not to remoue it from thence or whether without any commandment from Christ he chose Rome for his See out of his owne free election as he might haue chosen Milan or any other city That he had such a command from Christ is affirmed learnedly proued by (u) De triplici virt Theol. d. 10. sect 3. n. 10. Suarez (x) L. 2. de Pont. c. 12. Bellarmine (y) Institut mor. part 2. l. 4. c. 21. §. Secunda sent Azor and by the greatest part of Catholike Diuines with many forcible testimonies of antiquity According to this opinion which is the more probable pious learnedly proued by Suarez it followeth that the Roman Church euen as Roman is by Diuine institution the See of S. Peter and his Successors and that therfore it is not left free for them to remoue their See from Rome to any other place But to giue you your greatest aduantage be it that S. Peter receaued no such commandment from Christ but that it was free for him to chose for his See either Rome or any other Citty and that his successors may also freely transferre their See from Rome Yet this affoards no help to your cause for though according to this opinion it be no matter of fayth that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman be the Catholike Church yet specificatiuè and absolutely it is for albeit S. Peter might haue placed his See els where yet it is matter of fayth that de facto he placed his See at Rome and that whiles his Successor continueth his See there the Roman Church is de facto the Head Mistresse of all Churches and that whosoeuer is not a member vnited to this Head is out of the Catholike Church This you should haue disproued but wilfully mistake the state of the question and because it is not matter of fayth but of opinion that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman is the Catholike Church you inferre that specificatiuè and absolutely it is not matter of fayth but only of opinion that she is the Catholike Church which is as good a consequence as that an Aethiopian absolutely is not a man because formally as black he is not a man With such arguments you delude ignorant Readers that want learning to discerne your sleights SECT V. Your fifth Argument YOur fifth argument to proue that the Roman Church is not the Catholike Church (z) Pag. 18.19.20 is because there was a Catholike Church which had Apostles Martyrs and Confessors blessed Saints of God before the Roman Church was founded yea and before the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed or the Apostolicall Creed it selfe composed All this though it be granted as true is yet of no force against our Doctrine which is that S. Peter was ordained by Christ Pastor of his whole flocke and therefore Gouernor of the vniuersall Church from whence it followeth that whatsoeuer Apostles Martyrs Confessors or other faythfull liued in the Church of Christ after S. Peter was made Head thereof were members of the vniuersall or Catholike Church subiect to Peter though for a tyme there were no one particular Church which was head of al Churches because S. Peter as yet had not made choyce of any particular seate as afterwards he did at Antioch and therfore the Church of Antioch whiles he sate there was the Head and Mother Church to whom all other Churches were bound to professe vnion and obedience In regard wherof that Holy Pope Innocentius the first greatly commended by S. Augustine (a) Epist. 18. Alexand. Episc Antioch sayth that the See of Antioch had not giuen place to the See of Rome but because what Antioch obtayned only by the way Rome obtayned absolutely and finally To which I adde that if the Successor of S. Peter should now remoue his See from Rome to Milan as S. Peter did from Antioch to Rome not the Church of Rome but that of Milan should be the Catholike Church as the Head and Mother Church of the world But because by the prouidence of God S. Peter fixed his seat left it to his Successors at Rome whiles they continue it there the Roman Church by reason of his See is the Head Mother Church of the world to which sayth (b) L. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus all Churches and all the faythfull from euery place are of necessity to agree by reason of this her more powerfull principality I conclude therfore that you ignorantly or wittingly mistake the state of the question for the Roman Churches being or not being the Catholike Church as the Head and Mother Church of the world no way dependeth on her being founded before or after the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed but vpon being the See in which S. Peter Prince of the Apostles liued and dyed and which he left to his Successors for the Bishop of that See being S. Peters Successor succeedeth him in his supreme authority and that authority maketh the Roman Church the Head of the world which dignity it hath euer enioyed since S. Peter sate there and shall enioy whiles his Successor continueth there which shal be to the end of the world To haue spoken to the purpose you shold haue proued that the Saints which departed this life before the Roman Church was founded were separated from the communion of S. Peter and from the Church of which he was Head which if they had bene they had no more bene Saints then you now are SECT VI. Your sixth Argument YOur sixth Argument is a mere sophisme Al Catholike Diuines accord as in a matter of fayth that the Catholike or vniuersall Church (c) Pag. 20.21.22 mentioned in the Apostles Creed hath a prerogatiue of continuing in the true fayth vntill the end of the world according to Christs promise made to S. Peter Secondly and that the Roman Church whiles the Successors of S. Peter continue their seate at Rome cannot fayle in fayth But that S. Peter fixed his seat at Rome by the commandement of Christ there to remaine to the end of his life and in his Successors to the end of the world although it be a most pious and probable opinion held by the greatest and best part of Diuines yet it is not expresse matter of Fayth because no such precept of Christ appeareth in Scripture or tradition and therfore some Diuines stick not to grant that the fixing of S. Peters See at Rome was a thing proceeding merely from his owne free will and election consequently that it is in the power of his Successors to transport it from Rome to Antioch or any other City In which case as Rome shold not then be the See of S. Peter but Antioch so neither should the Bishop of Rome be the supreme Gouernor of the whole Church nor the Church of Rome the Catholike Church as the Head and mistresse of all others as now
it is that S. Maximus Martyr said (p) Spond anno 657. n. 8. All the Churches of Christians had their beginning from the holy Roman Church and the Primates of Africa (q) Ep. ad Theod. Papam that all other Churches were to learne from her as from their natiue fountayne what they ought to belieue and Innocentius the first in his Epistle (r) Epist. 9. highly commended by S. Augustine (s) Epist 106. that from the Roman Church other Churches as springs proceeding from their mother source and running with the purity of their originall through the diuers regions of the whole world are to take what they ought to ordaine And the holy Councell of Chalcedon (t) Epist ad Leonem that the fountaine and source of our religion is from the See Apostolike And finally for diuers other respects the Roman Church is iustly called The most ancient Church as Bozius learnedly proueth (*) Desig Eccles to 1. l. 3. cap. 10. To him I remit you Wherfore the mother-hood of the Roman Church which we defend consisteth in her supreme authority and iurisdiction ouer all other Churches This you should disproue which here you do not but inferre that Hierusalem Caesarea Antioch the Brittish Church the Greeke Church in generall are all Mothers to the Roman because they were founded before her which is a false cōsequent drawne out of a wilfull mistake of the state of the question for though the Church of Hierusalem was founded before that of Caesarea yet who knoweth not that as the famous Councell of Nice (*) Can. 7. hath declared S. Hierome (†) Ep. 61. testifieth and you here confesse the Church of Caesarea was the Metropolitan or mother Church of all Palestine and that both the Church of Hierusalem and all others of that prouince were for aboue foure hundred yeares subiect to her Againe who knoweth not that the Bishops of Caesarea of Hierusalem and of all the East were subiect to the Bishop of Antioch as to their Patriarke notwithstanding that the Church of Antioch was founded after some of the Easterne Churches And who knoweth not that albeit the Church of Antioch was founded before that of Rome it was neuerthelesse subiect to the Church of Rome for why els did Iuuenal Bishop of Hierusalem say (u) In Concil Ephes Act. 4. in the presence of the whole Councell of Ephesus that the ancient custome and Apostolicall tradition was that the Church of Antioch is to be ruled and iudged by the Roman Syr a man of your reading ought to haue knowne that in the mysteries of Christ the yonger are preferred before the elder Abel before Cain Iacob before Esau Iudas before Ruben Dauid before Eliab Salomon before Adonias and so likewise of Christians the Gentils were preferred before the Iewes the Latines before the Greekes and the west before East for as the Apostle sayth (x) 1. Cor. 15.46 that is naturall which is first and spirituall that which is afterward and he that by his birth-right shall exalt himselfe as being the elder shall by the right hand of God be humbled that so the fauors he bestoweth on his Church may be knowne to proceed from no other root but his gracious vocation So we see among the Apostles that although in the opinion of S. Epiphanius (y) Haeresi 51. which is followed by Baronius (z) Anno 32. n. 23. Lorinus (a) In ca. 1. Act. 5.13 Serarius (b) Tract de Apost and many others Andrew were elder then Peter and as S. Ambrose (c) In c. 12.2 ad Corinth sayth followed Christ before Peter yet Andrew receaued not the primacy but Peter And therfore though the Churches of Hierusalem of Antioch and others of the East were founded before that of Rome yet not they but she obtayned the primacy Wherfore you produce in vaine the testimonies of S. Hierome S. Augustine and S. Basil affirming that the Ghospell was first preached at Hierusalem and other partes of the East and that from thence it came into the West for this proueth that the Church of Hierusalem and some others were founded before that of Rome and therfore were mothers to her in antiquity not in iurisdiction and authority But S. Chrysostome say (d) Pag. 30. you affirmeth that S. Iames was the first that obtayned a Bishopricke namely at Hierusalem You ought to haue added that the same S. Chrysostome likewise sayth (e) In Ioan. Hom. vltima that he was made Bishop of Hierusalem by S. Peter mayster of the whole world If therfore Iames was chosen Bishop of Hierusalem by Peter that sufficiently sheweth his authority ouer Iames and the other Apostles And what els did S. Chrysostome signify saying that Iames was made Bishop of Hierusalem by Peter Mayster of the world but that as much as the Bishop of the whole world surpasseth in authority the Bishop of one See so much did Peter surpasse Iames in authority which Euthymius hath also expressed in the same words with Chrysostome And no lesse effectually S. Bernard The rest of the Apostles sayth he (f) L. 2. de consid c. 9. obtayned ech of them their peculiar flocks Iames contented with Hierusalem yelds the vniuersality to Peter And S. Gregory (g) L. 4. epist 38. Peter surely is the chiefe member of the holy and Vniuersall Church Paul Andrew Iohn what were they but heads of particular Dioceses Impertinent therfore is your alleaging of S. Chrysostome to proue that Iames was the first that obtained a Bishopricke at Hierusalem for both he and these other Fathers testify that Peter was Bishop of the whole Church and consequently also of Hierusalem which was a part of the Church And who knoweth not that of all the Apostles S. Peter first preached the Ghospell to the Iewes and also to the Gentils first in the East and then in the West and that by his authority he instituted the three Patriarkcall seats of Rome Antioch and Alexandria by which all other Churches of the world were gouerned and that as Bozius (h) De sign Eccles l. 4. c. 2. 3. obserueth the whole world was conuerted by those which either were sent by S. Peter and his Successors in the Roman See hauing their mission and authority from them or els by such as were made Bishops by them whom S. Peter had ordayned And so likewise wheras here (i) Pag. 33. you make the Church of Caesarea mother to that of Rome who knoweth not that S. Peter founded that Church and made Cornelius the Centurion Bishop therof which therfore remained subiect to S. Peters See Impertinent likewise and fraudulent is your obiection (k) Pag. 34. out of Sozomene (l) L. 3. c. 7. that the Eastern Greeke Churches challenged this prerogatiue in their letters to Pope Iulius that they came from the East who first brought Christian Religion to Rome for if they came from the East their ordination and authority was from S.
indulgences we know not for all his actions are not written We know that S. Paul did excommunicat the incestuous Corinthian (b) 1. Cor. 5.5 and afterwards when he repented at the intercession of Timothy Titus as Theodoret (c) In 1. Cor. 2.10 expoundeth granted him a pardon or Indulgence in the person of Christ that is to say by the power he had receaued from Christ to that end Nor is it to be doubted but that S. Peter who as ordinary Pastor had power ouer the whole Church did exercise the same power if the like occasion were offered 4. In those primitiue times the Canonization of Saints was not performed with so great solemnity nor with such exact inquiry into all particulars nor with the deposition of so many witnesses as in these later ages it is If then the Church did with vnanimous consent reuerence any one that had died for Christ as the Martyrs did or that liued died holily as did the Confessors he was by publike voyce and consent of the Church reuerenced as a Saint the See Apostolike either expresly or taciâ—ly approuing the same and therby canonized In this manner were Canonized S. Stephen and others that died before S. Peter without whose approbation neither S. Stephen nor any one els was then reuerenced by the whole Church as a Saint not any since that time without the approbation of his Successors 5. To make good S. Peters iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles you require vs (d) Pag. 46. fin to shew that he pardoned Simony and almost an 100. the like sinnes which is to say that vnlesse we shew that the other Apostles committed Simony and almost an 100. the like sinnes and that S. Peter pardoned them we must not belieue S. Peter to haue had power and iurisdiction ouer them That S. Peter euer pardoned Simony we read not but that he punished it we proue by the power he shewed ouer Simon Magus (e) See aboue Nu. 24. And how far the Successors of S. Peter are from pardoning or any way conniuing at Simony yea how seuere they are and euer haue bene in the punishment therof the decrees and constitutions of diuers Popes extant in the Canon Law giue abundant witnesse against such men as you are who out of their hatred to the Roman See are wont to slander S. Peter in his Successors falsly with pardoning Simony and almost an 100. the like sinnes as here you do without any proofe at all 6. With no lesse folly you require vs (f) Pag. 46. 47. to shew that S. Peter was distinguished from the other Apostles by some one note and character of Imperial eminency and authority as by his guard or coyne or habit or command or constitutions as euery temporall Monarch is distinguished from his Nobles Can there be greater simplicity then to require vs to shew that S. Peter like an Emperor had Princely robes a guard and a peculiar coyne as kings Emperors haue when he was no temporall Monarch and when not only he but as you forgetting your selfe (g) Pag. 283. confesse the holy Popes his Successors in those primitiue time were alas daily in danger of banishments imprisonments torments death Is it not then ridiculous to bid vs shew S. Peters guard and his coyne his commands we shew for Oecumenius sayth (h) In cap 1 â—ct The Apostles were committed to the gouerment of Peter and presently at his command appointed two whom they thought worthiest to be chosen in place of Iudas which Doctrine is also deliuered by S. Chrysostome (i) Hom 3. in Act. Of the Constitutions of the Apostles which were peculiarly of S. Peter as their Head and set forth by Clement his Disciple and Successor we know that albeit they are of no great reckoning among many of the Latines as hauing some things inserted into them by heretikes yet they are greatly esteemed by the Greekes and both cited and commended by S. Epiphanius (k) Hâ—â—r 45. ser 70. and other Greeke Fathers To which I add that they are learnedly defended by Turrianus (l) Proem in lib. Clem. Ro. and Genebrard (m) L. de Liturg Apostol c. 5 fol. 21.22 affirmes them to haue bene receaued by all antiquity Your last argument to proue as you call it (n) Pag. 47. the no domination of S. Peter ouer the other Apostles is that meeting together at Hierusalem they sent Peter and Iohn into Samaria which proueth Peter to haue no superiority ouer the rest by whom he was sent or if it doe it must needs imply in Iohn an equality with Peter for as Iohn was not sent as Superior to the other Apostles so neither was Peter This inference we wholly deny 1. because in a Corporation or Colledge as that of the Apostles was the Superior may out of his owne desire be sent in the name of the whole Community the Maior in name of the Citty and the Deane in name of the Chapter 2. The authority of the whole Colledge together which includeth both the head the members differeth from the Head alone to vse the phrase of Metaphysicks tanquam includens ab incluso and is at least extensiue of greater authority then the Head alone and therfore the Head alone may be sent by authority of the whole Colledge 3. And if we take a community for the inferiors not including their Superior though he cannot be sent by their command he may by their in treaty So S. Chrysostome (*) In cap 11 ep ad Gal. sayth Paul was sent to Hierusalem by the Christians of Antioch who yet were not his Superiors So the Deane is sometymes sent by the Canons and the Rector by the Collegialls So was Pope Piâ—â— the second sent by the Colledge of Cardinals about an expedition intended against the Turkes and as Bozius obserneth (o) De fig. Eccles to 2. l. 18. c. 2. §. Quocirca the Roman Emperors were often sent by the Senate Nor doth such a mission any way extenuate but rather manifest the authority of such Missionants for persons of greatest quality are fittest to be employed vpon weighty affaires especially when they import the publike good as this Mission of Peter and Iohn did for Philip the Deacon hauing conuerted the Samaritans to Christ these two great Apostles were sent to oppose the wicked practises of Simon Magus by whom the Samaritans had bene long seduced and to confirme them in their fayth giuing them the holy Ghost by imposition of hands a thing which Philip though otherwise a most perfect man and full of the holy Ghost yet being no Bishop was not able to doe that being a function proper to Bishops To this you haue no other reply to make then tell vs that a iourney vndertakeâ— by a Gouernor at the desire and request of his inferiors cannot be called a mission but a profection and going An answere that serues for nothing but to discouer your ignorance for the
words which you obiect to wit that Christ after his resurrection gaue equall power to all the Apostles saying As my Father sent me so I send you receaue yee the holy Ghost c. For by these words he gaue to them all equall authority to preach throughout the world to reueale matters of fayth assurance of infallibility to make canonicall Scriptures to institute the first mission of Pastors to remit sinnes to giue the holy Ghost and the like In this sense he sayth The Apostles were the same that Peter endowed with like fellowship of honor and power to wit in the exercise of these Apostolicall functions ouer the faythfull to whom he sent them But S. Cyprian sayth not that Christ made all the Apostles equall among themselues exempting them from the iurisdiction of S. Peter in the manner of exercising this power Nor is it true for he gaue it theÌ„ with subordination to him as to their Superior Peter sayth S. Leo (d) Serm. â— in Aâ—niuers suae Assumpt is preferred before all the Apostles if Christ would haue them to haue any thing common with him he gaue it them not but by him And this is declared and the reason therof yelded by Optatus S. Hierome and by S. Cyprian himselfe in that very place which you obiect for the contrary In the Episcopall chayre sayth Optatus (e) L. â— cont Parmâ—n was set the Head of all the Apostles Peter from whence he was also called Cephas to the end that in this only chayre Vnity might be preserued in all and that the other Apostles might not challenge to themselues ech one a seuerall chayre but that he might be a Schismatike and a sinner that against this only Chayre should erect another The Church sayth S. Hierome (f) L. 1. aduers louin c. 14. is built vpon Peter though els where it be also built vpon the rest yet among the twelue one is chosen to the end that a Head being made occasion of Schisme might be taken away And S. Cyprian (g) L. de vnit Eccles Christ to manifest vnity constituted one chayre and ordayned the originall of Vnity beginning from one giuing the primacy to Peter that so one Church of Christ and one chayre might be manifested And then declaring you that haue forsaken this originall of Vnity S. Peters Chayre on which the Church is built to haue lost the fayth and to be out of the Church he addoth He that keepeth not this vnity of the Church doth he belieue himselfe to hold the fayth he that resisteth the Church he that forsaketh the chaire of Peter on which the Church is built doth he thinke himselfe to be in the Church So S. Cyprian equalling you with the Nouatians for your disclayming from the Church of Peter CHAP. XII The authority of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth proued to be infallible HAVING in vayne shot your darts at S. Peter to dethrone him from the height of Authority in which Christ hath placed him you come now to try their force against the Bishop of Rome his Successor whose authority in his definitions of fayth you hold to be fallible SECT I. Our first Argument THat the authority of the Bishop of Rome in his definitions of fayth is infallible we proue out of the words of Christ spoken to S. Peter (h) Luc. 12.32 I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth faile not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren There is no man so voyd of vnderstanding sayth Leo the 9. speaking (i) Ep. ad Michael Impâ—r of this prayer that can thinke Christs prayer whose will is his power to haue bene inefficacious which the Apostle allso teacheth saying (k) Heb. 5.7 he was heard for his reuerence And for this prayer in particular Christ himselfe signifieth so much saying I haue prayed for thee for what would his prayer haue auayled Peter if he had not obtayned for him what he asked Or how cold his brethren haue any assurance of their confirmation in fayth from Peter if Peter could haue error proposing vnto them falshood for truth Againe that Christ in these words prayed not in mediatly for the whole Church nor for all the Apostles but for Peter alone appeareth in this that he expressed one singular person saying Simon Sâ—mon for in the Greeke it is twice repeated and added the pronounce of the second person I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth fayle not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren That Christ prayed not for the other Apostles you grant (l) Pag. 53. and take this for a ground to proue that he prayed for Peter only and not for Clement Vrban or any other of his Successors in the Roman See But your argument proueth nothing for Christ had formerly obtayned the personall perseuerance of Peter and the rest when he said (m) Ioan. 17.9 seqq for them I do pray c. Holy Father keep them in my name c. I pray not that thou take them out of the world but that thou preserue them from euill And therfore this prayer for Peters not fayling in fayth was not made for him in the person of a priuat man and without relation to his office of Supreme Pastor but as for a publike person that is as for the Head of the Apostles and Gouernor of the whole Church and consequently for his See and all his Successors in the same See for as that supreme dignity of Head Gouernor of the vniuersall Church was not to dye with Peter but to descend by him to his Successors so the effect of this prayer of Christ being a prerogatiue obtayned for Peter by reason of his office was to descend to Clement to Vrban and to whosoeuer hath hitherto or shall hereafter succeed him in the same office euen as whatsoeuer prerogatiue is granted to a Vice-Roy as Vice-Roy and as belonging to his office is consequently granted to all his Successors in the same office But you obiect (n) Pag. 54. that this priuiledge cannot agree to Peters Successors because Salas the Iesuit teacheth that a personall and singular priuiledge is that which is granted to an indiuiduall person with expression of his name and therfore doth not extend to any other but dyeth with the person to whom it is granted You vnderstand not Salas for he calleth a personall priuiledge that which is granted to an indiuiduall person as he is a piuat person only for his owne particular good not by reason of any publike office for the good and benefit of the community for if it be granted to him as to a publike person by reason of his office as this was to S. Peter as to the Head of the Church and for the common good of the Church though his name be neuer so much expressed in it it is not a personall but a common (o) See Bonacina Compend v. Priuileg or as Suarez (p) L. 7. de
so but that all the other Apostles had likewise authority to preach vnto them both But you oppose (c) Pag. 59. that S. Ambrose (d) In Gal. 2â— from hence cellecteth two different Primacies the one of Peter and the other of Paul S. Ambroses words are As Paul receaued a primacy of founding Churches among the Gentiles so Peter had the primacy of founding the Church a dignity farre greater then to preach and found Churches among the Gentils and that implieth the subiection of S. Paul and all other Prelates of the Church vnto him 2. You say (e) Pag. 59. Chrysostome argueth from these words of S. Paul that both he and Peter had the same dignity and Oecumenius wisheth his reader to obserue that Paul herein equalled himselfe to Peter I answeare The false Apostles excepted against S. Pauls Doctrine and authority to preach because he had not conuersed with Christ nor bin trayned vp in his schole before his passion as the other Apostles had and by that meanes seduced some of the Galathians as it appeares out of the first Chapter of his epistle to them Wherfore in the second Chapter he certifies them that he went to Hierusalem to conferre his Ghospell with the chiefe knowne Apostles and was receaued by them into their society as being an Apostle no lesse then they were and one that had learned his Doctrine by reuelation and receaued his authority to preach from the same mayster that taught and authorized them And herein only S. Chrysostome and Oecumenius say that S. Paul is equall to the rest compares himselfe to Peter the chiefest of them for sayth Oecumenius (f) In cap. 2 ad Gal. though he speake this of Peter praedicationis causa to authorize his owne Doctrine with the Galathians yet he respecteth and honoreth Peter farre aboue himselfe that is to say as Head of the Apostles for so he had called him a little before and (g) Ad c. 1. Act. As one to whom the gouerment of the Disciples was committed and that had power to command them all And how cold S. Chrysostome meane any other thing he that said (h) In c. 2. ad Gal. hom 87 in Ioan. Paul went to Peter as to one greater then himselfe as to the mouth and Prince of the Apostles and Head of the whole company that in matters belonging to authority Paul giues the primacy to Peter (i) Hom. 35. in c. 14.1 ad Cor. that Peter surpassed the rest of the Apostles in authority by many degrees (k) L. 2. de Saâ—ord that he was chiefe of the Apostles had the whole world subiect to him (l) Orat. 5. aduers Iudaeot that Christ deliuered to him the gouermeÌ„t of the Church throughout the whole world (m) Hom 80. ad Antioch the charge of feeding those sheep which he had redeemed with his bloud (n) L. 2. de Sacord 3. You obiect (o) Pag. 61. S. Gregory saying Paul was made the Head of Nations and obtayned the principality of the whole Church S. Paul I grant obtayned the principality of the whole Church as the rest of the Apostles did because they were all Princes ouer the whole Church as S. Hierome and others collect out of those words of the Psalme (p) Psal 44.17 Thou shalt make them Princes ouer all the earth And this is the principality which S. Chrysostome declared S. Paul to haue (q) Hom. 18. in epist ad Rom when he said all preaching the affayres of the world all mysteries and all dispensations were committed to him But this argueth not that the Princedome and authority of S. Paul or the other Apostles was independant and without subordination to S. Peter for as S. Hierome (r) In psal 44. obserueth The Church hath Bishops insteed of the Apostles and as their Successors in their Episcopall authority which therfore in that respect are Peers and Princes of the Church yet not without due subordination for all Bishops are subiect to the Pope and so were Paul and the other Apostles to Peter And this S. Gregory himselfe to shew your imposture in obiecting him for the contrary declareth saying (s) L. 4. ep 38. Peter the Apostle is the chiefe member of the holy and vniuersall Church Paul Andrew Iohn what are they but Heads of seuerall flocks SECT IV. Other arguments of Doctor Morton answeared IN prosecution of the same matter you obiect (m) Pag. 62.63.64 that Paul named Iames before Peter saying Iames Cephas and Iohn wherby you will haue Paul to mate and equall Iames Iohn with Peter for it had bene ill manners in him to name Iames before Peter if Peter had bene Iames his Superior as it would be thought ill manners in a Catalogue of Bishops to reckon the Bishop of Colen before the Pope You argue from an vncertaine ground for S. Chrysostome in his commentary S. Ambrose and S. Hierome both in the text and commentary read Peter Iames and Iohn and so likewise doth S. Hieromâ— in other his workes (n) Contrâ— Heliud l. de Scriptor Eccles in Paulo It is therfore credible that S. Paul in naming them obserued the same order but if he named them otherwise it is no argument to proue that he equalled Iames in authority with Peter first because as S. Chrysostome (o) In cap. 1. ep ad Gal. noteth S. Paul in that very Epistle professeth himselfe to yeld greater honor to Peter and shew more loue to him then to the rest in saying that he went vp to Hierusalem not for any of them but for his sake alone 2. because ascending by gradation he placeth Peter aboue himselfe and next vnto Christ I am Paules and I Apolloes but I of Cephas and I of Christ 3. If it be true that he named Iames before Peter he did it not to equall them in authority and much lesse to preferre Iames before Peter but in regard of the priority of the knowledge which Iames receaued of the great grace giuen to Paul for when he came the first tyme to Hierusalem to giue the Apostles notice of his calling and of the great fruit of his labors he found none of them there but Iames. Put now the like case and it will neither be ill manners nor any derogation to the Popes authority to name him after the Bishop of Colen or of Milan 4. Because it is certaine that in all other places of the new Testament in which there is a Catalogue of all the Apostles in generall or of some in particular Peter is still named in the first place and if here as you say he is named before Peter because he was Bishop of Hierusalem it is no argument to proue him Superior or equall in authority to Peter S. Bernard (q) Serm. 3. de 7. misericord fragm nameth Paul Mathew before Peter and yet in that very place expresly sayth that the Pastorall care of the whole Church was committed to
their Bishop with the multitude of Saints being departed out of it shall be consumed with fire before the reigne of Antichrist or in the very beginning therof as (r) Riber a cap. 17 n. 20. in vers 16. Ex hoc quod nunc ait Apostolus intelligitur Roman euertendam antequam Antichristus regnare incipiat vel certè ipso initio regni eius Ribera and (s) Viegas in cap 17. n. 5. Viegas reach In this supposition why may not the Pope with that multitude of holy Christian Romans be truly and verily the Bishop and Church of Rome Why should that multitude of Roman Christian and Saints be titulus sine re and not a very glorious and venerable Church Why should the Pope then cease to be Bishop more then the Bishop of Canterbury should in case Canterbury should be destroyed into ashes Will you say vpon this contingent that the Bishop of Canterbury shall be the man in the moone the sheepheard of Vtopia to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You might haue learned from Cusanus (t) Epist 2. ad Bohemos whome you cite often and highly commend that if by any accident the Citty of Rome should fayle the truth of the Church shall remaine there where the Principality and seat of Peter shal be Nor is your example of the Emperor of Rome (u) Pag. 77. any helpe to your Argument For albeit the Roman Empyre be now in part decayed or weakned in respect of that power and greatnesse which anciently it had yet it still remayneth so that the name succession of the Roman Emperors at this day is famous in the world els why did our late Soueraigne King Iames inscribe his Monitory Prefation Sacratissimo atque inuictissimo Principi ac Domino Rodulpho secundo Romanorum Imperatori semper Augusto c. And why els doth the Church of Rome in her Office (x) In die Parasceues Sabbatho Sancto pray for the Roman Emperor Nor the Authors which you alledge for the contrary do say ought els though you falsify Salmeron to make his words found otherwise for wheras he speaking of the Roman Empire as it anciently was sayth Imperium illud Romanum iamdiu euersum est that Empire of Rome to wit with that ancient splendor maiesty and power which once it had is long since destroyed you leaue out illud and make him say absolutely The Roman Empire is long since destroyed wheras in the words next following he expresly affirmeth that there is still a Roman Emperor and that he is so called although what now be possesseth be but a very small shadow of the ancient Empire Lastly I will not omit to put you in minde of your weake manner of arguing throughout all this Section for how doth it follow that because Ribera and Viegas hold that Babylon out of which the faythfull are commanded to depart is the City of Rome as she shall be idolatrous in the end of the world you may now lawfully reuolt from the Church of Rome Againe who obligeth me to allow of their exposition I might retort your Argument vpon your selfe and tell you that Babylon signifies not Rome but Geneua and proue it by the testimony of Castalio a prime brother of yours who liued there and was a speciall friend of Beza They sayth he speaking of the Geneuian brethren (y) Apud Rescium pag. 54. are proud puft vp with glory and reuenge We may with lesse danger offend Princes then exasperate these fiery Caluinists their life is infamous and villanous they are Maisters of art in reproches lyes cruelty treachery and insufferable arrogancy They name their Geneua The holy City and their assembly Hierusalem but in very truth we should call it O Babylon Babylon O infamous Sodome and children of Gomorrha If you like not this exposition yet I know no reason why if you will belieue Ribera and Viegas expounding Babylon in the Apocalyps to be Rome you may not as well belieue your brethren Vdalricus Velenus (z) Lib. de hac r◠and Henricus Buntingus (a) It iner de it iner Petri. denying it and so much the more because S. Augustine Tyconius Bede Arethas Primasius Ansbertus Haymo S. Anselme and S. Thomas (b) Apud Riber in vers 8. cap. 14. Apoc by Babylon vnderstand not Rome but the society of all the wicked in generall from whose vices the faithfull are commanded to depart (c) S. August Breuic Collat. collat 3. Others vnderstand Paganisme which because it adoreth a confused multitude of Gods is rightly named Babylon that signifies Confusion others Mahometisme the mother of fornication and all filthinesse Others Constantinople the Metropolitan of Turcisme And others the chiefe City of the Chaldaeans which is properly called Babylon These expositions with their Authors and reasons you may read in Cornelius à Lapide (d) Ade 17. Apoc. Suarez (e) Defens fid l. 5. c. 7. and Peron (f) Replic Chapit 15. But the truth is that all these senses as likewise that of Ribera being purely allegoricall afford no solid foundation to build matter of fayth vpon but are merely coniecturall And therfore if S. August say (g) Ep. 48. Who dares with an vnbridled licence produce for himselfe that which is couched in an allegory vnlesse he haue places more cleare by whose light to illustrate that which is obscure we may with iust reason reproue you for grounding your departure from the Roman Church vpon the allegoricall sense of those words of the Apocalyps Get forth of Babylon my people and so much the more because the Authors whose exposition you take for your ground admonish you that by Babylon is not vnderstood the Church of Rome but the City that not as it is Christian but as it was idolatrous in S. Iohns tyme and shal be againe in the end of the world But any thing will serue your turne be it true or false if by sleights you can wrest it against the Pope and Church of Rome SECT II. Whether S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter were subiect to the Bishop of Rome S. Peters Successor SVarez treating of the authority of S. Peter and his Successors moueth this question (h) De trip virtute disp 10. sect 1. Whether the Apostles that suruiued S. Peter were subiect to S. Peters successor in the See of Rome His answeare is I remember not that I haue read any thing of this point in Authors but it seemes to me to follow out of what hath bene said that they were inferior in iurisdiction and consequently subiect therin to the Bishop of Rome although in other excellencies and prerogatiues they were superior to him For the same power and iurisdiction that was in S. Peter descended to his Successours who therfore in three things surpassed the Apostles there liuing 1. In the obiect of their power for the charge and gouerment of the whole Church belongeth primarily to the Successor of S. Peter which as I haue
said belonged not to the other Apostles 2. That power did extend to all Bishops because the reason of order and Ecclesiasticall vnity so required 3. The power of the Bishop of Rome was alwaies ordinary and to continue perpetually in the Church not so in the other Apostles This is Suarez his Doctrine which I haue set downe in his owne words that the reader perusing yours and comparing them with his may see how you falsify for both in your Latin margent English text you leaue out (i) Pag. 79. the reason wherwith he proues his assertion and set downe for his only ground that he cannot remember to haue read in any author any thing of this point wheras he proues it out of what he had formerly said And doth he not here againe proue it out of the power and iurisdiction which was in S. Peter ouer the whole Church descended from him to his Successors And doth he not from thence inferr three prerogatiues which his Successors had ouer the other Apostles two of which you conceale And though you set downe the third yet it is in your Latin Margent only and so dismembred from Suarez his context that the reader will not easily vnderstand the force therof Againe who is so blind that sees not your absurd manner of arguing which is this (*) Pag. 78. 79. Suarez opinion is that S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter was subiect to Linus his Successor ergo S. Iohns fayth did not conceaue the Pope to haue iurisdiction ouer all other Bishops and Pastors in the Catholike Church You might as well haue inferred that because Yorke hath a Minster London hath a Bridge for this is as good a consequence as yours But hereby the Reader may see with what silly Sophistry you delude or to vse your owne words against your selfe with what vntempered morter you daube vp the consciences of your followers Now as for Suarez his assertion that the iurisdiction of S. Peters Successor was greater then the ordinary Episcopall iurisdiction of the other Apostles a iudicious Reader wil easily conceaue to be no such improbable Doctrine if he reflect that the Successor to euery Bishop is inuested in all the Episcopall authority of his predecessors and therfore Linus being Successor to S. Peter it must follow that 8. Peter being in Episcopall authority and iurisdiction superior to all the other Apostles Linus had the same authority and iurisdiction ouer those that suruiued S. Peter And this S. Chrysostome seemeth to haue expressed (k) L. 2. de Sacerd 1â— when he said Christ committed to Peter and to Peters Successors the charge of those sheep for the regayning of which he shed his bloud from which number I trust you will not excluded S. Iohn or any other of the Apostles that suruiued S. Peter And what els did S. Cyril meane when he said (l) Apud S. Thom. Opusc cont error Graec. c. 32. As Christ receaued from his Father most ample power so he gaue the same most fully to Peter and his Successors And what Paschasinus when in the presence and with the approbation of the Councell of Chalcedon (m) Act. 1. he affirmed the Pope to be inuested in the dignity of Peter the Apostle And what meant S. Bernard (n) L. 2. de considerat when he said to Eugenius Pope Thou art Peter in power and by vnction Christ the sheep of Christ were not so without exception committed to any Bishop nor to any of the Apostles as to thee thou art Pastor not only of the sheep but Pastor of all Pastors And what meant S. Leo (o) Serm. 2. â— Anniuers suae assump when he said The ordinance of truth standeth and S. Peter continuing in the receaued solidity of a Rock hath not left the gouerment of the Church for truly he perseuereth and liueth still in his Successors And againe (p) Ibid. In the person of my humility he is vnderstood he honored in whom the solicitude of all Pastors with the sheep commended to him perseuereth and whose dignity in an vnworthy heyre fayleth not And what S. Peter surnamed Chrysologus (q) Ep. ad Eutychet when he exhorted Eutyches to heare obediently the most blessed Pope of Rome because S. Peter who liueth in his owne See and is stil president in the same exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it And what the Legates of Celestine Pope in the Councell of Ephesus (r) P. 2. Act. 2. No man doubtes for it hath bene notorious to all ages that the holy and most blessed Peter Prince and Head of the Apostles piller of the fayth foundation of the Catholike Church liues and decides causes yet vnto this day and for all eternity by his Successors And what Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria writing to S. Gregory (s) Apud Greg. l. 6. ep 37. that Peter Prince of the Apostles sitteth still in his owne Chayre in his Successors And what S. Gregory himselfe reporting (t) Dial. l. 3. c. â— that Agapet Pope comming to Constantinople the friends of a man that was lame and dumbe beseeching him to cure that man by the authority of Peter the Apostle Agapet by the same authority cured him And what the Fathers of the sixt Councell generall when commending the Epistle of Agatho Pope they said (u) Act. 18. The paper and inke appeared but it was Peter that did speake by Agatho And finally what Constantine Pogonate when writing to the Roman Synod (x) Apud 6. Syn. Act. 18. he admired the relation of Agatho at the voyce of the diuine Peter himselfe It followeth then that if Linus was inuested in the Episcopall dignity and power of Peter if S. Peter still liue and rule in his owne See and decide causes in his Successors if he speake by them and their voyce be to heard as his voyce to be subiect to Linus was no other thing then to be subiect to S. Peter and to disobey Linus was to disobey S. Peter who did speake by Linus and gouerne in his owne See by him Wherfore as the Apostles owed subiection to S. Peter whiles he liued so those that suruiâ—â—â— him did to Linus hauing the place of Peter for 〈◊〉 â—â—â—rian â—alles the Roman See L. 4. â—p 2. CHAP. XIV Your fifth Chapter with diuers Arguments answered SECT I. Of the Name Catholike AFTER a discourse made from an Argument ab authoritate negatiuè which euery Logician knowes to be of no force you say (a) Pag. 81. We begin at the word Catholike and desire to vnderstand why the epistles of Iames and Iohn and Iude were called Catholike or vniuersall as well as the two Epistles of Peter if the word Catholike were so proper to the Roman Chayre seing that the Epistles of Iames Iohn and Iude were not sent to or from Rome nor had any relation to Peter there Before I answere I desire you to remember that the name Catholike by the ancient Fathers is giuen
at all of them It belonges not to Kings sayth S. Damascen (q) Orat. 2. de Imagin to giue lawes to the Church for consider what the Apostle sayth and whom he hath placed in the Church first Apostles after Prophets then Pastors and Doctors in the constitution of the Church he placed not Kings And againe (r) Ibid. Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them for they watch as being to render accompt of your soules And remember your Prelates which haue spoken the word of God to you Kings are not they which haue spoken the word but Apostles and Prophets and Pastors and Doctors The ciuill gouerment belongs to Kings but the Ecilesiasticall constitution to Pastors and Doctors So Damascen whose Doctrine if it please you not you may learne the same lesson from your Grand-maister Caluin teaching that the chiefest place of gouerment in Christs Church belonged to the Apostles and so to Bishops and Priests their Successors And lest you might thinke that there is so much as one word in S. Paul which may argue him to grant vnto secular powers any place of gouerment in the Church Caluin (*) L. 4. Instit c. 3. sect 5. cap. 11. sect 1. specially noteth that by gubernationes gouerments which S. Paul after Apostles and Doctors reckoneth in the seauenth place are not vnderstood ciuill officers but such men as were ioyned to the Preachers for better order in spirituall gouerment But though you in neither of these places where the Apostle speaketh of the Ecclesiasticall dignities can finde any place for secular Princes and Magistrates the Fathers of the Church haue found in both of them a place for the Pope for S. Hierome obserueth (s) In Psal 44. that in the Church Bishops succeed in place of the Apostles and therefore Tertullian (t) L. de praescrip c. 2â— 32. and S. Augustine (u) Ep. 162. haue noted that their Churches were called Apostolicall so long as they continued in the fayth receaued from the Apostles as likewise all others that being afterwards founded agreed with them in Doctrine or as Tertullian speaketh propter consanguinitatem doctrinae Now as S. Peter was Head and Prince of the Apostles so the Roman Church in which he placed his Episcopall Chayre and into which sayth Tertullian (x) L. de praser c. 36. both he and S. Paul powred all their Doctrina togeather with their bloud was and is still by a speciall prerogatiue called The See Apostolike in so much that when the See Apostolike is named without any addition the Roman See is alwayes vnderstood In this language speake S. Hierome (y) L. 2. Apol aduers Ruffin when he said Ironicè to Ruffinus I wonder how the Bishops haue receâ—â—ed that which the See Apostolike hath condemned In this spake S. Augustine (z) Ep. 106. saying Relations concerning this busines were sent by the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the See Apostolike And els where (a) Ep. 162. In the Roman Church hath alwayes florished the Principality of the See Apostolike In the same language spake the Councell of Chalcedon (b) Act. 1. calling Paschasinus the Popes legate The Vicar of the See Apostolike And the Bishops of Dardania in their Epistle to Gelasius (c) Extâ—â— inter epist. Gelasij It is our desire to obey all your commands and to keep inuiolate the ordinations of the See Apostolike as from our Fathers we haue learned to do And S. Bernard (d) L. 2 de Considerat vpon those words of S. Paul He that resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God sayth to Conradus the Emperor This sentence I wish and by all meanes admonish you to keep in yelding reuerence to the chiefe and Apostolicall See From hence it also proceedeth that as S. Hierome (e) Ep. 58. said to Damasus The Bishop of Rome followeth the Apostles in honor and therfore he aboue all other Bishops is called Apostolicus Apostolicall So was S. Leo called in the Councell of Chalcedon (f) Act. 1. The most blessed and Apostolicall man Pope of old Rome which is the Head of all Churches And the Bishops of France (g) Inter op Leonis â—â—to 52. salute him with the title of The most blessed Pope to be reuerenced with Apostolicall honor And Rupertus (h) De diuiâ—â— offic l. 1.27 The Successors of the other Apostles are called Patriarkes but the Successor of Peter for the excellency of the Prince of the Apostles Apostolicus nominatur hath the name of Apostolicall And Hugo Victorinus (i) L. 1. Erud Theol. de sacram Eccles c. 43. The Pope is called Apostolicall because he hath the place of the Prince of the Apostles From hence also his Episcopall dignity is by a speciall prerogatiue called Apostolatus Apostolate or Apostleship So Paschacinus in the Councell of Chalcedon said of Pope Leo (k) Act. 1. His Apostleship hath vouch safed to command that Dioscorus sit not in the Councell So the Bishops of France writing to the same Leo beseech his Apostleship to pardon their slownesse (l) Iuter ep Leon. ante 52. Honorius the Emperor beseecheth Pope Bonifacius (m) Ep. ad Bonifac. that his Apostolate would offer vp prayers to God for the good of his Empire S. Bernard sayth to Innocentius (n) Ep. 190. It is fitting that whatsoeuer dangers or scandals arise in the kingdome of God be referred to your Apostleship All this sheweth that vnder the name of Apostles to whom S. Paul allotteth the first and chiefest place among Ecclesiasticall gouernors are vnderstood S. Peter and his Succcessors who haue the first and chiefest place of gouermentin the Church And this the Fathers Councels haue sufficiently declared by giuing the Pope the title of Apostolicall by calling his place Apostleship and his Church absolutely Apostolicall See This you could not see so dimme sighted you are in beholding any light that shewes the Authority of the Bishop or Church of Rome And this also is thereason why you could not see that S. Paul comprehendeth Peter and the Popes his Successors vnder the name of Pastors for Christ made Peter Pastor of his flock the same dignity remayneth to his Suecessors for why els did the Mileuitan Councell in tyme of the Pelagian heresy beseech Innocentius Pope (o) Aug. ep â—2 to apply his Pastorall diligence to the great perills of the weake members of the Church why did S. Hierome (p) Ep. 57. liuing in Palestine fly to Damasus Pope for resolution of his doubts as a sheep to his Pastor Why did S. Chrysostome say (q) L. 2. de Sacordot that Christ committed to Peter and his Successors the charge of those sheep for which he shed his bloud Why did S. Ambrose (r) Ep. 81. call Siricius Pope a good and rigilant Pastor that with pious solicitude keepes the flock of Christ Why did S. Prosper say (s) l. de ingrat c. 2. that Rome by
5. Martin the first praying the Emperor to vouchsafe to read his letters The Epistle is not of Martin alone but of the whole Roman Synod which hauing condemned the Monothelites sent their decrees to Constans the Emperor desiring and exhorting him for his confirmation in the Catholike fayth to read them attentiuely by his Lawes condemne and publikely declare the Monothelites to be heretikes Can there be a more childish illation then to inferre from hence that Martin acknowledged himselfe subiect to the Emperor If a Prouinciall Synod gathered by the Archbishop of Canterbury should send the like instruction to a Peere of this Realme his spirituall subiect exhorting him to read it would it therfore follow that the Archbishop did acknowledge himselfe subiect to that Peere Who then seeth not your arguing to be trifeling 8. You say (e) Impost pag. 179. serm pag. 5. Adrian the first deuoted himselfe to the Emperor by letters as one in supplication fallen downe prostrate at the soales of his feet O Imposture Adrian writ that Epistle to Constantine and Irene his Mother against the Image-breakers heretikes of that time whose heyres you are And hauing proued effectually out of Scriptures and Fathers the veneration due to sacred Images with all loue as if he were at Constantinople present with them and prostrate at their feet beseecheth and requireth them before God and coniureth them for so are his words which you alter and mangle that renouncing and detesting the craft of those wicked heretikes they would cause the sacred Images to be restored and set vp againe in the Churches of Constantinople and of all Greece to the end they might be receaued into the vnity of the holy Catholike Apostolike and irreprehensible Roman Church But that it may appeare how you abuse your readers and hearers inferring from hence that Adrian acknowledged subiection to the Emperor it is to be obserued that in that very Epistle he often calleth Constantine and Irene His belieued children and exhorteth them by the examples of Constantine the great Helena his Mother and the rest of the Orthodoxe Emperors to exalt honor and reuerence the holy Catholike Apostolike Roman Church as their spirituall Mother from which all Churches haue receaued the documents of Fayth to embrace her doctrine to admit of her censure to loue honor and reuerence the Successor of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles to whom our Sauiour gaue the keyes of heauen with power to bind and loose on earth And as he hauing receaued from Christ the principality of the Apostleship and pastorall charge sate first in the Apostolike See so by commandment from God he left it with all the power and authority that Christ had giuen to him to his Successors for euer and therfore that the sacred Scripture declareth of how great dignity that chiefe See is and how great Veneration is due vnto it from all faithfull throughout the world So Adrian as if he had written purposely to shew your lack of iudgment and honesty that would aduenture to produce his Epistle as a selected Argument against the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome and vent it for such both in your Imposture and againe in your late Sermon before his Maiesty And not vnlike to this is an other obiection you make (f) Impost pag. 179. serm pag. 5. out of an Epistle of Agatho Pope to Constantine in the sixth Councell generall 9. You cull certaine Latin words out of two Epistles of S. Gregory the great and patching them vp into one English sentence adding to them these two adiectiues of your owne Vestris and Vestrae you make him say As for me I performe obedience vnto your commands wherunto I am subiect Both the Epistles out of which you botch vp this sentence are written to Mauritius who though he were a Catholike Emperor yet S. Gregory sticketh not to compare him to Nero and Dioclesian and reprehendeth him sharpely for his tyrannizing ouer the Roman Church the Head of all Churches and seeking to subiect her to his earthly power against the commandment of Christ who committed his Church to S. Peter when he gaue him the keyes of the kingdome of heauen The one of those Epistles he writeth against the arrogancy of Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople styling himselfe Vniuersall Bishop And as he praiseth Mauritius for desiring the peace of the Church to hinder the garboiles of warres and in the procuring therof professeth himselfe ready to obey his commands so he reprehendeth him for not repressing the pride of Iohn wherby not he alone but the peace of the whole Church was disturbed And if in the other he also professed obedience to the same Emperor it was only in temporall affaires and because with humble and submissiue words he sought to worke him to his owne good whom he cold not dissuade nor otherwise hinder from publishing an iniust Law wherby he prohibited soldiers and all such as had bene employed in publike accompts of the Common wealth to become Monkes And therfore in one of the Epistles which you obiect (g) Pag. 179. 234. he declareth to the Emperor that he vsed not his Episcopall authority nor speaketh in the right of the Common wealth but writeth as a priuat person yet adding that he stood greatly astonished at such a Law because it did shut vp the way to heauen vnto many Wherfore he dealt earnestly with him to abrogate the Law or els permit it to be moderated so that it might stand without preiudice to Christian liberty Wherunto the Emperor at length yielded as S. Gregory declareth saying (h) L. 7. ep 11. indict 1. Qua de re Serenissimus Christiantssimus Imperator omnimodò placatur concerning which matter our most Clement and most Christian Emperor is wholly pleased And therfore S. Gregory hauing corrected the Law and reduced it to a reasonable lawfulnesse and temperate moderation to wit that they which had borne offices of charge in the Common wealth and desired to become Monkes should not be receaued vntill they had giuen vp their accompts and obtained publike discharge for the same and that soldiers should not be admitted to Monasticall habit vntill they had ended three yeares of probation in their secular apparell Wherfore though S. Gregory yielded to publish the Law yet withall he shewed his Pastorall power and care in limiting and moderating the Emperors law according to the law of God Which if you had not concealed the futility of your obiection wold haue bene apparent to euery reader But you say (i) Impost pag. 179. Heere wee are arrested by your Cardinall in the name of this Pope Gregory from his Deeree concerning the Monastery of Medardus enioyning that whatsoeuer secular Prince should violate that same Decree should forthwith he depriued of his honor As if this one Act of this only Pope were so authentike and of so suffecient authority in it selfe as to be made a Precedene for euer vnto all Popes of succeeding
Pastor of the sheepe not of one City nor of one Countrey but of all the sheep of Christ without any exception or limitation (g) See all this proued aboue Chap. 14. sect In this sense the name of Pastor was neuer giuen to any other Apostle or Bishop but only to S. Peter and his successors The rest of the Apostles sayth S. Bernard (h) L. 2. de confideras obtayned each of them their peculiar flocks Iames contented with Hierusalem yieldes the vniuer sality to Peter And long before him Eucherius that famous and learned Bishop of Lions (i) Hom. in Vigil S. Pe◠Christ first committed to Peter his Lambes and then his sheepe because he made him not only a Pastor but Pastor of Pastors Peter therfore feedeth the Lambes and the sheepe he feedeth the yong ones and the dammes he gouerneth the subiects and the Prelates and is therfore Pastor of all for besides Lambes and sheep there is nothing in the Church Your euasion (k) Pag. 243. n. 20. that if by Pastor we vnderstand curam studium care and study towards the good of the vniuersall Church in this all other Bishops are Pastors as well as the Pope is impertinent for charity obligeth not only Bishops but euery Christian man and woman to haue a care and study towards the good of the vniuersall Church according to their abilities But the Pope is not only bound to a charitable care and study as all others are but by reason of his Pastorall office and function is the guide and Gouernor of the vniuerfall Church throughout the whole world And vntill you can shew the like Pastorall power and iurisdiction attributed to any other Bishop you must confesse his title of Pastor to be without parallell The like hath bene proued (l) Aboue Chap. 14. sect 3. of his titles of Doctor of Pope (m) Chap. 23. of Vicar of Christ (n) Chap. 14. sect 2. of Apostolicall man (o) Chap. 14. sect 3. and Apostolate applied to his person and function and of Apostolicall See to the Roman Church Nor is it hard to proue the same of all the other titles mentioned by Bellarmine He is called Father of Fathers and Prince of Priests which titles though they may in a true sense be giuen to euery Patriark and Archbishop in respect of other Bishops subiect to them and to euery Bishop in respect of the inferior Pastors of his Dioces yet not in the same sense in which they are giuen to the Pope In like manner the name of Pontifex and Summus Pontifex are sometimes giuen to other Bishops but not as to the Pope for he is called by the foure Primats of Africa (p) See Spond anno 646. n. 1. their Synods Pater Patrum Summus omnium Praesulum Pontifex the Father of Fathers and the chiefe Bishop of all Bishops And Venerable Bede (q) L. 1. hist Angl. c. 1. sayth of S. Gregory that in toto orbe gerebat Pontificatum that his Episcopall power was ouer the whole world which S. Anselm◠also expressed dedicating his booke De incarnatione to Vrbanus Pope with this inscription Domino Patri vniuersae Ecclesiae in terra peregrinantis Summo Pontifici Vrbano To the chiefe Bishop Vrbanus Lord Father of the vniuersall Church militant on earth Where do you find any parallell to this title of the Pope The like I say of the title of Rector domus Dei Ruler or Gouernor of the house of God for albeit each of the Apostles were Rulers and Gouernors of the Church and so S. Andrew is so called in the Collect vsed on his festiuall day yet the ordinary Episcopall authority and iurisdiction of none of them nor of any other Bishop whatsoeuer but only of S. Peter and his successors extends to the rule Gouerment of the vniuersall Church For which cause Valentinian the third intituleth the Pope Rector of the Vniuersality of Churches And both he and Theodosius say (s) Constit. Nouell Tit. 24. So the peace of the Church shall be conserued by all if the Vniuersality acknowledge her Rector And Theodoret being deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo Pope because sayth he (t) Ep. ad Renat The holy Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the world Where do you find the title of Ruler or Gouernor of the Church attributed to any other Apostle or Bishop in this sense The same I say of the title of Head of the Church for in the Nicen Councell (u) Can. 39. ex Graec. Arab the B. of Rome is called Head and Prince of all Patriarkes The Councell of Sardica (x) Insert in fragment Hilar citatur expresseth the same in their Epistle to Pope Iulius à Nicol. c. i◠Ep. ad Episc Gal. It is very good fit that from all the Prouinces the Bishops haue reference to their Head that is to the See of the Apostle Peter In the Councell of Ephesus (y) Part. 2. Act. 2. when the Legates of Celestine Pope arriued thither they gaue thankes to the Fathers there assembled that by their holy and religious voices they had shewed themselues holy members to the blessed Pope their holy Head The Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon (z) In relat ad Leon. call Leo Pope their Head themselues his members and acknowledge him (a) Ibid. to rule ouer them as the Head doth ouer the members And his Legates in the same Councell said (b) Act. 1. We haue the commands of the Pope of Rome who is the Head of all Churches and the Councell contradicted not but presently obeyed his commands S. Prosper sayth (c) L. De ingrat c. 2. Rome the See of Peter is made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world possessing by religion what it doth not by force of armes which S. Leo also expresseth saying (d) Serm. 1. in Nata Apost Petri Pauli Rome by the sacred See of Peter being made Head of the world hath a larger extent of gouerment by diuine religion then by earthly dominion Eugenius B. of Carthage (e) Vict. Vticen l. ◠calls the Roman Church The Head of all Churches S. Fulgentius (f) De incarn grat c. 11. The Top of the world And Ennodius sayth (g) Lib de Synod sub Symmacho habit The dignity of the See Apostolike is Venerable throughout the whole world whiles all the faithfull are subiect vnto it as being the Head of the whole body Iustinian intituleth the Pope (h) Cod. Tit. 1. L. 7. The Head of all the holy Prelates of God and the Head of all Churches And the Bishops of the lower Maesia (i) Apud Bin. to 2. pag 154. professe Leo B. of Rome to be Truly the Head of all Churches You answere first (k) Pag. 242. that S. Basil calls Athanasius Top or crowne of the head of all S. Basill
and I may say fatall crime of the writers of his Coate false citation and misinterpretation of Authors What iniury hath he done the dead whose soules are blessed in heauen and whose ashes are reuerenced on earth to make them defend a doctrine in opposition to which they emptied euery veine in their most acred bodies What cruelty to the liuing by a pretended obedience to the authority of the primitiue times to inforce them to belieue the errors of the present Doth he hope his Volumes shall fall only into the hands of the ignorant or els of the negligent so far that any doctrine shall posse for currant which his fancy hath bene pleased to coyne Did he intrust others to make scrutiny into Authors for his purpose so aduenture his reputation to the world on an vncertaine and perhaps vnfaythfull euidence Or did he belieue according to the rule of the worst Statesmen any allegation how iniurious soeuer most iust if it serued the aduancement of his designe For certainly he hath giuen the world an example of such a courage that no good Writer will euer follow in daring thus to be disproued by any Reader who hath the benefit of a Library and the patience to compare truth with falshood For without giuing credit to the testimonies I here alleage if any man will search into the Authors themselues he shall find them mangled as that (*) Procrustes apud Plutarch in Theseo Tyrant did his ghests who with most barbarous torment shortned or lengthned their bodies according to the proportion of his bed No man writes short of his sense but is extended on the rack no man beyond but is mutilated without mercy This discouery of his vnhappy practise I wish may beget his conuersion not confusion But should he be so enamoured on his error as not to be remoued by the most forcible Arguments of Truth I hope Reader in thee to reape some fruit of my labor The Almighty in distribution of his benefits will not be directed by humane iudgment Let his diuine wisdome therfore bestow the fruit of my study where on whom he pleaseth for to his glory I must consecrate that with whatsoeuer I am Only Curious Reader I must beg thy pardon that in endeauouring to write busines I haue neglected language which like that musick Poets ascribe to the Syrens hath bene often treacherous to the hearer Elegancy of speach is a gift in which the wicked share equally with the good and the most sacred tongue that euer spake disdained to adulterate truth with any fallacy of an artificiall Phrase The policy of some Republikes hath expeld their Orators as subiects whom the power of eloquence rendred formidable the multitude being easy to receaue any impression through the eare and Oratory being a weapon as sharpe to destroy as defend the State Nor doe I value the cunning of language worthy the industry of the serious It may be of consequence where well directed but truth needs not borrow any ornament of language to make it selfe more amiable That which I aime at is thy satisfaction and that the Church of God which is on earth no other but the Roman may shine vnclouded in the sight of men as it hath euer bene most pure in the eye of God And that all mankind whom error hath misled may re-vnite themselues into her fayth guided by which the innocent can only hope for perseurance to glory and the repentant a way to mercy An Addition COurteous Reader I had almost forgotten to aduertise thee that wheras Doctor Morton hath made two Editions of his Grand Imposture the Edition which I shall cite in this Apology is the second reuised and supplied and printed at London by George Miller for Robert Milbourne 1628. A table of the Chapters and Sections of this Booke CHAP. I. GEnerall principles premised for the better vnderstanding of this Apology Pag. 1. The importance of the subiect Sect. 1. ib. Whether the Roman Church be truly called the Catholike Church and in what sense Sect. 2. pag. 4. That in the language of antiquity the Catholike Church and the Roman Church were two names signifying one and the same thing Sect. 3. pag. 7. That whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church is out of the state of saluation Sect. 4. pag. 13. CHAP. II. Of Doctor Mortons manner of alleaging Authors in generall pag. 27. CHAP. III. Whether the now Roman Church hath composed a new Creed pag. 36. CHAP. IV. Whether the now Roman Church haue added any new Articles to the Creed of the Apostles pag. 38. CHAP. V. That the word Roman is no deprauation but a true declaration of the article of the Catholike Church pag. 40. Doctor Mortons first Argument against the precedent doctrine answeared Sect. 1. ibid. His second Argument answeared Sect. 2. pag. 43. His third Argument answeared Sect. 3. pag. 52. His fourth Argument answeared Sect. 4. pag. 54. His fifth Argument answeared Sect. 5. pag. 56. His sixth Argument answeared Sect. 6. pag. 58. His seauenth Argument answeared Sect. 7. pag. 59. His eight Argument answeared Sect 8. pag. 60. CHAP. VI. That the Roman Church is the Head and mother of all Churches pag. 61. CHAP. VII S. Peters primacy defended pag. 72. CHAP. VIII Abuses and wronges offered by Doctor Morton to the ancient Fathers and other Catholike writers pag. 81. CHAP. IX S. Peter exercised his authority and iurisdiction of supreme Pastor and Gouernor ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church pag. 88. CHAP. X. Doctor Mortons Arguments against the former doctrine answeared pag. 93. CHAP. XI Sleights and falsifications of Doctor Morton to shift of the testimonies of ancient Fathers teaching S. Peters supremacy pag. 107. CHAP. XII The authority of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth proued to be infallible pag. 117. Our first Argument Sect. 1. pag. ibid. Our second Argument Sect. 2.125 S. Pauls subiection to S. Peter and his acknowledgment therof Sect. 3. pag. 132. Other Arguments of Doctor Morton answeared Sect. 4. pag. 140. Priuiledges granted to other of the Apostles and not to S. Peter obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 5. pag. 143. What estimation S. Paul had of the Roman Church Sect. 6. pag. 152. Why S. Paul did not entitle his Epistles Catholike Epistles Sect. 7. pag. 159. Other Arguments out of S. Paul and other Catholike Authors answeared Sect. 8 pag. 162. CHAP. XIII Whether S. Iohn the Euangelist conceaued himselfe subiect to the Roman Church pag. 166. Whether Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist Sect. 1. ibid. Whether S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter were subiect to the B. of Rome S. Peters Successor Sect. 2. pag. 173. CHAP. XIV Why the Epistles of S. Iames Iohn and Iude are intituled Catholike Epistles pag. 177. Of the name Catholike Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the title of Vicar of Christ belong to the Pope and in what sense Sect. 2. pag. 180. Whether S. Paul reckoning the Ecclesiasticall orders gaue the Pope any place among
those monstrous Titles wherewith you slaunder our Doctrine most fitly agree to your owne deliuered in your Grand Imposture But before I come to ioyne issue with you concerning the particulers it will not be amisse to examine briefly in generall whether the ancient Fathers and Doctors of Gods Church whom you acknowledge to haue liued vpon earth in the true fayth and now to be most glorious Saints in heauen were of your beliefe concerning the Roman Church or of ours for they being lights of the world (x) Math. 5.15 whom God hath raised in all ages and placed on the candlesticke of his Church to enlighten our wayes and deliuer vnto vs the true sense and meaning of his holy word that we may not be like children wauering and caried away with euery blast of heretical (y) Ephef 4.14 Doctrine I suppose that as there is no wiseman who will not desire to be rancked among them in the next world and to stand with them at the later day so there is none that will not desire to be in this world a member of the same Church and a professor of the same fayth which brought them to that happines especially knowing as we doe that there is bur one Church in which and one fayth by which meÌ„ may be saued for to thinke that so many men so eminently learned and that vsed so great meanes both of study and prayer to attaine to the knowledge of truth and of the right way to heauen haue all erred not liuing in the true Church which leades to saluation but in an erring Synagogue that leades to euerlasting ruine and damnation is a conceipt that I thinke no Christian and I am sure no prudent man can harbour in his brest which yet he must doe that will credit your Doctrine as the ensuing proofes will declare SECT II. Whether the Roman Church be truly called the Catholike Church and in what sense ALthough the Name of Catholike Church whether we regard the etimology or the most proper and vsuall acception of the word Catholike signify not any particuler Church but the Vniuersall spread ouer the whole world yet with-all it is true that euery particuler Church may in some sense be called Catholike for as euery particuler Orthodoxe man hath the denomination of a Catholike man because he professeth the Catholike fayth and is a member of the Vniuersall Church so for the same reason and in the same sense both the particuler Church of Rome and all others orthodoxall may be called Catholike Churches In this sense the Christians of Smyrna writing to the Churches of Pontus (z) Euseb l. 4. histor c. 14. addresse their Epistle To the Church of God at Philomelium and to all other the holy Catholike Churches throughout the world In the same sense Constantine (a) In Apolog 2. Athaâ—asij the Emperour calleth the Church of Athanasius The Catholike Church of Alexandria by reason of the Catholike fayth which it preserued entire whiles many other Churches of Aegypt were infected with Arianisme And so likewise (b) Cont. ep Fund c 4. S. Augustine with whom agree (c) Epist. 1. Pacianus and Cyrill of Hierusalem (d) Cateches 18. sayth that if a stranger come into a Citty infected with Heresy and enquire for the Catholike Church euen the Heretiks themselues will not direct him to any Church of theirs but to a Church in which Catholikes meete to serue God In this sense as other particuler Churches so also the Roman euen as she is a particuler Church limited to the Dioces of Rome may haue the name of A Catholike Church But when we say No man can be saued that is not a member of the Roman Church we speake not of the Roman Church in this sense for Catholikes of other Dioceses may be saued aswell as of the Roman but by the Roman Church we vnderstand the Vniuersall Church comprehending both that of the Roman Dioces and all other particuler Churches that professe subiection to her follow her Doctrine and imbrace her communion for all these by adherence to her and vnion with her make one mysticall body of Christ and one holy Catholike or vniuersall Church of which she is the Head and the rest members For the better vnderstanding of this we are to consider seuerall dignities vnited in the person of the Bishop of Rome He is Bishop Arch-bishop Patriarke and Pope As he is Bishop his iurisdiction is confined to the Citty of Rome and other townes within her territories of which the Roman Dioces consisteth As he is Archbishop he hath subiect vnto him some few others the chiefest of which is the Bishop of Ostia As he is Patriarke the extent of his authority is ouer all the Westerne or Latin Church And finally as he is Pope that is to say the Successor of S. Peter and the chiefe Vicar or Lieutenant of Christ vpon earth he is the supreme Pastor Gouernor of the whole Church of God which is vniuersally spread ouer the face of the earth wheresoeuer the name of Christ is known which therfore is absolutely and without limitation called the Catholike Church In regard of this transcendent authority of the Bishop of Rome he is rightly stiled Bishop of the Vniuersall or Catholike Church to whom therefore all the members of the Church aswell Pastors as people by the institution of Christ owe subiection and obedience And as he is the head and Father of all Bishops so the particular Church of the Roman Dioces is the head and Mother of all Churches Now that not only the particuler Church of the Roman Dioces but also the whole body of the Catholike or vniuersall Church consisting of the Roman as head and the rest as members is likewise rightly and in a true and proper sense stiled the Roman Church I proue out of S. Augustine saying (e) De percato orig l. 2. c. 17. that against the Pelagians not only the Councels of Bishops and the See Apostolike but also vniuersam Romanam Ecclesiam the whole Roman Church and the Roman Empire were most iustly incensed where by the Roman Church he vnderstands the vniuersall or Catholike Church spread ouer the world as by the Roman Empire he vnderstands the Empire of the Romans spread ouer the world And the same I proue by examples For when we speake of the Iewish people or the Iewish Church we vnderstand not the tribe of Iuda only but all the rest of the tribes that were ioyned therwith S. Iohn Baptist was of the tribe of Leui S. Paul of the tribe of Beniamin and that holy widow Anna mentioned by S. Luke (d) Cap. 2.36 of the tribe of Aser and yet they all are rightly called Iewes parts of the Iewish people and members of the Iewish Church by reason of their adherence to and communion with the principall tribe which was that of Iuda Likewise vnder the name of the Greeke Church are not comprehended the naturall Greeks only for
for if Luther had said nothing els Leo would not haue condemned him And to the same end you corrupt Philiarchus who say you will hâ—ue vs to take head of the heresies of Luther teaching that the Church hath no power to create new articles of fayth That word new is an addition of your owne to Philiarchus his text as his Latin words in your margeÌ„t conuince but what wonder since your worke is a Grand Imposture CHAP. V. That the word Roman is no deprauation but a true declaration of the article of the Catholike Church TO declare which is the catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed we say it is the holy Apostolike Roman Church Against this you (g) Pag. 8. 9. 10. obiect that the word Roman is no true exposition and declaration but a notorious alteration and deprauation of the article of the Catholike Church This you proue with eight seuerall arguments set downe in so many sections SECT I. Your first Argument YOVR first is (h) Pag. 9. that because the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed by the accordance of S. Augustine and other our Diuines comprehendeth both the triumphant and the militant Church the word Roman which caÌ„not be a declaration of the Catholike Church as she is triumphant but only as she is militant can no way be a declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed So you forgetting your selfe for heere you hold that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed comprehendeth both the triumphant Church and the militant but els where contradicting your (i) Pag. 365. selfe you define the Church properly Catholike set downe in the Symbolor Creed of the Apostles to be the Church militant videlicet the multitude of Christian belieuers whensoeuer and wheresoeuer dispersed throughout the world and the congregation of Christians assembled in a generall Synod to be the representatiue body of the Church in the Symbol properly called Catholike From whence it followeth against your selfe that the word Roman may be a true declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed which by your owne definition is the multitude of all Christian belieuers dispersed throughout the world for this definition can no way agree to the Church triumphant where the cleare vision of the diuine essence excludeth fayth but to the militant only consisting of all Christian belieuers And because true Christian beliefe is to be found only in the Roman Church it followeth that the woro Roman is a true declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed 2. Be it that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed taken in her whole latitude comprehendeth both the militant and the triumphant yet in your argument you mistake the state of the question for when we declare the Catholike Church to be the Roman Church we speake not of her taken in her whole latitude but only as she is militant And this you know right well for whiles in this Imposture you so often rayle at vs for holding the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church out of which there is no hope of saluation you sufficiently declare that you know vs to speake of the Catholike Church as she is militant only for she only is in hope of saluation the triumphant already enioyeth it I conclude therfore that your argument is grounded on a wilfull mistake of the question which as you cannot defend without contradicting your selfe so neither without wronging S. Augustine for when he sayth that the Catholike Church comprehendeth both the militant and the triumphant he speaketh of her taken in her whole latitude but that the may and euen in the Apostles Creed be taken for the militant only he expresly declareth in his explication of the same Creed where teaching the Catechumenists which is the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed he (k) De Symb. ad Catechum l. 1. c. 6. sayth We belieue the Catholike Church She is the holy Church one Church the true Church the Catholike Church fighting against all heresies she may be opposed but she caÌ„not be ouerthrowne All heresies are gone eut from her as vnprofitable branches cut of from the Vine but she remaynes in her roote in her Vine in her charity the gates of hell shall neuer ouercome her In these words S. Augustine teacheth the catechumenists to belieue that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed is the Church militant built vpon S. Peters Chayre as vpon a rock against which the gates of hell can not preuaile And the same he declareth when speaking to the Donatists he denounceth vnto them that because they were out of the Roman Church they were out of the Catholike Church and out of the state of Saluation Be yee ingrafted sayth (*) Psal cont part Donati he on the Vine It grieueth vs to see you lye so cut of Number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranke of Fathers who succeeded ech other That is the rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not That Church therfore in which there is a neuer interrupted succession of Bishops from S. Peter is in S. Augustines beliefe the Catholike Church Do not you then abuse S. Augustine producing his authority to proue that the catholike church mentioned in the Creed cannot be the Church militant since he so expresly teacheth the contrary yea and not only that she is the militant Church but in particular that she is the Roman Church built vpon S. Peter and his successors and that whosoeuer is diuided from her is an vnprofitable branch cut of from the Vine which is Christ our Lord and therfore no lesse deuoyd of spirituall life then the dead branch is of naturall SECT II. Your second argument YOur second argument (l) Pag. 10 1â—.12 is grounded on a false principle with is that the Catholike Church in her essentiall state is inuisible We know that the essentiall forme of the Church which is Fayth is inuisible to corporall eyes But the Church as you (m) Pag. 36â— confesse is the multitude of all Christian belieuers whensoeuer and whersoeuer dispersed throughout the world and that the congregation of Christians assembled in a generall Synod is the representatiue body therof Wherfore as it were ridiculous to affirme that a multitude of men ioyned in one Common-wealth or the representatiue body therof assembled in Parliament is essentially inuisible because their soules are inuisible or that Christ liuing on earth was inuisible because his Diuinity was inuisible so it is no lesse ridiculous to affirme that the Church in her essence is inuisible because fayth is inuisible for fayth is not the Church but the essentiall forme of the Church as the soule of man is not man but the essentiall forme of man Man consisteth essentially of body aswell as of soule and by reason of his body he is visible for according to the axiome of Philosophers Actiones passiones sunt
she is but Antioch Nor should she then haue any priuiledge of not erring in fayth as now Antioch hath not since the remouall of S. Peters See from thence But therfore to inferre that the now Roman Church against which you write this Grand Imposture being at this present the See of S. Peter or whiles hereafter she shall remaine the See of S. Peter may erre in fayth is to argue à sensu diuiso ad sensum compositum and to infer that such things as perhaps are possible but neuer shall be are already in being If I should argue thus It may possibly come to passe though it be improbable that the Metropolitan See of England may be remoued from Canterbury to Carlile Ergo the Church of Canterbury is not now the Metropolitan Church of England were not this a sophisme And so is yours Some of our Diuines grant that the See of S. Peter which maketh the Church of Rome the Mother Mistresse of all Churches and secureth her from all error in fayth may be remoued from Rome though there appeare no likelihood therof Ergo inferre you in the opinion of some of your Diuines the now Roman Church is not the Mistresse and mother Church of the world but may now fall from the fayth euen whiles she is the See of S. Peter no lesse then she might if his See were already remoued from thence Who seeth not this Argument to be sophisticall And to sophistry you ioyne fraud for to proue that the Successor of S. Peter hath not his See at Rome by diuine ordinance but only by humane election you (d) Pag. 21. alleage Suarez (e) De trip virt Theol. disp 10. sect 3. n. 10. saying that before the ascension of Christ nothing appeareth of any such ordinance either in Scripture or from tradition Here you breake of leauing out the rest of Suarez words and concealing his Doctrine for in the very same place both before and after these his words which you cull out he expresly affirmeth that it is more pious and probable that Christ after his ascension appearing to S. Peter commanded him to place his See at Rome which he ptoueth by the testimonies of many ancient Fathers and by other Arguments all which you conceale and cite him for the contrary opinion The same abuse you offer to Valentia Bellarmine and Azor. For all these prooue with many testimonies of antiquity and other forcible Arguments that it is of Diuine institution holding it for certaine and the contrary opinion not to be safe though not expresly de fide SECT VII Your seauenth Argument THAT the Successor of S. Peter in the Roman See canonically chosen is Head of the vniuersall Church all Catholikes beleeue as vndoubted matter of fayth But that this indiuiduall person v. g. Vrban the Eight is true Pope and true Head of the Church though the more probable opinion of Diuines hold it also to be of fayth yet diuers others defend that it is only of morall certaynty You not knowing how to solue the arguments of the first opinion otherwise then by rayling against it (f) Pag. 23. fine calling it a Iesuiticall fayth both grosly false wickedly blasphemous assume the second as granted which I with the authors of the first opinion do not grant but deny For the Church proposing vnto vs this indiuiduall man Vrban the eight as true Pope it is not only morally but absolutely and infallibly certayne that in the person of Vrban the eight are found all the conditions of true Baptisme Ordination Election and whatsoeuer els requisite for a true Pope and true head of the Church for as the Church being assisted by the holy Ghost cannot erre in proposing other Verities of fayth so nether in proposing this man to be the true head and lawfull gouernor of the vniuersall Church wherfore our beleefe that this man is true Pope is not humane morall and fallible but diuine and infallible vnlesse you will question the authority of the holy Ghost making it humane and fallible Yea euen in the other opinion though it be no matter of fayth that this indiuiduall man is true Pope yet the Authors thereof hold it to be a Theologicall conclusion so certayne that whosoeuer shall deny it is worthy of flames SECT VIII Your eight Argument YOVR eight argument (g) Pag. 25. 26. 27. is nothing but a repetition of what you haue sayd in the former sections without any addition of new proofes vnlesse to proue your Doctrine be to rayle against ours calling it new false scandalous pernicious hereticall blasphemous and vs periured persons all which being nothing but an empty froath of iniurious words deserue no other answere but contempt CHAP. VI. The Roman Church is the Head and Mother of all Churches IN this matter you wholly mistake the state of the question for when we demand which Church is the Head the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches the question is not which Church was first founded If you speake of priority of tyme or antiquity and call those Churches Mothers of all such as were founded after them we grant that in this sense the Church of Hierusalem is the Mother Church of all Churches and the Roman in the same sense a daughter both to the Church of Hierusalem of Antioch and all others that were founded before her And in this sense the Bishops which had bene present at the first Councell of Constantinople call the Church of Hierusalem the Mother of all other Churches (h) Theodor. l. 5. histor c. 9. But this is not the question for you know and set it downe as our Doctrine (i) Pag. 29. 38. that the Roman Church is called the Mother Church of all Churches because S. Peter was constituted by Christ the ordinary Pastor of the whole Church By which it appeares you know right well that the mother-hood which we attribute to the Roman Church is not priority of tyme but of authority and iurisdiction grounded on the supremacy of S. Peter for as by reason of his transcendent authority ouer the whole flock of Christ which is his Church he was and in his successors is the Father and Head of all Bishops so the Roman Church in which sayth S. Chrysologus (*) Epist. ad Eutych Peter still liueth and gouerneth is the Head and mother of all Churches and vnto which sayth S. (k) L. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus all Churches are necessarily to agree by reason of her more mighty Principality that is to say by reason of the soueraignty and supreme authority of the See Apostolike And in this sense she is called by S. Irenaeus (l) Ibid. and Origen (m) Apud Euseb l. 6. hist c. 12. The most ancient Church and by S. Cyprian (n) De simplicit Praelat The Root the fountayne and head of Episcopall power and The principall Church from whence Priestly vnity began (o) L. 1. ep 3. And from the same ground
the Churches founded by the other Apostles haue bene and still are ouerwhelmed with Paganisme Turcisme and heresie and that the Succession of Bishops hath fayled in them as of Iames in Hierusalem of Andrew in Achaia of Iohn in Asia of Thomas in India of Iude in Persia of Mathew in AEthiopia of Philip in Phrygia of Paul in Greece The Roman Church only is she to whom sayth S. Cyprian (z) L. 1. ep 3. misbelieue can haue no accesse she only hath euer remayned free from all spot and contagion of heresy or other infidelity and notwithstanding the outragious persecutions of Pagan Emperors the barbarous attempts of Saracens and Turkes and the furious assalts of all Heretikes she hath euer florished and still florisheth which euidently sheweth that she and none els but she with such other Churches as by vnion with her make one vniuersall Church are the true Church of Christ founded by him on S. Peter as vpon an impregnable Rock against which the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile Vpon this Rock sayth S. Hierome speaking (a) Ep. 57. of the Roman See I know the Church to be built She may be assalted she may be battered but ouercome she cannot be sor she sayth (b) Psalm contra part Donati S. Augustine is that Rock against which the gates of hell preuaile not And S. Leo the Great speaking of S. Peter and his See pronounceth (c) Epist. 89. that whosoeuer goeth about to violate the most sacred strength of the Rock Peter framed by the hand of God or to infringe the power of the Roman Church is most impiously presumptuous and that whosoeuer thinkes the Principality to be denyed to S. Peters Successor can no way diminish his dignity but puffed with the spirit of pride casts himselfe headlong into hell and (d) Ep. 74. that since the Vniuersall Church by that principall Rock Christ is made a Rock and the most blessed Peter chiefe of the Apostles hath heard from the mouth of our Lord. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church whe is he that dare oppose this inuincibletruth but either Antichrist or the Deuill I conclude therfore with Roffensis that the authority of S. Peters See grounded vpon the promise of Christ standeth deth victorious and triumphant against you and shall so remaine vntill the end of the world CHAP. VIII Abuses and Wronges offered by Doctour Morton to the ancient Fathers and other Catholike writers TO proue that Christ by the Rock on which he promised to build his Church vnderstood not S. Peter you obiect the ancient Fathers And first (e) Pag. 42. lit ◠S. Ambrose saying (f) Ad c. ◠Luc. lib. 6. Petra erat Christus Christ was the Rock There cannot be a more wilfull falsification for that Peter is the Rock on which Christ hath built his Church S. Ambrose teacheth when in his hymne mentioned by S. Augustine (*) Hym◠ad laud. Dom. speaking of S. Peters teares he sayth The Cock crowing the Rock of the Church washed out his offence The same he declareth and fully explicateth els where (g) Serm. 11. serm 47. and to shew your false dealing in that very place (h) L.e. comment in ca. 9. Lucae in which you alleage him for the contrary for he sayth that as Christ was the Rock so he communicated almost all his owne names to his Disciples He was the light of the world and he called his Disciples the light of the world c. And hauing proued the same of other names as of Bread of a Vine c. he particularly sheweth the same of the name of Rock saying Petra est Christus c. which are the words you obiect And then to shew that he gaue also this his name of Rock to S. Peter he addeth Etiam discipulo suo huius vocabuli gratiam non neganit c. And he refused not to honor his Disciple with this name that he also may be a Rock hauing from the Rock Christ the solidity of constancy and firmenesse of fayth 2. You obiect (i) Pag. 42. marg that S. Ambrose (k) Serm. 84. distinguisheth betweene the Rock and Peter as plainly as between Christ and a Christian But though S. Ambrose say that as Christianus is called à Christo so also Peter the Apostle is called Petrus à Petra yet he sayth not that Petrus is a deriuatiue of Petra as Christianus is of Christus but that Petrus and Petra is one the same name His words are because Christ is a Rock Simon is also rightly called Petrus that as he agreed in fayth with our Lord so also he might haue one and the same name with our Lord. Wherby it is euident that S. Ambrose taketh Petrus and Petra to be one and the same name And the same is euident out of the words of Christ for if he had said Tu es Petra super hanc Petram thou art a Rock and vpon this Rock I will build my Church there had bene no colour to deny that Christ promised to build his Church on Peter Ergo now there is none for Christ spake in Syriack Tues Cephas super hanc Cepham c. Wherupon S. Hierome (l) In c. 2 ep ad Gal noteth that Petrus signifies not one thing and Cephas another but the selfe same because what the Latins call Petra the Hebrewes Syrians call Cephas And the same is proued out of the Greeke for as Phauorinus aduertiseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haue one and the same signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being vsed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he confirmeth out of Euripides and not only he but Caluin and Beza (m) Ad cap. 16. Math. vers 18. confesse that Petrus and Petra are the same that Cephas and differ not in signification but only in termination And therfore as if the latin interpreter had said Tues Cephas super hanc Cepham c. the sense had bene playne against you so it is now for the Latin interpreter intended not to alter the sense of our Sauiours words but vsed Petrus rather then Petra because Petrus being the masculine gender was more fit to expresse the name of a man then Petra though both of them haue one and the same signification This you know right well and therfore cannot deny but that S. Ambrose acknowledged Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built for you say (n) Pag. 42. Among the Fathers S. Ambrose giues this reason (o) Serm. 47. why S. Peter was called Rock because he did first lay among nations the foundation of fayth but giues he no other reason Yes because he sustayneth the frame and weight of Christian building which words declare Peter to be the Rock or foundation on which the Church is built and therfore you mangle S. Ambrose sentence leauing them out 3. You obiect (p)
affirmeth that Christ to reward his fayth built his Church vpon him 9. And no lesse deceiptfully you alleage (k) Pag. 39. g. the RomaÌ„ glosse (l) Gloss Decret part 1. d. 10. in Cap. Dominus no fler to proue that not Peter but his confession without any relation to his person is the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church for the glosse sayth Christ would haue his owne name of Petra a Rocke giuen to Peter c. therfore called him Petrus And the Chapter on which this glosse is made is taken out of an Epistle of S. Leo in which he not only affirme (m) Ep. 83. Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built but addeth that whosoeuer denyeth this truth is impiously presumptuous and plungeth himselfe into Hell To these and otherlike obiections out of the Fathers and other Catholike authors you ad some confirmations of your owne The first is None say you (n) Pag. 41. will deny but that there was meant in Peters Confession that matter which he confessed but Peter confessed not himselfe but Christ saying Then art the Sonne of the lyuing God Ergo his confession had relation to Christ and not to himselfe A false and senslesse consequence for euery confession hath relation not only to the matter as to the obiect or thing confessed but also to him that coÌ„fesseth as to the agent from which it proceedeth and therfore to inferre that when Christ answering Peter and rewarding his confession sayd vnto him Thou art Peter c. he meant not Peter but himselfe to be the Rock is as senslesse an inference as to say that when Thomas cryed out vnto Christ (o) Ioan. 20.28 My Lord my God and Christ in reward of his confession sayd (p) Ibid. vers 29. Blessed art thou Thomas he pronounced not Thomas blessed but himselfe which was the matter Thomas beleeued 2. You obiect (q) Pag. 42. fin 43. All the Apostles and Prophets are called foundations wherby is not meant their persons or dominions but their doctrines I grant that Christ S. Peter the rest of the Apostles and Prophets are foundations on which the Church is built Christ is the chiefe and primary foundation by his owne power and strength Of him the Apostle sayth (r) 1. Cor. 3.11 Other foundation no man can lay besyde that which is layd which is Christ Iesus whome therfore S. Augustine (s) In Psal 86. and S. Gregory (t) L. 28. Moral c. 9. call Fundamentum fundamentorum The foundation of foundations Besydes Christ the Apostles and Prophets are also secondary foundations of the Church for the Prophets by fore-telling Christ and the Apostles by preaching his sayth and doctrine vphold the body of the Church to wit the faythfull who therfore are called (u) Ephes 2.20 Domostikes of God built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner-stone and for this cause the wall of the Citty of the Church is sayd (x) Apoc. 1.24 to haue 12. foundations and in them the 12. names of the 12. Apostles Among these secondary foundations Peter hath the first and chiefest place The rest of the faythfull in respect of him are ordinary stones he an impregnable Rock as being built immediatly vpon Christ and the rest by meanes of him in regard wherof it was sayd to him alone and to no other of the faythfull or Apostles Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And therfore S. Augustine sayth (y) Serm. 15. de Sanct. Our Lord called Peter the foundation of the Church for which cause the Church with reason worshippeth this foundation vpon which the height of the ecclesiafticall edifice is raysed 3. You say (z) Pag. 42. that when the Fathers expound by Rock Peter they meane ether a primacy of order or honor or els a priority of Confession in Peter not of Authority and Dominion and the same you repeate afterwards saying (a) Pag. 110. The similitude of head and members hath no colour of superiority but of priority of place or of voyce And this reason you alleage (b) Pag. 41. why though the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake yet he alone answered as being the mouth of the rest I grant that Peter spake in the name of the rest but to inferre that therfore Christ when he answered Peter saying Thou art Peter made him not a Rock or promised not to make him the foundation of his Church is a Non sequitur I grant also that the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake that he answered as the mouth of the rest not because he had any Commission from them but because out of his great feruor he preuented the rest and spake for them as their head and Superiour as Christ somtimes did for all his Apostles (c) Math. 9.11 Luc. 6.2 and as the Rector is wont to answere in the name of the whole Colledge So sayth S. Cyrill of Alexandria (d) L. 4. in Ioan. c. 18. They all answere by one that was their Superiour And againe (e) Ibid. l. 12. cap. 64. when our Sauiour asked his Disciples whom doe you say that I am Peter as being Prince and head of therest first cryed out Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God So S. Cyrill of Hierusalem (f) Catech. â—â— All the Apostles being silent for this doctrine was aboue their strength Peter Prince of the Apostles and the chiefe preacher of the Church sayth vnto him Thou art Christ c. And in the same sense S. Cyprian (g) L. 1. ep 3. sayth Peter on whom our Lord built his Church speaketh for all in the voyce of the Church And S. Augustine (h) Serm. 31. de verb. Apost c. 1. Peter bearing the figure of the Church most feruent in the loue of Christ chiefe in the order of Apostles and holding the Princedome of the Apostleship often answers one for all And againe (i) Tract 124. in Ioan. That in his answere he bare the person of the Church for the primacy of his Apostleship and for the primacy which he had among the Disciples And whereas you to elude this exposition of the Fathers say (k) Pag. 42. 110. that when they expound by Rock Peter or pronounce him to be the head and Captaine of the rest they meane not primacy of authority and iurisdiction but of order or honor is a distinction that caries with it its owne confutation and shall be effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 1. hereafter CHAP. IX S. Peter exercised his Authority and Iurisdiction of supreme Pastor and Gouernor ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church TO disproue S. Peters authority ouer the other Apostles you obiect first (a) Pag. 45.46 that S. Gregory vpon those words of the Apostle (b) Rom. 9.12 I will magnify my office in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentils
sayth (c) L. 4. ep 36. The Apostle teacheth vs so to carry humility in our hart that we do keep and preserue the diguity of that order wherunto we are called but S. Peter as Salmeron testifieth though he were Head and Iudge ouer the other Apostles so behaued himselfe among them that he might seeme in a manner to haue neglected his Pastorship by carrying himselfe as a Brother and equall with them and not as either Head or Rector ouer them So you out of Salmeron whose words make wholly against you for in them he acknowledgeth the Pastorship of S. Peter ouer the other Apostles that he was their Iudge their Head their Rector If therfore he say that S. Peter carried himselfe with so great humility that in some sort he may seeme to haue neglected his Pastorship he sayth it not to deny his Pastorall power but to shew that in the exercise therof he caried himselfe rather like a Brother and equall then as a Superior or Iudge which Salmeron might haue said of Christ who sayth of himselfe (*) Ioan. 13.13 You call me Mayster and Lord and you say well for I am so and yet he carried himselfe not as a Maister but as a seruant washing his Disciples feete It is the property of the Spyder to draw poyson from the same flower out of which the Bee sucketh hony so out of the singular modesty and humility of S. Peter in the exercise of his Pastorall power which Salmeron alleageth to his great commendation you draw an argument to disproue his authority to which S. Gregory hath answered longe since Peter sayth he (d) L. 9. cp 38. the chiefe of the Apostles answered the complaint of the faythfull not by his power but by reason for if when he was blamed by the faythfull he had regarded the charge which he had receaued ouer the holy Church he might haue answered that the sheep should not dare to reprehend their Pastor to whose care they were committed But if in the complaint of the faythfull he should haue said any thing of his owne power surely he had not bene the Doctor of meekenesse Wherfore Peter exercised his power but yet with meekenesse and humility after the example of Christ who being Lord and Maister was in the middest of his Disciples as one that ministred (e) Luc. 22.27 His example Peter followed shewing himselfe to be meeke and humble of hart (f) Math. 11.29 practising that lesson which he had learned from him The Princes of nations dominiere ouer them but you not so (g) Luc. 22.25 but he that is the greater let him become as the yonger and he that is the elder as the wayter Yet neuerthelesse as humility hindred not Christ from shewing his power and authority when and where it was sitting so neither did it hinder Peter from exercising his iurisdiction as often as occasion required for as Philip a reuerend Priest and Legate of the See Apostolike in the famous Councell of Ephesus truly said (h) Concil Ephes to 2. c. 10. It is out of doubt and notorious to all ages that the holy and most blessed Peter Prince and Head of the Apostles pillar of the fayth and foundation of the Catholike Church receaued from Iesus Christ our Lord our Sauiour redeemer of mankind the keyes of the heauenly kingdome and exercised the power of binding and losing which he had receaued and that in his Successors he still liueth vntill this day Some of the particulars in which he exercised his power are expressed in holy Scripture We read in the Acts of the Apostles (i) Cap. 1.15 seqq that immediatly after the Ascension of Christ Peter rising vp proposed to the brethren the substituting of an other Apostle insteed of Iudas exercising his authority therin Peter sayth S. Chrysostome (k) Hom. 3. in Acta rising vp in the middest of the Disciples said c. Behold how feruent Peter is how he owneth the flock committed to him by Christ how he sheweth himselfe Prince of this assembly See likewise the modesty of Iames he had bene made Bishop of Hierusalem and yet sayth not a word Consider also the singular modesty of the other Disciples how they yeld the throne to Peter not debating for it among themselues as formerly they had done And further shewing how Peter in this affayre exercised his authority before and aboue the rest he sayth (l) Ibid. Why doth he communicate this businesse with them might he not haue made the election alone He might without doubt but did not lest he might seeme partiall to any And againe (m) Ibid. This was the wisdome and foresight of this Doctor He said not We alone are sufficient to teach and although he had right to appoint an Apostle as much as all they had yet this doing it with aduice was agreeable to the Vertue of the man And because eminency in spiritual power is not an honor but a care of subiects yet worthily doth he first before them all exercise authority in the busines qui omnes habebat in manu who had all the rest at his disposition and will for this is he to whom our Lord sayd And thou being conuerted confirme thy brethren So Chrysostome And no lesse plainly Oecumenius Not Iames sayth he (n) Ade 1 Act. but Peter ryseth to whom the gouerment of the Disciples was committed Nor did any of them make reply to Peters words but presently at his command they appointed two whom they thought worthiest of that dignity that God himselfe might designe one of them Can any Catholike at this day more fully or in more significant words expresse the exercise of S. Peters iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles and his power to command them then these two ancient Fathers haue done To whom also I adioyne another like testimony of Leo the ninth a learned holy Pope (o) Epist. ad Michael c. 1. Silly therfore is your shift whiles you reduce the force of this argument to Peters deposing of Iudas from his Bishoprick for it insisteth not on his deposition but on the election of Mathias in his place which you conceale not so much as mentioning it because you know it to be vnanswerable 2. No lesse cunningly you shift of S. Peters giuing sentence of death vpon Ananias and Saphyra (p) Act. 5.5.10 for their fraud and hypocrisy It was say you (q) Pag. 48. no act of ordinary Magistracy but an extraordinary act of Miracle as Pauls striking of Elimas starke blind was But S. Augustine or whosoeuer is author of the worke De mirabilibus sacrae scripturae teacheth you another lesson saying (r) L. 3. cap. vlt. Peter punished thē to shew how great his Apostolicall authority was and how great their sinne and that their chastisment might be an example to others And S. Gregory treating of the Pastorall function and shewing how great benignity it requireth towards those that do well
and how great seuerity and zeale of iustice towards those that offend giues this fact of Peter as an example (s) L. 1. ep 24. From whence it is sayth he that Peter by authority from God hauing the Principality of the holy Church refused to be ouermuch reuerenced by Cornelius that did well but when he found the fault of Ananias and Saphyra he presently shewed how farre he was growne in power aboue the rest for he tooke away their liues with a word and shewed himselfe to be the chiefest in the Church against sinne And he addeth that Peters zeale in punishing declared the force of his power The same is deliuered by S. Bernard (t) Epist â—â—8 who speaking to Eugenius Pope of his power ouer the whole Church and in particular to depose Bishops when they deserue it sayth He that holds the place of Peter can with one blow kill Ananias and Simon Magus with another and to speake more plainly it belongs only to the Bishop of Rome to pronounce a peremptory sentence for the deposing of Bishops because though others be called to a part of solicitude yet he only hath the fulnesse of power c. How thinke you Doctor Morton whether is it fit that we belieue these renowned Doctors of Gods Church teaching vs that the sentence of death pronounced by S. Peter against Ananias and Saphyra was an act of his ordinary power and iurisdiction or you denying it 3. He exercised his authority vpon Simon Magus who witnes (u) L. 1. c. 2. l. 3. initio S. Irenaeus was the Prince and father of all heretikes The holy Apostle detected his wickednesse first at Samaria and excommunicated him (x) Act. 8.18 seqq and afterwards as S. Hierome (y) In catal script in Simone Petro. and Theodoret (z) Haeret. Fabul l 1. report went to Rome to oppose him and there condemned his Doctrine The Doctrine of Simons sorcery seruing the Angels sayth Tertullian (a) L. de Praescrip was reckoned among Idolatries and condemned by Peter the Apostle in Simon himselfe And S. Augustine (b) L. de haeres haer 1. At Rome the blessed Apostle Peter killed Simon the Magician by the true power of almighty God And Marianus with all the Regulars of Syria in their petition presented to the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas (c) Act. 1. God sent Agapete Pope of old Rome to Constantinople for the deposition of Anthymus and the fore-named heretikes as hereofore he sent great Peter to the Romans for the destruction of the sorcery of Simon And S. Bernard (d) Serm. 1. in die Potri Pauli What more powerfull then Peter who with the breath of his mouth ouertoke Simon Magus in the ayre and receaued the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen in so singular a manner that his sentence goes before the sentence of heauen And to declare that the power of Peter still liueth in his Successors he sayth (e) Epist. 138. He that holds the place of Peter can at one blow kill Simon Magus Nor was it voyd of mystery that the first Arch-heretike with his heresy shold be condemned at Rome by Peter where all the heretikes and heresies of ensuing ages were to be condemned by S. Peters Successors 4. He shewed himselfe to be Head and Prince of the Apostles in asking and answearing often-times in the name of them all When Christ exhorted the Apostles to perfection Peter answered for all (f) Math. 19.27 Behold we haue left all things and followed thee what therefore shall we haue And when some of the Disciples forsaking Christ he asked the rest will you also be gone Peter as representing the person of them all answered (g) Ioan. 6.58 O Lord to whom shall wee goe thou hast the words of eternall life Vpon which passage S. Cyrill writeth (h) L. 4. in Ioan. c. 28. It was not fitting they should answeare confusedly and therfore giuing example of wisdome and modesty to future ages they answere by one that was gouernor and greater then the rest And to another question of our Sauiour Peter answered sayth S. Cyrill (i) L. 12. in Ioan. c. 64. as Prince and Head of the rest The same is testified by S. Cyprian by S. Cyrill of Hierusalem and S. Augustine (k) See aboue nu 23. Now that Peters answering for all was an act declaratiue of his iurisdiction is proued by the example of Christ our Lord for as oftentimes the Deane because he is Head and Superior of the Chapter answereth for all the Canons and in name of them all so Christ because he was Head Mayster of all the Apostles in diuers occasioÌ„s answered for them The Pharisees demanded of them (l) Math. 9.11.12 Why doth your Mayster eat with Publicans and sinners Christ answered for them They that are in health need not a Physitian but they that are ill at ease And when the same Pharisees saw the Apostles plucking eares of corne on the sabboth day and asked them (m) Luc. 6.2 why they did so Christ answered for them defending their fact by the example of Dauid Wherfore as Christs answering for all the Apostles shewed him to be their Head and Mayster so Peters answering for the other Apostles declared him to be Mayster and Rector of the Apostolicall Colledge 5. Among the Christians newly conuerted at Antioch there arose a dispute whether the law of Moyses were to be obserued or no for decision of this doubt Paul Barnaby and some others went vp to Hierusalem to the Apostles and Priests and chiefly to S. Peter to whom as to the Head of the Church and supreme Iudge of Controuersies the resolution of that doubt chiefly belonged Wherupon S. Paul himselfe speaking of this his iorney sayth (n) Gal. 2.2 I went vp to Hierusalem c. And Theodoret (o) Epist ad Leon. Paul the preacher of truth and the trumpet of the holy Ghost ranne to great Peter to bring from him a resolution of such doubts as arising about the obseruation of the Law did minister occasion of strife to them that were at Antioch How much more need then haue we that are weake and contemptible to runne to your Apostolicall seat to fetch salues for the sores of the Church And S. Chrysostome (p) Hom. 87. in Ioan. sayth Paul went to Peter prae alijs aboue others and that by reason of his authority as S. Hierome expresseth (q) Ep. 11. ad Augustinum And S. Ambrose (r) In cap. 1. ad Gal. because our Sauiour had committed to him the charge of the Churches Nor did S. Pauls going to Peter and the other Apostles and Priests togeather with him any way derogate from this supreme authority as the bringing of a suite to the Parliament derogateth not from the supreme Authority of the King who is Head of the Parliament Wherfore Peter as Head of the Church for the determination of that doubt assembled a Synod
at Hierusalem (s) Act. 15.7 seqq which as it was the first Christian Councell so was it the pattern of all others that since that tyme haue bene held in the Church of Christ For from this Councell it proceeded and euer since hath bene the custome of generall Councells that the Pope presiding by himselfe or by his legates first declareth the fayth of the Roman Church all Bishops subscribing and condemning the contrary And this is done to the imitation of this Apostolicall Synod in which Peter spake first and the rest following him confirmed his sentence Paul and Barnaby by relating the great signes and wonders God had done among the Gentils by them and Iames both by shewing the sentence giuen by Peter to accord with the words of the Prophets and by giuing this verdit of his owne (t) Act. 15.19 I iudge that they which of the Gentils are conuerted to God are not to be disquieted c. These are the wordes which you obiect (u) Pag. 64. to proue that not Peter but Iames gaue sentence in the Apostolicall Synod but without ground for the word I iudge contaynes no definitiue sentence not expresseth any authority but only signifieth It seemes to me or my verdict is the contrary were to make Iames Superiour to Peter which no man euer said Besides that the definitiue sentence was giuen by Peter the ancient Fathers expresly affirme none of them so much as insinuating that is was giuen by Iames. All the multitude sayth S. Hierome (x) Ep. 89. ad Aug. c. 2. held their peace and into his Peters sentence Iames the Apostle and all the Priests togeather did passe And long before him Tertullian (y) L. de pudicitia In that controuersy of keeping the law Peter by instinct of the holy Ghost spake of the vocation of the Gentils And hauing set downe S. Peters words he addeth This sentence both losed those things that were omitted of the law and bound those that were reserued It was therfore the authority of Peter that did bind and lose in that Councell for which cause S. Hierome (z) Ibid. calls S. Peter The Prince or author of the decree And finally the sentence of Peter was confirmed and ratified by the whole Councell and sent to Antioch by Paul and others chosen to that purpose to the end they might publish it as an Ordinance of the holy Ghost 6. Peter exercised his pastorall function by promulgating the Ghospell both to the Iewes and Gentils To the Iewes for he first of all the Apostles vpon the very day of Pentecost immediatly after the receauing of the holy Ghost preached vnto them Iesus Christ (a) Act. 2.14 seqq and exhorting them to pennance at that one Sermon conuerted about 3000. soules He spake sayth S. (b) Ad cap. 2. Act. Chrysostome as the month of all and the other eleuen stood by approuing with their testimony what he sayd Peter also was the man that first preached to the Gentils and that by speciall Commission from God as he declared in the Councell of Hierusalem saying (c) Act. 15.7 Men brethren you know that of old dayes God among vs chose that by my mouth the Gentils shold heare the word of the Ghospell and beleeue And to this end when God sent Cornelius the Centurion vnto him to be instructed he shewed vnto him that maruelous vision (d) Act. 10 1◠which is described in the Acts of the Apostles to declare that the tyme of founding the Church among the Gentils was now come And by bidding him kill and eat he declared him to be the Head of the Church for eating is an action that belongs to the head Hereupon Peter out of hand preached the Ghospell to Cornelius and other his friends and kindred and baptized them (e) Act. 10.35 seqq Againe who but Perer foūded the Churches of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithinia in which Constantinople is who founded the Patriarchall seates of Antioch where the faythfull were first called Christians but Peter Who the other seates of Alexandria and Rome the one by S. Marke his Disciple and the other by himselfe but Peter For Christ according to his promise chose him to found his Church and as S. Ambrofe sayth (f) Serm. 47. first of all to begin it both amongst the Iewes and Gentils giuing him therby the same place in his Church which the foundation hath in a materiall building and by that meanes notifying his supereminent dignity vnto vs for as S. Chrysostome wisely obserueth (g) In cap. 2. Act. One thing it is to open a gate that is shut giue begining to a worke as S. Peter did and another thing to prosecute the same worke after it is begun as the rest of the Apostles did 7. Peter of all the Apostles wrought the first miracle after the ascension of Christ in confirmation of the Ghospell which he had promulgated curing a man that was lame from the wombe of his mother (h) Act. 3.7 which S. Ambrose interpreteth to be an act of his supreme Pastorall power the healing and consolidating the lame mans feete betokening him to be the firme and solide foundation of the Church Because Peter sayth S. Ambrose (i) Serm. 68. is the Rock on which the Church is built with great reason he first healeth the feete that as he holdeth the foundation of fayth in the Church so likewise in man he may confirme the foundations of his limbes It was Peter also that raised Tabitha from death (k) Act. 9.40 working that kind of miracle first before any other of the Apostles And that aswell in working these first miracles as by performing other admirable things in the first place before the other Apostles he exercised his iurisdiction and authority S. Chrysostome expresseth in these words (l) Hom. 21. in Acta Peter walking as a Captaine in his army did consider which part was vnited and well ordered and which wanted his presence See how diligently he runnes vp and downe and is found to be the first in euery place When an Apostle is to be chosen he 's the first When the Iewes are to be certified that the Apostles are not druncke when the lame man is to be cured when the Ghospell is to be preached he is before others When the Princes and Ananias are to be proceeded against and when cures are to be made by a shadow Peter is the man and when miracles are to be wrought he steps out first where there is danger and where gouerment is necessary there Peter is but when things are in peace and tranquility they are left to all the Apostles indifferently Lastly Peter by the iudgment of our Lord was appointed to feed his flock whē he said vnto him (m) Ioan. 2◠26.27 feed my lambes feed my sheep By lambes he vnderstandeth the faythfull people by sheep which are the dammes of the lambes the Bishops and other Pastors of the
S. Augustins but of an hereticall Author Bellarmine I grant confesseth the booke not to be S. Augustines and therfore he citeth it not as of S. Augustine he granteth also that the author erred in some particulars which he expresseth but because in this matter of S. Peters Supremacy he was neuer taxed of error but agreeth with the rest of the Fathers his testimony was not to be contemned especially being so forcible as you (z) Pag. 52. confesse it to be But be it whose you will with what face can you reiect it For do you not produce against vs two other testimonies of the same booke affirming (a) Pag. 30. 286. S. Augustine himselfe to be the author of them This Dilemma wil discouer your dealing either the book is S. Augustins or it is not If it be not S. Augustines why do you in other places vrge it against vs as of S. Augustine If it be S. Augustines why do you here deny it to be his and reiect it as hereticall when we vrge it against you Is not this shufling Shall it be S. Augustines and of force when you vrge it against vs shall it not only not be S. Augustines but hereticall when we vrge it against you but such dealing suiteth best with a Grand Imposture The third testimony which Bellarmine alleageth of S. Augustine is out of his second booke of Baptisme against the Donatists where hauing said that the primacy of the Apostles doth singularly excell in Peter he addeth I thinke that Cyprian Bishop without any affront is compared to Peter the Apostle for as much as concernes the glory of Martyrdome but I rather ought to feare lest I be contumelious to Peter for who knoweth not that that Princedome of Apostleship is to be preferred before whatsoeuer Bishoprick To this you answere (b) Pag. 49. marg fin That Primatus Apostolorum signifieth nothing els but Munus Apostolicum the Apostolicall function and that is most illustrious in Peter But your answere is deficient for to say that the primacy of the Apostleship singularly excelled in Peter is not only to say that Peter was an Apostle but that he was Primate and Prince of the Apostles and that his primacy contained a singular preeminence of dignity belonging to him which was not in any of the other Apostles and this dignity it was that made him more illustrious then the rest Againe wheras S. Augustine said he had cause to feare lest he might affront S. Peter in comparing Cyprian the Martyr vnto him because that Princedome of Apostleship which was in Peter exceeded all Bishopricks you answere (c) Pag. 50. marg that in these words there is only a comparison betweene Peters Apostleship and Cyprians Bishoprick and that no Protestant will deny that the Apostleship though of Barnabas was more excellent then the Bishoprick although of Linus This answere is not to the purpose for S. Augustine compares not the Apostleship in generall with Cyprians Bishoprick but in particular illum Apostolatus principatum that Princedome or Soueraignty of the Apostleship which was peculiar to Peter as to Head and Prince of all the Apostles Nor is it true that S. Augustine only compareth Peters Apostleship with Cyprians Bishoprick he compares Peters Bishoprick with Cyprians Bishopprick Peters Chayre with Cyprians Chayre which you cunningly leaue out both in your english and Latin acknowledgeth that distal cathâ—drarum gratia etsi vna sit Martyrum gloria that albeit the glory of Martyrdome be alike in them both yet there is distance betwene the Dignity of their chayres and by reason of this distance S. Augustine sayth he hath cause to feare lest he wrong Peter in making any comparison betwene Cyprians chayre and his chayre for though Cyprian were Primate of all Africa yet Peter was Bishop and Gouernor of the Vniuersall Church a dignity no way belonging to Cyprian or any other Bishop or Apostle whatsoeuer With shifts not vnlike to these you elude the testimonies of S. Cyprian S. Hierome and other Fathers who as you confesse (d) Pag. 50. iâ—it call Peter sometymes Prince Head and Captayne of all the Apostles somtymes Chiefe Priest of the Christians Captayne of Gods hoast Pastor and foundation of the whole Church and One to whom the guydance and presidence of the vniuersall Church is committed To these their testimonies you answere (e) Pag. 50. med that they argue not any primacy of authority and iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles or ouer the whole Church but of Order only This distinction you often vse to shift of the authorities of Fathers when you are pressed with them By Primacy of Order you vnderstand priority of place and of voyce as afterwards (*) Pag. 110. you declare But whatsoeuer you vnderstand sure I am that ancient Fathers by the primacy of Peter vnderstand not only priority of place and of voyce but true power and iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church and so it is apparent by the very names which they vse to expresse his primacy as of Prince Head and Captayne of all the Apostles Pastor and President of the vniuersall Church for hath not the Prince in his territories authority and iurisdiction hath he not power to commaÌ„d his subiects to make lawes to punish offendors In a City hath not the Head which is the Magistrate power and authority ouer the Citizens Hath not a Captayne the command of his soldiers and the Pastor power to rule his flock wherfore since with the Fathers you confesse that Peter is Prince Head and Captayne of all the Apostles Pastor and foundation of the whole Church and that the guydance and presidence of the vniuersall Church is committed to him either you vnderstand not what you say or els you grant that Peter hath not only primacy of Order but of authority power coÌ„mand ouer the Apostles ouer the whole Church as a Prince hath ouer his subiects a Captaine ouer his souldiers a Maior ouer the Citizens and a shepheard ouer his flock And what els is it that S. Chrysostome teacheth saying (f) Hom. in B. Ignat. that Peter was the Superintendent of the whole world that to him Christ consigned the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen and committed the disposition of all things And (h) Orat. 5. aduers Iud. that Peter was made chiefe of the Apostles and had the whole world in subiection and (i) Hom. 80. ad pop Autioch that Christ deliuered to him the gouerment of the Church throughout the whole world What els did S. Maximus meane when he said (k) Hom. 3. in Natali Apost Pet. Pauli Peter was of so great merit in the sight of Christ that after the rowing of a small boat the gouerment of the whole Church was put into his hands What Arnobius (l) Ad Psal 138. pronouncing that Peter is Bishop of Bishops and that Christ gaue to him and to no other of the Apostles
his owne name of Shepheard and togeather which the name that power which he alone had to to wit of being Pastor of his whole flock what els S. Cyril saying (m) In l. thesau apud S. Thom. Opuse 1. that as Christ receaued of his Father the scepter of the Church ouer all Princedome and most full power ouer all that all be subiect vnto him so also he committed the same power to Peter and his Successors and that what was his he fully committed to Pâ—ter and to none els but to him alone what S. Leo affirming (n) Serâ—â— 3. dâ— Assamp sua that albeit in Gods people there be many Priests and many Pastors yet Peter gouerneth them all as Christ also doth principally rule them what Euthymius and Theophilact (o) In c. 21. Ioan. that Christ committed to Peter the charge and gouerment of his flock throughout the whole world what Oecumenius (p) Adc. 1. Act. that the gouerment of the Disciples was committed to Peter what S. Bernard (q) L. 2. de confiderat that euery one of the other Apostles receaued their seuerall ships but that Peter receaued the gouerment of the whole world and that to him was committed grandissima nauis that maruelous great ship to wit the vniuersall Church spread ouer the whole world and that to him the pastorall charge of the whole Church was committed Finally and what S. Eucherius that ancient Bishop of Lyons saying (r) In vigil S. Pet. Extat in Bibliothee Pat. edit Colon to 5. par 1 pag. 712. that Christ first committed to Peter his lambes and then his sheep because he made him not only a Pastor but Pastor of Pastors Peter therfore sayth he feedeth the lambes and the sheep he feedeth the yong ones and the dammes he gouerneth the subiects and the Prelates and is therfore Pastor of all for besyde lambes and sheep there is nothing in the Church What thinke you Doctor Morton do these Fathers acknowledge in Peter no other primacy but of order Can there be any thing more cleare then that they belieue him to haue authority power and iurisdiction ouer the whole Church as President and Gouernor therof were these men of your beliefe But you obiect (s) Pag. 51. Iames and Iohn whom S. Paulcalleth chiefe Apostles S. Chrysostome interpreteth Princes Oecumenius Heads Ergo they were also Gouernors ouer the other Apostles and Monarkes ouer the whole Church or els Peter was not How followeth this In the Empyre there are many Princes Ferdinand the Emperor and many others Ergo they are all equall to Ferdinand and all Emperors or els Ferdinand is no Emperor In the kingdome of Naples there are many Heads the Viceroy and the Gouernors of diuers Prouinces and Cities ergo these Heads are all equall in authority haue power ouer the whole kingdome or els the Viceroy hath not These consequences are absurd and yours is no lesse It is true that ech of the Apostles are Princes ouer the whole earth by reason of their Apostolicall power but as Bishops they are only Heads of their seuerall flocks and therfore in iurisdiction not equall to Peter Paul Andrew and Iohn sayth S. Gregory (t) L. 4. epist. 38. what are they but Heads of seuerall flocks but Peter is the chiefe member of the holy and vniuersall Church And S. Bernard (u) L. 2. de considerat Iames contented with the Bishopricke of Hierusalem yeldes the vniuersality to Peter And againe speaking to Eugenius Pope of his authority receaued from S. Peter (x) Ibid. Thou alone art Pastor of all Pastors Dost thou aske how I proue this By the words of our Lord for to which I will not say of the Bishops but euen of the Apostles were all the sheep so absolutely and without exception committed If thou louest me Peter feed my sheep what sheep the people of this or that City or countrey or kingdome he sayth My sheep who seeth not manifestly that he designed not some but assigned all Nothing is excepted where no distinction is made And so likewise the other title Prince of all the Apostles is an attribute which agreeth not to Iames nor to Iohn nor to any other of the Apostles for though Iames Iohn be chiefe Apostles and Princes in respect of that transcendent authority which as Apostles they had from Christ to preach and ordaine Bishops throughout the whole world yet neither the one nor the other is nor euer is called seuerally by himselfe Prince of all the Apostles as Peter is And so likewise when Peter and Paul togeather are called Principes Apostolorum Princes of the Apostles it is not in respect of any authority and iurisdiction common to them both ouer all the other Apostles but in respect of their great labors in preaching and propagating the fayth of Christ for when there is speach of the extent of their authority and iurisdiction Paul seuerally by himselfe is neuer called Prince of the Apostles as Peter is All the Apostles being silent sayth (y) Cathâ—c 11. S. Cyril of Hierusalem Peter Prince of the Apostles sayth c. And S. Ephrem (z) Serm. de Transfigu Dom. As Moyses by the commandment of God was Prince of the congregation of the Hebrewes so is Peter of the Church of the Christians And as Moyses was Prince of the old testament so is Peter of the new And Cassianus (a) L. 3. de Incarnat c. 12. Let vs aske that chiefe Disciple amongst the Disciples and Mayster amongst Maysters which gouerning the Roman Church as he had the Princedome of fayth so likewise of Priesthood Speake therfore and tell vs O Peter Prince of the Apostles c. In which words Peter is called Prince of the Apostles because he was the chiefe among them and had the soueraignty of Episcopall and Sacerdotall dignity aboue the rest But by the way I must aduertise you of your abusing S. Ambrose and S. Cyprian In your Margen (b) Pag. 10 you obiect certaine words of S. Ambrose in Latine and comming to english them in your text you set downe in lieu of them others of your owne in a different character as of S. Ambrose which neither are his nor of the same sense with his as the iudicious reader will perceaue if he compare S. Ambrose his Latin with your English With S. Cyprian you deale in the same manner for you make him say that Christ before his resurrection did build his Church vpon Peter An ignorance of which S. Cyprian was not guilty He sayth that Christ speaking to Peter said vpon this Rock I will build my Church which words he spake before his resurrection and they containe no more but a promise of building his Church vpon Peter for the future which promise he fulfilled not vntill after his resurrection when he gaue to Peter the actuall charge of feeding his lambes and his sheep (c) Ioan. 21.16.17 Nor doth S. Cyprian contradict this in the
leg c. 3. n. 23. from whom Salas learned his Doctrine de legibus call's it A reall priuiledge which he confirmeth with the example of a priuiledge that being granted to a certaine Bishop in the Canon law with expression of his name is notwithstanding supposed to passe to his Successors Now that this prayer of Christ was not made for Peter as for a priuate but as for a publike person that was supreme Head and Gouern or of the Church and consequently for the common good and benefit of the Church that therfore by vertue therof the Popes his Successors haue an infallible prerogatiue of not erring in their publike definitions of fayth to the seducing of others is the agreeing consent of the ancient Fathers in their expositions of this passage of S. Luke And 1. three holy Popes in their epistles Lucius the first to the Bishops of Spayne and France Felix the first to Benignus and Marke to S. Athanasius out of this prayer of Christ made for S. Peter gather the infallibility of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth But because Protestants hold for suspected the authority of these epistles I omit them and passe to such as by Protestants are granted to be vndoubtedly of those Popes to whom they are attributed 2. Therfore Agatho a most holy Pope and whom God graced with Miracles in his Epistle to the Emperor (q) Extat Act. 4. Apud Bin. to 3. pag. 12. Constantine Pogonat which was read in the sixt generall Councell and approued (r) Act. 8. 18. as the suggestion of the holy Ghoâ—t dictated by the mouth of the holy and most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles speaking by Agatho sayth Our Lord promised that the fayth of Peter should not faile and commanded him to strengthen his brethren which that the Popes my Apostolicall predecessors haue euer performed is a thing notorious to all This testimony sheweth that not only Agatho but all the Fathers of that Councell belieued this priuiledge of not erring in sayth and confirming others to haue bene obtained by Christ not only for S. Peter but for all his Successors and that this is a truth suggested by the holy Ghost and dictated by S. Peter speaking by Agatho 3. S. Gregory (s) L. 6. ep 37. Who is ignorant that the holy Church is strengthned by the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles who in his name receaued the constancy of his mind being called Peter of a Rock to whom by the voyce of truth it is said Confirme thy Brethren And els where (t) L. 4. ep 3. he proueth against Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople the authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer the vniuersall Church by the Commission giuen to S. Peter his predecessor It is manifest to all such as know the Ghospell that the charge of the whole Church is committed to the Apostle Peter Prince of all the Apostles for to him it is said Feed my sheepe And so him it is said I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth fayle not thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren Which testimony conuinceth thaâ— Christ prayed not for S. Peter as for a priuate person buâ— as for the Head of his Church and consequently for his Successors in him 4. S. Leo the great (u) Serm. 2. de Natali Apost Petri Pauli The danger of tentation was common to all the Apostles they all equally needed the protection of Gods help but our Lord taketh a speciall care of Peter and prayeth peculiarly for his fayth that the state of all the rest might be more secure if the mind of the Chiefe were not corquered The strength then of all is fortified in Peter God so dispensing the ayde of his grace that the assurance and strength which Christ gaue to Peter might by him redound to the Apostles And he addeth that as Peâ—er confirmed the Apostles so it is not to be doubted but that still he affordeth his help to his Successors in the Roman chayre and as a pious Pastor confirmeth them with his admonitions and ceaseth not to pray for them c. 5. Leo the ninth (x) Ep. ad Michael Imper. c. 7. The false deuises of all heretikes haue bene reproued confuted and condemned by the See of the Prince of the Apostles which it the Roman Church and the hartes of the Brethren strengthned in the fayth of Peter which hath not fayled hitherto nor shall euer fayle hereafter And the same sense of these words of Christ is deliuered by Nicolas the first (y) Ep. ad Michael Imp. and Innocentius the third (z) In Cap. Maior de Bap. If you answere that these testimonies are of Popes speaking in their owne cause I reply that they speake in the cause of God and his Church and are worthy of all credit both because they were men most eminent in learning sanctity as also because in this exposition they agree with the Fathers both of the sixth generall Councell and the rest for S. Ambrose sayth (a) Ad ca. 22. Luc. Behold what our Lord said and vnderstand it Peter is sifted he fall's into tentations but after his tentation is made Gouernor of the Church and therfore our Sauiour before hand signifieth why afterwards he chose him to be Pastor of his flock for he said vnto him And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren You see then that in S. Ambrose his iudgment Christ prayed for Peter as for the Pastor of his flock and that for Peter to confirme his brethren is to performe the office of Pastor and Gouernor of the Church which office as it was no lesse necessary afterwards then in S. Peters tyme so it descended from him to his Successors A truth which Theodorus Studites with other his brethren being pressed with the outragious persecutions of â—eretikes professe in their epistle to Paschalis Pope in these words (b) Apud Baron anno 817. Heare O Apostolicall Head made by God Pastor of his sheep porter of the kingdome of Heauen and Rock of the fayth vpon whom the Catholike Church is built for thou art Peter adorning and gouerning the See of Peter Christ our God said to thee And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren Behold now the tyme behold the place ayde vs c. Thou hast power from God because thou art Prince of all fright away the hereticall wild beasts c. And Theophilact (c) Ad cap. 22. Luc. expounding the same words The plaine sense of them is this because I hold thee as Prince of my Disciples when thou after thou hast denied me shalt weep and come to repentance confirme the rest for this becometh thee that next to me art the Rock and fortresse of the Church And we may vnderstand it not to be spoken of the Apostles only but of all the faythfull that shall be till the end of the world Which addition of Theophilact sheweth that this priuiledge giuen to Peter of not
and againe (o) In c. 1. ad Gal. he went to him as to one greater then himselfe and that not in a vulgar manner but as he obserueth out of the Greeke Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to behold and admire him as a personage of great excellency and maiesty as men goe to behold and admire great and famous Cities for which cause and to satisfy himselfe with a perfect view of his person and behauiour notwithstanding his great employments he stayed 15. dayes with him If therfore the generall accord of sacred expositors be of weight this 1. place of S. Paul which you produce to disproue his subiection to S. Peter is so farre from disprouing it that it strongly proueth it and his owne acknowledgment therof Againe 14. yeares after this time sayth S. Paul I went vp to Hierusalem according to reuelation to conferre with them the Ghospell which I preach among the Gentils From this place you argue (q) Pag. 5â— that S. Paul held himselfe equall in authority with S. Peter for S. Hierome whom you alleage out of Salmeron sayth it is one thing to conferre an other thing to learne for among them that conferre there is equality What equality of iurisdiction and power No for a subiect may conferre with his Superiour a Collegiall with his Rector but of Doctrine and learning only as S. Hierome there declareth adding that betweene him that teacheth and him that learneth he that learneth is the lesser to wit in knowledge And therfore I grant that S. Paul went not to learne of S. Peter he had learned his Ghospell by reuelation immediatly from Iesus Christ the same Maister that taught S. Peter Nor did he receaue from S. Peter or the other Apostles power or authority to preach for that likewise he had immediatly from Christ in this sense he sayth (*) Gal. 2.6 The Apostles added nothing to me Neuerthelesse because he had not conuersed with Christ in mortall flesh nor learned his Doctrine from the other Apostles which had bene instructed by him before his death lest the Gentils to whom he preached being incensed against him by false Apostles might haue any doubt of the truth of his Doctrine or of his Commission to preach for their satisfaction and that his preaching might not be in vaine and without profit to the hearers he went to Hierusalem and conferred his Ghospell with the chiefe Apostles to the end that the Gentils might be certified of the truth of his Doctrine knowing it to haue their approbation and to be the same that they preached But you that borow your argument from Salmeron (r) In Ep. ad Gal. Disput â—2 why do you conceale what followeth in his Comment If sayth he it was needfull for so great an Apostle of Christ to conferre his Ghospell with the Apostles and Peter how much more necessary was it that Luther and Caluin should haue brought theirs to be conferred with the See Apostolike With what pillars of the Church did they conferre it as Paul did or with what Miracle did they proue it they that could neuer persuade themselues so much as to come to the See Apostolike and Roman Church the mother of all Churches to conferre nor to the Oecumenicall Councell of Trent that was gathered for their soules health sake that was free and open to them that did courteously intreat them and with a safe conduct inuite them to come So Salmeron whose words you thought best not to mention both because they shew your Doctrine to be destitute of lawfull authority and also because they refute the fabulous report which you (s) Pag. 404. make out of Thuanus your historian that diuers Protestants came to the Councell and desired of the Popes Legates liberty to dispute but could not be admitted for Samleron was present at the Councell as one of the Popes Diuines who therfore knew what passed in the Councell better then Thuanus And to Salmerons testimony I adde your owne confessions in the late Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of Scotland against the pretended Generall assembly holden at Glascow (t) Pag. 13. and in your Apology of the Church of England which also expresseth the reasons why you refused to come set downe in your owne words and refelled by Doctor Harding in his Confutation of the same Apology (u) Part. ad Chap. 7. fol. 293. seqq How far therfore you are from the Doctrine example of S. Paul in this point not only Salmeron but Venerable Bede and S. Anselme (x) In cap. 2. ad Gal. haue declared out of S. Augustine whose words both they and Salmeron set downe to this purpose If the Apostle Paul himselfe sayth S. Augustine (y) L. 28. contra Paust c. 4. being called from Heauen after the Ascension of our Lord had not found the Apostles liuing that by communicating and conferring his Ghospell with thew he might shew himselfe to be of the same society the Church would giue no credit at all vnto him But when they knew that he preached the same Doctrine which they did that he liued in communion and vnity with them and did worke Miracles as they did our Lord therby commending him he deserued so great authority that his words at this day are heard in the Church euen as if Christ were heard to speake in him as he most truly said With these Fathers accordeth S. Hierome (z) Epist 89. quae est 10. inter epist. August defining that Paul had not had security of preaching the Ghospell if it had not bene approued by Peters sentence and the rest that were with him So S. Hierome whose testimony with the rest shew how beggarly a cause you haue since those very Scriptures which you produce in defence therof are so many verdicts against you A third text of S. Paul (*) 2. Cor. 12.11 you set downe thus I am nothing inferior vnto the Chiefe of the Apostles But I cannot commend your translation for none but Peter is Chiefe of the Apostles to whom therfore S. Paul compares not himselfe in the singular number as you here and els where falsifiing his words make him to say but to the Chiefe Apostles in the plurall number and yet not that in authority and iurisdiction of which he speaketh not but in the dignity of an Apostle in his great labors in his Miracles in his reuelations in his dangers and iourneys vndertaken for the preaching of Christ as the Context before and after sheweth S. Ambrose Theodoret S. Anselme S. Thomas Aquinas and other expositors declare (a) In eum locum But you vrge the testimonies of Fathers (b) Pag. 60. fin vpon this text of S. Paul And first that S. Ambrose saith (c) In 1. Cor. c. 12. Paul was no lesse in dignity then Peter You falsity S. Ambrose there compares not Paul with Peter in particular but speaking of him and the rest in generall sayth that albeit he were called to the
Apostleship after them all yet in the dignity and function of an Apostle in preaching and in working of miracles he was not inferior to them And to shew how imposterously you bring this his testimony against S. Peters primacy he addeth that Though Andrew followed our Sauiour before Peter yet Andrew receaued not the primacy but Peter 2. You obiect (d) Pag. 60. fin S. Maximus saying Whether Paul or Peter is to be preferred is vncertaine Here againe you falsify For to insinuat that S. Maximus preferred Paul before Peter you peruert the order of his words placing Peter after Paul which S. Maximus doth not but contrarily Paul after Peter Againe he compares them not in authority but only in sanctity of life and merits Howbeit sayth he all the most blessed Apostles obtaine equall grace of sanctity in the sight of God yet I know not how Peter and Paul by a peculiar prerogatiue of fayth in our Sauiour surpasse the rest c. But which of the two is to be preferred is vncertaine for I thinke them to be equall in merits because they are equall in their death You make no mention of merits to persuade your reader that S. Maximus compares them in authority and so much the more you are to be blamed because in that very place he sayth that Paul hath the key of knowledge to preach and teach but Peter the key of power which is to say that Paul excelled in knowledge but Peter in authority And therfore els where he sayth (e) Hom. 3. in Nat. Apost Pet. Paul Peter was of so great merit in the sight of our Lord that after the rowing of a small boat the gouerment of the whole Church was committed to him and that (f) Hom. 1. de eisdem As Christ was a Rock so be made Peter a Rock and built his Church vpon him and gaue him charge of feeding his sheep and lambes which out of his mercy he had redeemed Wherfore as certaine as it is that S. Maximus held S. Paul to be a member of Christs Church and one of the sheepe which he redeemed so certaine it is that he held him subiect to S. Peter as to his Head and Pastor 3. You obiect (g) Pag. 60. fin out of S. Chrysostome Paul that I say no more was equall to Peter You still falsify S. Chrysostome sayth Paul was equall to Peter in honor to wit of an Apostle for of that he speaketh you leaue out in honor to inferre that he equaleth Paul with Peter in authority and iurisdiction which cannot be excused from imposture for one thing it is to be equall with Peter in the honor of Apostleship in which all the Apostles were equall vnto him and another to be equall to him in authority which none of the Apostles were Among the most blessed Apostles sayth S. Leo (h) Ep. 48 in the likenesse of honor there was difference of power and though the election of them all were a like yet it was granted to one that be should surpasse the rest from whence as from a patterne hath proceeded the distinction of Bishops The same is declared by S. Maximus (i) Serm. vlt. de Apost Pet. Paul yea and by S. Chrysostome himselfe in this very place which you obiect saying (k) In ep ad Gal. 1.18 Paul went to Peter as to one greater and elder then himselfe And (l) Hom. 87. Ioan. he went to see him because he was the mouth and Prince of the Apostles and head of the whole company These testimonies as they demonstrate Chrysostome to haue belieued that S. Peter surpassed Paul in authority so they conuince you of imposture in putting on him the contrary 4. You attribute (n) Pag. 60. fin to S. Hierome (o) In Psal 44. these words The titles of these two Apostles are equall they are Chiefes of the Church But S. Hierome vpon that Psalme hath no such words nor maketh any comparison between Peter and Paul nor any mention at all of them 5. You obiect (p) Pag. 61. init out of S. Basils epistles but at randome naming none in particular that S. Peter and Paul are Pillars of the Church And what of that As among many great one may be greater then another so of two Pillars one may be higher then another By those 7. Pillars mentioned in the Prouerbes (q) Prou. 9.1 some of the Expositors vnderstand the 7. Sacraments which yet are not all equall for Baptisme exceedeth the rest in necessity and the Eucharist in Excellency Others vnderstand the Doctors of the Church whom Daniel compareth to starres (r) Dan. 13.3 which yet witnesse S. Paul (s) 1. Cor. 15.42 are vnequall in their light And hereby is shewed the futility of your argument that S. Paul held Iames and Iohn to be equall in iurisdiction with Peter because speaking of them three he cals them all Pillars 6. You obiect (t) Pag. 61. init out of Casaubon that Eucherius calleth Peter and Paul Two Princes of the Christians But S. Hierome (u) In Psal 44. calleth all Bishops Princes of the Church and yet all Bishops are not equall in iurisdiction for Bishops are subiect to Archbishops Archbishops to Patriarkes Patriarkes to the Pope and so was Paul to Peter But let Eutherius speake for himselfe Christ sayth he (x) In vigil S. Pet. first committed to Peter his lambes and then his sheep because he made him not only a Pastor but Pastor of Pastors Peter therfore feedeth the Lambes the sheep he feedeth the yong ones and the Dammes he gouerneth the subiects and the Prelates and is therfore Pastor of all for besyde lambes and sheep there is nothing in the Church So Eucherius shewing how Casaubon and you abuse him and that if Paul be a sheep of Christs flock he is subiect to Peters pastotall authority A fourth text of Scripture you obiect (z) Pag. 59. which are those words of S. Paul They saw that the Ghospell of the vncircumcision was committed to me as the Ghospell of the circumcision vnto Peter Your glosse is that the ordinary ministration of these two Apostles was distinct Peter hauing for his Diocesse the Iewes and Paul the Gentiles which was of infinit extent larger But by the like argument you might inferre that S. Paul by calling Christ The minister of Circumcision (a) Rom. 15.8 and himselfe Doctor of the Gentiles (b) 1. Tim. 2.7 signified that himselfe had a distinct ordinary ministration from Christ a Dioces of farre larger extent then his Wherfore this clause implyes not any diuision of the authority of their ordinary Ministery nor yet that the Diocesse of Peter was confined to the Iewes or of Paul to the Gentiles for both of them preached to Iewes Gentiles It cōtaines nothing els but a speciall testimony of the blessing of God vpon S. Peter to persuade the Iewes and vpon S. Paul to persuade the Gentiles and yet not
Peter And the sacred Expositors teach you the same lesson for when a new Apostle was to be chosen in place of Iudas S. Chrysostome noteth (t) Hom. 3. in Act. that albeit Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem yet he acknowledged the superiority not to belong to himselfe but to Peter that therfore not he but Peter shewed his authority in the cariage of that busines Behold sayth Chrysostome the modesty of Iames He had receaued the office of Bishop of Hierusalem and yet speakes â—ot a word but yelds the throne to Peter And Oecuâ—â—e niâ—â— (s) Ad cap. 1. Act. Iames riseth nâ—â— out Peter be being the man to whom the gouerment of the Disciples was committed And Chrysostome further declaring that the Episcopall authority which christ gaue to Peter was as farre aboue that of Iames as the Bishop of the whole world surpasseth in authority the Bishop of one particular See sayth (t) Hom. vlt. in Ioan. If any one demaund how Iames obtained the See of Hierusalem I answere he was made by Peter Maister of the whole world which difference betweene the authority of Peter and Iames Euthymius (u) Ad c. 21. Ioan. hath also expressed in the same words And no lesse S. Bernard saying (x) L. 2. de considerat c. 9. The other Apostles obtayned ech of them their peculiar stocks Iames contented with Hierusalem yelds the vniuersality to Peter I conclude therfore that if S. Paul once named Iames before Peter which is yet doubtfull it is a non sequitur to collect from thence that he held Iames superior or equall in authority to Peter You shew your selfe to be one of those men of whom S. Peter (y) 1. Pet. 3.16 sayth that reading S. Paules epistles they depraue them and the rest of the Scriptures to their owne perdition Not vnlike to this is the argument you make (z) Pag. 62. fin 63. to proue that S. Paul forsooth butteth and excopteth against Peters authority because he sayth (a) Gal. 1.18 I went to Hierusalem to see Peter and tarried with him 15. dayes but other of the Apostles I saw none saue Iames the brother of our Lord. Your inference is that Paul going vp to stop the mouths of false Apostles who obiected that he had not sufficient commission to preach as not hauing bene authorized by the other Apostles if the spirit of Popery had reigned in those dayes his Aduersaries might haue replyed that Peter being the Vicar of Christ and the Ordinary and vniuersall Pastor of his Church was alone sufficient and All in All to authorize him because the Gouernor of all others without exception So you but falsly and ignorantly for Paul went not then to Hierusalem to haue his Ghospell approued but only for honors sake to see and reuerence Peter his Superior as the expositors with one accord declare Their words you haue already heard His iourney to Hierusalem to vindicate his calling and haue his Ghospell approued by S. Peter and the other Apostles was 14. yeares after when he tooke Barnabas Titus with him as in the second Chapter to the Galathians he declareth But you are contented to confound the former iourney with this such mistakes are the engines of Arguments wherewith you But at the Popes authority SECT V. Priuiledges granted to other of the Apostles and not to S. Peter obiected by Doctor Morton TO the former obiections you adde others concerning some priuiledges granted to other Apostles and not to S. Peter which I will briefly touch The first is (c) Pag. 64. Peter gaue not sentence in the Apostolicall Synod but Iames in his presence This is an vntruth and such I haue proued it to be The second (e) Pag. 64. Peter leaned not on Christs brest as Iohn did True but Christ made Peter the foundation of his Church and Pastor of his flock a far greater dignity then to leane on his brest and which implies Iohns subiection to him The third is (f) Pag. 64. Peter solicited Iohn to aske a question of scorecy He did so but how ill aduised you are to obiect this against Peters Primacy the Fathers will informe you Cassiodorus (g) L. de amicit c. Quasi diceret benefac sint amici Surely our Lord preferred Peter before Iohn and bestowing the Princedome on Peter did not therfore withdraw his affection from the disciple whom he loued He gaue to Peter the keyes of the kingdome of heauen that he might open and shut heauen to Iohn he gaue a facility of opening vnto vs the secrets of his brest To Peter he gaue the charge and gouerment of his Church to Iohn the care and custody of his Mother Peter durst not aske of our Lord who was to betray him Iohn at Peters instance asked confidently what the Prince of the Apostles durst not in quire S. Chrysostome (h) Hom. vlt. in Ioan. Why doth Iohn mention his leaning on Christs brest Not without cause but to shew the confidence of Peter after his deniall for he that durst not then aske but did is by another after the charge of his brethren was giuen to him committeth is not to another but himselfe asketh the Maister and Iohn is silens He speakes and shewes his loue to Iohn c. For when Christ had communicated great matters to Peter and giuen him charge of the whole world he being desirous to haue Iohn for his partner and colleague said And this man what And as he not daring to aske at the last supper did it by Iohn so now doth he the like for Iohn thinking that he was desirous to aske but durst not And againe (i) Hom. 66. in Math. Marke how this same Iohn that lately made such demands after wholly yelds the primacy to Peter and prefers him in all things before himselfe S. Hierome (k) L. 1. aduers Iouin Among the twelue Apostles one is chosen that a Head being appointed occasion of Schisme might be taken away And declaring (l) Ibid. why the dignity of Head was not giuen to Iohn but to Peter he yeldeth this reason because Peter was the elder and lest if Christ had bestowed that dignity on a yong man whom he loued he might seeme to minister occasion of enuie to the rest That famous Emperor Leo surnamed The wise hauing declared (m) Serm. de S. Petro. that Christ male Peter Prince of pastors and required of him the care of feeding his flock as a returne of his loue addeth Peter knowing that to be a great Princedome and how great strength it requireth seing Iohn following whom Iesus greatly loued said And this man what wilt thou haue me to be placed as Head ouer the disciples what then dost thou commaund him to doe Our Lord answered as it were checking Peter So I will haue him to remayne till I come what 's that to thee follow thou me that is follow me with this pastorall staffe and as whiles I was with you I did
of the East and many of the West it is a manifest signe so much the more euident the greater the persecutions and the more and longer the schismes haue bene that she is the impregnable Rock which the proud gates of hell cannot ouerthrow SECT VIII Other Arguments out of S. Paul and other Catholike Authors answered S. Paul writing to the Romans sayth (x) Rom. 1.13 I haue often purposed to come vnto you that I may haue some fruite in you as also in the other Gentils Tolet (y) in eum loc Annot. 22. vpon these words obserueth that the Ghospell is indifferent to all and that howbeit the Romans were more eminent then other nations and had the primacy yet in preaching of the Ghospell and busines belonging to saluation the Apostle equalleth others with them These words of Tolet you obiect (z) Pag 70. but to what end I know not for Tolet declareth the reasoÌ„ why S. Paul equalleth other nations with the Romans in preaching to them the doctrine of Christ and procuring their saluation to be because as Christ found all sinners and dyed for all so he calleth all and receaueth them from whence soeuer they come If you had set downe these words of Tolet you had discouered that to inferre either from his or S. Pauls words the equality of other Churches with the Roman in matter of iurisdiction is a senselesse illation for by the same consequence you may inferre that all Diocesans in spiritual iurisdiction are equall with their Bishops and all subiects in temporall power with their Princes because Christ hauing shed his bloud equally for all the soules of all are equally deare to him and their saluation ought with all indifferency to be procured by preaching the Ghospell to all aswell to the least as to the greatest to the poorest as to the richest 2. No lesse impertinently you obiect other words of the same Apostle (a) Rom. 11.19 in which as you confesse he exhorteth not the Romans in particular but all the conuerted Gentils in generall not to be ouer-wise but to feare lest they also be broken off by infidelity as the Iewes were For these words shew that no man hath certainty of fayth that he shall be saued as Protestants vaynly presume themselues to haue but that all ought to liue in feare lest they fall into infidelity or other sinnes which feare the Bishop of Rome and the Romans ought to haue as well as other nations But to inferre from thence that the Bishop of Rome may teach hereticall Doctrine ex Cathedra or that the whole Roman Church may fall from the fayth which is the poynt in controuersy nether is it S. Pauls meaning nor any Interpreter euer expounded so 3. As little to your purpose it is that S. Paul sayth (b) Rom. 1.11 to the Romans I desire to see you that I may impart vnto you some spirituall grace to confirme you for therby as S. Hierome or whosoeuer is the author of those Commentaries Theodoret S. Chrysostome and S. Thomas expound (c) In eum locum he sheweth that they had receaued the fayth already from S. Peter Because sayth Theodoret the great Peter had already declared to them the Euangelicall Doctrine therfore S. Paul necessarily addes To confirme you And S. Hierome Paul sayth he will confirme the Romans already belleeuing not that they had not receaued the fayth by the preaching of Peter but that their fayth might be strengthned by the witnesse and doctrine of two Apostles Wherfore S. Paul desired to see them to confirme them that is as he himselfe declareth to the end both he they might receaue mutuall comfort from each other they by his fayth and he by theyrs What makes this against the primacy of S. Peter or of the Roman Church 4. You obiect (d) Pag. 72 Bellarmine confessing that S. Peter Paul were Co-sounders of the Roman Church He doth so it is true but yet so that S. Peter first planted that Church S. Paul came not to Rome till many yeares after to assist him for which cause the conuersion of the Romans and the planting of Christian religion there is absolutely attributed to S. Peter Our will is say the godly Emperors Theodosius and Gratian (e) Cod. tit 1. l. 1. that all the people ruled by the Empire of our clemency shall liue in the same religion which the diuine Apostle Peter gaue to the Romans as the religion insinuated by him vntill this present witnesseth and which it is manifest that the high Priest Damasus followeth Wherfore when Bellarmine sayth that S. Peter and Paul were Co-founders of the Roman Church he sayth it not to equall them in the foundation and much lesse in authority for in that very place (f) L. 1. de Pout c. 27. he learnedly proueth that in authority S. Peter farre exceeded S. Paul 5. You obiect (g) Pag. 72. out of Lorinus that S. Epiphanius calleth both Peter and Paul Bishops of Rome True but S. Pauls Episcopall authority was only transient he had no Episcopall Chayre at Rome as S. Peter had and therfore Lorinus sayth that S. Epiphanius called S. Paul Bishop of Rome in no other sense then because he exercised the Episcopall functions there as he might doe in any other place of the world This explication contents you not and therfore you say (h) Pag. 72. marg it is confuted in the next testimony and in the Challenge following but you breake promise for there you nether confute it nor mentioÌ„ it And as for the thing it selfe it is manifest for no man euer sayd that S. Paul had an Episcopall Chayre at Rome as S. Peter had no do S. Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius Optatus S. Augustine S. Epiphanius whome you obiect making catalogues of all the Roman Bishops from S. Peter till their tyme nor any other writers reckon S. Paul as one of them 6. You obiect (i) Pag. 72. that the authority of both is cited in the Popes Breues for confirmation of Papall ordinances that both haue their images ingrauen in the Popes bulls and that in such sort that Paul somtime hath the right hand of Peter as well as other while Peter of Paul You often borrow arguments out of Catholike authors and conceale their answeres This you borrowed out of Bellarmine (k) L. 1. de Poâ—t c. 27. who largely and learnedly answereth giuing three different solutions vnto it To him I remit the Reader Only I will tell you that the wordes which you set down in a different character as of Peterius are not his but your owne for thogh he proue out of Scripture out of a place of Virgil that apud homines among men the right hand is the better and more honorable yet he sayth not that it is so among all people sauing the Persians as you by adding to his words this particle All make him to say for he acknowledgeth and Bellarmine out of
it selfe but one Church gouerneth another as the Metropolitan doth the Suffragans the Roman Church as being the Head and Mother Church ruleth all others of the world Nor is this explication of lesse force becauss he sayth that she gouerneth in the region of the Romans for he sayth it not to limit her gouerment but to expresse the place in which she is seated and from whence she gouerneth all other Churches I conclude therfore that by calling her the Church that gouerneth and not limiting her gouerment to anyone Church or nuÌ„ber of Churches he declareth her to be Head Gouernesse absolutely of all Churches for as S. Bernard speaking of this subiect sayth (m) L. 2. de consider at Where there is no limitation nothing is excepted And in this sense Theodoret long before had said (n) Ep. ad Leon. The Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the whole world This to be the genume sense of S. Ignatius his words Casaubon and you peraduenture did see and therfore to giue an expedite solution you reiect the whole Epistle saying (o) Pag. 100. marg No man skilfull in Greeke would belieue it to be written by S. â—gnatius But this solution is exploded by Euscbius (p) L. 3. hist. c. 30. and S. Hierome (q) L. de Scriptor who might be Casaubons and your Maysters in Greeke and yet affirme S. Ignatius to be the Author of this Epistle and transcribe a part therof yeÌ„t to be found in it as also doth S. Irenaeus (r) L. 4. aduers haeres apud Baron anno 109. to shew the admirable spirit and feruor of that holy Bishop Hauing proposed these arguments of Casaubon you obiect out of your owne obseruations (s) Pag. 100. that S. Ignatius exhorting the Trallians vnto obedience to Bishops instanceth equally in Timothy S. Pauls scholler as in Anacletus Successor to S. Peter Answere You may by the like argument proue that S. Ignatius equalleth Priests in authority with Bishops for exhorting the Trallians to obedience he instanceth as well in Priests as in the Bishop Obey sayth he (*) Ep. ad Trallianos the Bishop the Priests Who then seeth not your argument to be a childish Sophisme SECT VI. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church I Renaeus say you (t) Pag. 100. for direction in the right of Traditions referreth as well to Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna as to Linus Bishop of Rome Tertullian also to secure Christians in the Doctrine of the Apostles prescribeth vnto them that they consult with the Mother Churches immediatly founded by the Apostles naming as well Ephesus in Asia and Corinth in Achaia as Rome in Italy and for the persons mentioning as well Polycarpe ordayned by S. Iohn as Clemens by Peter The like argumeÌ„t you make out of Vincentius Lyrinensis But all of them imposterously and against your selfe And first to begin with S. Irenaeus these words Discite ab Apostolicis Ecclesijs Habetis Romae Linum which you alleage as of S. Irenaeus (u) L. 2. c. 3. I find not in him It is true that both he and Tertullian teaching the Christians of their tyme to auoyd heresy warned them that the true fayth was to be learned from the Apostolicall Churches that is from the Churches founded by the Apostles themselues or by Apostolicall men as Timothy Polycarpe and other their disciples that preached the same fayth they learned from the Apostles their Maysters But withall they taught them that the chiefe Church they were to adhere vnto and by whose authority they were to confound all Heretikes was the Roman Church All men sayth S. Irenaeus (x) L. 3. c. 3. may behold the tradition of the Apostles that is the fayth deliuered by them to their Successors in euery Church if they be desirous to heare the truth and we can number the Bishops that were made by the Apostles in Churches and their Successors euen vnto vs who neither taught nor knew any such thinge as rauing heretikes do broach c. But because it were a long businesse to number the Successions of all Churches we declare the tradition of the most great most ancient and most knowne Church founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which tradition and fayth it hath from the Apostles coÌ„ming to vs by Succession of Bishops and thereby we confound all them that any way ether by euill complacence of themselues or vaine-glory or blindnesse or ill opinion do gather otherwise then they ought Lo here how Catholikes in S. Irenaeus tyme did confound all heretikes by the fayth of the Roman Church and by the Succession of Bishops in that See And he yeldeth the reason saying (y) Ibid. for to this Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality all Churches must necessarily agree that is to say all the faythfull of what place soeuer in which Church the tradition and fayth of the Apostles hath bene alwayes conserued And in confirmation of this he reckoneth by name all the Popes from S. Peter to Eleutherius who at that tyme gouerned the Church (z) Ibid. And by that orderly and neuer-interrupted Succession he proueth the Roman Church to haue conserued vnto his daies the fayth pure and entyre as it was preached by the Apostles By this Succession that Doctrine and truth which the Apostles preached in the Church hath come to vs And this is a demonstration conuicing that it is one and the same quickening fayth which from the Apostles tyme vntill this day is conserued and delinered in truth And againe relating to this place and speaking of the same Succession of Bishops in the Roman Church which he calleth the principall Succession he declareth all those that withdraw themselues from it to be Schismatikes or heretikes They that are in the Church sayth he (a) L. 4. c. 41. ought to obey those Priests which haue their Succession from the Apostles which togeather with the Succession of their Bishoprikes haue receaued the assured grace of truth according to the good will of the heauenly Father And we ought to hold suspected all others that withdraw themselues from the like Principall Succession and ioyne togeather in some other place We ought I say to hold them as heretikes of a peruerse iudgment or as Schismatikes and selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes or els as Hypocrites that worke for lucre and vaine-glory If then S. Irenaeus in his dayes thought it an argument sufficient to conuince all Heretikes that they had fallen from the true fayth preached by the Apostles because they had fallen from the Succession of Bishops in Peters See to which all the Churches and faythfull of the world must necessarly agree how much more conuincing is the same Argument against Protestants to whom we shew not the Succession of twelue Popes in S. Peters See as S. Irenaeus did to the heretikes of his tyme but almost of 240. You were not ignorant of the force
Apostles And wheras you (r) Pag. 131. appeale to our consciences and bid vs in all our reading shew vnto you if we can that Polycrates and other Asian Bishops so excommunicated by Pope Victor were held by any other Catholike Bishops of those tymes to be therby without the state of saluation we contrarily appeale to the conscience of any christian man whether it be not damnable doctrine to mantaine as you do that these Qartadeciman heretikes after they knew themselues to be excommunicated by the Pope and anathematized by so many Councels if they repented not but persisted obstinatly in the defence of their heresy cold be in state of saluation And lastly wheras you add (s) Pag. 131. that wee full well know that S. Hierome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiasticall writers numbred Polycrates among those who did aduance the Catholike fayth we know that you speake ignorantly and vntruly for S. Hierome in that his Catalogue doth not only number Catholikes but also diuers heretikes that writ of Ecclesiasticall affaires as Eusebius Caesariensis whome the same S. Hierome (t) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. cals The ring-leader of the Arians And so likewise he numbreth Nouatianus Donatus and Photinus whom in that very Catalogue he acknowledgeth not only to be heretikes but authors and propagators of seuerall heresies And in no other condition doth he number Polycrates whom he commendeth not for aduancing the Catholike fayth as you affirme but hauing set downe a piece of his epistle written to Pope Victor in defence of his error sayth He reports it to shew the wit and authority of the man where by authority he vnderstands not authority of right but of fact that is the credit which Polycrates had among the Quartadecimans CHAP. XXIV Doctor Morton in opposition to the Roman Church defendeth the Hereticall Doctrine of Rebaptization FIRMILIANVS B. of Caesarea in Cappadocia with other Asian Bishops out of their great hatred to heresy decreed in their Councells of Iconium Synnada that Baptisme giuen by Heretikes was inualid and therfore that Heretikes returning to the Catholike Church were to be baptized a new This Doctrine from Asia crept into Africa and Agrippinus B. of Carthage hauing layd the first grounds therof Cyprian with other African Bishops afterwards imbraced the same so far that for the authorizing therof they assembled a Councell of 80. Bishops at Carthage All which notwithstanding that doctrine as being contrary to the tradition and practise of the Catholike Church was forbidden by Stephen then Pope of Rome in these words Nihil innouetur sed seruetur quod traditum est Let no innouation be made but that obserued which hath come by tradition Firmilianus with other Bishops of Asia notwithstanding this prohibition persisted still in their error and were for that cause excommunicated by Stephen Wherat Firmilianus storming in his fury spued out reprochfull and contumelious words against him But Cyprian although he defended the same error yet not as a doctrine of fayth nor condemning the contrary nor censuring the Pope or the rest that defended it as any way guilty of Heresy for as S. Augustine writing against the Donatists and excusing Cyprian (u) L. 2. de Bapt. t. 18. l. 2. c. 4. sayth If he held that opinion it was before it was condemned by a a generall Councell to which he would most easily haue submitted his iudgment if any such had bene held in his tyme. And moreouer if he held it it was with so great temper that as both he himselfe (x) Ep. ad Iuba in Conc. Carthag and S. Augustine (y) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18. 19. l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9 alibisaepe for him testifieth for the defence therof he neuer forsooke the communion of the Roman Church but as S. Peter dissented from S. Paul concerning the circumcision of Gentils newly conuerted and yet both of them still remayned in Catholike vnity and peace so likewise though Cyprian touching rebaptization differed in opinion from Stephen yet he still remayned in communion with him And therfore when the Donatists defended their heresy by the authority of Cyprian and his Councell S. Augustine answeared (h) Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 32. l. 2. c. 31. alibi saepe that Cyprians patronage could not auaile them because they were out of the communion of the Roman Church in which Cyprian liued and dyed This is the controuersy as it passed betweene Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and Stephen Pope briefly related And you in obiecting it against the Popes authority shew impiety folly and falshood Impiety 1. In taking part with Firmilianus Cyprian in their opposition to Pope Stephen and approuing their doctrine which you know to be erroneous that soone after being condemned by a generall Councell it hath euer since bene held for an absolute heresy not only by Catholikes but also by Protestants And doth not S. Augustine say (i) L. 2. de Bapt. c. 2. that albeit Cyprian Bishop Martyr were a man of great fame and merit yet not of greater then Peter the Apostle and Martyr in whom the principality of the See Apostolike was so eminent which sheweth that Cyprian ought to haue borne respect to Stephen Pope sitting in the See inuested in the authority of Peter Prince of the Apostles And doth he not shew (l) L. 2. Cont. Crescon c. 32. that Cyprian erred herein and that the Epistles which he writ of this subiect are of no force because the contrary was decreed by the authority of the whole Church which is to be preferred before the authority of Cyprian or of any one man whatsoeuer And doth he not (m) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 23. seqq learnedly confute the Epistle which Cyprian writ to Pompeius in defence of his error And wheras you to iustify Cyprian obiect (n) Pag. 134. that he gathered a Councell of 87. Bishops which concluded contrary to the Pope and his Councell celebrated in Italy you know that S. Augustine doubted (o) L. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. whether any such Councell were euer held and if it were whether the greater part of the Votes were not against Cyprian because the Donatists could reckon but 50. Asian and 70. African Bishops that adhered to Firmilianus and Cyprian (p) S. Aug. cont Crescon l. 3. c. 3. wheras many thousands held with Stephen Pope against them And the same S. Augustine (q) L. 6. de Bapt. per tot answeareth and confuteth seuerally euery one of the verdictes of the Bishops which were said to be giuen in that Councell assembled by Cyprian 2. You cannot be excused from impiety in obiecting (r) Pag. 137. against the Popes authority the words which Firmilianus and Cyprian in their passion let slip from their mouthes against Stephen for S. Augustine (s) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 25. held them vnworthy to be mentioned and couered them with this excuse The things which
interuene that could not without much difficulty passe the seas for the debility of sexe or of age or other impediments In regard wherof they requested the Pope not to be facill in admitting appeales of that nature 2. You obiect (z) Pag. 146.151 If it were granted that the Canons for appeales were to be found in the Councell of Sardica yet the Popes Monarchy would stil stand vpon but humane authority for the grant of appeales made in that Synod to Iulius Pope was but vpon fauor not vpon duty not an old custome but a new constitution If it please you say they so much to honor the memory of Peter let vs write to Iulius B. of Rome c. And againe If you all be pleased c. From these words you inferre that the graÌ„t of appeales to Rome is no more but ad placitum and that if the Pope for his pretension could haue drawne a two edged sword ex iure diuino he would not haue fought with this wodden dagger of humane Constitution This wodden Argument you thinke to be of such moment that for want of better you repeate it afterwards againe (a) Pag. 302.303 Your reasoÌ„ I know not for the very words which you obiect shew that the Councell of Sardica did not ground appeales to Rome vpon humane Constitution but vpon diuine right for what is it to honor in the Pope the memory of Peter but to acknowledge him to be S. Peters Successor and consequently Head of the Church And therfore what in their Canon they expresse in these words That we may honor the memory of Peter let it be written to Iulius B. of Rome c. they declare in their Epistle to the same Iulius saying It is very good and fit that from all Prouinces the Bishops haue reference to their head that is to the See of the Apostle Peter Wherfore as the dignity of Head of the Church had belonged to the See of S. Peter from all antiquity by diuine institution as the African Fathers in the Councel of Mileuis haue declared (b) Aug. ep 92. professing the Popes authority to be taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures so likewise had the right of Appeales implicitly conteined in that dignity And on this right was grounded the custome of appealing to Rome from all antiquity as it appeareth out of the Epistle of Iulius Pope (c) Apud Athan. Apolog 2. written to the Arians before the Councell of Sardica Are you ignorant sayth he that the custome is that we be first written to that from hence may proceed the iust decision of things and therfore if there were any suspicion conceaued against the Bishops there you should haue written to vs. And by this right it is that Athanasius Paul and other Bishops of the East being driuen from their seates by the Arians appealed to Iulius Pope before the Councell of Sardica and he restored to each of them their Churches by the prerogatiue of his See and because the charge of all belonged to him (d) Socra l. 2. c. 12. Sozom. l. â— c. 7. Wherfore the Councell of Sardica did not then first institute appeales to Rome as you pretend but only reduce into a written law that which had belonged to the See of Rome by diuine right and had bene formerly practised by custome only And this written Law it is which Osius proposed to be made saying If is please your Charity that we honor the memory of Peter c. In which sense Nicolas the first truly said (e) Ep. ad Michael Imper. The priuiledges of the Roman See were giuen by Christ our Lord celebrated and honored by the Councels but not giuen by them And before him Gelasius an African and scholler to S. Augustine with a Councell of 70. Bishops (f) In Decret de Apocryph Scriptur The holy Roman Church hath not bene preferred before others by any constitutions of Synods but hath obtained the primacy by the voyce of our Lord and Sauiour in the Ghospell saying Thou art Peter c. And the same truth had bene professed long before that tyme by Iulius Pope in his first Epistle to the Easterne Bishops in the cause of Athanasius (g) Extat apud Bin. to 1. pag. 399. Nor is it new for a Councell to make a written decree for the presetuation and obseruance of that which formerly had bene practised in the Church by custome only why els did the first Councell of Constantinople speaking of the ordination of Bishops by their Metropolitans say (h) Apud Theodoreâ— l. 5. hist c. 9. It is as you know a law both grounded on custome and on the decision of the Councell of Nice The example of a King wherwith you conclude this point is against your selfe for although she dignity of a King include a supreme right of appeales to be made vnto him yet it is no derogation to his Royall dignity to haue a written law enacted in Parliament for the preseruation of that right against all such as shall either iniustly deny the same or at least shall thinke the practise of them to be inconuenient 3. You say (i) Pag. 146. Antiquity hath denied that any Canon for appeales was to be found in the Councell of Sardica This is an vntruth sufficiently refuted by what hath bene said (k) Sect. 2. 3. and by your owne Confession pretending that the right of Appeales is not by diuine institution but by humane because the decree which the Councell of Sardica made in fauor of them was a humane constitution But that you may not seeme â—o speake without ground you falsify Salmeron (l) Pag. 147. He speaking of the reseruation of cases in the inward court of conscience that is in the Sacrament of pennance sayth (m) In 1. part 5. disp 8. In S. Cyprians tyme non erant casus peculiares conscientiae ipsi Pontifici reseruati No peculiar cases of conscience were reserued to the Pope You to make him speake of the contentions Court to deny that any Appeales were anciently reserued to the Pope peruert his words thus Tempore Cypriani non erant casus peculiares reseruati conscientiae Pontificis In the tyme of Cyprian there were no peculiar cases reserued to the conscience of the Pope or as you english In the dayes of S. Cyprian there was no reseruation of any such cases namely of appeales in vse for of them you speake Answere now Is it all one to say non erant casus peculiares conscientiae ipsi Pontifici reseruati as Salmeron sayth to say non erant casus peculiares reseruati conscientiae Pontificis as you say No there cannot be a more wilfull falsification For 1. you misplace Salmerons words 2. You turne Pontifici into Pontificis And 3 you put conscientiae into the construction of the datiue case which Salmeron hath in the genitiue How can this iuggling be excused 4. You say (n) Pag. 144. The African
Capella your fellow-Nouellist sayth (q) Pag. 225. The Imperiall Rescript is either forged by some Gnatho of Pope Leo or els forced from the Emperor by the importanity of Leo himself Good God! If the asseueration of a faythlesse man vttered merely vpon splene and hatred to the See Apostolike may be belieued what may not be called in question what though neuer so false may not be desended what neuer so true may not be denied Your answeare that when all is done this Rescript is but a humane Constitution cannot auaile you for Valentinian performing the duty of a godly Emperor made this humane Constitution to defend and mantaine that authority which by diuine institution was giuen to S. Peter and his successors and which witnesse the Councell of Mileuis (r) Aug. Ep. 91. is taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures But you say (s) Pag. 225. Hilary notwithstanding the displeasure of Pope Leo was worthy for singular sanctity to be registred in the Roman Martyrologe of Saints True King Dauid also is a Saint but not for his adultery committed with Bethsabee nor for his murthering of Vrias He is a Saint for his vertuous life before and his great pennance after the committing of those siunes So like wise Hilary is a glorious Saint canonized not for transgressing the limits of his iurisdiction but sayth Baronius (t) Anno 445. for his zeale in the Catholike fayth for his great labors against the Pelagians for his pious liberality to the poore other his excellent vertues and finally because though for a tyme defending as he supposed the right of his See he exceeded the limits of his iurisdiction yet that serued him for a spurre to returne to himselfe with greater courage feruor and humility And I cannot but maruaile at your sharpe sight that in this history can espy any thing to argue in S. Hilary disobedience to the Pope of Rome Was his entrenching vpon the priuiledges of other Bishops done to oppose his authority No. It was as he supposed to defend the rights of his owne Church When he was cōplained of to the Pope did he deny his authority Nay did he not of his owne accord goe to Rome to giue account of his proceedings to him as to his lawfull Superior And when he was conuinced of his error did he shew himselfe refractary Did he not presently returne to Arles desisting from his claime neuer so much as once opening his mouth to make any the least complaint against Leo If therfore a mist of hatred to the See Apostolike had not obscured your eyes you would haue seene that as this history of S. Hilary doth no way infringe but many wayes confirme the authority of the Pope so it doth also shew your inconsideration who to disgrace S. Hilary report his offence but conceale his repentance yea deny it that so he may seeme to haue died impenitent because that fitteth your purpose and suiteth best with your spirit which whether it be good let the reader iudge for what spirit can that be which teacheth you to publish the imperfections of the Saints and deny their vertues CHAP. XXXV Of Titles attributed to the Pope THE Titles giuen to Popes by the ancient Fathers and Councells shew that their vniuersall iurisdiction was belieued acknowledged in the primitiue tymes of the Church Concerning the titles giuen them by Councels you say nothing but what hath bene already answeared One only testimony you adde here (u) Pag. 237. of the Coūcell of Constantinople vnder Menas calling not only the Pope but also Menas Patriarke of Constantinople Oecumenicall Patriarke (x) Act. 5. that is to say Vniuersall True but that Title was neuer giuen to him nor to any other Patriarke of Constantinople in the West but in the East only and that not in regard of any vniuersall iurisdiction which those Patriarkes had equall with the Pope but vnder the Pope and in respect of the Patriarkes of the East only as hath bene proued (y) See aboue Chap. 19. sect 4. And the same appeares out of the seauenth Law of the Code where Iustinian calls Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople Oecumenicall Patriarke and yet in the same Law he calls the Pope Head of all the holy Prelates of God And Constantine Pogonate in the sixt Councell (z) Ep. ad Synod Apost in 6. Syn. Act. 18. intitles the Pope Vniuersall Arch-Pastor and Protothrone of all Patriarkes and the rest of the Patriarkes Synthrones to the Pope The testimony of S. Gregory Nazianzen which here you obiect (a) Pag. 236. as aboue also you had done (b) Pag. 140. is borowed out of Salmeron whose discourse whoeuer pleaseth to read will soone find your dealing to be imposterous and that you curtall Nazianzens words to your owne aduaritage leauing out the later part of them The Titles attributed by ancient Fathers to the Pope you seeke to elude by parallells of equall titles giuen to other Bishops But in vaine 1. For albeit some of the titles which anciently were are still giuen to the Pope if you regard the sound of the words only may haue bene giuen in some occasion to other Bishops yet you proue them not to parallell the Popes titles vnlesse you can shew that they were giuen to any other Bishop in the same sense in which they haue bene alwaies giuen to the Pope Christ said of himselfe (c) Ioan. 9.6 I am the light of the world And the same title he gaue to his Apostles saying to them (d) Math. 5.14 You are the light of the world Againe he is called a Rock (e) 1. Cor. 10.4 the same title he gaue to S. Peter (f) Math. 16.18 Loe here parallells like to yours Behold the same titles in words giuen to Christ and his Apostles But doth this proue that the titles of Rock and Light of the world do equally and in the same sense agree to Christ and his Apostles Do they import the same excellency and dignity in the Apostles that they do in Christ No therfore your disprouing the Popes supremacy by parallelles of titles like in words giuen to the Pope and to other Bishops is mere sophistry for as the titles of Rock and Light of the world if you regard the sense import a far greater dignity in Christ then in his Apostles so like wise though some titles giuen to the Pope and to other Bishops may be equiualent in words yet not in sense for they importe a far greater dignity in the Pope then in any other Bishop The title of Pastor may be giuen to other Bishops and Priests but in a degree far inferior then to the Pope He is called The chiefe Pastor Prince of Pastors Vniuersall Arch-Pastor Pastor of all the sheepe for which Christ shed his bloud Pastor that feeds the flock of Christ committed to him throughout the whole world Pastor of our Lords flock and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church
thing vncertaine Many thinke it to be of Damasus and his you will haue it to be But the contrary is manifest for the epistle speaketh of Bonosus an Arch-heretike who had bene condemned by Iudges appointed in thē Councell of Capua which was not held in time of Damasus but of Siricius successor to Damasus It is therefore euident that the request of Bouosus which you obiect out of this epistle to haue his cause heard againe could not be to Damasus his first condemnation being not vntill after Damasus his death When you can shew this epistle to be of Damasus you shall receaue an answeare which it were easy to giue you now if I listed to spend time in refuting your tedious discourse of racking the verbe Competit to a strict sense and which not one but many wayes is deficient as all your arguments for the most part are Your addition (e) Pag. 318. marg l. that if the epistle be not of Damasus it is certainly of some Pope and that all hold it so is affirmed by you gratis and as easely denied by me CHAP. XL. Whether the Easterne Churches be at this day accordant in Communion with Protestants SECT I. The state of the Question THE nine first Sections of your fourtenth Chapter you spend in prouing that the Grecians Aegyptians Aethiopians Assyrians Armenians Russians Melchites and other remote nations at this day dissent from the Roman Church and are accordant in Communion with Protestants The foundation of your whole discourse you lay in these words (f) Pag. 330. Whatsoeuer Christians haue not ruinated any fundamental article of sauing fayth set downe in our ancient Creeds and are vnited vnto the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus our Lord by a liuing fayth all Protestants esteeme them as true members of the Catholike Church and notwithstanding diuers their more tolerable errors and superstitions to be in state of saluation albeit no way subiect or subordinate to the Roman Church These are your words which containe in themselues open implication namely that one may be vnited to the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus by a liuing fayth and be in state of saluation and yet be out of the Catholike Church which to be none els but the Roman and that out of her there is no saluation hath bene already proued (g) Chap. 1. sect 2.3.4 From this false principle you deduce that the Grecians Asians Aegyptians Assyrians Aethiopians Africans Melchites Russians and Armenians notwithstanding their separation from the Roman Church are at this day truly professed Christian Churches (h) Pag. 379. partes of the Catholike Church (i) Pag. 406. fin 407. init faythfull Christians professing the fayth of the ancient Fathers (k) Pag. 417. in state of saluation and raile bitterly at the Church of Rome for denying the same But how great ignorance and impiety you shew and how many most shamefull vntruthes you vtter in the prosecution of this Argument it is easy to declare Some of them I shall present to the Readers view And to proceed methodically I will reduce what I am to say to two heades 1. I will proue that as the Christians of these remote nations anciently were so many of them at this day are accordant in beliefe and communion with the Roman Church yeild obedience to the Pope as to the Vicar of Christ on earth and as to the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church 2. That the inhabitants of these nations which are not Roman Catholikes are not of one beliefe or Communion with Protestants but wholly dissent from them holding most blasphemous and damnable heresies acknowledged for such by Protestants themselues From whence it will follow that you affirming them to be faythfull Christians of the same beliefe with the ancient Fathers charge the ancient Fathers with blasphemous heresies and make them incapable of saluation SECT II. Whether the Grecians of the primitiue and successiue times agreed in fayth and Communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome and particularly at the Councell of Florence THat the Greekes in the first Councell of Constantinople and afterwards in that of Calcedon endeauored to giue to their Patriarke of Constantinople the second place of dignity in the Church next after the Pope and before the other Patriarkes we acknowledge But that they sought therby to exempt themselues from their obedience and subiection to the Pope hath bene effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 5. Chap. 19. sect 4. I speake not this to deny that anciently there were of the Grecians many Heretikes which opposed the Roman Church and by her authority were condemned and that eight Patriarkes of Constantinople in particular as also Eutyches an Arch-heretike of the same City were anathematized and east out of the Church for heresy And wheras the Westerne Church by the example and diligence of the Bishops of Rome was preserued from heresy the Churches of the East new heresies daily springing vp were so pitifully torne and ten in peeces that S. Hierome complaining therof to Pope Damasus said (m) Ep. 57. Because the East striking against it selfe by the ancient fury of the people teares in litle morsells the vndeuided coate of our Lord wouen on high and that the foxes destroy the vine of Christ in such sorte that it is difficult among the drie pits that haue no water to discerne where the sealed fountaine and the inclosed garden is I haue therfore thought that I ought to consult with the Chaire of Peter and the fayth praised by the mouth of the Apostle This was the miserable state of the Easterne Churches in those dayes being gouerned somtimes by Catholike Bishops that acknowledged subiection to the Church of Rome and somtimes by Heretikes that opposed her authority vntill at length Photius hauing iniustly driuen Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople from his See and intruded himselfe into his place and being for that cause often excommunicated by Nicolas the first and Iohn the eight Popes of Rome to mantaine his iniust title withdrew himselfe from their obedience and to the end he might haue some colour to perseuer in that separation cauilled at the doctrine of the Roman Church which teacheth that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Sonne and writ against it And the Greekes following him in this error separated themselues from the Communion of the Roman man Church Yet not so but that they haue often eleauen times sayth S. Antoninus (n) Hist. par 2. tit 22. c. 23. acknowledged their error and reconciled themselues to her and especially thrice in most solemne manner in three seuerall Councells of Barium in Apulia of Lions in France and of Florence in Tuscany but still returning to their error against the holy Ghost and disobedience to the Church of Rome as dogs to their vomit Almighty God punished them with a heauy hand deliuering them vp to a miserable captiuity seruitude vnder the Turke And that they might know the
S. Peter Head of the Apostles to the end that all being subiect to one occasion of schisme among them might be taken away This passage you alleaged out of S. Hierome in your laâ—e Sermon preached at Durham before his Maiesty (s) Pag. 42. to proue the necessity of Bishops against the Scots A Bishop then is necessary to appease the contentions that may happen among your Ministers But contentions and strifes may also arise among Bishops An Archbishop therfore is necessary to quiet them But they may likewise arise betweene Archbishops as they did betweene Theophilus Chrysostome Flauianus and Dioscorus Cyril and Nestorius who shall end them If you say a generall Councell who shall summon that Councell Not a temporall Prince for no one hath power ouer all nations from whence the Bishops are to be called besides that temporall Princes are often at variance among themselues And when a generall Councell is called what if the Bishops agree not or decline from the truth as in the Councel of Ariminum the second of Ephesus they did Who shall compose their differences and iudge their causes vnlesse some one Head of the whole Church be appointed by Christ whose iudgement is infallible and to whose censure all are bound to submit Wherfore the Puritans argument propounded by M. Cartwright (t) Second Reply part 1. pag. 58â— concludeth euidently against you that This point of keeping peace in the Church is one of those which requireth aswell a Pope ouer all Archbishops as one Archbishop ouer all Bishops in a Realme From this vnity of the Head the Church of Christ vniuersally spread ouer the earth takes her vnity Euen as there are sayth S. Cyprian (u) De vnit Eccles many beames of the sunne and one light many bowes of one tree and yet one strength founded in one roote and many brookes flowing from one fountaine a vnity therof conserued in the spring euen so the Church of our Lord casting forth her light displaieth her beames euery where throughout the world and yet her light is one she extends her bowes ouer the whole earth and spreads her flowing riuers farre and neere and yet there is one Head one beginning and one fruitfull and plentifull Mother And lest you might answeare that this one Head of the whole Church mentioned by S. Cyprian is none other but Christ he declareth himselfe saying (x) Ibid. Our Lord to manifest vnity hath constituted one chaire ordained by his authority that vnity should haue beginning from one And explicating who this one is he sayth (y) Ibid. Vpon Peter being one he buildeth his Church and to him commendeth his sheepe to be fed c. The primacy is giuen to Peter that the Church may be shewed to be one And therefore he cals the Chaire of Peter (z) Ep. 55. The principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity proceedeth S. Augustine (a) L. de pastor c. 13. Our Lord committed his sheepe to Peter to commend vnity in him There were many Apostles and to one it is sayd feede my sheepe S. Leo (b) Serm. 3. de assump sua Peter being one is chosen out of the whole world to be constitated ouer the vocation of all nations ouer all the Apostles and all the Fathers of the Church to the end that although there be many Priests and many Pastors in the people of God yet Peter may peculiarly gouerne them all whom Christ also principally ruleth And S. Bernard speaking to Eugenius Pope (c) L. 2. de consider Thou being one art Pastor not only of the sheepe but of all Pastors c. Christ committed all his sheep to one to commend vnity in one flock and in one shepheard Where there is vnity there is perfection If therfore Christ committed his whole flock to Peter being one if one Head among twelue Apostles were necessary to take away occasions of Schisme among them their number being but small how much more necessary was it that for the same cause the whole Church which by reason of the multitude of Bishops and people is more liable to schisme should be gouerned by one Head Who although he be a weake man Christ praying for him (d) Luc. 22.32 hath secured vs that his fayth shall not faile and to the end he may confirme all his brethren hath placed him (e) Aug. ep 166. in the chaire of Vnity in which euen ill men are enforced to speake good things And though he be but one yet he is assisted by other Bishops as his Coadiutors and they by inferion Pastors that so the Bishops watching ouer the inferior Pastors and the supreme Pastor ouer the Bishops the gouerment of the Church labor therof might be diuided among many and yet chiefly committed to one to whom the rest were to haue recourse as the Apostles had to Peter Among the most Blessed Apostles sayth S. Leo (f) Ep. 84. there was in the likenesse of honor a difference of power And although the election of them all was alike yet it was granted to one that he should be aboue the rest in authority from which modell the distinction of Bishops hath proceeded with great prouidence it hath bene ordained that all should not claime all things to themselues but that in seuerall Prouinces there should be seuerall Bishops whose sentence should hold the first ranck among their brethren and againe that others constituted in the greater cities should haue a more ample charge and that by them the gouerment of the vniuersall Church might flow to the seat of Peter and that none might euer dissent from their Head This was the doctrine of that renowned Father and the same hath bene the beliefe of all Orthodoxe Christians And you that oppose it by telling vs a tale of a wrens head placed vpon the sholders of a man shew your selfe not to vnderstand the things of God (g) Math. 16.13 but to measure them by your shallow capacity not considering that according to his promise the supreme Pastor to whom he hath committed the charge of his flock is gouerned by the holy Ghost in his consultations of fayth and that as without his assistance no multitude of Prelates is able to gouerne the whole Church so with his helpe one may performe it as experience teacheth But you obiect (h) Pag 350. 1. That we cannot haue certitude of any B. of Rome because his ordination dependeth vpon the intention of the Ordainer then which what can be more vncertaine This you had obiected before and haue receaued your answere (i) Chap. 5. sect 7. And S. Cyprian (k) L. 4. ep 9. hath told you that to raise such doubts is to doubt of the prouidence of God and to rebell against his ordination 2. You obiect (l) Pag. 350. Iohn the twelth wanting yeares and other conditions necessary for that dignity tooke possession of the Roman Church by intrusion and that therfore in his time the
failing in fayth and confirming his brethren was not personall but belonging to his office and descending with it to his Successors for Peter in his owne person was not to liue till the end of the world and therfore not by himselfe but by his Successors to confirme the faythfull vntill the end of the world The same truth is further proued out of an ancient Treatise intituled A dispute between the Church and the Synagogue written by a learned Author aboue 700. yeares since in which it is said (d) Cap. 19. art 4. Christ seemeth to haue defined that the fayth of the Roman Church shall neuer faile saying to Peter I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth faile not for he foresaw that Peter whose fayth he promised shold neuer faile was to be Bishop of the Roman Church and there to end his lyfe by Martyrdome And what I beseech you are we to thinke him to haue signified to vs but that that Church especially whose Bishop Peter the Head of all Churches after Christ was to be shold alwayes remaine in the confession of one true fayth To these I adde the testimony of Georgius Trapezuntius a learned Grecian who explicating the same words of Christ sayth (*) In illud Ioan. Si eum volo manere c. In them two great Mysteries are plainly expressed the first that only the fayth of Peter his Successors that is to say of the Roman Church shall not fayle The other that the fayth of the rest shall sometimes fayle Wherefore sayth Christ thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren He said Once to shew that the Apostles being confirmed with the grace of the Holy Ghost none of them should erre but that their Successors should for whose confirmation Peter that is to say his Successors are commanded to be conuerted which hath byn effectually performed for the rest of the Churches of the world haue byn often confirmed by the Roman but She neuer by others Finally S. Bernard writing to Pope Innocentius and requiring him to condemne the heresies of Abailardus subscribeth to the same exposition saying (e) Ep. 190. It is fit that all dangers scandals arising in the kingdome of God and chiefly those that concerne fayth should be referred to your Apostleship for I thinke it iust that the ruines of fayth shold be repared there where fayth cannot fayle for that is the prerogatiue of your See for to what other was it euer said I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth faile not and therfore what followeth is required from Peters Successor And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren It is tyme therfore most â—ouing Father that you show your zeale repressing the corruptors of â—ayth Out of these testimonies I inferre against you that whatsoeuer Bellarmine in his Controuersies holdeth to the contrary (f) L. 4. de Pont. c. 3. these words of Christ I haue prayed for thee Peter c. containe no priuiledge of Peter peculiar to his person but a publike prerogatiue belonging to his office and descending to his Successors as Bellarmine in a later worke (g) Apol. c. 14. §. Neque solum expresly declareth And therfore though out of them it cannot be proued but that his Successors in their priuate Doctrine or writing may erre and fall into heresy yet it followeth that they neuer shall nor can erre ex cathedra that is iudicially in their Councels Consistories publike decrees or definitions of fayth made for the whole Church for S. Augustine (h) Epist 16â— truly sayth The heauenly Mayster in the chayre of Vnity hath placed the Doctrine of verity and secured his people that for euill Prelates they forsake not the chayre of holsome Doctrine in which chayre euen they that are ill men are inforced to speake good things There is then in the Church a chayre of holsome Doctrine which is not the chaire in which Christ now sitteth in Heauen for in that there sit no ill men nor any other but himselfe Nor is this Chayre the chayre of euery Bishop for euery Bishop is not inforced to speake truth many haue bene heretikes and inuentors of heresies Wherfore S. Augustine himselfe declareth this chayre of Vnity to be that in which sitteth one Pastor in whom all Pastors of the earth are one I find sayth he (i) L. de Pastor c. 13. all good Pastors in one for surely good Pastors are not wanting but they are in one They that are diuided are many here one is praysed because vnity is commended This one chayre is none els but that of S. Peter There is one chayre sayth S. Cyprian (k) L. 1. ep 8. founded vpon the Rock by the voyce of our Lord. and againe (l) Lib. de Vnit Eccles Christ to manifest vnity constituted one chayre and ordained the originall of this vnity beginning from one giuing the primacy to Peter that so one Church of Christ and one chayre might be manifested c. He that keeps not this vnity doth he thinke himselfe to hold the fayth In the Episcopall chayre sayth Optatus (m) L. 2. contra Parmen was set Peter the Head of all the Apostles to the end that in this only chayre vnity might be preserued to all From this priuiledge obtayned by Christ for S. Peter his chayre it proceedeth that the ancient Fathers haue not doubted to belieue and teach the infallibility of the Roman Church in matters of fayth as also from other grounds of Scripture to be declared hereafter S. Cyprian speaking against the Nouatians sayth (n) L. 1. Ep. 3. They presumed to carry letters from Schismatikes and heretikes to the chayre of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praysed by the mouth of the Apostle and to whom misbeliefe can haue no accesse S. Basil writeth to Damasus Pope (o) Epist. 69. per Sabinum Diac. Surely that which is giuen by our Lord to your Holynesse is worthy of that most excellent voyce which proclamed you Blessed to wit that you may discerne betweene what is counterfeit and what is lawfull and pure and that you may without any diminution preach the fayth of our ancestors S. Ambrose writeth to Siricius Pope (p) L. 10. ep 31. Whom your Holinesse hath condemned know that we also hold them condemned according to your iudgment S. Hierome sayth to Ruffinus (q) L. 1. Apol aduers Ruffin Know thou that the Roman fayth commended by the voyce of the Apostle admitteth no such delusions and that being fensed by S. Pauls authority it cannot be altered though an Angell should teach otherwise S. Augustine writing against the Pelagians and hauing professed that the Bishop of Rome hath from the holy Scriptures authority to declare the true fayth and condemne heresies addeth (r) Epist 157. The Catholike fayth expressed in these words of the Apostolike See is so ancient so grounded so certaine
what the most holy and learned Doctors of Gods Church from tyme to tyme haue done And as out of this passage of S. Paul we shew you that the fayth of the Roman Church was pure in the Apostles tyme so we require of you as S. Augustine (f) L. de vnto Eccles c. 12. 13. did of the Donatists to shew vs out of Scripture that after 600. yeares she was to fall from the true fayth as you pretend her to haue done Let them sayth S. Augustine reade vs this in the Scripture and we yeild but if they reade not this in the Scripture but seeke to persuade it by their contentions wrangling I belieue those things which are read in the holy Scriptures but I belieue not those which are affirmed by vaine heretikes And in requiring this at your hands we require no other prose for the truth of your Protestant Church fayth but what we are able to shew for ours for that the Roman Church cannot erre in sayth I haue already proued (g) Hoc cap. sect 1. 2. out of Scriptures and Fathers which therfore conuince her to be the true Catholike Church in which the spirit of truth dwelleth for euer (h) Ioan. 14.16 And that the Catholike Church the Roman Church are termes conuertible denoting one and the same thing hath also bene proued (i) Aboue Chap. 1. sect 3. But because you seeme to thinke that out of this text of S. Paul it cannot be proued that the fayth which S. Peter deliuered to the Romans is hereditary to the Church of Rome or that the Catholike fayth and the Romen fayth are all one it will not be amisse to let you heare what the ancient Fathers the best interpreters of Scripture haue belieued in this point That holy and renowned Martyr S. Cyprian (k) L. 1. ep 3. out of this text proueth that the Roman Church cannot fall from that fayth which she once receaued They to wit the Nouatian heretikes hauing set vp a false Bishop presume to carry letters from Schismatikes and heretikes to the chayre of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praysed by the mouth of the Apostle and to whom vnfaithfulnes can haue no accesse If vnfaithfulnes can haue no accesse to the RomaÌ„ Church it followeth that she retaineth still the same fayth which was commended by S. Paul and that whosoeuer belieueth at this day as she belieues is free from all error in fayth The same is confirmed by an other testimony of the same Father who writing to Cornelius Pope and diuers of the Romans suffering banishment in the persecution of Decius and praysing their constancy and fayth sayth (l) Ep. 57. It was fore-seene in spirit and prophetically foretold by the Apostle My dearest brethren whiles you are of one hart and one voyce it is the confession of all the Roman Church that fayth hath shined in you which the Apostle praysed He did euen then foresee in spirit this prayse of your vertue and strength of your constancy and by prediction of future things gaue testimony of your desertes and commâ—nding the parents incouraged their Children With S. Cyprian accordeth S. Hierome When sayth he to Demetrias (m) Ep. 8. thou wast litle and the Bishop Anastasius of happy and holy memory gouerned the Roman Church a cruell tempest of heretikes risen out of the Easterne parts attempted to pollute and corrupt the sincerity of that fayth which had bene commended by the mouth of the Apostle but this personage Pope Anastasius rich in a most plentifull pouerty and in an Apostolicall care brake the pestilent head and stopped the hissing mouth of that Hydra And because I feare yea haue heard say that the buds of this most renemous plant do still liuâ— and spring vp in some I thought it my duety to admonish thee in a deuout zeale of Charity that thou keepe fast the fayth of S. Innocentius his sonne and successor in the Apostolicall chayre And writing to Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria (n) Ep. 68. Know that we haue nothing in greater recommendation then to conserue the statutes of Christ and not to transgresse the bounds of our Fathers and alwayes to haue in mynde the Roman fayth praysed by the mouth of the Apostle wherof the Church of Alexandria glories to partake And impugning Ruffinus his errors as being contrary to the Catholike fayth (o) Lib. 1. Apol aduers Ruffin Know thou that the Roman fayth commended by the Apostle receaues not such delusions though an Angell should denounce otherwise then it hath hene once preached it cannot be altered being fensed by Pauls authority If therfore S. Hierome be to be credited the Roman fayth in his tyme was conserued pure as it was preached and cannot be altered as you pretend it to haue bene since that tyme. And therfore as it were speaking to you (p) Ep. 6. ad Pammach Ocean he further sayth Who-euer thou art that auouchest new sects I pray thee haue respect to the Roman eares spare the fayth which was commended by the voyce of the Apostle And to Paula and Eustochium (q) Proem lib Comment in ep ad Galat. Will you know how the Apostle hath noted euery prouince with their proprieties the fayth of the people of Rome is praysed where is so great concourse to Churches and to Martyrs sepulchers c. Not that the Romans haue any other fayth then the rest of the christian Churches but that in them there is more deuotion and simplicity of fayth To which place of S. Hierome the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas alluding sayth (r) In vers 8. cap. 1. ad Rom. The Romans are commended for their fayth because they receaued it easily and perseuered in it constantly from whence it is that to this day are shewed very many signes of their fayth in the visitation of holy places as S. Hierome sayth vpon the Epistle to the Galathians And a litle after The Apostle reioyceth and giueth thankes to God for their fayth not only for their sake but for the profit that followed therof because they being Lords of nations other countreys were moued to belieue by their example for as the Glosse sayth The inferior doth readily what he sees done by his Superior which last words are also of S. Ambrose And S. Augustine speaking of Pelagius the Arch-heretike (s) L. 2. de peccat orig cont Pelag. c. 8. sayth He deceaued the Palestine Councell and therfore seemeth to haue bene absolued there But he was not able to deceaue the Roman Church though be endeauored to do is because the most blessed Pope Zozimus called to minde what opinion Innocentius his predecessor worthy to be imitated had of his proceeding and be considered likewise what iudgment the fayth of the Romans worthy of prayse in our Lord did make of him for he perceaued them with vnited endeauors to
of these testimonies of S. Irenaeus and therfore lest you might seeme to passe them ouer without answere you say (b) Pag. 100. marg fine As for the words Propter Principalitatem they are answered hereafter How are they answered first you bid vs (c) Pag. 253. marg remember that Irenaeus was he which consented with the Asian Bishops that were excommunicated by Pope Victor But wee know this to be an vntruth and wish you to remember that you acknowledge so much contradict your selfe saying (d) Pag. 131. Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops These then are your propositions Irenaus consented with the Asian Bishops Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops Reconcile them 2. Wheras S. Iraeneus sayth (e) L. 3. c. 3. It is necessary that all Churches haue recourse to the Roman Church by reason of her more mighty principality you answere (f) Pag. 253. This might haue bene spoken of the Imperiall power of that City to which the subiects of the Roman Empire were bound to resort for paying of tributes and the Gouernors of Prouinces to yield an account of their offices But the very words of S. Irenaeus shew the falshood of this answeare for he mentioneth not the City but the Church of Rome Ad hanc Ecclesiam c. To this Church sayth he all Churches must of necessity resort Againe they which were to resort to the City of Rome for the discharge of their offices and paymēt of tributes were the subiects of the Roman Empire only But S. Irenaeus tels you that omnes vndique fideles that is All the faythfull and all the Churches not only of the Roman Empire but of all the world are necessarily to repaire to the Church of Rome shewing therby that her authority and command is of larger extent then that of the Roman Empire for as Prosper truly sayd (g) De ingrat c 2. de vocat gent. l. 2. c. 6. Rome the See of Peter is greater by the fortresse of Religion then by the throne of temporall power and being made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world possesseth by religion what she doth not by force of armes 3. You answeare (h) Pag. 253.254 Be it Ecclesiasticall power yet was not the necessity of recourse vnto it absolute and perpetuall but occasionall for that tyme. This is as vntrue as the rest for the necessity of resorting to the Roman Church sayth S. Irenaeus (i) L. 3. c. 3. is by reason of her more mighty principality or which is all one by reason of the great dignity of the See Apostolike which sayth S. Augustine (k) Ep. 162. hath alwaies florished in her and which maketh her the Mother Church of the world And therfore so long as she shall be S. Peters See which shall be till the end of the world so long the necessity of all other Churches resorting to her and agreeing in fayth and communion with her shall still continue SECT VII Tertullian his Iudgment of the Roman Church TErtullian agreeth with S. Irenaeus in pressing against all heretikes the same argument of the neuer interrupted succession of Bishops in the Roman See (l) L. 3. Carm. cont Marcio c. vltimo recknoning all the Popes by name vntill his tyme against Marcion and all heretikes to proue thē to be such It is manifest saith he (m) Praescrip c. 21. that all Doctrine which agreeth with those Mother and originall Churches founded by the Apostles is true and to be held as certayne being that the Churches receaued it from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God and that whatsoeuer is contrary to this is to be accounted false and erroneous And speaking of heretikes (n) Ibid. c. 32. If there be any of them that darevent their Doctrine for Apostolicall let them shew the originall of their Churches let them vnfold the order of their Bishops in such sorte that by a Succession deriued from the beginning they proue their first Bishop to haue bene some one of the Apostoles or of the Apostolicall men that perseuered with the Apostles vnto the end This Tertullian sayth the Smyrnaeans in his dayes could do shewing that Polycarpe their Bishop was placed there by S. Iohn and that the Roman Church could do the like shewing Clement ordeyned by S. Peter And the same she can do at this day shewing that all her Bishops vnto Vrbā the eight which now possesseth that Chayre had S. Peter the Apostle for their predecessor and first Bishop in that See and that from him they can lineally deriue their pedigree wheras no heretikes could euer shew any such descent as Protestants at this day cannot And therefore Tertullian bringeth in the Catholike Church vpbrayding them and all heretikes in this manner (o) Ibid. c. 37. Who in Gods name are you When and from whence came you hither What do you among myne being none of myne By what right O Marcion dost thou cut downe my woods What leaue hast thou O Valantine to turne my streames and fountaynes another way By what authority doest thou remooue my bounds O Apelles O Luther O Caluin O Zuinglius The possession is mine I haue it of old I enioyed it before you I can deriue my pedigree from the very first Authors to whom the thing did properly belong I am the right beyre to the Apostles According to their will and testament according to their trust and charge giuen my Tenure standeth As for you they alwayes disinherited you and reiected you as aliens yea and as enemies In this very manner may Catholikes with great reason vpbrayd you who as you cannot shew any Succession of your Bishops continued from the Apostles so you are therby conuinced not to be their heires but strangers and enemies to them and to the Churches founded by them Againe Tertullian prescribing a rule for you to finde out the true fayth doctrine deliuered by the Apostles saith (p) Ibid. c. 36. Goe to If thou wilt be curiously exact in the affaire of thy saluation repaire to the Apostolicall Churches c. If thou be a neighbour to Italy thou hast Rome from whence we also haue authority O happy Church into which the Apostles powred all their Doctrine togeather with their bloud where Peter is equalled to our Sauiours passion where Paul is crowned with Iohn Baptists lot where Iohn the Apostle being plunged into boyling oyle and yet not hurt therwith was banished into an iland Let vs obserue what this Church hath learned what she hath taught Tertullian was an African a Priest of the Church of Carthage and yet speaking of the Roman Church sayth From whence we that is as Macerus expoundeth all the African Churches or all Catholikes haue authority at hand for our defence Wherfore out of this place of Tertullian Quintinus rightly inferreth that the Roman Church euen from her first foundation had great authority aboue all Churches of the world and
in office Cornelius which if it be beheld in a secular glasse is as if a Vassall should salute his King with All hayle brother Henry take his leaue with Farewell brother Henry Fy fye What will you make of the Fathers will you iudge them so witlesse as not to haue vnderstood their Morals This is your discourse Graue I warrant you and very iudicious but how farre from the purpose haue but a litle patience and you shall heare And first to begin with your secular glasse God in the holy Scripture sayth to his people (x) Deutero 17.15 Thou shalt take a King whom our Lord thy God shall choose out of the number of thy brethren And againe (y) Ibid. vers 20. That the Kings hart be not lifted vp into pride aboue his Brethren Wherfore the subiects of a King are his brethren and yet because the manner of gouerment vsed by Kinges to keep their subiects in awe and represse the Violence of Malefactors is with a Lordly dominion such as our Sauiour discribeth saying (z) Luc. 22.25 The Princes of nations dominier ouer them in the stile of the world he should be esteemed vnmannerly and saucy that should presume to say to his Soueraigne All haile Brother Henry or farewell fellow Henry And therfore S. Gregory speaking of the worldly greatnesse and state of Kings sayth (a) In 1. Reg. l. 4. c. 2. The things which are conteyned in the law that concerneth Kings are foretold to the end they may be auoyded rather then followed And the same is taught vs by the example of our Blessed Sauiour (b) Marc. 10.45 Luc. 2.27 who as he came into the world to serue and not to be serued so he would not haue the Ecclesiasticall Monarchy like to that of Secular Princes but a gentle and brotherly Monarchy as that of an Elder brother ouer his yonger brethren for that is the title which the Apostle giues him calling him (c) Rom. 8.29 The first begotten among many brethren And therfore albe it as he told his Apostles (d) Ioan. 13.23 he was their Lord and Maister yet proposing himselfe vnto them as an example of superiority accompanied with humility and teaching them in what manner they ought to gouerne their inferiors he said vnto them (e) Luc. 22.27 vers 25 2◠I am in the middest of you as one that ministreth the Princes of nations dominier ouer them but you not so but he that is the greater among you let him become as the yonger and he that is the leader as the waiter This rule S. Peter Prince of the Apostles and first B. of Rome obserued according to our Sauiours command and exhorted all Bishops as his inferiors to obserue the same saying (f) 1. Pet. 5.2 3. Feed the flock of God which is among you prouiding not with constraint but willingly according to God nor dominiering in the Clergy but made examples of the flock from the hart And out of this paterne of sweet and brotherly gouerment vsed by Christ and prescribed by him to his Apostles and by S. Peter to his Successors in the Roman See and to other Bishops the Pope and all other Prelates haue drawne theirs and therfore call and salute ech other by the name of Brethren in so much that S. Gregory speaking of Bishops sayth (g) L. 7. ep 65. When crimes exact it not all Bishops according to the condition of humility are equall And yet to shew that all Bishops are subiect to the Pope he had said immediatly before I know no Bishop but is subiect to the See Apostolike And againe (h) L. 7. op 64. Who doubts but that the Bishop of Constantinople is subiect to the See Apostolike which the most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother Bishop of the same Citty do continually Protest In which words he calleth the B. of Constantinople Brother and yet declareth him subiect to the See Apostolike And in like manner our Sauiour in the Ghospell often calleth the Apostles His brethren (i) Luc. 25.40 cap. 28.10 Ioan. 20.17 from whence you may inferre that he was not Superior to them in authority and it will be as good a consequence as to inferre that the Pope is not Superior in power to other Bishops because he calls them Brethren But for the more full declaration of this it is to be noted that it was a thing familiar to ancient writers to vse the word Brother not to exclude the superiority of iurisdiction but to expresse the vnity of communion For 1. the Catholike Bishops of Africa answeated the Donatists in the Conference of Carthage that Cecilianus who had bene Archbishop of that City and consequently the Head and Superintendent of all the Bishops of Africa was their Brother He was sayth S. Augustine (k) Collect. Carthag Act. 3. our Brother because of the Communion of Sacraments 2. In the same sense he called Aurelius Archbishop of Carthage his Brother (l) De oper Monach. c. 1. notwithstanding that he was the spirituall subiect of Aurelius made B. of Hippo by meanes of the dispensation which he had giuen to Valerius B. of that City to take him for his Coadiutor m and he acknowledged himselfe bound to execute his commands I haue sayth he (m) Possid in vita Aug. c. 8. obeyed your commands my holy Brother Aurelius 3. Epigonius one of the Bishops of the third Councell of Carthage calls the same Aurelius (n) De opere Monach. c. 1. His Brother (o) Conc. Carthag c. 45. whom yet he there acknowledgeth to haue iurisdiction ouer all the Bishops of Africa 4. The Councell of Carthage writing to Innocentius Pope to confirme the sentence of condemnation which both in that and in the Councell of Mileuis had bene pronounced against Pelagius sayth (p) Aug. ep 90. This ô holy Lord and Brother we conceaued we ought to represent to your Charity that to the statuts of mediocrity might be added the authority of the See Apostolike In which words they acknowledge Innocentius to be their Lord and Superior and to haue authority to confirme their decrees yet notwithstanding call him their Brother 5. Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople calls Hormisdas Pope Brother (q) Ep. ad Hormisd and yet protests to obey the See Apostolike in all things 6. Iustinian (r) Cod. tit 1. l 8. writing to Pope Iohn surnamed Mercurius calleth the Patriarke of Constantinople his Brother and yet both in the same Epistle and in another to the Patriarke himselfe (s) Cod. tit 1. l. 7. he professeth the Pope to be The Head of all the holy Prelates of God Hereby it appeareth how ignorantly and falsly you inferre that S. Cyprian equalleth himselfe in authority with Cornelius Pope because he styleth himselfe his Brothrer or that Cornelius acknowledgeth in himselfe no authority ouer Cyprian because he giueth him the same title For besides what hath bene said Erasmus a
were more then maruell if the Church of Rome should admit any Canon that may any way derogate from her presumption This your answere is as if the lower house of Parliament should enact a law against the Kings iust and lawfull authority or at least without his knowledge and the King not admitting therof you should iustify their acte saying a It were more then maruell if the King should admit any acte that may any way derogate from his presumption Were this loyalty Were this good Doctrine Yet such is yours for concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires the Pope hath the same place in a generall Councell that a King hath in his Parliament And as no Statute enacted in Parliament can be of force vnlesse it be confirmed by his Maiesty so no Canon nor decree of a Councell can be of force vnlesse it be confirmed by the Pope SECT VI. That no Canon of any Councell can be of force vntill it be confirmed by the See Apostolike FOr who knoweth not that as Socrates shewing the decrees of the Arian Councell at Antioch to be of no force sayth (h) L. 2. c. 5. Iulius B. of Rome was not there nor sent any in his steed wheras the Ecclesiasticall Canon commandes that no decrees be made for the Churches without the sentence of the B. of Rome Which Doctrine is els where repeated by himselfe (i) L. 2. c. 13. and by Epiphanius Scholasticus in the Tripartite saying (k) L. 4. c. 9. Councells must not be held without the allowance of the B of Rome And by Sozomen (l) L. 3. c. 9. who writes that Iulius rebuked the Arians for that against the lawes of the Church they had not called him to the Synod there being a Sacerdotall law which declareth all Actes to be inualid that are made without the allowance of the B of Rome The reprehension of Iulius which these Historians mention is exstant in his first Epistle to the Orientalls where he sayth The Nicen Canons command that by no meanes Councells be held without the B. of Rome And in his secōd Epistle which S. Athanasius hath inserted into his second Apology speaking to the Arians Are you ignorant that the custome is that if any exceptions were taken against the Bishops there we should first haue bene written to that what is iust might be determined from hence And how ancient this custome is Marcellus the first a holy Pope and Martyr testifieth saying (m) Ep. ad Epise Antioch Prouin The Apostles ordeyned that no Synod should be held without the Authority of the See of Rome Which ordination of the Apostles the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian confirmed by a speciall law in these words (n) Const Nouel Theo. tit 24. We decree that according to the ancient custome nothing be innouated in the Churches without the sentence of the Reuerend Pope of the City of Rome And in like manner Iustinian in his Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (o) Cod. tit 1. l. 7. We preserue the estate of the Vnity of the most holy Churches in all things with the most holy Pope of ancient Rome to whom we haue written the like because we will not haue any thing to passe concerning the affayres of the Church which shall not be also referred to his Blessednesse because he is the Head of all the holy Prelatet of God And in his letter to the Pope (p) Cod. tit 1. l. 8. We wil not suffer that any thing be treated of belonging to the estate of the Church though cleare and manifest which shall not also be referred to your Holynesse who are the Head of all Churches Vpon this ground it was that Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria was accused and by the Popes command punished in the Councell of Chalcedon (q) Act. 1. for that he had temerariously presumed to hold a Synod without the authority of the See Apostolike which neither was nor could euer lawfully be done And Euagrius in the history of the same Councell reportes (r) L. 2. c. 18. that the Senators demanding of Leo's Legates what charge there was against Dioscorus they answered that he must yeld an account of his iudgment because against right he had vsurped the person of a Iudge without the B. of Romes permission Wherupon by the iudgment of the Synod he was commanded as a person guilty to stand vp in the middest of the place and accused of many crimes as the same Narration declareth Againe from this ground it proceeded that as the Fathers of Chalcedon testify (s) Act. 10. in generall Councells the Legates of the See Apostolike were alwayes wont to speake and confirme the decrees made in the first place before all other Bishops And as all those Councells generall and particular which haue required and obtained Confirmation from the See Apostolike haue euer bene held valid and reuerenced throughout the Christian world so contrarily all those that haue wanted this confirmation haue bene reiected and condemned as vnlawfull and spurious assemblies The Councell of Ariminum for number of Bishops was exceeding great and yet for want of this confirmation the profession of fayth made by them in that Councell as also the Councell it selfe haue euer bene reputed inualid The number of Bishops assembled at Ariminum sayth Damasus with many other Bishops (t) Theod. l. 2. c. 22. Sozom. l. 6. c. 23. ought to haue no force of preiudice for as much as that profession of fayth was made without the consent of the B. of Rome whose sentence before others ought to haue bene attended Againe for want of this confirmation the second Councell of Ephesus hath alwayes bene condemned as a piraticall Synod And that famous Martyr Stephanus Iunior speaking of a Councell held by the Image-breakers vnder Constantinus Copronymus answered (u) Apud Damas edit Pacis an 1603. part 2. pag. 491. How can this Councell be called Oecumenical which was not allowed by the B. of Rome without whose authority no Ecclesiasticall decrees can be made In like manner Pelagius predecessor to S. Gregory speaking of Iohn B of Constantinople sayth (x) Ep. 1. That intituling himselfe Vniuersall he presumed to call a general Councell wheras the authority of calling generall Synods hath bene consigned by a singular priuiledge to the Apostolike See of blessed Peter c. And therfore sayth he (y) Ibid. to the Bishops of that Councell all that you haue decreed in that no-Synod of yours for Synod so attempted it could not be but a Conuenticle I ordaine by the authority of blessed Peter that it be annulled and abrogated And S. Gregory speaking of this sentence of Pelagius sayth (z) L. 4. op 38. l. 7. ep 70. Our Predecessor Pelagius of blessed memory hath disanulled by a sentence entirely valid all the actes of that Synod except what concerned the cause of Gregory B. of Antioch Finally to adde more proofes for the confirmation of a truth so certaine were to adde light
charge that hereafter they be not slouthfull but by their cariage shew themselues to haue the zeale and solicitude which becometh Priestes and that they be vigilant in these things which it is fitting for them to do iustly according to God that hereafter no complaints may be made of them And if you finde any of them to be negligent send him to vs without excuse that he may feele by Canonicall punishment how grieuous an offence it is not to amend those thinges which are reprehensible And in the priuiledge which he granted to the Monastery of S. Medardus (c) L. 12. Epistolarum sin alias l. 2. post ep 38. If any King Bishop Iudge or secular person whatsoeuer shall violate the decrees of this Apostolicall and our Command let him be depriued of his honor be he of neuer so high a degree I know that Bellarmine alleaging this decree you tell vs out of Doctor Iames (d) Pag. 179. a man of as much credit as your selfe that it is forged wheras that most holy and learned Pope Gregory the seauenth which liued 600. yeares nearer the tyme of S. Gregory then Doctor Iames and had better meanes to know what writings of his were legitimate and what spurious alleageth it as his vndoubted Epistle And his testimony you disproue no otherwise then by rayling against him whom yet as hereafter I shall shew (e) Chap. 32. sect 3. the Historians of that age and among them the two S. Anselmes of Canterbury and Luca highly extoll for one of the most admirable Prelates that euer sate in the Chayre of S. Peter and whose sanctity God himselfe testified with many most famous miracles But howsoeuer you carpe at this decree of S. Gregory Bellarmine in the same place (f) Cont. Barâ—â—â— c. 40. alleageth another of the same tenor granted by him to an Hospitall built in Austum by Brunichildes Queene Syagrius Bishop of that City which because you know not how to shift of you slily passe ouer without mentioning it notwithstanding S. Gregories authority and command is no lesse effectually expressed in it then in the former I conclude therfore that as this holy Doctor confesseth (g) L. 4. ep â—6 he had learned from the Apostle to cary humility in his hart and yet to preserue the honor and dignity of his place commanding and denouncing punishment to offenders when it was needfull SECT II. The Councell of Ephesus acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the cause of Iohn Patriarke of Antioch HAuing shewed that the Councell of Ephesus deposed Nestorius by the commandment of Pope Celestine and that it was the ancient custome of the best and holiest Popes to Command when the affaire required it let vs goe on with you (h) Pag. 115. to the cause of Iohn Patriarke of Antioch whom the Councell of Ephesus durst not iudge but reserued him to the iudgment of Celestine (i) Conc. Ephes to 4. c. 17. in ep ad Celestin Papam This againe say we sheweth the supreme authority of the Pope You deny it because Those Fathers in the same Epistle report that they had diuested him of all Sacerdotall power and deposed him before they made any relation therof to Celestine Pope False For their words are (k) In eadem ep Moued with the indignity of his proceeding we would haue pronounced against him such a sentence as he had pronounced against those that were not conuicted of any crime But to the end that we might with lenity ouercome his rashnesse we haue reserued his sentence to the iudgment of you Piety and in the meane tyme we haue excommunicated him diuested him of all Sacerdotall power These words euidently conuince against you that those Fathers to gaine Iohn with lenity and hoping that he might be reclaimed as afterwards in the time of Sixtus Pope he was pronounced not any absolute and finall sentence against him according to his deserts but reserued that to Celestine as to his supreme Iudge yet they excommunicated him in the meane time and as they say to the Emperor (l) Ep. ad Theodos to 4. c. 8. tantisper for a while suspended him from the exercise of his Episcopall function that he might not hurt others And the same is gathered out of Celestines Epistle to the Councell (m) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 628. in which he sayth that after their sentence against Iohn diuers things remained to be considered and determined by him And this proceeding of the Ephesine Councell against Iohn was afterwards imitated by the sixth Councell generall in the cause of Macarius another Patriarke of Antioch as the Emperor Constantine Pogonate reportes in these words (n) In 6. Synod Act. 18. Macarius B. of Antioch and his adhereurs haue bene deposed by the consent of the whole Councell and reserued to the discretion of the most holy Pope It is therfore euident that both these Councells acknowledged the giuing of the last and definitiue sentence against those Patriarkes to belong to the Pope which is also confirmed by the words of Iuuenall B. of Hierusalem vttered in presence of the whole Councell of Ephesus (o) To. 4. c. 4. apud Bin. to 1. pag. 794. It is fit said he that Iohn the right reuerend B. of Antioch honoring this great holy and Oecumenicall Councell haue recourse hither to iustify himselfe of what is obiected against him and that he honor and obey the Apostolike throne of great Rome especially since the custome of Apostolike tradition and practise is that the seat of Amioch be perpetually ruled and iudged by that of Rome I appeale to the reader whether these Councells did not acknowledge the supreme power of the B. of Rome in reseruing to him the last sentence in the causes of these two great Patriarkes What then may we thinke of you that haue the boldnesse to out-face so manifest a truth SECT III. Of the ordination of the Bishops of Cyprus treated in the Councell of Ephesus BVt there remaines one which you (p) Pag. 116. call A principall obiection and it is that wheras Reginus Zenon and Euagrius Bishops of Cyprus had by a petition presented to the Councell of Ephesus made complaint of the Patriarke of Antioch (q) To. 2. Append. 1. c. 4. That contrary to the ancient custome practised from the tyme of the Apostles and contrary to the Canons of Nice he had presumed to ordeyne Bishops in that Iland the Councell decreed (r) Ibid. that no Bishop should encroath vpon the liberties of any other nor draw vnder his subiection any Prouince which belonged not to him from the beginning and therfore that if the ancient custome were not for the Bishop of Antioch to ordaine Bishops in Cyprus he should not trouble the Bishops of that Iland but leaue to them the ordination of their owne Bishops This Decree you will haue to exclude the authority of the B. of Rome as well as of any other But your
THAT the seauenth and eight Generall Councells belieued the B. of Rome to be the Head and Gouernor of the Vniuersal Church is a truth not to be denied In the second Action of the seauenth Synod was read and approued the Epistle of Adrian Pope to Tharasius in which speaking of S. Peters See he sayth Whose seate obtayning the primacy shineth throughout the whole world and is the Head of all the Churches of God In the eight Synod the profession which all Schismaticall Bishops returning to the Catholike Church were to make is expressed in these words (f) Apud Bin. to 3. pag. 923. Can. l. 6. c. 6. pag. 200. The begiuning of saluation is to conserue the rule of right fayth and no way to swarue from the tradition of our Fore-fathers because the words of our Lord cannot fayle saying Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it And the proofes of deeds haue made good these words for as much as in the See Apostolike the Catholike religion is alwayes conserued inuiolable We therfore desiring not to be separated from the fayth and doctrine of this Sea and following in all things the constitutions of the Fathers and chiefly of the holy Prelates of the See Apostolike anathematize all heresies c. And a litle after Wherfore following the See Apostolike in all things and obseruing all her constitutions we hope to deserue to liue in one communion which the See Apostolike teacheth in which there is the true and entire solidity of Christian religion we promise likewise not to recite in the sacred mysteries the names of those which are separated from the communion of the Catholike Church that is to say which agree not to the See Apostolike What you thinke Doctor Morton I know not but sure I am that if you who deny the Roman Church to be the Head and gouernesse of all Churches you that liue out of her Communion you that refuse to obey her constitutions you that professe not to follow her doctrine had liued in tyme of the seauenth and eight Synods they would haue anathematized you and condemned your doctrine as hereticall And this is the reason why you conceale these many other passages of those Councells in which the same truth is deliuered and many other points of your Protestant Doctrine condemned SECT II. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the eight Generall Councell IN your eight Chapter in the title of the eight Section you say (g) Pag. 127. The beliefe of the Article Viz. The Catholike Roman Church without subiection wherunto there is no saluation damneth the eight Councell which you call generall consisting of 383. Bishops in the yeare 870. This is your title in proofe wherof you cite Binius (h) Tom. 3. p. 143. in your margent but ignorantly and falsly for the Councell which Binius there setteth downe is not the eight generall held the yeare 870. vnder Basilius the Emperor and Adrian the second Pope of that name but a particular Synod consisting of certaine Greeke Bishops assembled the yeare 692. by the industry of Calinicus Patriarke of Constantinople in the tyme of Sergius Pope Iustinian the yonger in his pallace called Trullum hath neuer bene esteemed a lawfull Councell but alwayes reproued as a false and erraticall assembly as Binius proueth (i) To. 3. pag. 154. 155. and I shall presently declare (k) Sect. seq Againe you say The eight generall Councell consisted of 383 Bishops and giue Binius for your Author But you are mistaken wrong Binius for he (l) Tom. 3. pag. 910. proueth out of Nicetas and Anastasius who was present at the eight Councell that it consisted only of 102. Bishops Nor will it serue you for an excuse that Bellarmine sayth it consisted of 383. Bishops for you bring not him for your author but Binius who affirmeth and proueth the contrary And in what sense Bellarmine speaketh you might haue learned if you had obserued what Binius noteth out of Anastasius namely that many other Bishops agreed to this Synod though they were not present at it But let vs go on What was done say you (m) Pag. 127. in this fourth Synod of Constantinople you may vnderstand from your owne men Here I must request you to call to mind that els where you say (n) Pag. 235. marg lit â— the Councell vnder Menas was the fifth Councel of Constantinople How then can the eight general Councel which you say was held the yeare 870. be the fourth Councell of Constantinople since in this other place alleaged you affirme the Councell vnder Menas held the yeare 553. to be the fifth Councell of Constantinople for therby you ignorantly make the fifth Councell of Constantinople to haue bene held aboue 300. yeare before the fourth SECT III. Whether the eight generall Councell condemned the Saturday fast allowed by the Roman Church YOu tell vs (o) Pag. 1â—7 that we may vnderstand from our Binius that these Bishops of the eight generall Councell condemned a custome of the saboth fast in lent then vsed in the Church of Rome and therupon made they a Canon inhibiting the Church of Rome from keeping that custome any longer And you adde (p) Ibid. This Canon sayth your Surius is not receaued because it reprehendeth the Church of Rome the mother-Church of all other Churches So you And your readers especially of the vulgar sort by this your expression what will they conceaue but that the Roman Church did in those tymes fast the Sundayes in Lent for as by the Saboth day Protestants especially the vulgar vnderstand no other day but Sunday so by the Saboth fast what will they vnderstand but the Sunday fast which was neuer vsed nor allowed in the Roman Church but condemned in the Councell of Gangra as an hereticall obseruation of the Eustathians (q) See Spond anno 319. n. 9. The fast which this Canon inhibiteth is the Saturday fast which as then it was so notwithstanding this Canon is still vsed by the Roman Church in Lent and not prohibited out of Lent Nor was that Canon made by the eight generall CouÌ„cell to whom you ignorantly ascribe it but by the Trullan Synod as Binius and Surius testify whom therfore you abuse in fathering on them your owne ignorant mistake of the Trullan Synod for the eight generall Councell And so much the more because both of them with all Catholike Diuines hold the Trullan Canons to be illegitimate and of no force for as much as no Legates of Sergius then Pope were present at that Synod nor was it assembled by his authority or consent but absolutely reproued and condemned by him notwithstanding the barbarous violence of Soldiers and other meanes vsed by the Empetor to extort a confirmation from him and his successors as Venerable Bede (r) L Dâ— sex aetat in iustinian iuniore who liued at that tyme
him I am And I answere you that this is a friuolous obiection for as Onuphrius hath noted (x) Tract voc obscur Eccles the name of Pope anciently vntill after the tyme of S. Gregory was common to all Bishops of great Cities as of Rome Carthage Alexandria Antioch Hierusalem and the like and you afterwards shewing the futility of your obiection proue the same (y) Pag. 241. Wherfore S. Cyprian acknowledging that the Christians of Africa of whome only both he and the Proconsull spake did call him Their Pope and that he was so did not acknowledge himselfe to be Pope per antonomasiam for in that sense the name of Pope was not then vsed but to be B. of Carthage that is to say the chiefe Father and Primate of all the Christians of Africa How then proueth this that the name of Pope being from the tyme of S. Gregory appropriated to the B. of Rome to signify his supreme authority doth not since that appropriation declare him to be Pope per antonomasiam For words signify ad placitum that which according to the common vse and acception of men they import And finally that the name of Pope when it is applied to the B. of Rome importeth a singular dignity proper to him alone is conuinced by the Epithets which ancient Fathers speaking to him adde to that name as when they call him Vniuersall Pope for so he is styled by the Councell of Cyprus (z) Ep. Synod ad Theodor. Pap. by S. Athanasius and all the Bishops of Aegypt (a) Ep. ad Marc. Pap. CHAP. XXVI The Councells of Carthage and Mileuis acknowledged the supreme Authority of the B. of Rome AGAINST the prerogatiue of appeales to Rome you obiect (b) Pag. 141. the Councell of Mileuis held Anno 402. And yet afterwards you say that the same Councell was held in the yeare 416. and cite Binius as your Author for both Binius speaketh of two different Councells held at Mileuis in those seuerall yeares and vnder different Consuls and you confound them taking them both for one and father your ignorance on Binius And with like ignorance you affirme (c) Ibid. the decree touching appeales to haue bene made by the Councell of Mileuis Anno 402. for the Councell held that yeare was the first of Mileuis in which the decree concerning appeales was not made but in the second Anno 416. 2. You must remember that when Bellarmine in proofe of the Popes vniuersall authority among other arguments produceth examples of African Bishops instituted or deposed by him as also the ancient custome of appealing to him out of Africa you answeare (d) Pag. 289. 304. that the Africans are within the Popes Patriarkeship which you call his Dioces and therfore rather subiect to him then to others If then the Africans were within the Popes Dioces they were subiect to him as to their lawfull Iudge and had right to appeale to him and he to admit their appeales and iudge their causes Wherfore if in the Mileuitan or any other Councell or occasion whatsoeuer the Africans inhibited appeales out of Africa to the Pope their inhibition was an act of disobedience and rebellion against their lawfull Superior and no lesse a crime then if the subiects of a temporall Monarke should forbid appeales to their Soueraigne With what face then can you iustify them therin But the truth is that you slaunder them iniustly for as there is nothing more euident then that the Councell of Carthage and this of Mileuis held in the cause of Pelagius and Celestius did fully acknowledge the supreme authority of the Pope and professed their obedience to him both in words and deeds so there is nothing more certaine then that they denied not his prerogatiue of Appeales without which his authority cannot consist If the African Bishops did not belieue the soueraigne power of the See Apostolike why did S. Cyprian addresse his Councell held in fauor of Rebaptization to Stephen Pope (e) S Hierom. aduers Lucifer And why did the Councell of Carthage held against Pelagius and Celestius send their decrees to Innocentius Pope to be confirmed by his authority saying (*) Aug. ep 92. This our proceeding holy Lord and Brother we conceaued we ought to represent to your Charity that to the statutes of our mediocrity might be added the authority of the See Apostolike for the defence of many mens saluation also for the correction of some mens frowardnesse Nor do they require this of Innocentius by way of charity only but require him as their Pastor to take compassion on them Pastoralibus visceribus with the bowels of mercy which he as their Pastor oweth to them as to his sheep And hauing rehearsed the opinions of Pelagius and Celestius they conclude What other things soeuer are obiected by them we doubt not but that your Reuerence when you haue examined the decrees of the Bishops which are said to be made vpon this occasion in the East will frame such a iudgment wherat we all may reioyce in the mercy of God Innocentius hauing receaued this Epistle praised the Fathers of the Councell (f) Aug. ep 91. that Antiquae traditionis exempla sequentes following the examples of ancient tradition and knowing what is due to the See Apostolike they had sent their decrees to be approued by his iudgment for as much sayth he as we all that sit in this place desire to follow the Apostle himselfe from whom the Episcopall office and the authority of this name hath proceeded the which Apostle we following do now as well know how to condemne euil things as to approue those which are worthy of prayse And then declaring what that is which the ancient tradition hath deliuered he addeth (g) Ibid. The Fathers haue ordeyned not by humane but by diuine sentence that they should not account any thing that is treated in prouinces distant and far of to be ended vntill first it were come to the knowledge of the See Apostolike to the end that the sentence which should be found iust might be confirmed by the authority of the same See and that from thence all other Churches as streames flowing from their Mother source and running with the purity of their originall through the diuers regions of the whole world might take what they ought to ordeyne and what to auoide In like manner the Councell of Mileuis writ to the same Pope as to their Pastor (h) Aug. ep 92. Because our Lord by the guift of his speciall grace hath placed you in the Apostolike See vouchsafe we beseech you to apply your pastorall diligence to the great dangers of the weake members of Christ And S. Augustine who was present at this Councell and Secretary therof writ to Hilary of the same subiect (i) Ep. 94. When I did write these things we knew that a decree had bene made against them Pelagius and Celestius in the Church of Carthage to
Fathers in the end descended to a flat and peremptory resolution in opposition of the Papall claime of appeales This is a flat and peremptory vntruth for the Africans neuer contested with the Pope about appeales in matters of fayth but acknowledged that they ought to referre them to him as appeareth out of the practise of the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis which sent their decrees of fayth to Innocentius Pope to be confirmed by his authority (o) See aboue Chap. 26. Their contestation was about Appeales of the inferior Clergy in ciuill and criminall causes Of them they writ to Zozimus Pope but he being dead before the ariuall of their letters they writ againe to Boniface his Successor acknowledging that they had receaued from him Mandata literas Commandments and letters which what was it else but to professe him to be their Superior And withall they represented to Boniface the great troubles which the late appeales out of Africa to Rome had brought vpon them that therfore great caution ought to be vsed lest other such or worse should happen And because they had not found in their copies of the Nicen Councell those Canons concerning appeales which Zozimus had sent in the instruction of his Legates they required tyme to send into the East for authenticall copies of the Nicen Canons but in the meane tyme they obserued the commandment of Zozimus restoring Apiarius to the communion to his Priesthood Apiarius say they to Boniface (p) Ep ad Bonifac. crauing pardon hath bene restored to the communion And againe (q) Ibid. It hath pleased vs that Apiarius should retire from the Church of Sicca retayning the honor of his degree And in their Epistle to Celestine Apiarius had bene formerly restored to his Priesthood Nor did they shew their obedience only in restoring Apiarus but moreouer in attending the comming of the Easterne Copies of the Nicen Councell they promised with great humility and with all respect protested to obserue from point to point all that was contained in the instruction of the Popes Legates For Daniel Notary of the Councell hauing read the first article which was that Bishops may appeale to the Pope Alipius said (r) Conc. Afric c. 4. We protest to obserue these things vntill the coming of the perfect copies And the second article being read which was That the causes of Priests and inferior Clerkes were to be finally determined by the Bishop of their owne Prouince S. Augustine said (s) Ibid. c. 7. We protest also to obserue this article sauing a more diligent inquiry of the Councell of Nice And the whole Councell speaking of both these articles to Boniface Pope said (t) Cap. 101. in Ep. ad Bonif. These thinges which in the fore-said instruction haue bene alleaged vnto vs of the appeales of Bishops to the Priest of the Roman Church and of the causes of Clerkes to be ended by the Bishops of their owne Prouinces We protest to obserue vntill the proofe of the Nicen Councell And we trust in the will of God that your Holinesse also will helpe vs in it By this it appeares that the Canons of Appeales to Rome sent by Zozimus were admitted and the practise of them in Africa allowed by the whole Councell vntill the comming of the Nicen copies out of the East which sheweth that their contestation was not about the Popes right of appeales els they would haue forbidden them absolutely euen in that interim but about the expediency of them and the manner of prosecuting them by Legates and executors sent from Rome Which is yet further confirmed by these their words to Pope Celestine (u) Ep. ad Celest. Wherfore premising the office of due salutation we beseech you affectionatly that hereafter you will not so easily admit to your eares those that come from these partes nor vestore to the communion such as haue bene excommunicated by vs. And a litle after To the end that they who in their owne Prouince haue bene depriued of the communion may not seeme to be hastily and otherwise then is fit restored to the communion by your Holynesse These words are another remonstrance of their acknowledgment of the Popes power ouer them and of their subiection to him for they say not to Celestine that he had not authority to restore the Communion to those that had bene excommunicated by them but humbly beseech him not to do it easily and without mature deliberation but rather that he will send them back into Africa to be iudged vpon the place where their causes might be discussed more exactly and the truth more certainely knowne by the attestation of witnesses which could not without much difficulty and charges passe to Rome And wheras the Councell of Sardica (x) Can. 7. hath decreed that if a Bishop appeale to Rome and the Pope esteeme is iust that the examination of his cause be renowed it shal be in the Popes power if he please to send Legates from Rome to ioyne with the Bishops of the same prouince from whom the appeale is made that by them the cause may be tried and iudged a new the Africans denied not this power of the B. of Rome nor any way excepted against the sending back of the Appellāts into Africa to haue their causes tried againe by the Bishops of their owne prouince but only beseeched him that he would be pleased not to send Legates who by prosecuting the causes of Appellants too violently did somtimes giue occasion of complaint Wherfore beseeching Pope Celestine they say (y) Conc. Afric c. 107 That you wil not send your Clerkes executors to all that demand them nor permit that we may seeme to introduce the smoaky pride of the world into the Church of Christ which propounds the light of simplicity and the day of humility to them that desire to see God The motiue which the Africans had to make this petition was the insolent cariage of Antony B. of Fussala in Numidia who as S. Augustine reporteth (z) Ep. 261. for his enormous crimes being depriued of his Bishoprick by procurement of the inhabitants of Fussala and left with the bare title of Bishop fraudulently got testimoniall letters of his innocency from the Primate of Numidia at the very time of this sixth Councell of Carthage and appealed to Boniface Pope who answeared with great caution that he should be restored si nulla in eius narratione surreptio intercessisset if there were no surreption in the relation of his cause Boniface dying and Celestine succeeding they of Fussala prosecuted their suite earnestly against him And he contrarily threatned that Celestine would send Clerkes executors and if need were souldiers to restore him to his Bishoprick He threatned them sayth S. Augustine (a) Ibid. with secular power as if they were to come to execute the iudgments of the See Apostolike so that the miserable inhabitants being Christians and Catholikes feared more grieuous vsage from a
to resist all nouelties with such constancy as the authority of the See Apostolike and the seuerity of the Prelates assembled in one may not seeme to permit that the doctrine of those whom the Church hath long since condemned come to be borne againe 6. Eugenius another successor to Aurelius being pressed by the LieutenaÌ„t of Hunericus Lord of Africa to enter into a publike disputation with the Arians answeared (y) Victor Vtic. l. 2. He would not do it without writing to his fellow Bishops and chiefly to the Roman Church which is the Head of all Churches 7. S. Fulgentius sayth (z) De incarn grat c. 11. Which the Roman Church which is the head of the world holdesh and teacheth and with her the whole Christian world doth both without hesitation belieue to iustice and also doubts not to confesse to saluation And when the same Sainct was going to the wildrnesse of Thebais in Aegypt to fast (a) Author vitae S. Fulg. c. 12. to 6. Bibliothec Pat. he desisted from his intent when comming to Sicily he vnderstood from Eulalius B. of Syracusa that those Countries were separated from the communion of the Roman Church lest desiring a more perfect life he should runne hazard of loosing the true fayth And insteed of gong into Aegypt he went in pilgrimage to Rome to visit the Sepulchers of the holy Apostles Peter Paul 8. The African Bishops consulted S. Leo the great in their doubts of fayth and S. Leo writ to them a famous decretall Epistle (b) Leo ep 87. 9. Almost all the African Bishops 220. in number being banished into Sardinia by Thrasimundus the Arian King Symmachus Pope relieued maintained them at his owne charges (c) Paul Diac. l. 17. rerum Roman which he would not haue done if they had bene separated from his communion 10. Possessor a famous African Bishop writ to Hormisdas Pope (d) Ep. ad Hormisd It is fit and expedient that we haue recourse to the Heard as often as the health of the members is treated of for who hath greater solicitude of his subiects or from whom is more to be required the stability of fayth that is wauering then from the President of that seate whose first Gouernor heard from Christ. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church 11. Victor Bishop of Vtica reporteth (e) L. 1. de persequut Vandal that the Arians in Africa did call the Catholikes Romans as you now call vs Romanists which they did vpon no other ground then because the African Catholikes were of the Roman Communion 12. And that the possession which the Bishop of Rome were in of appeales out of Africa was not interrupted by the sixt Conncell of Carthage is prouâ—d out of Ferrandus a Deacon of that Church (f) Breuiar Can. art 59. 60. which liued soone after that tyme hath registred in his collection of Canons this as the fifth sixth Canon of the Councell of Sardica That a condemned Bishop may if he will appeale to the See Apostolike and that during the appeale no other can be ordained in his place By these and many other euidences which may be produced it is manifest that by this Controuersy of Appeales the Africans were not separated from the communion of the Roman Church and that therfore to affirme as you do that they remained in the state of separation for the space of 100. yeares vntill the tyme of Boniface the second is a notorious vntruth for all the examples here alleaged are of African Bishops that liued within the compass of 100. yeares after the sixth Councell of Carthage Against this truth confirmed by so many euident and vndeniable proofes that the African Church was not in the dayes of Aurelius Primate of Africa and S. Augustine seuered by Schisme from the Roman Church you vrge the Epistle of Boniface the second wherein he testifieth that the African Church was in his dayes reconciled vnto them Roman In the Body of your Councells say (g) Pag. 148. you there is (h) Apud Suriumtom 2. Concil pag. 384. So you quote him falsly for it is Tom. 1. Concil pag. 1057. extant the Epistle of Boniface the second wherein about the yeare 606. the same Pope complaineth that Aurelius with his fellow-Bishops of Africa with whome S. Augustine did consent had by the instigation of Satan for so the Epistle speaketh been separated from the Church of Rome vntill now after an hundred yeares space Eulalius Bishop of Carthage acknowledging his offence seeketh and desireth to be reconciled to the Church of Rome Thus farre the Epistle of your Pope Do you belicue this Epistle concerning the Excommunication of the Churches of Africk Then had you best stand aside a while for scare of knocks For behold there are at hand children of the Tribe of Dan angry fellowes that lay about them 1. Bellarmine (i) Bellar. lib. 2. de Pont. Rom. c. 25. I greatly suspect sayth he that this Epistle is counterfait 2. It is full of fraud sayth (k) Binius Tom. 1. Conc. in hanc Epistolam Binius 3. Which sayth Baronius some wicked Impostor hath fayned c. Do not you belieue this Epistle of Boniface to be true Then harken to your (l) Lindan Panopl l. 4. c. 89. Lindan This Epistle sayth he is not supposititious but true c. Thus you And then finding in Baronius that during those huÌ„dred yeares there were whole troopes and armias of African Martyrs and holy Confessors you triumph and bid vs take (m) Pag. 150. this your Syllogisme to ruminate vpon No true Christian Martyrs dye out of the state of Saluation Diuers true Christian Martyrs dye out of Obedience to the Roman Church Ergo Diuers dying out of Obedience to the Roman Church dye not out of the state of Saluation Thus you dispute in your fancy victoriously as hauing by this your discourse and Syllogisme knock't the Roman Church on the heal I shall first discouer the weakenesse and vanity of your Syllogisme then shew the multiplicity of your falsities and fraudes supposed and cunningly contriued into your relation of the Story lastly lay open the reasons why that Epistle may be suspected yea reiected as being Counterfait In your Sollogisme I grant the Maior Proposition That no true Martyr dyeth out of the state of Saluation In your Minor or Assumption Diuers true Christian Martyrs dye out of obedience to the Roman Church I distinguish sundry Kinds of Disobediences First there is disobedience Heretical which resists the doctrines decrees of Fayth deliuered by the Catholike Roman Church yea denieth the prime article of Christian vnity the headship and supreme authority of her Bishop In the state of this Disobedience there can be no true Martyrdome no hope of Saluation Secondly there is Disobedience Schismatical which belieuing firmely the Doctrine of the Roman Church and acknowledging the Supreme authority of her Bishop excepts against the present
deinde neque hoc habet Papa propter ordinem charitatis sed propter subiectionem subordinationem ad deponendos Reges disponendum de regnis which you set downe (l) Pag margi as Bellarmines is not his but patched vp of diners words taken out of seuerall places of his and knit into one sentence to make him dance after your pipe speake as best fitteth your designe Yea Bellarmine out of that very Epistle and out of those very words of Innocent which you obiect proueth els where (m) L Pont that the Pope hath no temporall dominion ouer Christian Princes whome therfore you slander falsly fathering on him the contrary to make him all Catholikes as much as in you lieth hatefull to Christian Princes The third author which is Carerius I haue not seene but how vnsincerely you haue heretofore cited him in this very matter F. Persons in his Treatise tending to Mitigation against the seditious writings of Thomas Morion Minister hath shewed long since (n) Ch 162.17 And because he truly obserueth that you hardly cite any Author without some sleight or other I suspect that here you deale no otherwise with Carerius SECT II. Your second Argument out of Hieremy the Prophet examined SEcondly you say (o) Pag. 170. Popes exact of Emperors be they Christians or Ethnickes subiection and subordination when they meane to dispossesse them of their kingdomes or depriue them of their liues from pretence of Scripture alleaging in their Bulls for their warrant that saying of the Prophet Behold I haue constituted thee aboue nations and kingdomes to plant and roote on t to build and destroy Ierem. 1. So they Wherunto also accordeth the decree of Boniface the eight Good God that the world should be so bewitched by them as to account them Pastors of the Church who feed their people with thornes swords daggers and pistolls For what els meane these grosses wherby the word of God is so notoriously prophaned for patronizing of rebellions and murders All these are your words false I am sure and slanderous and whether not also rayling virulent let the Reader iudge My intention heere is not to dispute what authority the Pope hath ouer Kings and Emperors in temporall matters I write against you and my intention only is to shew that as in other matters so also in this you wrong the Popes and falsify the Fathers with other Catholike authors And to begin with S. Bernard you say (p) Pag. 170. He writing to Pope Eugenius (q) L. 2. de Considerat condemneth the Papall Glosse to his face teaching that in this text vnder the figuratiue speach of rurall sweat is expressed the spirituall labour c shewing therby that your Popes might haue proued for their aduantage out of that text rather a right to become gardeners and carpenters for roting out weeds and destroying of buildings then Generalls of Hoasts for conquest and subiection of kingdomes That S. Bernard out of this text gathereth no power of Popes to depose Kings or other secular Princes or people I grant He only admonisheth Eugenius that being placed in a seat of eminēcy from whence as from a watch-tower he beholdeth all he neither giue himselfe to idlenesse his function being an office of spirituall labor nor be puffed vp with pride but gouerne in humility which he calleth The chiefest gemme among all the ornaments of the high Priest and to that end representeth vnto him the admonition which S. Peter gaue to all Prelats (r) 1. Pet. 5.2 not no dominier in the Clergy but to become paternes of the flock from the hart and the example of Christ who was in the middest of his Disciples as one that wayted (s) Luc. 22.27 But yet to shew against you that Eugenius had spirituall iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church he sayth to him (t) L. 2. de Consid What person bearest thou in the Church of God Who art thou A great Priest the chiefe Bishop Thou art the Prince of Bishops thou the heyre of the Apostles thou art Abel in primacy Nōe in gouerment in Patriarkship Abraham in order Melchisedech in dignity Aaron in authority Moyses in iudicature Samuel in power Peter and by Vnction Christ. Thou art he to whom the keyes were giuen to whom the sheepe committed There are other porters of Heauen and Pastors of flocks but thou as in a different so in a far more glorious manner hast inherited both those names They haue their seuerall flockes assigned vnto them to thee all are committed one flock to one shepheard Thou art not only Pastor of the sheep but Pastor of all Pastors Dost thou aske how I proue it Out of the word of our Lord for to which I will not say of the Bishops but euen of the Apostles were the sheepe committed so absolutely and without exception If thou louest me Peter feed my sheepe What sheep Of this or that City or Countrey or Kingdome My sheep sayth he To whom is it not manifest that he designed not any but assigned all where no distinction is put no exception is made c. The power of others is confined within certaine limits Thy power extendeth euen to them that haue receaued power ouer others If there because canst not thou shut vp Heauen to a Bishop Canst not thou depose him from his Bishoprick and deliuer him to Satan All these words are S. Bernards which I haue transcribed that the reader may see he belieued the Pope to be Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church and acknowledged in him absolute power to depose Bishops which you could not be ignorant of but conceale it because it toucheth your copie-hold and mention only deposing of Princes of which S. Bernard speaketh not one word Yea more ouer he doth not only acknowledge that the Pope hath power to depose Bishops but withall sheweth how falsly you alleage him to proue that in the text of Hieremy nothing is expressed but spirituall labor vnder the figuratiue speach of rurall sweat for writing to the same Pope Eugenius (u) Ep. 237. he requesteth him to depose the Bishops of Winchester Yorke as intruders and wicked men that opposed the Archbishop of Canterbury a religious Prelate and of good fame and out of this very text of Hieremy proueth his authority to do it for to that end sayth he (x) Ibid. thou art placed ouer nations and kingdomes to pull vp and destroy to build and to plant which power he declareth againe in another Epistle (y) Ep. 239. out of the same text of Hieremy speaking to Eugenius of deposing a wicked Bishop of the Ruthenians Nor is it S. Bernard only that interpreteth Hieremy in this sense for 630. Bishops assembled in the Councell of Chalcedon (z) In relat ad Leo. alleage the same text to iustify their deposing of Dioscorus and require Leo Pope to confirme the same The like interpretation is made by 32. Bishops in the
a person of so great dignity and very aged he vndertake so long so laborious and so dangerous a iourney to declare vnto Anicetus the reasons of his persisting in the Asian custome which if Anicetus had then condemned it is not to be doubted but that Polycarpe would haue departed from it as all orthodoxe Bishops did when they saw it condemned by the Church and the defenders of it declared to be heretikes SECT II. S. Cyprian obiected by Doctor Morton TO proue that Cyprian belieued not any necessity of vnion with the Roman Church you repeate here (t) Pag. 185.188 what you had sayd before of his being excommunicated by Pope Stephen contemning the excommunication for which you bring no other proofe then the testimony of Cassander an heretike Primae classis whose workes you know to be forbidden and yet shame not to cite him as a Catholike author that you may call his lies Our confessions for that they be lies I haue already proued (u) Chap. 24. And so much the more reproueable you are because S. Cyprians testimonies which shew him to haue beleeued the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church and all that are diuided from her to be Schismatikes you shift off (x) Pag. 186. with an answeare of Goulartius that Cyprian spake them of his owne only authority against Schismatikes who troubled his iurisdiction Which to be a false and vnconscionable answeare you and your Goulartius may learne from the Centurists who reprehend S. Cyprian (y) Brerel Protest Apol. tract 1. sect 3. subdiu 10. for teaching that our Lord hath built his Church vpon Peter that one Chaire by our Lords voyce is built vpon Peter as vpon a Rock that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholike Church for calling Peters chaire the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued and for teaching that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all others the Mother and Roote of the Catholike Church To these testimonies acknowledged by the Centurists I adde that Cyprian (z) L. 4. ep 2. exhorteth Antonianus in time of Schisme to adhere to the Pope and hold fast his communion that is sayth he the communion of the Catholike Church and expressly affirmeth (a) L. de Vnit. Eccles that Who-euer resisteth the Chaire of Peter nether holdeth the fayth nor is in the Church And speaking of some certayne heretikes he obiecteth vnto them their great boldnesse in presuming to saile to the chaire of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praised by the voice of the Apostle and to whom perfidiousnesse can haue no accesse To this you answeare (b) Pag. 186. No Father of the primitiue times is more vrged by you then S. Cyprian no Epistle more insisted vpon then this no words more inculcated then these and we may adde no Father no epistle no sentence more egregiously abused and peruerted for he speaketh not of perfidiousnesse in doctrine but only in discipline by the false and perfidious reportes of schismaticall fellowes c. If this sentence of S. Cyprian be peruerted not we but you peruert it And so it will appeare to any impartiall Iudge that shall read the words not cut short as you rehearse theÌ„ that the sense may not be vnderstood but entire as I haue set theÌ„ downe The Nouatians were not only Schismatikes but heretikes as S. Cyprian in that epistle els where often calleth them And in the words alleaged when he opposeth their perfidiousnesse to the Roman fayth commended by the Apostle by perfidiousnesse he vnderstandeth error in doctrine or misbeliefe which is oposite to fayth not perfidiousnesse in discipline for that hath no opposition at all with fayth Wherefore he reprehendeth the Nouatians that hauing not only diuided themselues by schisme from the chaire of S. Peter which is the principall Church from whence sacerdotall vnity is deriued but also forsaken the Roman fayth praysed by the mouth of the Apostle they dare notwithstanding presume to saile to Rome in hope to deceaue that Church and get their doctrine approued by her not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth being praysed by the Apostle misbeliefe can haue no accesse to them Which doctrine S. Hierome seemeth to haue taken from this place of Cyprian when speaking to Ruffinus he saith (c) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. Know that the Roman fayth commended by the voice of the Apostle admitteth no delusions and that being fensed by S. Pauls authority it cannot be altered c. SECT III. S. Athanasius obiected by Doctor Morton THat S. Athanasius beleeued not the necessity of vnion and subiection to the Roman Church you proue (d) Pag. 190. for that being excommunicated by Liberius Pope he regarded not his excommunication This we deny It is peraduenture true though not altogether certaine (e) Onuphr in Not ad Plati Ruffin l. 1. histâ—c 27. Sozom l. 4. c. 14. that Liberius wearied out with two yeares banishment and other vexations by Constantius the Arian Emperor yeilded to signe the condemnation of Athanasius and entred into communion with the Arians and thereby became a Schismatike But that he excommunicated Athanasius is not reported by any writer nor is it true but a fiction of yours And were it true the excommunication had not only bene iniust as being pronounced against an innocent person and therfore no way obligatory but also inualid for as much as Liberius by forsaking the communion of Catholikes and entring into communion with heretikes was fallen from his Papacy and had no power to pronounce excommunication against Athanasius or if he had pronounced it Athanasius had not bene bound to obey To proue that Athanasius regarded not the excommunication of the B. of Rome you should haue proued that whiles Liberius was true Pope he excommunicated Athanasius and that Athanasius refused to obey which you proue not and therfore your obiection is impertinent and your assertion false For who knoweth not that Athanasius acknowledged the supreme power of the Roman Church when being cast out of his Bishoprick he appealed to Iulius Pope and Iulius by the dignity and prerogatiue of the Roman See restored him againe to his Church (f) Socrat. l. 2. c. 11. Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. And what els did he meane when he and the rest of the Aegyptian Bishops writing to Marcus Pope endorsed their letter To the holy and Venerable Lord of Apostolicall Eminency Marke Father of the holy Roman Apostolike See and of the vniuersall Church And in the letter We desire that by the authority of the Church of your holy See which is the Mother and Head of all Churches we may deserue to receaue the copies of the Nicen Canons by these our Legates for the instruction and comfort of the faythfull that being fensed by your authority c. And againe (g) Eadem Ep. We are yours and
passage in which he acknowledgeth in most effectuall words his beliefe of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome For in the very first words of his Epistle he sayth Be it known to your Wisdome that I obey the Apostolike mandats with filiall affection deuoutly reuerently and that I make resistance to those things which are against the Apostolike mandats zealing the honor of my Father for to both I am bound ex diuino mandato by the commandment of God for the Apostolike mandats neither are nor can be any other then the doctrines of the Apostles and of our Lord Iesus Christ Maister and Lord of the Apostles whose place and person our Lord the Pope chiefly holdeth in the Hierarchy of the Church A iudicious reader would thinke it a hard matter for any man out of these words and doctrine of Grosthead to frame an argument against the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome and yet are you so witty that you haue done it but by what art By cutting and mangling the Bishops words as the reader will see if he please to compare them with the Latin set downe in your Margent and euen that Latin mangled and falsified as it is you thought best not to english because it would haue giuen light to a iudicious reader to see your dealing What you adde (c) Pag. 394. of the Bishops not receauing a Prouision sent by the Pope maketh nothing for you for by the whole discourse of his Epistle it appeareth that he iudged the Prouision to be procured fraudulently by surreption therfore not to be a true mandate of the See Apostolike and vpon that ground he made resistance vnto it which the ciuill (d) Cod. Si cont ius L. Etsi Canon law (e) De rescript C. Dilectus in such cases declare to be lawfull without any impeachment to the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome SECT XI Whether Protestants had any Professors of their fayth before Luther THere is no way more expedite or effectuall to conuince heretikes to be such their doctrines to be prophane nouelties then to require of them a Catalogue of primitiue Fathers and learned men which haue agreed with them and dissented from the Roman Church in all those points in which they dissent from her as contrarily there is no way more effectuall for an Orthodoxe man to proue himselfe to be such then to shew that the Fathers Doctors of Gods Church in all ages from the beginning haue professed and taught the same doctrine he professeth and teacheth To this triall S. Athanasius challenged the Arians Behold sayth he to them (f) In decret Nic. Syn. cont Euseb we haue proued the succession of our doctrine deliuered from hand to hand from-Father to sonne you new Iewes you children of Caiphas what predecessors of your names can you shew To the same triall that most religious Emperor Theodosius prouoked the heretikes of his time for as Sozomen recordeth (g) L. 7. c. 11. hauing called together the chiefe of the Nouatians Arians and Macedonians he demanded of them whether they thought that the ancient Fathers which gouerned the Church before those dissensions in matter of Religion fell out were holy and Apostolicall men whether they did allow of their expositions of holy Scripture and would accept of them as of competent Iudges for the triall of their cause and ending of all controuersies Those Heretikes highly praysed the doctrine and expositions of the Fathers but yet could not agree among themselues to haue the bookes of the Fathers produced and their owne doctrines tried by them Wherupon Theodosius forbid them all exercise of their religion and inflicted other punishments vpon them With him accorded herein the Emperor Iustinian publishing by an especiall Law (h) L. 5. 6. that to confute the lyes of impious Heretikes and represse the madnesse of those that giue assent vnto them it is necessary to manifest vnto all what the most holy Priests of God haue taught and to follow them How often doth S. Augustine stop the mouthes of the Pelagians (i) Cout Iul. Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. l. 2. versus fin l. 5. c. 17. cont duas Ep. Pelag. l. 4. c. 12. with the testimonies of almost all the famous Bishops and Doctors both of the East West specifying them by their names somtimes twelue somtimes fourteene together adding to them the rest in generall The same kind of Argument was vsed by S. Leo the Great (k) Ep. 97. when hauing vrged against the Nestorians and Eutychians the testimonies of the holy Fathers Athanasius Hilary Ambrose and Chrysostome Theophilus Alexandrinus Basil the great and Cyril he concludeth thus to the Emperor to whom he writeth To these testimonies if you vouchsafe to attend you shall find that we teach no other thing then what our holy Fathers haue taught throughout the whole world and that no man dissenteth from them but impious heretikes Lastly the same manner of arguing from the testimonies of Fathers was vsed in the sixth generall Councell against the Monothelites in the second of Nice against the Image-breakers and in the Councell of Florence against the error of the Grecians denying the holy Ghost to proceed from the Sonne To this triall learned Catholikes haue often challenged the Sectaries of this age to that end haue set forth Catalogues of the most learned Doctors of Gods Church from the very time of Christ shewing them to haue bene members of the Roman Church and to haue belieued and taught the now Roman fayth not only in the generall heads wherin Protestants agree with vs but also in each of the seuerall points in which they dissent from vs to haue held them to be hereticall and confuted them as such euen as we do alleaging their testimonies at this day against Protestants The truth of this is to be seene in Iodocus Coccius a German who as it is declared in the Preface to his first Tome being in his youth a Lutheran afterwards partly by frequenting the Sermons of Catholike Preachers partly by hearing disputations in Schooles partly by obseruing the meruailous concord of Catholiks and the fatall discord of Protestants in matters of fayth partly by considering seriously and weighing with himselfe that the Churches of Protestants were confined to a few Prouinces and not spread ouer the whole world as the Church of Christ (l) Isa 49. was prophesied to be and that they wanted succession and continuance being newly sprung vp and lastly by a diligent perusall of the writings of ancient Fathers whom be found to agree wholly with vs and dissent from Protestants abandoned them and abiuring their doctrine east himselfe into the armes of his Catholike Mother the Roman Church And aswell for the confusion of heretikes confirmation of Catholikes as also to yeild vnto all men a reason of his fayth he vndertooke an immense labor in which he spent 24. yeares of reading the