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
with the B. of Rome after him But this addition to the Canon of equall priuiledges was surreptitiously made by the vsurpation of Anatolius to augment his power for the Fathers of Chalcedon neuer owned it as it appeares in this that when they beseeched Leo Pope to confirme their decree they made to him no mention of Equall priuiledges but only said (s) In relat ad Leon. We haue confirmed the rule of the 150. Fathers assembled at Constantinople which ordeyned that after your most holy and Apostolike See that of Constantinople should haue the second place of honor which is to say that as the B. of Rome had the Primacy absolutely ouer all the Patriarkes so the B. of Constantinople should haue it after him ouer all the other Patriarkes So this Canon is reported by Euagrius It was decreed sayth he (t) L. 2. c. 4. fin that the See of new Rome by reason she held the second place after the ancient Rome should haue the primacy before the other Sees In which sense and in no other Socrates (u) L. 5. c. 8. testifieth this decree to haue bene made in the Councell of Constantinople which was the source of all this pretence And Iustinian the Emperor speaking of both these Councells sayth (x) Noueâ— 131. that in them it was decreed that as the holy Pope of old Rome is the first of all Prelates so the Archbishop of Constantinople new Rome should haue the second place after the See Apostolike of old Rome and be preferred before all the other Sees And long after that time the Emperor Basilius the yonger and Eustathius Patriarke of Constantinople (y) Glaber Rodulph hist l. 4. c. 1. desired that it might be lawfull for them to obteyne with the consent of the Pope that the Church of Constantinople might be called Vniuersall in the compasse therof as the Pope of Rome was in the compasse of the whole world By this appeares that although the Fathers of those two Councells contrary to the decrees of Nice endeauored by this Canon to make the B. of Constantinople the first and chiefest Patriarke of the East and to conferre on him after vnder the Pope an vniuersal iurisdiction ouer the other Patriarkes yet they neuer intended therby to put any limitation to the Vniuersall Iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church nor any way to exempt themselues or the Patriarkes of Constantinople from his subiection and obedience Which is also further proued 1. By the testimonies of Zonaras and Nilus both of them Greeke Schismatikes and enemies to the Roman Church Zonaras sayth (z) In Conc. Constantin 1. c. 3. that wheras the Councell of Constantinople ordeyned that the Bishop of that Citty should be the second after the Pope of Rome some thinke that the Preposition after importeth not inferiority and submission but only posteriority of tyme and in proofe of this their opinion they make vse of the 28. Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon which ordaynes that new Rome shold be honored with the same ecclesiasticall prerogatiues as old Rome and should be preferred in honor before all the other Churches being the second after her But this sayth he is refuted by the 130. Nouell of Iustinian inserted into the third title of the fifth booke of the Basilikes which giues the Canon to be otherwise vnderstood And therfore he concludeth saying (a) Ibid. From hence it appeares manifestly that the Preposition after signifies submission and inferiority And Nilus B. of Thessalonica (b) De primatu Pâ—pae l. 1. We are not separated from peace for attributing to our selues the primacy nor for refusing to hold the second place after the principality of Rome for we neuer contested for primacy with the Roman Church 2. The same is proued for the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the deposition of Eutyches and Dioscorus in the restitution of Theodoret to his Bishoprick (c) See aboue sect praeced in confessing (d) In relat ad Leon. themselues to be his members and him to be their Head in submitting to him their decrees to be confirmed and in particular this made in fauour of the B. of Constantinople We haue say they (e) Ibid. confirmed the decree of the 150. Fathers confiding that the beame Apostolike raigning amidst you and you by your ordinary gouerment spreading it to the Church of Constantinople you may cause it to shine into these partes because you are wont without enuy to enrich those of your linage with the participation of your goods Againe if we speake of Anatolius in particular who to augment his owne power was the proiecter of this decree how can it be thought that he did not acknowledge himselfe to be a spirituall subiect of the Pope he I say who being made Patriarke of Constantinople by Dioscorus in the false Councell of Ephesus had no right to that See but only by the confirmation of Leo Pope which afterwards he obteyned in regard wherof Leo writing to Martian the Emperor against this attempt of Anatolius said (f) Ep. 54. It shold haue sufficed him that by the help of your Piety and by the consent of my fauor he hath obteined the Bishoprick of so great a Citty And what els did Anatolius himselfe signify when speaking of the Acts of the second Councell of Ephesus in which Maximus was chosen Bishop of Antioch he said (g) Cone Chalced. Act. 10. My verdict is that none of the things ordeyned in the pretended Councell of Ephesus remaine firme but that which was done for Maximus B. of great Antioch for as much as the most holy Archbishop of Rome Leo receauing him into his communion hath iudged that he is to rule the Church of Antioch 3. Because the Fathers of Chalcedon knowing that without the Popes confirmation their decree could be of no force had recourse to Leo beseeching him to confirme it We beseech you say they (h) In relat ad Leon. to honor our decrees with your iudgment and that as we haue held correspondence with our Head for matters of weale so your Soueraingty will yeld to your Children in things of decency for in so doing the religious Emperor shall be gratified To this their petition Leo assented not but wholy annulled and abrogated their decree The Piety of your fayth being ioyned with vs sayth he to Pulcheria the Emperesse (i) Ep. 55. we annull the plots of the Bishops repugnant to the rules of the holy Canons established at Nice and by vertue of the authority of the Blessed Apostle Peter we wholly abrogate them by a generall sentence Another Epistle of the same tenor he addressed to the whole Councell of Chalcedon (k) Ep. 61. And to Anatolius himselfe he likewise writ (l) Ep. 53. Neuer may my conscience consent that so depraued a couetousnesse be furthered by my fauor but rather that it be suppressed by me by them that allow not
indiuiduall person v. g. Vrban the eight is true Pope and true Head of the Church Sect. 2. pag. 692. Whether the Church of Rome be at any time a body headlesse Sect. 3. pag. 693. Whether the Roman Church haue at any time a false Head Sect. 4. pag. 696. Whether the Roman Church at any time be diuided into many Heades Sect. 5. pag. 700. Whether the Roman Church be doubtfully headed Sect. 6. pag. 702. Of the Councell of Constance defining a Councell to be aboue the Pope Sect. 7. pag. 704. The same matter prosecuted out of the Councell of Basil Sect. 8. pag. 706. Doctor Mortons instances of France and England to proue the no-necessity of Vnion with the Church of Rome Sect. 9. pag. 709. CHAP. XXXXIV Whether Luther his followers had any iust cause to separate themselues from the Roman Church pag. 711. Whether any Protestants haue held that the Catholike Church before Luthers fall was wholly extinguished Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Catholike Church assembled in a generall Councell may erre in her definitions of fayth Sect. 2. p. 714. Whether Protestants hold the Church of Christ to be inuisible Sect. 3. pag. 720. What causes may suffice to depart from the communion of a particular Church Sect. 4. pag. 725. Of Luthers excommunication and his conference with the Diuell Sect. 5. pag. 731. Whether the Roman Church be as subiect to Errors as any other Church Sect. 6. pag. 735. Whether there be in the Scripture any Prophesy that the Church of Rome shall fall from the fayth Sect. 7. pag. 740. Whether Luther were iustly excommunicated Sect. 8. p. 741. Of the first occasion of Luthers reuolt from the Church And that Doctor Morton to defend his doctrine against Indulgences falsifieth sundry Authors Sect. 9. pag. 744. The causes giuen by Doctor Morton in excuse of Luthers departure from the Roman Church Sect. 10. pag. 749. Whether Protestants had any professors of their fayth before Luther Sect. 11. pag. 751. That all changes of fayth haue bene noted in the persons times and places of their beginnings Sect. 12. pag. 757. The lineall succession of Bishops in the See of Rome is a true and certaine marke of the Catholike Church Sect. 13. pag. 760. Of the conformity of Protestants and Donatists in their separation from the Catholike Church Sect. 14. pag. 763. That the fayth of the now Roman Church is acknowledged by Protestants to be sufficient for saluation Sect. 15. pag. 765. CHAP. I. GENERALL PRINCIPLES PREMISED for the better vnderstanding of the ensuing Apology SECT I. The importance of the Subiect THOVGH there be many questions in Religion controuerted betweene Protestants and vs yet none more important or more necessary to be knowne then that of the Church Protestants agree with vs so far as to belieue that there is shall be to the end of the world extant on earth One Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church which is the (a) 1. Tim. 3.15 Pillar and touchstone of truth which all men that will not be as Heathens and Publicanes must heare and (b) Math. 18.17 obey which is the second Eue framed out of the side of our second Adam Christ whome whosoeuer will not acknowledge to be his Mother cannot haue him to be his (c) S. Aug. de Symb. l. 4. c. 10. Father She is the mysticall body of our (d) Ephes 5.23 Lord out of which sayth S. Augustine (e) Ep. 50. ad 〈◊〉 the holy Ghost imparteth life to no man She is the Vineyard (f) Math. 20.1 seqq in which he that laboureth not shall not receiue the wages of euerlasting life She the Arke of Noe (g) S. Hiero. ep 57 S. Gaudent tract 2. de lect Euang in which whosoeuer is not or out of which whosoeuer departeth shall perish She is the wellspring of truth (h) Lactant. 4 diuin iustit â— vlt. Orig. hom 15. in Math. Theod in c. 2.2 ad Thessal the House of fayth the Temple of God in which mens prayers are heard and their sacrifices accepted all other congregations being Synagogues of Sathan denns of Diuels She is the garden of God (i) Cant. 4.12.13.15 in which whosoeuer groweth not is not a flower planted by the hand of Christ but a weed to be plucked vp and cast into hell fire Finally she is the kingdome of Christ (k) 2. Reg 7.12 1 Paralip 17.11 Psal 44.7 Luc. 1.33 Colosâ— 1.13 in which whosoeuer is not is none of Christs people Whosoeuer sayth (l) Eb. 152. ad popul fact Donas cont ep Parmen l. 2. c. 3. S Augustine is diuided from the Catholike Church although he thinke himselfe to liuâ— neuer so laudably for this only crime that he is diuided from the vnity of Christ the wrath of God abideth on him And speaking of Emeritus an hereticall (m) Serm. super gestis cum Emerito post med Bishop He cannot haue saluation but in the Catholike Church Out of the Church he may haue all things but saluation he may haue honour he may haue Sacraments he may sing Alleluia he may answere Amen he may haue the Ghospell he may haue and preach beliefe in the name of the Father and the Sonne the holy Ghost but saluation he can find no where but in the Catholike Church Wherefore since the saluation of our soules cannot be had out of the Catholike Church it is most necessary for euery man to inquire and learne which and where is that Temple of God that kingdome of Christ that store-house of truth and that second Eue our spirituall Mother that knowing her resorting to her he may be cherished in her lap and nourished at her brests with the milke of her holsome Doctrine The beliefe of all Catholikes is that these foresaid aâ—tributs agree to the Roman Church and to no other congregation in the world and that therfore she alone is the Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church in which whosoeuer is may in which whosoeuer is not cannot be saued Vpon this our Doctrine you passe a censure suitable to your modesty Videlicet that it is False Imposterous Scandalous Schismaticall Hereticall Blasphemous euery way Damnable (n) Pag. 5.182.419 Presumgtuous (o) Pag. 336. Impious (p) Pag 95. Execrable (q) Pag 127. Damnably hereticall (r) Pag 91. Pernicious Antichristian (s) Pag 99. Sacrilegious (t) Pag. 336. Sathanicall Idolaâ—rous (u) Pag. 387. This is your censure and to make it good you write a large volume which you intitle The Grand Imposture of the now Roman Church but mistake your selfe in the name for the booke is ought to haue been intituled The Grand imposture of Doctor Thomas Morton against the Roman Church of this and all former ages for vpon due examination such he will find it to be that shall please to passe his Eye ouer the ensuing Apology and I doubt not but after the perusall thereof he will rest conuinced that
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
the most famous Doctors and Saints of God These M. Doctor the censures which not I but they inflict on your Doctrine And now I desire to know with what conscience you taxe this their and our doctrine as false pernicious impious Schismaticall Hereticall scandalous damnable blasphemous sacrilegious Antichristian c. Or with what title you goe about to defend your owne departure from the Roman Church and to persuade others that being out of her they are in state of saluation If you answer that you haue departed from the now Roman Church because she hath departed from the true fayth which the Roman Church anciently professed that 's an excuse common to all heretikes and can no more iustify you then it could the Pelagians the Donatists or other ancient Heretikes who would neuer haue departed from the Roman Church but vpon pretence that she had fallen from the true fayth And moreouer it is absolutely false for as the Fathers censure condemne all that are out of the Roman Church as incapable of saluation so shall you heare them (c) Chap. 12. sect 1. 2. constantly affirme and prooue that it is as impossible for the Roman Church to fall from that fayth which she once receiued from the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul as it is for the word of Christ to fayle or for Christ himself to be a lyer In profe of this truth I might yet further insist by other most forcible arguments but partly not to detayne the reader and partly because diuers of them shall be touched in the current of this Apology I will immediatly passe to the examination of your Grand imposture first in generall then in particular CHAP. II. Of Doctour Mortons manner of alleaging Authors in generall Num. 7 AMONG many vnworthy sleights vsed in other your workes and particularly in this your Grand Imposture one is to maske Protestants with the names of Our Authors and Our owne men and therupon to vrge against vs their testimonies as of Authors whose Doctrine we are bound to allow and maintaine Wheras you know right well that they are not our but your men and your owne Protestant brethren and that their workes are in particular and by name condemned and forbidden by the Roman Church Of this you haue bene formerly (a) By M. Brierley in the Aduertisment before his Protest Apology admonished and yet notwithstanding in this your Grand imposture you hold on your wonted course as confidently as if you neuer had bene admonished of your vnconscionable dealing therin Of this and other your like slightes I thought fit to giue the reader notice that before hād he might haue some tast of your manner of writing in generall the particulars wherof will more clearly appeare hereafter in their due places One of the Authors whom in your former workes you haue vrged against vs as a Catholike writer is George Cassander borne at Bruges in Flanders and a pestilent heretike as being infected not only with the errors of this age and with an other peculiar to himself against the holy Ghost but also with the old condemned heresy of Apelles and others that liued afterwards vnder Zeno the Emperor called Pacifiers which heresy of his hath bene learnedly confuted not only by Ioannes à Louanio a Catholike Diuine but also by your Grand-Maister Iohn Caluin in a speciall booke written against him And for these his Heresies he is by name censured and condemned as an heretike primae (b) In indice lib. prohib classis Of all this you haue bene particularly admonished by a learned Antagonist of yours (c) F. Persons in his treatise tending to mitigation pag. 238. seqq and since againe by M. Brierley (d) Loco cit wishing you in your future writings not to vrge against vs the testimonies of Cassander as being of an hereticall and condemned Author Who would not thinke this warning sufficient to stay the hand of any man that hath regard I will not say of honesty but at least of his owne credit And yet you without taking any notice at all of these Caueats confidently vrge in this your Grand imposture the testimonies of Cassander not once (e) Pag. 135. h. 389. o 400. b. 410. q. but often not as of an Heretike but as of a Catholike nor as of a Grammarian for he was no more but as of a graue and learned Diuine Can this dealing be excused With no lesse want of sincerity and conscience you alleage against vs Paulus Venetus (f) Pa. 382. m. a seditiour fryar of Venice burnt a few yeares since at Rome for heresy and diuers others whose workes you know to be expresly and by name condemned by the Catholike Church as 1. Nilus a Bishop of Thessalonica (g) Pag. 333. l. who besides his hereticall Doctrine against the Holy Ghost whom he holdeth not to proceed from the Sonne but from the Father alone was a professed enemy to the Roman Church and writ two speciall Treatises against the Popes supremacy and Purgatory and is therfore challenged for a Protestant by Illyricus and reiected by Bellarmine and all Catholike writers 2. Faber (h) Pag. 77. b. whose workes are censured and condemned by the Vniuersity of Paris as Illyricus testifieth and in regard therof he is claymed by him for a Protestant 3. Controuersiae (i) Pag. 163. l. 382. m. memorabiles 4. Acta Concilij (k) Pag. 34. q. 338. y. 382. m. Tridentini 5. (l) Pag. 361. b. 382. k. 336. c. 388. l. Fasciculus rerum expetendarum fugiendarum All which are workes of Protestāts deceiptfully set forth without names of authors and aswell they as Nilus prohibited by the Church A second sleight of yours is to cite as Catholike authors diuers others who if they were not absolute heretikes yet were tainted with erroneous and hereticall doctrines whose bookes are therfore iustly condemned and forbidden As first Beno (m) Pa. 388. l. a feigned Cardinall and a Schismatike who to become gracious with that sacrilegious and dissolute Emperour Henry 4. vnaduisedly and vntruly vttered certaine speaches in disgrace of Religion and the Apostolike See 2. Cornelius Agrippa (n) Pag. 85 u. 385. * who was no Diuine but a Lawier and a Magician from his youth as he himself professeth And though he was afterwards ashamed of what he writ in that kind yet his other booke De vanitate scientiarum which is the worke you cite by the very title well sheweth his arrogant presumption and is iustly condemned by the Church 3. Iosephus Scaliger (o) Pag. 37. marg fine a man not vnlike to Agrippa and a condemned Author 4. Franciscus Duarenus (p) Pag. 45. c. a lawier and as the most eminent Cardinall Peron (q) Repliq. Chap. 34. pag. 270. aduertised our late Soueraigne K. Iames a professed enemy to the Pope and Church of Rome 5. Nicolaus Augustus Thuanus (r) Pag. 85. x. 385. b. 389. u. 404. f.
an other French Lawier whom you call Our noble Historian whereas the whole course of his history sheweth him to haue bene a Huguenot or litle better Nor are you contented with citing him as a Catholike author but to helpe out the matter you falsify him most notoriously as hereafter (s) Chap. 44. sect 9. shall be proued A third sleight is to vrge as Catholike authors some that are of suspected fayth as 1. Erasmus (t) Pag 208. who albeit in the end he abandoned Luther * 303. u. 306. a 381. g 380. f. g. and dyed Catholike as out of his owne confession and Osianders testimony Brierley (u) Aduertism before his Protest Apol. hath proued yet for some tyme he fauoured Luther in regard therof is challenged by Doctor Humfroy and Doctor Reynolds for a man of your religion and by Iohn Foxe Canonized for a Protestant Saint (x) Acts and Mon. pa. 402. Kalend. 22. Decemb. His rash and vnaduised writings gaue occasion to Lutherans and Zuinglians to Father on him diuers of their hereticall Tenents and therfore are generally reproued by Catholikes (y) Ind. lib. prohib condemned by the Church which you cold not be ignorant of therfore your persisting still to alleage him against vs as an approued Catholike author is inexcusable 2. To this classe may be reduced others who though Catholikes yet fell into some errors as Beatus Rhenanus Claudius Espencaus Papyrius Massonius Ioannes Ferus and Gulielmus Barklaius of which the foure first are prohibited by the Church nor were you ignorant therof for speaking of Rhenanus you say (z) Pag. 101. Rhenanus writ so whiles he had the vse of his tongue but since you haue gagged him by your Index expurgatorius By what authority then do you vngagge him whom the Roman Church which he acknowledged to be his Mother hath so iustly gagged And though William Barkley be not registred in the Index as a condemned author his booke being set forth since the Index was made yet Bellarmine (a) Tract de potest Papae aduers Barclaium in praesat hath produced against his doctrine the agreeing consent of the most learned Diuines of Italy France Spayne England and Scotland as also the decrees of ancient Popes and generall Councels and therfore with great reason hath censured him for that being no Diuine but a Lawier he presumed to write a booke De potestate Papa in temporalibus which contayning diuers errors being left imperfect at his death was afterwards published without name of author printer or place of impression for although some copies say it was printed at Mussipont yet Bellarmine conuinceth that to be an (b) Ibid. vntruth Iohn Barkeley sonne to William hath confessed the same (c) In praef Parenesis giuing notice to all men that it was published in England by Protestants and hath withall acknowledged his Father to haue erred in that booke and retracted his owne defence therof All this might haue moued you to forbeare the alleaging of Barkeleys booke against vs. And so much the vrge in this your Grand imposture the very same passage of his which your ancient Antagonist (d) F. Persons Treatise to mitigations Chap. 6. pag. 202. here tofore shewed you to haue obiected in an other treatise of yours corruptly against our common beliefe and practise falsifying and sophisticating both his and our meaning And the like abuse he sheweth you to haue offred to (e) Ibid. Tolosanus whose testimony you yet againe impertinently produce here against (f) Pag. 172. vs. 3. And to this classe may be reduced Polydore Virgill (g) Grand Impost pag. 46.97 e. 164. p. 382. â— 386 c. who being a Catholike author his Booke De inuentoribus rerum hath bene enlarged and corrupted by heretikes and is for that cause prohibited 4. Your fourth sleight is to alleadge and insist much on some writings of Aenae as Siluius Cardinall Cusanus and Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester which they set forth in their youth but afterwards repented and publikely retracted Aenaeas Siluius that was afterwards Pope Pius the second being in his yonger yeares present at the Councell of Basil and Secretary therof writ a booke exalting the authority of a Councell and depressing the authority of the Pope which booke is not only forbiden by the Church but he himselfe also being more mature in yeares more ripe in iudgment and more solidly learned repenred the writing therof when he came to be Pope set forth a speciall bull to retract it (h) Extat hac Bulla apud Binium to 4. pag. 512. seqq in which among other words he sayth In minoribus agentes c. Whiles I was in minority not yet entred into any holy orders being present at Basil among those who made themselues a generall Councell said they represented the vniuersall Church I writ a small booke of Dialogues c. in which ignorantly as Paul did I persecuted the Roman and chief See Wherfore I admonish in our Lord that you giue no credit to such former writings of mine as do in any sorte extenuate the Soueraigne authority of the See Apostolike And then hauing declared that he made not this change by his comming to the Popedome but before he was either Pope or Bishop and set downe the causes that moued him therto he addeth Hauing considered all these things I submitted my selfe to Pope Eugenius saying with Hierome I am ioyned in communion with the chayreof Peter vpon which I know the Church to be built and I had at that tyme no other orders but of Priesthood only when I returned to the obedience of Eugenius By this it appeares that when Bellarmine sayth (*) Lib. de Scriptor in Aenea Siluio he retracted his error in his old age and being Pope he speaketh only of the setting forth of the said Bull to make his retractation publikely knowne to the whole world but the error it selfe he recalled before he was either Pope or Bishop as you haue heard And this discouereth your want of sincerity who in diuers places of your Grand Imposture alleaging testimonies of Aeneas to shew his iudgment concerning the Roman Church conceale all those in which his doctrine and beliefe is truly deliuered and set downe (i) Pag. 91. d. 210. * .249 d. only such as you could pick out of his former workes written in his youth forbidden by the Church and retracted by himself which dealing is no lesse impostetous then if you should deliuer as S. Augustins doctrine that which in his Retractations he hath recalled But you seeke to lessen this Imposture by adding an other to it for lest peraduenture your Reader might haue notice of this retractation of Aeneas and therby discouer your bad dealing you couer it by insinuating that he made no such recantation till he was Pope for hauing cited a passage of his you say (k) Pag. 210. So Aeneas out of Hierome whilest
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
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
addressed to that Citty which was then Head of the whole world and because the Roman Church still vntill this day hath the soueraignty of all Churches And in his commentary of the eight verse of the first Chapter Here againe sayth he it is manifest that the â—pistle to the Romans ought to be placed first because the Romans among all the faythfull are the chiefest because the Roman Church hath the soueraignty among all Churches SECT VII Why S. Paul did not intitle his Epistles Catholike Epistles THat S. Paul in his epistle to the Romans hath giuen sufficient testimony of the preeminency of the Roman Church aboue all others is a thing manifest if not you but the ancient Fathers may be the iudges Them you must giue vs leaue to follow and forsake you fighting against S. Paul and them Against this truth you frame yet two Arguments more The first is (l) Pag. â—â— that whereas the epistles of S. Iames Peter Iude and Iohn are intituled Catholike epistleâ— if S. Paul had bene possessed with the spirit of the now Bishop of Rome he would haue intituled the Church of Rome the Catholike Church and at least inscribed his epistle Catholike The second is (m) Ibid. that he giueth not to the Roman Church so much as the title of a Church which yet in his prefaces to the Corinthians Galathiâ—ns and Thessalonians he giues to those Churches To the first I answere that the Apostles themselues did not giue to any of their epistles the name of Catholike epistles That title is prefixed to the epistles of Iames Peter Iohn Iude by the Church for diuers reasons which you may reade in Salmeron (n) Disp 1. in Ep. S. Iacobi and chiefly because as S. Augustine (o) De fide oper c. 14. witnesseth they were written against the heresy of Simon Magus defending Iustification by only fayth wherin Protestants are his heires And for that cause their epistles insist so much on good workes and the keeping of Gods Commandements and shew that fayth without charity is dead and fruitlesse And for the same cause S. Iohn (p) Ep. 1. vers 24. 27. admonisheth the faythfull to abide in that Doctrine which they haue heard from the beginning because many seducers are gone out into the world And S. Iude (q) Vers 4.8 seqq exhorteth them to stand to their old fayth shewing them by examples that it is damnable not to be constant in it To your second Argument I might answere with 8. Chrysostome that they which were but a small number newly conuerted and weake S. Paul salutes them by the name of a Church to comfort them but not those that were more in number and of longer standing as the Romans were when he writ vnto them For this reason I say that as S. Paul did not salute the Ephesians Philippians Colossians by the name of a Church in expresse words so neither did he the Romans but only virtually and implicitly saying (r) Rom. 1.7 To all that are at Rome the beloued of God called Saints which title cannot agree to any congregation but to a true Church of Christ as (s) Tom. 13. disp 7. in ep ad Rom. Salmeron learnedly proueth and you contradicting your selfe acknowledge saying (t) Pag. 7â— sin S. Paul to shew that the Church rather doth consist in the professors then in the place omitteth the name of a Church and mentioneth only the persons saying To the Saints at Colosse To them at Rome beloued of God called Saints But because you mention Salmerons solution I will giue the reader notice how fouly you abuse and fallify him He giues three solutions to this Argument The first he most approueth and this you wholly pretermit to persuade your reader that he giues not three but only the two later and therfore wheras he begins the second thus Posset secundò commode dici you leaue out fecundo that this may seeme not to be his second solution but his first and to the same end you say allata alia solutione ad hunc redit that hauing brought another solution he returnes to this saying but the first solution in my iudgment is more soâ—de which words containe a most notorious falsification for he returnes not to this which you make the first by leauing out secundò but to the first of the three which you neuer mention And wheras he sayth that the first solution is in his iudgment the more solide you by falsifying apply this his saying to the second against which because you can make a shift to cauill you would haue your reader thinke it is Salmerons first solution and that he thought it to be the most solide of all the three But of what import to your cause is this iugling Marry that because in the second solution Salmeron mentioneth the factions that were then in Rome betweene the Iewes and Gentiles you may inferre that S. Paul did thinke Rome to be as other Churches subiect to the alteration of Schismes and factions and in proofe therof you say (u) Pag. 69. that not only our Professors among themselues but also Popes and Antipopes were distracted into diuers Schismes and factions c. One of our deuout Doctors reckoning the number of these Schismes to haue ben twenty an other accounting the continuance of one of them to haue endured fifty yeares Our Deuout Doctor whom you mention to proue that there hath ben twenty schismes in the Roman Church is Stapleton The place in which you cite him is his thirteenth booke De princip Doctrin Cap. 15. wheras in that worke he hath but twelue bookes in all But be it that there haue ben twenty Schismes in the Roman Church Schisme is not a sinne against fayth but against Charity If then Antipopes or other professors of the Roman Church haue broken the bond of charity was it therfore lawfull for you to renounce the fayth of the Roman Church If Schismes be a lawfull cause of departure who can stay in your Protestant congregation diuided subdiuided into Lutherans Caluinists Zwinglians Brownists and a thousand other Sects vnder these new ones daily arising among you as Separatists and Socinians all which are diuided not only in poynt of charity but in the very substance of fayth And surely you are ill aduised to obiect the Schismes of the Roman Church in iustification of your departure from her for since as our Authors haue aduertised nether the persecutions of heathen Emperors nor the Gothes and Vandals nor the Turke nor any sacks or massacres by Alaricus Gensericus Attila Borbon and others nor the emulation of secular Princes were they Kings or Emperors nor the many Schismes and diuisions betweene the lawfull Popes and Antipopes nor the manifold difficulties dangers in their elections nor the great vices which haue bene noted in some of their persons nor any scandall haue had power to ouerthrow the Roman Church as they haue done the Churches
Eusebius Nebrissensis proueth the like by examples of other natioÌ„s And to what he sayth I adde the reason which Blessed Augustinus Triumphus a holy and ancient wryter that liued 400. yeares since yieldeth (l) De Potest Ecclesiact c. 7. art â— why S. Paul in the Popes buls is somtimes placed on the right hand of S. Peter S. Paul sayth he was lesse then Peter greater then Peter and equall to Peter He was equall to Peter in the office of preaching lesse then Peter in Ecclesiasticall power for Peter alone was Cephas that is Head of the whole Church but he was greater then Peter in the prerogatiue of his election to the Apostleship for he was chosen by Christ after his resurrection glorification for this cause Paul in the Popes bulls is placed on the right hand Peter on the left So he Hauing now answered the arguments which hitherto you haue brought out of S. Pauls epistles and shewed that by alleaging them you conuince your owne Doctrine of falshood and proue ours I must craue pardon if I aske you a question concerning his Epistle to the Romans which Optatus asked the Donatists concerning some other of his epistles and S. Augustine concerning them all How dare you sayth Optatus (m) L. â— cont Parmen read S. Pauls epistle to the Romans in whose communion you are not You sayth S. Augustine (n) L. 2. de Baptism c. 6. that haue it and read it and say that you liue according to it why doe you not communicate with the Church to which it was sent Answere why haue you separated your selues c Choose which you will If then that is when Donatus when Luther when Caluin began the Roman Church was polluted with errors it was perished for a Church that holds false pernicious schismaticall hereticall blasphemous and Antichristian Doctrine with which you often charge the Roman Church cannot be a true Church of Christ but a Synagogue of Satan from whence then had Donatus Luther or Caluin his begining where was he Cathechized where baptized where ordayned I conclude therfore as Optatus did against the Donatists Know that you are cut of from the holy Church And I say to you as S. Augustine did to them (p) L. de vnit Eccles c. 12. You haue the epistle to the Romans but we read it and beleeue it and haue the Roman Church in our communion from which we grieue with him (p) Psal cont part Donati to see you lye cut of she being that Rock which the prowd gates of hell ouercome not CHAP. XIII Whether S. Iohn the Euangelist conceaued himselfe subiect to the Roman Church YOVR Tenet is (r) Pag. 73. that S. Iohns fayth did not conceaue the Article of subiection to the Roman Church In proofe therof you assume that in his booke of Reuelation he reuealeth the City of Rome to be Babylon that Autichrist shall haue his seate there which though it were granted yet I see not which way it followeth that Iohn did not acknowledg himselfe subiect to S. Peter or â—o his Successors in the Church of Rome But let vs examine the particulers of your Doctrine and proofes SECT I. Whether Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist THat the City of Rome is Babylon mentioned in the Reuelation say you (s) Ibid. is the gener all consent of our owne Iesuits and other Diuines But in proose hereof you can find no other Iesuits nor Diuines to alleage but Ribera Viegas and the Rhemists whom you abuse and falsify to make them serue your turne as I shall now declare The Rhemists say you (t) Pag. 74. do thus farre grant as to say The great Antichrist shall haue his seat at Rome as it may well be though others thinke that Hierusalem rather shall be his principall soat But your Iesuits Ribera and Viegas both of them Spanish Doctors and publike professors do confidently auerre the contrary and the one is so bold as to hold him to be a most notable foole that shall deny it But good Sir by your leaue this is a most notable vntruth That which Ribera sayth is that towards the end of the world Rome shall be burned not only for her former sinnes of Idolatry and persecuting of Christ vnder the Pagan Emperors but also for other sinnes that in the end of the world she shall commit vnder Pagan Kings and that this is so certaine out of the Apocalypse that no man though neuer so foolish can deny it This Ribera sayth and it may well be said that he who out of these words of Ribera inferreth as you do that the City of Rome is to be the seat of Antichrist or that Ribera sayth so is I will not say a notable foole but whether he deserue not that name I leaue to the readers censure The Doctrine of Ribera Viegas the Rhemists is that when S. Iohn calleth Rome Babylon he neither speaketh of the Church or Pope of Rome nor yet of the Citty of Rome as she is vnder the gouerment of Christian Emperors or in obedience of the See Apostolike for in that estate the hath sayth S. Hierome (u) L 2. cont louin wiped out the blasphemies written in her forehead by the confession of Christ. In that estate (x) Ep. 17. ad Marcell there is in Rome the holy Church there are the triumphant Monuments of Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the fayth praysed by the Apostle and gentility troden vnder foote the name of Christ daily aduancing it selfe on high Wherfore when S. Iohn calleth Rome Babylon Ribera Viegas and the Rhemists with the ancient Fathers expound him to giue her that name as she was the head of Paganisme the mother of superstition and Idolatry and persecuted the Church and Popes of Rome being drunke with the bloud of the Saints Martyrs of Christ Iesus (*) Apoc. 17.6 as she did vnder Nero and Domitian in S. Iohns tyme afterwards vnder other Pagan Emperors when she put to death thirty Popes successiuely one after another and as she shall do againe in the end of the world for both Ribera and Viegas hold that the Citty of Rome shall then fall from the obedience of the See Apostolike and from the fayth of Christ and that as well for her enormous sinnes anciently committed vnder the heathen Emperors as also for other like which in the end of the world she shall commit vnder heathenish Kings she shall be burn's and consumed with fyre But that Rome euen then vnder pagans Emperors was or hereafter vnder Heathenish Kings shall be the seate of Antichrist neither Ribera nor Viegas affirme nor any way insinuate as it may appeare out of their words which you here set downe in Latin (y) Pag. 74. marg for those words Roma sedes Antichristi which you attribute to Ribera are not his but foysted in by your selfe to Father on him your owne fiction
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
of Alexandria and other Easterne Bishops which had bene personally present at the Councell of Nice being soone after cast out of their Seates by the Arians did fly to Rome and appeale to Pope Iulius for redresse as to their lawfull Superior and Iudge Or if this Canon do limit the iurisdiction of the Pope to the Patriarkeship of the West as it doth that of the B. of Alexandria to the prouinces named in the canon how comes it to passe that as Socrates (b) L. 2. c. 1â— Sozomen (c) L. 3. c. 7. and Nicephorus (d) L. 9. c. 8. report Iulius by the ancient dignity and prerogatiue of his See and because the care of them all belonged to him restored each of them to their Churches and rebuking the Arians for their iniust proceedings threatned to punish them vnlesse they desisted to innouate and cited Athanasius and some of the chiefe of the Arians to make their appearance at Rome on a set day and answere for themselues in iudgment and that Athanasius obeying transported himselfe in all diligence to Rome And how comes it to passe that when the Arians in their mock-Councell of Philippopolis required the Fathers assembled at Sardica to absteyne from the communion of Athanasius the other Bishops whom they had deposed those Fathers representing all the Catholikes of the world answered (e) Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. that they neuer had nor would now abstaine from their communion and principally because Iulius B. of Rome hauing examined their cause had not condemned them And how comes it to passe that Peter Successor to S. Athanasius in the See of Alexandria whom Theodosius and Gratian (f) Cod. Tit. 1. l. 1. call A man of Apostolicall sanctity being in like manner deposed by the Arians appealed to Rome as to the safest hauen of communion (g) S. Hieron Ep. 16. and relying on the authority of Pope Damasus his letters returned to Alexandria (h) L. 4. c. 30. and by vertue of them recouered his Seat expelled Lucius the Arian intruder Doth not all this shew that the authority of the Roman Church was not limited by the Nicen Councell to the Patriarkship of the West vnlesse you will haue vs belieue that you vnderstand the sense and meaning of the Councell better then S. Athanasius and other holy Bishops which were present at it and at the Councell of Sardica and better then Peter that renowned Patriarke of Alexandria that liued soone after these Councells In confirmation of this I adde that the Councell of Nice ordeyneth (i) Can. 6. that the ancient custome goe on Now the ancient custome was that all Churches should resort to the Roman Church by reason of her more mighty principality (k) Iren. l. 3. c. 3. and because she is the Chayre of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued (l) Cyp. ep 55. ad Cornel. and because in her the principality of the Apostolike Chayre hath alwayes florished (m) S Aug. ep 162. And if we come to the Patriarkes of Alexandria of whom this Canon particularly speaketh they did alwayes euen before the Councell of Nice acknowledge themselues subiect to the B. of Rome as appeareth by the example of Dionysius Patriarke of that Citty who being fallen into suspicion of heresy long before the Councell of Nice the Catholikes of Alexandria had not recourse to the Synods of their owne prouinces nor to any other Patriarke of the East but went to Rome to accuse him before Dionysius Pope They went vp to Rome sayth S. Athanasius (n) De sent Dionys to accuse him before the B. of Rome being of his owne name And a litle after (o) Ibid. And the B. of Rome sent to Dionysins to cleare himselfe of those things whereof they had accused him and suddenly he answered sending his bookes of defence and apology And againe (p) De Syn. Arim. Soleu Some hauing accused the B. of Alexandria before the B. of Rome to hold the Sonne for a creature the Synod of Rome that is the Popes Consistory consisting of the neighbour Bishops and the principall Church-men of Rome without whose aduice he iudgeth nothing of importance was offended with him the B of Rome writ to him the opinion of all the Assistants and he for his iustification addressed to him a Booke of defence and apology This playnely sheweth that the custome before the Councell of Nice was that the Bishop and people of Alexandria did acknowledge the Pope of Rome to be their Superior which custome therefore the Councell will haue to goe on But that the true meaning of this Canon may the better be vnderstood it is to be noted that the entire Acts of the Councell of Nice being lost that which remayneth of them in the vulgar copies is but fragments Among the rest this very Canon hath not passed without mutilation for the beginning of it as it is related by Dionysius Abbas an author of 1000. yeares standing is Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum The Roman Church hath alwayes had the primacy This beginning troubleth your patience and to refute it you say (q) Pag. 108. They shame not to preferre one vulgar booke before all other Greeke and Latine Copies False For that beginning of the Canon is in like manner extant in an ancient Manuscript of the famous Monastery of S. Vedastus in Atras written aboue 800. yeares since (r) Of this see Pamelius in Annot. ad lib. Cyp. de Vnit Eccles n. 16. and which taketh away all occasion of doubt it is so read in the famous Councell of Chalcedon (s) Act. 16. True say you (t) Pag. 108. but by the Popes Legates But what Were not the Popes Legates reuerend Bishops and Presidents of that Councell And when they read this beginning of the Canon did the Fathers of that Councell except against it as you do Nay after they had read and considered it did they not say (u) Act. 16. Ex his quae gesta vel ab vnoquoque deposita sunt perpendimus omnem primatum honorem praecipuum secundum canones antiquae Romae Deo amantissmo Archiepiscopo conseruari By those things which haue bene done and the proofes which haue bene produced on both sydes we find that according to the Canons all primacy and chiefe honor is preserued to the most beloued of God the Archbishop of old Rome Then which words none can be more effectuall to declare the primacy of the Pope to be Primacy of authority and iurisdiction and not of order only as you falsely comment both because primacy of order is not all primacy nor is it the chiefe honor for the honor due to superiority of gouerment and iurisdiction is farre aboue it Besides that as I haue already shewed (x) Aboue Chap. 12. and shall in the next Chapter proue (y) Sect. 2. this your shift of Primacy of Order to which you often
Catholike Bishop then they did when they were heretikes from the lawes of the Emperors This was the cause why S. Augustine and this sixth Councell of Carthage beseeched Celestine not to grant Clerkes executors to all Appellants And this conuinceth you of an vntruth in saying (b) Pag. 145. fin 151. that the African Fathers call that Papall presumption of Appeales a smoaky secular arrogancy which they will not indure for it is not the Popes clayme of appeales that they qualify with the name of typhe or smoaky secular arrogancy but partly the vexation and insolence of Apiarius and other Priests despising and shaking off the yoake of Episcopall discipline and partly the force military Violence which the executors sent from Rome did somtimes vse in executing the iudgments of the See Apostolike For speaking to Boniface Pope of the insolency of Apiarius they say (c) Conc. Afric c. 101. But we hope by the help of Gods mercy that your Holinesse gouerning in the Roman See we shall no longer suffer this typhe And because the executors did somtimes make vse of secular forces they beseech Celestine (d) Ibid. c. 105. not to grant Clerkes executors to all that demand thē lest the typhe of the world be introduced into the Church Which is agreeable to the decree of the Councell of Ephesus forbidding Iohn Patriarke of Antioch to make vse of any military power to hinder the Bishops of Cyprus from electing to themselues an Archbishop without his consent lest sayth the Councell vnder pretence of executing sacred things the typhe of secular power be introduced into the Church And in the same sense the Author (*) Cap. 26. of S. Fulgentius his life said that Fulgentius commanded nothing with the typhe of secular dominion And no lesse vntruly (e) Pag. 145. fin you make the Africans say in their Epistle to Celestine that they will not indure the Papal presumtion of appeales there being no such thing to be read in that Epistle For what they speake of not induring hath no relation to Appeales but to the crimes of Apiarius As for the wretched Apiarius say they he hauing bene already cast out of the Church of Christ for his infamous crimes by our brother Faustinus we are no more in care for as much as by the meanes of the approbation and moderation of your Holinesse Africa will no longer indure him 5. You say (f) Pag. 155. This Councell denounced excommunication to all that thinke it lawfull to appeale beyond the seas This is another vntruth for the Councell speakes not of Bishops but of Priests and inferior Clerkes only so much you contradicting your selfe had acknowledged a little before setting downe the very words of the Councell thus (g) Pag. 146. If any Priest shall thinke that he ought to appeale beyond the sea meaning to Rome let him not be receaued any longer into the communion of the Church of Africke You reply (h) Pag. 155. that this answeare is a sophistry confuted by the consequence of the Councell for if inferior Clergy were prohibited much more was the same prouision made in behalfe of Bishops This consequence we deny as false sophistry for albeit they proposed this among their requests to Pope Celestine yet they made no decree nor prouision therof nor if they had cold it haue bene of force as being directly contradictory to the Canons of the two famous Councels of Nice and Sardica (i) See aboue Chap. 26. and also to the beliefe of S. Augustine saying (k) Ep. 162. that Cecilian might haue appealed beyond the sea because he was not of the number of Priests or other inferior Clerkes but of Bishops And moreouer he represented to Celestine Pope (l) Ep. 261. that wheras Antony B. of Fussala being depriued of his Bishoprick by the Bishops of Africa and left only with the bare title of Bishop had appealed to Boniface his predecessor he would be pleased to confirme the sentence of the Bishops of Africa because sayth he there had bene many like sentences in Africa euen the See Apostolike pronouncing the iudgmēt or confirming the iudgment of others as of Priscus Victor and Lawrence Bishops of the Cesarian Prouince SECT V. Whether this Controuersy of Appeales wrought in the Africans any separation of Communion from the Roman Church TO make your argument more plausible you say (m) Pag. 148. that by reason of this controuersy between the Africans and the Bishops of Rome Aurelius B. of Carthage his fellow Bishops of Africk with whom S. Augustine did consent were for the space of an hundred yeares separated frō the Church of Rome Of all the vntruths vttered in this your discourse of the sixt Councell of Carthage this is the greatest which therfore you haue reserued to the last place Finis coronat opus For that the African Fathers euen of this sixth Councell of Charthage during the very tyme of this controuersy remained still vnited to the See of Rome is proued 1. By the clause of their Epistle written to Pope Celestine in the end of this controuersy (n) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 646. Our Lord keepe your Holinesse many yeares praying for vs Lord and Brother which were the very worlds of peace and communion vsed in Formed letters that were neuer giuen to any but to Catholikes of the same communion (o) Aug. ep 162.163 2. Out of S. Augustine who in the current of this difference writing to Boniface Pope dedicating one of his chiefest workes vnto him sayd (p) Cont. duas ep Pelag. ad Bonifa l. 1. Thou disdainest not thou who art not high minded though thou presidest higher to be a friend of the humble 3. Out of the testimony which Pope Celestine gaue of S. Augustine after his death (q) Ep. ad Epise Galliae c. 2. Augustine a man of holy memory for his lyfe merits we haue had alwaies in our communion nor hath the rumor of any sinister suspicion euer so much as touched him which Epistle of Celestine to the French is alleaged by Pettus Diaconus (r) L. de incarn grat and by Prosper (s) Cont. Collat c. 42. to iustify S. Augustines doctrine against the Pelagians 4. And the same Prosper (t) L. de promiss predict par 3. c. 38. calles Aurelius Archbishop of Carthage vnder whom the African Councell was held after his death A Father and Bishop of worthy memory and a Citizen of the heauenly country which praise he would not haue giuen him if he had died out of the communion of the Roman Church for Prosper in that very booke (u) Part. 4. c. 5. sayth that a Christian communicating with that Church is a Catholike but if he be separated from it he is an heretike and Antichrist 5. Capreolus immediat successor to Aurelius writing to the Bishops assembled in the Councell of Ephesus (x) Act. Conc. Ephes to 2. c. 9. Wee pray you
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
the charge of feeding his sheep and lambes (u) Ioan. â—1 15 16. gaue him an vniuersall Pastorall power and iurisdiction ouer his whole flock throughout the world which power and iurisdiction therfore S. Augustine and the whole Councell of Mileuis (x) Apud Aug. ep 92. acknowledge Innocentius Pope to haue from the authority of the holy Scriptures that is by diuine Law from the mouth of Christ himselfe Your sixth obiection is (y) Pag. 208.209 that S. Hierome disagreed from the Roman Church in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine You told vs euen now (z) Pag. 205. that the Church of Rome was then sound in fayth If therfore S. Hierome disagreed from her in matter of necessary and Catholike Doctrine S. Hierome was an heretike for all doctrine contrary to the Catholike fayth is heresy But you regard not what you say of that renowned Doctor if you may make him like to your selfe in disagreeing from the Church of Rome in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine But let vs heare in what he disagreed Because S. Hierome sayth that although formerly all other Churches in the East did account S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall yet it was not receaued as Canonicall in the Latine or Roman Church From whence you tooke these words I know not for no such are to be found in his Epistle to Euagrius out of which you alleage them Part of them I find in his Commentary vpon Isaias and in his Epistle to Dardanus where he saith The Epistle to the Hebrewes is receaued as Canonicall by all the Greeke Churches though the custome of the Latines receaue it not But that the Roman Church receaues it not is an imposterous addition of yours to S. Hieromes text for when he sayth The custome of the Latines receaues it not that by the custome of the Latines he vnderstands not all the Latine or Roman Church he declareth saying (a) Ep. ad Euag. All the Greekes receaue the Epistle to the Hebrewes nonnulli Latinorum and many of the Latines Yea when he infinuateth that some of the Latines receaued it not he speaketh not of the Latines of his time but of some that liued before him as Tertullian S. Cyprian Lactantius Arnobius who in their workes are not found to alleage this Epistle But since the tyme of Lactantius the Latine Fathers haue bene so far from making any doubt that it is Canonicall that Philastrius (b) In Catal. haeres a Latine Father and Bishop of Bressa in Italy more ancient then S. Hierome ranketh them among heretikes that deny it to be Canonicall And in S. Hieromes time Innocentius Pope (c) Eup. ad Exuper and soone after him Gelasius with a Councell of 70. Bishops (d) Decret de lib. sacr Eccles reckon the Epistle to the Hebrewes in the number of Canonicall Scriptures If therfore Gelasius Pope with a Councell of 70. Bishops and Innocentius belieued it to be Canonicall with what forehead do you say that the Roman Church denied it to be Canonicall or how can it be thought that S. Hierome differed in any point of Catholike beliefe from the Church of Rome he that prescribeth to Demetrias (e) Ep. 8. ad Demetriad as a secure way to auoid the snares of heresy that she hold fast the fayth of S. Innocentius Pope And finally how cold he dissent from the Roman Church in this or any other point of necessary and Catholike doctrine he I say that so often commendeth and recommendeth (f) Ep. 6.8.68 the Roman fayth and defineth him to be a Catholike that holds the fayth of the Roman Church (g) Aduers Ruffi l. 1. What followeth of this you know namely that by affirming S. Hierome to disagree from the Roman Church in matter of necessarie and Catholike doctrine you make him an heretike Is not then your Argument a Grand Imposture And no lesse it is that the Councell of Trent hauing defined the bookes of Hester Daniel Baruch Ecclesiasticus Wisdome Iudith Tobias and the two bookes of the Machabies with all their parts as they are in the vulgar edition to be canonicall you (h) Pag. 209. in disproofe therof obiect these words as of Bellarmine S. Hierome sayd of these bookes that they were not within the canon of scriptures for Bellarmine in that place maketh no mention of Hester Daniel Baruch And though he grant S. Hierome to haue bene of opinion that the other bookes mentioned were not canonicall yet why do you conceale his reason which is that S. Hierome was of that opinion because the Church had not then defined the contrary in any generall Councel And how do you proue that S. Hierome in that his opinion disagreed from the Roman Church in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine since it was no matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine to belieue these bookes to be Canonicall vntill the Church had defined it in a generall Councell as in S. Hieromes time she had not done sauing only of the booke of Iudith which afterwards he receaued vnderstanding that the Councell of Nice had so declared But from hence you take occasion (i) Pag. 302. fin 303. to inueigh against Bellarmine and other our Doctors for imputing to the Councell of Nice a decree wherby they condemne Protestants as sacrilegious persons for not admitting the booke of Iudith into the number of Canonicall scriptures and alleaging S. Hierome as a witnesse to proue that which he neuer spake and for profe of a doctrine which himselfe doth vtterly abandon In this charge you are twice reproueable first for saying that we falsly impute that constitution to the Councell of Nice for that the CouÌ„cell did make such a Constitution S. Hierome witnesseth saying (k) Praefat. in Iudith Librum Iudith Nicena Synodus in numero sanctarum scripturarum legitur computasse The Nicen Councell is read to haue reckoned the booke of Iudith in the number of holy scriptures The same is testified by Rupertus (l) De diuin offic l. 12. c. 25. who repeating S. Hieromes doctrine concerning this booke and almost his words sayth Hoc volumen c. This booke is not canonicall among the Hebrewes but by the authority of the Councell of Nice it is receaued for the instruction of holy Church Secondly you are reproueable in preteÌ„ding that S. Hierome in these words declareth not that booke to be canonicall for being requested to translate it out of the Chaldean tongue in which it was written into Latin he sayth The Iewes reckoned this booke among the hagiographes whose authority is sufficient to decide controuersies And theÌ„ opposing against them the authority of the Nicen Councell he addeth But because the Councell of Nice is read to haue registred this booke in the number of holy scriptures I haue yeilded to your request In these words he plainly she weth the Church to be of a different beliefe from the Iewes touching this booke to receaue
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
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
him and to all the Bishops of Italy and of the whole Westerne Church humbly crauing to be admitted into their communion and to declare themselues free from suspicion of heresy with which they had bene charged protested that they did not belieue otherwise then the Fathers of the Nicen Councell did and that they had held formerly did still hold and would euer hold till their last breath the same fayth with them Wherupon Liberius willingly admitted them into the communion of the Westerne Church and addressed a letter to fifty nine of them by name and to all the rest in generall expressing the great ioy he conceaued to vnderstand that they had alwaies agreed in fayth with him and with the rest of the Bishops of Italy and of all the other Westerne countries for so are his words This is the story truly set downe What reliefe do you finde here for your inuisible Church since in the very height of the Arian heresy which is the greatest wayne you can sinde in the Catholike Church she abounded and shined like a sunne most gloriously with orthodoxe Pastors and people both in the East and West Shew vs such a Protestant Church before Luther or els confesse the truth that you had no Church before Luther But you tell vs (p) Pag 369. with how great a cloud of obscurity the Church shal be couered in the time of Antichrist proue it out of the Rhemists who make wholy against you for albeit they grant that then there shal be no publike seat of gouerment in the Church nor publike exercise of Ecclesiasticall functions nor publike entercourse with the See of Rome as there is not this day in Cyprus nor in England yet there shall not want Orthodoxe Pastors and people remaining in due obedience to the Roman Church and communicating with her not only in hart but practising the same in secret and making publike profession therof of if occasion require it This is the doctrine of the Rhemists and of all Catholike writers Wherfore as Catholikes are not in England at this day inuisible nor yet so obscure but that their coÌ„staney is knowne and renowned throughout the Christian world so likewise shall the faithfull be in the dayes of Antichrist Nor do Costerus Ribera Pererius Acosta Viegas or any of the Fathers which you obiect (q) Pag. 370. teach ought to the contrary The testimony of S. Hilary which you obiect (r) Pag. 3â—8 S. Augustine hath answeared long since (s) Ep. 48. for it was obiected to him by Vincentius the Rogatist of whose spirit and beliefe you shew your selfe to be vrging against vs the same testimony he vrged against S. Augustine who not only in that place as you haue heard teacheth that if the Church be somtimes obscured and as it were shadowed with cloudes by the multitude of scandalls that is persecutions when sinners bend their bow to wound her in the obscurity of the Moone yet euen then she is eminent in her most constant professors but also in his bookes Of the City of God (t) L. 20. c. 8. speaking professedly of the state of the Church in the dayes of Antichrist he sayth she shall not be so obscured that either Antichrist shall not find her or when he hath found her be able with his persecutions to ouerthrow her but that euen then faithfull Parents shall with great deuotion procure baptisme for their children that as many shall fall from the Church so others shall stand constant and others shall enter a new which before were out of her and in particular the Iewes who towardes the end of the world shal be conuerted to Christ (u) S. Aug. ibid. c. 29. And the same is testified by S. Gregory (x) Hom. 12. in Ezechiel whom you mis-cite (y) Pag. 370. for the words you obiect out of his Moralls on Iob are not there to be found SECT IV. What causes may suffice to depart from the Communion of a particular Church YOur fifth Thesis is (z) Pag. 370. All particular Churches are not to be forsaken for euery vnsoundnesse in either manners worship or doctrine In the first part of this Thesis we agree with you but you agree not with your selfe for before you tould vs (a) Pag. 11.12 that the Catholike Church is in euery part perfect and consisteth only of the sanctified elect of God But here you say (b) Pag 371. that there is scarce to be found any one example of any particular Church consisting only of sanctified professors It scarce any particular Church can be found consisting only of sanctified professors how is it true that the vniuersall Church consisteth only of the sanctified elect of God for the vniuersall Church consisteth of all the particular Churches in the world Againe here you inueigh against the Separatists for diuiding themselues from you for only scandall taken at the wicked liues of your professors May not wee then iustly except against you for obiecting so often the vices of some few Popes to make your departure from the Roman Church more iustifiable The second part of your Thesis is false for no worship no rite or ceremony which the Roman Church alloweth or permitteth to particular Churches in the administration of the Sacraments or in any part of their seruice is vnsound And therfore as such difference is not a sufficient cause for one particular Church to separate it selfe from others so on the contrary if a particular Church vse any Ecclesiasticall obseruation or ceremony disallowed and condemned by the Church of Rome the Mother of all Churches that worship is vnsound and such a Church is schismaticall and to be forsaken and if it persist obstinatly in that schisme becometh hereticall So many of the Asian Churches persisting obstinatly in the celebration of Easter according to the Iewish custome after the prohibition of Pius the first Pope of that name were iustly condemned and cut of from the vniuersall Church by Victor a boly Pope and Martyr and his sentence was confirmed by the Councell of Nice many others in so much that the obseruers of that custome haue euer since bene iudged heretikes and registred as such vnder the name of Quartadecimani by all Ecclesiasticall writers that haue made Catalogues of heresies The third part of your Thesis that all particular Churches may erre in some points as the Corinthians did in denying the Resurrection and the Galatians in teaching a necessary obseruation of the Law of Moyses together with the Ghospell of Christ and yet S. Paul (c) 1. Cor. 1.2 Galat. 1.2 calleth them both Churches and Churches of God because they were ready to be reformed and being admonished of their error to abandon it and obey the truth But not to be willing to learne and not to yeild to truth sufficiently proposed is proper to the Synagogues of Sathan and the Churches of the malignant All this you allow as true doctrine taken out of Bellarmine What
from error in their definitions of fayth hath bene the beliefe of all Orthodoxe antiquity (m) See aboue Chap. 12. sect 1. 2. Nor do you produce here any thing to the contrary which hath not bene proued to be imposterous excepting only that here you charge the new Church of Rome for so you call it with belieuing the conclusion of the Pope in matters of fayth to be infallible albeit he vse no diligence at all for the directing of his iudgment which is say you the strong breath of an Anabaptisticall and Enthusiasticall spirit We are well assured what spirit guydeth your pen. Do you find this doctrine authorized by the Church of Rome In what Councell By what Pope In your margent you cite Valentia in the seauenth Chapter of his Analysis which is to cite at randome and falsly for that worke of Valentia consisteth of eight bookes you specify none of them nor are the words you obiect to be found in the seauenth Chapter of any one of those eight bookes I find some such in the third Chapter of his last booke where as also afterwards againe (n) Analy l. 8. c. 10. he professedly disputeth what meanes the Pope is bound to vse in his definitions of fayth and whether the infallibility of his iudgment depend vpon those meanes In which question Valentia teacheth nothing but what is the most receaued opinion of Deuines and most agreeable to truth There seemeth to be some disagreement in this point among the Schoole-Doctors some saying that the Pope cannot erre if he proceed maturely hearing the counsell of Pastors and Learned men Others of which number Valentia is affirming that he cannot erre though he define alone without deliberation and consultation But these two opinions differ in words only not in reality of truth for when the authors of the former opinion say that to define the Pope is bound to proceed maturely taking the aduice of a Councell or of men wise learned and skilfull in the matter which is to be determined to the end he may not erre they say not this to signify that the infallibility of his definition consisteth in or proceedeth from the wisdome and learning of his Counsellors but only to shew that he is bound to proceed prudently and maturely And so likewise when Valentia and authors of the second opinion say that if the Pope should define alone without a Councell of Bishops or aduice of other learned men he could not erre they say it not to deny that he is bound to vse such meanes but to signify that the infallibility of his definition consisteth not in them but in his owne authority and warrant which he hath from Christ of not erring And this is the meaning of Valentia as in that very place he expresly declareth Nor do I see what you can find therin either absurd or vntrue But if you curiously demand Whether the Pope may erre in case he proceed to define inconsideratly and rashly Valentia and all Catholike Doctors will answeare that your Question implieth a Condition impossible for the Pope in his definitions cannot proceed immaturely The Philosophers say Qui dat formam dat consequentia ad formam He that giues the forme giues also the dispositions necessary for the forme And he that giueth the end giueth also such meanes as are necessary for the attaining of the end Wherfore Christ hauing made promise to the See Apostolike that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her and that the successors of S Peter shall not faile in confirming their brethren it belongeth to his diuine prouidence so to direct gouerne and assist him that he proceed not to define without sufficient deliberation and maturity If sayth S. Augustine (o) De vtil ered c. 10. the prouidence of God be not the Gouernesse of humane affaires no regard is to be bad of religion But if all this variety of Creatures do I know not with what interior knowledge mooue vs to seeke God and to serue God surely we ought not to be diffident but that there is some authority constituted by the same God wheron we relying as vpon a certaine step may ascend vnto God SECT VII Whether there be in the Scripture any Prophesy that the Church of Rome shall fall from the fayth THat Christ hath prophesied of the Church of Rome that she shall neuer fall from the fayth hath bene alredy proued (p) Chap 12. sect 1. 2. Your third Thesis to the contrary is that there is not in all the Scripture any prophesy of the fall of any Church Christian from the fayth Pag. 377. but only of the Church of Rome from which it may somtime be necessary to depart Which is in effect to say that there is in the Scripture a prophesy that the Church of Rome shall fall from the fayth In proofe of this you remit vs to the testimony of two Iesuits Ribera and Viegas that the city of Rome shall in the end of the world be the seat of Antichrist which is not their doctrine but a calumnious slander of yours They hold with the ancient Fathers that not Rome but Hierusalem shall be the Seat of Antichrist The Euangelist sayth Ribera (r) Ad cap. 11. Apocalyp n. 20. fin 21. init calling Hierusalem a great city signifieth not obscurely that she shall be great at that time in power and in number of Citizens to wit when Antichrist shall raigne in her being receaued of the Iewes and honored as the true Messias This city both because she killed our Lord and because then she shal be the Court of Antichrist full of all wickednesse and impiety he calleth Sodome and Aegypt c. for what sinne and impiety will she not be guilty of Antichrist raigning in her So Ribera from whom Viegas dissenteth not Say now Can there be a more shamfull imposture then to impute to these learned Authors your owne falsities theron to ground your calūnies against the Church of Rome as vpon truthes asserted by them Such Arguments are indeed fit proofes to iustify your departure from her But were it true that the City of Rome in the end of the world shall be the Seat of Antichrist doth that any way iustify your present departure from the Roman Church Looke back vpon what hath bene sayd you shall find how little those words Goe out of Babilon my people make for you and that euen according to your Protestant Expositors they are wholly against you In your fourth Thesis (s) Pag. 378. which is That the Church of Rome hath long bene and still is the most schismaticall Church of all other Churches Christian that carry in them a visible face of a Church you bring nothing but what hath bene already answeared point by point SECT VIII Whether Luther were iustly excommunicaeed TO proue that he was iniustly excōmunicated you say (t) Pag. 381. Luthers excommunication by Pope Leo must haue bene either for manners or
and her communicants we haue for our communicants and those that are condemned by her we also condemne Why then did you say that we obiect out of this Councell but one word Obedience why did you here and afterwards againe (m) Pag. 237. citing this passage out of Bellarmine in both places cut it of in the middst Can any Catholike at this day professe more perfect and exacte obedience to the See Apostolike then to hold all them for Orthodoxe and communicate with them all that communicate with her and to condemne all them that are condemned by her This was the obedience of that Councell to the Pope which to shift of and deceaue your reader you mangle the words leauing out the most effectuall part of them because they shew that if you had bene liuing in those primitiue tymes that Councell would haue detested and condemned you as it did Anthymus and other heretikes there mentioned for their disobedience to the See Apostolike and for not communicating with her CHAP. XXI Of the sixth Generall Councell SECT I. That it acknowledged the supreme Authority of the B. and Church of Rome THAT the sixth Generall Councell was called by the Authority of the B. of Rome I haue already proued (n) Chap. 17. sect 1. And that it acknowledged the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church is declared by Constantine the Emperor who speaking to the Roman Synod held vnder Agatho calls him Vniuersall Father and Vniuersall Arch-Pastor (o) Syn. 6. Act. 18. and by the Councell it selfe (p) Ibid. calling him Bishop of the first See and of the vniuersall Church And speaking of the Epistle of Agatho sent from the Roman Councell to the Emperor they receaue it as of the holy Ghost dictated from the mouth of the holy and most Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and written by the hand of the thrice blessed Pope Agatho And againe (q) Ibid. We assent say they and agree to the dogmaticall Epistle of our most holy Father the soueraigne Pope Agatho sent to your Highnesse and to the suggestion of the holy Synod of 225. Fathers vnder him And a litle after speaking of the same Epistle and acknowledging Agatho to be the Successor of S. Peter they adde The paper and inke appeared but it was Peter that did speake by Agatho One of the things which Agatho spake in that Epistle (r) Apud Bin. to ◠pag. 11. was that the Roman Church hath neuer bene stayned with error that the whole Catholike Church all the Councells all the Venerable Fathers and all the holy Doctors haue imbraced her authority and reuerenced and followed her Apostolicall Doctrine which contrarily the heretikes haue maliciously derogated from and persecuted And speaking of the same Church to the Emperor and his two sonnes (s) Ibid. This your spirituall Mother the Apostolicall Church of Christ by the grace of Almighty God shall neuer be proued to haue erred from the track of Apostolicall tradition nor by any deprauation to haue yelded to hereticall nouelties but as from the beginning of the Christian fayth the receaued it pur◠from her authors the Princes of Christes Apostles so she remaineth vntill the end according to the diuine promise which our Lord and Sauiour made to the Prince of his Disciples in the Ghospells saying Peter Peter Satan hath required to sift you as one that sifteth wheat but I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth faile not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren Your Clemency therfore consider that our Lord and Sauiour of all who hath faythfully promised that the fayth of Peter shall not faile admonished him to confirme his brethren which that my Apostolicall predecessors haue alwayes assuredly performed is a thing notorious to all men And because Theodorus Patriarke of Constantinople was a Monothelite as Anastasius testifieth (t) In vita Agathon condemned with Pyrrhus and the rest of that Sect in this sixth Councell he addeth that Since the Bishops of Constantinople haue endeauored to bring hereticall Nouelties into the Church of Christ his Apostolicall predecessors of holy memory haue neuer ceased to exhort and admonish them to desist from hereticall error lest by holding one will and operation in Christ they should occasion a beginning of diuision in the vnity of the Church SECT II. Whether the sixth Councell condemned Honorius Pope as an Heretike THese passages of the sixth Councell so forcible for the authority of the Roman Church you mention not but passing by them as being not for your purpose pick out of it a quarrell against Honorius B. of Rome that with no small lack of syncerity for wheras you obiect out of Bellarmine that in this sixth Councell as also in the seauenth and eight Honorius was condemned as a Monothelite Bellarmine contrarily proueth out of Honorius his expresse words that he was no way guilty of that heresy but alwayes a Catholike holding with the Roman Church two wils and operations in Christ And he confirmeth the same with the testimony of S. Maximus Martyr the greatest Diuine of that age and that liued in Honorius his tyme. And Maximus himselfe in a famous disputation which he had with Pyrrhus Patriarke of Constantinople alleageth as witnesse of this truth Honorius his owne Secretary that writ those epistles dictated from his mouth and was then still liuing Wherfore Bellarmine denyeth that the sixth Councel damned Honorius as an Hereticke and further proueth it because Agatho in his first epistle to Constantine the Emperor which was read in the Councell and not only read but approued and admired as the words of S. Peter and as dictated by the holy Ghost affirmeth expressly that none of his Predecessors one of which was Honorius was euer guilty of heresy but that they haue alwayes made resistance to heretikes that the Pope as Pope cannot decree any thing contrary to fayth And from thence he inferreth that the Councell did not iudge Honorius to be an heretike nor condemne him as such els by receauing and reuerencing Agathos Epistle as the words of S. Peter and as dictated by the holy Ghost the Councell should contradict it selfe and condemne both S. Peter and the holy Ghost of a lye in affirming that none of Agatho's predecessors was euer guilty of heresy And the truth hereof he confirmeth by the testimony of Nicolas the first who in his epistle to Michael the Emperor auoucheth that none of his predecessors was euer stayned with the least spot or blemish of heresy which he wold not euen for very shame haue affirmed so resolutely if Honorius in the publike assēbly of a generall Councell had bene anathematized as an heretike Wherfore Bellarmine rightly inferreth that Honorius was not condemned by the sixth Councell but his name inserted among those heretikes whom the Councell condemned by the Greekes enemies to the Church of Rome And so it is testified by Theophanes Isaurus a Greeke historian and out of him
by Anastasius Bibliothecarius which also he confirmeth because it was the frequent and almost ordinary custome of the Greekes to corrupt and falsify Bookes in hatred of the Roman Church and in fauor of their owne errors S. Leo complaines (u) Ep. 83. that they had corrupted his Epistle to Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople S. Gregory (x) L. 5. ep 14. ad Narsem that they had falsified the Councell of Chalcedon and he suspected the like of the Councell of Ephesus And where in his Dialogues (y) L. 2. c. 38. he hath Paraclitus à Patre semper procedit filio they in their copies leaue out filio and insteed thereof say in filio manet a thing which Ioannes Diaconus (z) Vita S. Greg. c. 75. obserueth testifiing that Zacharias Pope hauing translated that worke of S. Gregory faythfully and published it in the East the Greekes razed out the name of the Sonne in fauor of their heresy that the holy Ghost proceeds not from him but from the Father alone Againe Nicolas the first remitteth Michaell the Emperor to the Epistle of Adrian if sayth he it be not falsified after the manner of the Graecians but kept by the Church of Constantinople as it was sent by the See Apostolike And he had reason to say so for what he alleageth to Photius out of Adrians Epistle to Tharasius is not to be found in that Epistle as it is read in the eight Synod And finally this very sixth Councell discouered that the Greekes had falsified the fifth Councell generall fathering on Pope Vigilius and Menas Patriarke of Constantinople certaine quaternions of their owne If then they haue falsified the writings of the Fathers of the third the fourth the fifth and eight generall Councells what maruell if they haue done the like to the sixth and seauenth defaining Honorius and especially since a little after the sixth Councell they assembled themselues againe at Constantinople by their owne authority and made the Trullan Canons in hatred of the Roman Church To this I adde that in the Lateran Councell of 105. Bishops held before the sixth Synod by Martin the first Pope and Martyr against the Monothelites Sergius Cyrus Pyrrhus and Paul were condemned by name without any mention of Honorius whom yet those Bishops being graue men and impartiall would not haue left vncensured if he had bene guilty of the same heresy as neither would Paulus Diaconus Theophanes Cerameus Photius and Zonaras in their Catalogues of the heretikes condemned in the sixth Councell especially Photius and Zonaras being professed enemies to the Roman Church And finally Emmanuel Calleca a Grecian with all the Latin historians (a) See Cocc to 1. l. 7. arc 13. and Bell. l. 4. de Pont. c. 11. commend Honorius for a Catholike and holy Prelate These proofes most of them being brought by Bellarmine and so vnanswerably conuincing that Honorius neither was an heretike nor condemned by the sixth or seauenth Councell is it not strange that you should so confidently assume the contrary as a thing granted by him and that it being a matter of fact those Fathers were deceaued therin Good God say you (b) Pag. 125. the rare modesty of this man who will haue vs belieue that one Bellarmine liuing now 1000. yeares since that matter was in agitation should iudge better by his coniecture of the circumstances of a mater of fact then could 639. Bishops in their publike Synods iam flagrante crimine when as yet the cause was fresh their witnesses liuing and all circumstances which are the perfect intelligencers visibly before their eyes So you And Bellarmine may truly say Good God the strange conscience of Doctor Morton that will speake so vntruly for doth bellarmine bring no other proofes but his owne coniecture Doth he not produce the testimonies of Honorius his Secretary and of S. Maximus Martyr who were liuing at that tyme of Martin the first with a Councell of 105. Bishops of Iohn the fourth of Nicolas the first of Theophanes Isaurus of Emmanuel Calleca and of all the Latine Fathers that Honorius neuer assented to the Monothelites but euen in those his very Epistles which are obiected defended two wills and operations in Christ with all the Catholikes of the world And doth he not proue the same by the expresse testimony of Agatho Pope affirming that none of his predecessors were euer stayned with heresy and out of the sixth Councell it selfe receauing this testimony of Agatho as the words of S. Peter and as an oracle of the Holy Ghost Againe doth he in all this say that 639. Bishops were deceaued Nay doth he not proue by the testimony of Theophanes Isautus and Anastasius and collect the same out of many other authors that the condemnation of Honorius is not theirs but falsly inserted in their Councells by the Greekes according to their ordinary custome of corrupting Councells and other bookes in hatred to the See of Rome Good God then the seared conscience of Doctor Morton who can conceale all this and lay hold on a few words which Bellarmine addeth to wit that if any man be so obstinat that all this cannot satisfy him he may receaue another solution from Turrecremata which is that the Fathers of the sixth Synod condemned Honorius but out of false information and therfore erred therin as any Councell may in matter of fact The reason why you omit all the rest of Bellarmines doctrine catch at this solution of Turrecremata is to inferre that Popes may be heretikes that not only as priuat Doctors which some Catholikes grant but in their publike persons as Popes because those Fathers condemning Honorius in their publike Councell did iudge him according to his publike person These your words (c) Pag 126. containe a ridiculous fallacy for when we say The Pope cannot erre as Pope or which is all one as a publike person or ex Cathedra the sense is that he cannot either in a Councell or by himselfe ordayne any hereticall doctrine to be receaued by the Church Nor could you be ignorant of this for as Canus whon ye alleage granteth that Popes according to their priuat persons may be heretikes and that peraduenture one or two examples may be giuen therof so in that very place (d) L. 6. c. 8. pag. 214. he addeth that no example can be giuen of any Pope that though he fell into heresy did euer decree the same for the whole Church which is the thing you ought to haue disproued to shew that either the sixth or any other Councell iudged the Pope according to his publike person And lastly as for Honorius in particular Bellarmine (e) L. 4. de Pont. c. 11. rightly sheweth that Canus was in a double error concerning him whose opinion therfore is to be reiected CHAP. XXII Of the seauenth and eight Generall Councells SECT I. That these two Councells acknowledged the supreme Authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome