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
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
and her communicants we haue for our communicants and those that are condemned by her we also condemne Why then did you say that we obiect out of this Councell but one word Obedience why did you here and afterwards againe (m) Pag. 237. citing this passage out of Bellarmine in both places cut it of in the middst Can any Catholike at this day professe more perfect and exacte obedience to the See Apostolike then to hold all them for Orthodoxe and communicate with them all that communicate with her and to condemne all them that are condemned by her This was the obedience of that Councell to the Pope which to shift of and deceaue your reader you mangle the words leauing out the most effectuall part of them because they shew that if you had bene liuing in those primitiue tymes that Councell would haue detested and condemned you as it did Anthymus and other heretikes there mentioned for their disobedience to the See Apostolike and for not communicating with her CHAP. XXI Of the sixth Generall Councell SECT I. That it acknowledged the supreme Authority of the B. and Church of Rome THAT the sixth Generall Councell was called by the Authority of the B. of Rome I haue already proued (n) Chap. 17. sect 1. And that it acknowledged the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church is declared by Constantine the Emperor who speaking to the Roman Synod held vnder Agatho calls him Vniuersall Father and Vniuersall Arch-Pastor (o) Syn. 6. Act. 18. and by the Councell it selfe (p) Ibid. calling him Bishop of the first See and of the vniuersall Church And speaking of the Epistle of Agatho sent from the Roman Councell to the Emperor they receaue it as of the holy Ghost dictated from the mouth of the holy and most Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and written by the hand of the thrice blessed Pope Agatho And againe (q) Ibid. We assent say they and agree to the dogmaticall Epistle of our most holy Father the soueraigne Pope Agatho sent to your Highnesse and to the suggestion of the holy Synod of 225. Fathers vnder him And a litle after speaking of the same Epistle and acknowledging Agatho to be the Successor of S. Peter they adde The paper and inke appeared but it was Peter that did speake by Agatho One of the things which Agatho spake in that Epistle (r) Apud Bin. to ◠pag. 11. was that the Roman Church hath neuer bene stayned with error that the whole Catholike Church all the Councells all the Venerable Fathers and all the holy Doctors haue imbraced her authority and reuerenced and followed her Apostolicall Doctrine which contrarily the heretikes haue maliciously derogated from and persecuted And speaking of the same Church to the Emperor and his two sonnes (s) Ibid. This your spirituall Mother the Apostolicall Church of Christ by the grace of Almighty God shall neuer be proued to haue erred from the track of Apostolicall tradition nor by any deprauation to haue yelded to hereticall nouelties but as from the beginning of the Christian fayth the receaued it pur◠from her authors the Princes of Christes Apostles so she remaineth vntill the end according to the diuine promise which our Lord and Sauiour made to the Prince of his Disciples in the Ghospells saying Peter Peter Satan hath required to sift you as one that sifteth wheat but I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth faile not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren Your Clemency therfore consider that our Lord and Sauiour of all who hath faythfully promised that the fayth of Peter shall not faile admonished him to confirme his brethren which that my Apostolicall predecessors haue alwayes assuredly performed is a thing notorious to all men And because Theodorus Patriarke of Constantinople was a Monothelite as Anastasius testifieth (t) In vita Agathon condemned with Pyrrhus and the rest of that Sect in this sixth Councell he addeth that Since the Bishops of Constantinople haue endeauored to bring hereticall Nouelties into the Church of Christ his Apostolicall predecessors of holy memory haue neuer ceased to exhort and admonish them to desist from hereticall error lest by holding one will and operation in Christ they should occasion a beginning of diuision in the vnity of the Church SECT II. Whether the sixth Councell condemned Honorius Pope as an Heretike THese passages of the sixth Councell so forcible for the authority of the Roman Church you mention not but passing by them as being not for your purpose pick out of it a quarrell against Honorius B. of Rome that with no small lack of syncerity for wheras you obiect out of Bellarmine that in this sixth Councell as also in the seauenth and eight Honorius was condemned as a Monothelite Bellarmine contrarily proueth out of Honorius his expresse words that he was no way guilty of that heresy but alwayes a Catholike holding with the Roman Church two wils and operations in Christ And he confirmeth the same with the testimony of S. Maximus Martyr the greatest Diuine of that age and that liued in Honorius his tyme. And Maximus himselfe in a famous disputation which he had with Pyrrhus Patriarke of Constantinople alleageth as witnesse of this truth Honorius his owne Secretary that writ those epistles dictated from his mouth and was then still liuing Wherfore Bellarmine denyeth that the sixth Councel damned Honorius as an Hereticke and further proueth it because Agatho in his first epistle to Constantine the Emperor which was read in the Councell and not only read but approued and admired as the words of S. Peter and as dictated by the holy Ghost affirmeth expressly that none of his Predecessors one of which was Honorius was euer guilty of heresy but that they haue alwayes made resistance to heretikes that the Pope as Pope cannot decree any thing contrary to fayth And from thence he inferreth that the Councell did not iudge Honorius to be an heretike nor condemne him as such els by receauing and reuerencing Agathos Epistle as the words of S. Peter and as dictated by the holy Ghost the Councell should contradict it selfe and condemne both S. Peter and the holy Ghost of a lye in affirming that none of Agatho's predecessors was euer guilty of heresy And the truth hereof he confirmeth by the testimony of Nicolas the first who in his epistle to Michael the Emperor auoucheth that none of his predecessors was euer stayned with the least spot or blemish of heresy which he wold not euen for very shame haue affirmed so resolutely if Honorius in the publike assēbly of a generall Councell had bene anathematized as an heretike Wherfore Bellarmine rightly inferreth that Honorius was not condemned by the sixth Councell but his name inserted among those heretikes whom the Councell condemned by the Greekes enemies to the Church of Rome And so it is testified by Theophanes Isaurus a Greeke historian and out of him
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
n. 1555.1556 by Coccius (l) To. â— l. 7. art 6. and by the Protestant edition of the Acts of the Councell of Trent in which it is acknowledged that this profession of Abdisus was made in presence of two Cardinalls and subscribed by them All which notwithstanding you (m) Pag. 338.339 reiect this wholy story as a tale of Robin Hood and merely fabulous which argueth in you much vnshamefastnesse For who is so litle versed in the histories of these tymes as not to know that albeit the Christians of the East Indies liuing so many yeares vnder Heathenish or Mahumetan Princes were debarred from entercouse with the Church of Rome and runne into diuers errors yet they thought themselues still to retaine entirely that fayth which the Apostle S. Thomas had preached vnto them And when they came to be vnder the King of Portugal being instructed by Preachers sent out of Europe they reformed their errors and yielded due subiection to the Church of Rome and in particular those very places which Abdisus in his Profession nameth to wit Cuscho Cananor Goa Calicut and Carangol and many more are named by Iacobus Payua and Radius (n) L. de orig Soc. Iesu who testifieth that euen in those beginnings in his time to the number of 80000. of those Indians were reduced to the Roman Church Who likewise knoweth not that Ormus and other places vnder the Persian which both Abdisus Andradius nominate are of the Roman fayth and Communion and that the King of Persia hath giuen licence to preach the fayth of Christ and for Religious men which goe thither to that end to erect houses build Churches in his Dominions by which meanes many are conuerted and liue in the Communion and obedience of the Roman Church All which notwithstanding you boldly pronounce that these Christians acknowledge no subiection to the Church of Rome stand in Christian vnion with Protestants which to be a grand Imposture no man can deny SECT IX Of the Antiochians YOur seauenth example (o) Pag. 330. is of the Antiochians whom with their Patriarke you vntruly deny to communicate with the Church of Rome or to acknowledge any subiection to the Pope for the Patriarke of the Maronites (p) Peron Repliq. Chap. 22. which is one of the branches of the Patriarkship of Antioch with all the Bishops of his iurisdiction hath yet to this day alwayes liued and perseuered in the communion of the Roman Church wherof your Historian M. Grimston speaking (q) Descript of Countreys pag. 1053. sayth The Maronites haue for these 400. yeares made profession of following the Roman Church And the same is acknowledged by their Patriarke in his Epistle to Leo the tenth (r) Cocci to 1. l. 7. art 6. Moreouer as Genebrard recordeth (s) Chron. an 1555. Moyses Mardenns being sent out of Mesopotamia by the Patriarke of Antioch and comming to Vienna in Austria after he had procured the new Testament to be set forth in the Syriack tongue and character at the charges of the Emperor Ferdinand went to Rome and as well in his owne name as in the name of his Patriarke of Antioch made a publike and solemne profession of the Catholike fayth and Obedience to the See of Rome which Andreas Masius hath translated out of the Syriack originall into Latin and both Coccius (t) Cocc to 1. l. 7. art 6. Sanders (x) Mon. vis l 7. n. 1494. haue inserted into their workes Moreouer the Nestorians of Seleucia who belong to that Patriarkship hauing abiured their heresy by perswasion of Iulius Pope the yeare 1553. writ an Epistle to him professing their beliefe of the Catholike fayth and their subiection to the B. of Rome and sent it by three chiefe men of their nation and with them Sind a Monke whom they beseeched Iulius to ordaine and send back vnto them consecrated as their Patriarke (y) Cocc Sand. loc cit SECT X. Of the Africans YOur eight example (z) Pag. 341. 406. 407. 409. is of the Africans among whom the kingdome of Congo is of the Roman fayth and Communion (a) Peron Repliq Chap. 21. Geneb Chron. an 1503. And an Embassador that came from thence a few yeares since and died in Rome made publike profession therof from before Luthers tyme. And it is notorius that all the Christians which liue in the borders of Africa vnder the conquest of the Kings of Spaine Portugal are of the Roman fayth and Communion SECT XI Of the Asians YOur ninth example (b) Pag. 341. 406. 407. 409. is of the Asians as vntrue as the rest for the Antiochians Armenians and Maronites whome with their Patriarkes we haue already proued to be of the Roman fayth and Communion are Asians And who knoweth not that in Asia since the expulsion of Godfrey King of Palestine and of Boemond Prince of Antioch the guard of the holy Sepulcher of Hierusalem hath alwaies remained to the Christians of the Roman Communion CHAP. XLI That in the aforenamed Countries there are no Christians that agree in fayth communion with Protestants HAVING proued that in all the Churches of remote nations which you haue nominated there to be many Catholikes of the Roman fayth and Communion it resteth that your deniall of so certaine a truth either proceedeth from grosse ignorance or is a grand imposture And no lesse is your affirming the same Churches to be of your Protestant Communion for the Christians of those nations which are not Roman Catholikes are damnable heretikes and haue no communion at all with Protestants as the following sections will demonstrate SECT I. The Grecians which are not of the Roman Communion are absolute heretikes and Doctor Morton falsifieth Catholike Authors to excuse them THat the Grecians dissenting from the Roman Church whom therfore you challenge as accordant in communion with Protestants are absolute Heretikes erring fundamentally in their doctrine of the Blessed Tinity by denying the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Sonne is a thing most certaine out of the Councell of Florence where the chiefe dispute betweene the Greekes and the Latines was of this subiect and the Greekes being conuinced acknowledged their error as the Letters of Vnion extant in the end of the Councell record The same is testified not only by the Latin writers but also by Laonicus Chalcondylas a Greeke Historian The Greekes sayth he (c) De reb Turcicis l. 6. in the Councell of Florence first defend that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone but afterwards being conuinced with the arguments of the Latins they confesse him to proceed also from the Sonne yet after their returne inte Greece they obstinatly defend their former opinion And when Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople sent a profession of his fayth to the Lutherans of Germany in the first Article therof which is concerning the blessed Trinity he affirmed and labored to proue that the holy Ghost
indiuiduall person v. g. Vrban the eight is true Pope and true Head of the Church Sect. 2. pag. 692. Whether the Church of Rome be at any time a body headlesse Sect. 3. pag. 693. Whether the Roman Church haue at any time a false Head Sect. 4. pag. 696. Whether the Roman Church at any time be diuided into many Heades Sect. 5. pag. 700. Whether the Roman Church be doubtfully headed Sect. 6. pag. 702. Of the Councell of Constance defining a Councell to be aboue the Pope Sect. 7. pag. 704. The same matter prosecuted out of the Councell of Basil Sect. 8. pag. 706. Doctor Mortons instances of France and England to proue the no-necessity of Vnion with the Church of Rome Sect. 9. pag. 709. CHAP. XXXXIV Whether Luther his followers had any iust cause to separate themselues from the Roman Church pag. 711. Whether any Protestants haue held that the Catholike Church before Luthers fall was wholly extinguished Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Catholike Church assembled in a generall Councell may erre in her definitions of fayth Sect. 2. p. 714. Whether Protestants hold the Church of Christ to be inuisible Sect. 3. pag. 720. What causes may suffice to depart from the communion of a particular Church Sect. 4. pag. 725. Of Luthers excommunication and his conference with the Diuell Sect. 5. pag. 731. Whether the Roman Church be as subiect to Errors as any other Church Sect. 6. pag. 735. Whether there be in the Scripture any Prophesy that the Church of Rome shall fall from the fayth Sect. 7. pag. 740. Whether Luther were iustly excommunicated Sect. 8. p. 741. Of the first occasion of Luthers reuolt from the Church And that Doctor Morton to defend his doctrine against Indulgences falsifieth sundry Authors Sect. 9. pag. 744. The causes giuen by Doctor Morton in excuse of Luthers departure from the Roman Church Sect. 10. pag. 749. Whether Protestants had any professors of their fayth before Luther Sect. 11. pag. 751. That all changes of fayth haue bene noted in the persons times and places of their beginnings Sect. 12. pag. 757. The lineall succession of Bishops in the See of Rome is a true and certaine marke of the Catholike Church Sect. 13. pag. 760. Of the conformity of Protestants and Donatists in their separation from the Catholike Church Sect. 14. pag. 763. That the fayth of the now Roman Church is acknowledged by Protestants to be sufficient for saluation Sect. 15. pag. 765. CHAP. I. GENERALL PRINCIPLES PREMISED for the better vnderstanding of the ensuing Apology SECT I. The importance of the Subiect THOVGH there be many questions in Religion controuerted betweene Protestants and vs yet none more important or more necessary to be knowne then that of the Church Protestants agree with vs so far as to belieue that there is shall be to the end of the world extant on earth One Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church which is the (a) 1. Tim. 3.15 Pillar and touchstone of truth which all men that will not be as Heathens and Publicanes must heare and (b) Math. 18.17 obey which is the second Eue framed out of the side of our second Adam Christ whome whosoeuer will not acknowledge to be his Mother cannot haue him to be his (c) S. Aug. de Symb. l. 4. c. 10. Father She is the mysticall body of our (d) Ephes 5.23 Lord out of which sayth S. Augustine (e) Ep. 50. ad 〈◊〉 the holy Ghost imparteth life to no man She is the Vineyard (f) Math. 20.1 seqq in which he that laboureth not shall not receiue the wages of euerlasting life She the Arke of Noe (g) S. Hiero. ep 57 S. Gaudent tract 2. de lect Euang in which whosoeuer is not or out of which whosoeuer departeth shall perish She is the wellspring of truth (h) Lactant. 4 diuin iustit â— vlt. Orig. hom 15. in Math. Theod in c. 2.2 ad Thessal the House of fayth the Temple of God in which mens prayers are heard and their sacrifices accepted all other congregations being Synagogues of Sathan denns of Diuels She is the garden of God (i) Cant. 4.12.13.15 in which whosoeuer groweth not is not a flower planted by the hand of Christ but a weed to be plucked vp and cast into hell fire Finally she is the kingdome of Christ (k) 2. Reg 7.12 1 Paralip 17.11 Psal 44.7 Luc. 1.33 Colosâ— 1.13 in which whosoeuer is not is none of Christs people Whosoeuer sayth (l) Eb. 152. ad popul fact Donas cont ep Parmen l. 2. c. 3. S Augustine is diuided from the Catholike Church although he thinke himselfe to liuâ— neuer so laudably for this only crime that he is diuided from the vnity of Christ the wrath of God abideth on him And speaking of Emeritus an hereticall (m) Serm. super gestis cum Emerito post med Bishop He cannot haue saluation but in the Catholike Church Out of the Church he may haue all things but saluation he may haue honour he may haue Sacraments he may sing Alleluia he may answere Amen he may haue the Ghospell he may haue and preach beliefe in the name of the Father and the Sonne the holy Ghost but saluation he can find no where but in the Catholike Church Wherefore since the saluation of our soules cannot be had out of the Catholike Church it is most necessary for euery man to inquire and learne which and where is that Temple of God that kingdome of Christ that store-house of truth and that second Eue our spirituall Mother that knowing her resorting to her he may be cherished in her lap and nourished at her brests with the milke of her holsome Doctrine The beliefe of all Catholikes is that these foresaid aâ—tributs agree to the Roman Church and to no other congregation in the world and that therfore she alone is the Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church in which whosoeuer is may in which whosoeuer is not cannot be saued Vpon this our Doctrine you passe a censure suitable to your modesty Videlicet that it is False Imposterous Scandalous Schismaticall Hereticall Blasphemous euery way Damnable (n) Pag. 5.182.419 Presumgtuous (o) Pag. 336. Impious (p) Pag 95. Execrable (q) Pag 127. Damnably hereticall (r) Pag 91. Pernicious Antichristian (s) Pag 99. Sacrilegious (t) Pag. 336. Sathanicall Idolaâ—rous (u) Pag. 387. This is your censure and to make it good you write a large volume which you intitle The Grand Imposture of the now Roman Church but mistake your selfe in the name for the booke is ought to haue been intituled The Grand imposture of Doctor Thomas Morton against the Roman Church of this and all former ages for vpon due examination such he will find it to be that shall please to passe his Eye ouer the ensuing Apology and I doubt not but after the perusall thereof he will rest conuinced that
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.
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
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
by Anastasius Bibliothecarius which also he confirmeth because it was the frequent and almost ordinary custome of the Greekes to corrupt and falsify Bookes in hatred of the Roman Church and in fauor of their owne errors S. Leo complaines (u) Ep. 83. that they had corrupted his Epistle to Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople S. Gregory (x) L. 5. ep 14. ad Narsem that they had falsified the Councell of Chalcedon and he suspected the like of the Councell of Ephesus And where in his Dialogues (y) L. 2. c. 38. he hath Paraclitus à Patre semper procedit filio they in their copies leaue out filio and insteed thereof say in filio manet a thing which Ioannes Diaconus (z) Vita S. Greg. c. 75. obserueth testifiing that Zacharias Pope hauing translated that worke of S. Gregory faythfully and published it in the East the Greekes razed out the name of the Sonne in fauor of their heresy that the holy Ghost proceeds not from him but from the Father alone Againe Nicolas the first remitteth Michaell the Emperor to the Epistle of Adrian if sayth he it be not falsified after the manner of the Graecians but kept by the Church of Constantinople as it was sent by the See Apostolike And he had reason to say so for what he alleageth to Photius out of Adrians Epistle to Tharasius is not to be found in that Epistle as it is read in the eight Synod And finally this very sixth Councell discouered that the Greekes had falsified the fifth Councell generall fathering on Pope Vigilius and Menas Patriarke of Constantinople certaine quaternions of their owne If then they haue falsified the writings of the Fathers of the third the fourth the fifth and eight generall Councells what maruell if they haue done the like to the sixth and seauenth defaining Honorius and especially since a little after the sixth Councell they assembled themselues againe at Constantinople by their owne authority and made the Trullan Canons in hatred of the Roman Church To this I adde that in the Lateran Councell of 105. Bishops held before the sixth Synod by Martin the first Pope and Martyr against the Monothelites Sergius Cyrus Pyrrhus and Paul were condemned by name without any mention of Honorius whom yet those Bishops being graue men and impartiall would not haue left vncensured if he had bene guilty of the same heresy as neither would Paulus Diaconus Theophanes Cerameus Photius and Zonaras in their Catalogues of the heretikes condemned in the sixth Councell especially Photius and Zonaras being professed enemies to the Roman Church And finally Emmanuel Calleca a Grecian with all the Latin historians (a) See Cocc to 1. l. 7. arc 13. and Bell. l. 4. de Pont. c. 11. commend Honorius for a Catholike and holy Prelate These proofes most of them being brought by Bellarmine and so vnanswerably conuincing that Honorius neither was an heretike nor condemned by the sixth or seauenth Councell is it not strange that you should so confidently assume the contrary as a thing granted by him and that it being a matter of fact those Fathers were deceaued therin Good God say you (b) Pag. 125. the rare modesty of this man who will haue vs belieue that one Bellarmine liuing now 1000. yeares since that matter was in agitation should iudge better by his coniecture of the circumstances of a mater of fact then could 639. Bishops in their publike Synods iam flagrante crimine when as yet the cause was fresh their witnesses liuing and all circumstances which are the perfect intelligencers visibly before their eyes So you And Bellarmine may truly say Good God the strange conscience of Doctor Morton that will speake so vntruly for doth bellarmine bring no other proofes but his owne coniecture Doth he not produce the testimonies of Honorius his Secretary and of S. Maximus Martyr who were liuing at that tyme of Martin the first with a Councell of 105. Bishops of Iohn the fourth of Nicolas the first of Theophanes Isaurus of Emmanuel Calleca and of all the Latine Fathers that Honorius neuer assented to the Monothelites but euen in those his very Epistles which are obiected defended two wills and operations in Christ with all the Catholikes of the world And doth he not proue the same by the expresse testimony of Agatho Pope affirming that none of his predecessors were euer stayned with heresy and out of the sixth Councell it selfe receauing this testimony of Agatho as the words of S. Peter and as an oracle of the Holy Ghost Againe doth he in all this say that 639. Bishops were deceaued Nay doth he not proue by the testimony of Theophanes Isautus and Anastasius and collect the same out of many other authors that the condemnation of Honorius is not theirs but falsly inserted in their Councells by the Greekes according to their ordinary custome of corrupting Councells and other bookes in hatred to the See of Rome Good God then the seared conscience of Doctor Morton who can conceale all this and lay hold on a few words which Bellarmine addeth to wit that if any man be so obstinat that all this cannot satisfy him he may receaue another solution from Turrecremata which is that the Fathers of the sixth Synod condemned Honorius but out of false information and therfore erred therin as any Councell may in matter of fact The reason why you omit all the rest of Bellarmines doctrine catch at this solution of Turrecremata is to inferre that Popes may be heretikes that not only as priuat Doctors which some Catholikes grant but in their publike persons as Popes because those Fathers condemning Honorius in their publike Councell did iudge him according to his publike person These your words (c) Pag 126. containe a ridiculous fallacy for when we say The Pope cannot erre as Pope or which is all one as a publike person or ex Cathedra the sense is that he cannot either in a Councell or by himselfe ordayne any hereticall doctrine to be receaued by the Church Nor could you be ignorant of this for as Canus whon ye alleage granteth that Popes according to their priuat persons may be heretikes and that peraduenture one or two examples may be giuen therof so in that very place (d) L. 6. c. 8. pag. 214. he addeth that no example can be giuen of any Pope that though he fell into heresy did euer decree the same for the whole Church which is the thing you ought to haue disproued to shew that either the sixth or any other Councell iudged the Pope according to his publike person And lastly as for Honorius in particular Bellarmine (e) L. 4. de Pont. c. 11. rightly sheweth that Canus was in a double error concerning him whose opinion therfore is to be reiected CHAP. XXII Of the seauenth and eight Generall Councells SECT I. That these two Councells acknowledged the supreme Authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome
haue done nothing but bring witnesses against your selfe for all of them condemne the Greekes of heresy and conuince you of a notorious vntruth in saying l (p) Pag 336. that in our iudgement the Greekes are no heretikes excepting for the denying a necessity of subiection and vnion to the Church of Rome Nor do these only censure them for their heresy of the holy Ghost but other writers more ancient condemne them as guilty of other errors SECT II. Of the Lutherans of Germany writing to Hieremy Patritriarke of Constantinople to be admitted into the Communion of the Greeke Church and his answeare to them THe Pelagians being condēned by the Roman Church pretended to be of the communion of the Church of Greece which S. Augustine speaking of to Iulian the Pelagian (r) Cont. Iulian Pelag. l. 1. c. 4. said I thinke that part of the world ought to suffice thee in which our Lord wold haue the chiefe of his Apostles to be crowned with a most glorious Martyrdome to the President of which Church blessed Innocentius if thou woldest haue giuen eare thou hadst ere now freed thy dangerous youth from the Pelagian snares The same wee say to you who haue imitated the Pelagians in your pretence of vnion with the Greeke Church Your German brethren writ to Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople sending him a prosession of their fayth and desiting to be admitted into the communion of his Church He answeared them addressing his letters to the Protestants of Prague in Bohemia These letters of Hieremy set forth by the Lutherans of Wittemberg you obiect (s) Pag. 334. to proue that Protestants accord in fayth and communion with the Greeke Church but with your wonted syncerity for as it appeareth out of the edition of Stanislaus Socolouius Deuine to the King of Poland printed at Colen Apud Maternum Cholinum 1582. that epistle as it is set forth by the Lutheran Deuines of Wittemberg Anno 1584. is corrupted and falsified and for that cause iustly forbidden (t) In Ind. lib. prohib Neuerthelesse that very edition of Wittemberg is sufficient to shew the claime you make to the Grecians as to men of your communion to be a Grand imposture for it expresseth that the Greeke Church to this day teacheth inuocations of Saints and Angels veneration of Relikes worship of Images Transubstantiation with the Masse and significant ceremonies thereof Auricular Confession inioyned satisfaction all the seauen Sacraments in particular Confirmation with Chrisme and extreme Vnction prayer sacrifice and almes for the dead free will Monachisme Vowes of chastity the fast of Lent and other set fasting dayes that Priests may not mary after orders taken that the tradition doctrine of the Fathers is to be kept with many other things as M. Brereley (u) Prot. Apol tract 1. sect ◠sub 12. pag. 202. sheweth setting downe exactly the Page and part of the Page where euery one of these particulars is to be read in that protestant edition And the same is confirmed out of Syr Edwin Sands who in his Relation of the estate of Religion vsed in the West parts of the world in the fifth leafe before the end affirmeth that the Greeke Church agreeth with Rome in opinion of Transubstantiation generally in the sacrifice and whole body of the Masse in praying to Saints in auricular Confession in offering sacrifice and prayer for the dead Purgatory Worshiping of pictures c. And I must not omit the testimony of Iustus Caluinus who being brought vp in Protestancy was afterwardes conuerted to the Catholike fayth and being taxed for it by many of his friends writ a Booke to satisfy them and the world in which he declareth the moriues of his conuersion and among them the agreement of externe Churches with the Roman in condemning Protestants And he insisteth particularly on this Epistle of Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople and the censure which in it is giuen of the Protestant doctrine acknowledging that therby he was greatly confirmed in his beliefe of the Roman Church For sayth he (x) Pag. ◠fin seqq the Greekes and Latines agree so precisely in the chiefest Heads of doctrine that I wonder much the Nouellists haue not the same opinion of the Patriarke of Constantinople that they haue of the Pope for if the one be Antichrist the other must of necessity be Antichrist by reason of their accordance in doctrine And so much more to be pitied is the simplicity of some of them who dreaming still of I know not what accordāce with the Greeke Church cease not to inquire of the doctrine of the East by sending letters and Catechismes What haue they so soone forgotten how fatally the Confession of Augusta was reiected and how deepely censured by the Patriarke of Constantinople Let them goe to Tubinga and inquire Crusius will informe them Or if the iourney seeme teadious let them read the Oration of Chytraeus printed at Francford Of the estate of the Churches in Greece Asia Bohemia c. There p. 113.115.116.133 They shall find somthing to this purpose but chiefly pag. 132. where out of Crusius he setteth downe a summe of that Censure in these few propositions First the Patriarke laboreth to proue that the holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father 2. He attributes too much to freewill 3. He holds that man is iustified by fayth hope and charity 4. He alloweth seauen Sacraments 5. He inuocateth Saints deceased and Mary the Mother of God and the holy Angells and adoreth their sacred Images not with Latria for that is due to God alone but coniunctiuely that is not in regard of the matter but of the Saints represented by the matter and with an amicable affection declaring the veneration and honor due to the Saints 6. He defendeth Monasticall institute as an angelicall profession 7. He takes his proofes out of the Fathers and Councells 8. He inuiteth vs courteoussy to agree with them This is the summe of the whole Censure related by Crusius which if any one with vs please to read at large throughout he shall find more and greater arguments to condemne the new Fayth and especially these words which the Patriarke addeth for a conclusion We had resolued absolutely to be silent and giue no answeare to these your writings which so manifestly wrest both the Scripture the expositions of the holy Doctors to your fancy since we haue this exhortation from Paul Anoid an heretike after the first and second admonition But because with our silence we might seeme to assent vnto you as if you did vnderstand and belieue a right and that you had the Scriptures and holy Fathers on your side we haue thought good to set downe these things in defence of the truth albeit we are fully satisfied out of your writings that you can neuer accord with vs or rather with truth And in the same place in the end of the third answeare pag. 370. Wherfore we desire you not to trouble vs
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
your Protestant Churches are free from Vice you say (x) Pag. 342. The greatest Vice you can impute vnto Protestants is that they impugne the Popes indulgences the nourseries of all Vices Your denying and impugning the Popes indulgences we reckon not among your Vices but among your Errors against fayth Of your Vices I forbeare to speake your owne men both abroad as Luther Caluin Melancthon Brentius Bucer Eberus Wigandus and diuers others and at home M. Geffrey M. Stubs both of them great Preachers and the Puritans in their Milde defence haue done it for me Reade them and they will informe you that vnder the Papacy men were religious and giuen to the practise of good workes but that the professors of your Ghospell relying on their iustification by only fayth are become carelesse of good workes dissolute proud enuious malicious disdainefull couetous ambitious that your eyes ought to gush out with teares to behold the misery of your supposed Church the great ignorance the superficiall worship of God the fearfull blasphemies and swearing in howses and streets the dishonor of Superiors the pride cruelty fornications adulteries drunkennesse couetousnesse Vsuries and other like abhominations that youth among you becomes daily lesse tractable and more bold to commit those vices which in former times men of yeares knew not that instead of fasting you haue brought in bibbing and banketing and insteed of praying swearing And finally that you equall the Iewes in hypocrisy the Turkes in impiety and the Tartars in iniquity All this and much more to the same effect is the free confession of your Brethren faithfully set downe in their owne words in a late Treatise of the Protestant priuat spirit (y) Chap. 9. sect 8. subdiuis 4. And it is so strong an Argument against your pretended reformation that your learned brother Eberus sticketh not to say (z) Praefat. Comment Philip. in Ep. ad Cor. that in regard of the enormous wickednesse of your Ministry and Church any man may iustly doubt whether you be the true Church And yet you blush not to say that the greatest vice we can impute vnto Protestants is that they impugne the Popes indulgences which you falsly call the noursery of all Vices for by this it appeares that not the Popes indulgences but your new Protestant Ghospell is the noursery of all Vices and that in lieu of a reformation which you pretend calling your selues The reformed Churches you haue made a deformation of the Church of Christ SECT IV. That Protestants by Schisme haue diuided themselues from the Catholike Church TO proue that we censure your Protestant Church of Schisme iniustly you say (a) Pag. 341. The greatest schisme you can impute to the Churches of Protestants is that they wil be diuided from the Church of Rome which proudly and impiously diuideth herselfe from all other Churches of the world And a litle before (b) Pag. 340. you had taxed Bellarmine for holding that if those of the East were but only Schismatikes by denying subiection to the Church of Rome yet that alone without any suspicion of heresy might be sufficient to conclude them in the state of damnation Two things may here be disputed the one whether schisme alone without heresy exclude men from saluation the other whether Protestants be Schismatikes Concerning the first that Schismatikes though no way guilty of heresy for the very fault of schisme alone are incapable of saluation is a thing so certaine that no man that vnderstandeth euen the ordinary principles of Diuinity or is versed in the writings of the ancient Fathers can be ignorant therof for schisme being of it selfe a diuision or separation from the Catholike Church as it is impossible that he who is out of the Catholike Church be saued so it is that a schismatike dying in schisme be saued God sayth S. Irenaeus (c) L. 4. c. 62. shall iudge those that make schismes in the Church ambitious men not hauing the honor of God before their eyes but rather imbracing their owne interest then the vnity of the Church and for little and light causes diuiding the great and glorious body of Christ c. For in the end they cannot make any reformation so important as the euill of the schisme is pernicious S. Cyprian (d) L de Vnitate Eccles Do they that assemble themselues without the Church thinke Christ to be with them in their assembly Although they should be dragged to death for the confession of the name of Christ yet this spot is not wash't away from them with their bloud the inexpiable and inexcusable crime of discord is not purged with death it selfe he cannot be a Martyr that is not in the Church S. Chrysostome (e) In Ep. ad Ephes Hom. 11. Nothing doth so much stirre vp the wrath of God as the diuision of the Church Although we should do innumerable good workes if we diuide the Vnity and fulnesse of the Church we shall be punished no lesse seuerely then they who tore his naturall body S. Augustine (f) Ep. 152. ad popul factio Donat. Whosoeuer is diuided from the Catholike Church although he thinke himselfe to liue neuer so laudably yet for this only crime that he is diuided from the vnity of Christ the wrath of God abideth on him And speaking of Emeritus an hereticall Bishop (g) Serm super gest cum Emer He cannot haue saluation but in the Catholike Church Out of the Church he may haue honor he may haue Sacraments he may haue the Ghospell he may haue and preach beliefe in the name of the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost but saluation he can find no where but in the Catholike Church And againe (h) Ep. 204. Being out of the Church and diuided from the heap of Vnity though thou sholdest he burned aliue for the name of Christ yet thou sholdest be punished with eternall death S. Fulgentius (i) Dofide ad Pet. c. 39. Belieue this as most certaine and vndoubted that no heretike nor schismatike though baptized in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost though he giue neuer so great almes yea though he shed his bloud for the name of Christ can possibly be saued It being now certaine that a Schismatike dying in schisme cannot be saued the question is whether Protestants be schismatikes And certainly if S. Augustine (k) Ep. 170. cont Gauden l. 3. c. 1. cont lit Peti l. 1. c. 104. rightly concluded the Donatists to be schismatikes because they had separated themselues from that Church which was spread ouer the whole earth his Argument hath the same force against Protestants for if as he hath taught the Catholike Church is vniuersally spread ouer the whole earth and therby as by an vndoubted marke is knowne and distinguished from all other congregations it followeth by ineuitable consequence that the Roman Church and none els but she being vniuersally spread
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-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