 3. contra Parmen c. 3. did the Donatists How can you vaunt to haue any Church if the haue ceased for so long time And againe (p) De bapt l. 3. c. 2. If the Church were perished so long time from whence did Donatus or Luther appeare From what earth is he sprung vp From what sea is he come forth From what heauen is he fallen I conclude therfore that we may iustly exclaime against you as S. Augustine did against the Donatists (q) In Psal 101. Gods Church of all nations is no more she is perished so say they that are not in her O impudent Voyce They say the whole Church is perished and the relickes remaine only on Donatus on Luther or Caluin his side O proud and impious tongue (r) Aug. de agon Christ. c. 29. SECT II. Whether the Catholike Church assembled in a generall Councell may erre in the definitions of Fayth IN your second Thesis (s) Pag. 369. you define The Church Catholike properly so called as it is militant to be multitude of all Christian belieuers whensoeuer and whersoeuer dispersed throughout the world This you say cannot erre But your third Thesis is (t) Ibid. that the representatiue body of this Church that is to say all the Prelates of this Church assembled in a generall Councell may erre in their decrees of fayth This thesis destroieth the former for if all the Prelates of the Church which are the lightes of the world (u) Math. 5.15 and whom God (x) Ephes 4.12.14 hath prouided as Pastors and Doctors vnto the edifiing of his Church and giuen to vs that we be not like little ones wauering carried away with euery blast of erroneus doctrine may themselues be carried away and seduced with false doctrine they may also preach the same to the people and leade them into error What meanes then is left to preserue the whole Church from erring But you say (y) Pag 366. That generall Councells may erre in their decrees of fayth some of your owne Romish Schoole haue auouched These some if we belieue you are Cusanus Occham Turrecremata Gerson and Canus But we cannot belieue you for those workes of Cusanus and Occham are forbidden (z) Ind lib. prohib and Cusanus hath retracted his Turrecremata speaketh not of the Church representatiue that is to say of Councells which consist only of the Pastors and Prelates of the Church but of the whole body of the Church as it comprehendeth all the faythfull both Pastors and people which sayth he cannot erre in fayth though some members therof may But withall he proueth against you (a) Sum. de Eccâ—e l. 4. c. 2. that the verities of fayth defined by the Church in generall Councells are to be held infallible though not expressly contained in the Canon of holy Scripture and that no definitions of Councells can be of force vnlesse they be
that is not of God heareth vs not In this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of Error And if at all times the Pastors of Gods Church are to be heard then surely most of all when they are assembled in a generall Councell Christ professing himselfe to be then in the middest of them (b) Math. 18.20 By their authority the sayth is maintained and heresy condemned When Firmilianus and Cyprian with many other Bishops defended the Error of Rebaptization by testimonies of Scripture but as Lyrinensis noteth (c) Cap. 10. glossed after a new and naughty fashion by what authority was that error condemned but by the custome and tradition of the Church the prohibition of Pope Stephen chiefly cooperating therto for as S. Augustine truly sayth (d) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 23. the Apostles had deliuered nothing in writing concerning that point And when the Arians in the Councell of Nice alleaged and misinterpreted Scriptures in proofe of their heresy by what meanes were they confuted and condemned but by the tradition of the Church deliuered by the Venerable Bishops assembled in that Councell (e) Seâ— aboue Chap. 16. chiefly by the authority of the B. of Rome by whom that Councell was called and confirmed (f) Ibid. and without whose confirmation no Canon of any Councell can be of force (g) Sâ—e aboue Chap. 17. seâ—t 6. And from hence it hath proceeded that as all the generall Councells which the B. of Rome hath confirmed are held by the whole Church to be of infallible authority no one Father or Doctor euer doubting therof so contrarily the Councell of Ariminum the second of Ephesus and all others which he hath reproued haue bene euer reputed spurious assemblies and of no authority And with great reason for his authority in defining controuersies of fayth Christ himselfe declared to be infallible (h) See aboue Chap. â—â— sect 1. 2. when he prayed for him that his fayth might not faile commanded him to confirme his brethren and likewise when he promised that heresies which are the gates of hell shall not prouaile against the Church built vpon him I conclude therfore that you mistake the state of the question We agree with you that a Councell which is not directed by the spirit of Gods word may erre but the difference betweene vs is who is to be the Iudge whether a Councell proceed according to the direction of Gods word or no. Luther and you his disciples casting of the yoke of obedience to your lawfull Pastors and refusing to heare them will haue no other Iudges but your selues to the end that if a generall Councell condemne your doctrine as that of Trent hath done you may reiect it vpon pretence that it hath not bene directed by the spirit of Gods word which is an excuse common to all Heretikes for what heretike will not and may not with as faire colour as you pleade that the Councells which condemned him were not directed by the shirit of Gods word Vpon this pretence the Arians that of Ephesus the Eutychians that of Chalcedon the Monothelites the sixth Councell the Image-breakers the seauenth Vpon the same pretence you reiect the Councell of Trent and make profession to reiect all Councells whatsoeuer that shall not allow you to be the only Iudges of the sense of Gods word and grant vnto euery one of you that infallible authority to expound it which you deny to a whole generall Councell When Councells haue defined sayth Luther (i) Art 11â— then will we be Iudges whether they be to be accepted or not And the same is the doctrine of Caluin (k) L. 4. instit c. 9. tot We contrarily insisting in the steps of all Orthodoxe antiquity whose testimonies are plentifully alleaged by Coccius (l) To. 1. l. 7. art 21. acknowledge that the Pastors which are the representatiue body of the Church assembled together with the B. of Rome as their Head is an infallible Iudge of the true sense of Gods word and that what they define in matters of fayth is of vnâ—oâ—â—â—â—â—d authority to be reuerenced as the Ghospells of Christ for so antiquity reuerenced the generall Councels which haue beene held before their time (m) See Coce 〈…〉 and so we reuerence the rest that haue beene held since their time all of them being assembled and confirmed by the same authority of the See Apostolike and directed by the same Spirit of truth that the first Councells were And who seeth not that you denying this authority take away all the vse of Councells in the Church making controue sies of sayth indeterminable and arguing Christ of lack of wisdome and prouidence in not leauing any certaine meanes to end dissentions and preserue Vnity in his Church SECT III. Whecher Protestants hold the Church of Christ to be inuisible YOur fourth Thesis is (n) Pag. 167.368.369.370 Protestants hold not any greater inuisibility or rather obscurity of the Church Catholike then that which the Romanists are forced to confesse This Thesis is manifestly false for you haue heard your grand Maister Caluin other your brethren (o) Here aboue sect 1. confessing that before Luthers time the Church was wholly destroyed euen as mans life is when his throat is cut that it is ridiculous to thinke there were any true belieuers when Luther began that not a part but the whole body of the Church was fallen away by Apostacy And you cannot be ignorant that other ProtestaÌ„ts haue testified (p) Brereley Prot. Apol. tract 2. c. 2. sect 11. sub dict 3. that she was not only obscured as in the time of the Arians but inuisible and could not be shewed Iuell (q) Ibid. that the truth was vnknowne at that time and vnheard of Perkins (r) Ibid. that aâ— vniuersall Apostacy ouerspread the whole face of the earth and that your Church was not then Visible to the world Milius (s) Ibid. that if there had bene any right belieuers before Luther there had bene no need of a Lutheran reformation Francus (t) Brerel Ibid. tract 2. c. 1. sect 4. that for 1400. yeares the Church of Christ was no where externall and visible Napper (u) Ibid. that for 1260. yeares Gods true Church was most certainly latent and inuisible These are the confessions of your brethren conuincing you to speake vntruly when you say Protestants hold not any greater inuisibility or rather obscurity of the Church Catholike then that which the Romanists are forced to confesse for our Tenets which we haue learned from the holy Scripture are that the Church of Christ is a magnificent throne as resplendent as the sunne (x) Psal 88.38 A lofty City placed vpon a mountaine (y) Math. 5.14 which sayth S. Augustine (z) Cont. Parm. l. 3. c. 5. cannot be hid but shal be knowne to all the coastes of the earth To a mountaine prepared in the top of mountaines eleuated
aboue the little hills vnto which all nations shall flow (a) Isa 2.2 to a Tabernacle seated in the sunne (b) Psal 28.6 of which S. Augustine speaking sayth (c) In â—um Psal He placed his tabernacle in the sunne that is to say his Church in manifestation or open view not in a corner not such as is hidden as if it were couered c. In the sunne he placed his tabernacle what doest thou meane O Heretike to fly into darknesse To a light that is not hidden vnder a bushell but set vpon a candelstick Which if Protestants see not How sayth S. Augustine (d) Tract 2. in 1. Ep. Ioan. can I call them other then blinde that see not so great a mountaine and shut their eyes against the Lampe set vpon the candelstick But what meruaile for sayth he (e) L. 2â— coâ—â— Parm. c. 3. it is the condition of all heretikes not to see the thing which in the world is most cleare constituted in the light of all nations out of the vnity wherof whatsoeuer they do can no more warrant them from the wrath of God than the spiders web from the extremity of cold Finally we belieue with S. Augustine (f) Cont. lit Petil. l. 2. c. 104. that the Catholike Church hath this certaine marke that she cannot be hidden This is the doctrine and beliefe of all Catholikes Do you herein accord with vs Do you hold the Catholike Church to be alwaies visible and alwaies as conspicuous as a lampâ— vpon a Candelstick as a city vpon a mountaine as a tabernacle in the sunne Why then do you say that she was so many yeares latent and inuisible that she could not be shewad that she was vnknowne and vnheard of that she was no where externall and visible that she was wholly destroied With what modesty then can you say that Protestants hold not any greater inuisibility or rather obscurity of the Church Catholike then that which the Romanists are forced to confesse But in proofe of this Thesis and in opposition to the holy Scripture and S. Augustine you say to vs (g) Pag. 367. fin you regard not that the Church of Christ as it is somtime in lustre glorious as the sunne so againe it is according to the iudgement of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose somtimes as the moone which hath her increases and decreases Yes we regard it well and you ought to haue regarded that although S. Augustine compare the Church to the moone in this respect that her externall lustre is somtimes diminished by persecutions and her glory obscured by the ill liues of some of her children yet he frequently compareth her to the sunne and belieueth with the Prophet (h) Isa 60.29 that her sunne shall neuer set and her moone shall not be diminished and (i) Ep. 48. that when by scandalls her light is most obscured etiam tunc in suis fortissimis eminent euen then she is eminent in her most steedfast Champions and in them remaineth resplendent and glorious displaying beames of light ouer the whole earth So farre is S. Augustine from your absurd paradoxe of the inuisibility totall decay of the Church And in what sense S. Ambrose compareth her to the moone he declareth saying (k) L. 4. Hexam c. 2. The Church hath her times of persecution and of peace she seemeth to decay as the moone but decaieth not She may be shadowed she cannot perish because she is diminished by the fall of some in persecutions to the end she may be filled with the confessions of Martyrs and that being illustrated with trophies of the bloud shed for Christ she may diffuse greater light of her deuotion and fayth throughout the whole world If Costerus Castro Lindanus and Stapleton affirme that the Arian heresy in a short time infected almost all the Churches of the world so haue Lutheranisme Caluinianisme Zuing lianisme with other new Sects sprung from them in these later times infected many prouinces of Europe But therfore is the Catholike Church in those Prouinces inuisible How then do you see Catholikes to persecute them to imprison them And euen so much more when the Arian heresy was in the greatest ruffe the Catholike Church was euery where still eminently visible as that very passage of Liberius proueth which here you produce for the contrary for Constantius the Arian Emperor hauing by threats drawne many Bishops especially of the East to subscribe to the condemnation of Athanasius and as Theodoret out of his Apology reporteth (l) L. 2. histor c. 15. the rest that refused to subscribe either concealing themselues for feare or being sent into banishment he called Liberius vnto him and vrged him not to communicate with Athanasius saying he was condemned by the whole world and defended by none but by him Liberius answeared (m) Theod. l. 2. hist. c. 16. Esto quod solus sim c. Be it that I am alone the cause of the fayth is not therfore the worse for there was a time when there were but three Children to resist the Kings commandment These three Children were brought by Nabuchodosor out of Iury into Babylon As then there were none in Babylon to defend Gods cause but only those three so sayth Liberius and out of him Salmeron here obiected by you be it that I am now left here alone to desend the cause of Athanasius the cause of the fayth is not therfore the worse This you bring to proue that the Church was then or may somtimes be brought to so low an ebbe that there be but three yea only one Orthodoxe man remaining But it is an ignorant mistake for albeit there were then in Babylon three only Children to resist Nabuchodonosor yet in Iury there was remaining a numerous Church of Orthodoxe people And so likewise though there was then no other Bishop present to withstand Constantius yet there were in the Church of God at that time many Catholike Bishops renowned for their learning and constancy and diuers of them then actually in banishment whose restitution to their Churches Liberius in that very Dialogue often demanded of Constantius And who knoweth not that beside many Catholike Bishops reckoned by S. Athanasius (n) Apud Theod. l. 2. hist. c. 14.15.16 there liued at the same time other most eminent Prelates and Doctors as Saint Hilary Pacianus Didymus Titus Bostrensis S. Cyrill of Hierusalem Optatus Eusebius Vercellensis S. Ephrem S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Epiphanius S. Basil S. Gregory Nyssen S. Ambrose and many others And as there were many Catholike Pastors so were there Catholike people gouerned by them Yea who knoweth not that both the Roman and all the Westerne Church at that time was full of Orthodoxe Pastors people in so much that after the Roman MatroÌ„s by aduice of their Husbands (o) Theod. ibid. c. 17. had presented themselues before Constantius and obteyned Liberius his returne from exile the Bishops of the East sent Legates vnto
him and to all the Bishops of Italy and of the whole Westerne Church humbly crauing to be admitted into their communion and to declare themselues free from suspicion of heresy with which they had bene charged protested that they did not belieue otherwise then the Fathers of the Nicen Councell did and that they had held formerly did still hold and would euer hold till their last breath the same fayth with them Wherupon Liberius willingly admitted them into the communion of the Westerne Church and addressed a letter to fifty nine of them by name and to all the rest in generall expressing the great ioy he conceaued to vnderstand that they had alwaies agreed in fayth with him and with the rest of the Bishops of Italy and of all the other Westerne countries for so are his words This is the story truly set downe What reliefe do you finde here for your inuisible Church since in the very height of the Arian heresy which is the greatest wayne you can sinde in the Catholike Church she abounded and shined like a sunne most gloriously with orthodoxe Pastors and people both in the East and West Shew vs such a Protestant Church before Luther or els confesse the truth that you had no Church before Luther But you tell vs (p) Pag 369. with how great a cloud of obscurity the Church shal be couered in the time of Antichrist proue it out of the Rhemists who make wholy against you for albeit they grant that then there shal be no publike seat of gouerment in the Church nor publike exercise of Ecclesiasticall functions nor publike entercourse with the See of Rome as there is not this day in Cyprus nor in England yet there shall not want Orthodoxe Pastors and people remaining in due obedience to the Roman Church and communicating with her not only in hart but practising the same in secret and making publike profession therof of if occasion require it This is the doctrine of the Rhemists and of all Catholike writers Wherfore as Catholikes are not in England at this day inuisible nor yet so obscure but that their coÌ„staney is knowne and renowned throughout the Christian world so likewise shall the faithfull be in the dayes of Antichrist Nor do Costerus Ribera Pererius Acosta Viegas or any of the Fathers which you obiect (q) Pag. 370. teach ought to the contrary The testimony of S. Hilary which you obiect (r) Pag. 3â—8 S. Augustine hath answeared long since (s) Ep. 48. for it was obiected to him by Vincentius the Rogatist of whose spirit and beliefe you shew your selfe to be vrging against vs the same testimony he vrged against S. Augustine who not only in that place as you haue heard teacheth that if the Church be somtimes obscured and as it were shadowed with cloudes by the multitude of scandalls that is persecutions when sinners bend their bow to wound her in the obscurity of the Moone yet euen then she is eminent in her most constant professors but also in his bookes Of the City of God (t) L. 20. c. 8. speaking professedly of the state of the Church in the dayes of Antichrist he sayth she shall not be so obscured that either Antichrist shall not find her or when he hath found her be able with his persecutions to ouerthrow her but that euen then faithfull Parents shall with great deuotion procure baptisme for their children that as many shall fall from the Church so others shall stand constant and others shall enter a new which before were out of her and in particular the Iewes who towardes the end of the world shal be conuerted to Christ (u) S. Aug. ibid. c. 29. And the same is testified by S. Gregory (x) Hom. 12. in Ezechiel whom you mis-cite (y) Pag. 370. for the words you obiect out of his Moralls on Iob are not there to be found SECT IV. What causes may suffice to depart from the Communion of a particular Church YOur fifth Thesis is (z) Pag. 370. All particular Churches are not to be forsaken for euery vnsoundnesse in either manners worship or doctrine In the first part of this Thesis we agree with you but you agree not with your selfe for before you tould vs (a) Pag. 11.12 that the Catholike Church is in euery part perfect and consisteth only of the sanctified elect of God But here you say (b) Pag 371. that there is scarce to be found any one example of any particular Church consisting only of sanctified professors It scarce any particular Church can be found consisting only of sanctified professors how is it true that the vniuersall Church consisteth only of the sanctified elect of God for the vniuersall Church consisteth of all the particular Churches in the world Againe here you inueigh against the Separatists for diuiding themselues from you for only scandall taken at the wicked liues of your professors May not wee then iustly except against you for obiecting so often the vices of some few Popes to make your departure from the Roman Church more iustifiable The second part of your Thesis is false for no worship no rite or ceremony which the Roman Church alloweth or permitteth to particular Churches in the administration of the Sacraments or in any part of their seruice is vnsound And therfore as such difference is not a sufficient cause for one particular Church to separate it selfe from others so on the contrary if a particular Church vse any Ecclesiasticall obseruation or ceremony disallowed and condemned by the Church of Rome the Mother of all Churches that worship is vnsound and such a Church is schismaticall and to be forsaken and if it persist obstinatly in that schisme becometh hereticall So many of the Asian Churches persisting obstinatly in the celebration of Easter according to the Iewish custome after the prohibition of Pius the first Pope of that name were iustly condemned and cut of from the vniuersall Church by Victor a boly Pope and Martyr and his sentence was confirmed by the Councell of Nice many others in so much that the obseruers of that custome haue euer since bene iudged heretikes and registred as such vnder the name of Quartadecimani by all Ecclesiasticall writers that haue made Catalogues of heresies The third part of your Thesis that all particular Churches may erre in some points as the Corinthians did in denying the Resurrection and the Galatians in teaching a necessary obseruation of the Law of Moyses together with the Ghospell of Christ and yet S. Paul (c) 1. Cor. 1.2 Galat. 1.2 calleth them both Churches and Churches of God because they were ready to be reformed and being admonished of their error to abandon it and obey the truth But not to be willing to learne and not to yeild to truth sufficiently proposed is proper to the Synagogues of Sathan and the Churches of the malignant All this you allow as true doctrine taken out of Bellarmine What
then may we thinke of your Protestant Congregation For many of your Tenets haue bene condemned in ancient Heretikes and held euer since for heresies (d) See aboue Chap. 42. sect 2. And yet that you are not ready to be reformed but are most obstinate in your defence of them which is the essentiall character of heresy is most easily proued for it we speake of Luther he acknowledged his new Tenets to be contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers and Doctors of Gods Church For sayth he (e) Colloq mensal Cap. de Patr. Eceles In the workes of Hierome there is not a word of true fayth in Christ and sound religion Tertullian is very superstitious I haue held Origen long since accursed Of Chrysostome I make no accomp◠Basil is of no worth he is wholly a Monke I weigh him not a haire Cyprian is a weake Deuine Againe he preferreth his owne collected sense of Scripture before the expositions of all the Fathers saying (g) Tom 2. Witemb l. cont Reg. Aug. fol. 34 ◠b. The diuine Maiesty makes for me so as I care not if a thousand Augustines a thousand Cyprians a thousand King Henry Churches stand against me concludeth saying (h) Tom. 2. Witemb printed 1554. fol. 290. b. Be it that the Church Augustine and other Doctors also Peter Apollo yea an Angell from heauen teach otherwise yet my Doctrine is such as setteth forth Gods only glory c. Peter the chiefe of the Apostles did liue and teach extra verbum Dei besides the word of God And speaking of all the ancient Fathers in generall and preferring his owne iudgment doctrine before theirs he sayth (i) Tom. ◠Witemb 〈◊〉 no 1551. l. de seruo arb sol 434. The Fathers of so many ages haue bene plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures they erred all their life time and vnlesse they repented before their death they neither were Saints nor appertained to the Church And if we come to the Councells he regarded them as little as he did the Fathers and was resolued with a most peruerse and obstinate mind to deny and contradict whatsoeuer a Councell should determine though neuer so true and to maintaine stifly the contrary though neuer so impious and damnable for speaking of communion in both kindes he sayth (k) De formula Missae Hospin hist. Sacramen part 2. fol. 13. a. If a Councell should in any case decree this then least of all would we vse both kinds yea rather in despight of the Councell and that decree we would vse either but one kind only or neither but in no case both In like manner he teacheth (l) Tom. 2. German fol. 214. that if a Councell should grant Church-men liberty to marry he would thinke that man more in Gods grace who during his life should keep three whores then he that should marry according to the Councels decree and that he would command vnder paine of damnation that no man should mary by permission of such a Councell but should either liue chast or if that were not possible then not to despaire though he kept a whore And speaking of the eleuation of the Sacrament (m) In parua Confessione I did know the eleuation of the Sacrament to be Idolatricall as making for sacrifice yet neuerthelesse I did retaine it in the Church at Witemberg to despight the Diuell Carolstadius Finally notwithstanding he himselfe acknowledged and many of your Protestant brethren confesse (n) See the next Section that he learned the chiefe points of his doctrine from the Diuell he was not ashamed to say (o) Apud Zuing l. to 2. ad Luth. confess fol. 478. a. If I be deceaued God hath deceiued me c. I am certaine (p) Luth. to 2. Witemb fol. 333. a. that I haue my opinions from Heauen c. They shall continue I would haue you know (q) Aduers falso nominat Eccles stat that hereafter I will not vouchsafe you so much honor as to suffer either you or the Angells of heauen to iudge of my doctrine c. For seeing I am certaine of it I will in respect of it iudg both of you and of Angells And yet for all this vaunting that he had no perswasion of the truth of his doctrine is a thing manifest both for that he had great remorse of Conscience (r) To. 2. Ger. Ien. fol. 9. b. to 2. Witemb anno 1562. l. de abrog Missa priu fol. 24.4 b. tom 5. Annot. breuiss his hart beating within him and reprehending him that he being a sole man and of no accompt should alone oppose himselfe against the Church the Fathers the Councells the customs the multitudes and greatnesse of wise men censuring them all to haue liued in ignorance and error and himselfe only to be wise as also because he offered to submit to the Pope (s) To. 1. Witemb fol. 215. b. M. Cooper Chron. printed 1565. fol. 278. a. and to suppresse his new doctrine so that he might not be compelled to recant Wherby it is manifest that he was resolued to goe against his owne knowledge and conscience either in preaching his new doctrine knowing it to be false or els in offering to suppresse it knowing it to be true If leauing Luther we come to Caluin whereas the holy Scriptures instruct vs in our beliefe of the Diuinity of Christ and of the truth of that most sublime and incomprehensible mystery of the Blessed Trinity and the holy Fathers out of them proue the same Caluin accuseth them of misinterpreting the Scriptures and by his blasphemous doctrine destroieth those diuine misteries the first Principles and ground of Christian religion The particulars are set downe at large and very punctually by M. Brereley (t) Caluins life sect 3. pag. 136. seqq out of Caluins owne workes and confirmed by the testimonies of other Protestants And the thing is so certaine that as Iacobus Andreas Schlusselburg Hunnius and Pelargus testify (u) Ibid. the troupes of Arians now raging in Transiluania Poland and Hungary are but Colonies sent from Geneua all the chiefest of them hauing bene at first Caluinists and so continue to this day in other points of their doctrine (x) Gratianus Prosper Instrum doctri printed Loschi 1586. reputing themselues to be the most pure reformed Caluinists by reason of their deniall of the Blessed Trinity which they reiect (y) Osiand Cent. 16. l. 2. c. 22. pag. 209. fin as being the three-headed Cerberus the deuice of Antichrist and the chiefe part of Popish Antichristian corruption From this knowne foundation of the Arians Doctrine Adam Neuserus a Caluinist and chiefe Pastor at Heydelberg who reuolted from thence to Arianisme writ from Constantinople to Gerlachius a Protestant preacher saying (z) Osiand ibid. pag. 208. I know none in our time to haue bene made an Arian that was not first a Caluinist as Seruetus Blandrata Paulus Alciatus
Franciscus Dauid Gentilis Gribaldus Siluanus and others all of them Caluinists reuolted to Arianisme Wherfore sayth Neuserus whosoeuer feareth to fall into Arianisme let him take heed of Caluinisme And as Caluin opposed the holy Scripture and all Christian Antiquity in their beliefe of the Diuinity of Christ and the blessed Trinity so did he in the rest of his doctrines to the number of 23. confessing point by point that the contrary was held by the primitiue Church and Fathers thereof whom he nameth noteth of error and reiecteth in a scornefull and contemptible manner as you may read in his life (a) Sect. 5. a. pag. 146. ad 265. in which the particulars are faithfully expressed in his owne words And Iacobus Gaulterius (b) Tab. Chronog saecul 16. a pag. 757. ad 795. hath related more of his errors to the number of 100. shewing that in many of them he iumpeth with ancient condemned heretikes These two are the Maister-builders of your Protestant Church whom you to honor them call (c) In your late Serm. at Durham pag. 38. Stellae primae magnitudinis Protestants generally haue in great esteeme as men raised by Gods extraordinary prouidence to enlighten the world Their doctrines you follow and with them reiect the ancient Fathers as Papists for that you acknowledg the Fathers to be against you in the chiefe heads of Doctrine wherin you differ from vs is exactly proued by your owne confessions expressed in your owne words (d) Brereley Prot. Apol. ferè per tot I appeale then to any impartiall Iudge whether you be not iustly accused of error and of obstinacy in the mantainance therof for to confesse that you hold against the primitiue Fathers and Church and yet not to reforme your selues after so many admonitions giuen you by the Church which hath condemned your errors and learnedly confuted them by her Doctors what is it but to confesse that you erre and are obstinate in error especially since many of your Tenets are precisely the same which primitiue heretikes haue held (e) See aboue Chap. 42. sect 2. and in them haue bene confuted by the primitiue Fathers and anathematized by the primitiue Church If therfore as you professe not to be willing to learne and not to yeild to truth sufficiently proposed be proper to the Synagogues of Sathan and the Churches of the malignant I leaue it to your iudgment whether your Churches may not be iustly reckoned in that number SECT V. Of Luthers Excommunication and of his Conference with the Diuell YOur seauenth Thesis is (f) Pag. 373. No vniust excommunication out of a true Church can preiudice the saluation of the excommunicate So farre we accord with you and allow what you bring out of Tolet (g) Ioan. 9.34 that the blinde man whome the Iewes cast out of their Synagogue was happy therin but wheras you adde that Luther whilest he continued in our Church was as one borne blind and when Christ opened his eyes was excommunicate by our high Priest for acknowledging the diuine light you are to remember S. Augustines words (h) Tract 45. in Ioan. that There are many who boast not only that they see but will seeme to be enlightned by Christ and those are heretikes Luther speaking of his owne life and manners before his reuolt from the Catholike Church said of himselfe (i) To. 2. Witemb fo 233. a. that during that time he was iuuenis monachus pietatis studiosus a yong man a Monke studious of godlinesse and liued in his Monastery (k) Voyon Catal. of Doct. printed in English 1598. pa. 180. Luth. vpon the Galat. Englished in c. 1. vers 14. fo 350. punishing his body with watching fasting and prayer that he honored the Pope (l) Luther ibid. of mere conscience kept chastity pouerty obedience and whatsoeuer I did sayth he I did it with a syncere hart of good zeale and for the glory of God fearing grieuously the last day and desirous to be saued from the bottome of my hart In so much that Erasmus (m) Ep ad Thom. Card. Ebor. reporteth of him that for some smal time after his reuolt there remained yet in him some reliques or sparkes of former sanctimony But afterwards he was much altered and so farre transported from the obseruance of Chastity that now he professeth to the contrary (n) In Prouerb 31. vers 1. Nothing is more sweet or pleasing vpon earth then the loue of a woman if a man can obtaine it And againe (o) Tom 7. Wittem Ep. ed Wolfing fol 505. a. He that resolueth to be without a woman let him lay a side the name of a man making himselfe a plaine Angell or spirit And yet more (p) Brer Luth. life Chap. 3. sect 6. pag. 71. h. Luth. Colloq German cap. de matrim As it is not in my power to be no man so it is not in my power it be without a woman c. It is more necessary then to eat drinke purge make cleane the nose c. In so much that he acknowledgeth (q) Colloq mensal fol. 526. a. 400. a. himselfe to haue bene almost mad through the rage of lust and desire of women exclaming out yet further (r) To. 1. Ep. Latin fol. 334. ad Philip. and saying I am burned which the great flame of my vntamed flesh c. Eight daies are now past in which I neither write pray or study being vexed partly with temptations of the flesh partly with other trouble But sayth he (s) Ibid. fol. 345. it sufficeth that we haue knowne the riches of the glory of God from him sinne cannot draw vs although we should commit fornication or kill a thousand times in one day And finally not long after with breach of his vow he maried Katherine Bore a runnagate Nunne (t) Melancth Ep. ad Ioac Camer de Luth. coning inter Theol. Consil Melancth part 1. pag. 37. for which by the most ancient Imperiall Lawes made soone after Constantine the Great (u) Sozom. l. 6. c. 3. fin lex extat Cod. l. de Epise Cler. he should haue lost his head These were his beginnings and by degrees he grew to be so wicked that Caluin was enforced to confesse Magnis vitijs laborat that Luther was subiect to great vices And in the end he grew to be so dissolute that he was censured by his owne followers who when they would giue themselues to dissolution were wont to say (x) Morgenstern tract de Eccles printed 1598. pag. 221. Hodie Lutheranice viuemus This day we will liue Luther-like Which corruption springing from Luther as from the roote grew and spread it selfe so farre among his followers that as he himselfe confesseth (y) Postil in Euang. Dominic 1. Aduentus they grew daily worse being more reuengfull couetous licencious then they were before in the Papacy And what testimony hereof other Protestants giue you
doctrine I answeare for both and that most deseruedly If we looke into his manners he was a sacrilegious Apostata that fled out of his Monastery he cast off his religious habit and burning with flames of raging lust to satisfy his fleshly desires married a vowed Nunne a crime so hainous that according to the ancient Imperiall lawes he was to be punished with death (u) Sozom. l. 6. c. 3. Cod. L de Episc Cler. His pride was such that he preferred himselfe before all the Doctors of Gods Church contemning a thousand Cyprians a thousand Augustines a thousand K. Henry Churches so farre as that he scorned to be iudged by any man but would himselfe be Iudge of men and Angells His railing was most intemperate base and scurrill traducing and reuiling euen the greatest Princes One exaÌ„ple of K. Henry the eight may suffice against whom he ragingly acted the part of Hâ—â—cules fâ—rens tearming him an enuious mad foole babling with much spight in his mouth a damnable rotten worme a basiliske and progeny of an adder a lying Sycophant couered with the title of a King a clownish wit a doltish head most wicked foolish impudent Henry saying yet further He doth not only lyelike a most vaine scurre but equalleth if not exceedeth a most wicked knaue thou liest in thy throat foolish and sacrilegious King These and many other like speeches against K. Henry are his some of them being so base and beastly that modesty forbiddeth to english them If from Princes we come to other his aduersaries he called them insathanized supersathanized and persathanized and that the Diuell was infused perfused and transfused into their mouths in so much that your Tigurines sticked not to say of him that he was full of Diuells and vsed such speeches as could hardly be thought to proceed from the furious Diuell himselfe He was voyd of all conscience being obstinatly resolued to condemne whatsoeuer a Councell should determine though neuer so Orthodoxe and holy to allow and defend whatsoeuer a Councell should condemne though neuer so wicked and hereticall To which I adde that to spight Carolstadius he retained in the Church of Wittemberg the eleuation of the Sacrament which he thought to be idolatrous He was inconstant in his doctrine teaching one day one thing another the contrary in so much that Iodocus Coccius (x) To. 1. l. 8. art 6. pag. 1038. seqq hath faythfully taken out of his workes and set downe 80. Articles in which he had contradicted himselfe gainsaying what before he had taught and shewing himselfe to be guided by the spirit of contradiction and lying Of which as also of his contentious and wrangling spirit his life affordeth you good examples (y) Brereley Luthers life Chap. 3. sect 2. Finally to shew that Luther was no very great Saint his familiar conuersation with the Diuell is a sufficient euidence I insist not in the proofe of these particulars hauing spoken of some of them already and especially because Brereley in Luthers life hath proued them all out of Luthers owne workes and by the testimony of other Protestants Nor can I find that you with all your study haue bene able to produce any thing to the contrary but only these few words (z) Pag. 381. out of Erasmus Si Luthero fauerem vt viro bono quod fatentur hostes which how truly they are cited I know not for I know that Erasmus said (a) In sâ—oâ—â—iâ— ad 〈…〉 ton Christum agnosco Lutherum non agnosco But howsoeuer Erasmus is a partiall witnesse of whom it was said Erasmus laid the eggs and Luther hatcht the Scorpions and whom Doctor Humfrey and Doctor Reynolds challenge as a man of your religion and Foxe hath placed in your Kalendar of Saints And finally if by Luthers enemies you vnderstand Catholikes you cannot nominate any one that hath euer esteemed other wise of him then as of a most wicked and sacrilegious Apostata If you could you would haue bene ready inough to do it without any prouocation from vs. If leauing his wicked life we come to his doctrine we shall find it answearable to his manners First he taught that Gouernors of Churches and Pastors haue power to teach but that the sheep must be Iudges of their doctrine and that the Bishops and Councells ought to giue place and subscribe to the censure and iudgment of the sheep 2. He taught to the great danger of Christendome that to warre against the Turkes is to resist God visiting our sinnes by them 3. He cut of from the Canon of holy Scriptures the booke of Ecclesiastes saying there is in it neuer a perfect sentence the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrewes the Epistles of S. Iames and S. Iude the second of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn with the Apocalyps 4. He held the heresy of Simon Magus that man is iustified by fayth alone and in proofe therof corrupted the text of S. Iames. adding to it this word alone and being admonished therof he raged protesting that he repented himselfe he had not translated worse 5. He taught that Good-workes are not only not necessary to saluation but hurtfull that the ten commandments belong not to Christians 6. That if the wife will not come or cannot by reason of infirmity let the maid come 7. That among Christians no man ought to be Magistrate but that each one is equally subiect to each other 8. He maketh the power of administring the Sacraments common to lay men with the Clergy 9. He taught that Christ in his passion did not only suffer in his human but also in his diuine nature 10. Concerning the Blessed Trinity he had the diuine nature to be threfold as the persons are 11. That God worketh wickednesse in the wicked and that it is not in the power of man to auoid it which what is it els but to make God the Author of sinne 12. He maketh Virginity inferior to mariage 13. To preuent praying to Saints and Purgatory he affirmeth the soule to sleepe with the body 14. He denieth that there is any locall hell before the day of iudgment All these doctrines are proued to be his out of his owne workes out of the Confessions of many other Protestants exactly and faythfully related in his life by M. Brereley (b) Chap. 2. per tot From whence I conclude that if euer any man was or may be iustly excommunicated for wickednesse of life or for hereticall and blasphemous doctrines Martin Luther by both these titles hath bene most iustly excommunicated cast out of the Church SECT IX Of the first occasion of Luthers reuolt from the Church and that Doctor Morton to defend his doctrine against Indulgences falsifieth sundry Authors POpe Leo the tenth hauing giuen out certaine Indulgences for the people of Germany that would contribute any almes to the building of that sumptuous Church which Iulius his predecessor had begun in honor of S.
the Churches founded by the other Apostles haue bene and still are ouerwhelmed with Paganisme Turcisme and heresie and that the Succession of Bishops hath fayled in them as of Iames in Hierusalem of Andrew in Achaia of Iohn in Asia of Thomas in India of Iude in Persia of Mathew in AEthiopia of Philip in Phrygia of Paul in Greece The Roman Church only is she to whom sayth S. Cyprian (z) L. 1. ep 3. misbelieue can haue no accesse she only hath euer remayned free from all spot and contagion of heresy or other infidelity and notwithstanding the outragious persecutions of Pagan Emperors the barbarous attempts of Saracens and Turkes and the furious assalts of all Heretikes she hath euer florished and still florisheth which euidently sheweth that she and none els but she with such other Churches as by vnion with her make one vniuersall Church are the true Church of Christ founded by him on S. Peter as vpon an impregnable Rock against which the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile Vpon this Rock sayth S. Hierome speaking (a) Ep. 57. of the Roman See I know the Church to be built She may be assalted she may be battered but ouercome she cannot be sor she sayth (b) Psalm contra part Donati S. Augustine is that Rock against which the gates of hell preuaile not And S. Leo the Great speaking of S. Peter and his See pronounceth (c) Epist. 89. that whosoeuer goeth about to violate the most sacred strength of the Rock Peter framed by the hand of God or to infringe the power of the Roman Church is most impiously presumptuous and that whosoeuer thinkes the Principality to be denyed to S. Peters Successor can no way diminish his dignity but puffed with the spirit of pride casts himselfe headlong into hell and (d) Ep. 74. that since the Vniuersall Church by that principall Rock Christ is made a Rock and the most blessed Peter chiefe of the Apostles hath heard from the mouth of our Lord. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church whe is he that dare oppose this inuincibletruth but either Antichrist or the Deuill I conclude therfore with Roffensis that the authority of S. Peters See grounded vpon the promise of Christ standeth deth victorious and triumphant against you and shall so remaine vntill the end of the world CHAP. VIII Abuses and Wronges offered by Doctour Morton to the ancient Fathers and other Catholike writers TO proue that Christ by the Rock on which he promised to build his Church vnderstood not S. Peter you obiect the ancient Fathers And first (e) Pag. 42. lit ◠S. Ambrose saying (f) Ad c. ◠Luc. lib. 6. Petra erat Christus Christ was the Rock There cannot be a more wilfull falsification for that Peter is the Rock on which Christ hath built his Church S. Ambrose teacheth when in his hymne mentioned by S. Augustine (*) Hym◠ad laud. Dom. speaking of S. Peters teares he sayth The Cock crowing the Rock of the Church washed out his offence The same he declareth and fully explicateth els where (g) Serm. 11. serm 47. and to shew your false dealing in that very place (h) L.e. comment in ca. 9. Lucae in which you alleage him for the contrary for he sayth that as Christ was the Rock so he communicated almost all his owne names to his Disciples He was the light of the world and he called his Disciples the light of the world c. And hauing proued the same of other names as of Bread of a Vine c. he particularly sheweth the same of the name of Rock saying Petra est Christus c. which are the words you obiect And then to shew that he gaue also this his name of Rock to S. Peter he addeth Etiam discipulo suo huius vocabuli gratiam non neganit c. And he refused not to honor his Disciple with this name that he also may be a Rock hauing from the Rock Christ the solidity of constancy and firmenesse of fayth 2. You obiect (i) Pag. 42. marg that S. Ambrose (k) Serm. 84. distinguisheth betweene the Rock and Peter as plainly as between Christ and a Christian But though S. Ambrose say that as Christianus is called à Christo so also Peter the Apostle is called Petrus à Petra yet he sayth not that Petrus is a deriuatiue of Petra as Christianus is of Christus but that Petrus and Petra is one the same name His words are because Christ is a Rock Simon is also rightly called Petrus that as he agreed in fayth with our Lord so also he might haue one and the same name with our Lord. Wherby it is euident that S. Ambrose taketh Petrus and Petra to be one and the same name And the same is euident out of the words of Christ for if he had said Tu es Petra super hanc Petram thou art a Rock and vpon this Rock I will build my Church there had bene no colour to deny that Christ promised to build his Church on Peter Ergo now there is none for Christ spake in Syriack Tues Cephas super hanc Cepham c. Wherupon S. Hierome (l) In c. 2 ep ad Gal noteth that Petrus signifies not one thing and Cephas another but the selfe same because what the Latins call Petra the Hebrewes Syrians call Cephas And the same is proued out of the Greeke for as Phauorinus aduertiseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haue one and the same signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being vsed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he confirmeth out of Euripides and not only he but Caluin and Beza (m) Ad cap. 16. Math. vers 18. confesse that Petrus and Petra are the same that Cephas and differ not in signification but only in termination And therfore as if the latin interpreter had said Tues Cephas super hanc Cepham c. the sense had bene playne against you so it is now for the Latin interpreter intended not to alter the sense of our Sauiours words but vsed Petrus rather then Petra because Petrus being the masculine gender was more fit to expresse the name of a man then Petra though both of them haue one and the same signification This you know right well and therfore cannot deny but that S. Ambrose acknowledged Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built for you say (n) Pag. 42. Among the Fathers S. Ambrose giues this reason (o) Serm. 47. why S. Peter was called Rock because he did first lay among nations the foundation of fayth but giues he no other reason Yes because he sustayneth the frame and weight of Christian building which words declare Peter to be the Rock or foundation on which the Church is built and therfore you mangle S. Ambrose sentence leauing them out 3. You obiect (p)
words which you obiect to wit that Christ after his resurrection gaue equall power to all the Apostles saying As my Father sent me so I send you receaue yee the holy Ghost c. For by these words he gaue to them all equall authority to preach throughout the world to reueale matters of fayth assurance of infallibility to make canonicall Scriptures to institute the first mission of Pastors to remit sinnes to giue the holy Ghost and the like In this sense he sayth The Apostles were the same that Peter endowed with like fellowship of honor and power to wit in the exercise of these Apostolicall functions ouer the faythfull to whom he sent them But S. Cyprian sayth not that Christ made all the Apostles equall among themselues exempting them from the iurisdiction of S. Peter in the manner of exercising this power Nor is it true for he gaue it theÌ„ with subordination to him as to their Superior Peter sayth S. Leo (d) Serm. â— in Aâ—niuers suae Assumpt is preferred before all the Apostles if Christ would haue them to haue any thing common with him he gaue it them not but by him And this is declared and the reason therof yelded by Optatus S. Hierome and by S. Cyprian himselfe in that very place which you obiect for the contrary In the Episcopall chayre sayth Optatus (e) L. â— cont Parmâ—n was set the Head of all the Apostles Peter from whence he was also called Cephas to the end that in this only chayre Vnity might be preserued in all and that the other Apostles might not challenge to themselues ech one a seuerall chayre but that he might be a Schismatike and a sinner that against this only Chayre should erect another The Church sayth S. Hierome (f) L. 1. aduers louin c. 14. is built vpon Peter though els where it be also built vpon the rest yet among the twelue one is chosen to the end that a Head being made occasion of Schisme might be taken away And S. Cyprian (g) L. de vnit Eccles Christ to manifest vnity constituted one chayre and ordayned the originall of Vnity beginning from one giuing the primacy to Peter that so one Church of Christ and one chayre might be manifested And then declaring you that haue forsaken this originall of Vnity S. Peters Chayre on which the Church is built to haue lost the fayth and to be out of the Church he addoth He that keepeth not this vnity of the Church doth he belieue himselfe to hold the fayth he that resisteth the Church he that forsaketh the chaire of Peter on which the Church is built doth he thinke himselfe to be in the Church So S. Cyprian equalling you with the Nouatians for your disclayming from the Church of Peter CHAP. XII The authority of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth proued to be infallible HAVING in vayne shot your darts at S. Peter to dethrone him from the height of Authority in which Christ hath placed him you come now to try their force against the Bishop of Rome his Successor whose authority in his definitions of fayth you hold to be fallible SECT I. Our first Argument THat the authority of the Bishop of Rome in his definitions of fayth is infallible we proue out of the words of Christ spoken to S. Peter (h) Luc. 12.32 I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth faile not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren There is no man so voyd of vnderstanding sayth Leo the 9. speaking (i) Ep. ad Michael Impâ—r of this prayer that can thinke Christs prayer whose will is his power to haue bene inefficacious which the Apostle allso teacheth saying (k) Heb. 5.7 he was heard for his reuerence And for this prayer in particular Christ himselfe signifieth so much saying I haue prayed for thee for what would his prayer haue auayled Peter if he had not obtayned for him what he asked Or how cold his brethren haue any assurance of their confirmation in fayth from Peter if Peter could haue error proposing vnto them falshood for truth Againe that Christ in these words prayed not in mediatly for the whole Church nor for all the Apostles but for Peter alone appeareth in this that he expressed one singular person saying Simon Sâ—mon for in the Greeke it is twice repeated and added the pronounce of the second person I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth fayle not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren That Christ prayed not for the other Apostles you grant (l) Pag. 53. and take this for a ground to proue that he prayed for Peter only and not for Clement Vrban or any other of his Successors in the Roman See But your argument proueth nothing for Christ had formerly obtayned the personall perseuerance of Peter and the rest when he said (m) Ioan. 17.9 seqq for them I do pray c. Holy Father keep them in my name c. I pray not that thou take them out of the world but that thou preserue them from euill And therfore this prayer for Peters not fayling in fayth was not made for him in the person of a priuat man and without relation to his office of Supreme Pastor but as for a publike person that is as for the Head of the Apostles and Gouernor of the whole Church and consequently for his See and all his Successors in the same See for as that supreme dignity of Head Gouernor of the vniuersall Church was not to dye with Peter but to descend by him to his Successors so the effect of this prayer of Christ being a prerogatiue obtayned for Peter by reason of his office was to descend to Clement to Vrban and to whosoeuer hath hitherto or shall hereafter succeed him in the same office euen as whatsoeuer prerogatiue is granted to a Vice-Roy as Vice-Roy and as belonging to his office is consequently granted to all his Successors in the same office But you obiect (n) Pag. 54. that this priuiledge cannot agree to Peters Successors because Salas the Iesuit teacheth that a personall and singular priuiledge is that which is granted to an indiuiduall person with expression of his name and therfore doth not extend to any other but dyeth with the person to whom it is granted You vnderstand not Salas for he calleth a personall priuiledge that which is granted to an indiuiduall person as he is a piuat person only for his owne particular good not by reason of any publike office for the good and benefit of the community for if it be granted to him as to a publike person by reason of his office as this was to S. Peter as to the Head of the Church and for the common good of the Church though his name be neuer so much expressed in it it is not a personall but a common (o) See Bonacina Compend v. Priuileg or as Suarez (p) L. 7. de
other Popes Those words Away with enuy let the ambition of the Roman height depart were not spoken by S. Hierome to taxe the person of Damasus or his Seate of pride but to signify that albeit his Seat were placed in Rome which being the imperiall City head of the world gloried in her owne greatnesse yet he was and ought to be free from pride as being Successor to a fisher man and a disciple of the Crosse In regard wherof he deemed it no presumption in himselfe to write vnto him that by his authority he might know whose communion to imbrace and whose to auoyd Your second obiection (k) Pag. 206. is a repetition of what you haue formerly sayd of Liberius his fall from the Catholike fayth into heresy by subscribing to the condemnation of Athanasius communicating with the Arians You haue bene answeared that Liberius assented to his condemnatiō not for any error in fayth but for crimes forged against him by the Arians in so much that Athanasius himselfe euen in that excuseth him saying (l) Ep. ad Solit He was compelled therto by force of torments and therfore that which terrors and feares extorted from him ought not to bethought his sentence but that which he pronounced freely when no violence was offered vnto him Thirdly you obiect S. Hierome in despight and indignation calleth Rome Babylon and land of captiuity and tearmeth it a purple whore and strange land wherin he could not sing the Lords song concerning the holy Ghost yea he bespots the whole Clergy of that City with the note of ignorance and at last after the death of Damasus he quit Rome as a land of bondage that he might enioy his liberty in Iudaea among the Christian Iewes Could this be said of a City priuiledged with a perpetuall residence of the holy Ghost and deseruing the title of Motherhood ouer the whole Catholike Church This is your question and my answeare is That S. Hierome when he calleth Rome Babylon a land of captiuity and a purple whore giues those names to Rome not as to the seat of Religion but of the Empire not to the Church but to the Imperiall Court and Senat not to the ecclesiasticall but to the politike state of Rome to the troopes of Courtiers solicitors negotiants finally not so much in regard of secular Christians as of Monkes by reason of the distractions that the noyse confusion and tumult of men and affaires in so great a city brought to Monastical silence recollection for so it is plaine out of his Epistle to Marcella (m) Ep. 16. in which though inuiting her to leaue Rome and go to Hierusalem he call Rome Babylon yet he presently addeth It is true that in that City is the holy Church there are the trophies of the Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the fayth celebrated by the Apostle the Christian name euery day exalted by the depression of Paganisme troden vnder foot But the ambition the power and greatnesse of that City to visit and to be visited to salute to be saluted to flatter and detract to heare and speake nay to see though vnwillingly so great a multitude of men are things farre from the purpose and quiet of those that would follow a monasticall life This sheweth that when S. Hierome cals Rome Babilon purple whore he speakes not of the Church but of the temporall state of Rome And when he cals it a land of captiuity he speakes it in regard of the noyse confusion and tumult not suiting with the retirement of Monkes which inconuenience he noteth also in the City of Hierusalem which otherwise sayth (n) Ep. 13. ad Pauli de instit Monachis he by reason of the places of the Crosse and Resurrection were a dwelling much to be desired by Monkes The second part of your obiection that S. Hierome bespote the whole Clergy of that City with the note of ignorance is your false comment He complaineth only of a few Priests and Deacons of Rome who being iealous of his faour with Pope Damasus and enuiyng the great reuerence which the deuout Ladies of Rome bare to his person Damasus being dead toke boldnesse to raise slanders against him accusing him that he had translated Didymus an hereticall Author that he had conuersed too familiarly with the great Ladies of Rome and persuaded them to quit their Countrey children and friends to leaue the world and shut themselues vp as recluses in the Monasteries of Palestine Which complaint no way toucheth the fayth of the Roman Church nor the succession of S. Peter nor the communion of the See Apostolike nor maketh against the perpetuall residence of the holy Ghost in that Church S. Hierome himselfe crying out (o) Aduers Ruffin l. 3. that her fayth suffereth no delusions and being fensed by S. Pauls authority cannot be altered Your fourth obiection (p) Pag. 207. out of his Epistle to Euagrius of the Deacons of Rome sitting in presence of the Priests is already answeared (q) Aboue Chap. 15. sect 2 But you adde to it (r) Pag. 208. 218. as a fifth Argument that euery Patriarke hath a principality height of a pastorall watch-tower by reason of the greatnesse and dignity of his Patriarkship aboue all Metropolitans and Bishops whatsouer and yet haue they not ouer all Bishops power of iurisdiction but only principality of order If by principality of order you vnderstand priority of place euery Patriarke hath in that sense priority of order ouer all Bishops that are not Patriarkes And in the same sense the Pope hath priority of order ouer all Bishops Patriarkes But if by principality of order you vnderstand the Sacerdotall and Episcopall dignity conferred on them by their ordination consecration your Doctrine is vntrue for the inequality of Bishops cōsisteth not in any principality of Sacerdotall or Episcopall orders which one Bishop hath ouer another but in the inequality of Pastoral power and iurisdiction A Bishop in his orders is equall to his Metropolitan the Metropolitan to his Patriarke and the Patriarke to the Pope himselfe In this sense S. Hierome sayth (s) Ep. ad Euag Whersoeuer there shall be a Bishop either at Rome or at Eugubium at Constantinople or at Rhegium at Alexandria or at Tanais he is of the same merit and Priesthood because all Bishops if we consider only the dignity of their orders and Priesthood are equall euen he of Eugubium a small City in Italy to the Pope Erasmus his Comment vpon this passage of S. Hierome which you bring (t) Pag. 208. to proue that the inequality of Episcopall iurisdiction is not measured by the amplitude of Diocesses I approue not And much lesse do I allow your inference out of his comment that according to the diuine Law the Pope hath not any greater iurisdiction then whatsoeuer other inferior Bishop for Christ when he gaue to S. Peter
Her fayth is built vpon the word of Christ promising (t) Math. 16.18 that the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile against her and (u) Luc. 22.32 that the fayth of Peters See shall neuer faile Wherfore as it is impossible that Christ should faile in the performance of his promise so is it impossible that the necessity of vnion with the Roman Church should not be perpetuall Lastly you bring examples of antiquity (x) Pag. 125. requiring vnion with other Churches as well as with the Roman This Argument you haue prosecuted before (y) Pag 100.101 out of your owne obseruations of antiquity with many examples some of which you repeate here adding others vnto them (z) Pag. 229.230 The answere you haue receaued (a) Chap. 15. sect 9. to which I add that your Argument is as if you persuading rebells to ioyne not only with their Soueraigne but also with other his loyall subiects I shold lay to your charge that you hold loyall subiects to be of equall authority with their Soueraigne It is true that while subiects stand loyall to their Prince he that ioynes in loyalty with them is a loyall subiect But the reason why he is a loyall subiect is not because he ioyneth with them but because both he and they ioyne in obedience and subiection to their Soueraigne In like manner it is true that whatsoeuer Churches are in Communion with other Orthodoxall Churches that agree with the Roman in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike hath alwaies florished (b) Aug. ep 162. they are to be accompted Orthodoxall and Catholike Churches but the reason why they are to be accompted Catholike is not for their agreement among themselues but because they all agree with the Church of Rome the Head and originall Source of Catholike communion for which cause S. Cyprian explicating what a Catholike is makes no mention of other Apostolicall Churches which were extant in his dayes but absolutely defineth (c) L. 4. Ep. 2. 8. that to be a Catholike is to communicate with the B. of Rome And S. Ambrose (d) Orat. de obitu Satyri that to agree with Catholike Bishops is to agree with the Roman Church from which sayth he (e) L. 1. ep 4. ad Imperat. the rights of Venerable Communion do flow vnto all other Churches she being the source and they streames deriued from her as from their natiue fountaine (f) Innocent apud Aug. ap 91. And S. Irenaeus (g) L. 3. c. 3. pronounceth it necessary for all Churches not excepting the Apostolicall to agree with the Church of Rome by reason of her more mighty principality that is because her sayth cannot faile she being the Rock on which the Catholike Church is built (h) Hieron Ep. 57. ad Damas and against which the gates of hell cannot preuaile (i) Aug in Psal cont partem Donati as they haue done against all the other Apostolicall Churches SECT IX S. Hilary B. of Arles acknowledged himselfe subiect to the B. of Rome THe last witnesse you bring (k) Pag. 225. to proue the no-necessity of vnion and subiection to the Pope Church of Rome is S. Hilary B. of Arles in France who though he deserued great commendation for his labors against the Pelagian heresy and defence of S. Augustines workes yet for a tyme he stayned his glory when exceeding the limits of due moderation and insisting in the steps of Patroclus an inuasor of that See he presumed to vsurpe to himselfe the rights of the Metropolitans of Vienna and Narbona ordaining deposing Bishops in their districts a thing which no way belonged to him and had bene forbidden by the Councell of Turin (l) C. 13. This being complained of against Patroclus first to Boniface and then to Celestine Popes lastly to the blessed Pope Leo against Hilary that he had presumed to depose Celidonius a Bishop of the Prouince of Vienna and he being still liuing to ordaine Proiectus in his place he was so far from persisting in this crime to the end of his life that he went himselfe in person to Rome in a most submissiue and penitent manner to make satisfaction for his offence He vndertooke sayth the author of his life (m) Apud Cuiac obseruat l. 5. c. 38. a iourney to Rome on foote and entred into the City without any horse or beast of cariage and presented himselfe to Pope Leo reuerently offering him obedience and humbly intreating that he might ordaine the state of the Churches after the accustomed manner c. but if it were not his will he would not importune And againe (n) Ibid. He applied himselfe wholly to appease the spirit of Leo with a prostrate humility Hauing pleaded his cause being found guilty he departed from Rome without staying his sentence and returned presently to Arles neuer laying any further claime to the iurisdiction which formerly he had vsurped as appeareth out of the Epistle which Leo writ against him to the Bishops of the Prouince of Vienna (o) Leo Ep. 89. wherin hauing fully declared and proued the supreme authority of the See Apostolike to be instituted by Christ himselfe he annulled what had bene iniustly presumed by Hilary and prescribed a rule to be obserued in the creation of Bishops And lest Hilary shold raise tumults seeking to support his cause by force of armes as formerly he had done Leo required of Valentinian the third that if any such attempt were made he would cause it to be suppressed by Aetius commander of the soldiers in France This the Emperor performed writing to Aetius that famous Rescript which afterwards Theodosius the yonger inserted in his new Constitutions intituling it The Law of Theodosius and Valentinian in which he relateth the whole story of Hilary and professeth his great veneration of the See Apostolike and of the Popes supreme authority ouer all Churches Bishops and particularly his right to conuent them before him and prescribe Lawes vnto them ordaining withall that if any Bishop being summoned by him shall refuse to appeare the Gouernor of the Prouince shall enforce him to obey to the end sayth he that in all things that Reuerence be obserued which our Parents bare to the Roman Church This is the history of Hilary truly related out of the author of his life out of the Epistle of Leo out of the Rescript of Valentinian Is it not then vnshamefastnesse in you to say (p) Pag. 225. that we without any proofe would make you belieue that at length Hilary yeilded to the Pope making no further apology for the defence of his cause What Is the relation made by the Author of his life no proofe Is the epistle of that renowned Pope S. Leo the great no profe Is the Rescript of Valentinian inserted into the ciuill law by Theodosius neuer doubted of by any man of learning or iudgment no proofe But you tell vs that Iacobus