roundly without any answere at all therfore your said Antagonist told you as with reason he might that he greatly marueyled with what conscience or if not conscience with what forehead at least you could at that tyme write and print things that you did know or might haue knowne to be merely false and forged Is not this sayth he a signe of obstinate wilfulnesse that neither God nor truth is sought for by you but only to maintaine a part or faction with what slight or falshood soeuer Hauing giuen you this admonition though he remit you or rather the reader to the Warnword for a larger satisfaction yet he also briefly answereth (k) Ibid. num 55.56.57.58 shewing 1. Your grosse ignorance in ascribing that Canon to Pope Boniface wheras it is gathered by Gratian out of the sayings of S. Boniface an Englishman that was Archbishop of Ments in Germany and a holy Martyr 2. Your fraud in setting downe the words of the Canon corruptly both in Latin and English as by leauing out the beginning which sheweth the drift of the Canon and the end which containeth a reason of all that is said and cutting of other words in the middest to couer the pious meaning of S. Boniface 3. Your falshood in leauing out and altering some words and corruptly translating others with a heape of falsities as he rightly calleth them (l) Ibid. num 57. marg Wherefore if he had iust cause to marueile with what conscience or forehead you could then repeate an obiection so fully answered before farre greater cause haue I to maruayle now that after he hath againe giuen you this second answere and so fully discouered your fraud you are not ashamed yet againe to reiterate the same obiection without taking any notice of those errors wilfull falsities which that answerer laid to your charge To him and to the Warnword I remit the reader But because the glosse affirmeth the Pope to haue plenitude of power in disposing of Prebends and that none ought therin to say vnto him why do you so You call this the height of all desperate presumption in the Popes to make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes A bold censure Kings haue fullnesse of power to dispose of the temporall offices of their kingdomes and none ought to say vnto them Why do you so Will you therfore tell them that this their authority is the height of all desperate presumption to make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes No why then do you giue it that name and censure in the Popes You might haue done well to aske S. Bernards opinion He would haue told you (m) Ep. 131. that the plenitude of power is by a singular prerogatiue giuen to the See Apostolike That he which resisteth this power resisteth the ordination of God that he hath power if he iudge it profitable to erect new Bishoprickes where formerly they were not and of those that are in being to put downe some and set vp others as reason shall dictate vnto him so that he may lawfully of Bishops make Archbishops and contrariwise if it shall seeme necessary He can summon from the furthest partes of the earth whatsoeuer Ecclesiasticall persons of neuer so high degree and compell them to appeare before him and this not once or twice but as often as he shall find it expedient This is the power which the glosse speaketh of you call it the Height of all desperate presumption wherby the Popes make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes S. Bernard holds it to be a power giuen him by Christ and that whosoeuer refisteth it as you doe resists the ordinance of God Whether is it fit that Christian men should belieue S. Bernard or you especially since you acknowledg him to be a Saint which he cold not be if he had erred in fayth nor will any wise man thinke that in this point he was of any other beliefe then all the holy Fathers of Gods Church were whose doctrine he knew and vnderstood better then you do But not contenting your selfe with censuring condemning Popes you carpe at the holy Martyr S. Boniface whom all Germany reuerenceth as their Apostle for teaching that albeit the Pope shold by his scandalous life draw innumerable multitudes with him into hell yet no man may presume to correct him to wit iuridically by punishing or deposing him for that is the sense in which S. Boniface speaketh vnlesse he also depart from the fayth But you consider not the wrong which by thus carping at the Pope you offer to all Christian Princes for dare you say that if an Emperor a King or any other absolute Prince be of so scandalous a life that by his example he lead thousands with him into Hell he may therefore be deposed Wherfore since you will hold it to be good doctrine that albeit a temporall Prince yea or many Princes liuing at the same tyme shold by their vicious liues draw thousands with them into hell none of them may therefore be corrected iuridically why do you carpe at vs for defending the same of the Pope who is but one at once Your fifth obiection is (n) Pag. 64. sin 65. S. Paul alone writ to the Romans not S. Peter True for when S. Peter writ his Epistles he was at Rome and had conuerted many of the Romans to Christ and planted the Church among them before S. Paul came theither or writ his epistle to them Againe S. Peter writ his epistles to all the faythfull and in regard therof you intitle them Generall Epistles and we Catholike Epistles a title which is not giuen to those of S. Paul Your sixth Obiection is (o) Pag. 65. It was not sayd of Peters ship as it was of that wherein S. Paul was God hath giuen vnto thee all them that sayle with thee and except those to wit the Mariners remaine in the Ship you cannot be saued Among 28. famous priuiledges which Bellarmine (p) Lib. 1. de Pont. c. 17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24 sheweth to haue bene granted to S. Peter and not to S. Paul nor to any other of the Apostles you are content to conceale them all without making any mention of them vnlesse it be of two or three to carpe at them as here you doe at his ship postposing it to that in which S. Paul sailed because in a dangerous tempest God preserued the liues of all that were in the ship for his sake But in this your dealing is no better then in the rest for the holy Doctors take the ship of Peter to be a type of the Catholike Church out of which none can be saued eternally which they say not of the ship in which Paul sayled When Christ saw two ships standing by the lake of Genezareth going into the one ship (q) Luc. 5.3 that was Simons and sitting he taught the multitude out of the ship it was not without mystery that of those two ships Christ made choyce of Peters only to
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
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
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
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
the vniuersall Church hauing no right therunto A most vngodly comparison for these two Popes were of the most holy learned and renowned Prelates that euer sate in the Chayre of S. Peter since his tyme whose sanctity God hath testified with most illustrious miracles and whom all posterity hath iustly honored with the surname of Great S. Leo is he that with great care and vigilancy suppressed the Manichees that came flying out of the Africa to Rome other places of Italy that vsed singular industry to roote out the Donatists in Africa the Pelagians in France the Priscilianists in Spaine writing to the Bishops of greatest learning and fame that were then liuing in those Countries to be watchfull and assemble Councells for the condemning and extirpating those heresies and like wise he himselfe against the errors of Nestorius Eutyches Dioscorus assembled in the East that famous Councell of 630. Bishops at Chalcedon who all acknowledged him to be their Head and themselues his members and children and that to him the gouerment of the Church was committed by our Sauiour (k) In relat ad Leon. and who esteemed his words as the words of S. Peter and his iudgments as oracles of God crying out all which one voyce (l) Act. 1. Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo Leo hath iudged the iudgment of God Nor was S. Gregory of lesse renowne for to omit the admirable humility wherwith he refused the dignity of supreme Pastor the conuersion of our English nation and other great workes which he performed for the good of the Church the excellent bookes he writ for which he hath deserued the title of Doctor of the Church and the many famous miracles wherwith God declared his sanctity who is ignorant of the admirable Elogies wherwith ancient writers haue celebrated his prayses Among others that famous Archbishop of Toledo and Primate of Spayne S. Hildephonsus writeth of him (m) In lib. de viris illust that in sanctity he surpassed Antony in eloquence Cyprian in wisdome Augustine by the grace of the holy Ghost was endowed with so great light of humane science that in former ages none had bene equall vnto him And Petrus Diaconus testifieth (n) Vit. S. Greg. that he saw the holy Ghost in forme of a doue at his care inspiring him whiles he was writing which alone might haue made you forbeare the traducing of so admirable a man But returning to our question this very euasion of yours to wit that the testimonies of Popes are no sufficient argument to conclude a Papall authority because they speake in their owne cause sufficiently conuinceth that you know them to haue acknowledged such authority in themselues and that when you deny it you speake without all ground of truth for who can think that S. Leo S. Gregory and many other Popes renowned Martyrs and glorious Confessors most eminent in humility and all kind of vertue and to whose sanctity God added the seale of diuine miracles should with a Luciferian pride arrogate to themselues Pastorall authority power ouer the Church of God throughout the whole world if that dignity had not bene giuen by Christ to S. Peter and in him to them I deny therfore that when they maintayne their authority they speake in their owne cause They speake in the cause of God as witnes your selfe (o) Pag. 4◠S. Paul did when he said (p) Rom. 11. I will magnify myne office in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentiles And the like did S. Gregory when vpon that text he collected a generall lesson for the defence of his owne iurisdiction against such as you are saying (q) L. 4. ep 36. The Apostle teacheth vs so to carry humility in our hart that we do keep and preserue the dignity of that order wherunto we are called Wherfore as if a Vice-Roy should defend maintaine the dignity of his place for the seruice of the King his Maister and the repression of seditious persons he that should oppose him and resist his authority vnder color that he speaketh in his owne cause would be accounted no better then a rebell so no other reckoning is to be made of him that reiects the testimonies of Popes the Vicars and Lieutenants of Christ on earth because they defend their authority for they do it to defend the honor of Christ their Maister to magnify their office with S. Paul and with S. Gregory to preserue the dignity of that order wherunto they are called which dignity S. Augustine (r) Ep. 92. and the whole Councell of Mileuis acknowledge to be taken out of the authority of holy Scriptures But here by the way I desire to be resolued of a doubt You confesse (s) Pag. 301. that power of appeales if it be right and proper is a most certaine argument of dominion Againe you cōfesse (t) Pag. 303. marg fin n. 8. that S. Gregory excommunicated Iohn a Greeke Bishop of the first Iustinianaea because he had presumed to iudge Adrian Bishop of Thebes after he had appealed to the See Apostolike which conuinceth S. Gregory to haue belieued that the Bishops of the Greeke Church might lawfully appeale from their owne Metropolitans and from their Patriarke of Constantinople to the See Apostolike that the same See had true and proper right to admit their appeales and re-iudge their causes which it could not haue if the Pope had not true proper authority ouer the Greeke Church How then can you deny that S. Gregory belieued himselfe to haue that authority or that he practised the same Yea that he had power and iurisdiction not only ouer the Greeke Church but also ouer the vniuersall Church practised the same is a thing so certaine that your Protestant brethren Friccius Peter Martyr Carion Philippus Nicolai the Centurists and Osiander (u) Apud Brier Protest Apol. Tract 1. sect 7. subdiu 9. à n. 11. ad 29. shew out of his writings these particulars That the Roman Church appointeth her watch ouer the whole world that the Apostolike See is the Head of all Churches that the Bishop of Constantinople is subiect to the Apostolike See that S. Gregory challenged to himselfe power to command Arch-bishops to ordayne or depose Bishops that he assumed to himselfe right for citing Arch-bishops to declare their causes before him when they were accused and also to excommunicate depose them giuing commission to their neighbour Bishops to proceed against them that in their prouinces he placed his Legates to examine and end the causes of such as appealed to the Roman See that he vsurped power of appointing Synods in their prouinces and required Arch-bishops that if any cause of great importance happened they should referre the same to him appointing in prouinces his Vicars ouer the Churches to end smaller matters and to reserue the greater causes to himselfe All this is testified by your owne brethren to which Doctor Sanders
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
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
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
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
and Scots not celebrating Easter after the manner of the Roman Church were for that cause separated from her Communion AMONG other examples of ancient Churches which you pretend to haue bene separated from the Church of Rome and yet in state of saluation you produce for your last instance (l) Pag. 156. 157. 158. the Britans and Scots who kept their Easter if not wholly after the Iewish manner yet contrary to the custome of the Roman Church of the whole Christian world Wherin you are guilty of diuers vntruthes For first you speake of this their custome as ancient among the Britans wheras Bede (m) L. 2. hist Anglo c. 19. recordeth that Honorius Pope about the yeare 635. and Iohn the fourth a few yeares after writ to the Britans and Scots letters full of authority and learning for correcting this errorâ— that Pope Iohn in the beginning of his Epistle (n) Extat apud Bin. to 2. pag. 1029. manifestly declareth nuperrime temporibus istis exortam esse haeresim hanc that this heresy was very lately sprung vp among them which Florentius Wigorniensis also testifieth saying (o) In Chron. an 628. Eo tempore c. At that time Honorius Pope did reproue the error of the Quartadecimans in the celebration of Easter sprung vp among the Scots 2. You attribute this custome to the Britans Scots in generall as if they had bene all guilty therof wheras Venerable Bede attributes it not to all the Britans non totis sayth he (p) L. 3 hist cap. 25. not to all of them nor to all the Scots but especially to such as dwelled in Ireland and also to some of them that dwelled in Britany Besides the whole English Church in a manner was free from that error 3. You assume (q) Pag. 190. as granted by vs that the Britans and Scots were schismatically diuided from the Church of Rome but not heretically That their opinion was Hereticall you haue heard Bede testify saying that this heresy was very lately sprung vp among them And who knoweth not that as hath bene proued (r) Chap. 23. the Quartadecimans had bene long before that time anathematized by the three first generall CouÌ„cells of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus and the maintainers of that error registred for heretikes by Philastrius S. Augustine Theodoret and others All which notwithstanding you are not ashamed to say (s) Pag. 157. init that the Britan Church did Orthodoxally in following the Quartadociman rite contrary to the custome of the Roman Church 4. Though the Britans and Scots in this their obseruation did disagree from the rest of the Christian world yet because they did it not with a schismaticall intention but out of simplicity and ignorance of the Ecclesiasticall computation they liuing in a corner of the world whither no learned Catholike Calculator of times had as yet come vnto them the See Apostolike did still retaine them in her communion deeming this error pardonable in them And therfore when the Abbot Colmanus in the famous conference held betweene him and Wilfridus concerning this matter vrged in defence of their custome (t) Apud Bed l. 3. hist. c. 25. that they could not belieue that their Reuerend Father Columba and his successors being men so beloued of God did contrary to the holy Scriptures in celebrating Easter as vntill that tyme they had done Wilfride answeared (u) Ibid. I deny not but that your Fathers were seruants of God and beloued of him whom they loued with a rude kind of simplicity but with a godly intention Nor do I thinke that this their obseruation of Easter was greatly hurtfull vnto them so long as none had come to them to informe them of the decrees of more perfection which they ought to haue obserued For I belieue that if a Catholike Calculator had come vnto them they would haue followed his admonitions c. And therfore sayth Baronius (x) Anno 604. n. 5. It seemed not good to the Catholike Church to blotout of the Catalogue of Saints such men as had liued among them eminent in sanctity and whom God had illustrated with miracles 5. But to proue that the Scottish and Brittish Churches were not subiect to the Roman you alleage (z) Pag. 157. marg Galfridus out of the Centurists saying Dinothus a learned Abbot proued with many Arguments that they owed no subiection to Augustine whom S. Gregory had sent to preach the fayth of Christ to the English This is a falsification which therfore you vent in the Centurists name for Galfridus hath not any one word of the Britans or Scots no-subiection to the Church of Rome but only a passionate and cholerick speach of the Britans not acknowledging any superiority of Augustine ouer them seing he was sent only to the English and that the authority of their owne Archbishop was not taken away by his comming for ought they knew which question of iurisdiction falleth out daily between Bishops euen where the Popes authority is most acknowledged Yea moreouer that both the Britans and Scots acknowledged the authority of the B. of Rome ouer them Galfridus against you and your Centurists beareth witnesse reporting (a) L. 9. c. 12. 11. that on the day of Pentecost at Chester King Arthur being present there was a great meeting of Princes Lords and Bishops for his Coronation And that of three Archbishops which Britaine had at that time of Chester London and Yorke Dubritius Archbishop of Chester being Primate of Britaine and Legate of the See Apostolike did the office of the Church and crowned King Arthur If therfore the Pope had his Legate in Britaine and that no lesse a man then the Primate of all Britaine it is manifest that the Britans acknowledged the authority of the See Apostolike oâ—er them Which is yet made more euident because as your Bale (b) De script Eceles fol. 30. confesseth Dauid that famous Welsh Bishop was canonized by Pope Calixtus the second and not only Bale but S. Prosper (c) Chron. â—n 432.434 Bede (d) L. 1. hist c. 13. 17. and Marianus Scotus (e) Chron. an 430. write that Celestine Pope sent Palladius and Germanus learned Bishops into Britaine to extirpate the Pelagian heresy and to reduce the Scots to true piety and Patricius who had studied Diuinity in Rome and was a man most excellent in learning and sanctity to the Irish and Scots to defend them from the same heresy All which sheweth that aswell the Britans as also the Scots Irish euen before the comming of S. Augustine were in the communion of the Roman Church and that the Pope had supreme care ouer them in spirituall affaires since he appointed them Bishops from Rome Iustly therefore may we conclude that your denying the subirction of the British Scotish and Irish Churches to the See of Rome at the time of S. Augustines coming into this Iland to preach to the English is grounded
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
ages I dispute not of what authority this Act of S. Gregory is my intention only is to discouer your imposture for Bellarmine in that very place which you meÌ„tion (k) Cont. Barcla c. 40. againe before in the same booke (l) Cap. 8. doth not only vrge this one Act of S. Gregory but also another that in words more effectuall which the same S. Gregory granted at the in treaty of Brunichild Theodoricus whom he calleth The most excellent Kings his children This decree you thought best to passe ouer in silence because it is without all exception and to persuade your reader that Bellarmine mentioneth only the former which is sufficiently vindicated from Doctor Iames his Cauills which here you oppose by the authority of Gregory the seauenth a most holy and learned Pope who liuing almost 600. yeares nearer S. Gregories â—iâ—â—e then Doctor Iames or your selfe alleageth this decree as his whole therfore vndoubtedly it is Your railing against Gregory the feauenth I omit as not deseruing an answeare SECT III. Other Fathers and Catholike authors obiected by Doctor Morton FIrst you obiect (m) Serm. pag. 6. Impost pag. 282. When the Archbishop of Sens in France challenged the priuiledge of immunity from all subiection to the King he was encountred by S. Bernard and arrested by vertue of this Canon Omnis anima saying Forget you what is written Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers Qui te tentatexcipere tentat decipere i. He that seekes to exempt doth but labor to delude and seduce you O stange imposture O insufferable boldnesse By what authority do you presume to rake vp the ashes of a holy Archbishop deceased 500. yeares since and slander him with challenging immunity from all subiection to the King as well in temporall as in spirituall affaires for immunity from all subiection importeth as well the one as the other Is there mention of any such challenge in S. Bernards epistle No. It is a tale framed on your fingers ends that you may make S. Bernard reprehend the Archbishop for a fault of which you without any ground are pleased to accuse him and father on vs that doctrine of Disobedience to Princes which we condemne and detest But I see not how you agree with your selfe for in your Grand imposture you obiect S. Bernards words as a reprehension to Popes for not obeying Princes but in your Sermon you produce the same words as a reprehension not to Popes but to the Archbishop of Sens neither the one nor the other being true but inuentions of your owne to slander the Archbishop and the Popes and to make S. Bernard guilty of the same fault The Archbishop of Sens hauing in great esteeme the wisdome learning and sanctity of S. Bernard required some spirituall documents from him as S. Bernard in the begining of his Epistle (n) Ep. 4â— declareth adding on the one side his vnworthinesse to write vnto so great a Prelate and on the other the feare he had not to obey his commands Wherfore yeilding to his command he writ along epistle in which hauing discoursed at large of Chastity and Charity two singular ornaments of Priestly dignity he addeth the third which is Humility reprehending the pride of Clergy men that hauing obtayned one place still aspire to others of greater dignity not contented with one they striue to loade themselues with many honors at once all which yet they will part with for one Bishopricke Nor will they rest there but factus Episcopus Archiepiscopus esse desiderat he that is made a Bishop desireth to passe from a Bishopricke to an Archbishoprick And then turning his speach to the Archbishop of Sens to whom he writeth to other Ecclesiasticall Prelates he exhorteth him them to Humility and Obedience saying Vt securè praeesse possitis subesse ves si cui debetis non dedignement That you may command securely disdaine not to yield obedience if to any you owe it And to this purpose he bringeth those words of the Apostle Omnis anima c. If euery soule be subiect yours also Who seekes to exempt you from all If any one seeke to exempt you he seeketh to deceaue you This is S. Bernards drift and discourse And can you inferre from hence that the Archbishop of Sens denied Obedience to the King in temporall affaires or that S. Bernard subiecteth the Papall dignity to the Regall Yes for presently after say you (o) Impost pag. 182. the same Father applieth the same Doctrine to the Popes themselues How proue you this Out of these words of S. Bernard Sunt qui dicunt Audite Pontifices seruate honorem c. sed aliter Christus Reddite Caesari c. There are that say Heare O yee Popes Mantaine your honor But Christ said otherwise Yeild to Cesar c. So you but most falsly for Audite Pontifices are not S. Bernards words but forged and thrust into his text by your selfe 2. If they were his your illation were vaine for Pontifex is not necessarely taken for the Pope without the addition of Summus or Maximus 3. Yea S. Bernard out of those words as he exhorteth those that owe tribute to Cesar to pay it so he inferreth that if Christ would haue secular powers to be obeyed much more would he haue the Ecclesiasticall and that they who are sedulous and carefull in the affaires of Kings ought much more to be subiect cuicunque Christs Vicario to whatsoeuer Vicar of Christ and chiefly to the Pope his supreme Vicar on earth as he writ to Conradus the Emperor teaching him (p) Ep. 183. to obey the See Apostolike out of this very text Omnis anima which you produce for the contrary 2. You obiect (q) Impost pag. 175. serm pag. 36. S. Ambrose saying That his prayers and his teares were his weapons and that he neither might nor could make any other resistance If S. Ambrose said so it was to shew that when Emperors vse secular forces against the Priests of their dominions Priests being no soldiers must not defend themselues by the sword but by teares and prayers to God But that S. Ambrose knew himselfe to haue beside teares and prayers spirituall power he shewed when he excommunicated Theodosius the great and first Emperor of that name And Theodosius acknowledged this power in S. Ambrose obeying with all humility and performing the pennance enioyned him 3. You obiect (r) Impost pag. 175 serm pag. 19.36 Tertullian S. Cyprian and S. Gregory Nazianzen professing that Christians do not take reuenge against the iniust violence of their enemies We follow and imbrace their doctrine for what Catholike Diuine euer taught reuenge or rebellion to be lawfull If any teach or practise otherwise we abiure their doctrine as hereticall hate their practise as damnable SECT IV. Doctor Morton slandereth Vrban Pope and with him all Catholikes ARguments failing for what hitherto you haue produced are nothing but falsifications
owne house and the Citizens of Paris breaking into the houses of Huguenots killed many of them The like they did at Lions Roan Orleans and diuers other places This is the history of the Massacre of Paris reported by Surius (k) Comment rerum in or be gest anno 1572. out of the relation printed at Paris and out of the King of France his letters written with his owne hand to the Princes of Germany Which though it be a liuely expession of the barbarous cruelty of your French brethren yet they are not ashamed in their printed bookes to reuile the most Christian King and exaggerate his cruelty for this facts when as they witnesse Surius (l) Ibid. in the space of a few yeares by their owne priuate authority without and contrary to all order of Law haue murdered many thousand Catholikes in France and would peraduenture reioyce if by their hands the King had likewise dispatched all the rest And what your loue to the Catholikes of England is these obiections are a sufficient testimony which serue for nothing els but to exasperate the King and State against them SECT VII The same matter prosecuted YOu goe on obiecting (m) Pag. 172. 176. Tolosanus a Lawier who writeth He had not read in any history that for the space of 300. yeares after Christ Christians euer rebelled against Kings or plotted against their gouerment which Barklay extendeth to a longer time of 1000. yeares We ioyne with Tolosanus Barklay therin And if any Christians before or after those times haue rebelled or held it lawfull to rebell against their Soueraignes we disclaime from them as from furies and plagues of the Christian Common wealth We detest their Doctrine as impious and hartily wish that all your new Reformers and some others more ancient not vnlike to them and well liked of by you were of the same mind for who knoweth not that Wickliffe a predecessor to you in many pointes of your doctrine and a Foxian Saint (n) Ianuar. 2. teacheth that if a Prince gouerne ill or fall into sinne he is no longer a Prince but that his subiects may take armes against him and punish him at their pleasure Who hath not heard of Luthers Doctrine in his Articles condemned by the Catholike Church (o) In bulla Leonis 10. that Christians are free exempted from all Princes Lawes and that therupon immediatly followed in Germany that tumultuous rebellion of the Pesants against their Lords wherin were slaine aboue an hundred thousand (p) Surâ—is Comment rerum in or be gest anno 1525. And who is ignorant of Caluins Doctrine that Princes Lawes oblige not in conscience but only for externall and temporall respects (r) L. 4. instit c. 10. §. 5. You I know haue labored to excuse him from these and other seditious Tenets But I likewise know that Brerely hath truly told you (s) Prot. Apol praefa sect 11. that your excuse consisteth vpon violent comparing of phrases vnworthy your iudgment vnworthy your learning vnworthy of reply therto Caluins words are (t) In Daniel c. 6. vers 22.25 Apud Brerel cit Abdicant se potestate terrent Principes dum insurgunt contra Deum c. Earthly Princes do bereaue themselues of authority when they erect themselues against God They are vnworthy to be accompted in the number of men and we must rather spit vpon their faces then obey them Can these words admit any glosse Are they not euidently seditious Doth not Doctor Wilkes (u) Brereley ibid. obiect them to the Puritanes as such They were sayth he (x) Brereley ibid. your Teachers who accompt those Princes who are not refined by their spirit vnworthy to be accompted amongst the number of men and therfore rather to be spitted vpon then obeyed They were your Teachers who defend rebellion against Princes of a different Religion c. But what need haue we of Caluins or his Brethrens words when we haue the vnanswearable proofe of his deeds Doth not M. Sutcliffe confesse (y) Brereley ibid. sect 11. that they of Geneua at the instigation of Caluin and Farellus deposed their Liege Lord and Prince from his temporall right albeit he was by right of succession the temporall Lord and owner of that City territory And doth not M. Bancroft speaking of the chiefe Ministers of Geneua which were Caluin Farellus and Beza say (z) Brereley ibid. It hath bene a principle with them that if Kings and Princes refuse to reforme Religion the inferior Magistrates or people by direction of the Ministery may lawfully and ought if need require euen by force and armes to reforme it themselues From whence but from these Principles haue Caluin Beza and other their Successors to this day conuinced the same vnlawfull vsurpation And to come nerer home did not King Iames of famous memory in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 complain (a) L. 2. c. 40. 41. of the perturbation and confusion of the kingdom of Scotland wrought by the fiery spirits of your Ministers in particular of the calamities brought vpon his Grand-Mother and Mother by them and of their seditious plots against himselfe in his yonge age And from whence did the late rebells of Scotland learne their lesson but out of the same Schoole and from the same Maisters Do not you acknowledge (b) Serm. pag. 38. that they defend their rising in armes against his Maiesty by the authority of Luther Caluin and Beza I know your pretend to quit them from that imputation but the Scots were to conuersant with their doctrine not to vnderstand it And besides what hath bene said it were easy if worth the labor to shew that notwithstanding your defence of their innocency all the water of the Ocean is not able to wash them cleane from the filth of those doctrines But if you please to be further satisfied in this point read M. Parison (c) Monarchomachia per tot Breerley (d) Prot. Apol praef tot and Endaemon Ioannes (e) Apol. pro Henr. Garn. c. 3. who set down so many particulars of the acknowledged doctrines and practises of Protestants in that kind in the expresse words of your owne writers that impudency it selfe cannot gainesay them And as it is certaine that you can neuer free your brethren from these doctrines so it is no lesse that you charge Catholikes falsly with the same for who knoweth not the constant doctrine of all our Diuines to be that rebellion of subiects against their Liege Lords and Soueraignes is vnlawfull in any case in any occasion vnder any pretence or to any end whatsoeuer This is taught by the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas of Aquine not in one but in many places of his workes This is the doctrine of Caietan of Sotus Valentia Bellarmine Tolet Serarius Becanus Richeome Salmeron Lessius Gretserus Hessius Eudaemon Ioannes and in a word of all Catholike Diuines (f) Of this see Patison
citation and application of these attributes you deale not vprightly as is to be seene in Canisius from whom you tooke them (b) Catechisinit in Encorn Pat. But leauing that to the readers examination your owne answeare destroyeth it selfe for those ascriptions you confesse import no authority But doth the title of Rector or Gouernor import no authority As the power authority of the Head of a Colledge or Gouernor of a cōmonwealth cannot be better or more effectually expressed then by saying He is Rector of the Colledge or Gouernor of the Common-wealth so if S. Ambrose had studied to confute your answeare and expresse the Popes Monarchicall power authority ouer the whole Church he could not haue done it more effectually then by stiling him Rector or Gouernor of the house of God which is his Church for that title neuer was nor can euer be giuen to any other but to the Pope of Rome whom Christ hath made Pastor Gouernor of his whole flock (c) Ioan. 21.15 seqq And to this S. Ambrose alludeth (d) L. 10. ep 81. when writing to Siricius Pope he calls him A watchfull and pouident Pastor that with pious solicitude defends the flock of Christ from wolues that is from heretikes 3. What S. Ambrose his iudgment was concerning the infallibility of the Bishop and Church of Rome he declareth when writing to Siricius Pope of certaine heretikes whom he had condemned he sayth (e) Ibid. Whom your Holinesse hath condemned know that we also hold them condemned according to your iudgment S. Ambrose was fare more learned then Siricius and yet by reason of the infallibility of the Roman Church in determining causes of fayth and condemning heresies he submitteth to the iudgment of Siricius Impertinently therfore do you obiect (f) Pag. 214. to proue S. Ambrose his no-subiection to the Church of Rome that the Pope asked his iudgment concerning the day of Easter for a Counsellor may be more learned then a King the King may aske his iudgment and yet the authority of determining the cause is not in the Counsellor but in the King And the Counsell or though he be more learned is subiect and bound to obey the King as S. Ambrose was and acknowledged himselfe bound to obey Siricius Nor do you find vs to hold that the Pope in his determinations ought not to proceed prudently asking the aduice of learned men 4. To proue that S. Ambrose acknowledged no subiection to the Church of Rome you report (g) Pag. 214. out of Baronius that certaine Clergy-men of Milan 670. yeares after the death of S. Ambrose called the Bishoprick of Milan S. Ambrose his Church and withstood Petrus Damianus the Popes Legate alleaging that the Church of Ambrose had bene alwaies free in it selfe and neuer subiect to the lawes of the Pope of Rome But why do you conceale the truth of this history The ancient splendor and beauty of the Church of Milan being defaced and greatly decayed partly by the impurity of Clergy-men that being infected with the heresy of the Nicolaites liued incontinently and obstinatly defended the same to be lawfull and partly by Simoniacall Priests the people of Milan sent Legates to the Pope beseeching him to commiserate the lamentable state and cure the desperate diseases of that famous Church The Pope not Leo the Ninth as you mistake but Nicolas the second between whom and Leo there were other two Popes Victor and Stephen condescending to so iust a request sent two holy and learned men Petrus Damiani Cardinall of Ostia Anselme B. of Luca as his Legates to visit that Church and armed them with his owne authority to correct the offenders and ordayne whatsoeuer should be thought expedient for the reformation of so great disorders The Legates being ariued at Milan had no sooner intimated their Commission but the people stirred vp by those lewd and factious Clergy-men began to oppose them alleaging that the Church of Ambrose had bene alwais free in it selfe and neuer subiect to the Lawes of the Pope of Rome These are the only words which you cull out of Baronius whole narration leauing out what precedeth and making no mention of what followeth which is that Petrus Damiani stepping vp into the Pulpit after he had quieted the people proued effectually the soueraigne authority granted by Christ to the Roman Church ouer all Churches that whosoeuer denies that authority is an heretike The people giuing eare to his words were appeased and with one accord promised to do whatsoeuer he should ordayne There was present a great number of Clergy-men and scarce any of them that had not bene promoted to orders by Simony For the remedy of so great a mischiefe the Legats required from Guido the Archbishop an inuiolable caution and promise not to admit any from thence forward to holy orders for money and also to roote out the heresy of the Nicolaites Wherunto he willingly yeilded with imprecation of Gods wrath and reuenge on himselfe if he performed it not He gaue this caution in writing the Priests and Clerkes subscribed vnto it Which being done he prostrated himselfe on the ground asking pennance of the Legates for his offence And in like manner the Clergy-men admitting pennance were reconciled in tyme of Masse and receaued new ornaments from the Bishops hand hauing first made a profession of their fayth in which they anathematized all Heresies extolling themselues against the holy Catholike and Apostolike Church particularly those of the Nicolaites and Symonians This is the story and what greater folly can there be then to argue that S. Ambrose a most holy and learned Doctor opposed the authority of the Roman Church because a few lewd hereticall Clergy-men of Milan 670. yeares after his death disclaimed from the obedience of the B. of Rome to the end they might hold on their damnable courses and escape that punishment which their offences so iustly deserued And can there be a greater Imposture then to alleage a few rash words vttered by the people at the instigation of those heretikes to conceale that they togeather with the people Archbishop being admonished by the Popes Legats acknowledged their error with harty sorrow and promise of amendment and obedience to the See Apostolike By this a iudicious reader will perceaue that you neither regard what you alleage true or false nor stick to patronize vice and heresy in them that with you will oppose the Bishop and Church of Rome But you that follow them in their disobedience why do you not also follow them in their repentance When Theodosius in excuse of the great slaughter he had made at Thessalonica alleaged to S. Ambrose that King Dauid also had offended committing adultery and murther S. Ambrose answeared (h) Paulinus in vita Ambros Sequutus es errantem sequere poenitentem As you haue followed Dauid in his finne so follow him in his repentance And if he were now liuing he would
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
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
this example condemneth your Doctrine for if all that are in the Patriarkship of the West be the Popes subiects and haue right to appeale vnto him why do you Protestants who cannot deny your selues to be within his Patriarkship disclaime from his obedience Why do you not submit to your lawfull Superior Why do you forbid appeales and all recorse vnto him And if as here you confesse he hath as much right to the appeales of them which are within his owne Patriarkship as a Parson hath to the tithes of his owne Parish why do you defend that it was lawfull for the Africans whom you acknowledge to be within his owne Dioces (p) Pag. 289. and therfore rather subiect to him then to others (q) Pag. 304. to forbid appeales vnto him Why do you so often inueigh against the Popes for requiring and mantaining their owne right herein 5. You except (r) Ibid. against other appeales because they were of heretikes or other persons notoriously impious as of Basilides Marcion Fortunatus and Felix or Felicissimus for so you should haue said But by this Argument you may as well proue that a King hath no right of Appeales in his kingdome for who knoweth not that not only persons that are wronged by inferior Iudges but also others which haue bene iustly condemned do sometimes appeale the former to be righted and the later in hope to procure their iust condemnation to be reuoked by fauor or by misinforming their Soueraigne Wherfore as it were sophistry to inferie that a King hath not soueraigne authority in his kingdome because some that appeale vnto him are wicked persons so it is to except against the Popes supreme authority because some that appeale vnto him are wicked persons that haue bene iustly condemned by their immediat Superiors Your inference should haue bene that because all sortes of persons nocent and innocent haue appealed to the Pope from all partes of the world it rightly followeth that he is supreme Iudge of the vniuersall Church SECT III. Examples of innocent Appellants IN proofe of the ancient custome of appealing to Rome we produce the examples of S. Athanasius S. Chrysostome Theodoret and Flauianus You answeare (s) Pag. 304. They addressed their requests to the B. of Rome not as to a peremptory Ludge but as to a Patron and arbitrary Days-man And of Theodoret and Chrysostome you had said before (t) Pag. 255. They only required from the Bishops of Rome a subsidiary help as one King may from another and as the B. of Arles may from the B. of Paris But this to be false sophistry I shall easily proue if first I giue the reader a taste of your ignorance concerning the antiquity of Appeales to Rome from remote Nations in generall SECT IV. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the Antiquity of appealing to Rome from remote Nations THeodoret being iniustly deposed from his Bishopricke of Cyre a City bordering vpon Persia appealed to Leo Pope saying (u) Ep. ad Leon. I attend the sentence of your Apostolike throne and beseech your Holinesse to succour me appealing to your right and iust iudgment and to command that I be brought before you and verify that my Doctrine followes the Apostolicall pathes You startling at these so vnanswearable words of Theodoret bid vs (x) Pag. 255. marg lit m. note that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations was very vncouth in those dayes giuing vs therby a good testimony of your ignorance in Ecclesiasticall history for that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations was not very vncouth but very familiar in those dayes and long before those dayes euen from the first ages of the Church who knoweth not that is versed in antiquity For 1. Sixtus Pope that liued 300. yeares before Theodoret ordayneth (y) Ep. 2. that if any Bishop be wronged he appeale freely to the holy and Apostolike See 2. Marcellus the first declareth (z) Ep. 1. ad Episc Antioch Prou. that accoding to the constitutions of the Apostles and their successors all Bishops when there is occasion may appeale to the See Apostolike 3. Felix the second (a) Ep. ad Syn. Alex. As often as Bishops shall thinke themselues wronged by those of their Prouince or by their Metropolitan or haue them in suspicion let them appeale to the See of Rome 4. The same is ordained by Victor (b) Ep. ad Theoph. caterosque Episc Aegyp by Zephyrinus (c) Ep. ad Episc Sicil. by Fabianus (d) Ep. ad Hilar and Melchiades (e) Ep. ad Episc Hispan 5. And what these ancient Popes decreed the holy Councell of Nice related by Iulius (f) Ep. 2. confirmed ordaining that all Bishops accused of grieuous crimes may freely appeale to the See Apostolike fly to it as to a Mother for defence and succour The authority of this Canon is proued by Pisanus (g) L. 3. Conc. Niceni apud Bin. to 1. pag. 350. And that the Nicen Councell made such a decree S. Leo (h) Ep. 25. testifieth and you els where forgetting your selfe acknowledge (i) Pag. 308. marg lit r. 6. The Councell of Sardica related not only by Catholike writers but also by the Centurists decreeth (k) Cap. 4. that if any Bishop being deposed by the next Bishops and protesting that his cause ought to be iudged a new fly for succour to the B. of Rome no other is to be installed in his See after he hath put in his Appeale but that his cause be sentenced by the B. of Rome 7. And when Iohn surnamed Talaia Patriarke of Asexandria was cast out of his See by the Emporor Zeno and Peter Moggus set vp in his place Iohn sayth Liberatus (l) Liberat. 6.18 addressed himselfe to Calendion Patriarke of Antioch and hauing taken from him Synodic all letters of intercession appealed to the Pope of Rome Simplicius 8. When Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople was condemned by the false Councell of Ephesus Valentinian the Emperor writ to Theodosius his Father-in-Law (m) Extat Ep inter Ep. preamb. Conc. Chalced. that Flauianus according to the custome of Councells appealed by petition to the Blessed Bishop of the City of Rome And Liberatus (n) Cap. 12. That sentence hauing bene pronounced against Flauianus he appealed to the B. of Rome by petition presented to his Legates 9. And Leo (o) Ep. 8. writing to the same Flauianus Eutyches protestes that in full iudgment he presented to you a request of appeale and that it was not receaued 10. And Flauianus answering Leo (p) Extat Ep. inter Ep. Leonis ante Ep. 7. Eutyches hath informed you that in the time of iudgment he presented to vs and to the holy Councell heare assembled libells of appeals to your Holinesse which was neuer done by him 11. And the same Leo (q) Ep. 25. writing to Theodosius the yonger beseecheth him that for as much as Flauianus
authority and command of the Pope the Councell it selfe so requiring and the condemnation of all the errors of Wiclef and Hus ratified and confirmed by a speciall Bull of the Pope with command that all suspected of those heresies should be demanded whether they belieue that S. Peter was the Vicar of Christ hauing power to bind and lose vpon earth and whether they hold that the Pope canonically chosen his proper Name expressed is the Successor of S. Peter hath supreme power ouer the Church of God These are the doctrines of that Councell which shew that your obiecting it against the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome ouer all other Bishops and Churches is a Grand Imposture SECT VIII The same matter prosequuted out of the Councell of Basil THere was say you (r) Pag 358. a Councell gathered at Basil by the authority of Pope Martin the fifth What A generall Councell called by authority of the Pope Then it appeares that the Pope is supreme Head and gouernor of the vniuersall Church for as a King cannot by his authority call a Parliament of those that are not his subiects so neither could the Pope by his authority haue called a generall Councell had not his authority extended it selfe ouer the vniuersall Church So vnaduisedly are you caught in your owne snares You adde (s) Ibid. out of Binius that this Councell was after confirmed by Eugenius How confirmed Were the Acts or decrees of that Councell confirmed by Eugenius So would you perswade your reader But Binius speaketh not of the confirmation of any Act or Decree of the Councell but only of ratifying the calling and beginning of it vnder the presidence of Iulianus Caesarinus his Legate according to the Order of his predecessor which is also obserued and proued by Canus (t) L. 5. de loc cap. postrem It was therfore begun and for a time continued by lawfull authority but afterwards became schismaticall and was iustly condemned by the generall Councell of Lateran (u) Sub Leon. 10. sess 11. as a Conuenticle schismaticall sedition and of no authority 1. Because as Turrecremata a learned writer of that time aduertiseth (x) Sum. de Eccl. l. 2. c. 10â— contrary to the custome of all generall Councells they refused to acknowledge the authority of those whome the Pope had sent to preside in the Councell 2. For that they presumed to pronounce a sentence of deposition against Eugenius Pope and that in a most temerarious manner because there was then no Legate of his in the Councell all the chiefe Bishops being departed a certaine Cardinall of Arles by his owne authority had vsurped the place of President and because there wanted voyces of Bishops to make vp number they tooke into the Councell a great multitude of Priests so that now against all order and forme of Councells it was not a Councell of Bishops but of Priests 3. as Turrecremata witnesseth (y) Ibid. the decrees of that Councell euen such as they were were not vnanimously agreed vpon both because many Prelates and Doctors as well of Canon as of ciuill Law made resistance vnto them and also because vnderstanding that Embassadors sent by the Kings of England and Castile were on their way and neere at hand they hastned fraudulently to define such things as they knew those Legates would not assent vnto 4. Because as S. Antoninus reporteth (z) Part. 3. tit 22. c. 10. §. 4. Iulianus the Cardinall whom Eugnius had appointed President leauing that schismaticall Conuenticle returned to the Pope who by Apostolicall authority dissolued their assembly But they stopping their eares began to summon Eugenius being solicited theruÌ„to by the Duke of Milan his professed enemy On the other side Sigismund the Emperor and the Venetians dissuaded them from any further proceeding Which notwithstanding they pronounced sentence of deposition against Eugenius and erected to themselues a new Idoll Amadaeus Duke of Sauoy calling him Felix the fifth to whom obedience was yeilded in his owne territory Thus S. Antoninus Wherby it appeares that Felix whom the Councell created being acknowledged no where but in his owne Dukedome the whole Church adhered still to Eugenius belieuing that the Councell had no authority to depose him Yea Felix himselfe (a) See Binius in Not. ad hoc Council pag. 406. acknowledging the same resigned his vsurped title by perswasion of the Emperor and euen by his owne iudgment condemned all the Acts of that Councell by which he had bene chosen as of a schismaticall Assembly And hereby is discouered the falshood of what you alleage (b) Pag. 359. out of a Synodicall Epistle of that Councell demanding whether the Pope will condemne for schismatikes all the Cardinalls Bishops and the Emperor himselfe with Kings Princes yea and the whole Church which did approue that Councell This I say is a shamefull vntruth for all the chiefe Prelates seeing that Councell grew to open Schisme had forsaken it there was remaining one only Cardinall (c) See Bin. to 4. pag. 121. and he an enemy to the Pope the maior part of them that remained were not Bishops but Priests and they disagreeing among themselues as appeareth out of another Synodicall Epistle of theirs (d) Apud Bin to 4. pag. 146. in which also they confesse the paucity of their number partly excusing it by reasons and partly laying the fault on Eugenius that he had drawne away so many Prelates from them How then is it true that all the Cardinalls Bishops the Emperor with Kings and Princes and the whole Church were present there and approued this Councell How is it true since it is certaine that three yeares before the dissolution of this Conuenticle was assembled that famous generall Councell of Florence in which this Basilean Synagogue was condemned and the Vnion betweene the Greeke and Latine Church established Pope Eâ—genius himselfe assisting in it as President the Emperor of the Grecians being present in person the Emperor of the Latines by his Legates together with all the most famous Prelates of the Greeke and Latin Church aboue 1400. in number This sheweth which of these two assemblies was the lawfull Councell which the schismaticall yea and God himselfe interposing his verdict declared the same for those Schismakikes obstinatly refusing to breake vp their assembly so often annulled by the Pope he according to his promise made to S. Peter (e) Math. 16.19 and in him to his Successors confirming the sentence of Eugenius from hâ—auen sonâ— among them a most horrible plague of which many of them dying the rest were enforced to breake vp and depart as Aeneas Siluius recordeth (f) In histor Conc. Basil who hauing bene present at that Councell and seeing their â—emerations obstinacy against the Roman See forsooke it and detesting it writ earnestly against it All this being true as it is with what fidelity do you say (g) Pag. 350. that in this case the
Pope is the schismatike and not the Councell But I wonder not that you take part with Schismatiks Belike you are of opinion that some obstinate Puritans in Parliament standing out against his Maiesty he and not they are the rebells for the case is alike sauing only that this is a temporall cause and that a spirituall But you demand (h) Pag. 360. with Nilus and Erasmus to what end generall Councells should be called with so much cost trouble and labour if the Pope haue infallibility of iudgment I answere to the same end that S. Peter the first Pope of Rome notwithstanding he had infallibility of iudgment called a Councell at Antioch (i) Act. 15.6.7 If you desire more reasons you haue them in Bellarmine (k) L. 4. de Pont. c. 7. who hath answeared this Argument but you were wise inough to take no notice therof SECT IX Doctor Mortons instances of France and England to proue the no-necessity of Vnion with the Church of Rome THere hath bene published by some of your Nouellists a pamphlet intituled Fasciculus rerum expetendarum fugiendarum stuffed with so many lies that the Author was ashamed to haue his name knowne It is prohibited (l) Indic libro prohib and therfore what you report out of it not to be regarded But your addition (m) Pag. 361. that the Councell of Trent is not admitted within the Kingdome of France and that therfore the French are yet at liberty to belieue as much therof as they list is a famous vntruth for although that Kingdome haue not admitted generally all the decrees made by that Councell for the reformation of Ecclesiasticall discipline yet who knoweth not that as the Catholikes of the world haue so hath that most Christian kingdome with them admitted and imbraced all the decrees of fayth made in the Councell of Trent and that the most Christian King with all his Catholike subiects belieueth them no lesse stedfastly then the decrees of fayth made in the foure first generall Councells which you admit Not vnlike to this is your addition (n) Pag. 361. fin 361. out of B. Gardiners Oration of true obedience that in the time of King Henry the eight all sortes of people in England were agreed vpon this point with most stedfast consent learned and vnlearned both men and women that no manner of persons bred or brought vp in England had ought to do with Rome for albeit some persons infected with Lutheranisme some flatterers for their owne ends soothed King Henry in his opposition to the See of Rome yet who knoweth not that the face of the kingdome was then generally Catholike as for the space of almost 1000. yeares before it had bene And who can be ignorant that in defence of the authority of the See of Rome B. Fisher Syr Thomas More writ most learned bookes which are yet and will euer be most highly esteemed throughout the Christian world and that what they writ with their pens they sealed with their bloud And who knoweth not that Cardinall Pole a man of so great worth that he wanted but two voyces for the Popedome not only writ most learnedly in the same kind but suffered and his friends for his sake great vexations and persecutions at the hands of King Henry for the same cause And that many persons of worth suffered imprisonment and death for the same cause among which were all the Charter-house Monkes of London with their Prior It is therfore a famous vntruth to say It was then the fayth of the Church of England that no person bred or brought vp in England had ought to do with Rome Moreouer you know this Oration of B. Gardiner to be prohibited by the Church (o) In indic lib. prohib and that he ashamed of it retracted it which yet you are not ashamed to obiect CHAP. XLIV Whether Luther and his followers had any iust cause to separate themselues from the Roman Church WE are come to the last Chapter of your Grand Imposture in which to free your selfe from the note of Schisme heresy you brand the Roman Church with both labor to proue that Luther had iust cause to separate himselfe from her Communion and that you continuing in the same separation are more iustifiable then Luther was in his departure from her and may more iustly plead soules saluation then any of them that remaine in Vnion with her Your Chapter you diuide into foure parts and these parts into Theses which I shall examine the more briefly because many of your proofes are repetitions of your former Arguments already answeared SECT I. Whether any Protestants haue held that the Catholike Church before Luthers fall was wholly extinguished YOur first Thesis is (p) Pag. 364. Many Papists in their aduersnesse to Protestant whom they seeke to traduce do impute vnto them this faythlesse Paradoxe as to say that the Catholike Church is sometimes extinguished A false doctrine say you which Protestants neuer taught If Protestants neuer taught this faithlesse doctrine why did Luther when he began to erect your new Church say (q) Praef. in 1. tom cont Reg. Angl. fo 497. He had none to assist him but was left alone and alone stood in the battaile forsaken of all Why did Caluin say (s) Ep. 141. It is absurd that since we haue bene enforced to diuide our selues from all the world we shold now in our very beginnings disagree among our selues Why did he say (t) Respons ad Sadolet It is publike and notorious to all learned and vnlearned that when the Principality of the B. of Rome was erected the kingdome of Christ was prostrated his glory extinguished Religion abolished the Church destroyed and hope of saluation vtterly ouerthrowne Why did Milius say (x) August Confess explic art 7. de Eccl. pag. 137. If there had byn right belieuers before Luther there had bene no need of a Lutheran reformation Why Morgensterne (y) Tract de Eccles p. 141. It is ridiculous to thinke that in the time before Luther any had the purity of Doctrine and that Luther should receaue it from them and not they from Luther It being manifest to the whole Christian world that before Luthert time all Churches were ouerwhelmed with Cymerian darknesse and that Luther was diuinely raised vp to discouer the same and to restore the light of true doctrine And in regard therof Luther boasted saying (z) Ep. ad Argentin anno 1525. Christum à nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari Why did Camierus say (a) Ep. Iesuit part altera Geneu 1601. That error did not only possesse a part of the Church as in time of the Arians but that the whole body of the Church by Apostacy was fallen from Christ Why did Simon de Voyon a Geneuian Minister in his Catalogue of Doctors (b) Praefat. ad Lect. say That in the yeare 605. falshood preuailed and then was the whole