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
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
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
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
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
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
Can. pag. 199. The same appeares by the testimony which Venerable Bede giues of Oswin King of Northumberland who by meanes of a famous disputation held between Colman a Scottish Abbot and Wilfrid a learned Priest of the Britans for the decision of certaine points of Religion wherein the Britans and Scots at that tyme disagreed was conuerted to the Roman Church and thereupon with the aduice of Egbert king of Kent sent Wigandus a Priest to Rome to be ordained Archbishop there to the end that returning he might ordayne Bishops throughout all Britany for sayth Bede Oswin though brought vp by the Scots (y) L. 3. hist. Angl. c. 29. had rightly vnderstood that the Roman Church is the Catholike and Apostolike Church These testimonies sufficiently proue that the most holy and learned Fathers as also the Orthodox Christians of former ages did belieue that the Roman Church was the Catholike Church and that to be deuided from the Roman Church was to be no Catholike but a Schismatike And that it may appeare how like you that deny this truth are to the Arian Heretikes it will not be amisse to shew that they knew Catholike and Roman to be all one and that because they would not grace Catholikes with the name of Catholikes they called them Romans or Romanists as at this day you call vs shewing your selues to be of the same spirit with the Arians Victor that famous African Bishop of Vrica writeth to this (z) L. 2. de persecut Vandal purpose that Iocundus an Arian speaking to king Theodoricus sayd Thou maiest make an end of Armogastus with diuers afflictions for if thou put him to death by the sword the Romanists will proclayme him a Martyr And of another Martyr he reporteth (a) Ibid. that being questioned by the Arians concerning his fayth he professed himself to be a Catholike saying Romanus sum I am a Roman (b) Apud Baron amo 471. In like manner Ermodius reporteth of the Nobility of the Ligures that proposing to Ricimer an Arian Goth a man fit to sollicite a peace they said Si Catholicus est Romanus if he be a Catholike then is he a Romanist And S. Gregory of Tours reporteth of an Arian Prince (c) De glor Mars c. 25. that thinking within himself be sayd It is the fashion of the Romans so they call men of our religion to attribute it to chance and not to the power of God And againe he reporteth this speach of one Arian to â—n (d) Ibid. c. 361 other If thou wilt but harken to my Counsell we will this day make our selues merry laughing hartily at this Romish Priest And speaking of the Arians that were in France (e) Ibid. c. 79. what thinke you sayd one of them will these Romanists now say And what thinke you now Doctor Morton what will you say Do not these testimonies conuince that in the language and beliefe of antiquity Catholike and Roman did signify the same Church the same fayth and the same Orthodoxall people Or what may we thinke of you that either are so ignorant as not to know this Or if you know it so malicious as to deny it to call it an insultation of ours and to censure it as Schismaticall hereticall temerarious impious sacrilegious Antichristian c. SECT IV. That whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church is out of the state of Saluation THis truth is euidently deduced out of the premises already proued by this syllogisticall argument Whosoeuer is out of the Catholike Church is out of the state of Saluation This maior Proposition you grant and it hath beene already proued (f) Hoc cap. sect 1. But whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church is out of the Catholike Church This also hath bene (g) Hoc cap. sect 3. and shall be throughout this whole Apology effectually proued The consequent then is euident in Barbara Ergo whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church is out of the state of Saluation But yet in further confirmation of this consequent it will not be amisse to heare the ancient Fathers themselues speake and testify the truth therof in their owne language For so teacheth that ancient and learned Bishop S. Irenaeus who liued soone after the Apostles and was Disciple to their Disciples He prescribing a certaine rule to know and distinguish the Catholike Church from the conuenticles of Heretikes sayth (h) L. 3. c. 3. that All Churches and all the faithfull from all places must necessarily agree with the Roman Church by reason of her more powerfull principality that is by reason of the soueraignety of the See Apostolike and the neuer-interrupted succession of Bishops in that See which succession sayth he is (i) Ibid. a conuincing demonstration that the same fayth which was preached by the Apostles is still conserued in that Church and therefore (k) L. 4. c. 43. that all such as withdrawe themselues from this principall succession we ought sayth he to hold them as Heretikes of a peruerse iudgement or as Schismatikes and selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes And as S. IrenÄ™us alleaged this neuer interrupted succession of twelue Bishops vntill his tyme in the Roman Church as in the head Church of the world which therfore he calleth the principall succession if I say he alleaged this against the heretikes of those primitiue tymes as a conuincing demonstration to proue that they hauing departed from the Roman Church in which that principall succession was to be found had therby departed from the Catholike Church and forsaken true fayth deliuered by the Apostles far greater reason had Tertullian (l) De praescrip Eusebius (m) L. 5. hist. c. 6. S. Epiphanius (n) Haeres 27. S. Ierome (o) Dial. cont Lucifer Optatus S. Augustine (p) Lib. 2. cont Parm. and other Fathers of after ages to all eage the same succession of longer Continuance against the Heretikes of their tymes to conuince them to be such And (q) Ep. 165. Psal contra part Donati â—f diuers of these Fathers as Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius S. Epiphanius Optatus and S. Augustine haue reckoned vp by name all the Bishops of the Roman Church against the Heretikes of their tymes we may now iustly reckon a â—ar greater number of them coÌ„tinued vntill these our dayes â—gainst Protestants to proue them to be out of the true Church in which only this neuer interrupted succession is to be found and wish them as S. Augustine (r) Psal contra part Donati did the Donatists not to lye cut of from this succession that being â—he Rock against which the proud gates of hell preuaile â—ot So teacheth S. Cyprian saying (s) L. 1. ep 8. There is one God and â—ne Christ. one chayre built vpon Peter out of which whosoeuer gathereth scattereth that is maketh a Schisme in the Church â—s the Nouatians did against whom he writeth And why did he reioyce (t) L. 4. ep â— to heare that Antonianus
whole body of his Church to the end that whosoeuer should be so bold as to depart from the solidity of that See might know himself to be no way partaker of the diuine mysteries And (e) Ibid. that whosoeuer goeth about to diminish the power of the Bishop of Rome endeauoreth with most impious presumption to viâ—late the most sacred strength of the Rock Peter framed by the hand of God And speaking against Hilary Bishop of Arles and all such as are refractary and disobedient to the Successors of Peter and in them to Peter himselfe he (f) Ibid. addeth To whom whosoeuer thinketh the primacy to be denied can no way diminish their authority but puffed vp with the spirit of pride plungeth himselfe headlong into hell And (g) Epist 75. that he who dare oppose the Roman Church built by the voyce of our Sauiour vpon the most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles as vpon a rock is either Antichrist or a Diuel All these sayings of so learned a Doctor and so great a Saint I wish the Protestant reader duly to consider So teacheth the holy Councell of Chalcedon (h) Act. 3. affirming Peter the Apostle to be the rock and head of the Catholike Church and foundation of the true Fayth From whence it followeth that whosoeuer buildeth not vpon the foundation of Peters See is not in the Catholike Church nor in the true fayth without which no man can be saued So teacheth S. Gregory the Great who writing to Bonifacius (i) L. 3. ep 41. sayth I admonish you that whiles you haue tyme of lyfe remayning your soule be not found diuided from the Church of blessed Peter to whome the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen were committed and the power of binding and losing giuen lest his fauour be contemned here he there exclude you from the entrance into lyfe So teacheth S. I sidore a learned Doctor and Archbishop of Seuill (k) Ep. vltima ad Eugenium Episcop Toletanum saying that albeit the Episcopall dignity and power descend from S. Peter to all Catholike Bishops yet especially and by a fingular priuiledge it remayneth for euer to the Bishop of Rome as to a Head higher then the rest of the members whosoeuer therfore sayth he yelds not obedience reuerently to him is separated from the head and makes himself guilty of the schisme of the Acephalists that is of certain heretikes who acknowledged no one particular Head And he addes that the Church belieues this as the Creed of S. Athanasius and as an article of fayth and that whosoeuer belieues it not cannot be saued So teacheth S. Maximus Martyr the greatest Diuine of his age that writ learnedly against the Monothelites pestilent Heretikes that held but one will and operation in Christ and were anathematized in the sixth generall Councell He among other Elogies of the Roman Church hath (l) Epist ad Marinum Diac. this All the bounds of the earth and whosoeuer in any place of the world do confesse Christ our Lord with a pure hart and Orthodox fayth looke vpon the most holy Roman Church and her confession and fayth attentiuely as vpon a Sunne of euerlasting light receauing from her the shining light of spirituall and holy Doctrines c. For from the first comming of the Word Incarnate all the Churches of Christians throughout the world haue had from her their beginning their only and surest foundation against which the gates of hell shall no way preuaile according to the promise of our Sauiour himself that she shold haue the Keyes of Orthodoxall fayth and Confession and open to them that religiously come to the same Roman Church seeking true reall and only piety and contrariwise shut and stop euery hereticall mouth that speaks iniquity against heauen So teacheth S. Aldelmus an ancient Bishop of the Scots whom Venerable Bede highly commendeth for his eloquence for his great knowledge of humane literature of Scripture and Ecclesiasticall rites Among other his works which Bede reckoneth he writ an excellent booke against the error of the Britans who at that tyme differed from the Roman Church in the celebration of Easter And of the same subiect he writ an epistle to Geruntius in which he sheweth the Britans by reason of that their separation from the Roman Church to be in error (m) Epist ad Gerunt If sayth he the keyes of the heauenly kingdome were by Christ giuen to Peter of whom the Poet sayth He is the Porter of heauen that opens the gate to the stars who is he that despising the principall statutes of that Church and condemning the Doctrine which she commands to be obserued can enter into the gate of heauenly paradise And if Peter by a happy lot and a peculiar priuiledge deserued to receyue the power monarchy of binding both in heauen and earth who refusing to obserue the Roman rite of Easter can thinke that he is not rather to be straitly tied with in soluble bonds then any way to be absolued And the same he further proueth out of the priuiledge of not erring granted to the Roman Church when Christ promised to build his Church vpon Peter as vpon an impregnable rock So teacheth Venerable Bede (n) Homil. in die Apost Petri Pauli saying Therfore the blessed Peter confessing Christ with true fayth and following him with true loue receaued specially the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the soueraignty of iudiciall power that all the faythfull throughout the world might vnderstand that whosoeuer do any way separate themselues from the Vnity of his fayth and society can neither be losed from the bonds of their sins nor come within the gate of the heauenly kingdome And speaking of a conference held betwene Colmannus an Abbot and Wilfridus a learned Priest concerning the celebration of Easter Colmannus defending the Iewish rite and Wilfridus the custome of the Roman Church Wilfridus said (o) Beda in histor gent. Ang. l. 3. c. 25. If you disdaine to follow the decrees of the See Apostolike yea and of the vniuersall Church they being confirmed by the holy Scriptures without all doubt you sinne for be it that your Columba was a holy man and of Christ likewise your Fathers yet is their smal number in a corner of a remote Iland to be preferred before the vniuersall Church of Christ And hauing in proofe of the Authority of the Roman Church alleaged the words of Christ promising to build his Church vpon Peter and to giue him the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen Of win king that was present at the conference demanded of the disputants whether both of them agreed in this that those words of our Sauiour were principally spoken to Peter and whether the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to him And they answering Yes the king (p) Ibid. concluded And I say to you that because Peter is that porter I will not gainsay him but so far forth as I
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.
it is that S. Maximus Martyr said (p) Spond anno 657. n. 8. All the Churches of Christians had their beginning from the holy Roman Church and the Primates of Africa (q) Ep. ad Theod. Papam that all other Churches were to learne from her as from their natiue fountayne what they ought to belieue and Innocentius the first in his Epistle (r) Epist. 9. highly commended by S. Augustine (s) Epist 106. that from the Roman Church other Churches as springs proceeding from their mother source and running with the purity of their originall through the diuers regions of the whole world are to take what they ought to ordaine And the holy Councell of Chalcedon (t) Epist ad Leonem that the fountaine and source of our religion is from the See Apostolike And finally for diuers other respects the Roman Church is iustly called The most ancient Church as Bozius learnedly proueth (*) Desig Eccles to 1. l. 3. cap. 10. To him I remit you Wherfore the mother-hood of the Roman Church which we defend consisteth in her supreme authority and iurisdiction ouer all other Churches This you should disproue which here you do not but inferre that Hierusalem Caesarea Antioch the Brittish Church the Greeke Church in generall are all Mothers to the Roman because they were founded before her which is a false cōsequent drawne out of a wilfull mistake of the state of the question for though the Church of Hierusalem was founded before that of Caesarea yet who knoweth not that as the famous Councell of Nice (*) Can. 7. hath declared S. Hierome (†) Ep. 61. testifieth and you here confesse the Church of Caesarea was the Metropolitan or mother Church of all Palestine and that both the Church of Hierusalem and all others of that prouince were for aboue foure hundred yeares subiect to her Againe who knoweth not that the Bishops of Caesarea of Hierusalem and of all the East were subiect to the Bishop of Antioch as to their Patriarke notwithstanding that the Church of Antioch was founded after some of the Easterne Churches And who knoweth not that albeit the Church of Antioch was founded before that of Rome it was neuerthelesse subiect to the Church of Rome for why els did Iuuenal Bishop of Hierusalem say (u) In Concil Ephes Act. 4. in the presence of the whole Councell of Ephesus that the ancient custome and Apostolicall tradition was that the Church of Antioch is to be ruled and iudged by the Roman Syr a man of your reading ought to haue knowne that in the mysteries of Christ the yonger are preferred before the elder Abel before Cain Iacob before Esau Iudas before Ruben Dauid before Eliab Salomon before Adonias and so likewise of Christians the Gentils were preferred before the Iewes the Latines before the Greekes and the west before East for as the Apostle sayth (x) 1. Cor. 15.46 that is naturall which is first and spirituall that which is afterward and he that by his birth-right shall exalt himselfe as being the elder shall by the right hand of God be humbled that so the fauors he bestoweth on his Church may be knowne to proceed from no other root but his gracious vocation So we see among the Apostles that although in the opinion of S. Epiphanius (y) Haeresi 51. which is followed by Baronius (z) Anno 32. n. 23. Lorinus (a) In ca. 1. Act. 5.13 Serarius (b) Tract de Apost and many others Andrew were elder then Peter and as S. Ambrose (c) In c. 12.2 ad Corinth sayth followed Christ before Peter yet Andrew receaued not the primacy but Peter And therfore though the Churches of Hierusalem of Antioch and others of the East were founded before that of Rome yet not they but she obtayned the primacy Wherfore you produce in vaine the testimonies of S. Hierome S. Augustine and S. Basil affirming that the Ghospell was first preached at Hierusalem and other partes of the East and that from thence it came into the West for this proueth that the Church of Hierusalem and some others were founded before that of Rome and therfore were mothers to her in antiquity not in iurisdiction and authority But S. Chrysostome say (d) Pag. 30. you affirmeth that S. Iames was the first that obtayned a Bishopricke namely at Hierusalem You ought to haue added that the same S. Chrysostome likewise sayth (e) In Ioan. Hom. vltima that he was made Bishop of Hierusalem by S. Peter mayster of the whole world If therfore Iames was chosen Bishop of Hierusalem by Peter that sufficiently sheweth his authority ouer Iames and the other Apostles And what els did S. Chrysostome signify saying that Iames was made Bishop of Hierusalem by Peter Mayster of the world but that as much as the Bishop of the whole world surpasseth in authority the Bishop of one See so much did Peter surpasse Iames in authority which Euthymius hath also expressed in the same words with Chrysostome And no lesse effectually S. Bernard The rest of the Apostles sayth he (f) L. 2. de consid c. 9. obtayned ech of them their peculiar flocks Iames contented with Hierusalem yelds the vniuersality to Peter And S. Gregory (g) L. 4. epist 38. Peter surely is the chiefe member of the holy and Vniuersall Church Paul Andrew Iohn what were they but heads of particular Dioceses Impertinent therfore is your alleaging of S. Chrysostome to proue that Iames was the first that obtained a Bishopricke at Hierusalem for both he and these other Fathers testify that Peter was Bishop of the whole Church and consequently also of Hierusalem which was a part of the Church And who knoweth not that of all the Apostles S. Peter first preached the Ghospell to the Iewes and also to the Gentils first in the East and then in the West and that by his authority he instituted the three Patriarkcall seats of Rome Antioch and Alexandria by which all other Churches of the world were gouerned and that as Bozius (h) De sign Eccles l. 4. c. 2. 3. obserueth the whole world was conuerted by those which either were sent by S. Peter and his Successors in the Roman See hauing their mission and authority from them or els by such as were made Bishops by them whom S. Peter had ordayned And so likewise wheras here (i) Pag. 33. you make the Church of Caesarea mother to that of Rome who knoweth not that S. Peter founded that Church and made Cornelius the Centurion Bishop therof which therfore remained subiect to S. Peters See Impertinent likewise and fraudulent is your obiection (k) Pag. 34. out of Sozomene (l) L. 3. c. 7. that the Eastern Greeke Churches challenged this prerogatiue in their letters to Pope Iulius that they came from the East who first brought Christian Religion to Rome for if they came from the East their ordination and authority was from S.
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
Church Wherfore S. Peter in the exequution of his Pastorall charge among other admonitions which he giueth to his subiects putteth the Bishops and Pastors in mind of their dueties alluding to the words feed my sheep by which Christ made him supreme Pastor of Pastors vnder himselfe Feed sayth he (n) 1. Pet. 5.2 the flock of God which is among you prouiding not by constraint but willingly according to God neither for filthy lucres sake but voluntarily nor as ouer-ruling in the Clergy but made examples of the flock from the hart And when the Prince of Pastors shall appeare you shall receaue the incorruptible crowne of glory Now that S. Peter made this exhortation to them as their Superior chiefe Pastor is declared by the second Councell of Nice (o) Can. 4. Peter the chiefe Apostle coÌ„manded Feed the flock of our Lord administring your Bishopricks not by force but voluntarily c. And Haymo (p) Domin 2. post Pascha The chiefe Pastor of the Church admonisheth the other Pastors sayng Seniors that are among you I beseech you c. And the Bishops of the East when they banded themselues against the preuarication of their Patriarch Acacius writ to Pope Symmachus (q) Extat haec Epist inter Oâ—thodox impress Basil to 2â— Thou art euery day taught by thy sacred Doctor Peter to feed the sheep of Christ which are coÌ„mitted to thee throughout the habitable earth not constrained by force but willingly c. CHAP. X. Doctor Mortons obiections against the former Doctrine answeared THESE examples taken out of the holy Scripture expounded by the ancient Fathers conuince that S. Peter in diuers occasions exercised acts of iurisdiction properly belonging to his authority ouer the Apostles and ouer the whole Church And the same will yet more appeare by the futility of the Arguments which you frame to disproue his Supremacy The first is (r) Pag. 46. that be had no Crowne on his head to shew his Empire nor Miter to shew his pastorall dominion ouer the other Apostles for though Peter had no Empire as being no temporall Prince yet as Baronius sheweth (s) Anno 34. 〈◊〉 85. all the Priests in the old testament which represented our Bishops did vse Miters and the high Priest representing the Pope in the law of grace had an especiall Miter odorned with a plate of gold which the Scripture calleth a Crowne (t) Ecclest 45.14 as Iosephus testifieth (u) L. 3. Antiq c. 8. made in a triple forme How then do you proue that S. Peter who call's the Priesthood of the new testament a kingly Priesthood (x) 1. Pet. 2 9. had not a triple Miter or Crowne as his Successor now hath though not so rich by reason of the pouerty in which the Church at those her first beginnings was especially since S. Hierome treating of the Sacerdotall Ornaments of the law of Moyses affirmeth (y) Ep. 128. ad Faâ—iolam that in Christ they are more perfectly consummated 2. You say (z) Pag. 46. that Peter had no Legates à laetere to carry his mandats This is your ignorance for as the Pope sendeth to other Churches his decrees made with the aduice of his Confistory so S. Peter with aduice of the rest assembled with him in the Councell of Hierusalem chose out two prime men Iudas surnamed Barsabas and Silas togeather with Paul and Barnaby to cary the mandats or decrees of that Councell to the Churches of Antioch Syria and Cilicia (a) Act. 15.12.13 Your third Obiection is (b) Pag. 46. No person was admitted a pride which S. Peter abhorred to kisse his feete From whence to inferre that S. Peter was not Head of the Church or that he exercised not any iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles is an argument that deserues no answer the Consequent hauing as little connexion with the Antecedent as an Egg with an Oyster But you are so pleased with it that you repeat it afterwards againe (c) Pag. 160. and both here and there vrge it against the Pope to disproue his supremacy not considering that if it be a sinne in him to admit of that honor yet it is no error in Doctrine nor want of authority and iurisdiction which is the thing you should haue proued but of humility and therfore no more disproues his supreme authority then Pride or other vices disproue the supreme authority of a temporall Monarch or the iurisdiction of any other Bishop But wheras you attribute the admittance of this honor to Pride in the Vicar of Christ you know that (d) De sign Eccles l. 11. c. 9. Bozius whom you cite (e) Pag. 160. effectually proueth that the Pope considering his place and supereminent dignity of being the Vicar and Lieutenant of Christ on earth admitteth lesse honors then any temporall Prince or Bishop whatsoeuer which you conceale that so you may taxe him with pride for suffering his feet to be kissed You might in like manner blame Christ for admitting the same honor from Mary Magdalene (f) Luc. 7 3â— and for suffering the Iewes (h) Math. 21.8 to straw the bowes of the trees and spread their owne garments in the way vnder the very feet of the Asse on which he rid and for not prohibiting the Children to proclame his prayses for at that the Iewes stormed (i) Ibid. Vers 16. as you do at the Popes permitting his feet to be kissed Now that this honor of kissing his feet and that prostrate on the ground is no new thing as Polydore Virgil by you cited in a worke corrupted by Protestants and which you also know to be prohibited affirmeth the history of the holy Virgin Susanna (k) Apud Baro. anno â—94 maketh good And the same is proued by what Tertullian (l) Lib. de poenit c. 9. 100. yeares before that tyme reported of the manner vsed by the Roman Church in receauing of penitents who sayth he did kneele downe to the Priests and to the seruants of God And the same is conuinced by the practise of ancient Christian Emperors and Kings of Iustinus of both the Iustinians the elder and the yonger of Fridericus the first and the second surnamed Aenobarbus of Ludouicus the first surnamed The godly and Ludouicus the second of Luitprandus King of the Lombards of Pipinus Ludouicus Crassus and Ludouicus the seauenth Kings of France of Henry the first and the second kings of England some of them falling downe prostrate on the ground to reuerence the Popes person and kissing his feet and others performing the office of yeomen of his stitrop and leading his horse going themselues on foote by him All which particulars if you please you may read in Baronius (m) Spond in Indicâ— V. Obsequia And this reuerence done to the Pope was not obscurely foretold by the Prophet Isay in two places which are excellently pondered by Iacobus Gordon Huntley (*) Contro 2. c. 26. to
words which you obiect to wit that Christ after his resurrection gaue equall power to all the Apostles saying As my Father sent me so I send you receaue yee the holy Ghost c. For by these words he gaue to them all equall authority to preach throughout the world to reueale matters of fayth assurance of infallibility to make canonicall Scriptures to institute the first mission of Pastors to remit sinnes to giue the holy Ghost and the like In this sense he sayth The Apostles were the same that Peter endowed with like fellowship of honor and power to wit in the exercise of these Apostolicall functions ouer the faythfull to whom he sent them But S. Cyprian sayth not that Christ made all the Apostles equall among themselues exempting them from the iurisdiction of S. Peter in the manner of exercising this power Nor is it true for he gaue it theÌ„ with subordination to him as to their Superior Peter sayth S. Leo (d) Serm. â— in Aâ—niuers suae Assumpt is preferred before all the Apostles if Christ would haue them to haue any thing common with him he gaue it them not but by him And this is declared and the reason therof yelded by Optatus S. Hierome and by S. Cyprian himselfe in that very place which you obiect for the contrary In the Episcopall chayre sayth Optatus (e) L. â— cont Parmâ—n was set the Head of all the Apostles Peter from whence he was also called Cephas to the end that in this only chayre Vnity might be preserued in all and that the other Apostles might not challenge to themselues ech one a seuerall chayre but that he might be a Schismatike and a sinner that against this only Chayre should erect another The Church sayth S. Hierome (f) L. 1. aduers louin c. 14. is built vpon Peter though els where it be also built vpon the rest yet among the twelue one is chosen to the end that a Head being made occasion of Schisme might be taken away And S. Cyprian (g) L. de vnit Eccles Christ to manifest vnity constituted one chayre and ordayned the originall of Vnity beginning from one giuing the primacy to Peter that so one Church of Christ and one chayre might be manifested And then declaring you that haue forsaken this originall of Vnity S. Peters Chayre on which the Church is built to haue lost the fayth and to be out of the Church he addoth He that keepeth not this vnity of the Church doth he belieue himselfe to hold the fayth he that resisteth the Church he that forsaketh the chaire of Peter on which the Church is built doth he thinke himselfe to be in the Church So S. Cyprian equalling you with the Nouatians for your disclayming from the Church of Peter CHAP. XII The authority of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth proued to be infallible HAVING in vayne shot your darts at S. Peter to dethrone him from the height of Authority in which Christ hath placed him you come now to try their force against the Bishop of Rome his Successor whose authority in his definitions of fayth you hold to be fallible SECT I. Our first Argument THat the authority of the Bishop of Rome in his definitions of fayth is infallible we proue out of the words of Christ spoken to S. Peter (h) Luc. 12.32 I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth faile not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren There is no man so voyd of vnderstanding sayth Leo the 9. speaking (i) Ep. ad Michael Impâ—r of this prayer that can thinke Christs prayer whose will is his power to haue bene inefficacious which the Apostle allso teacheth saying (k) Heb. 5.7 he was heard for his reuerence And for this prayer in particular Christ himselfe signifieth so much saying I haue prayed for thee for what would his prayer haue auayled Peter if he had not obtayned for him what he asked Or how cold his brethren haue any assurance of their confirmation in fayth from Peter if Peter could haue error proposing vnto them falshood for truth Againe that Christ in these words prayed not in mediatly for the whole Church nor for all the Apostles but for Peter alone appeareth in this that he expressed one singular person saying Simon Sâ—mon for in the Greeke it is twice repeated and added the pronounce of the second person I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth fayle not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren That Christ prayed not for the other Apostles you grant (l) Pag. 53. and take this for a ground to proue that he prayed for Peter only and not for Clement Vrban or any other of his Successors in the Roman See But your argument proueth nothing for Christ had formerly obtayned the personall perseuerance of Peter and the rest when he said (m) Ioan. 17.9 seqq for them I do pray c. Holy Father keep them in my name c. I pray not that thou take them out of the world but that thou preserue them from euill And therfore this prayer for Peters not fayling in fayth was not made for him in the person of a priuat man and without relation to his office of Supreme Pastor but as for a publike person that is as for the Head of the Apostles and Gouernor of the whole Church and consequently for his See and all his Successors in the same See for as that supreme dignity of Head Gouernor of the vniuersall Church was not to dye with Peter but to descend by him to his Successors so the effect of this prayer of Christ being a prerogatiue obtayned for Peter by reason of his office was to descend to Clement to Vrban and to whosoeuer hath hitherto or shall hereafter succeed him in the same office euen as whatsoeuer prerogatiue is granted to a Vice-Roy as Vice-Roy and as belonging to his office is consequently granted to all his Successors in the same office But you obiect (n) Pag. 54. that this priuiledge cannot agree to Peters Successors because Salas the Iesuit teacheth that a personall and singular priuiledge is that which is granted to an indiuiduall person with expression of his name and therfore doth not extend to any other but dyeth with the person to whom it is granted You vnderstand not Salas for he calleth a personall priuiledge that which is granted to an indiuiduall person as he is a piuat person only for his owne particular good not by reason of any publike office for the good and benefit of the community for if it be granted to him as to a publike person by reason of his office as this was to S. Peter as to the Head of the Church and for the common good of the Church though his name be neuer so much expressed in it it is not a personall but a common (o) See Bonacina Compend v. Priuileg or as Suarez (p) L. 7. de
roundly without any answere at all therfore your said Antagonist told you as with reason he might that he greatly marueyled with what conscience or if not conscience with what forehead at least you could at that tyme write and print things that you did know or might haue knowne to be merely false and forged Is not this sayth he a signe of obstinate wilfulnesse that neither God nor truth is sought for by you but only to maintaine a part or faction with what slight or falshood soeuer Hauing giuen you this admonition though he remit you or rather the reader to the Warnword for a larger satisfaction yet he also briefly answereth (k) Ibid. num 55.56.57.58 shewing 1. Your grosse ignorance in ascribing that Canon to Pope Boniface wheras it is gathered by Gratian out of the sayings of S. Boniface an Englishman that was Archbishop of Ments in Germany and a holy Martyr 2. Your fraud in setting downe the words of the Canon corruptly both in Latin and English as by leauing out the beginning which sheweth the drift of the Canon and the end which containeth a reason of all that is said and cutting of other words in the middest to couer the pious meaning of S. Boniface 3. Your falshood in leauing out and altering some words and corruptly translating others with a heape of falsities as he rightly calleth them (l) Ibid. num 57. marg Wherefore if he had iust cause to marueile with what conscience or forehead you could then repeate an obiection so fully answered before farre greater cause haue I to maruayle now that after he hath againe giuen you this second answere and so fully discouered your fraud you are not ashamed yet againe to reiterate the same obiection without taking any notice of those errors wilfull falsities which that answerer laid to your charge To him and to the Warnword I remit the reader But because the glosse affirmeth the Pope to haue plenitude of power in disposing of Prebends and that none ought therin to say vnto him why do you so You call this the height of all desperate presumption in the Popes to make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes A bold censure Kings haue fullnesse of power to dispose of the temporall offices of their kingdomes and none ought to say vnto them Why do you so Will you therfore tell them that this their authority is the height of all desperate presumption to make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes No why then do you giue it that name and censure in the Popes You might haue done well to aske S. Bernards opinion He would haue told you (m) Ep. 131. that the plenitude of power is by a singular prerogatiue giuen to the See Apostolike That he which resisteth this power resisteth the ordination of God that he hath power if he iudge it profitable to erect new Bishoprickes where formerly they were not and of those that are in being to put downe some and set vp others as reason shall dictate vnto him so that he may lawfully of Bishops make Archbishops and contrariwise if it shall seeme necessary He can summon from the furthest partes of the earth whatsoeuer Ecclesiasticall persons of neuer so high degree and compell them to appeare before him and this not once or twice but as often as he shall find it expedient This is the power which the glosse speaketh of you call it the Height of all desperate presumption wherby the Popes make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes S. Bernard holds it to be a power giuen him by Christ and that whosoeuer refisteth it as you doe resists the ordinance of God Whether is it fit that Christian men should belieue S. Bernard or you especially since you acknowledg him to be a Saint which he cold not be if he had erred in fayth nor will any wise man thinke that in this point he was of any other beliefe then all the holy Fathers of Gods Church were whose doctrine he knew and vnderstood better then you do But not contenting your selfe with censuring condemning Popes you carpe at the holy Martyr S. Boniface whom all Germany reuerenceth as their Apostle for teaching that albeit the Pope shold by his scandalous life draw innumerable multitudes with him into hell yet no man may presume to correct him to wit iuridically by punishing or deposing him for that is the sense in which S. Boniface speaketh vnlesse he also depart from the fayth But you consider not the wrong which by thus carping at the Pope you offer to all Christian Princes for dare you say that if an Emperor a King or any other absolute Prince be of so scandalous a life that by his example he lead thousands with him into Hell he may therefore be deposed Wherfore since you will hold it to be good doctrine that albeit a temporall Prince yea or many Princes liuing at the same tyme shold by their vicious liues draw thousands with them into hell none of them may therefore be corrected iuridically why do you carpe at vs for defending the same of the Pope who is but one at once Your fifth obiection is (n) Pag. 64. sin 65. S. Paul alone writ to the Romans not S. Peter True for when S. Peter writ his Epistles he was at Rome and had conuerted many of the Romans to Christ and planted the Church among them before S. Paul came theither or writ his epistle to them Againe S. Peter writ his epistles to all the faythfull and in regard therof you intitle them Generall Epistles and we Catholike Epistles a title which is not giuen to those of S. Paul Your sixth Obiection is (o) Pag. 65. It was not sayd of Peters ship as it was of that wherein S. Paul was God hath giuen vnto thee all them that sayle with thee and except those to wit the Mariners remaine in the Ship you cannot be saued Among 28. famous priuiledges which Bellarmine (p) Lib. 1. de Pont. c. 17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24 sheweth to haue bene granted to S. Peter and not to S. Paul nor to any other of the Apostles you are content to conceale them all without making any mention of them vnlesse it be of two or three to carpe at them as here you doe at his ship postposing it to that in which S. Paul sailed because in a dangerous tempest God preserued the liues of all that were in the ship for his sake But in this your dealing is no better then in the rest for the holy Doctors take the ship of Peter to be a type of the Catholike Church out of which none can be saued eternally which they say not of the ship in which Paul sayled When Christ saw two ships standing by the lake of Genezareth going into the one ship (q) Luc. 5.3 that was Simons and sitting he taught the multitude out of the ship it was not without mystery that of those two ships Christ made choyce of Peters only to
striue earnestly against his error for the Catholike truth The reason therfore why Pelagius after he had deceaued the Councell of Palestine endeauored also to deceaue the Roman Church by a feigned profession of his fayth sent to Innocentius Pope was because it was the constant beliefe of all Christians in those dayes that the Roman Church as being heyre of the fayth commended by S. Paul could not approue any doctrine but what was truly orthodoxall and Catholike as Pelagius in that his profession acknowledgeth saying (t) In fin Symb. ad Dâ—â—â— apud Hieron to 4. Baron anno 417 This o most blessed Pope is the fayth which I haue learned in the Catholike Church and which I haue alwayes held and do bold Wherin if I haue said any thing ignorantly or vnwarily I desire to be corrected by you that hold the fayth and chayre of Peter If this my confession be approued by the iudgment of your Apostleship whosoeuer layes an aspersion on me shall shew himselfe to be ignorant or malicious or els not to be a Catholike but he shall not proue me to be an heretike With this profession Pelagius sought to deceaue the Roman Church but could not because Zozimus sayth S. Augustine (u) Proximè cit considered what iudgment the fayth of the Romans commended by the Apostle had made of him in the tyme of Innocentius his predecessor For which cause Procopius truly said (x) L. 1. de bello Goth. If euer any surely the Romans chiefly are they that haue had the Christian fayth in veneration I conclude therfore that if the holy Fathers haue vnderstood the Scriptures aright the fayth of the Roman Church is proued to be infallible not only by the Scriptures formerly alleaged (y) Supra hoc â—ap but by this very passage of the Apostle Nor do Tolet or Sà whome heere you obiect (z) Pag. 66. say ought to the contrary for if they obserue that when the Apostle sayth to the Romans your fayth is published euery where it is an hyperbole because the sense is not that the fayth which they belieued was then actually preached throughout the whole world but that is was a thing knowne and published throughout the whole world that they had belieued they say nothing but what is true for the Apostle cold not say that the Roman fayth which was the fayth of Christ was then actually preached in all partes of the world as neither it is yet at this day but that it was publikely knowne throughout all the world that the Romans had receaued the fayth of Christ because in common speach and morall reputation that which is diffused ouer a great part of the world and famously knowne is said to be euery where And this publike fame was of great moment for the conuersion of other nations for Rome being the Head of the world whither all sorts of people vnder that vast Empyre had recourse for discharg of their tributes and accompts of their offices they cold not but haue knowledge that the Romans belieued in Christ And as Tolet noteth out of S. Chrysostome but you to detract from the Romans what prayse you can conceale it this publike same and knowledg of their beliefe was an example and a great motiue for other nations to receaue the fayth of Christ Now wheras you adde (a) Pag. 60. It is an obiection now a dayes breathed into the mouth of euery vulgar Papist that at that day Catholike and Roman were all one the testimonies of antiquity which I haue formerly brought in profe therof shew that none but he which is not so much as vulgarly read in Ecclesiasticall history can be ignorant of so certaine a truth Wherfore you speake vntruly when you say it is an insultation of ours easily checked with a paralell of the like if not of a larger commendation of the Church of Thessalonica by the same Apostle 1. Thessal 1.2 We giue thankes alwayes to God for you all making mention of you in our prayers remembring without ceasing your worke of fayth And againe v. 8. From you sayth he sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia but also in euery place your fayth to Godward is spread abroad c. This is your paralell which is easily disparalelled for as Baronius obserueth (c) Anno 58. out of S. Chrysostome the Romans being Head of the world their fayth was a forcible motiue to bring other nations to belieue in Christ And therfore S. Leo (d) Serm. 1. in Nat. Apost Pet. Paul had reason to say that S. Peter Prince of the Apostles not by humane counsell but by diuine ordination came from Antioch to Rome to preach the Ghospell and fixe his chayre in that Citty that so the chiefe seat of religion might be where the Head of superstition had bene and that the fayth from thence as from the top of the Empyre might be diffused throughout the world And S. Anselme (e) â—n c. 1. ad Rom. that S. Paulgiuing thankes to God for the fayth of the Romans sayth I giue thanks to God for all the faithfull in the first place for all you because you are the chiefest the Roman Church hauing the primacy among all Churches And wheras the Apostle sayth The fayth of the Romans is published throughout the whole world the same S. Anselme noteth (f) In c. 1. ad Thessal that he sayth not so to the Thessalonians but You are made a paterne to all that belieue in Macedonia and Achaia and from you the word of our Lord was bruted not only in Macedonia and Achaia but also in â—uery place that is sayth he in euery place neare to you And hereby it appeareth that the Romans for the example of their fayth and the profit that redounded therby to others were preferred by S. Paul before the Thessalonians as farre as the whole world ouer which the conuersion of Rome was quickly spread exceedeth Macedonia Achaia with a few bordering Prouinces which only had notice of the Thessalonians And therfore S. Paul giueth a further prayse to the Romans (g) Rom. 15.15 I am assured of you that you are also full of loue replenished with all knowledge so that you are able to admonish one another And againe (h) Rom. 16.19 Your obedience is published into euery place none of which prayses he gaue to the Thessalonians But lest we should gather any preeminence of the Roman Church because the Epistle to the Romans among all S. Pauls epistles hath the first place you preoccupate this obiection telling vs (i) Pag. 67. that the epistle to the Thessalonians and others were written before that to the Romans Be it so but we aduertise you with S. Anselme (k) Praefat. in ep ad Rom. It is to be belieued that they which collected S. Pauls epistles into one body iudged that the epistle to the Romans ought to haue the first place because it was
And therfore wheras here els where often (z) Pag. 377. 378. alibi you affirme peremptorily out of Ribera and take it as a truth granted by him and vs that Rome shall be the seate of Antichrist you passe the limites of truth for Ribera most expresly affirmeth (*) Adcap 11. Apoc. n. 20. sin 21. init that Antichrist shall haue his Court in Hierusalem reigne there and that the Iewes shall receyue and honor him as their Messias And the same is the most common and receaued opinion as well of our moderne Diuines as of the Ancient Fathers Hippolitus Martyr Lactantius S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine Sedulius S. Damascen Arethas Seuerus Sulpitius S. Gregory of Tours Venerable Bede Haymo and S. Thomas related by Suarez (a) Defens sid l. 5. c. 16. Bellarmine (b) L. 3. de Pont. c. 13. and Sanders (c) Visib Monarch l. 8. c. 26. that Antichrist shall not haue his seat at Rome but at Hierusalem And if the Rhemists say it may be that he shall haue his seat at Rome withall they rightly obserue that whosoeuer opposeth the Roman Church or belieueth otherwise then she teacheth belongs not to Christ but is an Heretike a member of Antichrist And the same was the beliefe of the most learned Doctors of Gods Church S. Hierome (d) Ep. 57. I know the See of Rome to be the Rock on which the Church is built And speaking to Damasus Pope (e) Ibid. Whosoeuer gathereth not with thee scattereth and is not of Christ but of Antichrist And before him S. Cyprian (f) L. 1. ep 8. had said He that gathereth out of the Church and chaire built vpon Peter scattereth Optatus (g) L. 2. cont Parmen that whosoeuer opposeth the Episcopall chayre of Rome built vpon Peter is a Schismatike and a sinner S. Leo (i) Ep. 75. that whosoeuer presumeth to oppose the Roman Church built by the voyce of our Sauiour vpon the most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles as vpon a Rock is either Antichrist or a Diuel S. Maximus a famous Martyr the greatest Diuine of his age (k) Epist. ad Marin Diue. that they which speake against the Church of Rome are heretikes that with vnbrideled mouths breath out iniquity against heauen S. Bernard (l) Ep. ad Hildebert Arch. Turon that they which be of God are vnited with the Pope and he that stands but against him either belongs to Antichrist or is Antichrist himselfe By these testimonies it appeares first how great reason the Rhemists Ribera and Viegas had to admonish you that this Prophecy of S. Iohn though in their opinion it point out the destruction of the City of Rome for her Idolatry vnder the Pagan Emperors and for the Apostacy from the fayth vnder other wicked kings in the end of the world when she shal returne to her ancient greatnesse yet it aymeth not at the Church of Rome or Bishop therof because that Apostacy shall be from the fayth of that Church and from the Bishop therof 2. And since you confesse (m) Pag. 75. that these Authors admonish their readers here of againe and againe thereby you conuince your selfe of folly for this your argument out of the Apocalyps against the Bishop and Church of Rome is wholy grounded on their exposition testimony which being so manifestly against you what man but your selfe would haue produced them or which is all one S. Iohn as expounded by them for witnesses against the Roman Church Or with what coÌ„science could you say here (n) Pag. 74. afterwards againe so boldly repeate (o) Pag. 377. 378. as their Doctrine that Rome shall be the seate of Antichrist since Ribera from whom Viegas dissententh not most expressly teacheth that Hierusalem shall be his seate and that he shall raigne there Is not this a most wilfull falsification 3. And from hence the reader may learne how fraudulently you remit vs to the testimonies of Ribera Viegas in their exposition of this text of S. Iohn to proue a necessity of your departure from the Church of Rome since they condemne you as an heretike and the holy Fathers pronounce you to be a member of Antichrist for it The departure which S. Iohn speaketh of is not from the Church of Rome but from the idolatry and vices which in his tyme reigned in the City of Rome and shall reigne in her againe in the end of the world And this departure is not to be made so much by locall motion as by steps of fayth that is by not communicating with her in her wickednesse And therfore notwithstanding that admonition of S. Iohn Goe out of Babylon my people the faythfull in his tyme did not leaue the Citty of Rome but still remayned there departing from her idolatry and other Vices But you aske (p) Pag. 76. 77. If the destruction of Babylon mentioned in the reuelation point only at the Citty and not at the Church or Bishop of Rome how can the Pope at that tyme still remayne Bishop of Rome when he and all Christian people are departed out of the City and the City it selfe is vtterly extinct for then to be called Bishop of Rome say you is but a man in the moone and Titulus sine re I answeare though at that time the Citty of Rome shall be consumed with fire yet the Church of Rome shall not for you (*) Pag. 76. confesse that the Church rather consisteth in the Professors then in the place and therefore whiles the faythfulll Professors of the Roman Church yea of Rome it selfe with their Bishop shall remaine which shal be till the end of the world though not in the Citty after it is destroyed the Church of Rome shall still remayne according to your owne Principle and chiefly according to the oracle of Christ That the gates of Hell shall neuer preuaile against her Suppose which God forbid Turkes and Infidels should take from you the Citty of Durham or that the same should be consumed by fire into ashes the whole multitude of your good godly Christians escaping away with your selfe liuing and being by you fed in some corner of your Diocesse in this case would you say the Church of Durham should be extinct the Bishop of Durham become Titulus sine re Should the superintendent of Durham be changed into the man in the Moone The Citty of Rome as Ribera (q) Ribera in Apocal c. 1â— n. 47. Pontificem cum multitudine Sanctorum eijcient Nam multi viri boni ex has potissimùm Ciuitate â—iecto Pontifici adhaerebunt holdes shall towardes the end of the world fall from the Christian fayth and obedience of her Bishop not that all the people of Rome shall fall away for a great multitude of good Christians and Saints shall remaine constant and adhere to the Pope and depart with him out of the Citty yea the Citty it selfe
that all men are to learne from her the Doctrine of fayth deliuered vnto her by the blessed Apostles And this is the reason why Tertullian speaking of Marcion and Valentinus (q) Ibid. c. 30. proueth them to be heretikes because they had fallen from the faith into which they had beleeued in the Roman Church Nam constat c. For sayth he and his words no lesse agree to Luther and Caluin then to Marcion and Valentinus it is manifest that they first beleeued the Catholike Doctrine in the Roman Church vntill in the tyme of the blessed Bishop Eleutherius for their turbulent spirit of nouelty wherwith they did also peruert their Brethren they were often excommunicated and at length cast out for euer to perpetuall ruine By this it appeareth that the Roman fayth was then held to be the Catholike fayth and the Roman Church which Tertullian calleth The Catholike Church (r) L. 4. cont Marcio c. 4. the Head and Mistresse of all Churches in the world for Marcion was borne at Sinope in Pontus and for his heresy and lewdnesse of lyfe excommunicated by his owne Father a holy Bishop who refusing to absolue him he went to Rome to seeke absolution but his Father opposing obteyned it not ValeÌ„tine was as Aegyptian borne and hauing fallen into heresy in Cyprus came to Rome in the tyme of Higinius Pope and feigning himselfe to be a Catholike was receaued into the Communion of the Roman Church but falling often backe into heresy as a dog returning to his vomit was finally cast out of the Church by the blessed Pope Elutherius as you haue heard Tertullian report And why did these heretikes as also Cerdon at the same tyme when they sought absolution from heresy come from so remote countreyes subiect to other Patriarkes and why from all the Easterne Church and why all of them to the Church of Rome in particular but because they knew her to be the Head Mistres of all Churches that had power to absolue all those which had bene excommunicated by any other Bishops whatsoeuer and to be the originall and center of Catholike Communion and that so long as they remayned out of her bosome they nether were nor should be esteemed Catholikes nor to be in state of saluation Herby it appeares how little reason you had to say out of Beatus Rhenaus (s) Pag. 131 1â—â— though Tertullian giue an honorable testimony to the Church of Rome yet be did not esteeme her so highly as wee see her accounted of at this day And since you acknowledge that Rhenanus his mouth for that and other his inconsiderat speeches is gagged by the Index expurgatorius you shew litle iudgment in obiecting his authority against vs. SECT VIII Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church VVHat hath bene sayd sheweth the futility of your argument out of Vincentius Lyrinensis which is like to the two former out of S. Iraeneus and Tertullian And how little support you haue for your cause in the authority of this ancient and learned Father he will testify for himselfe for when the Doctrine of rebaptizing Heretikes at their returne to the Catholike Church defended by Firmilianus Bishop of Cefarea Agrippinus S. Cyprian Bishops of Carthage and many others wrought so great inconueniences that it gaue a paterne of sacriledge to all heretikes and occasion of error to some Catholikes Vincentius declareth how Stephen then Pope of Rome suppressed it by his authority When sayth he (t) L. cont propha haeres nouat c. â— all men euery where exclamed against the nouelty of that Doctrine all Priests in all places ech one according to his zeale did opppse then Pope Stephen of blessed memory Bishop of the Apostolike See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops but yet more then the rest thinking it as I suppose reason so much to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth as he did surmount them in the authority of his place To conclude in his epistle which then was sent to Africa he decreed the same in these words Let nothing be innouated but that which comes by tradition be obserued And (u) Ibid. c. 10. notwithstanding that the contrary doctrine had sayth he such pregnant wits such eloquent tongues such a number of Patrons such shew of truth such testimonies of Scripture but glosed after a new and naughty fashion and that it was decreed in an African Councell yet the authority of the Pope declaring it a nouelty was of so great force that after he had condemned it all those things were abolished were disanulled were abrogated as dreames as fables as superfluous And afterwards (x) Ibid. c. 43. he alleageth as witnesses of his Doctrine diuers Greeke Fathers and addeth to them the authority of S. Felix Martyr and S. Iulius both Bishops of the Roman Church whom to declare their soueraigne authority he calleth The Head of the world And he concludeth Ibid. c. 45. Least in such plenty of proofes any thing should be wanting wee haue added for a conclusion a double authority of the See Apostolike the one of S. Sixtus a venerable man that now honoresh the Church of Rome the other of Pope Celestine of blessed menory his predecessor And their decrees he calleth Apostolicall and Catholike decrees SECT IX Other Obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared YOur obseruations are (y) Pag 101. seqq that S. Athanasius S. Augustine the Councels of Constantinople of Aegypt and of Cauthage reckoning diuers Bishops to shew their agreement in fayth with them name not only the Pope but other Bishops and write both to him them and consult with him and them as with their fellow Bishops which you say is to giue the Bishop of Rome so many mates and to equalize other Bishops with him But who seeth not what poore stuffe these your obseruations are For if one concerning matters of fayth should consult with his parish Priest and his Bishop would it follow that he equalizeth the parish Priest with the Bishop and maketh him his mate Or if you writing to the King and his Counsell I should lay to your charge that by consulting with his Maiesty and his Counsell you giue his Maiesty so many mantes as he hath Counsellors and equalize them in power and dominion with him would you not thinke mâ— a trifling and indeed a childish opponent how then shall wee thinke otherwise of you that by like consequence go about to equalize other Bishops with the Pope among themselues CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome THAT the Councell of Nice acknowledged the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ouer all Bishops is proued 1. Because Iulius a most holy Pope in his third Epistle which S. Athanesius hath inserted into his second Apology writing to the Arians and declaring vnto them the right of the Roman See to haue the
man highly esteemed by you hath taught you (t) Not. in ep Cyp. ad Cornel that the word Brother there signifieth not equality but society of religion And nothing els is signified by the words Colleague and Fellow-minister when other Bishops are so instiled by the Pope or the Pope by them For that ancient Father Vincentius Lyrinensis speaking of Pope Stephen and other Bishops opposing the doctrine of rebaptization defended by Firmilianus and Cyprian sayth (u) Cont. haer cap. 9. Then the blessed Stephen made resistance together with but yet before his Colleagues iudging it as I conceaue a thing worthy of him to excell them in fayth so much as he did in the authority of his place And Innocentius the first in answere to the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis (x) Inter ep Aug. ep 93. I conceaue that all our Brethren and fellow-Bishops ought not to referre what may be profitable in common to all Churches to any but to Peter that is to say to the author of their name and dignity And the Bishops of Aegypt in the Synod of Alexandria call S. Athanasius their Colleague (y) Athan. Apol. de fuga sua who yet was their Head and had iurisdiction ouer them as the Coūcell of Nice declareth (z) Can. 6. And lastly the Bishops of the Councell of Ephesus call Celestine Pope their fellow-minister (a) Par. 2. Act. 1. and yet in the same place stile him their most holy Father and make themselues executors of his decrees Constrained necessarily say they by the force of the Canons and by the letters of our most holy Father and Fellow-minister Celestine we are come not without teares to pronounce this heauy sentence against Nestorius I conclude therfore that these words Brother Colleague and fellow-minister when they are vsed by the Pope to other Bishops or by other Bishops to the Pope signify nothing els but society of religion and vnity of communion from whence to inferre as you do that other Bishops are of equall authority with the Pope is a peece of ignorance no way suiting with a man of your reading and altogeather vnbeseeming him that holds the place of so great a Bishop SECT IV. A friuolous cauill of Doctor Morton against Bellarmine answeared YOu obiect (b) Pag. 109. fin that wheras Theodoret sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is letters the yeares past Bellarmine against all Lexicons readeth The mandate of letters Is not this fine art trow yee c. If any should translate the yeare past into Mandate might it not be suspected that the mans witts were now in the wayne as being ignorant c. So you who by seeking to shew your wit in scoffing at Bellarmine discouer your ignorance and folly Bellarmines intent is to shew that the Councell of Constantinople was called by the Popes authority because the Fathers of the Councell writing to Damasus acknowledge that they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his letters which Bellarmine translateth mandato literarum by command of his letters following the version of Christopherson and with good cause for who is so stupid as not to vnderstand that it is all one to call the Bishops to a Councell by his letters as the Greeke sayth or by the authority and Mandate of his letters as Christopherson translated But to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Mandate neither did Bellarmine so translate nor would any man whose wits are not in the wayne haue imputed so grosse an ignorance to that learned Cardinall especially since in two different places he setteth downe the same passage at large and expresseth both Mandato litterarum (c) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. In Respon ad Apol. pro iuram fidel pag. 375. and Anno superiore saying Mandato litterarum superiore anno à vestra Reuerentia ad sanctissimum Imperatorem Theodosium missarum by the Mandate of letters sent the last yeare by your Reuerence to the most religious Emperor Theodosius Which sheweth that if he had left out of the Latin Anno superiore as you citing his words cunningly do it had not bene to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Mandate but to omit Anno superiore as a particle wholly impertinent either to proue or disproue the Popes power of calling generall Councells which no way dependeth on the yeare but on the authority and dignity of his place SECT V. Of the Decree of this second Councell generall made in fauor of the Archbishop of Constantinople AGainst what hath bene said you oppose a (d) Pag. 112. 113. Canon of the second Councell ordayning that the B. of Constantinople haue the honor of primacy next after the B. of Rome because Constantinople is new Rome This Obiection reboundeth on your owne head For if the Bishop of Constantinople sought then to obtayne the second place after the Pope because Constantinople is new Rome it is therby manifest that before that tyme the B. of old Rome had the primacy aboue all Bishops The primacy I say not of order only for this the Bishops of Constantinople neuer denied to the Pope but of authority and iurisdiction ouer the Patriarkes of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem for that authority it was in which they sought to participate with him though in the second place after vnder him which they cold not haue done vnlesse the primacy of authority ouer those Patriarkes had primitiuely and originally belonged to him So farre therfore is this your Argument from euincing any thing against the Popes authority that it confirmeth the same And so much the more because the Canon obiected whatsoeuer the sense of it be and whatsoeuer the Bishops of Constantinople pretended by it is of no force for the Councell in which it was made consisted only of the Bishops of the East and therfore was not Generall of it selfe but only by the adiunction and confirmation of another Councell of the Westerne Bishops held at Rome vnder Damasus Pope at the same tyme which neither knew of this Canon before it was made nor confirmed it after it was made as S. Gregory hath testified saying (e) L. 6. ep 31. The Roman Church neither hath nor receaueth the Canons or the Actes of the Councell of Constantinople but she hath admitted that Synod in what it defined against Macedonius And the same is testified by S. Leo (f) Ep. 53. who reprehending Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople for seeking to renew this Canon in the Councell of Chalcedon sayth The signature of certaine Bishops made as thou vauntest more then threescore yeares since cannot iustify thy intention to the vpholding whereof being of it selfe from the beginning ruinous and long since quite fallen thou hast sought weake and feeble props for neuer hauing bene transmitted by thy predecessors to the knowledge of the See Apostolike it could be of no force That this Canon was neuer allowed by the See Apostolike you know but shift it off saying (g) Pag 112. Truly it
that if very speedily that is within the tyme prescribed by the most holy Bishop of the Roman Church he renounce not the Nouelties of his Doctrine he is to haue no more communion with vs not place among the Minister of God And the Councell it selfe proceeding to the sentence of condemnation against him sayth (n) Conc. Ephes to 2. c. 20. Constrained necessarily by the force of the Canons and by the letters of our most holy Father Celestine we are come not without many teares to pronounce this heauy sentence against him And then they couch the sentence it selfe in these words (o) Ibid. Therfore our Lord Iesus Christ whom Nestorius hath assailed with his blasphemies by this holy Synod pronounceth him wholly depriued of all Episcopall dignity and cast out from all company and conuersation of Priests These passages proue the authority of the Pope 1. Ouer Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria whom he made his Vicar and who acknowledged himselfe bound by Celestines letters to condemne Nestorius and cast him out from among the Ministers of God 2. Ouer the Patriarke of Constantinople whom he first condemned at Rome and afterwards gaue command to Cyrill to publish his condemnation at Constantinople and to substitute another Bishop in his place And 3. ouer the Councell of Ephesus in which the Bishops professe (*) Euagr. l. 1. c. 4. that they were compelled necessarily by the force of the Canons and by the letters of Celestine to condemne Nestorius Which sayth Bellarmine was to professe that they deposed him by the command of Pope Celestine False say you (p) Pag. 114. There is not the word Command vsed by the Councell c. No you know well that to command was not the stile of Popes in primitiue and ancient tymes S. Gregory B. of Rome 150. yeares after Celestine did vtterly abhorre it I command sayth he Away with the word Command I haue not commanded And the same you repeate afterwards againe (q) Pag. 233. And to persuade your readers that the passages alleaged containe no Command of Celestine to Cyril or to the Councell you shift them off saying (r) Pag. 115. Those Fathers confesse they were moued and compelled by Celestines letters meaning by the persuasions of that Orthodox Bishop and that but only tùm tùm in part for so they say Both by the Canons and also by your letters But this euasion cannot serue for they say not They were persuaded by Celestines letters there is no mention of persuasion but that they were necessarily compelled by them which is to be Commanded for Persuasions do not necessarily compell but Commands And what more cleare then that Celestine did exercise the authority of a Iudge and Commander in ordayning Cyrill to execute exactly and seuerely the sentence of condemnation against Nestorius if he did not within ten dayes after admonition giuen him anathematize his hereticall Doctrine Was this only to persuade Was it not most strictly and properly to command Vnlesse you will say that when his Maiesty without vsing the word Command giues strict charge to his Iudges to condemne a Malefactor he commands them not but only persuades them to condemne him But you say (s) Pag. 115. Those Fathers were compelled by Celestines letters and by the Canons and therfore not wholly by his letters but only in part What then If the Iudges say they are compelled by the lawes and by his Maiesties letters to condemne a malefactor doth it therfore follow that his Maiesty hath no authority to command the Iudges or that his letters were not mandatory to them but only persuasiue with such poore euasions you deceaue your disciples But you say (t) Pag. 114. We well know that to command was not the style of Popes in primitiue and ancient times Pardon vs Syr we well know that you speake vntruly and ignorantly for Victor the first Pope of that name who liued in the first age after Christ commanded the Asian Bishops to celebrate the Feast of Easter after the manner of the Roman Church and excommunicated them that obeyed noâ— (u) Euseb l. 5. hist c. 24. 2. Anthetus that liued in the beginning of the next age writ to the Bishops of Andaluzia Toledo These things we command to be obserued according to your desire (x) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 145. Stephen the first of that name writing to S. Cyprian commanded that such as were baptized by hetetikes should not be rebaptized Let nothing be innouated sayth he (z) Vincent Lyr. aduers haer c. 9. but the ancient to adition abserued And notwithstanding the opposition of S. Cyptian of Firmiâ—ianâ—â—s and many other learned Prelates this command of Stephen preuailed and the contrary doctrine was condemned by the Councell of Nice as hereticall 4. Iulius the first of that name rebuked the Arians (a) Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. because they had rashly depersed Athanasius and other Catholike Bishops and commanded that some of them in the name of all should appeare at Rome on a set day to giue â—ccempt of the iustice of their sentence and threatned not to let them passe without punishment vnlesse they did leaue to innouate And both Theodoreâ— (b) L. 2. hist. c. 4. S. Athanasius (c) Apol. 2. out of an vndoubted Epistle of the same Pope report that following the Ecclesiasticall law hâ— commanded the Arian Bishops to come to Rome and suâ—â—â—ned Athanasius canâ—nic ally to present himselfe in iudgment and that as soone as he receaued the citation he transported himselfe in diligence to Rome What thinke you of these examples Was it not the stile of ancient Popes before S. Gregory to command and to command the greatest Patriarkes of the East But let vs goe on 5. Anastasius the second of that name speaking to Anastasius the Emperor sayth (d) In ep ad Anastas Aug. Let not Pride make resistance to the Apostolicall precepts but those things which are commanded by the Roman Church and Apostolicall authority let them be obserued 6. when Aurelius Bishop of Carthage writ to Damasus Pope for a copy of all the decrees and Statutes ordeined by the Roman Church since S. Peter to his tyme he sent them to him saying (e) Ep. 5. We wish you to obserue them and command you to publish them that with due reuerence they may be kept by all The African Bishops acknowledge (f) Ep. ad Bonifac in Concil Africa c. 101. that they had receaued from the Pope Mandata literas Mandates and letters 8. Gelasius a learned holy Pope maketh expresse mention of the decrees and commandes of the Popes his predecessor for the good of the Church (g) Ep. â— 9. Leo the great writing to Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople testifieth (h) Ep. 4â— that he bath enioyned him the execution of his decree And in his first Epistle which is to all Bishops he sayth All the decrees and constitutions as well of Innocentius of
he sent to the Councell instructions in writing what forme they ought to obserue in their iudgment And finally the Councell it selfe acknowledged that the Pope presided in it You say they to Leo (m) In relat ad Leon. presided in this assembly as the head doth to members exhibiting your good will by those that held your place And the faythfull Emperor presided for ornament sake and to see good order kept that is to hinder by his secular power such tumults and murders as had bene lately committed in the second false Councell of Ephesus Who seeth not that the whole Councell in these words acknowledged the Pope to be their Superior and themselues to be his subiects since they professe that he ruled ouer them at the head doth ouer the members SECT II. That the Councell of Chalcedon by the authority of Leo Pope deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus and restored Theodoret. THe supreme authority of the Pope is yet further proued out of the Councell of Chalcedon For Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople hauing reckoned vp the enormities of Eutyches requested Leo Pope to confirme the sentence of condemnation which in a Coūcell at Constantinople he had pronounced against him Moued then saith he (n) In ep praeambul Concil Chalced most holy Father with all these attempts of Eutyches with those thinges which haue bene done and are done against vs and against the holy Church worke confidently according to your courage as it belongs to the Priesthood and making the common cause and the discipline of the holy Churches your owne Vouchsafe to confirme by your writings the condemnation which hath bene regularty made against him Leo according to this petition of Flauianus condemned Eutyches and depriued him of his dignity Dioscorus sayth the Councell of Chalcedon writing to Leo (o) Relat. ad Leon. by the decrees of his tyranny hath declared Eutyches innocent and restored to him the dignity wherof he was depriued by your Holinesse What els is this but to say that albeit Eutiches had bene condemned by Flauianus his owne Bishop and lawfull Iudge yet afterwards when Flauianus by Eutyches his negotiation being deposed in the false Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo Pope and Leo declaring him innocent deposed Eutyches the Councell of Chalcedon imbraced this sentence of Leo and attributed to him the finall deposition of Eutyches as to the supreme Iudge that had power to reiudge the iudgments of other Bishops Which power Valentinian the third writing to Theodosius acknowledged and declared in this very cause of Flauianus We ought sayth he (p) In ep praeamb Conc. Chalced. to preserue inuiolable in our dayes the dignity of particular reuerence to the blessed Apostle Peter that the holy Bishop of Rome to whom antiquity hath attributed the Priesthood aboue all may haue place to iudge in matters of fayth and of Bishops c. For therfore according to the custome of Councells the Bishop of Constantinople Flauianus appealed to him in the contention which is risen about points of fayth The same power was like wise acknowledged by the Councell of Chalcedon in the cause of Theodoret Bishop of Cyre who being deposed by the second Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo and was restored by him and therupon admitted to take his place in the Councell of Chalcedon Let the right Reuerend Bishop Theodores come in say the Emperors officers (q) Conc. Chalc. act 1. that he may haue part in the Synod because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his Rishoprick and the most sacred and religious Emperor hath ordayned that he assist in the holy Councell Now that the Emperor ordayned not this as challenging any authority ouer Bishops but only as one that by his officers assisted at the Councell to execute the Popes decrees and to see peace and good order kept you haue heard the Councell testify (r) Sect. praeced and he himselfe declared the same saying to Pope Leo (s) In ep praeamb Concil Chalced. Our desire is that peace be restored to the Churches by this Councell celebrated vnder your authority The authority then is in the Pope not in the Emperor And when the cause of Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria came to be examined the Councell inquiring of the Popes Legates what charge they had against him Lucentius one of them answeared (t) Act. 1. Euagr. l. 2. c. 18. Dioscorus must yeld an account of his Iudgement because hauing no right to do the office of a Iudge he attempted it and presumed to hold a Synod without the authority of the See Apostolike a thing which nether was nor cold euer lawfully be done And Paschasinus another of the Legats (u) Act. 1. Wee haue here the commandes of the blessed and Apostolike Prelate of the City of Rome which is the Head of all Churches wherby his Apostolate hath vouchsafed to command that Dioscorus Archbishop of Alexandria sit not in the Councell but yet that he be admitted to be heard Wherupon the Councell commanded him not to sit as a Iudge among the Bishops but to stand in the middest as a person accused to answeare for himselfe (x) Euag. l. 2. c. 4. And the Councell hauing heard his whole cause condemned him requesting the Popes Legates to pronounce the sentence of condemnation against him (y) Act. 3. We beseech your Holinesse who haue the place and primacy of the most holy Pope Leo to pronounce the sentence against him Wherupon the Legates Paschasinus Lucentius and Bonifacius pronounced it in these words (z) Ibid. Therefore Leo the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of the great and ancient Rome hath by vs and by this present Synod together with the thrice blessed and worthy of all praise Peter the Apostle who is the Rock and Head of the Catholike Church and the foundation of the right fayth deposed Dioscorus from the Episcopall dignity and depriued him of all Sacerdotall function To this sentence all the Bishops subscribed And it is to be noted that wheras many most enormous crimes of Dioscorus are there rehearsed (a) Ibid. yet that which the Councell iudged to exceed all the rest was that he had presumed to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of great Rome Leo which enormity of his the whole Councell exaggerating to Leo sayd (b) Relat. ad Leon. And after and aboue all these things he hath extended his phrensy euen against him to whom the guard of the Vine hath bene committed by our Sauiour that is to say against your Apostolike Holinesse and hath dictated an Excommunication against you that seeke to vnite speedily the body of the Church In which words the Councell plainly professeth that the custody and charge of the whole Church signified vnder the name of a Vine was giuen to the Pope by our Sauiour and that he because he is Head of the Church laboreth to vnite the body thereof which also they
with the B. of Rome after him But this addition to the Canon of equall priuiledges was surreptitiously made by the vsurpation of Anatolius to augment his power for the Fathers of Chalcedon neuer owned it as it appeares in this that when they beseeched Leo Pope to confirme their decree they made to him no mention of Equall priuiledges but only said (s) In relat ad Leon. We haue confirmed the rule of the 150. Fathers assembled at Constantinople which ordeyned that after your most holy and Apostolike See that of Constantinople should haue the second place of honor which is to say that as the B. of Rome had the Primacy absolutely ouer all the Patriarkes so the B. of Constantinople should haue it after him ouer all the other Patriarkes So this Canon is reported by Euagrius It was decreed sayth he (t) L. 2. c. 4. fin that the See of new Rome by reason she held the second place after the ancient Rome should haue the primacy before the other Sees In which sense and in no other Socrates (u) L. 5. c. 8. testifieth this decree to haue bene made in the Councell of Constantinople which was the source of all this pretence And Iustinian the Emperor speaking of both these Councells sayth (x) Noueâ— 131. that in them it was decreed that as the holy Pope of old Rome is the first of all Prelates so the Archbishop of Constantinople new Rome should haue the second place after the See Apostolike of old Rome and be preferred before all the other Sees And long after that time the Emperor Basilius the yonger and Eustathius Patriarke of Constantinople (y) Glaber Rodulph hist l. 4. c. 1. desired that it might be lawfull for them to obteyne with the consent of the Pope that the Church of Constantinople might be called Vniuersall in the compasse therof as the Pope of Rome was in the compasse of the whole world By this appeares that although the Fathers of those two Councells contrary to the decrees of Nice endeauored by this Canon to make the B. of Constantinople the first and chiefest Patriarke of the East and to conferre on him after vnder the Pope an vniuersal iurisdiction ouer the other Patriarkes yet they neuer intended therby to put any limitation to the Vniuersall Iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church nor any way to exempt themselues or the Patriarkes of Constantinople from his subiection and obedience Which is also further proued 1. By the testimonies of Zonaras and Nilus both of them Greeke Schismatikes and enemies to the Roman Church Zonaras sayth (z) In Conc. Constantin 1. c. 3. that wheras the Councell of Constantinople ordeyned that the Bishop of that Citty should be the second after the Pope of Rome some thinke that the Preposition after importeth not inferiority and submission but only posteriority of tyme and in proofe of this their opinion they make vse of the 28. Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon which ordaynes that new Rome shold be honored with the same ecclesiasticall prerogatiues as old Rome and should be preferred in honor before all the other Churches being the second after her But this sayth he is refuted by the 130. Nouell of Iustinian inserted into the third title of the fifth booke of the Basilikes which giues the Canon to be otherwise vnderstood And therfore he concludeth saying (a) Ibid. From hence it appeares manifestly that the Preposition after signifies submission and inferiority And Nilus B. of Thessalonica (b) De primatu Pâ—pae l. 1. We are not separated from peace for attributing to our selues the primacy nor for refusing to hold the second place after the principality of Rome for we neuer contested for primacy with the Roman Church 2. The same is proued for the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the deposition of Eutyches and Dioscorus in the restitution of Theodoret to his Bishoprick (c) See aboue sect praeced in confessing (d) In relat ad Leon. themselues to be his members and him to be their Head in submitting to him their decrees to be confirmed and in particular this made in fauour of the B. of Constantinople We haue say they (e) Ibid. confirmed the decree of the 150. Fathers confiding that the beame Apostolike raigning amidst you and you by your ordinary gouerment spreading it to the Church of Constantinople you may cause it to shine into these partes because you are wont without enuy to enrich those of your linage with the participation of your goods Againe if we speake of Anatolius in particular who to augment his owne power was the proiecter of this decree how can it be thought that he did not acknowledge himselfe to be a spirituall subiect of the Pope he I say who being made Patriarke of Constantinople by Dioscorus in the false Councell of Ephesus had no right to that See but only by the confirmation of Leo Pope which afterwards he obteyned in regard wherof Leo writing to Martian the Emperor against this attempt of Anatolius said (f) Ep. 54. It shold haue sufficed him that by the help of your Piety and by the consent of my fauor he hath obteined the Bishoprick of so great a Citty And what els did Anatolius himselfe signify when speaking of the Acts of the second Councell of Ephesus in which Maximus was chosen Bishop of Antioch he said (g) Cone Chalced. Act. 10. My verdict is that none of the things ordeyned in the pretended Councell of Ephesus remaine firme but that which was done for Maximus B. of great Antioch for as much as the most holy Archbishop of Rome Leo receauing him into his communion hath iudged that he is to rule the Church of Antioch 3. Because the Fathers of Chalcedon knowing that without the Popes confirmation their decree could be of no force had recourse to Leo beseeching him to confirme it We beseech you say they (h) In relat ad Leon. to honor our decrees with your iudgment and that as we haue held correspondence with our Head for matters of weale so your Soueraingty will yeld to your Children in things of decency for in so doing the religious Emperor shall be gratified To this their petition Leo assented not but wholy annulled and abrogated their decree The Piety of your fayth being ioyned with vs sayth he to Pulcheria the Emperesse (i) Ep. 55. we annull the plots of the Bishops repugnant to the rules of the holy Canons established at Nice and by vertue of the authority of the Blessed Apostle Peter we wholly abrogate them by a generall sentence Another Epistle of the same tenor he addressed to the whole Councell of Chalcedon (k) Ep. 61. And to Anatolius himselfe he likewise writ (l) Ep. 53. Neuer may my conscience consent that so depraued a couetousnesse be furthered by my fauor but rather that it be suppressed by me by them that allow not
that the See of Constantinople is subiect to the See Apostolike which both our Lord the most religious Emperor and our brother Bishop of the same City do continually protest But wheras we say that Leo neuer confirmed this decree of the Councell but only such Canons and decrees as concerned matters of sayth This answeare say you (y) Pag. 121. proueth you faithlesse in all your defence for if he therfore opposed the decree of that Synod which oppugned the Papall primacy and dominion because it was no matter of fayth he therby plainly confesseth your Article which maintayneth the dominion of the Roman Church not to be at all an article of fayth But Syr you wholly mistake your marke for this decree was no way against the primacy of the Pope as hath bene proued (z) In this Chap. sect 2. Nor did Leo refuse to confirme it because it oppugned his primacy but because by vertue therof the Patriarke of Constantinople iniustly and against the Canons of the Nicen Councell sought to make himselfe superior to the other Patriarkes of the East whose rights the Pope as supreme Gouernor of the vniuersall Church was bound to maintayne Yea this decree was so farre from oppugning his primacy that from it may be drawne a strong Argument in proofe therof for why els was the decree sent to him to be confirmed but because the Councell knew it could be of no force without his confirmation Lastly we say that this decree could be of no force because it was made by the vsurpation of Anatolius after the departure of the Iudges of the Senators and of the Popes Legates You answeare (a) Pag. 121. that the Popes Legates were absent because they would not be present Why do you not say the same of the Iudges and the Senators You might with as much truth But for the Popes Legats Liberatus (b) Brâ—u c. 13. beares witnes against you that they knew not of any such decree vntill the next day after it was made And therfore wheras you wish vs (c) Pag. 121. to tell you if we can where there cold be found more impudent boldnesse in any then appeared in the Popes Legates who offered to face downe 400. Bishops in a Councell with a manifest vntruth obiecting circumuention in framing the Act We finde no impudence at all in the Popes Legates but we find it in a very high degree in your selfe who haue the face to deny circumuention in an Act made by the vsurpation of Anatolius to augment his owne power espying his tyme when there was no Patriarke of Alexandria and all the Bishops of Aegypt who had most reason to oppose it were absent being excluded by his meanes vnder pretence that it was not lawfull for them to signe the decrees of Councells without the will and command of the Patriarkes in absence of the Popes Legates of the Emperors officers and of the greatest part of the Iudges which were the Bishops that assisted at the Councell You say (d) Pag. 122. that 430. Bishops concurred to the making of this decree But you cannot be excused from ignorance or fraud for albeit Marcellinus Comes (e) In Chron. Liberatus (f) Breu. c. â—3 Photius (g) De 7. Synod c. 4. and Leo Pope (h) Ep. 5â— beare witnesse that 630. Bishops assisted at the Councell yet of all that number none concurred to the Act nor signed it but those of the Patriarkship of Antioch and of the prouinces neere Constantinople which were few more then 200. as the Acts themselues testify (i) Apud Biâ— tom 2. pag. 134. 135. which alone is a sufficient proofe that the decree was not Canonically made but by surreption and fraud What Aetius spake in defence therof is not to be regarded for he being an Archdeacon of Constantinople an abbettor of Anatolius his clayme vttered diuers manifest vntruthes in fauor of this decree as 1. that the Popes Legates had notice of it before it was made 2. That the Fathers yelded the primacy to the Pope because Rome was the seate of the Empire 3. The 150. Fathers in the Councell of Constantinople granted to the Bishop of that City priuiledges equall with the Pope wheras they make no mention at all of equall priuiledges but absolutely place him after the Pope (k) Can. 3. 4. and that the same Councell had adiudged to the Patriarkes of Constantinople the ordination of the Metropolitans of Pontus Asia and Thracia wheras it ordaines directly the contrary (l) Can. 2. namely that the Bishops of Asia should gouerne the affaires of the Dioces of Asia the Bishops of Pontus the affayres of the Dioces of Pontus and that the Bishops of Thracia that is to say of Constantinople should gouerne the affaires of thracia only which decree is in like manner reported by Socrates (m) L. 5. c. 8. And when in the Councell of Chalcedon it selfe (n) Act. 11. there was speach of hauing a new Bishop of Ephesus ordayned in place of Bassianus and Stephen both of them inuasors of that See the Clerkes of Constantinople pretending that this new Bishop ought to be ordeyned by the Patriarke of Constantinople according to the Canon of 150. Fathers in the first generall Councell of that City the Bishops of Asia minor prostrating themselues before the Councell protested against it crying out that it was contrary to the Canons and that of 37. Bishops of Ephesus which had liued since S. Timothy vntill that tyme all of them had bene ordayned at Ephosus Bassianus only excepted who comming in vnlawfully was by Violence ordeined at Constantinople which caused great tumultes and many murders in the City of Ephesus that the like wold now fall out againe if their Metropolitan were ordeined out of the prouince Wherupon the Bishops of the Councell cryed out (o) Ibid. Let the Canons stand let the Bishop be ordeyned in the prouince This protestation of the Asian Bishops sheweth that when afterwards they subscribed to the contrary and being asked said they did it willingly they were partly wroght to that answeare by Anatolius and the Clerkes of Constantinople abusing the fauor of the Senate and partly moued by a false relation of Eusebius B. of Dorilaeum a principall abbettor of Anatolius his clayme who testified that the decree was approued by the Pope I haue sayth he (p) Act. â—6 voluntarily subscribed this Canon because I haue read it at Rome to the most holy Pope and he approued it And therupon it was that the Fathers of the Councell said to Leo Pope (q) In relat ad Leon. We haue taken the boldnesse to confirme it as a thing begun by your Holinesse And yet neuerthelesse this testimony of Eusebius was full of falshood and fraud as Bonifacius one of the Popes Legates conuinced out of the instructions giuen to him and the other Legates in writing (r) Act. 16. one of them being that they should not suffer
the Canons of the holy Fathers to be violated by any rashnesse and that if any trusting in the power of their City shold offer to vsurpe any thing contrary to the dignity of his person they should represse them as iustice requireth Which in like manner Leo himselfe testified to Maximus Patriarke of Antioch (s) Ep. 62. If they say that the brethren which I send in my steed to the Synod haue done any thing more then what concernes fayth that shall be of no force because they were sent by the See Apostolike only to root out heresies and defend the fayth CHAP. XX. The fifth Councell Generall beliued the supreme Authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome SECT I. Doctor Mortons ignorance and contradictions concerning this Councell IN your discourse of the fifth Generall Councell contradictions ignorance vntruthes march by troopes for 1. (t) Pag. 122. here you suppose the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas Archbishop of that Citty to be the fifth generall and afterwards you directly affirme the same (u) Pag. 289. marg lit 0. when speaking of the Councell vnder Menas and alleaging the Synodicall relation made out of the Epistle of Pope Agapetus extant in the first action therof you call it Concilium secundum Constantinopolitanum quod erat quintum generale The second Councell of Constantinople which was the fifth generall And againe twice more (x) Pag. 347. lin 14. pa. 348. lin 11. you repeate that this Councell vnder Menas was a generall Councell And yet in another place contradicting your selfe you say no lesse expresly (y) Pag. 238. lin 11. that it was not a generall Councell It was then a generall Councell and it was not a generall Councell Reconcile these two eris mihi magnus Apollo 2. You acknowledge (z) Pag. 238. 347. that this Councell vnder Menas was held in the inter-regnum or vacancy between the death of Pope Agapetus and the election of his successor the yeare 536. and yet not without contradiction you proue out of Baronius and Binius (a) Pag. â—â—2 in t is sect 6. pag. 123. lit m. that the fifth generall Councell was held the yeare 553. which was neither in the vacancy after Agapetus his death nor in the tyme of Siluerius his successor but in the 14. yeare of Vigilius full 17. yeares after the other vnder Menas And as these two Councells differed in tyme so they did in matter for in that vnder Menas was handled the execution of the second sentence which Agapetus Pope before his death pronounced against Anthymus but in the fifth generall was discussed the cause of the Three Chapters Is it not then great ignorance in you to confound these two Councells the one being particular consisting of 50. Bishops only the other generall of more then 165. the one held vnder Menas the yeare 536 and the other vnder Vigilius Pope the yeare 553 and to frame Arguments out of them both as out of one and the same Councell 3. You say (b) Pag. 189. marg lit o. that the Councell vnder Menas was the second Councell of Constantinople and yet you had said before (c) Pag. 235. marg lit s. that it was the fifth Councell of Constantinople neither the one nor the other being true for betweene this and the first generall Councell of Constantinople there were held eleuen or twelue other Councells vnder diuers Patriarkes of that City as you may read in Baronius (d) Apud Spond Ind. verb. Constantinop Concil 4. To proue this Councell vnder Menas to be a generall Councell you alleage (e) Pag. 347. Binius who sayth directly the contrary to wit that it consisted of such Bishops only as were neere to Constantinople and some others then resident in the City all of them being but 50. in number whose names are expressed in the beginning of the first action And the same is testified by Baronius (f) Anno 536. and Bellarmine (g) L. 1. de Conc. c. 5. l. 2. de Pont. c. 13. by Zonaras (h) In vita Iustinian and Nicephorus (i) Lib. 17. c. 9. SECT II. Doctor Mortons ignorance further discouered and his falsifying of Binius COming to the relation of what passed in the fifth Generall Councell you say (*) Pag. 122. Anthimij causa ab Agapeto Papa condemnata Binius Tom. 2. p. 416. post in Synodo Constantinopol ventilata Idem Binius in Not. Conc. Constant. sub Menna This is an egregious falsification for Binius hath no such words and therfore your setting them downe englished in a different character as his is another false sleight that by fathering them on him you might ground on his authority the Argument which out of them immediatly you frame against the authority of the Pope saying (k) Ibid. This argueth the no-dominion of the Pope ouer that Councell which will take vpon them to examine that cause which the Pope before had condemned But these your words besides falshood containe excessiue ignorance for Agapetus pronounced two sentences of condemnation against Anthymus By the one he deposed him from the See of Constantinople by the other from the See of Trebizond In the former sentence the Councell had no hand for it was definitiue and absolutely perfected and put in execution Menas being ordeined in Anthymus his place by Agapetus his owne hands before his death But because Anthymus was not only an vsurper of the See of Constantinople but also guilty of heresy Agapetus being solicited by the Eastern Bishops ordained that wheras vpon the sentence of his deposition from the See of Constantinople his owne See of Trebizond had bene reserued vnto him if he did not cleare himselfe from the crime of heresy he should also be deposed from that See and withall excommunicated and depriued of all Sacerdotall title and of the very name of a Catholike But because Agapetus dyed before the tyme which he gaue Anthymus to purpe himselfe from the imputation of heresy Menas the Patriarke after his death assembled a Councell not to re-examine mine and ventilate the sentence of deposition which Agapetus pronounced against Anthymus as you ignorantly mistake but to put in execution the second sentence which he had begun but preuented by death could not finish All this is cleare out of the petition of the Regulars of Syria reported in the Councell it selfe when speaking of the first sentence of Agapetus they say (l) In Conc. sub Mena. Act. 1. God sent into this Citty Agapet truly Agapet that is truly beloued of God and man Pope of old Rome for the deposition of Anthymus and of the aforesayd heretikes as heretofore he sent great Peter to the Romans for the destruction of Simâ—n the Magician This reuerend person then knowing by the requests of many of ours the things iniustly attempted vpon the Churches and knowing them by sight would not so much as admit into his presence Anthymus transgressor
of the Canons but iustly deposed him from the Episcopall See of this Citty Loe here the first sentence absolutely finished by Agapet before his death And then speaking of the second sentence they adde (m) Ibid. Afterwards the Bishops of Palestine assembled in this Citty and others of the East and deputies of others and we did againe present petitions touching Anthymus and the other heretikes and demanded that Anthymus should certify his beliefe by writ to the See Apostolike and should purge himselfe from all hereticall errors in this case returne to the Church of Trebizond or if he would not do it that he should be finally condemned and deposed from all Sacerdotall dignity and action And a litle after (n) Ibid. These our iust requests the same most holy personage Agapet preuenting and seeing that Anthymus had fayled to appeare condemned him with the aforesaid heretikes and despoiled him of all office and dignity Sacerdotall and of all title Orthodoxall euen till the pennance of his errors The same is declared by all the Fathers of that Councell who in their sentence pronounced against Anthymus speaking of his first deposition say (o) Act. 4. The Blessed Pope Agapet of most holy and happy memory setting with God his hand to the sacred Canons deposed Anthymus from the See which belonged not to him pardoning those which had participated and communicated in the act And then passing to the second sentence they adde (p) Ibid. But because that euen in doctrine Anthymus was charged with many accusations and that many petitions were preferred against him by diuers reuerend personages to the most religious Emperor and the most blessed Pope the same most blessed Pope after much paine taken with a Fatherly care to regaine his soule c. pronounced a sentence in writing against him full of Clemency and seemly holynesse granting him tyme of repentance and ordayned that vntill he had changed his opinion and satisfyed the doctrines canonically defined by the Fathers be should neither haue the title of a Catholike nor of a Priest This sheweth that the Councell intermedled not at all with the first sentence of Agapet by which Anthymus was deposed from the See of Constantinople but because this second sentence of his deposition from the See of Trebizond was not absolute but left depending and subiect to reuocation if he should appeare and purge himselfe from heresy the Councell taking the cause where the Pope left it and according to the order giuen by him cited Anthymus thrice to appeare and because he appeared not executed the Popes sentence on him deposing him from the Bishopricke of Trebizond and depriuing him of the title of a Priest and the name of a Catholike We say they (q) Act. 4. in sentent cont Anthym following those things which haue bene rightly examined by the most blessed Pope ordayne that he as an vnprofitable and rotten member be cast out of the body of the holy Churches of God and depriued of the Bishopricke of Trebizond and depriued of all sacred dignity and action and according to the sentence of the most holy Pope stript euen of the name of a Catholike Who now seeth not how ignorantly and vntruly you haue said (r) Pag. 122. that The cause of Anthymus which the Pope had condemned was afterwards ventilated in the Councell of Constantinople For those Fathers neither questioned nor any way examined either the first or the second sentence of the Pope against Anthymus but assembled themselues to put in execution the sentence which Agapet had pronounced and being preuented by death could not see executed All which is so farre from making against the iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the Bishops of the East that it is a strong proofe therof And that it may better appeare how vnaduised you are to vrge this history against the authority of the Roman Church it is to be noted that Anthymus an Eutychian heretike not contenting himselfe with his owne Bishopricke of Trebizond by the fauor of Iustinian who as yet knew not that he was an heretike and chiefly by the craft of Theodora the Empresse an Eutychian and for that cause a great fauorer of Anthymus intruded himselfe to the See of Constantinople But Agapet Pope coÌ„ming thither deposed him and with his owne hands ordayned Menas in his place which was an admirable effect of the power of S. Peter in his Successor for at that tyme Constantinople was the seate of Iustinian and the Head of the Empire wheras Rome was oppressed and made a slaue vnder the tiranny of Gothes a barbarous and Arian people The Church of Constantinople was most florishing and glorious and that of Rome greatly depressed and afflicted Iustinian the Emperor waâ— vâ—ctorious and triumphant and contrarily the Pope brought to such straytes that Theodat an Arian King of the Gothes threatned to ruinate the Roman Church vnlesse he would goe to Constantinople solicite the Emperor for peace and procure him to call his armies out oâ— Italy which vâ—â—â—ge therfore Agapet could not refuse though he were so poore that for the performance therof he was inforced to pawne the sacred Vessells of his Church wheras on the other side Anthymus being exalted by the Emperor and Empresse from the Bishoptick of Trebâ—zond to the Patriarkeship of Constantinople was very powrefull in meanes and highly fouored by them both And yet neuerthelesse and that the Empresse threatned Agapet if he deposed Anthymus and promised him great rewards if he would leaue him in the See of Constantinople the holy Pope soon after his ariuall being a stranger and without support deposed him casting him out of that See euen in the very Imperiall Citty in the presence of the Emperor that fauoured him and excommunicated Theodora the Empresse that obstinatly maintained him and with his owne hands ordained Menas a Priest of Constantinople in his place and pardoned Peter Patriarke of Hierusalem and other Bishops of the East that had communicated with him All this is accordingly reported by Marcellinus Comes (s) In Chron. Liberatus (t) Breu. c. 12. Victor of Tunes (u) In Chron. edit per Ios Scal. ad calc Chron. Euseb and Iustinian himselfe (x) Nou. 42. and is so cleare an euidence for the supreme authority of the B. of Rome that it admitteth no colour of answeare SECT III. Of the matter treated in the fifth generall Councell THe matter disputed in this Councell was about certaine writings of Theodorus Mopsuestinus Ibas and Theodoret commonly called Tria capitula The three Chapters Before the Councell Vigilius Pope with the Bishops of the West defended the Three Chapters which the Easterne Bishops opposed and what both of them did was vpon pious considerations in defence of the Councell of Chalcedon The Bishops of the East assembled in a Councell at Constantinople condemned the Three Chapters But Vigilius knowing that the Westerne Bishops stood in opposition to their sentence refused to confirme it hoping by that
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
ignorant that the custome is that we be first written vnto that from hence may proceed the iust decision of things If therfore any suspicion were conceaued against the Bishops there it ought to haue bene referred hither to our Church And therupon he denounceth to them that in condemning Athanasius without expecting his sentence they had done contra canones against the Canons namely of the Nicen Councell which he setteth downe in his second Epistle to them and that aswell Athanasius as other Catholike Bishops whom they had condemned in appealing from their Councell to him as he in repealing their Actes in restoring the Appellants to their seates and in summoning their aduersaries to Rome had done quod Ecclesiastici Canonis est according to the Canons of the Church If therfore the holy Popes Iulius Felix Marcus and Liberius that liued soone after the Councell of Nice if S. Athanasius that was personally present if Iohn the learned Orator of the Latines speaking in all their names in the councell of Florence if Socrates Sozomen Theodoret Nicephorus and many other ancient writers deserue to be credited and if they knew how to call things by their proper names there were in the Nicen Councell more then 20. Canons properly so called which is also acknowledged by your Protestant brethren (a) Brereley Prot. Apol. Tract 1. sect 7. subdiu 2. Oecolampadius who chargeth the Latin copies of the 20. Canons as defectiue Caluin M. Iuell and M. Bilson mentioning a Canon of the Nicen Councell concerning the Sacrament and lastly by Doctor Whitgift (b) Brereley ibid. prouing out of the second Councell of Arles S. Hierome and other approued authors diuers Canons which are not to be found in those 20. The testimonies which you obiect for the contrary vrge not Not that of Pope Stephen for though he say that in the Roman Church there are 20. Chapters of the Nicen councell yet he immediatly addeth that it is vncertaine by what negligence the rest are wanting which words you wittingly leaue out mangling the sentence that so he may seeme to fauor your opinion of the 20. Canons Theodoret and Nicephorus speake only of 20. Canons or lawes made pro conformandis moribus for ordering or reforming of manners wheras notwithstanding as Pisanus out of their owne words hath obserued els where they acknowledg that the Arians in condemning Athanasius had infringed the Nicen Canons and that Athanasius in appealing to him had done according to the same Canons Wherfore it the two Patriarkes Cyrill and Atticus knew not of more then 20. Nicen Canons it was because the Arians hauing cast out the Catholike Bishops and possessed their seates as we read in Socrates Sozomen Theodoret and Nicephorus (c) Brereley ibid. had corrupted the Canons of that Councell and suppressed those which declared their proceedings to be vnlawfull contrary to the Nicen Canons And howsoeuer those Patriarkes thought you cannot deny that your 20. Canons were not the only nor all the true Canons of Nice vnlesse you will grant the Canons of Ruffinus which you allow to be corrupt and false for as Osiander confesseth (d) Epit. Cent. 4. pag. 122. those 20. of Ruffinus differ ordine rebus both in order and matter from the others which Cyrill Atticus sent out of the East And the same is yet made more euident out of the Councell of Florence affirming (e) Sess 20. that by the testimonies of many ancient and holy Fathers the African Councell it selfe did know those Canons which they receaued out of the East to be corrupt and false It resteth therfore that neither they nor the other of Ruffinus comprehend all the true Canons of Nice but that there were others declaring the primacy of the Roman Church her authority to call confirme Councells and in particular her right of appeales as Pisanus hath proued whom therfore you abusiuely alleage for the contrary Nor is your dealing better with Turrianus for albeit he grant that as in the Councell of Chalcedon so likewise in that of Nice beside Canons there were among the Actes other Decrees or Constitutions and that of this number are the seuerall Decrees which you set downe out of him yet with what conscience do you conceale the rest for in the words immediatly preceding he sayth In illis Actis c. In those Actes was also contayned that Canon of Appeales which Zozimus Pope in the sixt Councell of Carthage witnesseth to be of the Nicen Councell and which after the Nicen Councell was renewed in the Councell of Sardica C. 7. And is not this very point here in question Our dispute is not verball whether the decree of Appeales to Rome made in the Councell of Nice were a Canon properly so called or a Constitution Words of this kind are by the best authors vsed promiscuously The canons of Councells are somtimes called Canones somtimes Capitula somtimes Leges somtimes Decreta somtimes CoÌ„stitutiones The reall difficulty betweene vs is whether appeales to Rome were decreed in the Councell of Nice by any either Canon properly so called or by any Law or Constitution That they were decreed hath bene proued and that not only ancient writers giue it the name of a Canon but enen Pisanus and Turrianus those very two whome you produce for the contrary I conclude therfore that as this your discourse is a digression from the truth so it is from the purpose and a trifling shift to put of the reall difficulty by reducing it to a question de nomine And that which most sheweth your folly is that by trifling you wholly ouerthrow your cause for you grant (f) Pag. 302. all the examples which our Authors collect out of the Fathers and Councells as though they had bene Canons of the Nicen Councell to be Constitutions of the same Councell though not Canons which is to grant that in the Nicen Councell there was a Constitution wherby Appeales to Rome were decreed for this is one of the examples which our Authors collect out of the Epistles of Iulius out of Socrates Sozomen Theodoret Nicephorus and other ancient writers And this alone is sufficient to shew that as you deny the same without ground so you conclude your digression falsly saying (g) Pag. 303. that the decree which the Popes alleaged for appeales is not to be found at all either among the Canons or the Constitutions of the Councell of Nice SECT III. Whether if there had bene no Canon for appeales to Rome in the Councell of Nice it had bene forgery in Pope Zozimus to alleage a Canon of the Sardican Councell for a Canon of Nice SOme Catholike writers coniecture that the Canons of appealing to Rome which Pope Zozimus directed to the Africans were Canons of the Councell of Sardica but sent by him vnder the title of Nicen Canons You say (h) Pag. 145. These Canons of Sardiâ—a mun be iudged fictions and that it is sufficiently proued to be a falâ—hood
that any such Canons were extant in the Councell of Sardica I cannot but meruaile at so great boldnesse for that those Canons were extant in the Councell of Sardica is a truth proued not only by all editions of the Councells and all Catholike writers but auerred by the Magdeburgians by Osiander Peter Martyr and Iohn Caluin (i) Brereley Protest Apolog tract 1. sect 7. subdia â— It is true that Caluin accuseth Zozimus of hainous impudency and fraud in citing the Councell of Sardica for that of Nice But his accusation hath no other ground then his hatred to the See of Rome for were it true as it is not that the Canons which Zozimus sent were not of the Councell of Nice but of Sardica and that he had sent them as Canons of Nice it had not bene fraud or forgery in him as it was not in S. Mathew (k) Cap. 27. â— to cite Hieremy for Zachary because it was the same Spirit of God that spake in both those Prophets And so likewise the Councell of Sardica was of no lesse authority then that of Nice Againe the Councell of Sardica consisted in great part of the same Fathers that the Nicen Councell did and was an explication and confirmation therof Wherfore the Sardican Canons might not vnfitly beare the name of Nicen Canons as the Constantinopolitan Creed because it is an explication and confirmation of the Nicen beares the name of the Nicen Creed Moreouer the ancient Fathers numbring the Councells after that of Nice euer reckon immediatly the first of Constantinople which they do vpon no other ground then because they repute the Councell of Sardica to be an Appendix of the Councell of Nice and therfore as all one with it For these reasons Zozimus might without any forgery or falshood haue cited the Canons of the Councell of Sardica vnder the title of Nicen Canons as it is the custome of the Greekes to cite the Trullan Canons vnder the title of the Canons of the sixth generall Councell because they pretend the Trullan Councell to be an Apendix and supplement of the sixth Councell generall And so in like manner S. Gregory of Tours (l) De gâ—st Fran. l. 9. c. 33. citing a Canon of the Councall of Grangres without either fraud or forgery calls it a Canon of the Nicen Councell because the Councell of Gangres was a branch and slip of the Councell of Nice Finally and if these Canons were not indeed of the Councell of Nice but of Sardica how can Zozimus be thought to haue vsed any fraud or forgery in alleaging them as the Councell of Nice since it had bene more aduantagious for his purpose against the Africans to haue alleaged them as Canons of the Councell of Sardica for as much as the fifth generall Councell beareth witnesse (m) Act. â— that in the Councell of Nice there was no other B. of Africa but only Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage wheras in the Councell of Sardica were present and subscribed 30. African Bishops who are all named in particular by S. Athanasius (n) Apol. 2. which might haue bene a great motiue to the Africans to submit to those Canons as being approued and signed by so many Bishops of their owne nation But the truth is that albeit the Africans had notice of a Councell held at Sardica yet as Peron learnedly proueth (o) Repliq. l. 1. Chap. 49. the Donatists had suppressed in Africa the copies of the true Councell of Sardica and those which the Africans had in the tyme of S. Augustine and the sixth Councell of Carthage were copies of the Anti-councell which Sozomen mentioneth (p) L. 3. c. 10. held by the Arians at Philippopolis neere to Sardica which they to gaine credit to it and to their cause called The Councell of Sardica and published it in Africa vnder that name And this is the reason why S. Augustine professeth (q) Ep 163. Conâ— Cresâ—on l. 3. c. 34. that he knew no other Councell of Sardica but that of the Arians in which S. Athanasius was condemned wheras the true Councell of Sardica iustified S. Athanasius and confirmed the Councell of Nice This true Councell of Sardica you acknowledge to haue bene a generall Councell of the whole Church (r) Pag. 144. fin 14â— This the Centurists haue copied out and inserted into their fourth Century And this it is in which as well they as also Caluin Peter Martyr and Osiander acknowledge the Canons for appealing to Rome to haue ben made wherof if the African Fathers had notice they would not haue replied to Pope Celestine (s) Ep. ad Celestin We find it not to haue bene determined by the Fathers in any Synod that Legates should be sent from your Holinesse to order matters heere for it is expresly decreed in the Councell of Sardica (t) Can. 7. that if it shall seeme good to the B. of Rome he may send Legates to iudge the causes of Appellants in their owne Prouinces This sheweth how vntruly you deny that in the Councell of Sardica were extant any Canons for Appeales to Rome And since your owne brethren acknowledge them with what conscience do you iustify the Africans in their deniall of them or blame the Pope for defending his right against them especially since you confesse (u) Pag. 289. 304. that the Africans were subiect to the Pope as to their Patriarke SECT IV. Vntruthes and falsifications of Doctor Morton discouered and his Obiections answeared FIrst you obiect (x) Pag. 145. that 217. African Bishops S Augustine being a principall one shew that the Popes claime of Appeales had no patronage from the Councell of Nice but rather that there was in that Councell another Canon to controle it and that maketh much against such appeales by determining that Popes being so far remote from Africk could not be so competent iudges in such causes Except say they some will thinke that God will inspire one singular man with iustice and deny that grace to innumerable persons assembled togeather in a Synod These words Syr are not of the Councell of Nice but of the African Fathers in their Epistle to Celestine Pope Is it not then a mere delusion to obiect them as a Canon of the Nicen Councell to controle appeales to Rome They speake not of matters of fayth for the same Fathers a little before had sent to Innocentius Pope to confirme with his authority the sentence of Condemnation which they had pronounced against Pelagius and Celestius in the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis acknowledging (y) Aug. ep â—2 that God did guide him in his consultations of fayth and therfore hoping that those Heretikes would more easily yield to his authority drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures then to the authority of their Councells Wherfore in the words obiected they speake only of particular and personall causes of fact ciuill and criminall in which as those Fathers declare witnesses were to
Bishop and Pastor as not being true Pope and cleaueth to one opposite vnto him men dying in the state of this Disobedience cannot possibly be true Martyrs nor be saued Thirdly there is Disobedience moral in matter of good life manners against precepts enacted by the Church for the better auoyding punishing of ill behauiour Now in the state of this kind of Disobedience men may be saued for the disobeying of these kind of orders and commands may proceed either from contumacy and contempt or from errour and ignorance If out of contempt then is it damnable so that none dying therin can be Martyrs or goe to heauen But with Disobedience of the second kind caused by ignorance Saluation and Martyrdome may stand for their ignorance may be inuincible or else probable and grounded vpon good seeming reasons Or if it be vincible and faulty yet may it be abolished by their contrition for all their sinnes or falce Martyrij by the sickle of Martyrdome done away This supposed I say the Disobedience of the African Bishops was not Heretical because in all matters of sayth they were conforme to the Church of Rome and by manifold practise shewed that about doubts and controuersies of this kind they held it necessary to haue recourse to (n) Ep. Concil Mileuit 92. inter Epist August the Pastorall Chayre and care of Peter to the (o) Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 10. l. 4. ep 8. Roote and matrice of the Catholike Church to the Rocke which the (p) August Psal cont part Donat. proud gates of Hell do neuer ouercome to the maine indeficient fountaine which with the streames of wholesome doctrine watereth all Christians ouer the whole world The ancient rules say they the foure Primates of Afrike (q) Ep. ad Theodor. Papam Extat in Concil Lateran 1. consult 2. Bin. to 2. p. 1075. haue ordayned that whatsoeuer is treated in Prouinces distant and farre of should not be deemed to be ended vntill first it were come to the knowledge of the See Apostolike to the en that the sentente which should be found iust might be confirmed by the authority of the same See and that from thence all other Churches as streames flowing from their mother source might take the beginning of their preaching and the Sacraments of Saluation Their Disobedience then could not be Heretical nor was it Schismatical because they acknowledged the Pope euen that Pope with whome they did disagree to be their Pastor and Superior whose (r) August Epist. 157. Iniuncta nobis à Venerabili Papa Zozimo Ecclesiastica necessitas lawfull Commaunds they were bound to obey that all Maior causes all matters controuersies aboue Iurisdiction of greater moment to wit such as concerne sayth and the life and gouernment of Bishops are to be referred vnto him and to be finally and infallibly decided by him Neither thirdly was their Disobedience ioyned with contumacy and contempt because though they refused to deferre vnto the Appeales which Priest infertour Clergymen might make to the Pope yet they do it with great humility and respect and by way of submissiue intreaty in their (s) Ep. ad Caelestin apud Sur. Tom. l. Coucil pag. 520. letter to Pope Celeftine Praefato debitae Salutationis officio impendio deprecamur vt deinceps ad aures vestrashinc venientes non facilius admittatis The behoofe of due Salutation or Reuerence being premised we humbly beseech you that those which come from hence with their Appeales you will not admit them vnto audience ouer-easily Therefore their disobedience was out of ignorance for they did not doubt but the Pope had power to command the Bishops of Africa to yield vnto the Appeales that were made vnto him but they esteemed the practise of that power not to be in those circumstances for the good of the Church of Africa They saw by appealing to Rome that dissolute and vnruly Clergymen would cause much vexation vnto the Bishops their lawfull Iudges prolonge the cause differre the sentence and many times escape deserued punishment which impunity might easily grow into liberty and audacity and extreme disorder Wherefore the power giuen of Christ to his Church and Vicar on earth being giuen (t) â— Cor. 1â— 10 for edifying not for destroying they were persuaded that the Pope could not prudently command them to deferre vnto such Appeales and if he did that they should not be bound to obey therein You demand (u) Pag. 150â— whether the Pope of Rome whom we entitle Monarch of the Church Catholike and Bishop of Bishops would accept it as a matter of subiection for Protestants with S. Augustine and those other African Bishops to deny that any ought to be called Bishop of Bishop and not to yield to his demands in point of Iurisdiction vpon any pretence of Diuine Law but to exact of him proofe by a Canon of an ancient Councell I answere The African Bishops deny the title of Prince of Bishops to any Arch-bishop or Primate within Africke but not to the Roman Bishop yea they entitle him in expresse termes (x) Aruob in Psal 138. Tertullian lib. de pudicit c. 1. Stephanus Mauritaniae in Africa Episcopus Epist. ad Damasum Bishop of Bishops the Holy Father of Fathers the soueraigne Bishop of all Bishops and Pastors they call his Authority the Princedome of the Apostolike Chayre euer vigent in the Roman Church they acknowledge that they are bound to obey all his iust commandes that all Christians may and must Appeale to him about Controuersies of Religion and the Catholike Fayth August ep 1â—2 A postolitae Cathedrae principatum Item the foure Primates of Afrike in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Theodor in Conc. Lateran 1. Consul 2. Bintom 2 pag. 1078. Patri Patrum summo omnium Praesulum Pontifici Theodoro By which is answered what you alleage pag. 46. out of the 26. Canon of the Councell of Carthage yea Bishops also in criminal causes from the condeÌ„nation giuen against them by their fellow-Bishops But that the Pope should admit the Appeales so easely of euery African Priest and Clergyman hereof they doubt whether it be expedient for the African Church Now Bishops may be sometimes excused if they do not obey the Pope in matters that are extremely burthensome and hard specially when they haue probable reasons that it is not prudently commanded nor will proue for the good of soules But Protestants you are disobedient vnto the See of Peter and the Soueraigne Bishop of all Bishops in points of Iurisdiction allowed vnto him by ancient Councells Your disobedience is ioyned with Contumacy contempt contumely and base language You deny Appeales vnto him in matters and doubts about Christian Fayth Wherefore you want that dutifull subiection to Peters chayre without which none can be of the number of Christ his sheepe nor consequently be saued yea you are guilty of that damnable disobedience whereof S. Leo sayth (y) Epist 93. c.
and Scots not celebrating Easter after the manner of the Roman Church were for that cause separated from her Communion AMONG other examples of ancient Churches which you pretend to haue bene separated from the Church of Rome and yet in state of saluation you produce for your last instance (l) Pag. 156. 157. 158. the Britans and Scots who kept their Easter if not wholly after the Iewish manner yet contrary to the custome of the Roman Church of the whole Christian world Wherin you are guilty of diuers vntruthes For first you speake of this their custome as ancient among the Britans wheras Bede (m) L. 2. hist Anglo c. 19. recordeth that Honorius Pope about the yeare 635. and Iohn the fourth a few yeares after writ to the Britans and Scots letters full of authority and learning for correcting this errorâ— that Pope Iohn in the beginning of his Epistle (n) Extat apud Bin. to 2. pag. 1029. manifestly declareth nuperrime temporibus istis exortam esse haeresim hanc that this heresy was very lately sprung vp among them which Florentius Wigorniensis also testifieth saying (o) In Chron. an 628. Eo tempore c. At that time Honorius Pope did reproue the error of the Quartadecimans in the celebration of Easter sprung vp among the Scots 2. You attribute this custome to the Britans Scots in generall as if they had bene all guilty therof wheras Venerable Bede attributes it not to all the Britans non totis sayth he (p) L. 3 hist cap. 25. not to all of them nor to all the Scots but especially to such as dwelled in Ireland and also to some of them that dwelled in Britany Besides the whole English Church in a manner was free from that error 3. You assume (q) Pag. 190. as granted by vs that the Britans and Scots were schismatically diuided from the Church of Rome but not heretically That their opinion was Hereticall you haue heard Bede testify saying that this heresy was very lately sprung vp among them And who knoweth not that as hath bene proued (r) Chap. 23. the Quartadecimans had bene long before that time anathematized by the three first generall CouÌ„cells of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus and the maintainers of that error registred for heretikes by Philastrius S. Augustine Theodoret and others All which notwithstanding you are not ashamed to say (s) Pag. 157. init that the Britan Church did Orthodoxally in following the Quartadociman rite contrary to the custome of the Roman Church 4. Though the Britans and Scots in this their obseruation did disagree from the rest of the Christian world yet because they did it not with a schismaticall intention but out of simplicity and ignorance of the Ecclesiasticall computation they liuing in a corner of the world whither no learned Catholike Calculator of times had as yet come vnto them the See Apostolike did still retaine them in her communion deeming this error pardonable in them And therfore when the Abbot Colmanus in the famous conference held betweene him and Wilfridus concerning this matter vrged in defence of their custome (t) Apud Bed l. 3. hist. c. 25. that they could not belieue that their Reuerend Father Columba and his successors being men so beloued of God did contrary to the holy Scriptures in celebrating Easter as vntill that tyme they had done Wilfride answeared (u) Ibid. I deny not but that your Fathers were seruants of God and beloued of him whom they loued with a rude kind of simplicity but with a godly intention Nor do I thinke that this their obseruation of Easter was greatly hurtfull vnto them so long as none had come to them to informe them of the decrees of more perfection which they ought to haue obserued For I belieue that if a Catholike Calculator had come vnto them they would haue followed his admonitions c. And therfore sayth Baronius (x) Anno 604. n. 5. It seemed not good to the Catholike Church to blotout of the Catalogue of Saints such men as had liued among them eminent in sanctity and whom God had illustrated with miracles 5. But to proue that the Scottish and Brittish Churches were not subiect to the Roman you alleage (z) Pag. 157. marg Galfridus out of the Centurists saying Dinothus a learned Abbot proued with many Arguments that they owed no subiection to Augustine whom S. Gregory had sent to preach the fayth of Christ to the English This is a falsification which therfore you vent in the Centurists name for Galfridus hath not any one word of the Britans or Scots no-subiection to the Church of Rome but only a passionate and cholerick speach of the Britans not acknowledging any superiority of Augustine ouer them seing he was sent only to the English and that the authority of their owne Archbishop was not taken away by his comming for ought they knew which question of iurisdiction falleth out daily between Bishops euen where the Popes authority is most acknowledged Yea moreouer that both the Britans and Scots acknowledged the authority of the B. of Rome ouer them Galfridus against you and your Centurists beareth witnesse reporting (a) L. 9. c. 12. 11. that on the day of Pentecost at Chester King Arthur being present there was a great meeting of Princes Lords and Bishops for his Coronation And that of three Archbishops which Britaine had at that time of Chester London and Yorke Dubritius Archbishop of Chester being Primate of Britaine and Legate of the See Apostolike did the office of the Church and crowned King Arthur If therfore the Pope had his Legate in Britaine and that no lesse a man then the Primate of all Britaine it is manifest that the Britans acknowledged the authority of the See Apostolike oâ—er them Which is yet made more euident because as your Bale (b) De script Eceles fol. 30. confesseth Dauid that famous Welsh Bishop was canonized by Pope Calixtus the second and not only Bale but S. Prosper (c) Chron. â—n 432.434 Bede (d) L. 1. hist c. 13. 17. and Marianus Scotus (e) Chron. an 430. write that Celestine Pope sent Palladius and Germanus learned Bishops into Britaine to extirpate the Pelagian heresy and to reduce the Scots to true piety and Patricius who had studied Diuinity in Rome and was a man most excellent in learning and sanctity to the Irish and Scots to defend them from the same heresy All which sheweth that aswell the Britans as also the Scots Irish euen before the comming of S. Augustine were in the communion of the Roman Church and that the Pope had supreme care ouer them in spirituall affaires since he appointed them Bishops from Rome Iustly therefore may we conclude that your denying the subirction of the British Scotish and Irish Churches to the See of Rome at the time of S. Augustines coming into this Iland to preach to the English is grounded
wholly on falshood imposture as likewise is your affirming that the Africans from the time of Celestine Pope to Boniface the second were separated from the communion of the Roman Church for setting aside all other Arguments since you cannot deny that she in her Kalendar of Saints placeth many most glorious African Martyrs and Confessors of that time what man euen of common sense can persuade himselfe that she would honor them as Saints if they had died out of her Communion and obedience CHAP. XXIX Of the great Reuerence of ancient Christian Emperors and Kings to the Pope BELLARMINE (f) De officio Principis Christia l. 1. c. 4. 5. proueth that Emperors and Kings owe subiection to Bishops in sprirituall affaires as to their Pastors and especially to the Pope as to the supreme Couernor of the vniuersall Church and Father of all Christians And lest he might seeme by this Doctrine to derogate from the Maiesty of Emperors or Kings or any way to lessen the reuerence due to their persons and dignity he proueth by the vndoubted testimonies of Scripture of S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Gregory and other learned Fathers as also by the acknowledgment of the most godly Christian Emperors and Kings themselues that the Episcopall and Sacerdotall dignity excelleth the Imperial as farre as gold surpasseth lead and the Soule the body that not only Constantine the great but God himselfe honoreth Bishops and Priests with the name of Angells and Gods that the Bishop is the Father the Doctor Pastor aswell of the Prince as of the people and that Christian Princes when they speake of the B. of Rome or write to him expresse their acknowledgment of his supreme dignity by giuing him the title of Holy Father and Most Blessed Father From whence it must follow that as Disciples owe obedience to their Doctor Children to their Father sheepe to their Pastor so Christian Princes in the affaires of their soules owe obedience to their Prelates and Pastors and especially to the Pope who is the Father the Archpastor chiefe Doctor of all Christians Vpon this ground S. Gregory Nazianzen for his profound learning surnamed The Deuine feared not to say to the Emperor (g) Orat. ad ciues suos timo percul Princip irascent Will you heare me with patience to speake my mind freely vnto you which truly you ought to do for so much as the law of Christ hath made you subiect to my power and to my tribunall for we Bishops haue an Empire also and that more perfect then yours vnlesse you will plead that the spirit is inferior to the flesh and heauenly things to earthly But I doubt not but that you will take in good part this my freedome of speach you being a sacred sheepe of my holy flock and a Disciple of the Grand Pastor rightly instructed by the holy Ghost euen from your yong yeares And vpon the same ground it was that holy S. Bernard gaue this admonition to Conradus the Emperor (h) Ep. 183. I haue read Let euery soule he subiect to higher powers and he that resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God Which sentence I greatly desire and by all meanes admonish you to obserue in yelding reuerence to the soueraigne and Apostolike See and to the Vicar of blessed Peter as you will haue it exhibited to you by the whole Empire These learned Fathers did vnderstand right well the honor due to Emperors and Kinges that by reason of their dignity they are to be held in great Veneration and yet neuerthelesse conceaued it no vilifiyng of their Maiesty nor abasing of their Persons to require from them obedience in spirituall affaires to their Bishops and Pastors especially to the Successor of S. Peter the supreme Bishop of Bishops and Pastor of all Pastors This is Bellarmines Doctrine and the summe of his discourse which puts you so farre out of patience that not being able to confute what he hath so solidly proued you begin to raile at the Pope (i) Pag. 160.164 for permitting his feete to be kissed as tasting rankly of Luciferian pride Which though it be no Argument either against the fayth or supremacy of the Pope and Church of Rome but a friuolous cauill no way pertinent to the question in hand hath bene already satisfied to the full (k) Chap. 10. 2. You goe on in the same streame telling vs (l) Pag. 160. that we make a barbarous boast our Popes in not admitting of two Emperors Henry the fourth and Frederick Barbarossa to their presence without aâ—â—â—â—â—â—me kind of subuission the one by appoathing vpon his bare seet the other by subiecting his neck vnto the Popes feet while as the Popes one may brag of more fauor then the first and his asse thou the second So you but your scoffes rebound vpon your owne head and turne to your shame for Henry the fourth a most flagitious Emperor was excommunicated by Gregory the seauenth moued and solicited therto by the many complaints and extreme importunity of all the Princes Ecclesiasticall and secular of Germany Henry seeing himselfe for saken by them all and fearing least they would depriue him of his Empire vnlesse he reconciled himselfe to the Church and procured absolution from the excommunication he had incurred came of his owne accord to the Pope and presented himselfe vnto him in a penitentiall habit and bare-foot crauing absolution which after three dayes instance the Pope granted him hauing inuited him to dinner courteously dismissed him This in briefe is the story related more at large by Baronius (m) Anno 1077. who hauing proued that this pennance was no way extorted by the Pope but freely done by the Emperor conuinceth Ben no that affirmed the contrary of a most impudent lye told reclamantibus omnibus Authoribus against the agreeing consent of all Authors Wherfore you in alleaging Baronius for your author that we make a barbarous boast of the Popes not admitting this Emperor without approaching on his bare feet impose falsly on Baronius as Benno did on the Pope And as litle truth do I find in that your other tale of Fredericus Barbarossa for we are so farre from making any boast therof that we know it to be a mere fable in proofe wherof you bring nothing but the bare testimony of Massonius who whether he report it or no I know not nor is it worth the examining for you know him to be a moderne fabulous and forbidden Author (n) In indice lib. prohib and that this fable of his is disproued by Baronius (o) Anno 1177. n. 86.87 and Bellarmine (p) in Apol. c. 16. out of the testimonies of Roger Houeden an historian of that time Romualdus Archbishop of Salernum who being present and an eye witnesse of all that passed writeth that Frederick falling downe prostrate at the Popes feet the Pope with teares did most courteously lift him vp in his armes But
much that he hath left an especiall Constitution as a perpetuall monument therof to the world (b) Apud Gratis d. 19. c. 30. in Conc. Triburieu c. 30. He could haue told you that Basilius Macedo being present at the eight generall Councell in his Oration to the Fathers there assembled made (c) Act. 6. append open profession of his obedience to be Bishop and Church of Rome and that he gaue this memorable aduice to the Laity (d) Oras in fine Conc. that whereas not they but Bishops haue the charge of gouerment in the Church with the power of binding and loosing the dignity of Pastors belongs to them and that as well himselfe as all lay-men are sheep to be fed to be sanctified to be bound and losed from their bonds by them And if from Emperors he had passed to Kings he could haue told you that howbeit in the time of Lucius the first Christian King of this Iland there were many Churches sounded in Germany France and Spaine yet he desiring to be made a Christian required not the Sacrament of Baptisme from any Bishop of those Countries nearer at hand but writ and sent Embassadors to Eleutherius Pope that from him as from the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church himselfe his Queene and people might receaue so necessary a Sacrament as they did by the hands of Fugatius and Damianus whom Eleutherius sent for that purpose into Britaine (e) Bed hist. Augl l. 1. c. 4. de sex aesat He could haue told you that Of win King vnderstanding that the keyes of Heauen were giuen to S. Peter and that the Bishop of Rome was his Successor resolued not to oppose him but so farre forth as he knew and was able to obey his decrees in all things (f) Bed hist. Augl l. 3. c. 25. He could haue told you that Pope Adrian the first being dead and Leo chosen in this place Kenulphus King of the Mercians writ to him (g) Continuat histor Bode l. 1. c. 12. giuing thankes to God that he had prouided for his flock so solicitous a Pastor to whose commands said he I thinke fit to lend humbly an obedient eare And hauing asked his benediction he addeth This benediction all the Kings of the Mercians which haue gone before me haue obtained And that which I humbly craue and desire to obtayne from you O most holy is that you accept of me as your adopted Child as I choose and with all obedience reuerence you in the place of a Father He could haue told you that S. Edward the Confessor writing to Nicolas Pope (h) Alred Rieual in vita S. Edward addressed his letter to him with this inscription To the soueraigne Father of the vniuersall Church Nicolas Edward by the grace of God King of England due subiection If from England he had passed to other Countries he could haue told you that the most Christian King of France Lewis the eleauenth writing to Pius the second saluted him with this title (i) Ep. ad Pium 2. To our most blessed Father Pius the second Pope filiall obedieuce And in the Epistle We haue you that are the Vicar of the liuing God in so great veneration that with a willing minde we are ready to heare your sacred admonitions especially in Ecclesiasticall affaires as the voyce of our Pastor for we professe and know you to be the Pastor of our Lords flock and we obey your commands And among the documents which this holy King S. Lewis on his death-bed left in writing to Philip his Sonne this was one (k) Nangius de gest S. Ludou Surius 25. Aug. Be thou deuout and obedient to the Roman Church as to a Mother and shew thy selfe dutifull to the Bishop therof as to thy spirituall Father It were not difficult to adde more testimonies in the same kind of other Kings of France as of Charles and Hugh of Alphonsus the wise and Ferdinand the Catholike of Spaine of Leo King of the Armenians of Sigismund of Poland c. But these may suffice to persuade any iudicious reader that the most wise and godly Christian Emperors and Kings that Christendome hath bred haue belieued the Pope to be their Pastor and spirituall Father and themselues bound to yeld obedience to him in the affaires of their soules and withall to shew the falshood of your contrary Tenet CHAP. XXX Whether Christian Emperors haue inuested themselues in Ecclesiasticall affaires YOV maintaine the affirmatiue which you proue with seuerall examples all of them directly against your selfe SECT 1. Constantine the Great inuested not himselfe in Ecclesiasticall Causes IN the first place you alleage the example of Constantine the great who was so farre from medling with Ecclesiasticall causes that being solicited in the Councel of Nice to heare and determine certaine controuersies of Bishops he answeared (l) Ruffin l. 1 c. 1.8 Greg. l. 4 〈◊〉 72. Baron an 32â— God hath constituted you Priests and giuen you power to iudge of vs and therfore we are rightly iudged by you but you cannot be iudged by men Wherefore expect yee the iudgment of God alone and let your quarrels whatsoeuer be referred to his diuine iudgment for God hath giuen you to vs as Gods and it is not fit that man should iudge Gods but he alone of whom it is written (m) Psal 81.1 God stood in the congregation of Gods and iudgeth Gods in the middest of them In these words Constantine acknowledgeth the Episcopall power to be aboue the Imperiall and that a Priest in Ecclesiasticall causes hath power to iudge of an Emperor if he be in his Parish wheras contrariwise the Priest cannot be iudged by the Emperor more then the Pastor by his sheep or God by men But you obiect (n) Pag. 161. Constantine iudged the cause of Cecilian B. of Carthage And this you esteeme to be so choice an Argument that afterwards you repeate it twice againe (o) Pag. â—21 327. but very vnaduisedly this very example alone being of it selfe an abosolute demonstration of the falshood of your Doctrine for first the Donatists that required iudges from Constantine in the cause of Cecilian were heretikes who as they had forsaken the communion of Gods Church and as S. Augustine sayth (p) Ep. 1â—â— were guilty of the horrible crime of erecting Altar against altars so in their recourse to Constantine they violated the lawes of the Church for it is said S. Martin (q) Seuer Sulpititius â—ist sâ—â—â—cra l. 2. to the Emperor Maximus a new and neuer heard of impiety that a secular iudge should iudge a cause of the Church And S. Athanasius (r) Ep. ad Solit What hath the Emperor to do with the iudgments of Bishops Hath it euer heue heard since the beginning of the world that the iudgments of the Church did take their force from the Emperor (s) Ep. ad Constant extat aâ—ud Baron anno 355.
of Baronius saying that herein he is iustly reproued by many as one inuading vpon and intruding into the office of diuine Causes He is indeed reproued by diuers that thinke him to haue made ecclesiasticall lawes by his owne authority But by others he is iustly excused and in particular by Baronius (r) Anno 528. alleaging for his iustification as you confesse (s) Pag. 166. that he being a man wholly illiterate his Ecclesiasticall Constitutions were made by Epiphanius and Menas Patriarkes of Constantinople but publised in his name to the end they might be better obserued which was no way hurtful but profitable to the Church whose lawes were neglected and contemned by vicious Emperors and hereticall Prelates and people which at that tyme abounded in the East and especially by the Patriarkes of Constantinople many of them hauing bene infected with heresy This is apparent out of the expresse testimonies of Iustinian himselfe who not once but often professeth (t) Nou. 1 de Monast monach Nou. 81.123.133.137 that concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires he decreed nothing but according to the prescript of the holy Canons and therfore Iohn the second Pope of that name in an Epistle to him (u) Extat apud Baron anno 534. approueth and confirmeth his Lawes being informed by two Bishops Hypatius and Demetrius his Legates that they were made by the interuention and consent of Bishops according to the Doctrine of the See Apostolike decrees of the holy Fathers Wherfore Iustinian in those constitutions did nothing but what a Catholike and religious Prince might lawfully do without preiudice to the authority of the See Apostolike or inuesting himselfe in any part of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction Moreouer that by his Lawes he intended not to derogate any thing from the authority of the Bishop or Church of Rome his Lawes themselues beare witnesse We preserue sayth he in his law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (x) Cod. tit 1. L. 7. the estate of the vnity of the most holy Churches in all things with the most holy Pope of old Rome to whom we haue also written the like for we will not suffer any thing to passe concerning the affaires of the Church which shall not be referred to his Blessednesse because he is the Head of all the holy Prelates of God And in the Law Inter claras (y) Cod. tit 1. L. 8. into which is inserted that famous Epistle which he sent by Hypatius and Demetrius with a solemne Embassage to Pope Iohn against Cyrus and Eulogius Legates of the Acemites he sayth Yielding honor to the Apostolike See and to your Holynesse which is and euer hath bene our desire and honoring your Blessednesse as it becometh vs to honor our Father we haue speedily giuen notice to your Holynesse of all things that belong to the ecclesiasticall state for we haue had great care to preserue the Vnity of your Apostolike See and the state of the holy Churches of God c. And thersore we haue made hast to subiect and vnite all the Priestes of the East partes to the See of your Holynesse nor do we suffer that any thing belonging to the state of the Churches be is neuer so cleare and vndoubted be vnknowne to your Holynesse who are the Head of all the holy Churches To these restimonies of Iustinian you haue deuised diuers answers 1. With some petty Protestant Lawier you cauill at his Epistle to the Pope and the Popes answere to him as fictitious (z) Pag. 256. But this to be a calumny is learnedly proued by the two famous lawiers Alciatus (a) Parerg. l. 4. c. 24. and Cuias (b) Obseru l. 12. c. 16. 2. By Liberatus a writer of the same tyme (c) In Breu. c. 20. who reportes Iustinians embassage sent to the Pope by Hypatius and Demetrius and the Popes answeare to him which are extant in the same Law 3. By the testimony which Iustinian himselfe giues therof in his Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (d) Cod. tit 1. L. 7. and in his Epistle to Agapet Pope 4. By Leunclauius a Protestant Lawier who hath translated and printed Iustinians Epistle to the Pope and the Popes answeare to him as the eight Law of the Code 2. Wheras Iustinian call's the Pope The chief and Head of all Bishops and the Roman Church The Head of all Churches you answeare (e) Pag. 256. that we haue heard how common the word Caput hath bene without any sense of Monarchy We haue indeed heard you say (f) Pag. 50. 110. that the similitude of Head and Members implieth no superiority of iurisdiction but only of order that is of priority of place of voyce and the like But you also haue heard (g) Chap 11. Chap. 17. sect 2. how vntrue and repugnant not only to the beliefe of antiquity but euen to common sense this is 3. You obiect (h) Pag. 256. If this Rescript of Iustinian be taken so rigidly as we would haue it it is contradictory to another Constitution of his in which he grants the chiefe right in ecclesiasticall causes to belong to the Gouernor of euery Prouince We know that as while Iustinian was Catholike he made no Lawes but with the consent of Bishops and confirmation of Popes so if after he fell into heresy and contemned the authority of the Church he made lawes repugnant to the Catholike fayth and discipline of the Church t' is no wonder That proueth against you that heretikes are they which make lawes contrary to the fayth and discipline of the Roman Church and that if Iustinian had still remained a Catholike he would haue made no such lawes as he did not before he fell into heresy 4. You obiect (i) Pag. 166. Iustinian before he fell into heresy banished two Popes Siluerius and Vigilius To proue that he banished Siluerius you set downe these words as of Baronius Siluerium Papam mittit in exilium Iustinian sendeth Siluerius Pope into banishment But you abuse Baronius He hath no such words nor attributes the banishment of Siluerius to the Emperor but sayth he was sent into exile by Bellisarius and Antonina his wife partly at the instigation of the hereticall Empresse Theodora offended with him because he would not replace in the See of Constantinople Anthymus an Eutychian heretike and an inuader of that See whom therfore Agapet Pope had iustly deposed and partly for certaine crimes forged against him by her and Vigilius Yea Baronius (k) Anno 538. witnesseth that the Bishop of Patara comming to the Emperor and shewing him how displeasing it was to God that the Pope who is ouer the Church of the whole world to whom no King in the world is comparable should be driuen from his See he presently commanded him to be recalled from the place of banishment to Rome that the accusations against him of Treason might be examined But if Baronius had said that Iustinian
famous Bishops of Luca renowned for his learning and sanctity and illustrious for miracles in his life and after his death writ against Guibertus the Antipope set vp by the wicked Emperor Henry the fourth and among other praises giueth him the same that S. Cyprian in like occasion gaue to the holy Pope Cornelius I may affirme sayth he of Gregory our Father that which Blessed Cyprian writ of Cornelius He was made Bishop by the iudgment of God and of his Christ by the testimony of almost all nay to speake more truly of all the Clergy without exception by the verdict of the people that were present by the Colledge of ancient Priests and good men none other being created before him when the place of Alexander that is when the place of Peter and the degree of the Sacerdotall chayre was vacant And how true this testimony of S. Anselme is appeareth by the formall words of his election set downe by Platina (r) In vita Gregorij 7. wherin Cardinalls Bishops Abbots Priests all degrees of Ecclesiasticall men and laicks made choyce of him as of a man modest sober chast of singular learning of great piety wisdome iustice constancy and religion How thinke you Doctor Morton was this man likely to sport himselfe with tossing the crownes of Kings and Emperors from their heads You plead (s) Pag. 174. that his proceeding against Henry was not for any note of heresy but only for not subiecting himselfe to the Popes dignity and dominion Read the testimonies of graue writers almost 40. in number (t) Apud Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. c. 13. cont Barcla 〈◊〉 9. Genebrard in Chronico an 1087. many of which liued in his tyme and you shall find that Henry is censured as an Arch-pirate an Arch-heretike an Apostata a persecutor of soules more then bodies and for his behauiour and manners that he contemned the Princes of the Empire oppressed the Nobles exalted base fellowes and married to them the daughters of Noble men at his pleasure that not contenting himselfe with ordinary sinnes be inuented and committed others neuer heard of before in the world and to many men altogether incredible And with these authors Caluin agreeth saying (u) L. 4. Instit c. 11. sect 13. that he was light temerarious of no iudgment of great boldnesse of dissolute life and that he had all the Bishoprickes he might haue added and all the Archbishoprickes and Abbacies of Germany in his Court partly exposed to sale partly to prey and rapine Finally so abhominable was his lust so execrable his simony so great his oppression of Germany his life in all respects so flagitious and his person for that cause so hatefull that as Vrspergensis reporteth (x) Chron. an 1106. when he died there was not any one found in the whole Christian world that sorowed for his death nay that did not exceedingly reioyce therat euen as Israel reioyced at the drowing of Pharao in the red sea or as the people of Rome exulted in the triumphs of their Emperors Much more in this kind is reported by the afore-cited Authors to which Marianus Scotus an historian of that tyme addeth (y) Chron. an 1075. that the Catholikes which liued then in the Church seeing and hearing the horrible and vnheard-of crimes of Henry inflamed with the zeale of God for the house of Israel in imitation of the Prophet Helias sent messengers to Alexander then gouerning the See Apostolike and complained expressing their griefe with sighs and lamentations both by letters and words Wherupon sayth William B. of (z) L. 1. debello sacro c. 13. Tyre Gregory his successor before he proceeded against him sent thrice vnto him and with the loue and affection of a Father admonished him seeking to reclaime him winne him to his owne good but preuailed not I appeale to the iudgement of any impartiall Reader whether you haue not slandered and wronged Gregory in the highest degree saying that he sported himselfe with tossing the Emperors crowne from his head and this not far any note of heresy but only for not subiecting himselfe to his dignity and dominion Beware in tyme lest you which possesse the place of a Bishop be not punished by God as William B. of Maestricht was who sayth Lambertus Scafnaburgensis (a) Hist. râ—rum Germ. being suddainly surprised with a most grieuous sicknesse cried outwith miserable shrikes before all that by the iust iudgement of God he had lost both this present and eternall life for hauing taken part with the Emperor in his sacrilegious enterprises and in hope of gaining his fauor wittingly reproached the most holy B. of Rome a man of Apostolicall vertue and innocency Not vnlike to this was the miraculous punishment of Imbrico B. of Ausburg for the same fault related by Bartholdus (b) In Chron. an Historian of the same time And finaliy our holy Archbishop of Canterbuty S. Anselme if he were liuing would say to you as he did to Wâ—lramus that he would refraine from saluting you for taking part with Henry the Emperor against Gregory that being no lesse a crime then to take part with the successor of Nero and Iulian the Apostata against the successor and Vicar of Peter the Apostle I haue dwelled a while in this history of Gregory because of all the fower Popes against whom you here except you raile most intemperatly against him for therby the reader may vnderstand that as you slander him so you do also the rest for how excellent and godly a Prelate Zacharias was you haue heard and of the other two Historians report no lesse Of Innocentius they write that he was one of the most excellent Popes for good life and rate learning in many kindes that for many hundreds of yeares held the See of Rome to which his many workes full of singular erudition piety and contempt of the world giue witnesse By his meanes Liuonia receaued the fayth of Christ He built repaired adorned many Churches with rich gifts He sounded and endowed with great reuenewes that famous Hospitall of Sancti Spiritus in Saxia in which so many diseased and sicke persons euen to this day are cured and so many poore children and orphans bred vp and mantained He confirmed the religious orders of S. Dominick of S. Francis of the Heremits of S. Augustine of the Carmelites of the Croched Friers for the redemption of Captiues and others which haue yeilded innumerable men that with their sanctity and learning haue bene a most singular ornament to the Church of Christ and to whom the whole world is in debted for their great labors vndertaken for the glory of God for the conuersion of Infidels reduction of heretikes reformation of manners among Catholikes and for the excellent monuments of their workes in all faculties of learning Finally so great was the fame of Innocentius his sanctity and excellent gouerment that among other authors Blondus writeth (c) Dâ—cad 2. l. 7.
holy Fathers of Gods Church be true if the most religious Christian Emperors haue belieued aright the Episcopall and Sacerdotall dignity and especially the Papall excelleth the Imperiall and the Pope is in the number of higher Powers to whom obedience in spirituall things is due euen from the greatest Kings and Emperors as their practise witnesseth and the Apostle hath commanded saying (r) Heb. 13.17 Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them SECT II. Ancient Popes obiected and falsified by Doctor Morton YOur ancient Antagonist (s) P. Persons Treatise tend to mitig Chap. 6. 〈◊〉 34. and Cardinall Bellarmine (t) L. 1. de Conc. c. 13. haue told you long since that howbeit the B. of Rome was euer Head in spirituall matters ouer all euen the Emperors themselues yet in temporall affaires he did anciētly subiect himselfe vnto them as hauing at that time no temporall estate of his owne and therfore did then acknowledge them to be his temporall Lords and make supplication vnto them as for other things so particularly for the assembling of Synods in their Cities which could not be done without their authority and licence And in this respect the Popes of those tymes yielded due reuerence to the Emperors and had recourse to them as to their temporall Lords but that any Pope euer acknowledged subiection to Emperors in Ecclesiasticall affaires is a false Tenet which to make good you misconstrue mangle and corrupt the testimonies of ancient Popes First you say (u) Impost pag. 178. Liberius professed patience in suffering indignities from the Emperor and intreated for mercy And Vigilius being banished sued for peace and fauor What then A Christian suffering indignities from the great Turke may sue for mercy and fauor Doth he therfore acknowledge in the Turke right to persecute him or to offer indignities vnto him for his fayth as Constantius the Arian Emperor did to Liberius and Theodora the Eutychian Empresse to Vigilius 2. You obiect (x) Impost pag. 178. Sermon pag. 5. Simplicius professing continuall reuerence to all Christian Princes True but did he therfore professe that euery Christian Prince was his Soueraigne or that any Prince had right to command him in Ecclesiasticall affaires Reuerence is due from euery Christian man to all Princes and yet euery Christian man is not subiect to all Princes euen in temporall affaires much lesse in Spirituall But why do you conceale that Simplicius writeth that Epistle to the Emperor Zeno as to his spirituall child and professeth that by reason of his Apostolicall Chaire and gouerment he was bound to instruct him and declare the causes of fayth vnto him 3. The testimony of Leo (y) Impost pag. 178. Sermon pag. 5. making supplication to the Emperor to command a Synod to be celebrated in Italy hath bene already proued to make wholly against your selfe (z) See aboue Chap. 30. sect 4. 4. You produce Gelasius (a) Impost pag. 178. saying to the Emperor Anastasius that euen Bishops obey his lawes Bishops I grant obey the Lawes of secular Princes for the course of tempotall gouerment but withall Gelasius declareth to the Emperor that Albeit he be chiefe President in temporall affaires he knoweth and acknowledgeth himselfe in spirituall affaires subiect to Priests and especially to the B. of Rome and that from them he is to receaue the decisions of fayth and the heauenly Sacraments Why did you not in your Sermon giue notice of this to his Maiesty and the rest of your hearers 5. Hormisdas say you (b) Impost pag. 178. taketh notice of the Emperors command for gathering of a Councell as a motion from God and further acknowledged that he had receaued warning and that he ought to be present therat In proofe of this you set downe in your margent these words as of Hormisdas in his fifth Epistle to Anastasius the Emperor Futuram Synodum indicari mandas cui nos interesse debere ijsdem literis Deo vt credimus tibi imperanti commonuisti Ad liter as vestras respondi In this briefe passage there are diuers vntruthes and falsifications For 1. those words Futuram Synodum indicari mandas which you set downe as the words of Hormisdas are not his but forged by your selfe there is no mention of any command from the Emperor to him 2. And those words Ad literas vestras respondi are also feigned by your selfe and shew your ignorance in grammer for if Hormisdas had spoken to the Emperor in the singular number saying mandas and tibi imperanti commonuisti which you cite as his words he would not haue added in the plurall number ad literas vestras 3. When you say Hormisdas taketh notice of the Emperors command for gathering a Councell acknowledging that he had receaued warning that he ought to be present therat it is a plaine Imposture for in that very Epistle he protesteth to the Emperor that wheras he had warned him to be present at a Councell there is not in former ages any example or precedent of such a fact extant in bookes or in the memories of men but yet that at his inuitation he is willing to impose on himselfe that burthen without any precedent therof receaued from his predecessors alwaies prouided that the Emperor would performe those necessary conditions which both in that Epistle and in the instruction giuen to his Legates he proposed vnto him for the peace of the Church which were to abiure the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches to receaue the Councell of Chalcedon with the witings of S. Leo Pope and to blot out of the sacred records the names of Dioscorus Acacius and other heretikes The Emperor feigned himselfe willing to performe the conditions hoping therby to compasse his intent but neuer performed them and therfore Hormisdas wold not assent to the gathering of a Councell Wherupon Anastasius growing into a great fury writ threatning letters to him and raised a great persecution against Catholikes for which as also for his obstinacy in heresy and disobedience to the See Apostolike he ended his life in a most horrible manner being strucken dead with a thunder-bolt from Heauen This is the doctrine you ought to haue deliuered to your readers and not to haue deceaued them with falsities imposed on Hormisdas to iustify yours 6. You obiect (c) Impost pag. 178. Serm. pag. 5. Pelagius the first saying Holy Scripture commandeth vs to be subiects to Kings That Epistle of Pelagius is written to Childebert King of France as to his Sonne for so he stileth him and declareth to him that the holy Scripture commandeth subiectes to obey their Princes which all Catholikes belieue and teach as a doctrine of fayth But where doth the Scripture command Popes to yield subiection to Princes in Ecclesiasticall affaires Or where doth it command them fince they haue staies of their owne to yield temporall subiection to other Princes Your Argument therfore is impertinent 7. You alleage (d) Impost pag. 179. Ser. pag.
ages I dispute not of what authority this Act of S. Gregory is my intention only is to discouer your imposture for Bellarmine in that very place which you meÌ„tion (k) Cont. Barcla c. 40. againe before in the same booke (l) Cap. 8. doth not only vrge this one Act of S. Gregory but also another that in words more effectuall which the same S. Gregory granted at the in treaty of Brunichild Theodoricus whom he calleth The most excellent Kings his children This decree you thought best to passe ouer in silence because it is without all exception and to persuade your reader that Bellarmine mentioneth only the former which is sufficiently vindicated from Doctor Iames his Cauills which here you oppose by the authority of Gregory the seauenth a most holy and learned Pope who liuing almost 600. yeares nearer S. Gregories â—iâ—â—e then Doctor Iames or your selfe alleageth this decree as his whole therfore vndoubtedly it is Your railing against Gregory the feauenth I omit as not deseruing an answeare SECT III. Other Fathers and Catholike authors obiected by Doctor Morton FIrst you obiect (m) Serm. pag. 6. Impost pag. 282. When the Archbishop of Sens in France challenged the priuiledge of immunity from all subiection to the King he was encountred by S. Bernard and arrested by vertue of this Canon Omnis anima saying Forget you what is written Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers Qui te tentatexcipere tentat decipere i. He that seekes to exempt doth but labor to delude and seduce you O stange imposture O insufferable boldnesse By what authority do you presume to rake vp the ashes of a holy Archbishop deceased 500. yeares since and slander him with challenging immunity from all subiection to the King as well in temporall as in spirituall affaires for immunity from all subiection importeth as well the one as the other Is there mention of any such challenge in S. Bernards epistle No. It is a tale framed on your fingers ends that you may make S. Bernard reprehend the Archbishop for a fault of which you without any ground are pleased to accuse him and father on vs that doctrine of Disobedience to Princes which we condemne and detest But I see not how you agree with your selfe for in your Grand imposture you obiect S. Bernards words as a reprehension to Popes for not obeying Princes but in your Sermon you produce the same words as a reprehension not to Popes but to the Archbishop of Sens neither the one nor the other being true but inuentions of your owne to slander the Archbishop and the Popes and to make S. Bernard guilty of the same fault The Archbishop of Sens hauing in great esteeme the wisdome learning and sanctity of S. Bernard required some spirituall documents from him as S. Bernard in the begining of his Epistle (n) Ep. 4â— declareth adding on the one side his vnworthinesse to write vnto so great a Prelate and on the other the feare he had not to obey his commands Wherfore yeilding to his command he writ along epistle in which hauing discoursed at large of Chastity and Charity two singular ornaments of Priestly dignity he addeth the third which is Humility reprehending the pride of Clergy men that hauing obtayned one place still aspire to others of greater dignity not contented with one they striue to loade themselues with many honors at once all which yet they will part with for one Bishopricke Nor will they rest there but factus Episcopus Archiepiscopus esse desiderat he that is made a Bishop desireth to passe from a Bishopricke to an Archbishoprick And then turning his speach to the Archbishop of Sens to whom he writeth to other Ecclesiasticall Prelates he exhorteth him them to Humility and Obedience saying Vt securè praeesse possitis subesse ves si cui debetis non dedignement That you may command securely disdaine not to yield obedience if to any you owe it And to this purpose he bringeth those words of the Apostle Omnis anima c. If euery soule be subiect yours also Who seekes to exempt you from all If any one seeke to exempt you he seeketh to deceaue you This is S. Bernards drift and discourse And can you inferre from hence that the Archbishop of Sens denied Obedience to the King in temporall affaires or that S. Bernard subiecteth the Papall dignity to the Regall Yes for presently after say you (o) Impost pag. 182. the same Father applieth the same Doctrine to the Popes themselues How proue you this Out of these words of S. Bernard Sunt qui dicunt Audite Pontifices seruate honorem c. sed aliter Christus Reddite Caesari c. There are that say Heare O yee Popes Mantaine your honor But Christ said otherwise Yeild to Cesar c. So you but most falsly for Audite Pontifices are not S. Bernards words but forged and thrust into his text by your selfe 2. If they were his your illation were vaine for Pontifex is not necessarely taken for the Pope without the addition of Summus or Maximus 3. Yea S. Bernard out of those words as he exhorteth those that owe tribute to Cesar to pay it so he inferreth that if Christ would haue secular powers to be obeyed much more would he haue the Ecclesiasticall and that they who are sedulous and carefull in the affaires of Kings ought much more to be subiect cuicunque Christs Vicario to whatsoeuer Vicar of Christ and chiefly to the Pope his supreme Vicar on earth as he writ to Conradus the Emperor teaching him (p) Ep. 183. to obey the See Apostolike out of this very text Omnis anima which you produce for the contrary 2. You obiect (q) Impost pag. 175. serm pag. 36. S. Ambrose saying That his prayers and his teares were his weapons and that he neither might nor could make any other resistance If S. Ambrose said so it was to shew that when Emperors vse secular forces against the Priests of their dominions Priests being no soldiers must not defend themselues by the sword but by teares and prayers to God But that S. Ambrose knew himselfe to haue beside teares and prayers spirituall power he shewed when he excommunicated Theodosius the great and first Emperor of that name And Theodosius acknowledged this power in S. Ambrose obeying with all humility and performing the pennance enioyned him 3. You obiect (r) Impost pag. 175 serm pag. 19.36 Tertullian S. Cyprian and S. Gregory Nazianzen professing that Christians do not take reuenge against the iniust violence of their enemies We follow and imbrace their doctrine for what Catholike Diuine euer taught reuenge or rebellion to be lawfull If any teach or practise otherwise we abiure their doctrine as hereticall hate their practise as damnable SECT IV. Doctor Morton slandereth Vrban Pope and with him all Catholikes ARguments failing for what hitherto you haue produced are nothing but falsifications
a person of so great dignity and very aged he vndertake so long so laborious and so dangerous a iourney to declare vnto Anicetus the reasons of his persisting in the Asian custome which if Anicetus had then condemned it is not to be doubted but that Polycarpe would haue departed from it as all orthodoxe Bishops did when they saw it condemned by the Church and the defenders of it declared to be heretikes SECT II. S. Cyprian obiected by Doctor Morton TO proue that Cyprian belieued not any necessity of vnion with the Roman Church you repeate here (t) Pag. 185.188 what you had sayd before of his being excommunicated by Pope Stephen contemning the excommunication for which you bring no other proofe then the testimony of Cassander an heretike Primae classis whose workes you know to be forbidden and yet shame not to cite him as a Catholike author that you may call his lies Our confessions for that they be lies I haue already proued (u) Chap. 24. And so much the more reproueable you are because S. Cyprians testimonies which shew him to haue beleeued the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church and all that are diuided from her to be Schismatikes you shift off (x) Pag. 186. with an answeare of Goulartius that Cyprian spake them of his owne only authority against Schismatikes who troubled his iurisdiction Which to be a false and vnconscionable answeare you and your Goulartius may learne from the Centurists who reprehend S. Cyprian (y) Brerel Protest Apol. tract 1. sect 3. subdiu 10. for teaching that our Lord hath built his Church vpon Peter that one Chaire by our Lords voyce is built vpon Peter as vpon a Rock that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholike Church for calling Peters chaire the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued and for teaching that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all others the Mother and Roote of the Catholike Church To these testimonies acknowledged by the Centurists I adde that Cyprian (z) L. 4. ep 2. exhorteth Antonianus in time of Schisme to adhere to the Pope and hold fast his communion that is sayth he the communion of the Catholike Church and expressly affirmeth (a) L. de Vnit. Eccles that Who-euer resisteth the Chaire of Peter nether holdeth the fayth nor is in the Church And speaking of some certayne heretikes he obiecteth vnto them their great boldnesse in presuming to saile to the chaire of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praised by the voice of the Apostle and to whom perfidiousnesse can haue no accesse To this you answeare (b) Pag. 186. No Father of the primitiue times is more vrged by you then S. Cyprian no Epistle more insisted vpon then this no words more inculcated then these and we may adde no Father no epistle no sentence more egregiously abused and peruerted for he speaketh not of perfidiousnesse in doctrine but only in discipline by the false and perfidious reportes of schismaticall fellowes c. If this sentence of S. Cyprian be peruerted not we but you peruert it And so it will appeare to any impartiall Iudge that shall read the words not cut short as you rehearse theÌ„ that the sense may not be vnderstood but entire as I haue set theÌ„ downe The Nouatians were not only Schismatikes but heretikes as S. Cyprian in that epistle els where often calleth them And in the words alleaged when he opposeth their perfidiousnesse to the Roman fayth commended by the Apostle by perfidiousnesse he vnderstandeth error in doctrine or misbeliefe which is oposite to fayth not perfidiousnesse in discipline for that hath no opposition at all with fayth Wherefore he reprehendeth the Nouatians that hauing not only diuided themselues by schisme from the chaire of S. Peter which is the principall Church from whence sacerdotall vnity is deriued but also forsaken the Roman fayth praysed by the mouth of the Apostle they dare notwithstanding presume to saile to Rome in hope to deceaue that Church and get their doctrine approued by her not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth being praysed by the Apostle misbeliefe can haue no accesse to them Which doctrine S. Hierome seemeth to haue taken from this place of Cyprian when speaking to Ruffinus he saith (c) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. Know that the Roman fayth commended by the voice of the Apostle admitteth no delusions and that being fensed by S. Pauls authority it cannot be altered c. SECT III. S. Athanasius obiected by Doctor Morton THat S. Athanasius beleeued not the necessity of vnion and subiection to the Roman Church you proue (d) Pag. 190. for that being excommunicated by Liberius Pope he regarded not his excommunication This we deny It is peraduenture true though not altogether certaine (e) Onuphr in Not ad Plati Ruffin l. 1. histâ—c 27. Sozom l. 4. c. 14. that Liberius wearied out with two yeares banishment and other vexations by Constantius the Arian Emperor yeilded to signe the condemnation of Athanasius and entred into communion with the Arians and thereby became a Schismatike But that he excommunicated Athanasius is not reported by any writer nor is it true but a fiction of yours And were it true the excommunication had not only bene iniust as being pronounced against an innocent person and therfore no way obligatory but also inualid for as much as Liberius by forsaking the communion of Catholikes and entring into communion with heretikes was fallen from his Papacy and had no power to pronounce excommunication against Athanasius or if he had pronounced it Athanasius had not bene bound to obey To proue that Athanasius regarded not the excommunication of the B. of Rome you should haue proued that whiles Liberius was true Pope he excommunicated Athanasius and that Athanasius refused to obey which you proue not and therfore your obiection is impertinent and your assertion false For who knoweth not that Athanasius acknowledged the supreme power of the Roman Church when being cast out of his Bishoprick he appealed to Iulius Pope and Iulius by the dignity and prerogatiue of the Roman See restored him againe to his Church (f) Socrat. l. 2. c. 11. Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. And what els did he meane when he and the rest of the Aegyptian Bishops writing to Marcus Pope endorsed their letter To the holy and Venerable Lord of Apostolicall Eminency Marke Father of the holy Roman Apostolike See and of the vniuersall Church And in the letter We desire that by the authority of the Church of your holy See which is the Mother and Head of all Churches we may deserue to receaue the copies of the Nicen Canons by these our Legates for the instruction and comfort of the faythfull that being fensed by your authority c. And againe (g) Eadem Ep. We are yours and
Pastor of the sheepe not of one City nor of one Countrey but of all the sheep of Christ without any exception or limitation (g) See all this proued aboue Chap. 14. sect In this sense the name of Pastor was neuer giuen to any other Apostle or Bishop but only to S. Peter and his successors The rest of the Apostles sayth S. Bernard (h) L. 2. de confideras obtayned each of them their peculiar flocks Iames contented with Hierusalem yieldes the vniuer sality to Peter And long before him Eucherius that famous and learned Bishop of Lions (i) Hom. in Vigil S. Pe◠Christ first committed to Peter his Lambes and then his sheepe because he made him not only a Pastor but Pastor of Pastors Peter therfore feedeth the Lambes and the sheepe he feedeth the yong ones and the dammes he gouerneth the subiects and the Prelates and is therfore Pastor of all for besides Lambes and sheep there is nothing in the Church Your euasion (k) Pag. 243. n. 20. that if by Pastor we vnderstand curam studium care and study towards the good of the vniuersall Church in this all other Bishops are Pastors as well as the Pope is impertinent for charity obligeth not only Bishops but euery Christian man and woman to haue a care and study towards the good of the vniuersall Church according to their abilities But the Pope is not only bound to a charitable care and study as all others are but by reason of his Pastorall office and function is the guide and Gouernor of the vniuerfall Church throughout the whole world And vntill you can shew the like Pastorall power and iurisdiction attributed to any other Bishop you must confesse his title of Pastor to be without parallell The like hath bene proued (l) Aboue Chap. 14. sect 3. of his titles of Doctor of Pope (m) Chap. 23. of Vicar of Christ (n) Chap. 14. sect 2. of Apostolicall man (o) Chap. 14. sect 3. and Apostolate applied to his person and function and of Apostolicall See to the Roman Church Nor is it hard to proue the same of all the other titles mentioned by Bellarmine He is called Father of Fathers and Prince of Priests which titles though they may in a true sense be giuen to euery Patriark and Archbishop in respect of other Bishops subiect to them and to euery Bishop in respect of the inferior Pastors of his Dioces yet not in the same sense in which they are giuen to the Pope In like manner the name of Pontifex and Summus Pontifex are sometimes giuen to other Bishops but not as to the Pope for he is called by the foure Primats of Africa (p) See Spond anno 646. n. 1. their Synods Pater Patrum Summus omnium Praesulum Pontifex the Father of Fathers and the chiefe Bishop of all Bishops And Venerable Bede (q) L. 1. hist Angl. c. 1. sayth of S. Gregory that in toto orbe gerebat Pontificatum that his Episcopall power was ouer the whole world which S. Anselm◠also expressed dedicating his booke De incarnatione to Vrbanus Pope with this inscription Domino Patri vniuersae Ecclesiae in terra peregrinantis Summo Pontifici Vrbano To the chiefe Bishop Vrbanus Lord Father of the vniuersall Church militant on earth Where do you find any parallell to this title of the Pope The like I say of the title of Rector domus Dei Ruler or Gouernor of the house of God for albeit each of the Apostles were Rulers and Gouernors of the Church and so S. Andrew is so called in the Collect vsed on his festiuall day yet the ordinary Episcopall authority and iurisdiction of none of them nor of any other Bishop whatsoeuer but only of S. Peter and his successors extends to the rule Gouerment of the vniuersall Church For which cause Valentinian the third intituleth the Pope Rector of the Vniuersality of Churches And both he and Theodosius say (s) Constit. Nouell Tit. 24. So the peace of the Church shall be conserued by all if the Vniuersality acknowledge her Rector And Theodoret being deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo Pope because sayth he (t) Ep. ad Renat The holy Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the world Where do you find the title of Ruler or Gouernor of the Church attributed to any other Apostle or Bishop in this sense The same I say of the title of Head of the Church for in the Nicen Councell (u) Can. 39. ex Graec. Arab the B. of Rome is called Head and Prince of all Patriarkes The Councell of Sardica (x) Insert in fragment Hilar citatur expresseth the same in their Epistle to Pope Iulius à Nicol. c. i◠Ep. ad Episc Gal. It is very good fit that from all the Prouinces the Bishops haue reference to their Head that is to the See of the Apostle Peter In the Councell of Ephesus (y) Part. 2. Act. 2. when the Legates of Celestine Pope arriued thither they gaue thankes to the Fathers there assembled that by their holy and religious voices they had shewed themselues holy members to the blessed Pope their holy Head The Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon (z) In relat ad Leon. call Leo Pope their Head themselues his members and acknowledge him (a) Ibid. to rule ouer them as the Head doth ouer the members And his Legates in the same Councell said (b) Act. 1. We haue the commands of the Pope of Rome who is the Head of all Churches and the Councell contradicted not but presently obeyed his commands S. Prosper sayth (c) L. De ingrat c. 2. Rome the See of Peter is made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world possessing by religion what it doth not by force of armes which S. Leo also expresseth saying (d) Serm. 1. in Nata Apost Petri Pauli Rome by the sacred See of Peter being made Head of the world hath a larger extent of gouerment by diuine religion then by earthly dominion Eugenius B. of Carthage (e) Vict. Vticen l. ◠calls the Roman Church The Head of all Churches S. Fulgentius (f) De incarn grat c. 11. The Top of the world And Ennodius sayth (g) Lib de Synod sub Symmacho habit The dignity of the See Apostolike is Venerable throughout the whole world whiles all the faithfull are subiect vnto it as being the Head of the whole body Iustinian intituleth the Pope (h) Cod. Tit. 1. L. 7. The Head of all the holy Prelates of God and the Head of all Churches And the Bishops of the lower Maesia (i) Apud Bin. to 2. pag 154. professe Leo B. of Rome to be Truly the Head of all Churches You answere first (k) Pag. 242. that S. Basil calls Athanasius Top or crowne of the head of all S. Basill
confiderat when he called Eugenius Pope The God of Pharao as God called Moyses Did Ladislaus that famous King of Hungary blaspheme when he called Nicolas the fifth A God vpon earth (d) Orat. ad Nicol. 5. Acknowledge then that this your obiection is an imposterous cauill against the Bishop and Church of Rome or rather a calumny inuented to mantaine a bad cause which with other Arguments you cannot vphold CHAP. XXXVI The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of ancient Fathers discouered SECT I. Some of his Answeares examined WHAT hath bene produced hitherto out of antiquity conuincingly proueth the vniuersall Authority and Iurisdiction of the B. of Rome to haue bene acknowledged from the beginning by all the Catholikes of the world Here you vndertake to answeare the testimonies of ancient Fathers alleaged by Bellarmine but performe it not Some of them you passe ouer not only without answeare but without any mention of them as of Valentinian the Emperor Venerable Bede S. Anselme Hugo de S. Victore and S. Bernard whom yet Caluin (e) L. 4. instit c. 7. §. 22. cites for himselfe acknowledgeth to be a Saint 2. To the testimonies of S. Ignatius and Irenaeus you answeare but satisfy not as hath bene proued (f) Chap. 15. sect 5. 6. And the like hath bene shewed of your answeares to the testimonies of S. Basil (g) Chap. 34. sect 4. and Iustinian (h) Chap. 30. sect 5. the Emperor 3. Of S. Prosper you say (i) Pag. 270. fin 271. init His meaning might haue bene better knowne if he had written in prose and not assumed vnto him the liberty of a Poet. But who seeth not this to be a mere shift void of truth for as in verse he sayd (k) L. De ingrat c. 2. Now Rome the great Apostle Peters seat Head of Pastorall Honour here below Hath by fayths Empire made her selfe more great then she by all her armed powers could grow So likewise he said in prose (l) De vocat gentium c. 16. The soueraignty of the Apostolicall Priesthood hath made Rome greater by the Tribunall of religion then by the Throne of Power Bellarmine alleageth both the one and the other as well in prose as in verse But because both of them are vnanswerable you vnder colour that the one is in verse reiect S. Prosper as fabulous in both for the liberty which Poets assume vnto them is to report fables insteed of truthes This is the reuerence you beare to that holy and renowned Father and such the solutions wherwith you shift off the testimonies of antiquity and yet beare your Readers in hand that you belieue as they belieued 4. The B. of Patara in Licia (m) Liberat. in Breu. c. 22. vpon the banishment of Pope Siluerius represented to the Emperor Iustinian the iudgment of God vpon the expulsion of the Bishop of so great a Seate saying There are many Kings in the world but not one of them as the Pope who is Head ouer the Church of the whole world You answeare (n) Pag. 156. Liberatus who reported this history was an author deceaued by heretikes belieued not himselfe what he reported for the Pope Giue vs any one author that excepted against this relation of Liberatus before your selfe or that sayd he himselfe beliued not what he reported for the Pope If it shall be lawfull for you to reiect testimonies of antiquity vpon no other ground but because they are against your selfe what authority may not with such answeares be eluded You know this not to satisfy and therfore haue inuented another that this Greeke Author must be taken in the Greeke sense of Primacy of order This satisfieth as litle as the former for the B. of Patara compares the spirituall authority of the Pope with the temporall of Kings protesting that no King hath temporall power ouer all the Kingdoms of the earth as the Pope hath spirituall ouer the Church of the wholeworld Againe that the Popes Primacy in the Greeke sense is not Primacy of iurisdiction but of Order only is said gratis and vntruly The Greeke Fathers in the Councell of Chalcedon spake in the Greeke sense yet they acknowledged (o) In relat ad Leon. the Pope to be their Head and to rule ouer them at the Head doth ouer the members Theodoret spake in the Greeke sense when he said (p) In Ep. â—â— Renat The See of Rome hath the sterne of gouernment ouer all the Churches of the world Theodosius spake in the Greeke sense (q) Const. â— Nouel The 24. when he called the Pope Rector of the vniuersality of Churches This therefore is the Greeke sense and in this sense the B. of Patara spake to Iustinian 5. S. Epiphanius (r) Haeres 58. reporteth that Vrsacius Valens Bishops chiefe sticklers of the Arians touched with remorse for their treachery against Athanasius went vp to Rome and presenting libels of pennance to Iulius Pope craued pardon for their offence and promised to stand to his iudgment which sheweth that they acknowledged him to be the Head and Iudge of Bishops This testimony though set downe in your Latine margent curtalled (s) Pag. 254. yet in your English you make no mention of it but pretending to answeare by a similitude tell vs a tale of a tubbe of A. R. in the County of Suffolke crauing pardon of the Sheriffe of Middelsex for a notorius offence done vnto him But to omit that hereby the English reader can haue no notice at all of the force of this testimony your answeare is nether similitude nor solution but petitio principij a false supposition that Vrsacius and Valens asked pardon of Iulius for a notorious offence done vnto him Their offence was not against Iulius but against Athanasius and yet of this offence they asked pardon of Iulius because they knew that to him as to the Head of the Church it belonged to remedy the disorders of the Church and that as he had power to punish them for their offence so he had also to pardon them vpon their submission and promise of amendment which to that end they made 6. No lesse impertinent is the other flimflam which you adde (t) Pag. 254. as an answeare to the testimony of Dionysius Alexandrinus of two Gentlemen the one being a Iustice of peace agreeing to haue their difference to be ordered by another Iustice of peace for when Dionysius Patriarke of Alexandria was fallen into suspicion of heresy (u) Athanas de sent Dion Et de Sin Arim Seleuc the Catholikes of Alexandria went vp to Rome to accuse him before the Pope The Pope admonished him to cleare himselfe and he obeying presently sent vp a booke of defence and apology which sheweth that both the people Patriarke of Alexandria acknowledged that the cause of Bishops and of fayth were to be tried at the Popes tribunall and that the Pope knew himselfe to haue
free election and therfore that if the Successors of S. Peter should remoue their See from Rome the Roman Church in that case might erre This opinion sayth Bellarmine (e) L. 4. de Pont. c. 4. is not hereticall nor manifestly erroneous but he holdeth and proueth the contrary namely that the See of S. Peter was fixed at Rome by especiall command from Christ and cannot be remoued from thence and therfore that when the Fathers say The Roman Church cannot erre the word cannot is to be taken simply and absolutely without the caution which you falsly ascribe to him You adde (f) Pag. 273. Bellarmine should haue said with you that the Roman Church cannot erre so long as the ancient and sincere fayth is preserued at Rome which is to say that she cannot erre as long as she erres not Bellarmine was of more iudgment then to proue idem per idem But you say (g) Pag. 276. The list of all the Fathers which Bellarmine in the strength of his learning and iudgment hath produced to guard defend the Monarchy of the Church and B. of Rome is of the Greeke Fathers but thirteene of the Latin not aboue eleuen within the space of the first 600. yeares This is notoriously vntrue for in the two Chapters immediatly preceding he produceth the testimonies of aboue 1340. Fathers in the foure first Generall Councells and that vnder Menas and of 26. Popes the greater part of them glorious Martyrs and the rest holy Confessors as S. Iulius S. Damasus S. Siricius S. Zozimus S. Innocentius S. Leo S. Gelasius S. Gregory Were not all these Fathers that liued within the first 600. yeares which you call the primitiue times But what if Bellarmine had produced no more but thirteene Greeke eleauen Latin Fathers Doth not Cardinal Baronius throughout his learned Annals Doth not Iodocus Coccius (h) To. 1. thesau l. 7. art 4.5.6.7.8 Do not Doctor Sanders (i) Visic Monar tot Clau. Dauid tot and other Catholike writers produce testimonies of Popes Councells and of the most religious Emperors and Kinges that haue liued since Christ in great numbers all of them professing their beliefe of the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope and necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome Why do not you subscribe to so great a cloud of witnesses rather then to Martin Luther and a few Sectaries broaching Nouellisme opposing all Orthodoxe antiquity Lastly to close vp your answeres to the Fathers you produce Tertullian (k) Pag. 277. after his defection into Montanisme calling the Pope The blessed Pope and the chiefe Bishop of Bishops but that he did it by Irony and scorne So indeed sayth Massonius a forbidden author But be it true that he spake it by Irony yet that very manner of speach sheweth it was then the custome of the faythfull to giue those titles to the Pope If Tertullian called him so by Irorny and scorne it was because he was an heretike And so you imitating him cauill at vs for instiling the Pope Your Holinesse which title say you (l) Ibid. being first giuen to Pope Leo for his Holinesse sake and sanctity of life is continued to Popes who haue bene most wicked and retayned only in respect of their functions The case is this Benedict the cleauenth (m) Extrau l. 5. C. Dudum calleth Boniface the eight his Predecessor bona memoria of good memory The glosse sayth If a Pope haue defiled the Church with exactions simonies and filthy speaches he is not therfore to be instiled mal◠memoriae not of euill but of good memory according to the ciuill Law determining that regard is not to be had to what he did but to what it was fit for him to do that is sayth the glosse not to his person but to his dignity for although his person haue offended his dignity hath not and his personall offence is not to redound to the domage of the Church And howsoeuer Prelates haue offended they are Presidents and Fathers of the whole community and therfore to be honored as the Philosopher teacheth also the Ciuill Law calling them Gods for the Excellency of their Order and dignity of their office And for the same cause Kings albeit wicked in their liues are instiled Clara memoria vel Inclyta memoria of famous or renowned memory and Emperors Dina memoria of soueraigne or diuine memory To which I adde (n) Act. 24.25 that S. Paul called Festus President of Iury Optime Fest◠Most excellent Festus and this nor for his Vertue or Honesty for he was a wicked man but for his Office the custome being that all Presidents of Prouinces were so instiled (o) Baron Anno 58. n. 33. All this I suppose you will allow for hauing read most of it in the Glosse you except not against it or if you do your exception is without ground Other Prelates therfore although they be of vicious liues may be instiled Bonae memoriae Kings Clarae vel Inclytae memoriae Emperors Diuae memoriae Temporall gouernors may haue the title of Optimi yea and be called Gods for so you call Kings (p) Serm before his Ma. at Durham pag. 14. The Pope only forsoth who is the Vicar of Christ on earth because it displeaseth you must not be saluted by the title of Your Holinesse whiles he liues nor be said to be Bonae memoriae after he is dead Other gouernors must be honored by reason of their dignities and offices The Pope only must be excepted and Doctor Morton to helpe out the matter must falsify the Glosse making it say that an ill Pope after his death is to be intituled Of blessed Memory which words howsoeuer you (q) Pag. 277. set them downe as of the glosse and in great letters to make your falsification more remarkable are not of the glosse but feigned by you And finally whether an ill Pope after his death be or be not to be intituled Bonae or Malae memoriae what makes it to your intent which is to proue that Saluation may be had out of the Roman Church But if your volume had not bene stuffed with such impertinencies it cold not haue risen to so Grand an Imposture CHAP. XXXVII Of the authority of the Epistles of ancient Popes AS the Arians and other Heretikes haue contemned the Epistles of the Bishops of Rome so all orthodoxe Christians haue euer held them in great veneratiō Eusebius Caesariensis (r) L. 3. hist c. 12. writeth that the epistle of Clement Pope to the Corinthians was so highly esteemed that the custome was to reade it publikely in the Churches which also he reporteth (s) L. 4. hist. c. 22. of the Epistle of Soter Pope And how greatly these Epistles were reuerenced may appeare out of S. Irenaeus who highly commending the Epistle of Clement (t) L. 3. c. 3. setteth downe a summary therof And in like manner Clemens Alexandrinus (u) Serm. l.
Bishops I know not what Bishop is not subiect vnto it Doth not this testimony immediatly follow in Bellarmine Yes and it is so euident that Caluin (h) L. 4. Iust. c. 7. § 1â— on the rack of truth is inforced to confesse that S Gregory in no place of his workes vanteth more of the greatnesse of his See then in these very words and that in them he attributeth to himselfe the right of punishing Bishops when they offend Is it not then imposterous to conceale this so cleare an euidence and others brought in by Bellarmine and reiect them all because you haue found a way to cauill at one especially since not only out of S. Gregories workes and the testimonies of your Protestant Brethren it is a truth not to be denyed that he belieued himselfe to haue and practised iurisdiction ouer all Bishops whatsoeuer But you say (k) Pag. 285. If Gregory in some tearmes seeme to speake somwhat loud as though he were very Great yet be confined himselfe to the Constitution of Iustinian He resolueth according to the constitution of Iustinian that the triall of Bishops causes in the first instance belongs to their Metropolitan as the cause of the Metropolitan doth to his Patriarke But withall he teacheth (l) L. 2. ep 6. that they may appeale to the See Apostolike and furthermore addeth (m) L. 11. ep 56. that If a Bishop haue no Metropolitan nor Patriarke ouer him then sayth he his cause is to be heard decided by the See Apostolike which is the head of all Churches And this is agreeable to the profession which Iustinian himselfe made in the Law Inter claras (n) Cod. tit â— l. 8. and in the Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (o) Cod. t is 1. l. 7. In the rest of this Section (p) Pag. 284. you tell vs that â—â—n of those Popes eited by Bellarmine call the Church of Rome and Bishop therof Head of all Churches or one that hath the care of all Churches or one hauing principality They do so and withall so vnanswearably affirme the Vniuersall iurisdiction of the Roman Church that you thought best not to mention their words but to put them off saying The like attributes haue bene anciently ascribed to other Churches and Bishops which how false it is you haue already heard (q) Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. Chap. 35. Chap. 36 sect 3. To giue a good farewell you conclude thus (r) Pag. 285. fin 280. There are diuers other testimonies out of Leo Gelasius and other Popes who breathed out many sentences full of ostentation of their owne greatnesse Hitherto you haue held vs in hand that the primitiue Popes did not challenge any iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church but now you say that S. Gregory in some termes seemes to speake somwhat loud as though he were very Great and that Leo Gelasius and other Popes breathed out many sentences full of ostentation of their owne greatnesse but whatsoeuer they vented out it was typhus saecularis and a swelling impostume which was lanced that it bled withall by the Councell of Carthage vnder S. Cyprian and the Councell of Africke vnder S. Augustine and that selfe-loue bewitching many Popes of the more primitiue tymes they boasted themselues to be the only Vicars of Christ and have bene taxed for their great arrogancy by the ancient Fathers of their owne tymes And afterwards (s) Pag. 303. fin 304. you compare S. Leo and S. Gregory to Adonias that sought traiterously to pull the crowne from his Fathers head and make himselfe King to which he had right This forsooth is the reuerence you beare to the primitiue Popes whom antiquity hath had in so great veneration as of S. Leo and S. Gregory in particular you haue heard (t) Chap. 15. sect 3. Truth which enforceth testimony from her enemies compelleth you to confesse (u) Pag. 172.178.182.287 that the Primitiue Popes were Holy Popes Holy Fathers excellently goodly learned and that many of them are glorious Martyrs and Saints whose memory is blessed And yet the same truth enforceth you heere to confesse that those Popes acknowledged themselues to be the only Vicars of Christ on earth to haue an vniuersall authority and to haue practised the same for which albeit you taxe them with great arrogancy yet in adding that the ancient Fathers of their owne time did the like you passe the limits of modesty and truth And who seeth not the absurd manner of arguing which in proofe hereof you vse Your words are (x) Pag. 286. in titulo sect 13. Our generall discouery of the vanity of your proofes of Papall Monarchy from the mouthes of Popes themselues who haue bene anciently noted of pride Your assumpt then is to disproue the Papall Monarchy from the mouthes of Popes themselues But you produce not any one testimony nor any one word of any one Pope but make a briefe repetition of your Arguments which in their seuerall places haue bene proued to be partly impertinent partly false and partly hereticall Impertinent as of Tertullian False as of the African Councell S. Cyrill S. Basil S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine Hereticall as of Polycrates resisting Victor and of the Arians whom to conceale that they were heretikes you call The Orientalls And finally part of them of such as for a time defended the false doctrine of Rebaptization as S. Cyprian and his Councell of Carthage which though S. Augustine haue answeared (y) L. 6. de Baptism per tot and confuted word by word you take no notice therof but vrge it as currant and of authority against the B. of Rome yet that all may not seeme to be repetitions you bring forth one new Argument (z) Pag. 286. as drawne from the mouthes of Popes themselues which is that one Flaccidius relying on the greatnesse of the Citty of Rome equalled the Deacons of Rome with Priests This you obiect as the testimony of S. Augustine himselfe pointing at the vaine boasting of Rome wheras it is not S. Augustines but of the Author quaestionum noui veteris Testamenti whom heretofore (a) Pag. 52. when he was not for your purpose you reiected as an hereticall author but now his words are of S. Augustine himselfe and an Argument drawne from the very mouthes of ancient and holy Popes Necessity enforceth you to such absurdities for better Arguments are not to be found in such a cause The blindnesse of your zeale permitted you not to see the inconsequence contrariety of your doctrine whiles you professe (b) Pag. 287. that the primitiue Popes were Holy men and yet that they were proud arrogant and challenged dominion aboue others beyond the limits of their owne iurisdiction Yes say you (c) Ibid. why not They were holy Disciples of Christ who ambitiously wished that they might sit the one on the right hand of Christ and on the other on
Rome and are so many witnesses against you of the Popes authority acknowledged and practised ouer the Bishops of Constantinople Polichronius was B. of Hierusalem and deposed by Sixtus Pope as Bellarmine proueth out of the Acts of Sixtus which acts witnesse Baronius (b) Anno 432. fin are cited by Nicolas the first by Petrus Damiani and other later writers And if as you obiect (c) Pag. 295. Baronius found no other Records of any Polychronius that was B. of Hierusalem at that tyme doth it therfore follow there was none such To omit the later writers he mentioneth Petrus Damiani and Nicolas were men eminently learned the one liued 600. the other 800. yeares nearer the time of Sixtus then Baronius did and the Acts of Sixtus are yet more ancient then either of them Wherefore in those dayes Record might be extant of Polychronius and his deposition by Sixtus reported in those Acts which before Baronius his time were lost or if not lost yet might not come to his knowledge 2. You answeare (d) Pag. 295. Your Popes must be thought to haue restored Bishops only by endeauoring and desiring that they might be restored You exemplify in Basilides whose cause sheweth it was a knowne truth in those dayes that the Pope had authority to restore Bishops deposed for why els did Basilides trauaile from Spaine to Rome to procure letters of restitution from him Of this Basilides you say (e) Pag. 289. fin 190. Cyprian constituted Sabinus Bishop insteed of Basilides whom he had deposed But you shew great ignorance in Ecclesiasticall history for Cyprian neither deposed Basilides nor coÌ„stituted Sabinus in his place Basilides was not an African nor any way belonging to Cyprians iurisdiction who was Primate of Africa only but Bishop of Leon in Spaine and for his enormous crimes being iustly deposed by the Bishops of that Countrey fled to Stephen Pope and by a false information of his owne innocency deceaued him that by his authority and command he might be restored to his Bishoprick The Bishops of Spaine who had condemned him sent Sabinus and Felix into Africa to informe S. Cyprian truly of the case to aske his aduice and require his intercession to the Pope that he would not restore Basilides S. Cyprian approued their proceeding and answeared that if Basilides had obtayned from the Pope any sentence of restitution it was surreptitious by reason of the false information he had giuen which alone was sufficient to make his restitution void as not only the Ciuill (f) Cod. cont ius L. Etsi but also the Canon Law (g) De Rescrip C. Dilectus declareth decreeing in a case like to this of Basilides that sentences procured from the See Apostolike by surreption are inualid and of no force Wherfore S. Cyprian rightly answeared that albeit Stephen for his incircumspection might be argued of negligence in giuing so easy credit to a false information and suffering himselfe to be deceaued therby yet the chiefe fault was in Basilides who with lies had sought to iustify himselfe This is all that antiquity recordeth of this controuersy which sheweth that in those ancient times the custome of Bishops when they thought themselues wronged by their Metropolitans was to appeale to the Pope as Basilides did against which custome nor against the Popes authority to admit of Appeales neither the Bishops of Spaine nor S. Cyprian excepted as appeareth in this that they blamed not Basilides for appealing to one that had no power to reiudge his cause but for his surprise made vpon the Pope and the Popes want of circumspection in suffering himself to be deceaued by a false information 3. You say (h) Pag. 290. Cyprian confirmed the election of Pope Cornelius whose communion both he as himselfe speaketh his Colleagues and fellow-bishops gaue approbation vnto To confirme the election of a Bishop is an Act of iurisdiction which therfore can proceed from none but a Superior This authority though you deny to the Pope yet out of a desire to annihilate his authority you ouer-shoote your marke so far as to make him inferior to all the Bishops of Africa and to stand in need of their confirmation a thing which S. Cyprian mentioneth not He only signifieth to Cornelius that Nouatianus hauing made a schisme in the Church and set himselfe vp as Antipope in opposition to Cornelius and the Africans being doubtfull which of the two they should acknowledge and obey as true Pope S. Cyprian sayth he exhorted all that sailed out of Africa to Rome to abandon Nouatianus and adhere to Cornelius and procured letters from his brethren at Rome to those of Africa that being fully certified of the truth they might sayth he to Cornelius acknowledge and firmely imbrace you and your communion that is to say the communion of the Catholike Church All therfore that you haue gained out of S. Cyprian is to proue your selfe to be out of the communion of the Catholike Church for to be of the Catholike communion and to be vnited to the Pope in S. Cyprians beliefe is one and the same thing 4. The like abuse you offer to S. Gregory saying (i) Pag. 29â— that he sought approbation from the foure Patriarkes As soone as this holy Pope was placed in the chaire of S. Peter following the custome of his Predecessors he writ a circular or Synodicall letter for so anciently those letters were called to the foure Easterne Patriarkes that hauing notice of his election they might know whom to obey and whom to haue recourse vnto in all doubts of fayth and other maior causes which was no more to seeke confirmation or approbation from them then if a King of Poland or any other electiuâ— Prince being chosen should write a circular letter to hiâ— Nobles giuing them notice of his Election and admonâ—shing them of their duty and allegiance vnto him This to haue bene the effect of those Synodicall letters is proued out of Gelasius Because sayth he to Laurence Bishop of Lignidis with fraternall loue you put vs in mynde that we should send a forme of fayth as a certaine medicine to the Bishops throughout Illyria and others although this hath bene most amply performed by our predecessor of Blessed memory yet because the custome is that when a Bishop of the Roman Church is newly made he send a forme of his fayth to the holy Churches I haue endeauored to renew the same in a compendious breuity to the end the reader by this our Epistle may vnderstand in what fayth he is to liue according to the ordinations of the Fathers And as the Popes when they were chosen did send these Synodicall letters prescribing a forme of fayth to be obserued by all Bishops so likewise all Metropolitans did send to the Popes newly chosen a profession of their fayth to the end it might be approued by the See Apostolike So did S. Cyprian to Cornelius Pope calling it (k) L. 2. ep 10. a diuine
of the holy Ghost are vnited and so fully agreed in the chiefe question which was most in controuersy that no further speach therof is necessary But that our agreement may be so absolute firme that hereafter there be no difference betweene vs it will not be amisse that we treat of the fyre of Purgatory of the primacy of the Pope of celebrating in leauened or vnleauened bread and of Transubstantiation Those Bishops answeared We O most holy Father haue no licence to treat of these things which words you set downe as the answere of all the Greeke Prelates when as they were spoken only by foure of them who hauing receaued no commission to treat of those Questions refused to make answere vnto them in the name of all their brethren But neuerthelesse which you conceale they declared their owne iudgment concerning the three first to be conformable to the doctrine of the Roman Church adding moreouer that of the fourth which was Transubstantiation they could not treat without the authority of all the Easterne Church How doth this proue that the Greekes in the Councell of Florence agreed not in doctrine with the Roman Church especially since these foure Bishops declared to the Pope that concerning the three first points of the foure proposed by him they belieued as the Roman Church did and concerning the fourth as at that time they did not affirme it so neither did they deny it and sone after not only they but all the rest of the Greeke Bishops and Abbots together with their Emperor in the Letters of Vnion expresly declared that not only in the three first namely of the Popes supremacy of Purgatory of the lawfulnesse of celebrating Masse in vnleauened bread they belieued as the Roman Church did but also in the fourth of Transubstantiation saying that by the Priest vpon the Altar of bread is made the very body of Christ. All this you could not be ignorant of and yet blush not to deny it and to adde another vntruth saying (c) Pag. 331. fin 332. init Yea and their Emperor Palaeologus that was so earnest to peece them together was himselfe but hardly welcomed home to the Greeke Church which was now much more exasperated against the Roman Church in so much that they did now pronounce their Patriarke of Constantinople the supreme and chiefe of all Bishops These your words cannot be freed from a notable imposture for you falsify Bellarmine alleaging these words in a differeÌ„t letter as his The Greekes did now to wit after their returne from the Councell of Florence pronounce their Patriarke of Constantinople the supreme and chiefe of all Bishops Bellarmine speaketh of their fall from the Roman Church the yeare 1054. which was not after the Councell of Florence but almost 400. yeares before it You to perswade your reader that he speakes of their fall after their returne from that Councell cunningly insert into his words this aduerbe Now and falsify the yeare putting in stead of Anno 1054. which Bellarmine hath Anno 1454. Can there be more wilfull fraud then this But you shew no lesse folly then fraud for wheras you say (d) Pag. 331. the Councell of Florence was the yeare 1549. to proue that the Greekes after their returne from that Councell denied the primacy of the Pope you say (e) Pag. 332. Now to wit the yeare 1454. which was in your account 100. yeares before that Councell they did pronounce their Patriarke of Constantinople the supreme and chiefe of all Bishops I deny not that the Greeks a few yeares after the Councell of Florence returned to vomit and that a great part of them still persisteth in the errors which then they abiured I only speake here of your simplicity who to proue that they fell from the Roman Church after their returne from the Councell of Florence say (f) Pag. 332. marg they fell the yeare 1454. which according to your account was 100. yeares before that Councell With these impostures you delude your readers who not doubting of your fidelity take your doctrine vpon your word SECT III. That many of the Grecians at this day are of the Roman Communion and professe subiection to the B. of Rome THat many of the Grecians are at this day accordant in fayth and Communion with the Roman Church professe subiection and obedience to the B. of Rome is a thing notorious for who is ignorant that as in Rome there is a Seminary wherin many youthes of our English nation are trained vp in vertue and learning to the end that being ordained Priestes and returning into England they may help to reduce their Countrey to the Catholike fayth so likewise there hath bene many yeares another of Grecians for the reduction of Greece And who knoweth not that as Cardinall Peron (g) Repliqu Chap. 22. aduertised our late Soueraigne K. Iames in the Iles of Malta Cyprus Candia Xante Chios Naxos and other Greeke and Asian Islands the Roman fayth and Communion hath place euen at this day either wholly or for the greatest part And if it be true that as you affirme (h) Pag. 335. Russia a good part of Polonia Dalmatia and Croatia belong to the Greeke Church and are vnder the iurisdiction of the Patriarke of Constantinople with what forehead can you challenge the inhabitants of these Countreys in generall to dissent in fayth communion from the Church of Rome when it is notorious that in Dalmatia Croatia Polonia as also in Lituania and Transiluania the fayth and Communion of the Roman Church is not only allowed but publikely professed And for the Russians Michaell Hipation and Cyrill with the rest of the Bishops of that Nation haue lately submitted themselues to the same Church as both their Epistle and profession of fayth addressed to Clement the eight in the yeare 1595. abundantly testify (i) Apud Cocci to 1. l. 7. art â— SECT IV. Of the Aegyptians YOur second example of remote nations dissenting from the Roman Church (k) Pag. 304.342.400.409 417. is of the Aegyptians To shew your error herein these euidences may serue for as Iacobus Nauarchus (l) Ep. Asiâ—â— Coccius (m) Tom. 1. l. 7. art 6. and Doctour Sanders (n) Monar Visib l. 7. n. 1121. relate Eugenius Pope hauing actually vnited the Greekes and Latines in the Councell of Florence and wrirten to the Patriarkes of the East to the same effect they in their Epistles to him writ back Honorably Catholikely and resolutely of the Latin Church and authority of the Pope And in particular Iohn Patriarke of Alexandria that is to say of the Christians of Aegypt and of all the countreys which first belonged to the Empire of Aegypt and afterwards to the Prefecture therof styleth the B. of Rome The perfection of Priesthood the Apostolicall Father of all Churches the Prince of Priests the Guide of Pilgrimes that shews the way to the rest the Physitian of the diseased And his Vicar of
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
then may we thinke of your Protestant Congregation For many of your Tenets haue bene condemned in ancient Heretikes and held euer since for heresies (d) See aboue Chap. 42. sect 2. And yet that you are not ready to be reformed but are most obstinate in your defence of them which is the essentiall character of heresy is most easily proued for it we speake of Luther he acknowledged his new Tenets to be contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers and Doctors of Gods Church For sayth he (e) Colloq mensal Cap. de Patr. Eceles In the workes of Hierome there is not a word of true fayth in Christ and sound religion Tertullian is very superstitious I haue held Origen long since accursed Of Chrysostome I make no accomp◠Basil is of no worth he is wholly a Monke I weigh him not a haire Cyprian is a weake Deuine Againe he preferreth his owne collected sense of Scripture before the expositions of all the Fathers saying (g) Tom 2. Witemb l. cont Reg. Aug. fol. 34 ◠b. The diuine Maiesty makes for me so as I care not if a thousand Augustines a thousand Cyprians a thousand King Henry Churches stand against me concludeth saying (h) Tom. 2. Witemb printed 1554. fol. 290. b. Be it that the Church Augustine and other Doctors also Peter Apollo yea an Angell from heauen teach otherwise yet my Doctrine is such as setteth forth Gods only glory c. Peter the chiefe of the Apostles did liue and teach extra verbum Dei besides the word of God And speaking of all the ancient Fathers in generall and preferring his owne iudgment doctrine before theirs he sayth (i) Tom. ◠Witemb 〈◊〉 no 1551. l. de seruo arb sol 434. The Fathers of so many ages haue bene plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures they erred all their life time and vnlesse they repented before their death they neither were Saints nor appertained to the Church And if we come to the Councells he regarded them as little as he did the Fathers and was resolued with a most peruerse and obstinate mind to deny and contradict whatsoeuer a Councell should determine though neuer so true and to maintaine stifly the contrary though neuer so impious and damnable for speaking of communion in both kindes he sayth (k) De formula Missae Hospin hist. Sacramen part 2. fol. 13. a. If a Councell should in any case decree this then least of all would we vse both kinds yea rather in despight of the Councell and that decree we would vse either but one kind only or neither but in no case both In like manner he teacheth (l) Tom. 2. German fol. 214. that if a Councell should grant Church-men liberty to marry he would thinke that man more in Gods grace who during his life should keep three whores then he that should marry according to the Councels decree and that he would command vnder paine of damnation that no man should mary by permission of such a Councell but should either liue chast or if that were not possible then not to despaire though he kept a whore And speaking of the eleuation of the Sacrament (m) In parua Confessione I did know the eleuation of the Sacrament to be Idolatricall as making for sacrifice yet neuerthelesse I did retaine it in the Church at Witemberg to despight the Diuell Carolstadius Finally notwithstanding he himselfe acknowledged and many of your Protestant brethren confesse (n) See the next Section that he learned the chiefe points of his doctrine from the Diuell he was not ashamed to say (o) Apud Zuing l. to 2. ad Luth. confess fol. 478. a. If I be deceaued God hath deceiued me c. I am certaine (p) Luth. to 2. Witemb fol. 333. a. that I haue my opinions from Heauen c. They shall continue I would haue you know (q) Aduers falso nominat Eccles stat that hereafter I will not vouchsafe you so much honor as to suffer either you or the Angells of heauen to iudge of my doctrine c. For seeing I am certaine of it I will in respect of it iudg both of you and of Angells And yet for all this vaunting that he had no perswasion of the truth of his doctrine is a thing manifest both for that he had great remorse of Conscience (r) To. 2. Ger. Ien. fol. 9. b. to 2. Witemb anno 1562. l. de abrog Missa priu fol. 24.4 b. tom 5. Annot. breuiss his hart beating within him and reprehending him that he being a sole man and of no accompt should alone oppose himselfe against the Church the Fathers the Councells the customs the multitudes and greatnesse of wise men censuring them all to haue liued in ignorance and error and himselfe only to be wise as also because he offered to submit to the Pope (s) To. 1. Witemb fol. 215. b. M. Cooper Chron. printed 1565. fol. 278. a. and to suppresse his new doctrine so that he might not be compelled to recant Wherby it is manifest that he was resolued to goe against his owne knowledge and conscience either in preaching his new doctrine knowing it to be false or els in offering to suppresse it knowing it to be true If leauing Luther we come to Caluin whereas the holy Scriptures instruct vs in our beliefe of the Diuinity of Christ and of the truth of that most sublime and incomprehensible mystery of the Blessed Trinity and the holy Fathers out of them proue the same Caluin accuseth them of misinterpreting the Scriptures and by his blasphemous doctrine destroieth those diuine misteries the first Principles and ground of Christian religion The particulars are set downe at large and very punctually by M. Brereley (t) Caluins life sect 3. pag. 136. seqq out of Caluins owne workes and confirmed by the testimonies of other Protestants And the thing is so certaine that as Iacobus Andreas Schlusselburg Hunnius and Pelargus testify (u) Ibid. the troupes of Arians now raging in Transiluania Poland and Hungary are but Colonies sent from Geneua all the chiefest of them hauing bene at first Caluinists and so continue to this day in other points of their doctrine (x) Gratianus Prosper Instrum doctri printed Loschi 1586. reputing themselues to be the most pure reformed Caluinists by reason of their deniall of the Blessed Trinity which they reiect (y) Osiand Cent. 16. l. 2. c. 22. pag. 209. fin as being the three-headed Cerberus the deuice of Antichrist and the chiefe part of Popish Antichristian corruption From this knowne foundation of the Arians Doctrine Adam Neuserus a Caluinist and chiefe Pastor at Heydelberg who reuolted from thence to Arianisme writ from Constantinople to Gerlachius a Protestant preacher saying (z) Osiand ibid. pag. 208. I know none in our time to haue bene made an Arian that was not first a Caluinist as Seruetus Blandrata Paulus Alciatus
Franciscus Dauid Gentilis Gribaldus Siluanus and others all of them Caluinists reuolted to Arianisme Wherfore sayth Neuserus whosoeuer feareth to fall into Arianisme let him take heed of Caluinisme And as Caluin opposed the holy Scripture and all Christian Antiquity in their beliefe of the Diuinity of Christ and the blessed Trinity so did he in the rest of his doctrines to the number of 23. confessing point by point that the contrary was held by the primitiue Church and Fathers thereof whom he nameth noteth of error and reiecteth in a scornefull and contemptible manner as you may read in his life (a) Sect. 5. a. pag. 146. ad 265. in which the particulars are faithfully expressed in his owne words And Iacobus Gaulterius (b) Tab. Chronog saecul 16. a pag. 757. ad 795. hath related more of his errors to the number of 100. shewing that in many of them he iumpeth with ancient condemned heretikes These two are the Maister-builders of your Protestant Church whom you to honor them call (c) In your late Serm. at Durham pag. 38. Stellae primae magnitudinis Protestants generally haue in great esteeme as men raised by Gods extraordinary prouidence to enlighten the world Their doctrines you follow and with them reiect the ancient Fathers as Papists for that you acknowledg the Fathers to be against you in the chiefe heads of Doctrine wherin you differ from vs is exactly proued by your owne confessions expressed in your owne words (d) Brereley Prot. Apol. ferè per tot I appeale then to any impartiall Iudge whether you be not iustly accused of error and of obstinacy in the mantainance therof for to confesse that you hold against the primitiue Fathers and Church and yet not to reforme your selues after so many admonitions giuen you by the Church which hath condemned your errors and learnedly confuted them by her Doctors what is it but to confesse that you erre and are obstinate in error especially since many of your Tenets are precisely the same which primitiue heretikes haue held (e) See aboue Chap. 42. sect 2. and in them haue bene confuted by the primitiue Fathers and anathematized by the primitiue Church If therfore as you professe not to be willing to learne and not to yeild to truth sufficiently proposed be proper to the Synagogues of Sathan and the Churches of the malignant I leaue it to your iudgment whether your Churches may not be iustly reckoned in that number SECT V. Of Luthers Excommunication and of his Conference with the Diuell YOur seauenth Thesis is (f) Pag. 373. No vniust excommunication out of a true Church can preiudice the saluation of the excommunicate So farre we accord with you and allow what you bring out of Tolet (g) Ioan. 9.34 that the blinde man whome the Iewes cast out of their Synagogue was happy therin but wheras you adde that Luther whilest he continued in our Church was as one borne blind and when Christ opened his eyes was excommunicate by our high Priest for acknowledging the diuine light you are to remember S. Augustines words (h) Tract 45. in Ioan. that There are many who boast not only that they see but will seeme to be enlightned by Christ and those are heretikes Luther speaking of his owne life and manners before his reuolt from the Catholike Church said of himselfe (i) To. 2. Witemb fo 233. a. that during that time he was iuuenis monachus pietatis studiosus a yong man a Monke studious of godlinesse and liued in his Monastery (k) Voyon Catal. of Doct. printed in English 1598. pa. 180. Luth. vpon the Galat. Englished in c. 1. vers 14. fo 350. punishing his body with watching fasting and prayer that he honored the Pope (l) Luther ibid. of mere conscience kept chastity pouerty obedience and whatsoeuer I did sayth he I did it with a syncere hart of good zeale and for the glory of God fearing grieuously the last day and desirous to be saued from the bottome of my hart In so much that Erasmus (m) Ep ad Thom. Card. Ebor. reporteth of him that for some smal time after his reuolt there remained yet in him some reliques or sparkes of former sanctimony But afterwards he was much altered and so farre transported from the obseruance of Chastity that now he professeth to the contrary (n) In Prouerb 31. vers 1. Nothing is more sweet or pleasing vpon earth then the loue of a woman if a man can obtaine it And againe (o) Tom 7. Wittem Ep. ed Wolfing fol 505. a. He that resolueth to be without a woman let him lay a side the name of a man making himselfe a plaine Angell or spirit And yet more (p) Brer Luth. life Chap. 3. sect 6. pag. 71. h. Luth. Colloq German cap. de matrim As it is not in my power to be no man so it is not in my power it be without a woman c. It is more necessary then to eat drinke purge make cleane the nose c. In so much that he acknowledgeth (q) Colloq mensal fol. 526. a. 400. a. himselfe to haue bene almost mad through the rage of lust and desire of women exclaming out yet further (r) To. 1. Ep. Latin fol. 334. ad Philip. and saying I am burned which the great flame of my vntamed flesh c. Eight daies are now past in which I neither write pray or study being vexed partly with temptations of the flesh partly with other trouble But sayth he (s) Ibid. fol. 345. it sufficeth that we haue knowne the riches of the glory of God from him sinne cannot draw vs although we should commit fornication or kill a thousand times in one day And finally not long after with breach of his vow he maried Katherine Bore a runnagate Nunne (t) Melancth Ep. ad Ioac Camer de Luth. coning inter Theol. Consil Melancth part 1. pag. 37. for which by the most ancient Imperiall Lawes made soone after Constantine the Great (u) Sozom. l. 6. c. 3. fin lex extat Cod. l. de Epise Cler. he should haue lost his head These were his beginnings and by degrees he grew to be so wicked that Caluin was enforced to confesse Magnis vitijs laborat that Luther was subiect to great vices And in the end he grew to be so dissolute that he was censured by his owne followers who when they would giue themselues to dissolution were wont to say (x) Morgenstern tract de Eccles printed 1598. pag. 221. Hodie Lutheranice viuemus This day we will liue Luther-like Which corruption springing from Luther as from the roote grew and spread it selfe so farre among his followers that as he himselfe confesseth (y) Postil in Euang. Dominic 1. Aduentus they grew daily worse being more reuengfull couetous licencious then they were before in the Papacy And what testimony hereof other Protestants giue you