Doctor Mortons late Sermon preached in the Cathedrall Church of Durham answeared pag. 495. The sense of S. Pauls words which Doctor Morton tooke for his text declared Sect. 1. pag. 496. Ancient Popes obiected and falfified by Doctor Morton Sect. 2 pag. 501. Other Fathers and Catholike authors obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 3. pag. 507. Doctor Morton slaundereth Vrban Pope and with him all Catholikes Sect. 4. pag. 510. Doctor Morton obiecteth the Bull of Maundy-thursday Sect. 5. pag. 512. Other slanderous accusations of Doctor Morton answeared Sect. 6. pag. 514. The same matter prosecuted Sect. 7. pag. 517. CHAP. XXXIV Doctor Mortons doctrine condemneth the Saints and Martyrs of God pag. 522. S. Policarpe obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 1. ibid. S. Cyprian obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 2. pag. 523. S. Athanasius obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 3. pag. 525. S. Basils beliefe of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome proued and Doctor Mortons obiections answeared Sect. 4. pag. 528. Whether S. Hilary excommunicated the Pope Sect. 5. p. 533. S. Hieroms iudgment concerning the necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof Sect. 6. pag. 536. S. Ambrose his iudgment concerning the necessity of Vnion and subiection to the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 7. pag. 545. S. Augustines iudgment concerning the necessity of Vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof Sect. 8 pag. 552. S. Hilary B. of Aries acknowledged himselfe subiect to the B. of Rome Sect. 9. pag. 558. CHAP. XXXV Of titles attributed to the Pope p. 561. CHAP. XXXVI The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of ancient Fathers discouered pa. 571. Some of his answeares examined Sect. 1. ibid. Others of Doctor Mortons answeares to the Ancient Fathers examined Sect. 2. pag. 574 Doctor Mortons answeare to the testimony of Acacius examined Sect. 3. pag. 577. Doctor Mortons answeare to Vincentius Lyrinensis confuted Sect. 4. pag. 581. Doctor Morton in his answeare to Optatus contradicteth himselfe Sect. 5. pag. 582. Other vntruthes of Doctor Morton discouered his cauilling against the title of Holinesse giuen to the Pope Sect. 6. pag. 583. CHAP. XXXVII Of the authority of the Epistles of ancient Popes pag. 587. Of the Epistles of Popes liuing within the first 300. yeares after Christ Sect. 1. pag. 588. The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of Popes that liued in the second 300. yeares after Christ Sect. 2. pag. 592. CHAP. XXXVIII The vniuersall iurisdiction of the B. of Rome proued by the exercise of his authority ouer other Bishops pag. 600. The Popes vniuersall authority proued by the institution confirmation of Bishops And of the vse and signification of the Pall or mantle granted to Archbishops Sect. 1. p. 601. A shift of Doctor Morton reiected Sect. 2. pag. 604. The Popes power of instituting and confirming Bishops proued by examples Sect. 3 pag. 605. The Popes power of deposing Bishops without a Councell proued by examples Sect. 4. pag. 608. The Popes power of restoring Bishops without a Councell Sect. 5. pag. 611. Doctor Morton to Crosse the Popes authority in restoring Bishops deposed takes part with the Arians and iustifies their impious proceedings against S. Athanasius other Catholike Bishops Sect. 6. pag. 612. Other passages of Doctor Morton examined Sect. 7. pa. 618. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning excommunication And of Heretikes excommunicating the Pope Sect. 8. p. 621. Adrian and Nicolas Popes obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 9. pag. 623. Of the deposition of Flauianns Patriarke of Antioch Sect. 10. pag. 624. Doctor Morton in defence of his doctrine chargeth ancient Bishops which exercising Acts of authority out of the limits of their owne iurisdiction Sect. 11. pag. 631. CHAP. XXXIX Of Appeales to Rome decreed in the Councell of Sardica pag. 635. Whether the Councell of Sardica were a generall Councell Sect. 1. ibid. Other obiections of Doctor Morton against Appeales to Rome answeared Sect. 2. pag. 637. Examples of innocent Appellants Sect. 3. pag. 638. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the antiquity of appealing to Rome from remote nations Sect. 4. pag. 639. That S. Athanasius appealed to Iulius Pope and Theodoret to Leo as to absolute Iudges and that by their authority both of them were restored to their Churches Sect. 5. p. 641. That S. Chrysoftome appealed to Innocentius Pope as to an absolute Iudge and by his authority was restored to his Church of Constantinople Sect. 6. pag. 643. That Flauianus appealed to Leo Pope as to an absolute Iudge Sect. 7. pag. 648. Of Nilus equalling the B. of Constantinople with the Pope in his right of Appeales Sect. 8. pag. 650. The rest of Doctor Mortons Arguments against Appeales to Rome Sect. 9. pag. 653. CHAP. XL. Whether the Easterne Churches be at this day accordant in Communion with Protestants pag. 654. The state of the question Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Grecians of the primitiue and successiue times agreed in Fayth and Communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome and particularly at the Councell of Florence Sect. 2. pag. 655. That many of the Grecians at this day are of the Roman Communion and professe subiection to the B. of Rome Sect. 3. pag. 662. Of the Aegyptians Sect. 4. pag. 663. Of the Aethiopians Sect. 5. pag. 664. Of the Armenians Sect. 6. pag. 665. Of the Russians Sect. 7. pag. 666. Of the Aslyrians Sect. 8. ibid. Of the Antiochians Sect. 9 pag. 668. Of the Africans Sect. 10 pag. 669. Of the Asians Sect. 11. ibid. CHAP. XXXXI That in the forenamed countries there are no Christians that agree in fayth Communion with Protestants pag. 669. The Grecians which are not of the Roman communion are absolute Heretikes And Doctor Morton falsifieth Catholike Authors to excuse them Sect. 1. pag. 670. Of the Lutherans of Germany writing to Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople to be admitted into the communion of the Greeke Church and his answeare to them Sect. 2. pag. 674. A particular instance of Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople produced by Doctor Morton to proue that he dissented from the Roman Church examined Sect. 3. pag. 678. The Aegyptians Aethiopians Armenians Russians Melchites Africans and Asians which call themselues Christians and be not of the Roman communion are absolute Heretikes Sect. 4. pag. 679. CHAP. XXXXII. Doctor Mortons plea for his Protestant Church pag. 683. The small extent of the Protestant Church proueth her not to be the Catholike Church Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Protestant Church be free from error in doctrine Sect. 2. pag. 686. Doctor Mortons pretended purity of manners in his Protestant Church ect 3. pag. 687. That Protestants by Schisme haue diuided themselues from the Catholike Church Sect. 4. pag. 688. CHAP. XXXXIII Of the Head of the Roman Church compared to the body therof pag. 691. Whether it be matter of fayth that the Pope is aboue a Councell Sect. 1. ibid. Whether it be matter of fayth that this
an other French Lawier whom you call Our noble Historian whereas the whole course of his history sheweth him to haue bene a Huguenot or litle better Nor are you contented with citing him as a Catholike author but to helpe out the matter you falsify him most notoriously as hereafter (s) Chap. 44. sect 9. shall be proued A third sleight is to vrge as Catholike authors some that are of suspected fayth as 1. Erasmus (t) Pag 208. who albeit in the end he abandoned Luther * 303. u. 306. a 381. g 380. f. g. and dyed Catholike as out of his owne confession and Osianders testimony Brierley (u) Aduertism before his Protest Apol. hath proued yet for some tyme he fauoured Luther in regard therof is challenged by Doctor Humfroy and Doctor Reynolds for a man of your religion and by Iohn Foxe Canonized for a Protestant Saint (x) Acts and Mon. pa. 402. Kalend. 22. Decemb. His rash and vnaduised writings gaue occasion to Lutherans and Zuinglians to Father on him diuers of their hereticall Tenents and therfore are generally reproued by Catholikes (y) Ind. lib. prohib condemned by the Church which you cold not be ignorant of therfore your persisting still to alleage him against vs as an approued Catholike author is inexcusable 2. To this classe may be reduced others who though Catholikes yet fell into some errors as Beatus Rhenanus Claudius Espencaus Papyrius Massonius Ioannes Ferus and Gulielmus Barklaius of which the foure first are prohibited by the Church nor were you ignorant therof for speaking of Rhenanus you say (z) Pag. 101. Rhenanus writ so whiles he had the vse of his tongue but since you haue gagged him by your Index expurgatorius By what authority then do you vngagge him whom the Roman Church which he acknowledged to be his Mother hath so iustly gagged And though William Barkley be not registred in the Index as a condemned author his booke being set forth since the Index was made yet Bellarmine (a) Tract de potest Papae aduers Barclaium in praesat hath produced against his doctrine the agreeing consent of the most learned Diuines of Italy France Spayne England and Scotland as also the decrees of ancient Popes and generall Councels and therfore with great reason hath censured him for that being no Diuine but a Lawier he presumed to write a booke De potestate Papa in temporalibus which contayning diuers errors being left imperfect at his death was afterwards published without name of author printer or place of impression for although some copies say it was printed at Mussipont yet Bellarmine conuinceth that to be an (b) Ibid. vntruth Iohn Barkeley sonne to William hath confessed the same (c) In praef Parenesis giuing notice to all men that it was published in England by Protestants and hath withall acknowledged his Father to haue erred in that booke and retracted his owne defence therof All this might haue moued you to forbeare the alleaging of Barkeleys booke against vs. And so much the vrge in this your Grand imposture the very same passage of his which your ancient Antagonist (d) F. Persons Treatise to mitigations Chap. 6. pag. 202. here tofore shewed you to haue obiected in an other treatise of yours corruptly against our common beliefe and practise falsifying and sophisticating both his and our meaning And the like abuse he sheweth you to haue offred to (e) Ibid. Tolosanus whose testimony you yet againe impertinently produce here against (f) Pag. 172. vs. 3. And to this classe may be reduced Polydore Virgill (g) Grand Impost pag. 46.97 e. 164. p. 382. â— 386 c. who being a Catholike author his Booke De inuentoribus rerum hath bene enlarged and corrupted by heretikes and is for that cause prohibited 4. Your fourth sleight is to alleadge and insist much on some writings of Aenae as Siluius Cardinall Cusanus and Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester which they set forth in their youth but afterwards repented and publikely retracted Aenaeas Siluius that was afterwards Pope Pius the second being in his yonger yeares present at the Councell of Basil and Secretary therof writ a booke exalting the authority of a Councell and depressing the authority of the Pope which booke is not only forbiden by the Church but he himselfe also being more mature in yeares more ripe in iudgment and more solidly learned repenred the writing therof when he came to be Pope set forth a speciall bull to retract it (h) Extat hac Bulla apud Binium to 4. pag. 512. seqq in which among other words he sayth In minoribus agentes c. Whiles I was in minority not yet entred into any holy orders being present at Basil among those who made themselues a generall Councell said they represented the vniuersall Church I writ a small booke of Dialogues c. in which ignorantly as Paul did I persecuted the Roman and chief See Wherfore I admonish in our Lord that you giue no credit to such former writings of mine as do in any sorte extenuate the Soueraigne authority of the See Apostolike And then hauing declared that he made not this change by his comming to the Popedome but before he was either Pope or Bishop and set downe the causes that moued him therto he addeth Hauing considered all these things I submitted my selfe to Pope Eugenius saying with Hierome I am ioyned in communion with the chayreof Peter vpon which I know the Church to be built and I had at that tyme no other orders but of Priesthood only when I returned to the obedience of Eugenius By this it appeares that when Bellarmine sayth (*) Lib. de Scriptor in Aenea Siluio he retracted his error in his old age and being Pope he speaketh only of the setting forth of the said Bull to make his retractation publikely knowne to the whole world but the error it selfe he recalled before he was either Pope or Bishop as you haue heard And this discouereth your want of sincerity who in diuers places of your Grand Imposture alleaging testimonies of Aeneas to shew his iudgment concerning the Roman Church conceale all those in which his doctrine and beliefe is truly deliuered and set downe (i) Pag. 91. d. 210. * .249 d. only such as you could pick out of his former workes written in his youth forbidden by the Church and retracted by himself which dealing is no lesse impostetous then if you should deliuer as S. Augustins doctrine that which in his Retractations he hath recalled But you seeke to lessen this Imposture by adding an other to it for lest peraduenture your Reader might haue notice of this retractation of Aeneas and therby discouer your bad dealing you couer it by insinuating that he made no such recantation till he was Pope for hauing cited a passage of his you say (k) Pag. 210. So Aeneas out of Hierome whilest
adde (b) Ibid. that there was neuer any Rhadamanthus so extreme as at once to pardon and kill and that therfore such mercy is to be cursed because it is cruell by these words you condemne the practice of all Christian Common wealths which when they put Malefactors to death grant them accesse to the Sacraments of Pennance and Eucharist afford them all help and instruction to dye well as the Church doth to Heretikes if they will accept therof for with them she dealeth no otherwise in this case then all Christian Princes do with other malefactors But belike nether heretikes nor other Malefactors must be put to death or if they be the Church must deny them the holy Sacraments that so their soules may perish with their bodies or els you will compare her to Rhadamanthus you will say she pardons and kils at once and curse her mercy canonizing it for cruelty What may we say or thinke of such a man Small reason therfore you had (c) Pâ—g 85. 86. to call the Inquisitions proceeding against heretikes Tyrannous Romish cruelty and Barbarous Romish cruelty And so much the reader will yet better vnderstand if he consider that nether the Inquisitors nor any other Ecclesiasticall persons pronounce nor much lesse execute sentence of death against heretikes and what the secular Magistrate doth in that kinde against Lutherans Caluinists is not by force of any new lawes made against them but according to the lawes which the most godly Christian Emperors haue anciently prouided before any Protestants were exstant in the world for the preseruation of Christian Religion against Iewes Mahumetans and Heretikes But if I were disposed to deale with you by retorsion which kind of argument is familiar to you in this Grand Imposture I cold put you in mind how without any warrant of law for at that tyme you had made no lawes against Catholikes yea and contrary to all lawes of this kingdome and of Christianity in the dayes of K. Henry the eight and Queene Elizabeth you partly sent and forced into banishment and partly consumed with the loathsomnesse of prisons and stench of dungeons many Catholikes of all degrees aswell Ecclesiasticks as Laicks I cold write of your racking and many other wayes cruelly torturing of Priests and lay Catholikes and of your putting to death many of them for crimes composed and maliciously forged against them by your selues you hauing then no lawes wherby to condemne them And I cold reckon the number and specify the cruelty of your Parlament Statutes made since that tyme against all sortes of Catholikes and the seuerity vsed in the execution of them with continuall vexation of innocent people especially by the inferior sort of your officers But for the honor of our Countrey I forbeare the rehearsall of them and wish that the Christian world abroad had not taken so much notice of them as their Histories shew them to haue done But if leauing England I passe to other nations what pen is able to expresse the neuer before heard of inhumane barbarous sacrilegious cruelties of your Geuses in the Iow Countries and your good brethren the Huguenots in France which whosoeuer desires to know more in particular may see liuely presented to his view by M. Richard Verstegan in a booke of pictures intituled Theatrum crudelicatum haereâ—icorum nostri temporis printed at Antwerp Apud Adrianum Huberti Anno 1592. with so many particulars of the tyme place persons and torments that no man euer had the face to question the truth therof nor the relation which Doctor Harding In his proofe of certayne articles of religion against Maister Iuell (d) Fol. 129.130 hath made of the Caluinists at Patâ—é not farre from Orleans throwing 25. infants quick into the fire of their burying of Catholikes aliue at S. Macarius of cutting infants in two of ripping vp the bellies of Priests aliue of drawing out their entrailes by litle and litle and winding them about stakes of cutting of the priuy parts of a Priest then frying them after causing him by violence to swallow them downe and last of all ripping vp his stomach being yet aliue to see what was become of them of their dragging other Priests after their horses then picking out their eyes cutting off their eares noses and priuy parts wearing their eares in their hats as iewels to glory in their malice hanging vp the carcasses of some yet striuing for life dispatching others at once with their pistols hacking and mangling the faces of some cleauing the heads of others in two at a stroke to make tryall of their strength To which you may adde the horible sacriledges the vnspeakeable cruelties fitter for Tygers then men and the monstruous beastlinesse of your French and Holland Brethren at Tillemont in Brabrant Anno 1635. I pretermit the particulars not to soyle my paper with the rehearsall of them If you desire to know them the famous Vniuersity of Louayne next neighbour to Tillemont hath depainted them in liuely colours in their relation you may read them If you had consired these and many other most horrible cruelties of your Ghospelling Bretheren the like wherof haue neuer bene heard among any people neuer so inhumane and sauage and added vnto them your owne outrages committed both in England and Ireland some of which Verstegans Theatrum representeth vnto you you wold surely haue bene ashamed to instile the iust proceedings of the Inquisition or the sentences pronounced against them by Catholike Magistrates Tyrannous Romish cruelty Barbarous Romish cruelty CHAP. XV. Of the signification of the word Catholike and the iudgment of diuers Fathers obiected by Doctor Morton against the Roman Church SECT I. That the word Catholike proues the Roman Church to be the true Church YOv demand (e) Pag. 88. 89 how the Roman Church seing it is Roman that is a particular Church can be called Catholike that is vniuersall or the whole Church And if it be the whole Church how can it be a particular Church distinct from the Church of Greece or Church of France will you make vs beleeue that the thumbe of the hand can be the whole body Syr as we are not so witlesse as to thinke that the thumbe of the hand can be the whole body so nether are we so foolish as to beleeue that the particular Church of the Roman Dioces can be the vniuersall Church We know and so do you to and it hath bene already proued (f) Chap. 1. Sect. 2. 3. that not only the particular Church of Rome may in a true proper acception be called the Catholike Church as Head of all Churches but also that the Roman Church taken as often it is for the collection of all Churches in the world consisting of the Roman as Head and the rest as members may be and is truly and vsually called The Catholike Church and the vniuersall Church Yea it is euident that if according to the Etimology of the name
hearing and finall decision of the causes of Bishops fayth Are you ignorant that the custome is that wee be first written vnto that from hence may proceed the iust decision of things And therfore if any suspicion were conceyued against your Bishops there it ought to haue bene referred hither to our Church And then declaring vnto them that this authority of the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged by the Councell of Nice he denounceth vnto them that in condemning Athanasius without expecting his sentence they had done contra Canones against the Canons to wit of the Nicen Councell which he setteth downe at large in his second epistle to them that as well Athanasius in appealing from their Councell to him as also he in repealing their actes in restoring to their seates Athanasius the other Bishops whom they had deposed and in summoning their aduersaries to appeare at Rome yeld account of their proceedings had done quod Ecclesiastici Canonis est according to the Canons of the Church 2. The same is proued by the testimony of Innocentius the first whom S. Augustine S. Hierome and other Fathers of that age highly commend He ordayneth (z) Ep. ad Victric Rhotomag Epise that if any difference arise betweene Priests their cause be iudged by the Bishops of the same Prouince but that greater causes be referred to the See Apostolike as the Nicen Councell hath ordeyned 3. The same is proued out of S. Leo the Great who writing to Theodosius the yonger (a) Ep. 4â—â— and representing vnto him the sacrilegious proceeding of the second Councell of Ephesus which he by his owne authority had called and impiously maintained that Flauianus the holy Patriarke of Constantinople which in that Councell had bene iniustly deposed and many wayes wronged fled to him for redresse presenting a Writ of Appeale to his Legates intreateth his assistance for the calling of a generall Councell in Italy adding that the Nicen Canous necessarily require the calling of a Councell after the putting in of an Appeale This sheweth that the Councell of Nice decreed the lawfulnesse of appeales from generall Councels to the Pope Nor are you ignoraÌ„t thereof for afterwards (b) Pag. 308. you bring these very words of S. Leo against Appeales to him but not without great Eclypse of iudgment for in them two things are clearly expressed the one that according to the Nicen canoÌ„s Bishops wheÌ„ they are wronged may lawfully appeale to the Pope the other that after the putting in of an Appeale to him a generall Councell ought to be called that to the greater satisfaction of all parts the cause may be fully examined reiudged by the common consent of the Church which no more preiudicateth the Popes Authority then it doth the Kings that after an appeale made to Maiesty a Parliament be called for the decision of the cause for as the King is Head of the Parliament so is the Pope of a generall Councell And hereby it appeares how litle iudgment you shew in obiecting the African Councell to proue that the Councell of Nice denyed appeales to Rome both because your selfe alleaging this testimony of the Nicen Councell out of S. Leo proue them to be lawfull as also because the African Councell is wholly against you as hereafter shall be proued (c) Below Chap. 27. 4. That the Councell of Nice acknowledged the vninersall authority and iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome is proued out of Socrates a Greeke historian of aboue 1200. yeares standing who speaking of the Arian Councell at Antioch (d) L. 2. c. 5. proueth it to be vnlawfull because Iulius Bishop of Rome was not there nor sent any in his steed although the acclesiasticall canon forbids to rule the Churches without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome And Sozomen (e) L. 3. c. 9. Iulius reprehended them the Arians that they had secretly altered the fayth of the Nicen Councell and that against the lawes of the Church they had not called the Pope to their Synod for there was a sacerdotall law which pronounceth all things to be inualide that are done without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome And Theodoret (f) L 2. hist c. 4. Iulius Bishop of Rome following the canon of the Church commanded them the Arian Bishops to come to Rome and summoned the Diuinâ— Athanasius to answeare for himselfe in iudgment And the same is reported by Nicephorus Now this Canon so vniformely auouched by these Greeke historians which forbiddeth Bishops to be deposed or any Ecclesiasticall decrees to be made without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome can be of no other then of the Nicen Councell or els of that of Sardica which confirmed the decrees of the Councell of Nice and is reputed as an appendix vnto it both because as you haue heard Innocentius afflirmeth the Councell of Nice to haue made such a law as also for that since the Apostles tyme vntill the tyme of those two Councels there had bene held no other generall Councell in the Church And finally because Iohn that learned Disputant of the Latines in the Councell of Florence (g) Sess 20. in their name answeareth Marcus Ephesius the disputant of the Greekes that the most ancient epistles of Iulius and Liberius Popes which Iulian Cardinall of S. Sabina had shewed to the Grecians in that Councell did conuince that blessed Athanasius being persecuted by the Arians in their Councell at Antioch writ to Felix Marcus Iulius and Liberius all of them successiuely Popes of Rome for a true copy of the Actes of Nice which were kept entire and incorrupt at Rome all those that were in the East being corrupted by the Arians and that their answere was They wold not send the originall acts which being written in Greeke and Latine and subscribed by the Nicen Fathers and sealed with their seales were kept by the Bishop of Rome with great veneration but that they wold send him copied out seuerally such Canons as were for his purpose And moreouer he sheweth that when Athanasius had appealed from the Councell of Antioch to the See of Rome and that the Arians obiected it vnto him as a thing vnlawfull Liberius promised to send him copied out the Nicen decree for the lawfulnesse of appealing to Rome and that Iulius in his Epistle sharply rebuked the Arians for hauing presumed to call a Councell without his allowance shewing theÌ„ out of a decree of the Councell of Nice that no Councell could euer be held without the authority of the Bishop of Rome And lastly Pisanus (h) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 345.346 in proofe of these Nicene decrees produceth the testimonies of the Councell of Constantinople of Marcus of Stephanus and Innocentius Popes of Athanasius and the Bishops of Aegypt of other Orientals of Marianus Scotus Iuo Carnotensis and Gratianus All which with the rest here alleaged shew your vnshamefastnesse in vrging the Councell of Nice against Appeales to Rome which were so
was the definitiue sentence pronounced by blessed Melchlades how entire how prudent how peaceable in so much that S. Augustine greatly commendeth him for it saying (h) Ibid. O blessed man O sonne of Christian peace and Father of Christian people Neuerthelesse those rebellious Donatists rested not but from the iudgement of the Pope appealed againe to the Emperor which he so much misliked that he called it (i) Ep. ad Episc Cathol ad calc gest purgat Cecil Felic A great phrensy incredible arrogancy a thing not fit to be spoken or heard a mad impudency of fury a recourse to a secular iudgement from an heauenly and a contempt of Christes authority And yet out of a great desire he had to gaine them yelding to their importunity or as S. Augustine sayth (k) Ep. 166. giuing way to their peruersnesse and hoping that what he did would be auowed by the See Apostolike he granted them another Councell of 200. Bishops at Arles which hauing duely examined their cause confirmed the Popes sentence therfore gaue them no more satisfaction then the Roman Councell had done Wherfore from this Councell they had recourse againe to the Emperor beseeching him to take the examination of the cause into his owne hands which he did but yet A sanctis antistitibus postea veniam petiturus (l) S. Aug. ep 162. with intention to aske pardon afterwards of the holy Bishops for medling in a cause that belonged not to his Court but to theirs But what did Constantines iudgement appease the fury of those obstinat heretikes No The Emperor sayth S. Augustine (m) Ibid. is chosen Iudge the Emperors iudgement is despised But no wonder for what els could be expected from such rebellious spirits but that as they had refused to stand to the sentence of the Church so also they should contemne the iudgement of the Emperor Who is there then that seeth not how far this history is from prouing that Constantine acknowledged in himselfe any authority to meddle in Ecclesiasticall causes since he durst not iudge the cause of a Bishop and charged the Donatists with neuer heard of impudency arrogancy impiety fury pernersnesse porensy and contemp of Christs authority in flying from the iudgement of the Church to his secular tribunall And that if in this cause he did any way assume to himselfe the person of a Iudge it was with protestation to aske pardon of the holy Bishops and in hope it would be auowed by them for as much as what he did was out of a desire to quiet the Donatists and reduce them to the peace and communion of the Catholike Church And how far this example of the Donatists is from helping your cause or hurting ours S. Augustine will yet better informe you (n) Cont. lic Petil. l. 2. c. 92. Ep. 166. for as when they were condemned by the Church they fled to Cōstantine so when they were repulsed and condemned by him they despised his iudgement and appealed to Iulian an Apostata from Christian religion and a professed enemy to Christ beseeching him to restore vnto them the Churches which Catholike Princes had taken from them and to that end honored him with this Elogy (o) Ep. 166. That in him alone all iustice remained which gaue S. Augustine cause to say vnto them (p) Ibid. If it were in your power you would not now call against vs Constantine a Christian Emperor because he defended the truth but you would rather raise Iulian the Apostata from hell How far these words of S. Augustine may touch you for producing this example of the sacrilegious Donatists as a precedent of your doctrine and Constantine as a paterne for secular Princes to meddle in Ecclesiasticall iudgments I leaue to the readers censure for if as you pretend this example of the Donatists flying from the iudgment of the Church to Constantine be of force to proue that the Popes iudgement will suffer an higher appeale why shall it not also be of force to proue that the iudgement of Constantine will suffer an higher appeale to Iulian the Apostata for the example of these Donatists is a precedent for the one as well as for the other A second history which you obiect (q) Pag. 16◠to proue that the Popes iudgement will suffer an higher appeale is that in the case of Athanasius Constantine chargeth all the Bishops of the Prouince of Tyre to appeare before him without delay and to shew how sincerely and truly the had giuen their iudgements The case is this Diuers hereticall Bishops of the East Arians Meletians and Colluthians assembled themselues at Tyre to accuse Athanasius of many crimes which themselues had maliciously forged and suborned false witnesses to testify against him that so they might seeme to haue iust occasion to abstaine from his communion condemne him Constantine being informed therof at the intreaty of Athanasius call's them to him to yeld accompt of their proceeding Ergo say you the Popes iudgment will suffer an higher appeale A false consequence for S. Athanasius fled from the said Councell of Tyrus vnto Constantine not as to his competent Iudge but as to the Protector of Innocency and of the Church to be maintayned in the possession of his Bishopricke honor life against which his Arian aduersaries were with such violent and insuperable malignity bent as he had no meanes to auoyd so great mischiefs tending to the ouerthrow of Catholike Religion but by imploring the ayde of the supreme secular Power That in this case Clergymen and Bishops may haue recourse vnto the arme of temporal Princes S. Paul (1) Act. 28. Coactus sum appellare Caesarem shewed by his example as (2) Athanas Apolog. 2. ad Constantium S. Athanasius and (3) August Epist 48.50 204. S. Augustine and out of them Suarez (4) Suarez defensio fidei lib. 4. c. 10. n. 5. obserueth Lastly you obiect (r) Pag. 161. fin 162. that When the cause Ecclesiasticall requireth Constantine proceedeth to denounce punishment by his owne authority against whomsoeuer that shall honor the memory of those Bishops Theognis and Eusebius These two Bishops were Arians and great fyrebrands of that blasphemous sect which had bene condemned an athematized by the holy Councell of Nice and moreouer had committed many other most enormous crimes some of which Constantine hauing mentioned in his Epistle to the people of Nicomedia addeth (s) Theod. l. 1. hist. c. 20. If any one shall be so temerarious and audacious as to goe about to praise and honor the memory of those plagues of the Church Theognis and Eusebius he shall presently be punished by me for his folly These words of Constantine shew that he did not threaten punishment to any Ecclesiasticall person but to the people of Nicomedia if they should audaciously presume to honor those Heretikes whom the Church had condemned which was not to assume any Ecclesiasticall authority to
himselfe but to do his duty and what the lawes of God and his Church require at the hands of euery good Christian Prince which is to defend and maintaine the authorities and iudgements of the Church But I must aduertise you of some ignorant mistakes you say (t) Pag. 161. out of S. Augustine that Constantine committed the cause of Cecilian to Melchiades Pope But in three other places (u) Pag. 221. 327. 328. contradicting your selfe and S. Augustine you say he committed it to Pope Iulius shewing therin your ignorance in Ecclesiasticall history for if as S. Augustine truly sayth it was committed to Melchiades how could it be committed to Iulius who was not chosen Pope till aboue 20. yeares after Melchiades his death and betweene whom and Iulius were other two Popes Syluester Marke With like ignorance you say (x) Pag. 161. The Emperor chargeth all the Bishops of the Prouince of Tyre to appeare before him for Tyre hath not many Bishops nor is it a Prouince but a City in the prouince of Phenicia in which the Arians held their wicked Councell against S. Athanasius SECT II. Doctor Mortons second Example of Theodosius examined THat Theodosius acknowledged no subiection to the B. of Rome you proue by his interesting himselfe in Ecclesiasticall affaires Of the Emperor Theodosius say you (y) Pag. 161. we read that he gaue to the Bishop Dioscorus authority and superiority of place to moderate causes in a Councell This you speake of that most godly and religious Emperor Theodosius the elder for here and in your Index of the tenth Chapter prefixed before this your Grand Imposture you name him immediatly after Constantine and before Theodosius the yonger and both in the same Index and page 167. you expresly declare that the Emperor which you obiect against vs immediatly after Constantine is Theodosius the elder And finally because vnlesse by this Theodosius you meane the elder you obiect nothing at all out of him against vs which yet in the places alleaged you professe to do in this Chapter Wherfore I must make bold to tell you that in this your instance you discouer extreme ignorance in Ecclesiasticall history for Theodosius the elder died the yeare 394. which was 50. yeares before Dioscorus was made Bishop How then could he giue to Dioscorus authority and superiority of place to moderate causes in a Councell If you had not bene ignorant and willing to lay hold of any thing true or false to help your selfe in the defence of a bad cause you should haue said that Theodosius not the elder but the yonger sauoring the Arch-heretike Eutyches and seduced by his high Chamberlaine Chrysaphius an Eutychian Heretike gaue authority to Dioscorus an hereticall Bishop of Alexandria of the same sect with Eutyches to moderate causes not in a true Councell but in a sacrilegions Conuenticle at Ephesus in which Eutyches was absolued his heresy approued the Catholike Bishops that had condemned him in a Synod at Constantinople vnder Flauianus Patriarke of that City not permitted to speake all such as were knowne to be zealous maintainers of the Catholike fayth against Eutyches deposed others sent into banishment the Popes Legates thrust out of the Councell the holy Patriarch Flauianus by the faction of Dioscorus barbarously misused beaten and wounded to death the Bishops that figned compelled therto by famin and force of armes the Emperors soldiers ruling all by violence and tyranny and many other outragious villanies committed in so much that this Conuenticle hath neuer deserued the name of a lawfull Councell but by all writers is called Synodus Piratica and Latrocinium Ephesinum The piraticall Synod and the Ephesine theeuery or as Socrates termeth it (z) L. 1. c. 9. 10. Vesanum Ephesi Conciliabulum The frantike Conuenticle of Ephesus And the Acts therof were soone after condemned by Leo Pope (a) Ep. 24. and repealed by the holy Councell of Chalcedon (b) Act. 1. I appeale now to the Reader whether you haue not shewed great ignorance and in the highest degree wronged that most religious Emperor Theodosius the elder in making him patron of the Eutychian heresy and charging him falsly with assembling that sacrilegious Synagogue of Ephesus and most of all in producing him for your Protestant doctrine against the Roman Church to which he so firmely adhered that he held her to be the Head and center of Catholike communion And therfore intending to establish the true fayth and free the whole Empire from the pernicious doctrines of diuers heretikes which liued in those dayes he made that famous Law which Iustinian hath inserted into his Code and marcheth in the front therof (c) Cod. tit 1. L. 1. Our will is that all the people ruled by the Empire of our Clemency shall liue in the same religion which the diuine Apostle Peter deliuered to the Romans as the religion insinuated by him witnesseth vntill this present day and which it is manifest that the high Priest Damasus followeth and Peter of Alexandria a man of Apostolicall sanctity that is to say Peter who being driuen out of his Seat of Alexandria by Lucius the Arian intruder appealed to Rome (d) Socrat. l. 4. c. 36. and had bene newly restored confirmed by Damasus in the Patriarchall seat of that City And the same or not vnlike to this law of Theodosius is that which Gratian that gouerned the Empire together with Theodosius made to reduce all heretikes to the true Church and fayth of Christ He made a law sayth Theodoret (e) L. 5. hist c. 2. by which he commanded the holy Churches to be deliuered to them that agreed in communion with Damasus which commandment as he further expresseth (f) Ibid. c. 2. init was without contradiction executed throughout all Nations By this it appeares that if Doctor Morton had liued in the dayes of Theodosius Gratian they would haue taken from him the Church of Dutham deliuered it to a Bishop of the Romā Cōmunion SECT III. Doctor Mortons third instance of Theodosius the yonger and Honorius examined YOu go on obiecting (g) Pag. 162. out of the Glosse in C. Renouantes Theodosius the yonger and Honorius both Emperors say that the Patriarke of Constantinople hath the same right ouer those in subiection to him which the Pope hath euer his Why do you falsify The Chapter is taken out of the Trullan Synod vnder Iustinian the yonger who liued long after Theodosius Honorius Againe the words of the Glosse are Imperator dicit The Emperor sayth but mention of Honorius or Theodosius there is none that 's your false comment The Glosse citeth the Emperor in Authentica de Ecclesiasticis titulis which was not written by Honorius nor by Theodosius but by Iustinian the elder And how far he was from equalling the B. of Constantinople with the Pope you may vnderstand not only by other his Lawes (h) See Sect. sequent but euen by this very
it in that sense in which the Iewes did not receaue it to wit as sufficient to decide controuersies of fayth And in confirmation herof he numbreth this booke among other canonicall scriptures saying (m) Ep. ad Principiam Ruth Hester Iudith were of so great renowne that they gaue names to sacred volumes And in other his workes he often citeth it as diuine scripture (n) Ep. 9. ad Salu. Ep. 22. ad Bustoch in Isa c. 14. But to proue that he held it apocryphall you obiect Stapleton (o) Pag. 303. Salmeron Lindanus Acosta whom you call our lesse precipitant Authors Stapleton you falsify citing him l. 2. de authorit Script cap. 4. for he hath no booke so intituled and much lesse any such words as you set downe for his Yea he is so far from saying that S. Hierome denieth this booke to be canonicall that he sayth directly the contrary for discoursing (p) De princip doct l. 9. c. 6. how some bookes of scripture which before the definition of the Church had bene held apocryphall or doubtfull were afterwards by her authority certainly beleeued to be canonicall he exemplifieth in this of Iudith which saith he S. Hierome moued by the authority of the Councell of Nice held to be Canonicall hauing formerly accounted it to be apocryphall This is Stapletons doctrine Are you not ashamed to produce him as a witnesse for the contrary And as little truth hath your citation of Salmeron for he alleageth S. Hieromes words expresly declaring that the rule to distinguish Canonicall Scriptures from apocryphall is the authority of the Church Wherupon Salmeron truly sayth that if S. Hierome should deny this booke to be Canonicall his authority alone could not be preualent against the whole streame of Ancient Fathers holding the contrary Their testimonies you may read in Iodocus Coccius Lindanus and Acosta I haue not seene but you that haue dealt so with Stapleton and Salmeron may be presumed to deale no better with them SECT VII S. Ambrose his iudgment concerning the necessity of Vnion and subiection to the Bishop and Church of Rome S. Ambrose declared his iudgment when reporting (q) Orat. de obitu Satyri how his holy brother Satyrus in his returne out of Africa was cast by ship wrack vpon the isle of Sardinia infected with schisme he said Satyrus not esteeming any fauor to be true but that of the true fayth called vnto him the Bishop of that place and asked him whether he agreed with the Catholike Bishops that is sayth S. Ambrose with the Roman Church This sheweth that S. Ambrose and Satyrus belieued the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church and all that were not in her Communion to be schismatikes You answeare (r) Pag. 213. that the reason why Satyrus would not communicate with any Bishop that agreed not with the Roman Church was because Sardinia was then diuided into diuers schismes by hereticall spirits No maruell therfore though Satyrus asked of a Bishop whose fayth he suspected whether he belieued as that Church did whose fayth was known to be truly Catholike euen as if in tyme of rebellion the Citizens of some one City for example Yorke were more generally knowne to professe loyalty to their Soueraigne an honest man comming into the kingdome might aske the inhabitants whether they agreed with the City of Yorke therby to know whether they were loyall subiects and yet it would not follow that therfore Yorke is the head of the kingdome This your answeare framed to puzzell an ignorant reader is easely reiected Satyrus did well know and it was generally knowne both in the East and West that at that time not only the Church of Rome but also that of Milan of which Ambrose his owne brother was then actually Bishop and famous ouer all the world was sound in fayth and truly Catholike Why then did not Satyrus to informe himselfe whether that Sardinian Bishop were Catholike aske him whether he agreed with the Bishop and Church of Milan but because he knew that neither the Church of Milan nor any other but the Roman was the head of Catholike Communion as S. Ambrose himselfe teacheth saying (s) L. 1. Ep. 4. ad Imperat. From the Roman Church the rights of Venerable Communion do flow to all And why els did he say this but because he knew that neither to the Church of Milan nor to any other but the Roman Christ hath promised that her fayth shall not faile (t) Luc. 22.31 and that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her (u) Math. 16.18 In regard wherof it is said that not to the Church of Milan but to her all Churches and all the faithfull from all places must haue recourse (x) Iren. l. 3. c. 3. And vnlesse you can shew that Yorke hath an especiall Priuiledge from God not to faile in her loyalty as the Roman Church hath not to faile in the Catholike fayth and profession therof your example is impertinent Yorke may faile in loyalty and therfore to be a citizen of Yorke and to be a good subiect are not termes conuertible But the Roman Church can neither faile in the Catholike fayth nor in the profession therof and therfore to be a Catholike and to agree with the Roman Church as in themselues they are so were they held by S. Ambrose by his brother Satyrus and by the generall accord of antiquity to be all one (y) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 3. 2. S. Ambrose declared his iudgment when he called Damasus Pope Rector of the house of God which is his Church (z) In cap. 3. prioris ad Tâ—moth You answeare that we mistake the words respectiuely spoken to one person Pope Damasus and circumstantially for one tyme as if they were absolutely so meant for the persons of all Popes at all times This answeare is not respectiuely but absolutely insufficient for what dignity superiority or power of gouerment had Damasus ouer the whole Church in his person and for his tyme which euery Pope hath not had in his person and for his time The power of Ruler Gouernor of the whole Church which Damasus had was by his Popedome And as he by the right of his Popedome was so all his predecessors and successors in that See haue by the same title and right bene Rectors and Gouernors of the whole Church This is so certaine that you passing lightly ouer this first answeare fly to a second (a) Pag. 212.213 that the title of Rector or Gouernor of the whole Church argueth not Damasus to be Head of the Church because Athanasius Basil Gregory Nazianzen haue receaued titles equiualent if not more excellent as of Prop and Buttresse of the Church and fayth Eye of the world and others in which ascriptions say you there is not any acknowledgment of authority but a commendation of their care and diligence iudgment and directions in behalfe of the whole Church In the
in like manner answere you that as you haue followed some wicked Clergy-men of his Church in their disobedience to the See Apostolike so follow them in their repentance and both he and they would condemne you of great perfidiousnesse in proclaiming their sinne and concealing their amendment 5. You obiect (i) Pag. 214.215 that S. Ambrose refused to follow the Church of Rome in the custome of washing the feet of infants is baptized which say you the Church of Rome iudged to be superfluous but contrariwise Ambrose and the Church of Milan held to be necessary Your custome is to borrow Arguments from Catholike writers and suppresse their solutions This you borow from Bellarmine (k) L. 2. de Pont. c. 16. as you do many others In him read the answere It shall suffife me to tell you that the Roman Church obligeth not other Churches to vse or omit all the rites and ceremonies which she vseth or omitteth in administration of the Sacraments or other Ecclesiasticall offices In such as are of themselues indifferent she commandeth nothing as you haue heard (l) ChaÌ„p 2â— sect 3. but leaueth freedome to other Churches to follow their owne customes Such was the ceremony of washing the feet of infantes baptized which though she practized not she condemned not and therfore it was free for the Church of Milan to vse it without any disobedience at all to the Church of Rome If you had not bene minded to trifle you should haue proued that S. Ambrose disobeyed the Roman Church in matter of fayth as you do This you cannot proue both because S. Augustine hath testified (m) Cont. Iulia Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. that in the workes of Blessed Ambrose the Roman fayth greatly shineth also because he himselfe defineth a Catholike Bishop to be one that a greeth with the Roman Church (n) Orat. de obitu Satyri and protesteth to Siricius (o) L. 10. ep 81. that whom the Roman Church condemneth he following her iudgment holdeth in like manner condemned of which number you are one SECT VIII S. Augustines iudgment concerning the necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof S. Augustines iudgment was that the Roman Church is the Head of all Churches which he professed saying (p) Ep. 162. In her hath alwaies florished the Princedome of the See Apostolike Princedome I say not only Principality of Order as you comment but of true power and authority ouer all the Churches of the world as hath bene effectually proued (q) Chap. 17. sect 2. and the ensuing testimonies of S. Augustine shall further confirme For heerein he declared his iudgment when together with all the Fathers of the Mileuitan Councell to which he was Secretary he writ to Innocentius Pope (r) Ep. â—2 For as much as God by the gift of his principall grace hath placed you in the Apostolike See and granted you to be such in our dayes as we ought rather to feare that it should be imputed to vs for a crime of negligence if we should conceale from your Reuerence those things which for the Church ought to be represented to you then to imagine that you can receaue them disdainefully or negligently we beseech you to apply your Pastorall diligence to the great perills of the weake members of Christ. You deny not but that S. Augustine with the whole Councell in these words requireth the Popes Pastorall diligence for the repressing of the Pelagian heresy in Palestine and Africk but your answere is (s) Pag. 218. that Iohn the first writing to an Arch-bishop granteth that the charge of the Church for the helpe of all in repressing of heresies was committed to him as well as to himselfe that euery Patriarke hath a Principality and height of a Pastorall watch-tower aboue all Metropolitans and Bishops and yet haue they not ouer all Bishops power of iurisdiction But these euasions I haue already proued to be vaine and not without Imposture (t) See aboue Chap. 19. sect 3. That euery Bishop ought to concurre to the help of all in repressing of heresy we deny not but we deny that euery Bishop hath a watch-tower of pastorall authority to iudge and condemne heretikes whersoeuer out of his owne Dioces as S. Augustine and the Mileuitan Fathers acknowledge the Pope to haue out of his Dioces and Patriarkship of Rome requiring him to condemne by his pastorall authority the Pelagians in Africk Palestine And that the Popes power herein exceedeth the iurisdiction of all other Bishops S. Augustine professeth writing to Boniface Pope (u) Cont. duas Epist. Palag l. 1. c. 1. Thou disdainest not to be afrend of the humble though thou be placed in a higher gouerment And againe (x) Ibid. The pastorall watch is common to vs all that haue the office of Bishops but thou art supereminent in a higher degree And yet further he declareth this supereminent power and iurisdiction of the Pope to extend it selfe ouer all the world writing to Optatus (y) Ep. 157. Pelagius and Celestius by the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councels with the helpe of God who vndertakes the protection of his Church haue bene condemned in the extent of the whole world by two reuerend Prelats of the Apostolike See Pope Innocentius and Pope Sozimus If then S. Augustine belieued aright the Pope hath Pastorall power to represse and condemne heretikes throughout the whole world which other Bishops haue not their pastorall power being confined to the limits of their owne Diocesses Your obiections against this are 1. (z) Pag. 219.210 That S. Augustine speaking of Stephen B. of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage calleth theÌ„ Two Bishops of most eminent Churches Ergo the B. of Rome hath not iurisdiction ouer the B. of Carthage for there cannot be Two most Eminents Your consequence is vntrue and such you must confesse it to be for the B. of Rome being Patriarke of all the West the B. of Carthage is subiect vnto him as you forgetting your selfe afterwards acknowledge (a) Pag. 2â—9 Wherefore S. Augustine calling Stephen and Cyprian two Bishops of two most eminent Churches intended not to deny the subordination of Cyprian to StepheÌ„ nor of the Church of Carthage to that of Rome but only to signify that as the Roman Church is most eminent by reason of her Patriarchall power ouer the West and her Primacy ouer the whole world so the Church of Carthage is also most eminent though in an inferior degree by reason of her Primacy ouer all Africa And in this sense both those Churches â—â—e most-Eminent the one ouer all Africa and the other ouer all the world Your second obiection of the Saturday-fast (b) Pag. 220. your third of the deniall of Appeales out of Africa to Rome (c) Pag. 221. your fourth concerning the cause of Cecilian (d) Ibid. your fifth of the Epistle to the Hebrues whether in S. Augustines
after the authority wherby Athanasius was restored it was by the command of the Emperor Constantius as the same historian recordeth These are your words then which none can be more vntrue for that Iulius in his letters did not only giue his aduice declaring that he thought Athanasius worthy to be restored but operatiuely exercised his power authority and by vertue of them effectually and absolutely restored Athanasius and those other Bishops is a truth not only acknowledgeth by your Protestant writers as you haue heard (a) Chap. 37. sect 2. but in it selfe so certaine that I thinke no man but Doctor Morton could haue the face to deny it Iulius B. of Rome sayth Socrates (b) L. 2. c. 11. by reason of the priuiledge of his Church aboue others defended their cause and sent them back with letters written to the Easterne Bishops wherby each of them might be restored to their place and reprehended seuerely those that had rashly deposed them And they going from Rome and relying vpon the letters of Iulius recouered their seates againe Which is also expressed in the title of that Chapter The B. of Rome sayth Sozomen (c) L 3. c. 7. hauing examined their complaintes and found that they agreed touching the Decrees of the Councell of Nice receaued them into his communion and because by reason of the dignity of his See the charge of all belonged to him he restored to each of them his Church And in the title of that Chapter Athanasius Paul by the letters of Iulius receaued their seates againe Are not these words cleare inough But yet moreouer doth not Nicephorus say (d) L. 9. c. 8. that Iulius by the greatnesse of his See and out of the ancient priuiledge prerogatiue therof knowing that the charge of all Bishops whersoeuer belonged to him as to a Iudge armed ech of them with powerfull letters and sending them back into the East restored their Churches vnto them And do not he and Sozomen adde (e) Ibid. that he rebuked the Arians for that they had rashly deposed those Bishops and troubled the Churches not standing to the decrees of the Councell of Nice and commanded that some of them in the name of all should on a set day appeare at Rome to giue account of the iustice of their sentence and threatned not to let them passe without punishment vnlesse they did cease to innouate And doth not Felix Pope (f) Ep. ad Athanas cet Episc Aegypt who liued soone after that tyme deliuer the same in most cleare and effectuall words And finally do not he Theodoret (g) L. 2. hist c. 4. Sozomen (h) L. 3. c. 7. and S. Athanasius himselfe (i) Apolog. 2. out of the vndoubted Epistle of Iulius report that Iulius following the Ecclesiasticall Law commanded the Arian Bishops to come to Rome and summoned the diuine Athanasius canonically to present himselfe in iudgment and that as soone as he receaued this citation he transported himselfe in diligence to Rome but the Authors of the tragedy went not because they knew their lies would be openly discouered How thinke you now Did not Iulius with the authority of a Iudge restore those Orthodoxe Bishops to their Churches and that by the prerogatiue of his See and because the charge of all Bishops belonged vnto him Did he not command and Canonically cite both Athanasius and his aduersaries to appeare in iudgment at Rome and appoint them a day for it And finding Athanasius to be free from the crimes which his enemies had maliciously forged against him did he not threaten to punish them vnlesse they desisted to innouate and trouble the Churches Is this nothing but to declare that he thought those Orthodoxe Bishops worthy to be restored Is it not to exercise the authority of a Iudge And this sheweth the falshood of your addition (k) Pag. 306. fin that the authority wherby Athanasius was restored was the command of the Emperor Constantius For he being an Arian was so far from commanding him or any of those Catholike Bishops to be restored that as Socrates writeth (l) L. 2. c. 12. when he heard that Paul B. of Constantinople was restored by the letters of Iulius he stormed therat and caused the Prefect of the City by his secular power to thrust him out againe as he in his owne person once before had done (m) See Spon anno 342. n. 7. 8. And the Arian crew supported by him so molested Athanasius that they enforced him to fly againe to Rome and Constantius himselfe perseuered in persecuting him as long as he durst which was witnes Sozamen (n) L. 3. c. 19. and Theodoret (o) L. 2. c. 11. 12. vntill Athanasius and Iulius made complaint therof to his brother Constans a Catholike Emperor who assisting the Ecclesiasticall authority of Iulius with his Imperiall power writ threathing letters to Constantius and so effectuall that he durst resist no longer but permitted Athanasius according to the iust sentence giuen by Iulius to returne to his Church and affisted him therin And how far Constantius was from hauing any power to restore Bishops or to forbid them from returning to their seates appeareth in this that when he commanded the Bishops assembled at Ariminum (p) Socrat. l. 2. c. 29. not to dissolue their Councell but to expect his answere they sent a peremptory message vnto him and neglecting his command as of one that had no authority to meddle in Ecclesiasticall affaires presently dissolued their Councell and returned to their Churches Let the reader now iudge how many vntruthes you haue told in this one history and whether you may not be thought guilty of impiety in defending and canonizing the outragious proceedings of blasphemous heretikes and iultifying the sacrilegious violence offered to Catholike Bishops for not subscribing to their heresy and finally in answearing (q) Pag. 285. that the testimonies of ancient Popes in proofe of their authority may be confuted and indeed confounded by as ancient oppositions as of the Orientals against the authority of Pope Iulius Such examples we allow you to mantaine your doctrine and disobedience to the Bishop Church of Rome But I presume that euery vnderstanding Protestant will disclaime from such an Aduocate and thinke that by such precedents his cause is not defended but disgraced condemned and parallalled with Arianisme SECT VII Other passages of Doctor Morton examined BEllarmine in proofe (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 18. of the Popes authority alleageth that Sixtus the third deposed Polychronius You say (a) Pag. 195. margin lit l. He numbreth him as one of the eight Patriarkes which Nicolas the first of that name reckoneth in his Epistle to Michaell the Emperor This is another vntruth The eight Patriarkes which Bellarmine mentioneth out of the Epistle of Nicolas were of Constantinople namely Maximus Nestorius Acacius Anthymus Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus Petrus All these were deposed by the Bishops of
and a professed enemy to the Roman Church as all heretikes are against Appeales to Rome obiecteth the Councell of Chalcedon in which sayth he it was decreed that if a Clerke haue a cause against a Clerke it is to be iudged by the Bishop if against a Bishop by the Archbishop if against an Archbishop by the Primate or of the Bishop of Constantinople To this obiection the holy and learned Pope Nicolas the first answeared neere 800. yeares since (m) In Ep. ad Michael Imper. that by Primate which is there in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifies a Prince is meant the B. of Rome This explication Turrianus (n) Pro Ep. Rom. Pont. l. 3. c. 4. Bellarmine (o) L. 2. de Pont. c. 2◠and Binius (p) Tom. 2. pag. 129. confirme both because the title of Prince more fitly agreeth to him then to any other Primate as also because it cannot be shewed that in time of the Councell of Chalcedon there were especially in the East any Primates distinct from the Archbishops and Patriarkes Wherfore the sense is that if a Bishop haue a cause with his Metropolitan it is to be iudged by the Pope or by the B. of Constantinople if the parties be neerer to him and willing to stand to his iudgment This say you (q) Pag. 309. it false for the Canon vseth a Climax or gradation from Clerke to Bishop from Bishop to Archbishop from Archbishop to Primate or the B. of Constantinople from whence you inferre that if our exposition be true the B. of Constantinople is aboue the Pope as a Generall is aboue a Coronell because in gradation of Appeales the last is alwaies the highest and most excellent A thing not only contrary to the Councell of Chalcedon which acknowledgeth the Pope to be supreme Head of the whole Church (r) In relat ad Leon. but neuer so much as dreamed of by any of the Greekes nor by the Bishops of Constantinople themselues who by their claime of equal priuiledges neuer challenged authority aboue the Pope nor equall with him ouer the whole Church but only that as he by the institution of Christ is supreme Iudge of all causes ecclesiasticall throughout the world so they in the second place vnder him and by his permission might haue authority to iudge throughout the East the causes of all that should be willing to accept of their iudgement which authority the Pope though intreated by the Councell of Calcedon refused to grant vnto them as being a wrong to the other Patriarkes And therefore Bellarmine (s) L. 2. de Pont. c. 22. out of Leo and Liberatus rightly obserueth that this Canon obiected by Nilus was neuer receaued in the Church as being vnlawfully made in absence of the Popes Legates who presided in the Councell This is the substance of this controuersy in the prosecution wherof you falsify the Councell of Calcedon and are guilty of some other errors of which I shall briefly aduertise you 1. Therfore Bellarmine truly sayth that custome the best interpreter of lawes plainly sheweth it was neuer lawfull to appeale to the B. of Constantinople but only from places within his owne Patriarkship and that no example can be giuen of an Appeale made to the Easterne Church out of the West South or North. You to crosse Bellarmine say (t) Pag. 310. that the Councell of Calcedon speaketh generally of euery Church and in proofe therof falsify the Councell adding to the beginning of the Canon these words In quacunque Ecclesia In euery Church putting them downe in a different character as the words of the Canon and citing both it and them out of Binius who hath this Canon (u) Tom. 2. pag. 129. of three different versions and yet no such words in any of them 2. You haue hitherto pretended afterwards repeate againe that no one man can be Head of the whole Church on earth Yet now vpon condition that the Pope may not haue that dignity you are contented to allow it the B. of Constantinople For you say (x) Pag. 302. fin We confesse that the supreme right of appeales is proper to a Monarke it being as essentiall a part of his Monarchy to haue the right of appeales as it is for him to be a Monarke from whence it will follow that you here granting to the B. of Constantinople a supreme right of appeales from all the Churches of the world make him a Monarke ouer all the Churches of the world 3. Out of the gradation which the Councell maketh from Clerke to Bishop from Bishop to Archbishop from Archbishop to the Pope or the B. of Constantinople you inferre the Bishop of Constantinople to be aboue the Pope which is a senselesse paradoxe collected from a false groūd for if because an Archbishop is to be iudged by the Pope or by the B. of Constantinople you may inferre the B. of Constantinople to be equall with the Pope or aboue him you may by like consequēce inferre that in an army a Coronell is equall to the Generall or aboue him because a cōmon soldier is to be iudged by his Captaine the Captaine by his Generall or by his Coronell for in this gradation the Coronell is the last and therfore by your rule the highest and most excellent With such sophistry you answeare our arguments and frame your owne 4. Bellarmine sayth The Councell is to be vnderstood of the first iudgement But this say you (y) Pag. 311. euidently crosseth the Popes exposition False for the Pope alloweth to the B. of Constantinople permissiuely the first iudgement of Easterne causes if the parties be willing to accept of his iudgment but not the second by way of appeale out of his owne Patriarkeship 5. Why do you conceale what Bellarmine and Binius adde namely that if we should grant to you your inference out of this Canon it would not follow that the B. of Constantinople is of equal authority with the Pope for the Popes power extendeth not only to right them which are wronged by their Metropolitans but also to iudge the Metropolitans and Patriarkes themselues and to right thē euen when they are wronged by whole Councels of Bishops as the examples of Athanasius Chrysostome Flauianus Theodoret and others conuince SECT IX The rest of Docter Mortons Arguments against Appeales to Rome THe rest of your instances against appeales as of Fortunatus and Felicissimus (z) Pag. 311. taken from S. Cyprian of the Councell of Mileuis (a) Pag. 321. of the cause of Cecilian (b) Pag. 324.325 from S. Augustine haue ben already (c) Chap. 25.26 30. sect 2. answered One only remaineth taken from an Epistle as you say (d) Pag 318. of Damasus Pope It is not among the epistles of Damasus but of S. Ambrose and yet his it cannot be for in it mention is made of him as of a third person Wherfore whos 's the epistle is is a
condemned the Arians in the Councell of Nice the Macedonians in the first of Constantinople the Nestorians in that of Ephesus and the Eutychians at Chalcedon And the same hath condemned you in the Councell of Trent and in others formerly in which some of your Protestant Tenets haue bene censured as hereticall To the sentence of this Iudge all Christians are bound to submit our Blessed Sauiour hauing commanded (z) Math. 1â— 17. that whosoeuer heareth not the Church that is to say the Prelates of the Church for so the Fathers expound be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican But you cunningly diuert from this which is certaine and out of dispute to another question whether the Pope be aboue a Councell or a Councell aboue the Pope And although you had said aboue (a) Pag. 115. fin that to hold the Pope to be aboue a Councell is a flat heresy long since condemned by our Councells of Constance and Basil because then that was best for your purpose yet here (b) Pag. 355. fin 356. because the contrary fitteth you better you say It is no matter of fayth but a thing disputable on both sides among vs you make a pitifull complaint that so principall a case as this after 1600. yeares should not be resolued by the Church And why is all this your solicitude mary to the end you may take occasion to traduce Stapleton whom you will haue (c) Pag. 356. to be our fore-man and to speake for vs all saying that although this case haue not bene decided by any absolute Decree yet it is defined by the tacit and secret consent of the Doctors of the Church scarce any one Diuine holding any other opinion herin then that which before that of late this controuersy was moued was anciently in force namely that the Pope is aboue a Councell as the Head is aboue the Body As if he should say Sirs if the question be whether Iohn an Oake or Iohn a Stile be heire to that land because the witnesses conceale their meaning without question they by a tacit consent are for the Complainant that Iohn an Oake must cary the land O Quack-saluer So you who whiles you striue to play vpon Stapleton make your selfe ridiculous for you cite those words out of Stapleton Doctr. prâ—â— l. 13. c. 15. who in that worke hath no more but twelue bookes in all Wherfore the words are either coined by you or if they be Stapletons he is not only miscited but egregiously abused by you for doth he not say in expresse words that among Catholike Diuines scarcely any one is of another opinion then that the Pope is aboue a Councell as the Head is about the Body What els is this to say but that Catholike Diuines in their bookes published to the view of the world haue expressed themselues and vnanimously declared that the Pope is aboue a Councell And this their accord expressed in their writings Stapleton with great reason calls A tacit definition that is to say an expression and accord equiualent to a definition euen as he who should tell a man that he speakes often vntruly as you in your Grand Imposture do should tacitly or virtually tell him that he were not a silent witnesse nor a dumbe Iudge against you so nether are the Diuines alleaged by Stapleton silent witnesses or dumbe Iudges in the question proposed I conclude therfore that Doctor Stapleton is not the Quack-saluer but Doctor Morton your Argument so poore that Iohn an Oake or Iohn a Stile might easily haue framed a better SECT VII Of the Councell of Constance defining a Councell to be aboue the Pope TO proue that a Councell is aboue the Pope in matters of direction of fayth and manners you obiect (d) Pag. 356.357 the fourth Canon of the Councell of Constance which Councell say you was expresly confirmed by Pope Martin to be held inuiolabia in matters of fayth True But your dealing is not true for as Turrecremata Campegius Sanders (e) Apud Bell. l. 1. de Pont. c. 19. Caietan (f) Opusc de autho Papae Conc. and Canus (g) L. 5. c. 6. §. Ad octau haue obserued the Councell when that decree was made was not a generall but a particular Councell and the decree it selfe was not vniuersall for all times but only for that time of schisme when it was vncertaine which of three that actually pretended right to the See of S. Peter was true Pope or indeed whether any of the three were true Pope or no. And were it granted that in a case of vncertainty as this was whether there were any true Pope in the Church a Councell is superior to the doubtfull Popes and hath authority to depose them and prouide a certaine and vndoubted Head for the Church it would not follow that when an vndoubted Head is chosen the Councell is superior to him for he hath not his authority from the Councell but from Christ Againe wheras no decree of any Councell can be of force if it be not confirmed by the See Apostolike (h) See aboue Chap. 17. sect 6. this was not only not confirmed but reiected and as you know Bellarmine (i) L. 1. de Concil c. 7. Binius (k) In not ad hoc Concil haue noted absolutely condemned by the Councels of Florence and Lateran And lastly it was inualid because the Bishops that adhered to two of the three which held theÌ„selues to be Popes consented not to it (l) Bellar. ibid. The decrees of faith which Martin Pope coÌ„firmed were only those the Councell made against the heresies of Iohn Wiclef Iohn Hus Hierome of Prage Saints of your Protestant Kalender (m) See Pâ—xe Ian. 1. May 2. Iune 1. as appeareth out of his Bull of confirmation annexed to the Councell in which this decree of the Councels superiority to the Pope is not mentioned much lesse confirmed But you obiect (n) Pag. 357. sin when the Councell of Constance fayth The Councell hath its authority immediatly from Christ the meaning is as you are taught that the Popes authority is not of diuine but of humane institution This is your comment false in it selfe (o) See aboueâ— Chap. 19. sect 9. and directly contrary to the meaning of the Councell of Constance which setteth downe this your proposition (p) Sess 1â— as the ninth article of Iohn Hus and condemneth it as hereticall together with other articles in which Protestants agree with him And in like manner it defineth (q) Sess 8. against the articles 37. and 41. of Wiklef that the Pope is immediate Vicar of Christ and that for saluation it is necessary to belieue his authority ouer all Churches and that the Roman Church is the chiefe of all others In which condemnation whether Protestants holding the same errors be not inuolued I leaue to your iudgment Finally the same Councell as you reade in the last session was dissolued by
authority and command of the Pope the Councell it selfe so requiring and the condemnation of all the errors of Wiclef and Hus ratified and confirmed by a speciall Bull of the Pope with command that all suspected of those heresies should be demanded whether they belieue that S. Peter was the Vicar of Christ hauing power to bind and lose vpon earth and whether they hold that the Pope canonically chosen his proper Name expressed is the Successor of S. Peter hath supreme power ouer the Church of God These are the doctrines of that Councell which shew that your obiecting it against the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome ouer all other Bishops and Churches is a Grand Imposture SECT VIII The same matter prosequuted out of the Councell of Basil THere was say you (r) Pag 358. a Councell gathered at Basil by the authority of Pope Martin the fifth What A generall Councell called by authority of the Pope Then it appeares that the Pope is supreme Head and gouernor of the vniuersall Church for as a King cannot by his authority call a Parliament of those that are not his subiects so neither could the Pope by his authority haue called a generall Councell had not his authority extended it selfe ouer the vniuersall Church So vnaduisedly are you caught in your owne snares You adde (s) Ibid. out of Binius that this Councell was after confirmed by Eugenius How confirmed Were the Acts or decrees of that Councell confirmed by Eugenius So would you perswade your reader But Binius speaketh not of the confirmation of any Act or Decree of the Councell but only of ratifying the calling and beginning of it vnder the presidence of Iulianus Caesarinus his Legate according to the Order of his predecessor which is also obserued and proued by Canus (t) L. 5. de loc cap. postrem It was therfore begun and for a time continued by lawfull authority but afterwards became schismaticall and was iustly condemned by the generall Councell of Lateran (u) Sub Leon. 10. sess 11. as a Conuenticle schismaticall sedition and of no authority 1. Because as Turrecremata a learned writer of that time aduertiseth (x) Sum. de Eccl. l. 2. c. 10â— contrary to the custome of all generall Councells they refused to acknowledge the authority of those whome the Pope had sent to preside in the Councell 2. For that they presumed to pronounce a sentence of deposition against Eugenius Pope and that in a most temerarious manner because there was then no Legate of his in the Councell all the chiefe Bishops being departed a certaine Cardinall of Arles by his owne authority had vsurped the place of President and because there wanted voyces of Bishops to make vp number they tooke into the Councell a great multitude of Priests so that now against all order and forme of Councells it was not a Councell of Bishops but of Priests 3. as Turrecremata witnesseth (y) Ibid. the decrees of that Councell euen such as they were were not vnanimously agreed vpon both because many Prelates and Doctors as well of Canon as of ciuill Law made resistance vnto them and also because vnderstanding that Embassadors sent by the Kings of England and Castile were on their way and neere at hand they hastned fraudulently to define such things as they knew those Legates would not assent vnto 4. Because as S. Antoninus reporteth (z) Part. 3. tit 22. c. 10. §. 4. Iulianus the Cardinall whom Eugnius had appointed President leauing that schismaticall Conuenticle returned to the Pope who by Apostolicall authority dissolued their assembly But they stopping their eares began to summon Eugenius being solicited theruÌ„to by the Duke of Milan his professed enemy On the other side Sigismund the Emperor and the Venetians dissuaded them from any further proceeding Which notwithstanding they pronounced sentence of deposition against Eugenius and erected to themselues a new Idoll Amadaeus Duke of Sauoy calling him Felix the fifth to whom obedience was yeilded in his owne territory Thus S. Antoninus Wherby it appeares that Felix whom the Councell created being acknowledged no where but in his owne Dukedome the whole Church adhered still to Eugenius belieuing that the Councell had no authority to depose him Yea Felix himselfe (a) See Binius in Not. ad hoc Council pag. 406. acknowledging the same resigned his vsurped title by perswasion of the Emperor and euen by his owne iudgment condemned all the Acts of that Councell by which he had bene chosen as of a schismaticall Assembly And hereby is discouered the falshood of what you alleage (b) Pag. 359. out of a Synodicall Epistle of that Councell demanding whether the Pope will condemne for schismatikes all the Cardinalls Bishops and the Emperor himselfe with Kings Princes yea and the whole Church which did approue that Councell This I say is a shamefull vntruth for all the chiefe Prelates seeing that Councell grew to open Schisme had forsaken it there was remaining one only Cardinall (c) See Bin. to 4. pag. 121. and he an enemy to the Pope the maior part of them that remained were not Bishops but Priests and they disagreeing among themselues as appeareth out of another Synodicall Epistle of theirs (d) Apud Bin to 4. pag. 146. in which also they confesse the paucity of their number partly excusing it by reasons and partly laying the fault on Eugenius that he had drawne away so many Prelates from them How then is it true that all the Cardinalls Bishops the Emperor with Kings and Princes and the whole Church were present there and approued this Councell How is it true since it is certaine that three yeares before the dissolution of this Conuenticle was assembled that famous generall Councell of Florence in which this Basilean Synagogue was condemned and the Vnion betweene the Greeke and Latine Church established Pope Eâ—genius himselfe assisting in it as President the Emperor of the Grecians being present in person the Emperor of the Latines by his Legates together with all the most famous Prelates of the Greeke and Latin Church aboue 1400. in number This sheweth which of these two assemblies was the lawfull Councell which the schismaticall yea and God himselfe interposing his verdict declared the same for those Schismakikes obstinatly refusing to breake vp their assembly so often annulled by the Pope he according to his promise made to S. Peter (e) Math. 16.19 and in him to his Successors confirming the sentence of Eugenius from hâ—auen sonâ— among them a most horrible plague of which many of them dying the rest were enforced to breake vp and depart as Aeneas Siluius recordeth (f) In histor Conc. Basil who hauing bene present at that Councell and seeing their â—emerations obstinacy against the Roman See forsooke it and detesting it writ earnestly against it All this being true as it is with what fidelity do you say (g) Pag. 350. that in this case the
the Roman eares spare the fayth which was praysed by the voyce of the Apostle He declared his iudgment (y) Ep. 8. when aduising Demotrias to auoyd the cruell tempest of Heresy which rising out of the Easterne parts at that tyme when Anastasius of happy and holy memory goaâ—â—ned the Roman Church attempted to pollute and corrupt the sincerity of that fayth which was commended by the mouth of the Apostle he prescribeth her this rule that the keep fast the fayth of S. Innocentius sonne and Successor to Anastasius in the Apostolicall Chayre He declared his iudgment when he said (z) Proom lib. 2. Comment ad Galat The fayth of the people of Rome is praysed Where is there so great conâ—â—â—rse to Churches and to Martyrs sepulchers Where soundeth Amen like thunder from He euen c. Not that the Romans haue any other fayth then the rest of the Christian Churches but that there is in them more deuotion and simplicity of fayth He declared his iudgment when he said to Marcella (a) Ep. 17. In Rome is the holy Church there are the trophies of the Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the fayth celebrated by the Apostle and gentility trodden vnder foot the Christian name daily aduancing it selfe on high He declared his iudgment when he said (b) Ep. 16. that Peter Patriarke of Alexandria persecuted by the Arians sted to Rome as to the safest hauen of communion These testimonies of S. Hierome declare his iudgment of the Roman Church against which you obiect (c) Pag. 91. that he reproued an ill custome not of the Pope or Church of Rome but of the Deacons of that Church who though few in number yet growing proud in regard they had the treasure of the Church in their custody contrary to the ancient practise of that Church and of all other which was that Priests fitting with the Bishop Deacons should stand they of Rome began to presume by little and little to fit This custome S. Hierome reprehended because it proceeded from pride and wanted authority for sayth he if authority be required greater is the authority of the world then of a Citty which is true in things of this nature that nether concerne fayth nor the Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for who feeth not that a custome no way concerning sayth or iurisdiction but discipline and warranted by all other Churches of the would was of greater authority then a contrary custome brought in by a few Deacons of the Roman Church without any warrant of the Bishop of Rome And who seeth not that these words of S. Hierome are impertinently brought against the Roman sayth or the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome for in them he neither speaketh against the Roman fayth nor maketh any comparison betwene the Church of Rome the rest of the world in point of iurisdiction but only betweene the authority of all the other Churches of the world and the authority of a few Deacons of the Roman Church in a custome no way repugnant to fayth nor touching the iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome And finally who seeth not that your intention is to delude and deceaue your readers For he that hath so many and so pregnant testimonies of S. Hierome in which he expresly declareth that the Roman fayth is the. Catholike fayth that it admitteth no delusions nor can be changed that the way to auoyd heresy is to hold fast the fayth of the Roman Church that we must remaine in her as being that Church which hath Succession from the Apostles that he is the safest port of communion that the Church of Christ is built vpon the Roman See and that he which is not in the communion of the Bishop of Rome gathereth not but scattereth that he is prophane and belongs not to Christ but to Antichrist He I say that hath so many and so forcible testimonies of S. Hierome yet comming to deliuer his iudgment concerning the Roman Church concealeth them all and obiecteth one only testimony wholly impertinent as you do what intention can he be thought to haue but to deceaue men in the most important affaire of their saluation But you reply (d) Pag. 91. This is that testimony of S. Hierome wherin the Fathers of the Councell of Basil did in a manner triumph in opposition to the Popes clayme How proue you this With a sentence of Aeneas Siluius O imposture For you know that the Councell of Basil was a Schismaticall Conuenticle moreouer you know that the words which you obiect are not of the Councell of Basil but of Aeneas Siluius and that he hath retracted them with the whole booke out of which you tooke them Are not then you a deceiptfull merchant to cosen your customers with such false wares Nor do I well see how you can be excused from contradiction for you say (e) Ibid. S. Hierome was a professed and deuout child of the Church of Rome when Rome was yet a true and naturall Mother and no Step-dame Ergo in S. Hieromes dayes the Church of Rome became a Step-dame which could not be otherwise then by falling into error How then is it true that as afterwards you grant (f) Pag. 17â— 19â— the Roman Church remained pure and free from error in fayth 600. yeares after Christ which was not in S. Hieromes tyme but 200. yeares after him SECT III. The iudgment of S. Gregory concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and his title of Vniuersall Bishop YOur scope here is to disproue the vniuersall authority of the Bishop of Rome by the iudgment of S. Gregory refusing and reprehending in Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople the title of Vniuersall Bishop as likewise did Pelagius and Leo Bishops of the same See And first you tell vs (g) Pag. 91. It can be no sufficient argument for concluding a Papall authority to obiect against you the testimonies of Popes in their owne cause It was necessary for you to premit this Caueat for howsoeuer you here pretend that S. Gregory S. Leo and Pelagius did not acknowledge in themselues any superiority or iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church your guilty conscience tels you the contrary and therfore you slight their testimonies as of men partiall and that speake in their owne cause And the like you do afterwards againe with reproachfull and contumelious words for wheras Bellarmine (h) L. 2. de Pont. c. 21. in profe of the ancient practise of appealing to the Pope produceth the testimonies of S. Leo and S. Gregory you (i) Pag. 30â— 304 reiect them as of partiall witnesses and compare them to Adonias who traiterously sought to set the crown on his owne head which is in effect to say that as Adonias traiterously assumed to himselfe the dignity of a King not due vnto him so did these Popes vnlawfully challenge to themselues the dignity of Pastors and Gouernors of
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
Argument is of no force both because neither this Canon nor any other of what Councell soeuer is powerfull to limit his authority nor hath force further then it is confirmed by him as hath bene proued as also because he is not only Bishop of the Roman Dioces in particular but of the vniuersall Church Other Bishops sayth S. Bernard (s) L. 2. de Confider c. 9. according to the Canons are called to a part of solicitude he to the fullnesse of power the power of other Bishops is confined to certaine limits his is extended also to them that haue receaued power ouer others He if there because can shut Heauen to a Bishop and depose him from his Bishoprick He can erect new Bishopricks (t) S. Bernar. ep 131. where they were not He of Bishopes can make Archbishops and contrarywise of Archbishops Bishops if reason so dictate vnto him Wherfore albeit as considered in the quality of a particular Bishop of the Roman Dioces he cannot ordaine Bishops out of that Dioces more then other Bishops can out of theirs yet as he is Pastor and Bishop of the vniuersall Church he can depose and ordaine Bishops in other Dioceses as Agapet deposed Anthymus Patriarke of Constantinople and ordeyned Menas in his place And the Ecclesiasticall histories are full of examples of the same nature which therfore conuince that the Councell of Ephesus by that decree intended not to prescribe any limits of iurisdiction to the Pope but only to command all particular Bishops not to entrench vpon the liberties of others which decree Celestine Pope confirmed with all the rest of that Councell (u) Ep. 2. ad Syn. Ephes as no way contrary to his Vniuersall authority SECT IV. Whether it may be gathered out of the Councell of Ephesus that the authority of the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell YOu say (x) Pag. 115. If the Councell could not depose Nestorius without the Popes mandate nor durst depose Iohn Patriarke of Antioch but reserued the cause to the iudgment of the Pope the issue must be directly this that the Pope is absolutely aboue a generall Councell And was not this say you (y) Pag 116. more then holdnesse in your Cardinall Bellarmine to inferre this supreme authority out of this Councell O egregious imposture Bellarmine only relateth what passed in the Councell namely that those Fathers durst not pronounce a definitiue and vltimate sentence against the two Patriarkes but reserued it to Celestine Pope as to the supreme Iudge of all Bishops Your guilty conscience telling you that the issue therof directly must be that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell you make that inference out of the Councell against your selfe and falsly father it on Bellarmine for though els where he defend that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell yet neither there nor here he makes any such inference out of this Councell of Ephesus And no lesse imposterous is your alleaging the Councells of Constance and Basil against that Doctrine of Bellarmine for the Councell of Basil is a damned Conuenticle and that of Constance when it defined a Councell to be aboue the Pope was not a generall Councell nor speaketh of him that is certainly known to be true Pope but of three Popes in tyme of Schisme when it was doubtfull which of them or indeed whether any of them were true Pope Nor was that decree euer confirmed but expresly condemned by the Councells of Florence and Lateran as you know Binius (z) To. 1. Not. ad Concil Constan. pag. 1662. and Bellarmine (a) L. 2. de Conc. c. 17. haue obserued But to proue that the Pope is not aboue a Councell you vrge (b) Pag. 116. out of Stapleton that the contrary was neuer expresly decreed in any Councell But in this you are as false as in the rest for you cite Stapleton in his thirteenth booke De principijs doctrinalibus wheras in that worke he hath but twelue bookes in all But be the proposition his or whose you please and be it that no Councell hath expresly defined that the Pope is aboue a Councell doth it therfore follow that the Doctrine is not true Is nothing true but what is defined in Councells Who seeth not how inconsequent this your consequence is CHAP. XIX The Councell of Chalcedon belieued the supreme authority of the B. of Rome SECT 1. That Leo Pope called the Councell of Chalcedon by his Authority and presided in it by his Legates OVT of the famous Councell of Chalcedon one of the foure which S. Gregory (c) L. 1. ep 24. reuerenced as the 4. Ghospells the supreme authority of the B. of Rome ouer the whole Church is proued many wayes 1. Because this Councell was called by his authority If it please your Holinesse sayth Martian the Emperor to Leo Pope (d) Extat in Ep. preamb. Conc. Chalced. that a Synod he held vouchsafe to signify so much by your letters that I may direct mine into all the East into Thracia and Illyria to the end that all the most holy Bishops may meete at a set place where your Holinesse shall please to appoint and by their wisdome declare those things which may be profitable for Christian Religion and the Catholike fayth as your Holinesse according to the Ecclesiasticall rules shall define And Pulcheria the Empresse writing to the same Pope (e) Extat epist. ibid. Your Reuerence vouchsafe to signify according as you haue ordeyned that all the Bishops of the East of Thracia and Illyria may come together into one Citty and by your authority determine there in a holy Councell what the Christian fayth and your Piety require concerning the Catholike profession and the Bishops which haue bone excommunicated And the Bishops of the second Maesia in their Epistle to Leo the Emperor (f) Apud Biâ— to 2. pag. 154. Maâ—y holy Bishops were assembled in the Citty of Chalcedon by the commandment of Leo B. of Rome who is truly the Head of all Bishops And Gelasius Pope 40. yeares after the Councell of Chalcedon (g) De Anathem vinculo The See Apostolike delegated the Councell of Chalcedon to be held for the common fayth and the Catholike and Apostolike truth And againe (h) Ibid. The Pope alone ordeyned that by his authority the Councell of Chalcedon should be held 2. And as by his authority he called this Councell so by his Legates he presided in it My Brethren sayth he speaking of this Councell (i) Ep. 94. presided in my steed in the Orientall Synod And writing to the Councell it selfe (k) Ep. 47. Your brotherhood is to conceaue that in these my brethren Paschasinus and Lucentius Bishops Bonifacius and Basill Priests which are sent by the See Apostolike I preside in your Synod And be confident that I am not absent from you who am present in these my Vicars And to Pulcheria the Empresse he sayth (l) Ep. 5â— that by those his brethren
professe by acknowledging (c) Ibid. that he ruled ouer them as the Head doth ouer the members and therfore beseeching him to confirme their decrees with his authority they adde (d) Ibid. We pray you to honor our iudgment with your decrees and that as in what concernes the Weale we haue held correspondence to our Head so your Soueraignty wold fulfill vnto your Children what is fit and conuenient These testimonies so cleare and pregnant cannot but conuince the vnderstanding of any impartiall reader that the Councell of Chalcedon beleeued the vniuersall authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome whom therefore the same Councell often calleth (e) Act. 1.2.3 Bishop of the vniuersall Church SECT III. Whether the title of Vniuersall Bishop which the Councell of Chalcedon gaue to the Pope argue in him no more but a generall care of the good of the Church such as belonges to euery Bishop and to euery Christian. OF all the proofes hereunto alleaged you take no notice two only excepted namely of the title of Vninersall Bishop and of the metaphor of a Vine by which the Councell expresseth the vniuersall Church saying (f) In relat ad Leon. that the custody therof is by Christ our Sauiour committed to the Pope These two you call Two postes to support the ruinous Monarchy of the B. of Rome And your answeare to them here (g) Pag. 117.118 and afterwards againe (h) Pag. 236. is that these attributes import no vniuersall power of iurisdiction in the Pope but of prouidence and care which euery Bishop shold haue in wishing and to his power endeauoring the vniuersall good of the whole Church But if the words of the Councell import no more it will follow that the custody of the vniuersall Church that is the gouerment therof was by Christ committed not only to euery Bishop but also to euery Christian man and woman who should wish and to their power procure the vniuersall good of the whole Church But you obiect (i) Pag. 116.117 236. that Eleutherius Pope writing to the Bishops of France sayth The vniuersall Church of Christ is committed to you that you may labor for all men and that according to Binius his exposition the meaning of Eleutherius is that for as much as heretikes oppugne the Catholike and vniuersall Church is belongeth to euery Bishop to haue an vniuersall care to defend and support it And this say you is a true answere indeed But you speake vntruly and interprete falsly for Binius hath no such word as Vniuersall care nor doth he speake of Bishops only but sayth that a care solicitude of defending the vniuersall Church against heretikes belongeth not only to Bishops but to euery Christian for as much as we are commanded by God Eccl. c. 4. to fight fortruth and iustice vntill death How do these words of Binius proue that the Pope hath not or that the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledged him not to haue authority and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church but only a charitable care of her good as S. Paul had and as euery Bishop and euery Christian man and woman according to their power are bound to haue for did not that Councel giue to Pope Leo the title of Vniuersall Archbishop and Patriarke or as you set it downe (k) Pag. 235. of Bishop of the vniuersall Church but these words say you (l) Ibid. were not the words of the Councell but of two Deacons writing to the Councell and of Paschasinus the Popes Legate False for it was giuen to him (m) Act. 3. in foure different petitions of Theodorus and Ischyrion Deacons of Alexandria of Athanasius a Priest of the same City and of Sophronius And the Councell approuing thereof commanded theyr petitions to be registred in the Acts. Moreouer the same title was giuen him by Paschasinus who though he were his legate was a Reuerend Bishop as also by Martian the Emperor the Councell no way excepting therat And did not S. Gregory and after him the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas testify that the whole Councell of Chalcedon with the following Fathers gaue the same title to Leo Pope And did not Leo a man of admirable sanctity learning instyle himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church And did not the Regulars of Constantinople and of Syria and the Bishops of the Patriarkships of Antioch and Hierusalem giue the same tytle to Agapetus Pope in the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas (n) See all this proued aboue Chap. 15. sect 3. Againe did not the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledge in Leo power to restore Theodoret to his Bishoprick of Cyre bordering vpon Persia from which he had bene deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus (o) Act. â— Did it not acknowledge in him authority to depose Dioscorus the greatest Patriarch of the East (p) Act. 3. Did not all those Fathers being the representatiue body of the Vniuersall Church professe (q) In relat ad Leon. that Leo Pope did preside rule ouer them as the Head ouer the members Is this Authority common to euery Bishop Or did Eleutherius or the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledge any such thing But he that will see how imposterously you wrest the testimony of Eleutherius against the vniuersall power and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome and against the meaning of the Councell of Chalcedon let him read the epistle and he shall finde that Eleutherius a litle before the words which you obiect declareth that althought it be lawfull to examine the accusations and crimes obiected against Bishops either before their Metropolitans or before the Bishops of their owne Prouince yet that it is not lawfull to end them there for as much as it hath bene decreed by the Apostles their Successors that the finall decision of Bishops causes is to be referred to the See Apostolike and no others substituted in their places vntill their iudgments be ended at Rome Can there be a more full expression of the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church then to professe him to be the sole supreme Iudge of all Bishops Or can there be a greater imposture then to obiect this epistle of Eleutherius for the contrary SECT IV. Whether the Councell of Chalcedon did giue to the B. of Constantinople priuiledges equall with the B. of Rome YOu obiect heere (r) Pag. 118. and often repeate that the Fathers of Chalcedon did giue priuiledges to the Patriarke of Constantinople equall with the Church of Rome Answeare The Fathers of Chalcedon in absence of the Popes Legates of the Patriarke of Alexandria and of all the Bishopes of Aegypt at the suggestion of Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople renewed the decree of the 150. Fathers made in the first generall Councell of that City which was that the B. of Constantinople shold haue the second place of honor after the B. of Rome And to this decree was added that he should haue equall priuiledges
And Osius admonishing Constantius the Arian Emperor Intermeddle not O Emperor in Ecclesiasticall causes nor take vpon you to command vs in this kinde but rather learne those things from vs. To you God hath committed the Empere the affaires of the Church to vs. And as he that maliciously carpeth at our gouerment resists the ordinance of God so take you heed that in assuming to your selfe those things which belong to the Church you make not your selfe guilty of a most hainous crime for it is written giue to Cesar those things which are Cesars and those which are Gods to God The like reprehension was giuen to the same Emperor by Leontius that famous B. of Cesaraea who had bene present at the Councell of Nice whom Cregorius Presbyter (t) Spoud anno 32â— â—â— â— tearmeth equall to the Angells I wonder said he to Constantius (u) Suid. in Leouâ— that you being appointed to order and gouerneone thing do meddle with others you are chiefe commander in military and ciuill affaires and you presume to ordaine what Bishops shall do in things that belong to Bishops alones And when the Captaine of the hereticall Emperor Valens required the Priests and Deacons of Edessa to submit to the Emperor in matters of religion representing to them that it was madnesse to resist so great a Monarch Eulogius a Priest of the same City answeared pleasantly (x) Theodor. l. 4. hiâ—t c. â—â— What hath Valens together with the Empire gotten also the place and dignity of a Bishop And when Dalmatius the Tribune with a publike Notary was sent by Valentinian the yonger to summon S. Ambrose to a disputation with Auxentius the Arian Bishop and others of his sect in the Emperors pallace before him and his Courtiers (y) L. â— op 3â— I answered sayth S. Ambrose to the Emperor the same that your Father of glorious memory not only answered in words vpon like occasion but also established by his lawes that in causes of fayth and Ecclesiasticall order Priests only are to iudge of Priests yea further that if a Bishop should be questioned for his manners this iudgment should likewise appertaine to Bishops c. When haue you euer heard mâ—st clement Emperor that lay men did iudge of Bishop in matters of fayth You are yet youg in yeares you will by Gods grace and the maturity of age be better informed and then you will be able to iudge what manner of Bishop he is to be accounted that subiects the right of Priesthood to lay men Your Father being a man of riper yeares said It belongs not to me to be a Iudge among Bishops and will your Clemency now say that you ought to be their Iudge So S. Ambrose But what need we further proofes Did not Constantine himselfe whom here you obiect refuse to heare the causes of Bishops answearing (z) Ruffin l. 1. c. 1. S. Greg. l 4. ep 72. That Bishops had power to iudge of Emperors but not Emperors to iudge of Bishops shewing therby that he acknowledged himselfe to haue no power of a Iudge in Ecclesiasticall causes Yea and this very fact of Constantine which you obiect is so farre from yelding any precedent for secular Princes to iudge Ecclesiasticall causes that it manifestly concludeth the contrary for when the Donatists required him to giue them Iudges in the cause of Cecilian B. of Carthage he stood amazed at their impudency He durst not sayth S. Augustine (a) Ep. 166. iudge the cause of a Bishop And Optatus (b) L. 1. cont Parmen He answeared them with a spirit full of indignation you aske of me iudgment in this world of me I say that do my selfe attend the iudgement of Christ You would haue me to make my selfe a Iudge of the Ministers of Christ I that do my selfe expect the iudgement of Christ. Wherfore though Constantine at the importunity of the Donatists granted them Iudges of the Gaules as they required he did it not without making this protestation before hand that it belonged not to him to meddle with the iudgement of Christs Ministers And notwithstanding that the Donatists who demanded Iudges and the Iudges which Constantine assigned them as also Constantine himselfe were then all actually present in France yet he caused the Donatists together with the Iudges which he had giuen them to trauaile to Rome that according to the ancient custome and lawes of the Church (c) Athan. Apol. â— Sozom l. 3. c. 9. And See aboue Chap. 26. the cause might be iudged by the Popes direction and vnder his presidency And this remission of the cause from his owne Court to the Popes tribunall was not by way of commission or delegation from himselfe as from a Superior Iudge to the Pope as to an inferior as you falsly suppose but by way of remission to him to whom he knew that iudicature in right to belong for how could the Emperor that professed himselfe to haue no right of a Iudge in the causes of Bishops giue power and commission vnto others to iudge the cause of Cecilian Wherfore although S. Augustine in regard of the Donatists intention call this remission a delegation yet withall he declareth that the reason of this delegation was because the Emperor durst not iudge the cause of a Bishop which sheweth that it was not a delegation of authority and power but a relegation or remission of the cause to whom the iudgement therof in right appertained Nor doth it import that he remitted not this cause to the Pope alone but to him and other Bishops his Colleagues for he remitted it not to them equally but to the Pope as to the chiefe Iudge and President and to the others as to the Pope Assessors Melchiades sayth S. Augustine (d) Cont. Iulian l. â— c. 2. Bishop of the Apostolike See being President Reticius was present as a Iudge with others And againe (e) Cont. Parmen l. 1. c. 5. By the arbitrement of Constantine the cause was heard by Bishops Iudges ouer whom presided Melchiades B. of the Citty of Rome Behold how exactly S. Augustine attributes to euery one what belonged vnto them Constantine was an Arbitrator the other Bishops present as Iudges assessors to Melchiades and as witnesses of his proceedings Melchiades chiefe Iudge and President And therfore he as hauing full authority did not content himselfe with taking for his Assistents the three French Bishops nominated by the Emperor but by his owne authority added to them other fifteene of Italy whose names Optatus rehearseth (f) Cont. Parmen l. 1. wheras if he had not bene absolute Iudge by his owne authority but only by delegation from Constantine he could not haue added any other Iudges to those three which Constantine nominated Againe his authority appeared in this that none of the Assistants but he in the name of the whole Councell and as President therof pronounced the sentence How innocent sayth S. Augustine (g) Ep. â—â—2
being wronged by the false Councell of Ephesus had presented a libell of appeale to his Legates he would command a generall Councell to be held within Italy for the Nicen Canons require this necessarily to be done after the putting in of an Appeale To these I adde Theodoret testifying in expresse words that he appealed to Leo Pope These witnesses shew that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations was not very vncouth but very familiar in the dayes of Theodoret and in former ages and that the right of appealing to the Roman See was acknowledged and testified by holy Popes of the primitiue times by generall Councells by Emperors by Bishops and by all ancient writers And the same might be proued by other examples if these were not sufficient to shew your ignorance in denying if not rather your boldnesse in out-facing so knowne a truth SECT V. That S. Athanasius appealed to Iulius Pope and Theodoret to Leo as absolute Iudges and that by their authority both of them were restored to their Churches THat S. Athanasius appealed to Iulius Pope and by his authority was restored to his seat hath bene effectually proued (r) Chap. 38. sect 6. And to what there was said I adde here the testimony of Liberatus who speaking of Iohn Patriarke of Alexandria deposed by the Emperor Zeno sayth (s) In Breuia c. 18. He appealed to the B. of Rome as also Blessed Athanasius did And that Theodoret appealed to Leo as to an absolute Iudge that had power to command him and sentence his cause he himselfe witnesseth as you haue heard (t) Sect. praeced init Neuerthelesse you taking vpon you to know what passed in Theodorets cause better then Theodoret himselfe say (u) Pag. 304. He addressed his requests to the B. of Rome not as to a peremptory Iudge but as to a Patron and arbitrary dais-man one vpon whose authority he depending acknowledgeth in expresse words his reason to wit the integrity of the fayth of the Pope and promising to abide his award with the assistance of others And before you had said (x) Pag. 255. marg lit m. The euent sheweth that there was in this busines no iuridicall proceeding at all Only Theodoret vpon his confession of his Orthodoxe fayth was receaued into communion with Leo as Leo might haue ben with Iohn of Constantinople in like case These are your words to proue that Theodoret appealed not to the Pope as to an absolute Iudge that had authority to annull the sentence of the Councell that deposed him and restore him to his See but only as to an Arbitrator by reason of the integrity of his fayth when as he contrarily in expresse words beseecheth Renatus (y) Ep ad Renat to perswade the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of Rome to vse his Apostolicall authority and command him to appeare before his Councell that is his Consistory because that holy See hath the guidance and gouerment of all the Churches of the world And writing to Pope Leo he sayth (z) In Ep. ad Leon. I attend the sentence of your Apostolike throne and beseech your Holinesse to succour me appealing to your right and iust iudgment and to command that I be brought before you c. And I promise to stand to your iudgment contenting my selfe with that which you shall determine what euer it be And I beseech you that I may be iudged according to my writings If Theodoret had studied to expresse the Popes iudiciall authority to sentence his cause could he haue done it in more cleare and effectuall words then these It is true that as he acknowledgeth the Roman Church to be priuiledged aboue others for many causes so especially for that she hath remained free from all blemish of heresy none hauing euer possessed that See which hath held any thing contrary to truth or which hath not kept the Apostolicall grace entyre and without blemish The reason why he mentioneth the purity of fayth alwayes preserued in the Roman Church is because he had bene accused and deposed as guilty of heresy in his writings And therfore he appealeth confidently to the Pope as to one whose iudgment in matters of fayth is is infallible and to whom the decision of all such Controuersies belongeth acknowledging withall as you haue heard the Roman Church to be the Head of all Churches and the Pope to be his absolute Superior and Iudge with authority to command him and sentence his cause And Leo Pope accordingly vsing the authority of a Iudge declared him free from heresy and restored him to his See wherupon the Senators that assisted at the Councell of Chalcedon said with the approbation of the whole Councell (a) Act. 1. Let the most Reuerend Bishop Theodoret come in because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his See Who then seeth not the insufficiency of your answeare that Theodoret appealed not to the Pope as to an absolute Iudge but made his requests vnto him as to an arbitrary Dais-man for appeales are not made to Arbitrators but to absolute Iudges An Arbitator is he to whom the determination of a controuersy is remitted by agreement of both parties which in Theodorets cause can haue no place for his aduersaries neuer agreed to haue his cause remitted to the Pope If therfore the Pope had not bene an absolute Iudge Theodorets appealing to him had bene in vaine nor could he haue recouered his seat by the Popes sentence for a sentence pronounced without authority is of no effect And though after the Councell of Chalcedon had admitted Theodoret vpon the Popes restitution to take his place amongst the Bishops some of them doubting of his fayth because he had written against Cyrill of Alexandria in fauor of Nestorius and therfore fearing the Pope might haue restored him vpon misinformation vrged him to anathematize Nestorius againe yet that no way helpeth your cause nor derogateth from the Popes authority for when Theodoret had anathematized Nestorius the Councell proceeded not to a new sentence of restitution but subscribing to that of Leo cried out all with one voyce (b) Act. 2. Long liue Archbishop Leo Leo hath iudged the iudgment of God SECT VI. That S. Chrysostome appealed to Innocentius Pope as to an absolute Iudge and by his authority was restored to his Church of Constantinople S. Chrysostome being deposed from his Patriarchall See at the procurement of Eudoxia the Empresse wife to Arcadius Emperor of the East by a Councell of Bishops vnder Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria had recourse by letters of appeale to Innocentius Pope This you deny saying (b) Pag. 307. n. that wheras Bellarmine and Baronius referre you to the story it selfe you can finde nothing lesse in it then the matter of Appeale for say you Chrysostome made his requests not to the Pope alone but to the other Reuerend Bishops within the Roman Prouince together with him But this is a mistake proceeding
from your ignorance for as the Syrians to expresse Mayster or Lord vse the word Rabbi which hath a plurall signification because a person of quality containes in himselfe the authority of many so when we write to an Honorable person it is vsuall to speake vnto him in the plurall number to signify that he hath in himselfe the dignity and authority of many So writ Eusebius B. of Milan to Pope Leo alone (c) Extat inter Ep. Leo. post ep 52. God hath placed yee Prelates of the Apostolike See worthy Protectors of his worship So writ Theodoret to the same Pope alone (d) Ep. ad Leon. Vos enim per â—mnia conuenit esse primos So writ the Bishops of Syria to Iustinian the Emperor (e) Conc. Constant sub Mena. Act. 1. Our Lord preserue yee deuout and zealous guardians of the fayth So writ the Councell of Mopsuestia to Vigilius Pope (f) In Conc. 5. Act. 5. It is conuenient O most Holies that since you hold the chiefe dignity of Priesthood c. And so did Chrysostome write in the plurall number to Innocentius Pope alone as it is manifest both out of the inscription of his Epistle which is singular and directed to Innocentius alone as also out of Paladius (g) In vita Chrysost who cites it as addressed to him alone 2. You say (h) Pag. 307. Chrysostome made his requests to the Pope not to cite the parties complained against but only to write vnto them and this not by any peremptory charge but only by reproofe of their vmust dealing and of admonition c. Heere I accuse you of somthing more then ignorance for the words of Chrysostome to Innocentius are (i) Ep. 1. ad Innocent Vouchsafe to write and ordaine by your authority that these things so wickedly done I being absent and not refusing iudgment may be inualid as of their owne nature they are and that they who haue proceeded so iniustly may be submitted to the punishment of the Ecclesiasticall Lawes And command that I who am innocent and not conuicted of any crime be restored to my Church And againe (k) Ep. â— ad Innocent One thing I beseech your vigilant Soule that albeit they which haue filled all with tumulies be sick of an impenitent and incurable disease if yet they will remedy those things that then they may not be punished nor excommunicated What more expresse forme of appeale or what more euident acknowledgment of the Popes authority iudiciall power then this Doth not Chrysostome beseech Innocentius to disannull by his letters authority the Acts of the Councell which had deposed him To abrogate their sentence pronounced against him to replace him in his Bishoprick and to punish his aduersaries according to the Lawes of the Church but yet to spare them if they would repent Is not this to acknowledge in him the power of an absolute Iudge And is not this extant to be read in Chrysostomes Epistles and in his life written by Palladius You to keep this from your readers set not downe any of Chrysostoms words in the text of your discourse And though in your margent you set downe some of them in Latin in a small letter yet euen that you do not without imposture for you mangle them leauing out those in which he besecheth the Pope to vse his authority in punishing his aduersaries according to the Ecclesiasticall Canons and in restoring him to his Church Againe you are guilty of vntruth in saying (l) Pag. 307. that Chrysostome made not any requests to the Pope to cite the parties complained against For doth he not say (m) Ep. ad Innoc apud Pallad in vita ipsius But yet if the authors of wickednesse will declare for what crimes they haue iniustly deposed me let their euidences be giuen in Let processes be produced let my accusers come let a true and incorrupt iudgment sit I refuse it not I decline it not yea I earnestly desire it let vs be iudged Iâ— his to request the Pope to write to his aduersaries not by any peremptory charge but only by way of reproofe and admonition for their vniust dealing Doth he not beseech him that his aduerlaries may appeare and bring in their euidences against him and that his cause may be tried a new by him as by a iust and in corrupt Iudge But you say (n) Pag. 30â— When all the Pope cold do is performed what the last refuge was he did signify in his letters to the Orientalls saying The only remedy of curing these euills is the calling of a Councell and vntill then the matter is to be committed to the will and pleasure of God Here you are accusable of an iniust reticence of what Innocentius did and how he shewed himselfe alone and without a Councell to be an absolute Iudge for doth not Palladius say (o) In vit Chrys Innocentius decreed that the iudgment of Theophilus should be abrogated and annulled Doth not Sozomen in that very place which you alleage (p) L. 8. c 26. testify that Innocentius condemned those things which were done against Iohn And by this single sentence of Innocentius alone without any Synod Iohn was absolued as Gelasius an Author of the same age reporteth saying (q) Ep. ad Episcop Dardan A Synod of Catholike Bishops hauing condemned Iohn of Constantinople of holy memory the See Apostolike alone because it consented not therunto absolued him Nor did he shew the authority of a Iudge only in absoluing Iohn and condemning his aduersaries but especially in that hearing of his death he excommunicated the Emperor Arcadius the Empresse Eudoxia his wife who had bene the chiefe causes of his condemnation and banishment for as Nicephorus (r) L. 13. c. 33. and Georgius Patriarke of Alexandria (s) In vita Chrys an Author of 1000. yeares antiquity cited by S. Damascens and Photius (u) In Georg. Alex. and followed by Cedrenus (x) In Arcad. Glycas (y) In Annal. in Arcad. other Greeke Authors testify (t) L. 1. de Imaginibus Innocentius hauing seuerely reprehended them both for the enormity of their offence pronounced Excommunication against them in these words And therfore I the meanest and a sinner as Depositary of the Throne of the great Apostle Peter cut off thee her from the participation of the immaculate Mysteries of Christ our God and ordaine that whatsoeuer Bishop or Clerke of the holy Church of God which shall presume to administer them to you after he hath read this my Censure shal be deposed All this is to be read in the history of Chrysostome to which you say Baronius and Bellarmine referre you Had it not then bene honesty to take notice of these particulars but that was not for your purpose This also conuinceth you to speake vntruly when you say (z) Pag. 308. The Pope confesseth insufficiency in himselfe and that the only remedy is in