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
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
Peter And againe those letters were not of Orthodoxe Bishops but of the Arians assembled in their false Councell at Antioch who with an hereticall pride stomaked at the Authority of the Bishop of Rome because as Sozomene there reporteth by the dignity and prerogatiue of his See he had restored to their Church Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria Paul of Constantinople and other Catholike Bishops whom they had deposed and rebuked them sharply for their vniust proceedings against them But yet their writing was more tolerable then yours for though to magnify themselues they alleaged that the Doctors of Christian Religion came first from the East to Rome yet withall they acknowledged (m) Sozom. ibid. that the Roman Church obtayned the prize of honour from them all as hauing bene from the beginning the Metropolitan of Religion A truth which you here conceale and euery where deny But you tell vs (n) Pag. 29. 30. that Bellarmine groundeth the motherhood of the Roman Church on a false principle taken out of the counterfeit epistles of Anacletus which is that all the Apostles had their Episcopall ordination of Pastorship from Peter which principle is denyed by Azor and Suarez Heere you speake vntruly and contradict your selfe for as you confesse (o) Pag. 38. Bellarmine groundeth the monarchie of S. Peter vpon those words of our Sauiour Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock will I build my Church c. And on the same passage as also vpon those other words Iohn 21. feed my lambes feed my sheepe by which Christ made him Pastor of his whole flock not only Bellarmine but all Catholikes with the ancient Fathers ground their beleefe of the Monarchy of S. Peter and of the vniuersall authority and motherhood of the Roman Church Wherfore Bellarmine here alleaged by you out of those passages of Scripture supposeth the supremacy of the Roman Church as vndoubted matter of fayth and from thence inferreth probablie as a singular priuiledge of S. Peter that all the Apostles had theyr Episcopall ordination from him and proueth the same not only out of the epistle of Anacletus which you are pleased (p) Pag. 29. 34. to call counterfeit and bastardly grounding your selfe on the testimony of Cusanus in a prohibited worke and which you know he himselfe hath retracted but out of the expresse testimonies of S. Cyprian of Innocentius the first in his epistles to the two Councels of Carthage and Mileuis of Iulius the first and Leo the Great all which you imposterously conceale This deduction of Bellarmine though it follow probably yet not so necessarily that the authority of the Roman Church any way dependeth theron And therefore other learned Diuines and in particular Azor and Suarez who no lesse firmely beleeued the Roman Church to be the mother of all Churches then Bellarmine did are herein of a different opinion from him holding that the Apostles were not ordayned Bishops by Peter but immediatly by Christ himselfe which say you (q) Pag. 29. 31. they mantayne vpon the oracles of God out of direct Scriptures accompanied with the consent of S. Augustine and many other Diuines And because you would haue vs beleeue that in their opinion none of the Apostles were ordayned by Peter you set downe in a different letter these words as theirs (r) Pag. 30. mitio Mathias had his ordination to the Bishoprick which Iudas lost not by the hands of Peter but by lot immediatly from God and S. Paul his not by S. Peter but by a voyce from Heauen euen immediatly from Christ. But your dealing is insufferable for these words are not theirs but feigned by your selfe and falsly fathered on them And as the words are not theirs so nether is the Doctrine for when they say The Apostles were ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ they speake not of Mathias and Paul but only of those twelue which Christ called and conuersed with in his life tyme as Suarez expressly declareth (s) De trip virt Theol. disp 10 sect 1. n. 7. prouing withall that both Mathias and Paul were not ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ but by the Apostles s their imposition of hands which also for as much as concerneth S. Paul he confirmeth with the testimonies of S. Chrysostome and S. Leo. Againe whereas you say they mantayne that the Apostles were ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ out of direct Scriptures accompanied with the consent of S. Augustine you cannot be excused from an vntruth for albeit Suarez in proofe of his opinion alleage the glosse vpon those words of the Apostle God placed in his Church first Apostles c. yet he neither vrgeth these words of S. Paul nor any other text of Scripture to that purpose nor any testimony of S. Augustine sauing one out of the booke of Questions of the old and new Testament which you ought not to regard because when it is alleaged against you you reiect it with contempt (t) Pag. 50. marg as hereticall contrary to S. Augustine but because you conceaue that here it makes for your purpose you will haue it to be S. Augustines So inconstant and contradictorious are you to your selfe And I must here also aduertise you of your absurd manner of arguing whiles you frame a syllogisme (u) Pag. 30. fin 31. assuming for your Maior proposition out of Bellarmine that all the other Apostles were ordayned Bishops by S. Peter and out of Suarez Azor for your Minor that all the other Apostles were not ordayned by S. Peter which being two contradictories as there is no man so senselesse that wil defend two opinions playnly contradictory so there is no man so foolish that will grant both the premises of this your syllogisme which yet he must do that will allow your argument to be good He that will defend Bellarmines opinion will deny your Minor and he that will hold with Azor and Suarez will deny your Maior and so your consequent in both the opinions is false for what els can a consequent be that is inferred out of two premises contradictory to themselues Moreouer you say (x) Pag. 34. fine 35. The nation of Brittayne by our owne accounts receaued the Ghospell Cardinall Baronius and Suarez acknowledging thus much out of most ancient records by the preaching of Ioseph of Arimathia in the 35. yeare of Christ two yeares before Peter did found the Church of Antioch where he was seated 7. yeares before he founded the Church of Rome that is to say in Brittany was planted a Church nine yeares before there was any Church in Rome and hereby so much her elder sister So you not without ignorance and falsehood for you set downe this acknowledgment in a different character as the words of Baronius and Suarez which yet are not theirs nor of any of the other authors whom you name but your owne fiction They indeed acknowledge that Ioseph of Arimathia came into Brittany but that his coming
Church Wherfore S. Peter in the exequution of his Pastorall charge among other admonitions which he giueth to his subiects putteth the Bishops and Pastors in mind of their dueties alluding to the words feed my sheep by which Christ made him supreme Pastor of Pastors vnder himselfe Feed sayth he (n) 1. Pet. 5.2 the flock of God which is among you prouiding not by constraint but willingly according to God neither for filthy lucres sake but voluntarily nor as ouer-ruling in the Clergy but made examples of the flock from the hart And when the Prince of Pastors shall appeare you shall receaue the incorruptible crowne of glory Now that S. Peter made this exhortation to them as their Superior chiefe Pastor is declared by the second Councell of Nice (o) Can. 4. Peter the chiefe Apostle coÌ„manded Feed the flock of our Lord administring your Bishopricks not by force but voluntarily c. And Haymo (p) Domin 2. post Pascha The chiefe Pastor of the Church admonisheth the other Pastors sayng Seniors that are among you I beseech you c. And the Bishops of the East when they banded themselues against the preuarication of their Patriarch Acacius writ to Pope Symmachus (q) Extat haec Epist inter Oâ—thodox impress Basil to 2â— Thou art euery day taught by thy sacred Doctor Peter to feed the sheep of Christ which are coÌ„mitted to thee throughout the habitable earth not constrained by force but willingly c. CHAP. X. Doctor Mortons obiections against the former Doctrine answeared THESE examples taken out of the holy Scripture expounded by the ancient Fathers conuince that S. Peter in diuers occasions exercised acts of iurisdiction properly belonging to his authority ouer the Apostles and ouer the whole Church And the same will yet more appeare by the futility of the Arguments which you frame to disproue his Supremacy The first is (r) Pag. 46. that be had no Crowne on his head to shew his Empire nor Miter to shew his pastorall dominion ouer the other Apostles for though Peter had no Empire as being no temporall Prince yet as Baronius sheweth (s) Anno 34. 〈◊〉 85. all the Priests in the old testament which represented our Bishops did vse Miters and the high Priest representing the Pope in the law of grace had an especiall Miter odorned with a plate of gold which the Scripture calleth a Crowne (t) Ecclest 45.14 as Iosephus testifieth (u) L. 3. Antiq c. 8. made in a triple forme How then do you proue that S. Peter who call's the Priesthood of the new testament a kingly Priesthood (x) 1. Pet. 2 9. had not a triple Miter or Crowne as his Successor now hath though not so rich by reason of the pouerty in which the Church at those her first beginnings was especially since S. Hierome treating of the Sacerdotall Ornaments of the law of Moyses affirmeth (y) Ep. 128. ad Faâ—iolam that in Christ they are more perfectly consummated 2. You say (z) Pag. 46. that Peter had no Legates à laetere to carry his mandats This is your ignorance for as the Pope sendeth to other Churches his decrees made with the aduice of his Confistory so S. Peter with aduice of the rest assembled with him in the Councell of Hierusalem chose out two prime men Iudas surnamed Barsabas and Silas togeather with Paul and Barnaby to cary the mandats or decrees of that Councell to the Churches of Antioch Syria and Cilicia (a) Act. 15.12.13 Your third Obiection is (b) Pag. 46. No person was admitted a pride which S. Peter abhorred to kisse his feete From whence to inferre that S. Peter was not Head of the Church or that he exercised not any iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles is an argument that deserues no answer the Consequent hauing as little connexion with the Antecedent as an Egg with an Oyster But you are so pleased with it that you repeat it afterwards againe (c) Pag. 160. and both here and there vrge it against the Pope to disproue his supremacy not considering that if it be a sinne in him to admit of that honor yet it is no error in Doctrine nor want of authority and iurisdiction which is the thing you should haue proued but of humility and therfore no more disproues his supreme authority then Pride or other vices disproue the supreme authority of a temporall Monarch or the iurisdiction of any other Bishop But wheras you attribute the admittance of this honor to Pride in the Vicar of Christ you know that (d) De sign Eccles l. 11. c. 9. Bozius whom you cite (e) Pag. 160. effectually proueth that the Pope considering his place and supereminent dignity of being the Vicar and Lieutenant of Christ on earth admitteth lesse honors then any temporall Prince or Bishop whatsoeuer which you conceale that so you may taxe him with pride for suffering his feet to be kissed You might in like manner blame Christ for admitting the same honor from Mary Magdalene (f) Luc. 7 3â— and for suffering the Iewes (h) Math. 21.8 to straw the bowes of the trees and spread their owne garments in the way vnder the very feet of the Asse on which he rid and for not prohibiting the Children to proclame his prayses for at that the Iewes stormed (i) Ibid. Vers 16. as you do at the Popes permitting his feet to be kissed Now that this honor of kissing his feet and that prostrate on the ground is no new thing as Polydore Virgil by you cited in a worke corrupted by Protestants and which you also know to be prohibited affirmeth the history of the holy Virgin Susanna (k) Apud Baro. anno â—94 maketh good And the same is proued by what Tertullian (l) Lib. de poenit c. 9. 100. yeares before that tyme reported of the manner vsed by the Roman Church in receauing of penitents who sayth he did kneele downe to the Priests and to the seruants of God And the same is conuinced by the practise of ancient Christian Emperors and Kings of Iustinus of both the Iustinians the elder and the yonger of Fridericus the first and the second surnamed Aenobarbus of Ludouicus the first surnamed The godly and Ludouicus the second of Luitprandus King of the Lombards of Pipinus Ludouicus Crassus and Ludouicus the seauenth Kings of France of Henry the first and the second kings of England some of them falling downe prostrate on the ground to reuerence the Popes person and kissing his feet and others performing the office of yeomen of his stitrop and leading his horse going themselues on foote by him All which particulars if you please you may read in Baronius (m) Spond in Indicâ— V. Obsequia And this reuerence done to the Pope was not obscurely foretold by the Prophet Isay in two places which are excellently pondered by Iacobus Gordon Huntley (*) Contro 2. c. 26. to
same iorney is both a going and a mission a going as it is performed by him that vndertakes the iorney and a mission as it proceeds from those that sent him euen as the same lesson is both doctrina and disciplina doctrina as it is deliuered by the Maister that teacheth and disciplina as it is receaued by the Scholler that learneth and as in Philosophy the same production is called Actio as it proceeds from the Agent Passio as it is receaued in the subiect And to say that the sending of Iohn with Peter argueth Iohn to be equall in authority with Peter is a great Non sequitur as if you should argue a Chanon to be of equall authority with the Deane or a Cardinall with the Pope if they be sent togeather CHAP. XI Sleights and falsifications of Doctor Morton to shift off the testimonies of Ancient Fathers teaching S. Peters supremacy BELLARMINE to proue S. Peters primacy ouer the other Apostles produceth conuincing testimonies of many Fathers both Greeke and Latin (p) L. 1 de Pont. c. 25. These you vndertake to answer or rather to elude by diuers sleights Some of them as being so cleare that you knew not how to deuise any answer vnto them you wholly omit without any mention of them as of S. Prosper Arator and Aetherianus Others you mention as of S. Leo the great of S. Gregory of Venerable Bede and S. Bernard but put them of with deuises We pretermit say (q) Pag. 50. marg n. 20. you the testimony of Pope Leo wherof reason is giuen hereafter but wheras Bellarmine alleageth two vnanswerable testimonies of S. Leo you are so far from giuing any reason of them that for ought I can find you neuer after mention eyther of them The testimonies of Bede and S. Bernard you reiect as not truly ancient wheras Bede liued almost 1000. and S. Bernard aboue 500. yeares since But the true reason indeed why you reiect them is not want of antiquity but because they clearely conuince your Doctrine of falshood For when S. Bernard the later of these two hath any thing which by misinterpreting his meaning or falsifying you can wrest to your purpose as afterwards you do (r) Pag. 170. 182. S. Bernard is ancient inough S. Gregory you shift of promising to speake of him largely afterwards S. Gregory did disclaime from the title of Vniuersall Bishop in that sense in which Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople did arrogate the same to himselfe Of this indeed you treate at large (s) Pag. 92. seqq but his testimonie which Bellarmine vrgeth in proofe of S. Peters pastorall power ouer the whole Church you neither answere nor so much as mention afterwards 3. Bellarmine citeth out of Eusebius his Chronicon these words Petrus natione Galilaeus Christianorum Pontifex primus Peter a Galilean borne the first chiefe Bishop of Christians He sayth not Peter the first Bishop of the Romans as in the same place he sayth Iames the first of Hierusalem and Euodius the first Bishop of Antioch but Peter the first chief Bishop of Christians which differēce of expression she weth that wheras Iames and Euodius were Bishops of two particular Dioceses Peter was the Bishop of all Christians This is one of the testimonies of Eusebius alleaged by Bellarmine which you conceale without giuing any answer vnto it though you name the place out of which he alleageth it The second is out of Eusebius his history which you are contented to mention that you may pick a quarrell against Bellarmine for you say (t) Pag. 49. marg he miscites the Chapter the 14. for the 13. But by desiring to carpe you discouer your ignorance for in the different versions of Eusebius the Chapters are differently diuided and though the passage which Bellarmine citeth be in the 13. Chapter according to the version of Christophorson yet in that of Ruffinus which he followeth it is in the 14. as he cites it And wheras Eusebius there calleth Peter Reliquorum omnium Apostolorum Principem The Prince of all the other Apostles you answere That it is with this restriction omitted by Bellarmine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his singular vertues sake But what doth this omission auaile your cause or hurt ours The Fathers agree in this that when Christ promised to make Peter the foundation of his Church it was for that excellent confession of his Diuinity and in reward therof as hath bene proued (*) Aboue Nu 11. and so likewise when he actually conferred on him the dignity of supreme Pastor it was a reward of his feruent loue But doth it follow that because this supereminent dignity was promised to Peter and conferred on him for his singular vertues it was nor therfore a primacy of Magistracy and iurisdiction but of order only Is not the office of Pastor of Christs flock an office of Magistracy and iurisdiction but such are the answers which you giue to insoluble arguments yet shame not to charge Bellarmine with vnconscionable dealing in vrging this place of Eusebius against you 4. He vrgeth S. Gregory Nazianzen saying Vides c. You see how among the Disciples of Christ all truly great and high and worthy to be chosen this to wit Peter is called a Rock and hath the foundations of the Church committed to his charge And he that is Iohn is loued more and reposeth on the brest of our Lord and the other-disciples did not take it in ill part that these were preferred before them These are the words of Nazianzen and these very words Bellarmine truly and punctually setteth downe whom therfore you vniustly traduce (u) Pag. 49. marg as deprauing Nazianzen whose words as he corrupteth not so neither doth he peruert his sense for out of them it is euident that as Christ preferred Iohn by louing him more then the rest so in far higher degree he preferred Peter before them and before Iohn also For who seeth not that Nazianzen acknowledgeth a far greater dignity in Peter then in Iohn or any other of the Apostles when he sayth that Christ called Peter a Rock and committed to his charge the foundations of the Church for that is to say that he made him Head and Gouernor therof it being a knowne truth that the foundation in a building is the same that the Head in a politicall body from whence it is that the famous Councell of Chalcedon (x) Act. 3. calleth Peter The foundation of true fayth and the rock and top of the Catholike Church which is a far greater dignity then to leane on Christs brest or any other that was conferred on Iohn or any of the other Apostles 5. Bellarmine (y) L. 1. de Pont. c. 25. vrgeth 3. testimonies out of S. Augustines workes The second you passe ouer without any answer to it or mention of it The third you reiect as taken out of a booke which Bellarmine himselfe and others acknowledge not to be
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
that all men are to learne from her the Doctrine of fayth deliuered vnto her by the blessed Apostles And this is the reason why Tertullian speaking of Marcion and Valentinus (q) Ibid. c. 30. proueth them to be heretikes because they had fallen from the faith into which they had beleeued in the Roman Church Nam constat c. For sayth he and his words no lesse agree to Luther and Caluin then to Marcion and Valentinus it is manifest that they first beleeued the Catholike Doctrine in the Roman Church vntill in the tyme of the blessed Bishop Eleutherius for their turbulent spirit of nouelty wherwith they did also peruert their Brethren they were often excommunicated and at length cast out for euer to perpetuall ruine By this it appeareth that the Roman fayth was then held to be the Catholike fayth and the Roman Church which Tertullian calleth The Catholike Church (r) L. 4. cont Marcio c. 4. the Head and Mistresse of all Churches in the world for Marcion was borne at Sinope in Pontus and for his heresy and lewdnesse of lyfe excommunicated by his owne Father a holy Bishop who refusing to absolue him he went to Rome to seeke absolution but his Father opposing obteyned it not ValeÌ„tine was as Aegyptian borne and hauing fallen into heresy in Cyprus came to Rome in the tyme of Higinius Pope and feigning himselfe to be a Catholike was receaued into the Communion of the Roman Church but falling often backe into heresy as a dog returning to his vomit was finally cast out of the Church by the blessed Pope Elutherius as you haue heard Tertullian report And why did these heretikes as also Cerdon at the same tyme when they sought absolution from heresy come from so remote countreyes subiect to other Patriarkes and why from all the Easterne Church and why all of them to the Church of Rome in particular but because they knew her to be the Head Mistres of all Churches that had power to absolue all those which had bene excommunicated by any other Bishops whatsoeuer and to be the originall and center of Catholike Communion and that so long as they remayned out of her bosome they nether were nor should be esteemed Catholikes nor to be in state of saluation Herby it appeares how little reason you had to say out of Beatus Rhenaus (s) Pag. 131 1â—â— though Tertullian giue an honorable testimony to the Church of Rome yet be did not esteeme her so highly as wee see her accounted of at this day And since you acknowledge that Rhenanus his mouth for that and other his inconsiderat speeches is gagged by the Index expurgatorius you shew litle iudgment in obiecting his authority against vs. SECT VIII Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church VVHat hath bene sayd sheweth the futility of your argument out of Vincentius Lyrinensis which is like to the two former out of S. Iraeneus and Tertullian And how little support you haue for your cause in the authority of this ancient and learned Father he will testify for himselfe for when the Doctrine of rebaptizing Heretikes at their returne to the Catholike Church defended by Firmilianus Bishop of Cefarea Agrippinus S. Cyprian Bishops of Carthage and many others wrought so great inconueniences that it gaue a paterne of sacriledge to all heretikes and occasion of error to some Catholikes Vincentius declareth how Stephen then Pope of Rome suppressed it by his authority When sayth he (t) L. cont propha haeres nouat c. â— all men euery where exclamed against the nouelty of that Doctrine all Priests in all places ech one according to his zeale did opppse then Pope Stephen of blessed memory Bishop of the Apostolike See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops but yet more then the rest thinking it as I suppose reason so much to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth as he did surmount them in the authority of his place To conclude in his epistle which then was sent to Africa he decreed the same in these words Let nothing be innouated but that which comes by tradition be obserued And (u) Ibid. c. 10. notwithstanding that the contrary doctrine had sayth he such pregnant wits such eloquent tongues such a number of Patrons such shew of truth such testimonies of Scripture but glosed after a new and naughty fashion and that it was decreed in an African Councell yet the authority of the Pope declaring it a nouelty was of so great force that after he had condemned it all those things were abolished were disanulled were abrogated as dreames as fables as superfluous And afterwards (x) Ibid. c. 43. he alleageth as witnesses of his Doctrine diuers Greeke Fathers and addeth to them the authority of S. Felix Martyr and S. Iulius both Bishops of the Roman Church whom to declare their soueraigne authority he calleth The Head of the world And he concludeth Ibid. c. 45. Least in such plenty of proofes any thing should be wanting wee haue added for a conclusion a double authority of the See Apostolike the one of S. Sixtus a venerable man that now honoresh the Church of Rome the other of Pope Celestine of blessed menory his predecessor And their decrees he calleth Apostolicall and Catholike decrees SECT IX Other Obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared YOur obseruations are (y) Pag 101. seqq that S. Athanasius S. Augustine the Councels of Constantinople of Aegypt and of Cauthage reckoning diuers Bishops to shew their agreement in fayth with them name not only the Pope but other Bishops and write both to him them and consult with him and them as with their fellow Bishops which you say is to giue the Bishop of Rome so many mates and to equalize other Bishops with him But who seeth not what poore stuffe these your obseruations are For if one concerning matters of fayth should consult with his parish Priest and his Bishop would it follow that he equalizeth the parish Priest with the Bishop and maketh him his mate Or if you writing to the King and his Counsell I should lay to your charge that by consulting with his Maiesty and his Counsell you giue his Maiesty so many mantes as he hath Counsellors and equalize them in power and dominion with him would you not thinke mâ— a trifling and indeed a childish opponent how then shall wee thinke otherwise of you that by like consequence go about to equalize other Bishops with the Pope among themselues CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome THAT the Councell of Nice acknowledged the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ouer all Bishops is proued 1. Because Iulius a most holy Pope in his third Epistle which S. Athanesius hath inserted into his second Apology writing to the Arians and declaring vnto them the right of the Roman See to haue the
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
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
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
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