dayes the Roman Church held it canonicall (e) Pag. 222. are all repetitions of your former Arguments which in their due places haue bene answeared (f) Chap. 22. sect 3. Chap. 25.26 tot Chap. 30. sect 1. Chap. 34. sect 6. But to them you adde here a Consideration of your iudicious Casaubon (g) Pag. 223. requiring vs who accompt the only note of Schisme to be diuided from the Roman Church and Pope thereof to answeare Why S. Augustine who in seauen Bookes besides many other places confuted the Schismaticall Donatists yet neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope or of the infallibility of his iudgement whereby to reduce them to the vnity of the Church and truth Your iudicious Casaubon shewed great lack of iudgment in making this Argument and that he had not read S. Augustine or if he had that he did not vnderstand him or if he had read did vnderstand him then you know what he sheweth in concealing the truth For throughout all those seauen Bookes against the Donatists there is nothing which S. Augustine so often obiecteth nor so much vrgeth against them as their separation from the Roman Church repeating the same not once or twice but almost in euery Chapter of some of those bookes For when the Donatists did striue to defend their heresy of rebaptization by the authority of S. Cyprian S. Augustine answeared (h) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18.19 l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9 Contra Crescon l. ◠c. 32. l. 2. c. 3. alibi saepè that Cyprians patronage could not auaile them because they were out of the Communion of the Roman Church in which S. Cyprian liued died And doth he not in other his writings against the Donatists often vrge the succession of Bishops in the Roman Church If sayth (i) Ep. 165. he the order and succession of Bishops be to be obserued how much more assuredly and safely indeed do we begin our accompt from S. Peter himselfe to whom as he represented the whole Church our Lord sayd (k) Math. 16.18 Vpon this Rock I will build my Church For Linus succeoded to Peter Cletus to Linus c. And so reckoning all the Popes vnto Anastasius who then sate in the chaire of S. Peter he concludeth against the Donatists In this order of succession there is not one Donatist to be found to which I adde no nor yet one Protestant And reckoning the motiues that held him in the Church among them he setteth downe the succession of Bishops in the See of Rome There are sayth he (l) Cont Ep. Fundam c. 4. many thinges which with greatest reason hold me in this Catholike Church 1. The vniforme consent of people and nations which is not to be found in the Protestant Church confined to a few Northern countreyes in a corner of the world 2. A certaine authority begun by miracles which Protestants confesse themselues not to haue 3. The succession of Priests euen from S. Peter vntill this present Bishop Wherfore since that Church in which there is a continued succession of Bishops from S. Peter cannot be the Protestan Church which hath no such succession but the Roman it followeth that S. Augustine held the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church And therefore expressing to the Donatists how much he grieued to see them ly cut of from this Church he said (m) Psal cont part Donati It greeueth vs to see you ly so cut of Number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranck of Fathers who succeeded whom That 's the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not Here againe S. Augustine sheweth the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church built vpon Peter and his successors as vpon a rock against which heresies schismes which are the proud gates of hell shall neuer preuaile and all that are out of her communion to be as branches out of from the Vine and deuoid of all spirituall life And as he held all that are out of the Roman Church to be in miserable state so contrarily he held all that liue in her Communion to be most hapy and secure from error in fayth for so he deemed Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage to be notwithstanding all the plots and conspiracies of the Donatists against him He might sayth S. Augustine (n) Ep. 162. contemne the conspiring multitude of his enemies because he knew himselfe to be vnited by communicatory letters both to the Church of Rome in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike hath alwaies florished and to other Countries from whence the Ghospell came first into Africa These few passages among many others shew that your iudicious Casaubon failed much in iudgment and truth when he aduentured to say that S. Augustine in his workes against the Donatists neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope nor of the infallibility of his iudgment wherby to reduce them to the vnity of the Church and truth And as he vrged the authority of the See Apostolike against the Donatists so hath he testified that by the same authority taken from the authority of holy Scriptures (o) Aug. Ep. 91. the Pelagians were condemned who therfore seeing themselues esteemed as Heretikes throughout all the Westerne Church in which they liued sought to the Churches of the East hoping to be admitted into their Communion as the Protestants of Germany writing to Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople did (p) See Iustus Caluinus Apol. pro Eccl. Rom. pag. 10. whom therfore we may check with S. Augustines words written against Iulian a chiese mantainer of the Pelagian heresy I thinke sayth he (q) Cont. Iulia l. 1. c. 4. that part of the world ought to suffice thee in which our Lord would haue the chiefe of the Apostles to be crowned with a most glorious Martyrdome To the Gouernor of which Church Blessed Innocentius if thou woldst haue giuen care thou hadst ere this freed thy dangerous youth from the Pelagian snares for what answeare could that holy man giue to the African Councells but that which from ancient times the Roman Church with all others perseuerantly holdeth And els where he noteth (r) L. 2. de grat Christi pecc orig c. 8. that albeit Pelagius had drawne others into error he could neuer deceaue the Roman Church for the most Blessed Pope Sozimus considered what opinion his predecessor worthy to be imitated had of his proceedings and what iudgment the fayth of the Romans to be commended in our Lord had made of him But you obiect (s) Pag. 225. It is mere sophistry to inferre a necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome to be professed of all Christians at all times because the Fathers required it in their times By this Argument a Pelagian a Donatist an Eutychian or any other Heretike may iustify his departure from the Roman Church pretending as you do that the necessity of vnion with her was not for all times
Ambrose to confute Iulian the Pelagian heretike sayth (g) L. 1. cont Iulia. Pelag. c. 2. Here is Ambrose of Milan whom thy Mayster Pelagius so highly commended as to say that in his bookes chiefly the Roman fayth doth shyne so that his very enemy durst not reprehend his fayth and most pure interpretation of Scripture Who seeth not that S. Augustine here by the Roman fayth vnderstands the Catholike fayth And therefore speaking againe of the great constancy of the same Saint of his labours and dangers for the Catholike fayth he sayth (h) Cont. Iulian Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. The Roman world doubteth not to magnify them with him wher againe by the Roman world he vnderstandeth all the Catholikes of the world The same was the beliefe of S. Hierome (i) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. What fayth sayth he doth Ruffinus call his fayth That which the Roman Church holds or that which is cōtayned in Origens books if he answere that which the Roman Church holds then are we Catholikes The same appeares by the Epistle of Theodosius the Emperor to Acatius Bishop of Berōe and other his Collegues to whom he sayth (k) In Synod Ephes to 5. c. 10. It becometh your Holinesse to aske these things of God earnestly and by manifest tokens to shew your selues approued Priests of the Roman Religion The same appeares by Palladius (l) In vita Chrysostomi who writeth of Theodorus Tyanaeus that he fortified his Bishoprick with a wall of piety by perseuering till the end of his life in the communion of the faithfull Romans of whom Paul giueth testimony saying your fayth is renowned throughout the whole world The same appeares by what Victor of Tunes reporteth of Vitalianus a Scythian (m) In Anastas namely that he tooke armes against Anastasius the Emperor and would neuer promise peace vnto him but vpon condition that he should vnite all the Churches of the East to the Roman which plainely sheweth that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholike Church as the Head and center of Catholike Communion and Mother of all Churches The same appeares by Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople who abiuring the memory of Acatius said to Hormisdas Pope (n) Epist ad Hormisd We hope to be in one communion with you declared by the See Apostolike in which there is the integrity of Christian Religion and perfect solidity and we promise not to recite hereafter in the sacred mysteries the names of those that haue separated themselues from the communion of the Catholike Church that is to say that agree not in all things with the See Apostolike And not vnlike to this is the profession of fayth which Iustinian the Emperor sent to Agapetus Pope The same appeares by (o) Ep. ad Agapet apud Bin. to 2. pag. 417.420 S. Augustine testifying (p) Ep. 157. that the Heresy of Pelagius and Celestius by meanes of the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councels hath beene condemned in the extent of the whole world by the Reuerend Prelates of the Apostolike See yea euen by two of them Pope Innocentius and Pope Zozimus And that S. Augustine by the See Apostolike vnderstands the Catholike Church Possidius speaking of the same subiect declareth (q) In vita Aug. c. 18. calling the sentence pronounced by these Popes Ecclesiae Catholicae iudicium The iudgment of the Catholike Church Innocentius sayth he and Zozimus in their seuerall tymes censuring the Pelagians and cutting them of from the members of the Church by their letters addressed to the African Churches of the East and West commaunded them to be anathematized and auoyded by all Catholikes and the most religious Emperour Honorius hearing of this sentence of the Catholike Church pronounced against them condemned them also by his lawes ordayning that they should be ranked among Heretikes The same appeares by Gelasius (r) In decret de Scriptor apocryph an African borne and it is thought a Disciple of S. Augustine testifying that the holy Roman Catholike and Apostolike Church hath not bene preferred before other Churches by any Synodicall constitutions but hath obteyned the primacy by the voyce of our Lord and Sauiour in the Ghospell saying Thou art Peter c. The same appeares by S. Prosper S. Augustines second soule saying (s) L. de promiss praedict Dei part 4. c. 5 The Apostles Peter and Paul founded the Church of the Gentils in the Citty of Rome where they taught the doctrine of Christ our Lord they deliuered it to their Successors peaceable and free from diuision the Christian that communicates with this generall Church is a Catholike but if he be separated from it he is an Heretike and Antichrist The same appeares by the testimony of those two famous Doctors of the African Church S. Fulgentius and Primasius with other their fellow-Bishops 220. in number who being banished by the Arian King Trasamundus out of Africa into Sardinia writ from thence a Synodicall Epistle to the Catholikes of Africa in which they exhort them for the auoyding of Pelagianisme to read the books of S. Augustine of which say they (t) Extat in Bibliotheca Patr. edit Colon. to 6. part 1. pag. 152. Hormisdas of blessed memory a glorious Bishop of the Apostolike See made mention with great commendation of Catholike prayse in the Epistle which he writ in answer to the Consultation of Possessor our holy brother and fellow-Bishop His words are these What the Roman Church that is the Catholike Church holds and obserues concerning freewill and the grace of God may be fully knowne out of diuers books of blessed Augustine chiefly those which he writ to Prosper Hilary These their words conuince that not only in the beliefe of that ancient and holy Pope Hormisdas but also of all the Catholike Bishops of Africa the Roman Church and the Catholike Church the Roman fayth and the Catholike fayth were Synonima's betokening one and the same thing The same appeares by S. Gregory the Great who setteth downe the forme of abiuration which all Bishops returning from Schisme to the Vnity of the Catholike Church were to make expressing it in these words (u) L. 1. epist 30. I Bishop of N. hauing discerned the trappe of diuision wherein I was caught am returned by Gods grace with my pure and free will to the Vnity of the See Apostolike and I vow and promise that I will neuer returne to Schisme but alwayes remayne in the Vnity of the Catholike Church and in the communion of the Bishop of Rome This profession sheweth that as now it is so then it was held to be no lesse then open Schisme to be diuided from the Roman Church And the like profession made by Nicolas the first of that name was afterwards sent by Adrian the second to the eight Councell generall and being read in the first Action was approued and praysed by all the Fathers therof (x) Act. 1. apud Bin. to 3.881.913
he was Aeneas and not as yet Pope of Rome himself whereas it is a certaine truth and well knowne to your selfe that Aeneas retracted those his writings euen whilst he was Aeneas and long before he was Pope of Rome himselfe Hauing done this wrong to Aenaeas you offer the like to Nocolaus Cusanus (l) Pag. 22 y. 29 f. 40. nu 44. a. 93. l.c. 7. d. 107. d 12 i. 163. m. 200. f. 179 i. 283. d. 287. l. 289. q. 301 f. 302. l. 366. d. who in his youth before he was Cardinall being also present at the Councell of Basil writ a boke which he intituled Concordantia Catholica seeking therein to exalte the authority of a Councell aboue the Pope but soone after perceiuing the Councell to grow into open schisme against Eugenius then lawfull Pope he withdrew himselfe and detesting their proceedings writ most graue and learned Epistles against them and employed his best indeautors to extinguish that Schisme as it is to be seene in his epistle to Rodericus where he fully expesseth his iudgment concerning the supreme authority of the Pope Church of Rome as also in many other places of his workes and especially in his Epistle to the Bohemians where he prescribeth to them and to all others an infallible rule to know whether they be in the true church which is to examine whether they be vnited to the Chayre of the Bishop of Rome by continuall succession deriued from S. Peter If your meaning had bene good you would haue alleaged this as the Doctrine of Cusanus and not the contrary which he himselfe acknowledged to be false and recanted but your intention was to deceaue and no meruaile for such sleights are the firtest proofes for such Doctrine No lesse want of syncerity is that which you shew in setting downe and descanting vpon a passage of Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester (m) Pag. 362. c. 390. q. who in the beginning of King Henries defection from the Church of Rome being carried away with the streame of the tyme and desiring to purchase the kings fauour writ a litle boke De vera obedientia and in it en deauored to proue the Kings supremacy in spirituall things and to iustify his diuorce from Q. Catherine and his mariage with Anne Bolen which boke is forbidden by the Church he himselfe afterwards in the dayes of Queene Mary who for his great wisdome and learning made him Lord Chancelor of England condemned his owne doing in a famous Sermon preached at Paules Chrosse which is mentioned by Iohn Stow in his (*) Anno 2. Mariae Cronicle At this Sermon were present the King and Queene Cardinall Pole the Popes legat the Embassadors of the Emperor of the french King other Princes besydes a marueylous great learned and noble auditory as perhaps was euer at any sermon in England either before or since that tyme. He tooke for his text those words of the Apostle (n) Rom 13.11 Hora estiam nos de somno surgere It is high tyme now for vs to awake from sleepe His discourse was to shew that since King Henry left the old trodden path of his Ancestots breaking from the vnion of the Roman Church they had runne astray not without great strife and diuision among themselues and that therefore it was now time to awake In this sermon he likewise made a most hūble harty accusation of himselfe for his fall consenting to king Henries wil in that booke De vera obedientia which he vttered with so great vehemency of spirit and such abundance of teares that he could not goe forward but was inforced diuers tymes to make pauses And how harty those teares were the euent declared for afterwards falling sick and drawing neare his end he caused the passion of Christ to be read vnto him commyng to the denyall of S. Peter and how Christ hauing looked backe vpon him he went out and wept bitterly the Bishop cryed out bidding them stay there and see whether his sweet Sauiour wold vouchsafe also to looke vpon him and giue him some part of Peters teares For said he Negaui cum Petro exiui cum Petro sed nondum fleui amarè cum Petro. I haue deuyed with Peter I haue gone out with Peter but I haue not yet wept bitterly with Peter And by often repetition of those words and as king God forgiuenesse with sighes and cryes he entertayned himselfe vntill flouds of teares streaming from his eyes he gaue vp the ghost This answere was giuen to Syr Francis Hastings (o) In the Wardword Encounter 4. pag. 41. seqq who obiected against vs Bishop Gardiners booke De vera obedientia as you now doe nor do I thinke that you were ignorāt thereof But howsoeuer you knew that before his death he repented himselfe of his fall recalled that booke for the passage which in this your Imposture you obiect out of it you professe to take out of the English translation (p) Pag. 390. q. the author whereof being a Protestant and of your strayne in writing both in his preface and in his marginall notes throughout the booke rayleth most imtēperatly against Bishop Gardiner for recalling that Booke tearming him Doctor double-face a weathercock that turneth ersy-uersy as the wind bloweth an Antichristian Angell of Satan a seducer a hell-hound of a false trayterous hart a filthy traytour a pernicious Papist a knaue a double-faced periured impudent trayterous chattering Chancelour that seekes to pull away the authority of the crowne from the Queene and her heyres for euer And finally he giues his reader this marke wherby he may know him to be a double periured trayterous Villayne because sayth he in that booke he affirmed that the Bishop of Romes authority in England was against Gods word and now be iugleth to bring it in againe All these and other worse are the words of your modest Brother whose style you seeme to approue by citing his translation of Bishop Gardiners booke against the Pope and Church of Rome but with what conscience you can best iudge sithence the translator testifies that he retracted it and the Church hath forbidden it and the Bishop himselfe before and at his death lamented the writing of it with so many and so harty teares Wherfore as it were a grand imposture to perswade men that it is lawfull for them to deny Christ because S. Peter out of humane infirmity denyed him so it is for you to persuade your readers that it is lawfull for them to deny the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome because Bishop Gardiner out of fraylty and other humane motiues once denyed it for as S. Peter bewayled his fall with many teares so did Bishop Gardiner his Finally and that which most of all sheweth your lack of Conscience in producing diuers of these authors as competent witnesses against vs is that wheras in your former wrytings you haue obiected the testimonies of Cassander
was the 35. yeare of Christ before S. Peter founded either the Church of Rome or of Antioch is your addition falsly imposed on them For though according to the computation of Baronius Lazarus with his sisters Mary and Martha were driuen out of Hierusalem in the 35. yeare of Christ and together with Ioseph of Arimathia by the prouidence of God came to Marsils in France yet nether Baronius nor Suarez nor any one of the authors ancient or moderne which you obiect sayth that Ioseph planted that yeare a Church in Brittaine You name Gildas but he neither mentioneth Ioseph of Arimathia nor saith that Christian religion was planted in Brittaine in the tyme of Tiberius Caesar as you by misplacing his words make him say but speaketh of the great calamities and desolation of that Iland caused by the warres which the Romans made vpon the Brittans not in the tyme of Tiberius nor of Caius for in their tymes the Romans had no warres with the Brittans but of Claudius in the third yeare of whose Empire those warres began and continued 40. yeares togeather vntill the tyme of Domitian Interea c. In the meane tyme sayth (y) In epist de excidia Britan c. 6. Gildas that is during those warres there appeared and imparted it selfe to this cold Iland more remote from the visible sunne then other Nations that true and inuisible sunne which in the tyme of Tiberius Caesar had manifested himselfe by the fame of his preaching and miracles to the whole world I meane Christ vouchsafed to impart his precepts Gildas then is wholly against you for although he say that in the tyme of Tiberius Caesar Christ manifested himselfe and imparted his precepts to the world yet he discribeth the first planting of Christian Religion in Brittaine not in the tyme of Tiberius but of the Roman warres in tyme of Claudius by occasion wherof there was continuall going and comming from Rome to Brittaine and as Christian Religion was then planted did daily increase in Rome so from thence it was also kindled in Brittaine especially there being many Brittains at that tyme inhabiting in Rome some for their pleasure some to flye the warres and vnquiet state of their owne Countrey and some taken by force and caried thither for hostages as Caractacus King of the Silures and much Nobility with him as Cornelius Tacitus reporteth (z) Annal. l. 12. And from hence it is that Holin shead (a) In descrip Britan. to 1. c. 9. and Cambden (b) In sua Britan. p. 162. Protestant historians affirme that one Claudia Ruffina a noble Brittish Lady wyfe to Pudens the Senator and the first hostesse of S. Peter in Rome sent from thence diuers bookes and messages to her frendes in Brittaine and was therby a great helpe to their conuersion To which I add that S. Peter being come to Rome in the second yeare of Claudius to teach and conuert the Western parts of the world when all the Iewes were by publike proclamation banished from Rome he tooke that occasion to goe into France and preached the Ghospell to the French and from thence passing into Brittaine as Metaphrastes (c) Apud Sur. die 23. Iun. pag. 862. out of Greeke antiquities recordeth preached founded Churches and ordained Priests Deacons there which is also testified by that famous holy Pope Innocentius the first saying (d) In epist. ad Decen The first Churches of Italy France Spayne Affrica Sicily and the bordering Ilands were founded by S. Peter or by his Schollers or successors Which caused Guilielmus Eysengrenius (e) Cent. 1 p. 7. d. 8. to affime that the first Christian Churches of England were founded by S. Peter And finally S. Peter himselfe appearing to a holy man in the tyme of King Edward the Confessor shewed him how he had preached in England and the care he had of that Church and Nation as Alredus Rhieuallis (f) Apud Sur. 5. Ianuar. pag. 131. left written 500. yeares since And from that care it proceeded that as Dorotheus (g) In Synopsi Mirmanus (h) In theâ—â—ro de conuers gent. pag. 4â— and Baronius (i) Martyrol 15. Martij out of the Greeke Martyrologe affirme Aristobulus his disciple and a knowne Christian in Rome was sent by him into Brittaine and there made Bishop By all which it appeares that the Brittish Church was not first founded by Ioseph of Arimathia the 35. yeare of Christ in the raigne of Tiberius but by S. Peter in the time of Claudius after he had founded the Church of Rome placed his seat there and consequently that the Church of Rome is most truly and properly Mother of the Church of Brittaine not only by reason of the second conuersion of our nation by Fugatius and Damianus sent by Eleutherius the 13. Pope after S. Peter and also of the third conuersion by S. Augustine and his companions sent by S. Gregory the Great whom therfore Bede calleth the Apostle of England but also in respect of the first preaching and founding of a Christian Church in this Iland it hauing bene wrought by S. Peter his disciples other Roman Christians cooperating therto And so much the more if it be true that S. Paul assisted S. Peter therin going from Rome into Brittaine to preach as Theodoret (k) In psal 106. l. 5. de curandis Graec. affect Sophronius (l) Serm. de Natali Apost Venantius Fortunatus (m) In carm and others affirme As for Ioseph of Arimathia his comming into England I grant it to be true though it be not affirmed by any ancient writer but only by Capgrauius Polydore Virgil other late historians Tradition is sufficient to confirme me in the beliefe therof Yet withall it is certain that he came not the yeare of Christ 35. as you without any proofe at all suppose but hauing come out of Iury into France with S. Mary Magdalen and her company after he had liued there sometime and seene her great austerity of contemplatiue and solitary life and rigor of pennance which she vsed went ouer into Brittaine either sent by S. Peter or by his owne free election And though it be likely that by preaching the Ghospell he increased the number of Christians in the Brittish Church yet the chiefe intention of his comming was to begin that kind of solitary and heremiticall life which he had seene practised by S. Magdalene in France as Cambden (n) In descrip Brit. pa. 162. obserueth Ioseph sayth he and his companie did take vpon them a solitary life that with more tranquillity they might attend to holy learning and with a seuere kind of conuersation exercise themselues to the bearing of Christs Crosse From hence it followeth that the Roman Church is Mother to that of Brittaine not only by reason of the supereminent authority and power which she hath ouer her aswell as ouer all other Churches of the world but also in antiquity she being planted
the law and not to fulfill it did our Lord Iesus Christ for the Pharisies of whom he sayth that they say and do not do any wrong to the chayre in which they did sit Did he not commend that chayre of Moyses and reprehend them preseruing the honor of the chayre Wherfore you in carping at the vices of some Popes shew your self to be like to the Donatists who sayth S. Augustine (z) Ibid. had with wicked fury separated themselues from the Roman Church And as no vices of Popes could iustify their separation so neither can it yours I denie not but that histories mention sinnes and scandals of some Popes but yet of few in comparison of the great number of most holy and learned Bishops that haue possessed that Seat for whose excellent vertues and great labors in defending and propagating the Catholike faith you ought rather to commend the Bishops of Rome then for the vices of a few to defame both them and their Seat Though all the Popes haue not bene holy like Sem and Iaphet yet as S. Gregory admonisheth (a) L. 25. Mor. c. 22. l. 3. Pastoral c. 1. it is not lawfull for you to imitate wicked Cham in laying open their faults It is no maruell if among so many good there haue bene some few bad for among the twelue Apostles there was a Iudas whose wickednesse as it was no defamation to the Apostolicall function so nether are they faults of a few bad Popes to the dignity of the Roman See But what if there had bene many Could their euill life excuse your euill fayth Shall their falling from God by frailty for a tyme iustify your departing for euer from Gods Church by contempt and obstinate rebellion If the ill liues of Prelates be a sufficient cause to forsake the Church how can you remaine in your Protestant Congregation For Luther whom your brother Klebitius in his booke against the Saxonicall Popedome tearmeth The Pope of Wittemberg was a Iewd Apostata and had conuersation with the Diuell Caluin a stigmaticall Sodomite Beza an especiall paterne of wantonnesse and lust And if you looke nearer home Cranmer and other chief Heads in your English Church haue not bene very great Saints Wherfore since you cannot but know that the ill liues of some Popes is a Non sequitur to proue that they may erre in their definitions of fayth you cannot be so simple as to alleage it to that end but only to ease your stomake of some parte of that venime wherwith it is charged against the authority of the Roman Church And yet not this without imposture for of the authors which you bringe Massonius is a fabulous Historian and forbidden by the Church (b) In indic lè prohib Costerus as in that very place he confesseth that Popes may be wicked in their liues (c) Enchir. c. 3. §. Patemur so he proueth that they cannot propose to the Church any heresy or error which is the thing you ought to disproue but cannot therfore diuert from it to rayle at the ill liues of Popes that haue bene or may be Baronius and Genebraed speake only of such Popes as were intruded partly by the tyranny of Emperors partly by the Marquis of Thuscia partly by the Nobility of Rome and Princes of Etruria This you ought to haue obserued with Baronius and with him to haue put your reader in mind of the singular care and prouidence wherwith Christ protecteth the Roman Church for notwithstanding she suffered greater calamities by the tyranny of these Christian Princes thē she had euer done vnder any heathenish persecutors yet it cannot be shewed that any of those Princes euer doubted of the infallibility of the Roman Church or that any of the aforesaid Popes albeit they came in by intrusion euer taught any thing repugnant to fayth SECT III. S. Pauls subiection to S. Peter and his acknowledgment therof TO proue that S. Paul belieued not the domination of S. Peter for so you call it (d) Pag. 57. and consequently of the Pope or the vniuersall power of the Roman Church aboue all others or yet the absolute continuance therof in the fayth of Christ you spend many arguments throughout six whole Sections from the eight to the fourteenth all which make against your selfe It is frequent with you to call the supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction of S. Peter and his successors their dominion If by dominion you vnderstand a dominiering power wherwith some temporall Princes gouerne their subiectes S. Peter forbiddeth that to all ecclesiasticall Prelates (e) 1. Pet. 5.3 commanding them not to dominiere in the Clergy But if by dominion you vnderstand a Fatherly gouerment and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church and their infallible assurance in their definitions of fayth that S. Peter and his successors haue such a power and iurisdiction hath bene already proued will be more confirmed by the answere to your arguments against S. Peters supremacy out of sundry passages of S. Paul to the Galathians (f) Pag. 58. seqq The first is Paul some tyme after the exercise of his Apostleship would not goe to Hierusalem to Peter or any of the Apostles lest he might haue seemed to haue bene authorized by them yet three yeares after that he taketh a iourney thither of see Peter doubtlesse for honor sake as one in order of Apostleship most eminent but this be did voluntarily in discretion brotherly communion not in subiection as the Context sheweth So you but the Context sheweth no such matter and the sacred Expositors teach directly the contrary S. Ambrose (g) In eum locum It was fit that Paul should desire to see Peter to whom our Sauiour had committed the charge of the Churches S. Hierome (h) Ep. 89. quae est 11. inter epist. August Peter was of so great authority that Paul writeth in his epistle Then after three yeares I came to Hierusalem to see Peter And againe (i) In c. 1. ad Gal. He went to see him to the end he might yeild honor vnto him Theodoret (k) In cap. 1. ad Gal. he went to yeild vnto Peter as to the Prince of the Apostles that honor which was fitting And shewing that S. Paul held Peter to be the supreme iudge to whom all doubts of fayth ought to be referred he sayth (l) In ep ad Leon. Paul the preacher of truth and the trumpet of the holy Ghost ranne to the great Peter for a resolution of such doubts as rising about the obseruation of the Law did minister occasion of strife to them that were at Antioch Oecumenius (m) In cap. 1. ad Gal. He went to see him as one greater then himselfe and stayed with him to honor him with his presence S. Chrysostome (n) Hom. 87. in Ioan. He went to see him aboue others because he was the mouth and Prince of the Apostles and the Head of the whole company
betake your selfe as to your last refuge when you are pressed with vnanswearable arguments is a mere shift inuented to delude ignorant readers with empty words voyd of truth And by this canon it is in like manner euident that the primacy was not then first giuen to the Church of Rome but preserued vnto it according to the canons Your second Argument (z) Pag. 107. to proue that the later Roman Councells are bastardly and illegitimate and that we haue little regard to the Councell of Nice is taken out of Theodoret writing that Constantine the Great required in that Synod that because the bookes of the Apostles do plainly instruct vs in diuine matters therfore we ought to make our determinations vpon questions from words which are diuinely inspired And then you tell vs that Bellarmine answeareth thus Coâ—stantine was a great Emperor indeed but no great Doctor of the Church who was yet vnbaptized and therfore vnderstood not the mysteries of religion Thus say you doth this your Cardinall twite and taunt the iudgment of that godly Emperor and as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth from his reader that which followeth in Theodoret namely that the greater part of that Councell of Nice obeyed the voyce of Constantine So you as you are wonâ— for first you falsify Bellarmine who sayth not that Constantine was yet vnbaptized but that that is the opinion of you Protestants and the old Arians from whence he argueth ad hominem against you that this testimony of Constantine is not of so great weight as Caluin and Kemnitius make it for if he were vnbaptized he could then be no great Doctor of the Church as being a Neophyte and therfore not so well skilled in the mysteries of Christian Religion What twiting or taunting of that godly Emperor your find in this answere of Bellarmine I know not but I know that you in holding Constantine to be then vnbaptized both seeke to disgrace that godly Emperor and withall to vphold the authority and credit of the Arian heretikes who to make him a Patron of their heresy gaue out that he was not baptized vntill a litle before his death and that then he receaued his baptisme from Eusebius B. of Nicomedia the chiefe ringleader of the Arian faction But that your dealing may the better appeare it is to be noted that Bellarmine is so farre from twiting or taunting that godly Emperor that he admitteth of his testimony Admitting sayth he (a) L. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. §. Admissâ— the authority of Constantine I say that in all those doctrines which concerne the nature of God there are extant testimomes in Scripture out of which if they be rightly vnderstood we may be fully and plainly instructed but the true sense of the Scriptures dependeth on the vnwritten tradition of the Church Wherfore the same Theodoret that reporteth this speach of Constantine declareth in the next Chapter that in the Councell of Nice Scriptures were produced on both sydes but the Arians were not conuinced with them because they expounded them otherwise then the Catholikes and therfore were condemned by the vnwritten tradition of the Church piously vnderstood to which condemnation no man euer doubted but that Constantine assented So Bellarmine And hereby it appeares that when you say Bellarmine citeth Theodoret yet as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth that which followeth in him namely that the greater part of the Councell obeyed the voyce of Constantine you wrong Bellarmine and a buse Theodoret who in those words relateth not to the determining of controuersies by Scriptures but to Constantines exhortation made to the Bishops of peace and concord among themselues which sayth Theodoret the greatest part of the Councell obeyed imbracing mutuall concord and true doctrine though diuers Arians disagreed some of whose names he there expresseth This you iniustly conceale like the ill Steward in the Ghospell that you may pick a quarrell with Bellarmine In confirmation of this I might adde that as S. Augustine (b) L. 5. de Baptism c. 23. and Vincentius Lyrinensis (c) Cont. haer c. 9. 10. haue testified the heresy of Rebaptization could not be disproued by Scripture but was condemned by Tradition And finally I might aske you why you like the bad Steward conceale what Theodoret writeth in that very place namely that what Constantine said he spake not to the Bishops as their Head but as a sonne that loued peace offered vp his words to the Priests as to his Fathers and that he would not enter into the Councell but after them all nor sit downe but with their leaue and in a low chayre Did he trow you belieue himselfe to be Head of the Church CHAP. XVII The second Generall Councell held at Constantinople belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome SECT I. By what authority this Councell was called BELLARMINE in proofe of the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction alleageth that the Fathers of the first generall Councell of Constantinople which was the second generall of the whole Church in their Epistle to Pope Damasus say They were gathered by his Mandate and confesse that the Church of Rome is the Head and they the members This say you (d) Pag. 109. is all that is obiected but vpon a mistake What then is the mistake Because Bellarmine in the Recognition of his workes afterwards obserued that it was not the Epistle of the second generall Synod but of the Bishops which had bene present at the Synod and met againe the next yeare after at Constantinople But if this Epistle were not of the Synod why do you speaking of it not without contradiction say (e) Pag. 10â— The generall Councell of Constantinople do endite an Epistle (f) Pag. 110. margin and inscribe it thus And why do you mentioning the inscription of the same Epistle call it Synodicae Epistolae inscriptio The inscription of the Synodicall Epistle And why doth Theodoret (h) L. 5. hist. c. 9. stile it Libellus Synodicus à Concilio Constantinopolitano missus A Synodicall writ sent by the Councell of Constantinople c But howsoeuer you alleaging that Bellarmine acknowledgeth his owne mistake is a mere cauill nothing auailing your cause for be it that those Bishops writ not their Epistle whiles they were assembled in Councell but when they met the next yeare after at Constantinople yet you must acknowledge the truth of what Bellarmine alleageth out of their Epistle vnlesse you will make them all lyers But let vs goe on Bellarmine sayth (i) Recogn pag. 46. in hoc Concil it is sufficiently proued out of the sixth generall Councell that this of Constantinople was called by the commaund of Pope Damasus you answeare (k) Pag. 109. that in proofe therof he referreth himselfe to another Councell against the vniuersall current of histories which with generall consent set downe the Mandates of Emperors as the supreme and first compulsary causes for
pag. 297. Suauissimus erat in Gallijs famae odor grauitatis saenctitatis ac rerum gestarum eius Pontificis The fame and sweet odor of this Popes grauity holinesse of life and greatnesse of his actions was most fragrant through out all France And as Blondus reporteth that he writ libros doctrina plenos so others witnesse (d) Geneb in Chronico anno 1198. Cicarollus Platina in vita Innocent 3. that he writ more then almost all the Popes before his time put togeather And finally Clement the fixth as you may reade in Plation Yllescas and others (e) In vita Clementis 6. was a man of great learning and eloquence liberall to all of most courteous and sweet conuersation and adorned with many excellent vertues From whence euery man of iudgement will easily vnderstand how vntruly you charge him with tossing the Emperors crowne from his head to sport himselfe c. SECT IV. Doctor Morton contradicteth himselfe TO shew your splene yet more against Gregory the seauenth of whom beside what hath bene said Martinus Polonus writeth (f) Apud Gened an 1087. that by his prayers he wrought great miracles and Lambertus Schafnaburgensis (g) A pud Geneb ibid. that he was endowed with the gift of prophesy you say (h) Pag. 174. sin 175. It is confessed that no Pope in all the succession of S. Peter did depose any Emperor before Gregory the seauenth that is vntill a thousand and sixty yeares after Christ You bring for your author Otho Frisingensis who though otherwise a learned and pious Bishop yet being grand-child to Henry the Fourth whom Gregory deposed writeth partially in his fauor and contradicteth himselfe for he confesseth (i) L. 5. c â—3 l. 4. c. 34.35.36 that Zacharias Pope who liued 300. yeares before Gregory the seauenth deposed Childericus King of France And the same you likewise contradicting your selfe acknowledge (k) Pag. 171.174 producing the same example of Zacharias which Otho doth Nor could you be ignorant of others more ancient alleaged by Bellarmine in that place (l) L. 5. dâ— Pent. c. 8. from whence you toke this of Gregory the seauenth but you mention not them that you may haue the better colour to inueigh against him CHAP. XXXIII Doctor Mortons late Sermon preached in the Cathedrall Church of Durham answeared AS the maine drift of your writings is to make Catholike religion odious and to exasperate the mindes of Protestants against all the professors therof so there is nothing more frequent with you then to slander Catholikes in generall with seditious Tenets which are not theirs but the knowne Principles of your brerhren Luther Caluin Beza Buchanam Knox Goodman Gilby and others (m) See M. Patison Monarchomacbia per toi and Brereley Prot. Apol. Preface to the Reader The answeare giuen you by your ancient friend (n) P. Persons in his Treatise tending to mitigation against the seditious writings of Thomas Morton Minister might haue seemed sufficient to make you ashamed of opening your mouth againe in that kind But I find that in your later writings you are as bitter as euer and to that end haue lately preached a Sermon before the Kings most Excellent Maiesty in the Cathedrall Church of Durham which is nothing but a peece of your Grand Imposture printed long since now againe newly preached and reprinted vnder the name of a Sermon which I suppose some of your Auditors that had read your booke could not but marke and thinke it a thing vnworthy of so great a Rabbin to present his Maiesty with a peece of an old Imposture insteed of a new Sermon Because I haue vndertaken the confutation of your Grand Imposture I will in like manner answere the particulars of your Sermon noting withall the places of your Grand Imposture out of which you haue borrowed them SECT I. The sense of S. Pauls words which Doctor Morton tooke for his text declared THe text of your Sermon are these words of the Apostle which you call A sacred and diuine Canon Omnis anima c. Let euery soule be subiect to higher Powers c. In these words the Apostle speaketh not of all soules and all Powers vniuersally els he should command all higher Powers for they also are soules to be subiect to other higher Powers v. g. the King of France to the King of Spaine the King of Spaine to the King of England and the Emperor to the great Turke Wherfore by higher powers be vnderstandeth Superiors and by euery soule all subiects But since there be Superiors of seuerall kindes the next question will be what Superiors he meaneth by higher powers and what subiects by euery soule You by higher powers vnderstand (o) Serm. pag. 4. the Temper all Magistrate that carieth the sword I deny not but that diuers learned expositors seeme to be of opinion that the Apostle speaketh wholly or chiefly of temporall Princes and other secular Powers subordinate to them But then it is euident against you that as S. Paul speaketh to the Christians of Rome and in them to all others so he doth not command them to obey secular Princes in matters of Religion but in temporall affaires only for the Roman Emperors to whom the Christians of Rome were then subiect being Heathens enemies to Christ and Persecutors of his Church to bid the Christians obey them in matters of religion had bene to bid them disobey Christ and renounce their sayth And this you must confesse to be true for you say (p) Serm. pag. 7. Imposture pag. 175. 176. 276. 278. that Popes and other Christians for the space of 600. yeares performed this Obedience commanded by S. Paul and yet they neuer yielded to Nero vnder whom S. Paul writ his Epistle to the Romans or to any other Heathen Prince Obedience in Religion but in temporall affaires only And of this Obedience the Greeke Fathers Chrysostome Oecumenius Euthymius Theodoret and Theophilact speake when they say that S. Paul excepteth not from this Obedience Apostles Euangelists or Prophets for all Christians Ecclesiastiks and Laicks are bound to obey the Lawes of temporall Princes in whose dominions they liue And this Obedience was performed by the Popes of Rome whiles they were not temporall Princes themselues But now being and hauing bene for many yeares temporall Monarkes as absolute in their estates as other Princes in theirs it can no more be inferred out of your text that Popes are subiect to Kings then that the King of Spaine is subiect to the King of France There is not say you out of Tully (q) Pag. 289. a greater degree of futility then for any man to obiect that to which when it shall be retorted vpon himselfe he shall not tell what to say If when you came downe from the pulpit some prudent man that had heard you inferre from this text that the Pope is subiect to temporall Princes had desired to learne of you to what temporall Prince
it in that sense in which the Iewes did not receaue it to wit as sufficient to decide controuersies of fayth And in confirmation herof he numbreth this booke among other canonicall scriptures saying (m) Ep. ad Principiam Ruth Hester Iudith were of so great renowne that they gaue names to sacred volumes And in other his workes he often citeth it as diuine scripture (n) Ep. 9. ad Salu. Ep. 22. ad Bustoch in Isa c. 14. But to proue that he held it apocryphall you obiect Stapleton (o) Pag. 303. Salmeron Lindanus Acosta whom you call our lesse precipitant Authors Stapleton you falsify citing him l. 2. de authorit Script cap. 4. for he hath no booke so intituled and much lesse any such words as you set downe for his Yea he is so far from saying that S. Hierome denieth this booke to be canonicall that he sayth directly the contrary for discoursing (p) De princip doct l. 9. c. 6. how some bookes of scripture which before the definition of the Church had bene held apocryphall or doubtfull were afterwards by her authority certainly beleeued to be canonicall he exemplifieth in this of Iudith which saith he S. Hierome moued by the authority of the Councell of Nice held to be Canonicall hauing formerly accounted it to be apocryphall This is Stapletons doctrine Are you not ashamed to produce him as a witnesse for the contrary And as little truth hath your citation of Salmeron for he alleageth S. Hieromes words expresly declaring that the rule to distinguish Canonicall Scriptures from apocryphall is the authority of the Church Wherupon Salmeron truly sayth that if S. Hierome should deny this booke to be Canonicall his authority alone could not be preualent against the whole streame of Ancient Fathers holding the contrary Their testimonies you may read in Iodocus Coccius Lindanus and Acosta I haue not seene but you that haue dealt so with Stapleton and Salmeron may be presumed to deale no better with them SECT VII S. Ambrose his iudgment concerning the necessity of Vnion and subiection to the Bishop and Church of Rome S. Ambrose declared his iudgment when reporting (q) Orat. de obitu Satyri how his holy brother Satyrus in his returne out of Africa was cast by ship wrack vpon the isle of Sardinia infected with schisme he said Satyrus not esteeming any fauor to be true but that of the true fayth called vnto him the Bishop of that place and asked him whether he agreed with the Catholike Bishops that is sayth S. Ambrose with the Roman Church This sheweth that S. Ambrose and Satyrus belieued the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church and all that were not in her Communion to be schismatikes You answeare (r) Pag. 213. that the reason why Satyrus would not communicate with any Bishop that agreed not with the Roman Church was because Sardinia was then diuided into diuers schismes by hereticall spirits No maruell therfore though Satyrus asked of a Bishop whose fayth he suspected whether he belieued as that Church did whose fayth was known to be truly Catholike euen as if in tyme of rebellion the Citizens of some one City for example Yorke were more generally knowne to professe loyalty to their Soueraigne an honest man comming into the kingdome might aske the inhabitants whether they agreed with the City of Yorke therby to know whether they were loyall subiects and yet it would not follow that therfore Yorke is the head of the kingdome This your answeare framed to puzzell an ignorant reader is easely reiected Satyrus did well know and it was generally knowne both in the East and West that at that time not only the Church of Rome but also that of Milan of which Ambrose his owne brother was then actually Bishop and famous ouer all the world was sound in fayth and truly Catholike Why then did not Satyrus to informe himselfe whether that Sardinian Bishop were Catholike aske him whether he agreed with the Bishop and Church of Milan but because he knew that neither the Church of Milan nor any other but the Roman was the head of Catholike Communion as S. Ambrose himselfe teacheth saying (s) L. 1. Ep. 4. ad Imperat. From the Roman Church the rights of Venerable Communion do flow to all And why els did he say this but because he knew that neither to the Church of Milan nor to any other but the Roman Christ hath promised that her fayth shall not faile (t) Luc. 22.31 and that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her (u) Math. 16.18 In regard wherof it is said that not to the Church of Milan but to her all Churches and all the faithfull from all places must haue recourse (x) Iren. l. 3. c. 3. And vnlesse you can shew that Yorke hath an especiall Priuiledge from God not to faile in her loyalty as the Roman Church hath not to faile in the Catholike fayth and profession therof your example is impertinent Yorke may faile in loyalty and therfore to be a citizen of Yorke and to be a good subiect are not termes conuertible But the Roman Church can neither faile in the Catholike fayth nor in the profession therof and therfore to be a Catholike and to agree with the Roman Church as in themselues they are so were they held by S. Ambrose by his brother Satyrus and by the generall accord of antiquity to be all one (y) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 3. 2. S. Ambrose declared his iudgment when he called Damasus Pope Rector of the house of God which is his Church (z) In cap. 3. prioris ad Tâ—moth You answeare that we mistake the words respectiuely spoken to one person Pope Damasus and circumstantially for one tyme as if they were absolutely so meant for the persons of all Popes at all times This answeare is not respectiuely but absolutely insufficient for what dignity superiority or power of gouerment had Damasus ouer the whole Church in his person and for his tyme which euery Pope hath not had in his person and for his time The power of Ruler Gouernor of the whole Church which Damasus had was by his Popedome And as he by the right of his Popedome was so all his predecessors and successors in that See haue by the same title and right bene Rectors and Gouernors of the whole Church This is so certaine that you passing lightly ouer this first answeare fly to a second (a) Pag. 212.213 that the title of Rector or Gouernor of the whole Church argueth not Damasus to be Head of the Church because Athanasius Basil Gregory Nazianzen haue receaued titles equiualent if not more excellent as of Prop and Buttresse of the Church and fayth Eye of the world and others in which ascriptions say you there is not any acknowledgment of authority but a commendation of their care and diligence iudgment and directions in behalfe of the whole Church In the
condemned the Arians in the Councell of Nice the Macedonians in the first of Constantinople the Nestorians in that of Ephesus and the Eutychians at Chalcedon And the same hath condemned you in the Councell of Trent and in others formerly in which some of your Protestant Tenets haue bene censured as hereticall To the sentence of this Iudge all Christians are bound to submit our Blessed Sauiour hauing commanded (z) Math. 1â— 17. that whosoeuer heareth not the Church that is to say the Prelates of the Church for so the Fathers expound be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican But you cunningly diuert from this which is certaine and out of dispute to another question whether the Pope be aboue a Councell or a Councell aboue the Pope And although you had said aboue (a) Pag. 115. fin that to hold the Pope to be aboue a Councell is a flat heresy long since condemned by our Councells of Constance and Basil because then that was best for your purpose yet here (b) Pag. 355. fin 356. because the contrary fitteth you better you say It is no matter of fayth but a thing disputable on both sides among vs you make a pitifull complaint that so principall a case as this after 1600. yeares should not be resolued by the Church And why is all this your solicitude mary to the end you may take occasion to traduce Stapleton whom you will haue (c) Pag. 356. to be our fore-man and to speake for vs all saying that although this case haue not bene decided by any absolute Decree yet it is defined by the tacit and secret consent of the Doctors of the Church scarce any one Diuine holding any other opinion herin then that which before that of late this controuersy was moued was anciently in force namely that the Pope is aboue a Councell as the Head is aboue the Body As if he should say Sirs if the question be whether Iohn an Oake or Iohn a Stile be heire to that land because the witnesses conceale their meaning without question they by a tacit consent are for the Complainant that Iohn an Oake must cary the land O Quack-saluer So you who whiles you striue to play vpon Stapleton make your selfe ridiculous for you cite those words out of Stapleton Doctr. prâ—â— l. 13. c. 15. who in that worke hath no more but twelue bookes in all Wherfore the words are either coined by you or if they be Stapletons he is not only miscited but egregiously abused by you for doth he not say in expresse words that among Catholike Diuines scarcely any one is of another opinion then that the Pope is aboue a Councell as the Head is about the Body What els is this to say but that Catholike Diuines in their bookes published to the view of the world haue expressed themselues and vnanimously declared that the Pope is aboue a Councell And this their accord expressed in their writings Stapleton with great reason calls A tacit definition that is to say an expression and accord equiualent to a definition euen as he who should tell a man that he speakes often vntruly as you in your Grand Imposture do should tacitly or virtually tell him that he were not a silent witnesse nor a dumbe Iudge against you so nether are the Diuines alleaged by Stapleton silent witnesses or dumbe Iudges in the question proposed I conclude therfore that Doctor Stapleton is not the Quack-saluer but Doctor Morton your Argument so poore that Iohn an Oake or Iohn a Stile might easily haue framed a better SECT VII Of the Councell of Constance defining a Councell to be aboue the Pope TO proue that a Councell is aboue the Pope in matters of direction of fayth and manners you obiect (d) Pag. 356.357 the fourth Canon of the Councell of Constance which Councell say you was expresly confirmed by Pope Martin to be held inuiolabia in matters of fayth True But your dealing is not true for as Turrecremata Campegius Sanders (e) Apud Bell. l. 1. de Pont. c. 19. Caietan (f) Opusc de autho Papae Conc. and Canus (g) L. 5. c. 6. §. Ad octau haue obserued the Councell when that decree was made was not a generall but a particular Councell and the decree it selfe was not vniuersall for all times but only for that time of schisme when it was vncertaine which of three that actually pretended right to the See of S. Peter was true Pope or indeed whether any of the three were true Pope or no. And were it granted that in a case of vncertainty as this was whether there were any true Pope in the Church a Councell is superior to the doubtfull Popes and hath authority to depose them and prouide a certaine and vndoubted Head for the Church it would not follow that when an vndoubted Head is chosen the Councell is superior to him for he hath not his authority from the Councell but from Christ Againe wheras no decree of any Councell can be of force if it be not confirmed by the See Apostolike (h) See aboue Chap. 17. sect 6. this was not only not confirmed but reiected and as you know Bellarmine (i) L. 1. de Concil c. 7. Binius (k) In not ad hoc Concil haue noted absolutely condemned by the Councels of Florence and Lateran And lastly it was inualid because the Bishops that adhered to two of the three which held theÌ„selues to be Popes consented not to it (l) Bellar. ibid. The decrees of faith which Martin Pope coÌ„firmed were only those the Councell made against the heresies of Iohn Wiclef Iohn Hus Hierome of Prage Saints of your Protestant Kalender (m) See Pâ—xe Ian. 1. May 2. Iune 1. as appeareth out of his Bull of confirmation annexed to the Councell in which this decree of the Councels superiority to the Pope is not mentioned much lesse confirmed But you obiect (n) Pag. 357. sin when the Councell of Constance fayth The Councell hath its authority immediatly from Christ the meaning is as you are taught that the Popes authority is not of diuine but of humane institution This is your comment false in it selfe (o) See aboueâ— Chap. 19. sect 9. and directly contrary to the meaning of the Councell of Constance which setteth downe this your proposition (p) Sess 1â— as the ninth article of Iohn Hus and condemneth it as hereticall together with other articles in which Protestants agree with him And in like manner it defineth (q) Sess 8. against the articles 37. and 41. of Wiklef that the Pope is immediate Vicar of Christ and that for saluation it is necessary to belieue his authority ouer all Churches and that the Roman Church is the chiefe of all others In which condemnation whether Protestants holding the same errors be not inuolued I leaue to your iudgment Finally the same Councell as you reade in the last session was dissolued by
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
and of such speaches as are hardly thought to passe from the furious Diuell himselfe No meruaile theÌ„ if Oecolampadius in his answeare to Luthers Confession of fayth passe this verdict on him He began his former booke with the Diuell now he endeth this with the Diuell No wonder if Conradus Regius (r) Lib. cont Ioan. Hess de coena Dom. testify of him that God for his great pride did take from him the spirit of truth as he did from the Prophets mentioned in the third booke of Kings Chap. 22. and in place of that his spirit gaue him an angry proud and liyng spirit And to omit other testimonies Ioannes Campanus a famous Zuinglian (s) In Colloq Lat. Luth. to 2. fol. 351. passeth this censure on him Quam certum est Deumesse Deum tam certus Diabolicus mendax est Lutherus As certaine as it is that God is God so certaine it is that Luther is a lyer and belongs to the Diuell And therfore in the end he tooke him as one that belonged to him for hauing one euening eaten drunken very liberally he was the next morning found dead in a most horrible manner (t) Cochl in vita Luth. alij passim so vgly and deformed that it was not hard to ghesse at the author of his death which was such as he himselfe expected when he sayd (u) Ep. ad Spalat to 2. Epist Latin not long before I daily wait for death and for the deserued punishment of an heretike I conclude therefore with Origen (x) Hom. 3. in Exod. ante med Orandum nobis est c. We are to pray that our Lord vouchsafe to open our mouth that we may be able to conuince theÌ„ that contradict and stop that mouth which the Diuell opened SECT VI. Whether the Roman Church be as subiect to errors as any other Church YOur Thesis is affirmatiue (y) Pag. 374. your Proofes repetitions of arguments already answeared One only you adde heere repeate afterwards againe (z) Pag. 397. 400. which is The Church of Rome hath erred in matter of fayth Ergo she may possibly erre I deny your Antecedent You proue it The administration of the Eucharist vnto infants vpon necessity of saluation was taught continued in the Church of Rome for the space of 600. yeares together but you confesse there is now no such necessity Ergo in those former times the Church of Rome erred It is a knowne principle in Scholes that he argueth absurdly who proposeth an argument that makes as much against himselfe as 〈◊〉 his aduersary to which therefore himselfe in 〈…〉 is bound to answere Such iâ— this of yoâ—â—◠〈…〉 of Rome erreth not now in 〈…〉 the Eucharist to 〈…〉 â—â—testants herei◠〈…〉 no such necessâ—â—â— professe tha◠〈…〉 error in fayâ—h fo◠〈…〉 (a) Pag. 276. 178. hold now the 〈…〉 leeued the doctriâ—◠〈…〉 charist to infants vpon 〈…〉 ding to your principles â—â—red 〈…〉 you can make I know not Sure 〈…〉 denying that the reall administration 〈…〉 â—â—fants is necessary for their saluation can gâ—â—◠〈…〉 solution to this difficulty which yet in the princâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 Catholike doctrine is easily answeared Wee haue learned two sacred principles from the mouth our Sauiour The former is (b) Ioan. 3.5 If one be not borne againe water and the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of Goâ—â— If therfore we will enter into the kingdome of God we muâ—â— receaue the SacrameÌ„t of baptisme really or at least i◠〈◊〉 Whosoeuer is growne to perfect age when he ca◠〈…〉 ceaue it really it is sufficient for saluation to 〈…〉 intentionally in desire by fayth and other good Actâ— of which infants are not capable and therefore the reâ—â—â—â—eceauing of the Sacrament of baptisme is necessary for them to saluation If thou wilt be a Christian Catholike sayth S. Augustin (c) De anima eius orgi l. 3. c. 9. neyther belieue nor say not teach that infants dying without baptisme can be saued And the contrary doctrine he reporteth (d) L. de haeres ad Quodvuls haer 88. as an Article of the Pelagian heresy The other principle is (e) Ioan. 6.34 Vnlesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you It is therfore necessary to saluation for all as well infants as others to receaue the holy Eucharist either really or at least in vow And this vow may eyther be explicit that is a desire of receauing it when it cannot really be had or els 〈◊〉 as in the Sacrament of baptisme for that in bapâ—◠〈…〉 vow of the holy Euâ—◠〈…〉 the first (f) Rescrip ad Concil Mileuit Ep. 25. S. Auguâ—◠〈…〉 â—â—omas of Aquine as 〈…〉 proued by the great 〈…〉 â—â—e two most Eminent 〈…〉 â—â—n (i) Repliq. l. 2. troiseme Obseru Chap. 11. (g) To. 3. in 3. part disp 40. sect 2. §. Hinc 4. The words of 〈…〉 â—â—s purpose It is in no 〈…〉 him (l) Tom. 6. in c. 10.1 ad Corinth Ven. (h) Tom. 3. Contr. l. 1. de Euchar c 7. Bade 〈…〉 partakerof the body 〈…〉 â—â—er of Christ in baptisme 〈…〉 of that bread of that 〈…〉 â—â—d and drinke of that cup 〈…〉 â—â—d in the vnity of the body 〈…〉 â—â—pation and benefit of that 〈…〉 which the Sacrament sigâ—◠〈…〉 â—â—ius and S. Augustine 〈…〉 â—â—essity of baptizing inâ—◠〈…〉 for them to receaue 〈…〉 â—â—ceaued before the be 〈…〉 â—â—aptisme which is the 〈◊〉 all the â—â—â—â—â—aments â—â—righâ—â—y followeth against the â—â—lagians thaâ— Baptisme is absolutely necessary for infants to the end thâ—t therby they may receaue the Eucharist at least in vow without which they cannot be saued In this sense and in no other these Fathers and the Church of Rome with them haue taught a necessity of administing the Eucharist to infants to wit so farre forth as it is contained implicitly and virtually in Vow in the Sacrament of baptismer for that a reall administration of the Eucharist vnto them was necessary for saluation she neuer taught which you and other Protestants not vnderstanding impute the contrary doctrine to her assuming it as an argument that she hath erred in varying from that doctrine which once she taught To this Thesis you adde an other (l) Pag. 375. that The Roman Church is more subiect to error then any other Church Christian which to be a shamefull vntruth appeareth out of the promise of our Sauiour made to S. Peter and his successors that the gates of hell which are errors in fayth shall not preuaile against the Church built on them and out of his prayer made for them that their fayth shall not faile for that this promise of Christ and this prayer were not made to S Peter nor for him as he was a priuat man but as he was Head of the Church and therfore extend to all his successors in the Roman See to secure them