striue earnestly against his error for the Catholike truth The reason therfore why Pelagius after he had deceaued the Councell of Palestine endeauored also to deceaue the Roman Church by a feigned profession of his fayth sent to Innocentius Pope was because it was the constant beliefe of all Christians in those dayes that the Roman Church as being heyre of the fayth commended by S. Paul could not approue any doctrine but what was truly orthodoxall and Catholike as Pelagius in that his profession acknowledgeth saying (t) In fin Symb. ad Dâ—â—â— apud Hieron to 4. Baron anno 417 This o most blessed Pope is the fayth which I haue learned in the Catholike Church and which I haue alwayes held and do bold Wherin if I haue said any thing ignorantly or vnwarily I desire to be corrected by you that hold the fayth and chayre of Peter If this my confession be approued by the iudgment of your Apostleship whosoeuer layes an aspersion on me shall shew himselfe to be ignorant or malicious or els not to be a Catholike but he shall not proue me to be an heretike With this profession Pelagius sought to deceaue the Roman Church but could not because Zozimus sayth S. Augustine (u) Proximè cit considered what iudgment the fayth of the Romans commended by the Apostle had made of him in the tyme of Innocentius his predecessor For which cause Procopius truly said (x) L. 1. de bello Goth. If euer any surely the Romans chiefly are they that haue had the Christian fayth in veneration I conclude therfore that if the holy Fathers haue vnderstood the Scriptures aright the fayth of the Roman Church is proued to be infallible not only by the Scriptures formerly alleaged (y) Supra hoc â—ap but by this very passage of the Apostle Nor do Tolet or Sà whome heere you obiect (z) Pag. 66. say ought to the contrary for if they obserue that when the Apostle sayth to the Romans your fayth is published euery where it is an hyperbole because the sense is not that the fayth which they belieued was then actually preached throughout the whole world but that is was a thing knowne and published throughout the whole world that they had belieued they say nothing but what is true for the Apostle cold not say that the Roman fayth which was the fayth of Christ was then actually preached in all partes of the world as neither it is yet at this day but that it was publikely knowne throughout all the world that the Romans had receaued the fayth of Christ because in common speach and morall reputation that which is diffused ouer a great part of the world and famously knowne is said to be euery where And this publike fame was of great moment for the conuersion of other nations for Rome being the Head of the world whither all sorts of people vnder that vast Empyre had recourse for discharg of their tributes and accompts of their offices they cold not but haue knowledge that the Romans belieued in Christ And as Tolet noteth out of S. Chrysostome but you to detract from the Romans what prayse you can conceale it this publike same and knowledg of their beliefe was an example and a great motiue for other nations to receaue the fayth of Christ Now wheras you adde (a) Pag. 60. It is an obiection now a dayes breathed into the mouth of euery vulgar Papist that at that day Catholike and Roman were all one the testimonies of antiquity which I haue formerly brought in profe therof shew that none but he which is not so much as vulgarly read in Ecclesiasticall history can be ignorant of so certaine a truth Wherfore you speake vntruly when you say it is an insultation of ours easily checked with a paralell of the like if not of a larger commendation of the Church of Thessalonica by the same Apostle 1. Thessal 1.2 We giue thankes alwayes to God for you all making mention of you in our prayers remembring without ceasing your worke of fayth And againe v. 8. From you sayth he sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia but also in euery place your fayth to Godward is spread abroad c. This is your paralell which is easily disparalelled for as Baronius obserueth (c) Anno 58. out of S. Chrysostome the Romans being Head of the world their fayth was a forcible motiue to bring other nations to belieue in Christ And therfore S. Leo (d) Serm. 1. in Nat. Apost Pet. Paul had reason to say that S. Peter Prince of the Apostles not by humane counsell but by diuine ordination came from Antioch to Rome to preach the Ghospell and fixe his chayre in that Citty that so the chiefe seat of religion might be where the Head of superstition had bene and that the fayth from thence as from the top of the Empyre might be diffused throughout the world And S. Anselme (e) â—n c. 1. ad Rom. that S. Paulgiuing thankes to God for the fayth of the Romans sayth I giue thanks to God for all the faithfull in the first place for all you because you are the chiefest the Roman Church hauing the primacy among all Churches And wheras the Apostle sayth The fayth of the Romans is published throughout the whole world the same S. Anselme noteth (f) In c. 1. ad Thessal that he sayth not so to the Thessalonians but You are made a paterne to all that belieue in Macedonia and Achaia and from you the word of our Lord was bruted not only in Macedonia and Achaia but also in â—uery place that is sayth he in euery place neare to you And hereby it appeareth that the Romans for the example of their fayth and the profit that redounded therby to others were preferred by S. Paul before the Thessalonians as farre as the whole world ouer which the conuersion of Rome was quickly spread exceedeth Macedonia Achaia with a few bordering Prouinces which only had notice of the Thessalonians And therfore S. Paul giueth a further prayse to the Romans (g) Rom. 15.15 I am assured of you that you are also full of loue replenished with all knowledge so that you are able to admonish one another And againe (h) Rom. 16.19 Your obedience is published into euery place none of which prayses he gaue to the Thessalonians But lest we should gather any preeminence of the Roman Church because the Epistle to the Romans among all S. Pauls epistles hath the first place you preoccupate this obiection telling vs (i) Pag. 67. that the epistle to the Thessalonians and others were written before that to the Romans Be it so but we aduertise you with S. Anselme (k) Praefat. in ep ad Rom. It is to be belieued that they which collected S. Pauls epistles into one body iudged that the epistle to the Romans ought to haue the first place because it was
thing vncertaine Many thinke it to be of Damasus and his you will haue it to be But the contrary is manifest for the epistle speaketh of Bonosus an Arch-heretike who had bene condemned by Iudges appointed in thē Councell of Capua which was not held in time of Damasus but of Siricius successor to Damasus It is therefore euident that the request of Bouosus which you obiect out of this epistle to haue his cause heard againe could not be to Damasus his first condemnation being not vntill after Damasus his death When you can shew this epistle to be of Damasus you shall receaue an answeare which it were easy to giue you now if I listed to spend time in refuting your tedious discourse of racking the verbe Competit to a strict sense and which not one but many wayes is deficient as all your arguments for the most part are Your addition (e) Pag. 318. marg l. that if the epistle be not of Damasus it is certainly of some Pope and that all hold it so is affirmed by you gratis and as easely denied by me CHAP. XL. Whether the Easterne Churches be at this day accordant in Communion with Protestants SECT I. The state of the Question THE nine first Sections of your fourtenth Chapter you spend in prouing that the Grecians Aegyptians Aethiopians Assyrians Armenians Russians Melchites and other remote nations at this day dissent from the Roman Church and are accordant in Communion with Protestants The foundation of your whole discourse you lay in these words (f) Pag. 330. Whatsoeuer Christians haue not ruinated any fundamental article of sauing fayth set downe in our ancient Creeds and are vnited vnto the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus our Lord by a liuing fayth all Protestants esteeme them as true members of the Catholike Church and notwithstanding diuers their more tolerable errors and superstitions to be in state of saluation albeit no way subiect or subordinate to the Roman Church These are your words which containe in themselues open implication namely that one may be vnited to the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus by a liuing fayth and be in state of saluation and yet be out of the Catholike Church which to be none els but the Roman and that out of her there is no saluation hath bene already proued (g) Chap. 1. sect 2.3.4 From this false principle you deduce that the Grecians Asians Aegyptians Assyrians Aethiopians Africans Melchites Russians and Armenians notwithstanding their separation from the Roman Church are at this day truly professed Christian Churches (h) Pag. 379. partes of the Catholike Church (i) Pag. 406. fin 407. init faythfull Christians professing the fayth of the ancient Fathers (k) Pag. 417. in state of saluation and raile bitterly at the Church of Rome for denying the same But how great ignorance and impiety you shew and how many most shamefull vntruthes you vtter in the prosecution of this Argument it is easy to declare Some of them I shall present to the Readers view And to proceed methodically I will reduce what I am to say to two heades 1. I will proue that as the Christians of these remote nations anciently were so many of them at this day are accordant in beliefe and communion with the Roman Church yeild obedience to the Pope as to the Vicar of Christ on earth and as to the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church 2. That the inhabitants of these nations which are not Roman Catholikes are not of one beliefe or Communion with Protestants but wholly dissent from them holding most blasphemous and damnable heresies acknowledged for such by Protestants themselues From whence it will follow that you affirming them to be faythfull Christians of the same beliefe with the ancient Fathers charge the ancient Fathers with blasphemous heresies and make them incapable of saluation SECT II. Whether the Grecians of the primitiue and successiue times agreed in fayth and Communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome and particularly at the Councell of Florence THat the Greekes in the first Councell of Constantinople and afterwards in that of Calcedon endeauored to giue to their Patriarke of Constantinople the second place of dignity in the Church next after the Pope and before the other Patriarkes we acknowledge But that they sought therby to exempt themselues from their obedience and subiection to the Pope hath bene effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 5. Chap. 19. sect 4. I speake not this to deny that anciently there were of the Grecians many Heretikes which opposed the Roman Church and by her authority were condemned and that eight Patriarkes of Constantinople in particular as also Eutyches an Arch-heretike of the same City were anathematized and east out of the Church for heresy And wheras the Westerne Church by the example and diligence of the Bishops of Rome was preserued from heresy the Churches of the East new heresies daily springing vp were so pitifully torne and ten in peeces that S. Hierome complaining therof to Pope Damasus said (m) Ep. 57. Because the East striking against it selfe by the ancient fury of the people teares in litle morsells the vndeuided coate of our Lord wouen on high and that the foxes destroy the vine of Christ in such sorte that it is difficult among the drie pits that haue no water to discerne where the sealed fountaine and the inclosed garden is I haue therfore thought that I ought to consult with the Chaire of Peter and the fayth praised by the mouth of the Apostle This was the miserable state of the Easterne Churches in those dayes being gouerned somtimes by Catholike Bishops that acknowledged subiection to the Church of Rome and somtimes by Heretikes that opposed her authority vntill at length Photius hauing iniustly driuen Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople from his See and intruded himselfe into his place and being for that cause often excommunicated by Nicolas the first and Iohn the eight Popes of Rome to mantaine his iniust title withdrew himselfe from their obedience and to the end he might haue some colour to perseuer in that separation cauilled at the doctrine of the Roman Church which teacheth that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Sonne and writ against it And the Greekes following him in this error separated themselues from the Communion of the Roman man Church Yet not so but that they haue often eleauen times sayth S. Antoninus (n) Hist. par 2. tit 22. c. 23. acknowledged their error and reconciled themselues to her and especially thrice in most solemne manner in three seuerall Councells of Barium in Apulia of Lions in France and of Florence in Tuscany but still returning to their error against the holy Ghost and disobedience to the Church of Rome as dogs to their vomit Almighty God punished them with a heauy hand deliuering them vp to a miserable captiuity seruitude vnder the Turke And that they might know the
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
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
affirmeth that Christ to reward his fayth built his Church vpon him 9. And no lesse deceiptfully you alleage (k) Pag. 39. g. the RomaÌ„ glosse (l) Gloss Decret part 1. d. 10. in Cap. Dominus no fler to proue that not Peter but his confession without any relation to his person is the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church for the glosse sayth Christ would haue his owne name of Petra a Rocke giuen to Peter c. therfore called him Petrus And the Chapter on which this glosse is made is taken out of an Epistle of S. Leo in which he not only affirme (m) Ep. 83. Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built but addeth that whosoeuer denyeth this truth is impiously presumptuous and plungeth himselfe into Hell To these and otherlike obiections out of the Fathers and other Catholike authors you ad some confirmations of your owne The first is None say you (n) Pag. 41. will deny but that there was meant in Peters Confession that matter which he confessed but Peter confessed not himselfe but Christ saying Then art the Sonne of the lyuing God Ergo his confession had relation to Christ and not to himselfe A false and senslesse consequence for euery confession hath relation not only to the matter as to the obiect or thing confessed but also to him that coÌ„fesseth as to the agent from which it proceedeth and therfore to inferre that when Christ answering Peter and rewarding his confession sayd vnto him Thou art Peter c. he meant not Peter but himselfe to be the Rock is as senslesse an inference as to say that when Thomas cryed out vnto Christ (o) Ioan. 20.28 My Lord my God and Christ in reward of his confession sayd (p) Ibid. vers 29. Blessed art thou Thomas he pronounced not Thomas blessed but himselfe which was the matter Thomas beleeued 2. You obiect (q) Pag. 42. fin 43. All the Apostles and Prophets are called foundations wherby is not meant their persons or dominions but their doctrines I grant that Christ S. Peter the rest of the Apostles and Prophets are foundations on which the Church is built Christ is the chiefe and primary foundation by his owne power and strength Of him the Apostle sayth (r) 1. Cor. 3.11 Other foundation no man can lay besyde that which is layd which is Christ Iesus whome therfore S. Augustine (s) In Psal 86. and S. Gregory (t) L. 28. Moral c. 9. call Fundamentum fundamentorum The foundation of foundations Besydes Christ the Apostles and Prophets are also secondary foundations of the Church for the Prophets by fore-telling Christ and the Apostles by preaching his sayth and doctrine vphold the body of the Church to wit the faythfull who therfore are called (u) Ephes 2.20 Domostikes of God built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner-stone and for this cause the wall of the Citty of the Church is sayd (x) Apoc. 1.24 to haue 12. foundations and in them the 12. names of the 12. Apostles Among these secondary foundations Peter hath the first and chiefest place The rest of the faythfull in respect of him are ordinary stones he an impregnable Rock as being built immediatly vpon Christ and the rest by meanes of him in regard wherof it was sayd to him alone and to no other of the faythfull or Apostles Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And therfore S. Augustine sayth (y) Serm. 15. de Sanct. Our Lord called Peter the foundation of the Church for which cause the Church with reason worshippeth this foundation vpon which the height of the ecclesiafticall edifice is raysed 3. You say (z) Pag. 42. that when the Fathers expound by Rock Peter they meane ether a primacy of order or honor or els a priority of Confession in Peter not of Authority and Dominion and the same you repeate afterwards saying (a) Pag. 110. The similitude of head and members hath no colour of superiority but of priority of place or of voyce And this reason you alleage (b) Pag. 41. why though the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake yet he alone answered as being the mouth of the rest I grant that Peter spake in the name of the rest but to inferre that therfore Christ when he answered Peter saying Thou art Peter made him not a Rock or promised not to make him the foundation of his Church is a Non sequitur I grant also that the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake that he answered as the mouth of the rest not because he had any Commission from them but because out of his great feruor he preuented the rest and spake for them as their head and Superiour as Christ somtimes did for all his Apostles (c) Math. 9.11 Luc. 6.2 and as the Rector is wont to answere in the name of the whole Colledge So sayth S. Cyrill of Alexandria (d) L. 4. in Ioan. c. 18. They all answere by one that was their Superiour And againe (e) Ibid. l. 12. cap. 64. when our Sauiour asked his Disciples whom doe you say that I am Peter as being Prince and head of therest first cryed out Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God So S. Cyrill of Hierusalem (f) Catech. â—â— All the Apostles being silent for this doctrine was aboue their strength Peter Prince of the Apostles and the chiefe preacher of the Church sayth vnto him Thou art Christ c. And in the same sense S. Cyprian (g) L. 1. ep 3. sayth Peter on whom our Lord built his Church speaketh for all in the voyce of the Church And S. Augustine (h) Serm. 31. de verb. Apost c. 1. Peter bearing the figure of the Church most feruent in the loue of Christ chiefe in the order of Apostles and holding the Princedome of the Apostleship often answers one for all And againe (i) Tract 124. in Ioan. That in his answere he bare the person of the Church for the primacy of his Apostleship and for the primacy which he had among the Disciples And whereas you to elude this exposition of the Fathers say (k) Pag. 42. 110. that when they expound by Rock Peter or pronounce him to be the head and Captaine of the rest they meane not primacy of authority and iurisdiction but of order or honor is a distinction that caries with it its owne confutation and shall be effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 1. hereafter CHAP. IX S. Peter exercised his Authority and Iurisdiction of supreme Pastor and Gouernor ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church TO disproue S. Peters authority ouer the other Apostles you obiect first (a) Pag. 45.46 that S. Gregory vpon those words of the Apostle (b) Rom. 9.12 I will magnify my office in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentils
leg c. 3. n. 23. from whom Salas learned his Doctrine de legibus call's it A reall priuiledge which he confirmeth with the example of a priuiledge that being granted to a certaine Bishop in the Canon law with expression of his name is notwithstanding supposed to passe to his Successors Now that this prayer of Christ was not made for Peter as for a priuate but as for a publike person that was supreme Head and Gouern or of the Church and consequently for the common good and benefit of the Church that therfore by vertue therof the Popes his Successors haue an infallible prerogatiue of not erring in their publike definitions of fayth to the seducing of others is the agreeing consent of the ancient Fathers in their expositions of this passage of S. Luke And 1. three holy Popes in their epistles Lucius the first to the Bishops of Spayne and France Felix the first to Benignus and Marke to S. Athanasius out of this prayer of Christ made for S. Peter gather the infallibility of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth But because Protestants hold for suspected the authority of these epistles I omit them and passe to such as by Protestants are granted to be vndoubtedly of those Popes to whom they are attributed 2. Therfore Agatho a most holy Pope and whom God graced with Miracles in his Epistle to the Emperor (q) Extat Act. 4. Apud Bin. to 3. pag. 12. Constantine Pogonat which was read in the sixt generall Councell and approued (r) Act. 8. 18. as the suggestion of the holy Ghoâ—t dictated by the mouth of the holy and most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles speaking by Agatho sayth Our Lord promised that the fayth of Peter should not faile and commanded him to strengthen his brethren which that the Popes my Apostolicall predecessors haue euer performed is a thing notorious to all This testimony sheweth that not only Agatho but all the Fathers of that Councell belieued this priuiledge of not erring in sayth and confirming others to haue bene obtained by Christ not only for S. Peter but for all his Successors and that this is a truth suggested by the holy Ghost and dictated by S. Peter speaking by Agatho 3. S. Gregory (s) L. 6. ep 37. Who is ignorant that the holy Church is strengthned by the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles who in his name receaued the constancy of his mind being called Peter of a Rock to whom by the voyce of truth it is said Confirme thy Brethren And els where (t) L. 4. ep 3. he proueth against Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople the authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer the vniuersall Church by the Commission giuen to S. Peter his predecessor It is manifest to all such as know the Ghospell that the charge of the whole Church is committed to the Apostle Peter Prince of all the Apostles for to him it is said Feed my sheepe And so him it is said I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth fayle not thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren Which testimony conuinceth thaâ— Christ prayed not for S. Peter as for a priuate person buâ— as for the Head of his Church and consequently for his Successors in him 4. S. Leo the great (u) Serm. 2. de Natali Apost Petri Pauli The danger of tentation was common to all the Apostles they all equally needed the protection of Gods help but our Lord taketh a speciall care of Peter and prayeth peculiarly for his fayth that the state of all the rest might be more secure if the mind of the Chiefe were not corquered The strength then of all is fortified in Peter God so dispensing the ayde of his grace that the assurance and strength which Christ gaue to Peter might by him redound to the Apostles And he addeth that as Peâ—er confirmed the Apostles so it is not to be doubted but that still he affordeth his help to his Successors in the Roman chayre and as a pious Pastor confirmeth them with his admonitions and ceaseth not to pray for them c. 5. Leo the ninth (x) Ep. ad Michael Imper. c. 7. The false deuises of all heretikes haue bene reproued confuted and condemned by the See of the Prince of the Apostles which it the Roman Church and the hartes of the Brethren strengthned in the fayth of Peter which hath not fayled hitherto nor shall euer fayle hereafter And the same sense of these words of Christ is deliuered by Nicolas the first (y) Ep. ad Michael Imp. and Innocentius the third (z) In Cap. Maior de Bap. If you answere that these testimonies are of Popes speaking in their owne cause I reply that they speake in the cause of God and his Church and are worthy of all credit both because they were men most eminent in learning sanctity as also because in this exposition they agree with the Fathers both of the sixth generall Councell and the rest for S. Ambrose sayth (a) Ad ca. 22. Luc. Behold what our Lord said and vnderstand it Peter is sifted he fall's into tentations but after his tentation is made Gouernor of the Church and therfore our Sauiour before hand signifieth why afterwards he chose him to be Pastor of his flock for he said vnto him And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren You see then that in S. Ambrose his iudgment Christ prayed for Peter as for the Pastor of his flock and that for Peter to confirme his brethren is to performe the office of Pastor and Gouernor of the Church which office as it was no lesse necessary afterwards then in S. Peters tyme so it descended from him to his Successors A truth which Theodorus Studites with other his brethren being pressed with the outragious persecutions of â—eretikes professe in their epistle to Paschalis Pope in these words (b) Apud Baron anno 817. Heare O Apostolicall Head made by God Pastor of his sheep porter of the kingdome of Heauen and Rock of the fayth vpon whom the Catholike Church is built for thou art Peter adorning and gouerning the See of Peter Christ our God said to thee And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren Behold now the tyme behold the place ayde vs c. Thou hast power from God because thou art Prince of all fright away the hereticall wild beasts c. And Theophilact (c) Ad cap. 22. Luc. expounding the same words The plaine sense of them is this because I hold thee as Prince of my Disciples when thou after thou hast denied me shalt weep and come to repentance confirme the rest for this becometh thee that next to me art the Rock and fortresse of the Church And we may vnderstand it not to be spoken of the Apostles only but of all the faythfull that shall be till the end of the world Which addition of Theophilact sheweth that this priuiledge giuen to Peter of not
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
said belonged not to the other Apostles 2. That power did extend to all Bishops because the reason of order and Ecclesiasticall vnity so required 3. The power of the Bishop of Rome was alwaies ordinary and to continue perpetually in the Church not so in the other Apostles This is Suarez his Doctrine which I haue set downe in his owne words that the reader perusing yours and comparing them with his may see how you falsify for both in your Latin margent English text you leaue out (i) Pag. 79. the reason wherwith he proues his assertion and set downe for his only ground that he cannot remember to haue read in any author any thing of this point wheras he proues it out of what he had formerly said And doth he not here againe proue it out of the power and iurisdiction which was in S. Peter ouer the whole Church descended from him to his Successors And doth he not from thence inferr three prerogatiues which his Successors had ouer the other Apostles two of which you conceale And though you set downe the third yet it is in your Latin Margent only and so dismembred from Suarez his context that the reader will not easily vnderstand the force therof Againe who is so blind that sees not your absurd manner of arguing which is this (*) Pag. 78. 79. Suarez opinion is that S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter was subiect to Linus his Successor ergo S. Iohns fayth did not conceaue the Pope to haue iurisdiction ouer all other Bishops and Pastors in the Catholike Church You might as well haue inferred that because Yorke hath a Minster London hath a Bridge for this is as good a consequence as yours But hereby the Reader may see with what silly Sophistry you delude or to vse your owne words against your selfe with what vntempered morter you daube vp the consciences of your followers Now as for Suarez his assertion that the iurisdiction of S. Peters Successor was greater then the ordinary Episcopall iurisdiction of the other Apostles a iudicious Reader wil easily conceaue to be no such improbable Doctrine if he reflect that the Successor to euery Bishop is inuested in all the Episcopall authority of his predecessors and therfore Linus being Successor to S. Peter it must follow that 8. Peter being in Episcopall authority and iurisdiction superior to all the other Apostles Linus had the same authority and iurisdiction ouer those that suruiued S. Peter And this S. Chrysostome seemeth to haue expressed (k) L. 2. de Sacerd 1â— when he said Christ committed to Peter and to Peters Successors the charge of those sheep for the regayning of which he shed his bloud from which number I trust you will not excluded S. Iohn or any other of the Apostles that suruiued S. Peter And what els did S. Cyril meane when he said (l) Apud S. Thom. Opusc cont error Graec. c. 32. As Christ receaued from his Father most ample power so he gaue the same most fully to Peter and his Successors And what Paschasinus when in the presence and with the approbation of the Councell of Chalcedon (m) Act. 1. he affirmed the Pope to be inuested in the dignity of Peter the Apostle And what meant S. Bernard (n) L. 2. de considerat when he said to Eugenius Pope Thou art Peter in power and by vnction Christ the sheep of Christ were not so without exception committed to any Bishop nor to any of the Apostles as to thee thou art Pastor not only of the sheep but Pastor of all Pastors And what meant S. Leo (o) Serm. 2. â— Anniuers suae assump when he said The ordinance of truth standeth and S. Peter continuing in the receaued solidity of a Rock hath not left the gouerment of the Church for truly he perseuereth and liueth still in his Successors And againe (p) Ibid. In the person of my humility he is vnderstood he honored in whom the solicitude of all Pastors with the sheep commended to him perseuereth and whose dignity in an vnworthy heyre fayleth not And what S. Peter surnamed Chrysologus (q) Ep. ad Eutychet when he exhorted Eutyches to heare obediently the most blessed Pope of Rome because S. Peter who liueth in his owne See and is stil president in the same exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it And what the Legates of Celestine Pope in the Councell of Ephesus (r) P. 2. Act. 2. No man doubtes for it hath bene notorious to all ages that the holy and most blessed Peter Prince and Head of the Apostles piller of the fayth foundation of the Catholike Church liues and decides causes yet vnto this day and for all eternity by his Successors And what Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria writing to S. Gregory (s) Apud Greg. l. 6. ep 37. that Peter Prince of the Apostles sitteth still in his owne Chayre in his Successors And what S. Gregory himselfe reporting (t) Dial. l. 3. c. â— that Agapet Pope comming to Constantinople the friends of a man that was lame and dumbe beseeching him to cure that man by the authority of Peter the Apostle Agapet by the same authority cured him And what the Fathers of the sixt Councell generall when commending the Epistle of Agatho Pope they said (u) Act. 18. The paper and inke appeared but it was Peter that did speake by Agatho And finally what Constantine Pogonate when writing to the Roman Synod (x) Apud 6. Syn. Act. 18. he admired the relation of Agatho at the voyce of the diuine Peter himselfe It followeth then that if Linus was inuested in the Episcopall dignity and power of Peter if S. Peter still liue and rule in his owne See and decide causes in his Successors if he speake by them and their voyce be to heard as his voyce to be subiect to Linus was no other thing then to be subiect to S. Peter and to disobey Linus was to disobey S. Peter who did speake by Linus and gouerne in his owne See by him Wherfore as the Apostles owed subiection to S. Peter whiles he liued so those that suruiâ—â—â— him did to Linus hauing the place of Peter for 〈◊〉 â—â—â—rian â—alles the Roman See L. 4. â—p 2. CHAP. XIV Your fifth Chapter with diuers Arguments answered SECT I. Of the Name Catholike AFTER a discourse made from an Argument ab authoritate negatiuè which euery Logician knowes to be of no force you say (a) Pag. 81. We begin at the word Catholike and desire to vnderstand why the epistles of Iames and Iohn and Iude were called Catholike or vniuersall as well as the two Epistles of Peter if the word Catholike were so proper to the Roman Chayre seing that the Epistles of Iames Iohn and Iude were not sent to or from Rome nor had any relation to Peter there Before I answere I desire you to remember that the name Catholike by the ancient Fathers is giuen
Bishop and Pastor as not being true Pope and cleaueth to one opposite vnto him men dying in the state of this Disobedience cannot possibly be true Martyrs nor be saued Thirdly there is Disobedience moral in matter of good life manners against precepts enacted by the Church for the better auoyding punishing of ill behauiour Now in the state of this kind of Disobedience men may be saued for the disobeying of these kind of orders and commands may proceed either from contumacy and contempt or from errour and ignorance If out of contempt then is it damnable so that none dying therin can be Martyrs or goe to heauen But with Disobedience of the second kind caused by ignorance Saluation and Martyrdome may stand for their ignorance may be inuincible or else probable and grounded vpon good seeming reasons Or if it be vincible and faulty yet may it be abolished by their contrition for all their sinnes or falce Martyrij by the sickle of Martyrdome done away This supposed I say the Disobedience of the African Bishops was not Heretical because in all matters of sayth they were conforme to the Church of Rome and by manifold practise shewed that about doubts and controuersies of this kind they held it necessary to haue recourse to (n) Ep. Concil Mileuit 92. inter Epist August the Pastorall Chayre and care of Peter to the (o) Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 10. l. 4. ep 8. Roote and matrice of the Catholike Church to the Rocke which the (p) August Psal cont part Donat. proud gates of Hell do neuer ouercome to the maine indeficient fountaine which with the streames of wholesome doctrine watereth all Christians ouer the whole world The ancient rules say they the foure Primates of Afrike (q) Ep. ad Theodor. Papam Extat in Concil Lateran 1. consult 2. Bin. to 2. p. 1075. haue ordayned that whatsoeuer is treated in Prouinces distant and farre of should not be deemed to be ended vntill first it were come to the knowledge of the See Apostolike to the en that the sentente which should be found iust might be confirmed by the authority of the same See and that from thence all other Churches as streames flowing from their mother source might take the beginning of their preaching and the Sacraments of Saluation Their Disobedience then could not be Heretical nor was it Schismatical because they acknowledged the Pope euen that Pope with whome they did disagree to be their Pastor and Superior whose (r) August Epist. 157. Iniuncta nobis à Venerabili Papa Zozimo Ecclesiastica necessitas lawfull Commaunds they were bound to obey that all Maior causes all matters controuersies aboue Iurisdiction of greater moment to wit such as concerne sayth and the life and gouernment of Bishops are to be referred vnto him and to be finally and infallibly decided by him Neither thirdly was their Disobedience ioyned with contumacy and contempt because though they refused to deferre vnto the Appeales which Priest infertour Clergymen might make to the Pope yet they do it with great humility and respect and by way of submissiue intreaty in their (s) Ep. ad Caelestin apud Sur. Tom. l. Coucil pag. 520. letter to Pope Celeftine Praefato debitae Salutationis officio impendio deprecamur vt deinceps ad aures vestrashinc venientes non facilius admittatis The behoofe of due Salutation or Reuerence being premised we humbly beseech you that those which come from hence with their Appeales you will not admit them vnto audience ouer-easily Therefore their disobedience was out of ignorance for they did not doubt but the Pope had power to command the Bishops of Africa to yield vnto the Appeales that were made vnto him but they esteemed the practise of that power not to be in those circumstances for the good of the Church of Africa They saw by appealing to Rome that dissolute and vnruly Clergymen would cause much vexation vnto the Bishops their lawfull Iudges prolonge the cause differre the sentence and many times escape deserued punishment which impunity might easily grow into liberty and audacity and extreme disorder Wherefore the power giuen of Christ to his Church and Vicar on earth being giuen (t) â— Cor. 1â— 10 for edifying not for destroying they were persuaded that the Pope could not prudently command them to deferre vnto such Appeales and if he did that they should not be bound to obey therein You demand (u) Pag. 150â— whether the Pope of Rome whom we entitle Monarch of the Church Catholike and Bishop of Bishops would accept it as a matter of subiection for Protestants with S. Augustine and those other African Bishops to deny that any ought to be called Bishop of Bishop and not to yield to his demands in point of Iurisdiction vpon any pretence of Diuine Law but to exact of him proofe by a Canon of an ancient Councell I answere The African Bishops deny the title of Prince of Bishops to any Arch-bishop or Primate within Africke but not to the Roman Bishop yea they entitle him in expresse termes (x) Aruob in Psal 138. Tertullian lib. de pudicit c. 1. Stephanus Mauritaniae in Africa Episcopus Epist. ad Damasum Bishop of Bishops the Holy Father of Fathers the soueraigne Bishop of all Bishops and Pastors they call his Authority the Princedome of the Apostolike Chayre euer vigent in the Roman Church they acknowledge that they are bound to obey all his iust commandes that all Christians may and must Appeale to him about Controuersies of Religion and the Catholike Fayth August ep 1â—2 A postolitae Cathedrae principatum Item the foure Primates of Afrike in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Theodor in Conc. Lateran 1. Consul 2. Bintom 2 pag. 1078. Patri Patrum summo omnium Praesulum Pontifici Theodoro By which is answered what you alleage pag. 46. out of the 26. Canon of the Councell of Carthage yea Bishops also in criminal causes from the condeÌ„nation giuen against them by their fellow-Bishops But that the Pope should admit the Appeales so easely of euery African Priest and Clergyman hereof they doubt whether it be expedient for the African Church Now Bishops may be sometimes excused if they do not obey the Pope in matters that are extremely burthensome and hard specially when they haue probable reasons that it is not prudently commanded nor will proue for the good of soules But Protestants you are disobedient vnto the See of Peter and the Soueraigne Bishop of all Bishops in points of Iurisdiction allowed vnto him by ancient Councells Your disobedience is ioyned with Contumacy contempt contumely and base language You deny Appeales vnto him in matters and doubts about Christian Fayth Wherefore you want that dutifull subiection to Peters chayre without which none can be of the number of Christ his sheepe nor consequently be saued yea you are guilty of that damnable disobedience whereof S. Leo sayth (y) Epist 93. c.
Authentica which out of the Glosse you obiect We ordaine sayth he (i) Authen de eccles tit c. 2. according to the definitions of the holy Councells that the most holy Pope of the elder Rome is to be the first of all Prelates and that the most blessed Archbishop of Constantinople new Rome shall haue the second place after the holy See Apostelike of old Rome and shall be preferred before all the other Sees But you vrge the Glosse alleageth the Emperor saying that the B. of Constantinople hath the same right ouer those in subiection vnder him which the Pope hath ouer his True but the same Glosse declareth which you conceale that this similitude of rights between them is not in all respects but in quibusdam in some which the Glosse nominateth Yf you compare them precisely as Bishops of their peculiar Dioceses of Rome and Constantinople or as Patriarkes he of Constantinople hath the same rightes in his Dioces and Patriarkeship of Constantinople that the Pope considered precisely as Bishop and Patriarke hath ouer his Dioces of Rome Patriarkeship of the West But besides these two dignities the Pope is Chief of all Prelates and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church to which titles the B. of Constantinople hath no right but in regard of them is inferior to the Pope and subiect to him And so much you might haue vnderstood if from the Glosse you had turned your eyes to the texts of that and the precedent Chapter which declare that the Pope is aboue the B. of Constantinople and hath power to depose him when there is cause And you might also haue called to minde that many Patriarkes of Constantinople haue bene deposed by diuers Popes among them Anthymus by Agapet in the very City of Constantinople in the presence of Iustinian which neither he nor Theodora the Empresse that protected Anthymus would haue permitted if they had not acknowledged the subiection of the Patriarke of Constantinople to the B. of Rome SECT IV. Doctor Mortons fourth instance of Theodosius and Valentinian examined THe Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian say you (k) Pag. 162. in their letters to Cyrill require all Bishops without exception to be present at the Councell of Ephesus as they meane to auoid the sentence of condemnation vpon themselues Wherupon Pope Leo is glad to returne an answeare excusing his not coming by the exigence of time and his other instant occasions within his owne Dioces which would not permit him to be absent from his See and therefore hopeth his owne words to obtaine so much pardon and fauor that his Legates may be accepted of in his stead These your words are full of ignorance and falshood for first the letters of Theodosius and Valentinian to Cyrill were to call him and other Bishops to the first Councell of Ephesus which was held finished in the tyme Celestine Pope nine yeares before Leo was created B. of Rome Is it not then palpable ignorance to say that Leo is glad to returne an answeare excusing his not comming by the exigence of time and his other instant occasions within his owne Dioces when as the letters were written nine yeares before he had any Dioces at all and were neither directed to him nor any way concerned him 2. If Theodosius and Valentinian called the Bishops to the first Councell of Ephesus it was not by their owne authority but by the authority of Celestine Pope (l) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 2. Bar. anno 430. 3. Howbeit Theodosius in the yeare 449. which was 19. yeares after the writing of that letter to Cyrill by his owne authority assembled the Piratioall Synod of Ephesus in fauor of the Eutychian heresy yet knowing that no Councell can be valide which is not celebrated by the consent and authority of the B. of Rome he writ to Leo then Pope inuiting him to it And this letter it is which you ignorantly confound with the other written to Cyrill who was dead siue yeares before the writing of this to Leo. But Leo knowing the error of Eutyches to haue bene condemned already in a Councell at Constantinople and to be in it selfe so manifestly impious that as he writ to the holy Patriarke Flauianus (m) Ep. 1◠another Councell might no way seeme necessary for the condemnation of it and withall fore-seeing the great mischiefes that were like to ensue out of the Councell intended by Theodosius endeauored to diuert him wholly from that purpose or at least to perswade him that if a Councell were called it might be held in Italy But seeing he could draw the Emperor to neither of these conditions least on his part any thing should be wanting which might seeme auaileable for the destruction of Heresy and peace of the Church he sent Legates in his steed to preside in the Councell at which himselfe could not be present for the reasons expressed in diuers of his epistles (n) Ep. 12.17.18 in which also he declareth that he sent them armed with his authority either to restore Euches to the Catholike communion if he would renounce his errors and aske pardon of them as by libell presented to the See Apostolike he had promised to do or els to pronounce the last sentence of condemnation against him But wheras you to make good that the calling of Councells belongs to Emperors say (o) Pag. 162. Leo's owne words are that he hopeth to obtaine so much pardon and fauor that his Legates might be accepted of in his steed you speake not truly for his words are Because you know that my presence at Rome importeth for the common good so that saluâ Clementiae Vestrae veniâ by the good leaue of your Clemency I might not deny my selfe to the loue and requests of the Citizens thinke me to be present in these my brethren whom I haue sent in my steed and giuen them full instructions what ought to be obserued And it is to be noted that these words are not spoken by Leo to the Emperors as out of your discourse it may seeme to our English reader but to Pulcheria a woman who witnesse the Apostle (p) 1. Cor. 14.34 may not speake in the Church much lesse assemble Councells or moderate Ecclesiasticall causes Nor do they import any subiection to her in ecclesiasticall affaires but are merely words of ciuill respect and vrbanity fit to be vsed to the person of so great a Lady And your illation out of them that Emperors haue power to moderate Ecclesiasticall causes and assemble Councells is a consequence that suiteth not well with your iudgment and learning SECT V. Doctor Mortons fifth instance of Iustinian examined THe last Emperor you obiect is Iustinian Who say you (q) Pag. 162. will hardly please vs because he authorized vnder his owne hand the Code or bookes of Constitutions and Pandects for the regulating of the Clergy as well as of the Laity That this will hardly please vs you proue out
Pastor of the sheepe not of one City nor of one Countrey but of all the sheep of Christ without any exception or limitation (g) See all this proued aboue Chap. 14. sect In this sense the name of Pastor was neuer giuen to any other Apostle or Bishop but only to S. Peter and his successors The rest of the Apostles sayth S. Bernard (h) L. 2. de confideras obtayned each of them their peculiar flocks Iames contented with Hierusalem yieldes the vniuer sality to Peter And long before him Eucherius that famous and learned Bishop of Lions (i) Hom. in Vigil S. Pe◠Christ first committed to Peter his Lambes and then his sheepe because he made him not only a Pastor but Pastor of Pastors Peter therfore feedeth the Lambes and the sheepe he feedeth the yong ones and the dammes he gouerneth the subiects and the Prelates and is therfore Pastor of all for besides Lambes and sheep there is nothing in the Church Your euasion (k) Pag. 243. n. 20. that if by Pastor we vnderstand curam studium care and study towards the good of the vniuersall Church in this all other Bishops are Pastors as well as the Pope is impertinent for charity obligeth not only Bishops but euery Christian man and woman to haue a care and study towards the good of the vniuersall Church according to their abilities But the Pope is not only bound to a charitable care and study as all others are but by reason of his Pastorall office and function is the guide and Gouernor of the vniuerfall Church throughout the whole world And vntill you can shew the like Pastorall power and iurisdiction attributed to any other Bishop you must confesse his title of Pastor to be without parallell The like hath bene proued (l) Aboue Chap. 14. sect 3. of his titles of Doctor of Pope (m) Chap. 23. of Vicar of Christ (n) Chap. 14. sect 2. of Apostolicall man (o) Chap. 14. sect 3. and Apostolate applied to his person and function and of Apostolicall See to the Roman Church Nor is it hard to proue the same of all the other titles mentioned by Bellarmine He is called Father of Fathers and Prince of Priests which titles though they may in a true sense be giuen to euery Patriark and Archbishop in respect of other Bishops subiect to them and to euery Bishop in respect of the inferior Pastors of his Dioces yet not in the same sense in which they are giuen to the Pope In like manner the name of Pontifex and Summus Pontifex are sometimes giuen to other Bishops but not as to the Pope for he is called by the foure Primats of Africa (p) See Spond anno 646. n. 1. their Synods Pater Patrum Summus omnium Praesulum Pontifex the Father of Fathers and the chiefe Bishop of all Bishops And Venerable Bede (q) L. 1. hist Angl. c. 1. sayth of S. Gregory that in toto orbe gerebat Pontificatum that his Episcopall power was ouer the whole world which S. Anselm◠also expressed dedicating his booke De incarnatione to Vrbanus Pope with this inscription Domino Patri vniuersae Ecclesiae in terra peregrinantis Summo Pontifici Vrbano To the chiefe Bishop Vrbanus Lord Father of the vniuersall Church militant on earth Where do you find any parallell to this title of the Pope The like I say of the title of Rector domus Dei Ruler or Gouernor of the house of God for albeit each of the Apostles were Rulers and Gouernors of the Church and so S. Andrew is so called in the Collect vsed on his festiuall day yet the ordinary Episcopall authority and iurisdiction of none of them nor of any other Bishop whatsoeuer but only of S. Peter and his successors extends to the rule Gouerment of the vniuersall Church For which cause Valentinian the third intituleth the Pope Rector of the Vniuersality of Churches And both he and Theodosius say (s) Constit. Nouell Tit. 24. So the peace of the Church shall be conserued by all if the Vniuersality acknowledge her Rector And Theodoret being deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo Pope because sayth he (t) Ep. ad Renat The holy Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the world Where do you find the title of Ruler or Gouernor of the Church attributed to any other Apostle or Bishop in this sense The same I say of the title of Head of the Church for in the Nicen Councell (u) Can. 39. ex Graec. Arab the B. of Rome is called Head and Prince of all Patriarkes The Councell of Sardica (x) Insert in fragment Hilar citatur expresseth the same in their Epistle to Pope Iulius à Nicol. c. i◠Ep. ad Episc Gal. It is very good fit that from all the Prouinces the Bishops haue reference to their Head that is to the See of the Apostle Peter In the Councell of Ephesus (y) Part. 2. Act. 2. when the Legates of Celestine Pope arriued thither they gaue thankes to the Fathers there assembled that by their holy and religious voices they had shewed themselues holy members to the blessed Pope their holy Head The Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon (z) In relat ad Leon. call Leo Pope their Head themselues his members and acknowledge him (a) Ibid. to rule ouer them as the Head doth ouer the members And his Legates in the same Councell said (b) Act. 1. We haue the commands of the Pope of Rome who is the Head of all Churches and the Councell contradicted not but presently obeyed his commands S. Prosper sayth (c) L. De ingrat c. 2. Rome the See of Peter is made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world possessing by religion what it doth not by force of armes which S. Leo also expresseth saying (d) Serm. 1. in Nata Apost Petri Pauli Rome by the sacred See of Peter being made Head of the world hath a larger extent of gouerment by diuine religion then by earthly dominion Eugenius B. of Carthage (e) Vict. Vticen l. ◠calls the Roman Church The Head of all Churches S. Fulgentius (f) De incarn grat c. 11. The Top of the world And Ennodius sayth (g) Lib de Synod sub Symmacho habit The dignity of the See Apostolike is Venerable throughout the whole world whiles all the faithfull are subiect vnto it as being the Head of the whole body Iustinian intituleth the Pope (h) Cod. Tit. 1. L. 7. The Head of all the holy Prelates of God and the Head of all Churches And the Bishops of the lower Maesia (i) Apud Bin. to 2. pag 154. professe Leo B. of Rome to be Truly the Head of all Churches You answere first (k) Pag. 242. that S. Basil calls Athanasius Top or crowne of the head of all S. Basill
same iorney is both a going and a mission a going as it is performed by him that vndertakes the iorney and a mission as it proceeds from those that sent him euen as the same lesson is both doctrina and disciplina doctrina as it is deliuered by the Maister that teacheth and disciplina as it is receaued by the Scholler that learneth and as in Philosophy the same production is called Actio as it proceeds from the Agent Passio as it is receaued in the subiect And to say that the sending of Iohn with Peter argueth Iohn to be equall in authority with Peter is a great Non sequitur as if you should argue a Chanon to be of equall authority with the Deane or a Cardinall with the Pope if they be sent togeather CHAP. XI Sleights and falsifications of Doctor Morton to shift off the testimonies of Ancient Fathers teaching S. Peters supremacy BELLARMINE to proue S. Peters primacy ouer the other Apostles produceth conuincing testimonies of many Fathers both Greeke and Latin (p) L. 1 de Pont. c. 25. These you vndertake to answer or rather to elude by diuers sleights Some of them as being so cleare that you knew not how to deuise any answer vnto them you wholly omit without any mention of them as of S. Prosper Arator and Aetherianus Others you mention as of S. Leo the great of S. Gregory of Venerable Bede and S. Bernard but put them of with deuises We pretermit say (q) Pag. 50. marg n. 20. you the testimony of Pope Leo wherof reason is giuen hereafter but wheras Bellarmine alleageth two vnanswerable testimonies of S. Leo you are so far from giuing any reason of them that for ought I can find you neuer after mention eyther of them The testimonies of Bede and S. Bernard you reiect as not truly ancient wheras Bede liued almost 1000. and S. Bernard aboue 500. yeares since But the true reason indeed why you reiect them is not want of antiquity but because they clearely conuince your Doctrine of falshood For when S. Bernard the later of these two hath any thing which by misinterpreting his meaning or falsifying you can wrest to your purpose as afterwards you do (r) Pag. 170. 182. S. Bernard is ancient inough S. Gregory you shift of promising to speake of him largely afterwards S. Gregory did disclaime from the title of Vniuersall Bishop in that sense in which Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople did arrogate the same to himselfe Of this indeed you treate at large (s) Pag. 92. seqq but his testimonie which Bellarmine vrgeth in proofe of S. Peters pastorall power ouer the whole Church you neither answere nor so much as mention afterwards 3. Bellarmine citeth out of Eusebius his Chronicon these words Petrus natione Galilaeus Christianorum Pontifex primus Peter a Galilean borne the first chiefe Bishop of Christians He sayth not Peter the first Bishop of the Romans as in the same place he sayth Iames the first of Hierusalem and Euodius the first Bishop of Antioch but Peter the first chief Bishop of Christians which differēce of expression she weth that wheras Iames and Euodius were Bishops of two particular Dioceses Peter was the Bishop of all Christians This is one of the testimonies of Eusebius alleaged by Bellarmine which you conceale without giuing any answer vnto it though you name the place out of which he alleageth it The second is out of Eusebius his history which you are contented to mention that you may pick a quarrell against Bellarmine for you say (t) Pag. 49. marg he miscites the Chapter the 14. for the 13. But by desiring to carpe you discouer your ignorance for in the different versions of Eusebius the Chapters are differently diuided and though the passage which Bellarmine citeth be in the 13. Chapter according to the version of Christophorson yet in that of Ruffinus which he followeth it is in the 14. as he cites it And wheras Eusebius there calleth Peter Reliquorum omnium Apostolorum Principem The Prince of all the other Apostles you answere That it is with this restriction omitted by Bellarmine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his singular vertues sake But what doth this omission auaile your cause or hurt ours The Fathers agree in this that when Christ promised to make Peter the foundation of his Church it was for that excellent confession of his Diuinity and in reward therof as hath bene proued (*) Aboue Nu 11. and so likewise when he actually conferred on him the dignity of supreme Pastor it was a reward of his feruent loue But doth it follow that because this supereminent dignity was promised to Peter and conferred on him for his singular vertues it was nor therfore a primacy of Magistracy and iurisdiction but of order only Is not the office of Pastor of Christs flock an office of Magistracy and iurisdiction but such are the answers which you giue to insoluble arguments yet shame not to charge Bellarmine with vnconscionable dealing in vrging this place of Eusebius against you 4. He vrgeth S. Gregory Nazianzen saying Vides c. You see how among the Disciples of Christ all truly great and high and worthy to be chosen this to wit Peter is called a Rock and hath the foundations of the Church committed to his charge And he that is Iohn is loued more and reposeth on the brest of our Lord and the other-disciples did not take it in ill part that these were preferred before them These are the words of Nazianzen and these very words Bellarmine truly and punctually setteth downe whom therfore you vniustly traduce (u) Pag. 49. marg as deprauing Nazianzen whose words as he corrupteth not so neither doth he peruert his sense for out of them it is euident that as Christ preferred Iohn by louing him more then the rest so in far higher degree he preferred Peter before them and before Iohn also For who seeth not that Nazianzen acknowledgeth a far greater dignity in Peter then in Iohn or any other of the Apostles when he sayth that Christ called Peter a Rock and committed to his charge the foundations of the Church for that is to say that he made him Head and Gouernor therof it being a knowne truth that the foundation in a building is the same that the Head in a politicall body from whence it is that the famous Councell of Chalcedon (x) Act. 3. calleth Peter The foundation of true fayth and the rock and top of the Catholike Church which is a far greater dignity then to leane on Christs brest or any other that was conferred on Iohn or any of the other Apostles 5. Bellarmine (y) L. 1. de Pont. c. 25. vrgeth 3. testimonies out of S. Augustines workes The second you passe ouer without any answer to it or mention of it The third you reiect as taken out of a booke which Bellarmine himselfe and others acknowledge not to be
S. Augustins but of an hereticall Author Bellarmine I grant confesseth the booke not to be S. Augustines and therfore he citeth it not as of S. Augustine he granteth also that the author erred in some particulars which he expresseth but because in this matter of S. Peters Supremacy he was neuer taxed of error but agreeth with the rest of the Fathers his testimony was not to be contemned especially being so forcible as you (z) Pag. 52. confesse it to be But be it whose you will with what face can you reiect it For do you not produce against vs two other testimonies of the same booke affirming (a) Pag. 30. 286. S. Augustine himselfe to be the author of them This Dilemma wil discouer your dealing either the book is S. Augustins or it is not If it be not S. Augustines why do you in other places vrge it against vs as of S. Augustine If it be S. Augustines why do you here deny it to be his and reiect it as hereticall when we vrge it against you Is not this shufling Shall it be S. Augustines and of force when you vrge it against vs shall it not only not be S. Augustines but hereticall when we vrge it against you but such dealing suiteth best with a Grand Imposture The third testimony which Bellarmine alleageth of S. Augustine is out of his second booke of Baptisme against the Donatists where hauing said that the primacy of the Apostles doth singularly excell in Peter he addeth I thinke that Cyprian Bishop without any affront is compared to Peter the Apostle for as much as concernes the glory of Martyrdome but I rather ought to feare lest I be contumelious to Peter for who knoweth not that that Princedome of Apostleship is to be preferred before whatsoeuer Bishoprick To this you answere (b) Pag. 49. marg fin That Primatus Apostolorum signifieth nothing els but Munus Apostolicum the Apostolicall function and that is most illustrious in Peter But your answere is deficient for to say that the primacy of the Apostleship singularly excelled in Peter is not only to say that Peter was an Apostle but that he was Primate and Prince of the Apostles and that his primacy contained a singular preeminence of dignity belonging to him which was not in any of the other Apostles and this dignity it was that made him more illustrious then the rest Againe wheras S. Augustine said he had cause to feare lest he might affront S. Peter in comparing Cyprian the Martyr vnto him because that Princedome of Apostleship which was in Peter exceeded all Bishopricks you answere (c) Pag. 50. marg that in these words there is only a comparison betweene Peters Apostleship and Cyprians Bishoprick and that no Protestant will deny that the Apostleship though of Barnabas was more excellent then the Bishoprick although of Linus This answere is not to the purpose for S. Augustine compares not the Apostleship in generall with Cyprians Bishoprick but in particular illum Apostolatus principatum that Princedome or Soueraignty of the Apostleship which was peculiar to Peter as to Head and Prince of all the Apostles Nor is it true that S. Augustine only compareth Peters Apostleship with Cyprians Bishoprick he compares Peters Bishoprick with Cyprians Bishopprick Peters Chayre with Cyprians Chayre which you cunningly leaue out both in your english and Latin acknowledgeth that distal cathâ—drarum gratia etsi vna sit Martyrum gloria that albeit the glory of Martyrdome be alike in them both yet there is distance betwene the Dignity of their chayres and by reason of this distance S. Augustine sayth he hath cause to feare lest he wrong Peter in making any comparison betwene Cyprians chayre and his chayre for though Cyprian were Primate of all Africa yet Peter was Bishop and Gouernor of the Vniuersall Church a dignity no way belonging to Cyprian or any other Bishop or Apostle whatsoeuer With shifts not vnlike to these you elude the testimonies of S. Cyprian S. Hierome and other Fathers who as you confesse (d) Pag. 50. iâ—it call Peter sometymes Prince Head and Captayne of all the Apostles somtymes Chiefe Priest of the Christians Captayne of Gods hoast Pastor and foundation of the whole Church and One to whom the guydance and presidence of the vniuersall Church is committed To these their testimonies you answere (e) Pag. 50. med that they argue not any primacy of authority and iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles or ouer the whole Church but of Order only This distinction you often vse to shift of the authorities of Fathers when you are pressed with them By Primacy of Order you vnderstand priority of place and of voyce as afterwards (*) Pag. 110. you declare But whatsoeuer you vnderstand sure I am that ancient Fathers by the primacy of Peter vnderstand not only priority of place and of voyce but true power and iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church and so it is apparent by the very names which they vse to expresse his primacy as of Prince Head and Captayne of all the Apostles Pastor and President of the vniuersall Church for hath not the Prince in his territories authority and iurisdiction hath he not power to commaÌ„d his subiects to make lawes to punish offendors In a City hath not the Head which is the Magistrate power and authority ouer the Citizens Hath not a Captayne the command of his soldiers and the Pastor power to rule his flock wherfore since with the Fathers you confesse that Peter is Prince Head and Captayne of all the Apostles Pastor and foundation of the whole Church and that the guydance and presidence of the vniuersall Church is committed to him either you vnderstand not what you say or els you grant that Peter hath not only primacy of Order but of authority power coÌ„mand ouer the Apostles ouer the whole Church as a Prince hath ouer his subiects a Captaine ouer his souldiers a Maior ouer the Citizens and a shepheard ouer his flock And what els is it that S. Chrysostome teacheth saying (f) Hom. in B. Ignat. that Peter was the Superintendent of the whole world that to him Christ consigned the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen and committed the disposition of all things And (h) Orat. 5. aduers Iud. that Peter was made chiefe of the Apostles and had the whole world in subiection and (i) Hom. 80. ad pop Autioch that Christ deliuered to him the gouerment of the Church throughout the whole world What els did S. Maximus meane when he said (k) Hom. 3. in Natali Apost Pet. Pauli Peter was of so great merit in the sight of Christ that after the rowing of a small boat the gouerment of the whole Church was put into his hands What Arnobius (l) Ad Psal 138. pronouncing that Peter is Bishop of Bishops and that Christ gaue to him and to no other of the Apostles
Peter And the sacred Expositors teach you the same lesson for when a new Apostle was to be chosen in place of Iudas S. Chrysostome noteth (t) Hom. 3. in Act. that albeit Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem yet he acknowledged the superiority not to belong to himselfe but to Peter that therfore not he but Peter shewed his authority in the cariage of that busines Behold sayth Chrysostome the modesty of Iames He had receaued the office of Bishop of Hierusalem and yet speakes â—ot a word but yelds the throne to Peter And Oecuâ—â—e niâ—â— (s) Ad cap. 1. Act. Iames riseth nâ—â— out Peter be being the man to whom the gouerment of the Disciples was committed And Chrysostome further declaring that the Episcopall authority which christ gaue to Peter was as farre aboue that of Iames as the Bishop of the whole world surpasseth in authority the Bishop of one particular See sayth (t) Hom. vlt. in Ioan. If any one demaund how Iames obtained the See of Hierusalem I answere he was made by Peter Maister of the whole world which difference betweene the authority of Peter and Iames Euthymius (u) Ad c. 21. Ioan. hath also expressed in the same words And no lesse S. Bernard saying (x) L. 2. de considerat c. 9. The other Apostles obtayned ech of them their peculiar stocks Iames contented with Hierusalem yelds the vniuersality to Peter I conclude therfore that if S. Paul once named Iames before Peter which is yet doubtfull it is a non sequitur to collect from thence that he held Iames superior or equall in authority to Peter You shew your selfe to be one of those men of whom S. Peter (y) 1. Pet. 3.16 sayth that reading S. Paules epistles they depraue them and the rest of the Scriptures to their owne perdition Not vnlike to this is the argument you make (z) Pag. 62. fin 63. to proue that S. Paul forsooth butteth and excopteth against Peters authority because he sayth (a) Gal. 1.18 I went to Hierusalem to see Peter and tarried with him 15. dayes but other of the Apostles I saw none saue Iames the brother of our Lord. Your inference is that Paul going vp to stop the mouths of false Apostles who obiected that he had not sufficient commission to preach as not hauing bene authorized by the other Apostles if the spirit of Popery had reigned in those dayes his Aduersaries might haue replyed that Peter being the Vicar of Christ and the Ordinary and vniuersall Pastor of his Church was alone sufficient and All in All to authorize him because the Gouernor of all others without exception So you but falsly and ignorantly for Paul went not then to Hierusalem to haue his Ghospell approued but only for honors sake to see and reuerence Peter his Superior as the expositors with one accord declare Their words you haue already heard His iourney to Hierusalem to vindicate his calling and haue his Ghospell approued by S. Peter and the other Apostles was 14. yeares after when he tooke Barnabas Titus with him as in the second Chapter to the Galathians he declareth But you are contented to confound the former iourney with this such mistakes are the engines of Arguments wherewith you But at the Popes authority SECT V. Priuiledges granted to other of the Apostles and not to S. Peter obiected by Doctor Morton TO the former obiections you adde others concerning some priuiledges granted to other Apostles and not to S. Peter which I will briefly touch The first is (c) Pag. 64. Peter gaue not sentence in the Apostolicall Synod but Iames in his presence This is an vntruth and such I haue proued it to be The second (e) Pag. 64. Peter leaned not on Christs brest as Iohn did True but Christ made Peter the foundation of his Church and Pastor of his flock a far greater dignity then to leane on his brest and which implies Iohns subiection to him The third is (f) Pag. 64. Peter solicited Iohn to aske a question of scorecy He did so but how ill aduised you are to obiect this against Peters Primacy the Fathers will informe you Cassiodorus (g) L. de amicit c. Quasi diceret benefac sint amici Surely our Lord preferred Peter before Iohn and bestowing the Princedome on Peter did not therfore withdraw his affection from the disciple whom he loued He gaue to Peter the keyes of the kingdome of heauen that he might open and shut heauen to Iohn he gaue a facility of opening vnto vs the secrets of his brest To Peter he gaue the charge and gouerment of his Church to Iohn the care and custody of his Mother Peter durst not aske of our Lord who was to betray him Iohn at Peters instance asked confidently what the Prince of the Apostles durst not in quire S. Chrysostome (h) Hom. vlt. in Ioan. Why doth Iohn mention his leaning on Christs brest Not without cause but to shew the confidence of Peter after his deniall for he that durst not then aske but did is by another after the charge of his brethren was giuen to him committeth is not to another but himselfe asketh the Maister and Iohn is silens He speakes and shewes his loue to Iohn c. For when Christ had communicated great matters to Peter and giuen him charge of the whole world he being desirous to haue Iohn for his partner and colleague said And this man what And as he not daring to aske at the last supper did it by Iohn so now doth he the like for Iohn thinking that he was desirous to aske but durst not And againe (i) Hom. 66. in Math. Marke how this same Iohn that lately made such demands after wholly yelds the primacy to Peter and prefers him in all things before himselfe S. Hierome (k) L. 1. aduers Iouin Among the twelue Apostles one is chosen that a Head being appointed occasion of Schisme might be taken away And declaring (l) Ibid. why the dignity of Head was not giuen to Iohn but to Peter he yeldeth this reason because Peter was the elder and lest if Christ had bestowed that dignity on a yong man whom he loued he might seeme to minister occasion of enuie to the rest That famous Emperor Leo surnamed The wise hauing declared (m) Serm. de S. Petro. that Christ male Peter Prince of pastors and required of him the care of feeding his flock as a returne of his loue addeth Peter knowing that to be a great Princedome and how great strength it requireth seing Iohn following whom Iesus greatly loued said And this man what wilt thou haue me to be placed as Head ouer the disciples what then dost thou commaund him to doe Our Lord answered as it were checking Peter So I will haue him to remayne till I come what 's that to thee follow thou me that is follow me with this pastorall staffe and as whiles I was with you I did
keepe you watching ouer you as a Father as your Head Mayster so be thou in my place follow me with thy Princedome and power confirming thy brethren for I will haue thee to be in my place from whence it is that Peter remayneth till this very day following Christ in his Successor Theophilact (n) Ad c. vlt. Ioan. Our Sauiour speaking to Peter sayth I deliuer into thy hands the preaching of my Ghospell and the whole world c. I lead thee forth to gouerne the world And againe (o) Ibid. The gouerment of the sheep is committed to Peter and not only that but he asketh and is made a mediator for him that was best beloued So these Fathers And if it be lawfull to compare sacred things to prophane we may in this liken Christ these two Apostles to Alexander and his two friends Craterus and Ephestion Craterus loued Alexander as a King looking to his publike affayres and honor Ephestion loued his person diligently procuring his health and priuat well-doing whereupon Alexander was wont to say that Craterus loued the King and Ephestion loued Alexander So we may say that Iohn loued Christ more then any other of the Apostles did as the cause of his virginity and author of his chast loue but Peter loued him as the Prince of Pastors more then any other euer did And in reward of this their loue Christ loued Iohn as a Virgin that had dedicated his body and soule to him alone and commended to him as to a Virgin the custody of his Virgin Mother but he loued Peter in regard of his flock which was to be fed and gouerned vpon earth in that respect made him Vniuersall Pastor and Gouernor therof which was a greater dignity then to leane on Christs brest or to be the guardian of his Mother The fourth obiection is (p) Pag. 64. Paul reprehended Peter to his face before all This you had vrged before (q) Pag. 61. as a principall Argument to disproue S. Peters superiority ouer S. Paul but as vnfortunatly as the rest for this reprehension was not of superiority but of charity as that of Iethro (r) Exod. 18.14 to Moyses that of Ioab to king Dauid (s) 2. Reg. 19.15 seqq and of S. Bernard to Pope Eugenius (t) L. 4. de considerat all which as they stand well with the superiority of the persons reproued to their reprouers so doth this with the superiority of Peter to Paul yea the Fathers are so farre from arguing from hence any equality of Iurisdiction betweene these two Apostles that diuers of them assume it as an Argument to proue that when there is iust occasion inferiors may with due charity and humility reprehend their Superiors Paul sayth Chrysostome (x) In cap. 2. ad Gal. reproues Peter heares to the end that whiles the Mayster reproued holds his peace the schollers may learne to change their opinion S. Augustine (y) Ep. 19. That which was done of S. Paul profitably by the liberty of charity Peter tooke in good part by holy and benigne godlinesse of humility and therby gaue a more rare and holy example to posterity if at any tyme they do amisse not to disdaine reproofe from their inferiors then Paul did in teaching the meaner to resist the greater with brotherly charity for the defence of truth And S. Gregory (z) Hom. 18. in Ezechiel noteth that Peter as he was chief in the Apostellship so he shewed himselfe to be chief in humility All which discouereth your ignorance in saying (a) Pag. 62. that with all like circumstances of opposition in true tenor of morality one can hardly reprehend another vnlesse he be his equall If you had bene as skilfull in Diuinity as you are diligent in laying hold of any shaddow of occasion to carpe at S. Peters authority you would haue knowne the lesson which S. Thomas and all Diuines with him (b) 2.2 q. 33. art 4. teach that there are two kinds of correction the one of iustice the other of charity the first belongeth only to Superiors in respect of their subiects the second to all men for as charity bindes vs to loue all so it binds vs in due circumstances to vse fraternall correction to all euen Superiors and so Paul did to Peter Finally so certaine it is that all antiquity belieued S. Peter to be Superior in authority to S. Paul that as S. Hierome (c) Apud S. Aug. op 11. noteth blasphemous Porphyrius taxed S. Paul of petulancy and pride in reprehending his Superior and that some to free him from that note thought it was not Peter the Apostle whom he reprehended but another of the Disciples called Cephas But you reply (d) Pag. 62. out of our interlineary Glosse that Paul reprehended Peter tanquam par as being his equall You mistake for that note is not in the interlineary but in the glosse of Lyra and as Gratian hath declared (e) 2. q. 7. Cap. Paulus is to be vnderstood of parity in the Apostleship and in purity of lyfe and conuersation not of Ecclesiasticall power and iurisdiction in which sense S. Augustine (f) L. 2. de bapt c. 1. writeth of S. Cyprian that he was equall to S. Peter in his Martyrdome but inferior in power But you make a digression (g) Pag. 61. 210. to tell vs of a notorious prerogatiue which our Popes challenge to themselues in their bookes of priuiledges authorized by themselues for their owne licenciousnesse saying None presumeth to reprehend the Pope except only in case he depart from the fayth no not although otherwise he draw innumerable multitudes with himselfe into Hell Of which priuiledge they can giue no other ground then their falsly pretended plenitude of Papall power whereupon it is that their Glosse affirmeth that in disposing of Prebends and such acts there is none that dare say to the Pepe Syr why do you so These are your words from which you take occasion to rayle lustily against the Pope And I aske you Syr why do you so For you cannot but remember that in your hatefull libell set forth many yeares since vnder the title of A discouery of Romish doctrine in the case of conspiracy rebellion you proposed this very obiection and that a learned Antagonist of yours (h) F. Persons in his Treatise tending to mitigation against the seditious writings of Thomas Morton Minister told you (i) Chap. 5. num 54. that many yeares before that tyme the same obiection had bene set forth in print by Syr Francis Hastings in his Watchword and defence therof and stoutly auouched by Mathew Sutcliffe Minister his Aduocate and Proctor of that defence and that the same obiection was confuted at large by the Warn word and so many lyes falshoods and fraudes discouered therin that the said Mathew Sutcliffe in his Reply intituled A full and round answere thought good to let it passe
them by Christian Kings and Emperors And shewing that they haue no reason to complaine therof he saith (q) Tract 11. in Ioan. They the Donatists will do such things and yet will not suffer such punishments See what they do and what they suffer They kill soules and are punished in their bodies They cause euerlasting deathes and complaine that they suffer temporall deathes And againe (r) Cont. ep Parmē l. 1. c. 8. What do not these men iustly suffer seing they suffer deseruedly for their offences by lawfull power and by the iudgement of God gouerning from aboue and admonishing them by such punishments to beware of euerlasting fyre Let them first proue themselues not to be Heretikes or Schismatikes and then let them complaine that they suffer iniustly And els where he sayth (s) Conc. 2. in Psal 34. The Physician is somtymes inforced to cut and lance and desisteth not though the Patient curse and rayle They that are in a letargy are wakened and they that are in a phrensy are bound yet both of them are loued Let no man therfore say I suffer persecution let him not proclayme his punishment but let him proue his cause lest if he proue not his cause he be reckoned among the wicked And answering the arguments of the Donatists who desiring to be freed from the punishment due to their Heresy argued out of Terence that it is better to refraine men frō euill by shame and freedome then by feare of punishment he answereth (t) Ep. 50. that albeit those which are drawne with loue be better yet more come by feare which he proueth 1. out of the same Poet saying Thou knowest not how to do well vnlesse thou be enforced with punishment 2. with a Prouerbe of Salomon that A stif-necked seruant will not be amended with words for though he vnderstand he will not obey 3. by experience for saith he it is superfluous to proue this with words seing it is manifest by many examples that not these or those men but that many Cities of Heretikes are now become Catholike for feare of the Imperiall lawes from Constantine to the present lawes These are the lawes M. Doctor which you storme at for the Inquisitors nether pronounce sentence of death against any nor execute it If any man be accused they examine his cause as with iustice so with great meekenesse If he be found guilty of heresy they vse all meanes both by themselues and by other learned men to reclayme him If he acknowledge his error he is deliuered vp to religious persōs to be instructed and with charitable vsage gayned to God But if they find him to stand out obstinatly against all persuasions they deliuer him vp with his whole processe to the secular Magistrates beseeching them to deale mercifully with him And if the Magistrates iudge him worthy of death punish him according to the Imperiall lawes I know no reason you haue to blame them for as S. Augustine saith with the Apostle (u) Ep. 164. l. 1. cont ep Parmen c. 8. l 2. cont Petil. c. 83. they beare not the sword without cause for they are Gods Ministers reuengers vnto wrath to them that do euill Nor do I see what you haue in all this to quarrell at vnlesse you thinke that theeues and murderers of mens bodies ought to be punished with death and that murderers of mens soules ought to be spared And so much the more inconsiderate you are in this your cauill because your selues vse the same proceeding against heretikes for haue you not burnt Dauid George in Holland Hacket Coppinger and others in England But you complaine (x) Pag. 85. 86. that not only heretikes are punished but also Beleeuers Receauers Defenders and Fauorers of heretikes namely such as commend their learning wit Zeale constancy or simplicity which any Christian may do in a Pagan Sir I know not how to excuse you either from imposture or impiety for as Suarez (y) De trip virt Theol. disp 24. n. 2. and Azor (z) Part. 1. l. 8. c. 15. the very authors whom you obiect haue declared Beleeuers are they that giue credit to the Doctrine of heretickes and make profession therof or prayse the same as no way dissonant to the Catholike fayth May a Christian do this to a Pagan Defenders are not they that praise the learning wit or eloquence of heretikes but that commend or maintaine their doctrine or praise their pertinacy which you call zeale in defending their errors Say now were it not impiety to do this to a Pagan And so it is in you to say that any Christian may lawfully do it to an heretike Fauorers or receauers are not they that receaue heretikes into their howses or shew loue or fauor vnto them as to their freinds or kinsfolkes this any man may do to a Pagan but that receaue cōceale or assist them that they may perseuer in their heresy and teach it to others also officers that ought to concurre to the apprehension of heretikes and do it not but ayd them to escape the hands of the lawfull iudges that so they may not be punished but remaine free to peruert others This is the Doctrine of Suarez and Azor whom you obiect no Catholike Diuines speake otherwise against him that hauing abiured his heresy before a Iudge relapseth into the same for if he talke with an heretike or visit him as his neighbour or reuerence him as his Superior or reward him for any fauor receaued or commend him for his wit or other talents of nature or learning he is not therfore thought to haue relapsed into heresy But if he visit reuerence reward or commend him because he is an heretike and for his hereticall Doctrine he is then by the law of Frederike the Emperor to be deliuered to the secular Magistrate as a relaps to be executed as one that by reason of his inconstancy is held morally incorrigible that by his example and Doctrine may infect others But yet if he repent the Church like a pious mother receaues him into her bosome allowing him the Sacrament of Alsolution and Eucharist and affords him all instruction and helpe for the good of his soule that so he may dye in state of saluation Against this your choler riseth saying (a) Pag. 87. Bubalus was neuer so stupid as to iudge them morally incorrigible which do repent so as to make themselues capable of Absolution but Syr Bubalus was neuer so stupid as not to vnderstand that a relapsed heretike being condemned to death may by the helpe of Gods grace open his eyes to see and acknowledge his error and thereby make himselfe capable of the Sacraments and yet that neuerthelesse the Church may iustly feare that as he became a relaps after he had once solemnly abuired his heresy so if he be permitted to liue he may fall the third and fourth tyme againe which is to be morally incorrigible And wheras you
charge that hereafter they be not slouthfull but by their cariage shew themselues to haue the zeale and solicitude which becometh Priestes and that they be vigilant in these things which it is fitting for them to do iustly according to God that hereafter no complaints may be made of them And if you finde any of them to be negligent send him to vs without excuse that he may feele by Canonicall punishment how grieuous an offence it is not to amend those thinges which are reprehensible And in the priuiledge which he granted to the Monastery of S. Medardus (c) L. 12. Epistolarum sin alias l. 2. post ep 38. If any King Bishop Iudge or secular person whatsoeuer shall violate the decrees of this Apostolicall and our Command let him be depriued of his honor be he of neuer so high a degree I know that Bellarmine alleaging this decree you tell vs out of Doctor Iames (d) Pag. 179. a man of as much credit as your selfe that it is forged wheras that most holy and learned Pope Gregory the seauenth which liued 600. yeares nearer the tyme of S. Gregory then Doctor Iames and had better meanes to know what writings of his were legitimate and what spurious alleageth it as his vndoubted Epistle And his testimony you disproue no otherwise then by rayling against him whom yet as hereafter I shall shew (e) Chap. 32. sect 3. the Historians of that age and among them the two S. Anselmes of Canterbury and Luca highly extoll for one of the most admirable Prelates that euer sate in the Chayre of S. Peter and whose sanctity God himselfe testified with many most famous miracles But howsoeuer you carpe at this decree of S. Gregory Bellarmine in the same place (f) Cont. Barâ—â—â— c. 40. alleageth another of the same tenor granted by him to an Hospitall built in Austum by Brunichildes Queene Syagrius Bishop of that City which because you know not how to shift of you slily passe ouer without mentioning it notwithstanding S. Gregories authority and command is no lesse effectually expressed in it then in the former I conclude therfore that as this holy Doctor confesseth (g) L. 4. ep â—6 he had learned from the Apostle to cary humility in his hart and yet to preserue the honor and dignity of his place commanding and denouncing punishment to offenders when it was needfull SECT II. The Councell of Ephesus acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the cause of Iohn Patriarke of Antioch HAuing shewed that the Councell of Ephesus deposed Nestorius by the commandment of Pope Celestine and that it was the ancient custome of the best and holiest Popes to Command when the affaire required it let vs goe on with you (h) Pag. 115. to the cause of Iohn Patriarke of Antioch whom the Councell of Ephesus durst not iudge but reserued him to the iudgment of Celestine (i) Conc. Ephes to 4. c. 17. in ep ad Celestin Papam This againe say we sheweth the supreme authority of the Pope You deny it because Those Fathers in the same Epistle report that they had diuested him of all Sacerdotall power and deposed him before they made any relation therof to Celestine Pope False For their words are (k) In eadem ep Moued with the indignity of his proceeding we would haue pronounced against him such a sentence as he had pronounced against those that were not conuicted of any crime But to the end that we might with lenity ouercome his rashnesse we haue reserued his sentence to the iudgment of you Piety and in the meane tyme we haue excommunicated him diuested him of all Sacerdotall power These words euidently conuince against you that those Fathers to gaine Iohn with lenity and hoping that he might be reclaimed as afterwards in the time of Sixtus Pope he was pronounced not any absolute and finall sentence against him according to his deserts but reserued that to Celestine as to his supreme Iudge yet they excommunicated him in the meane time and as they say to the Emperor (l) Ep. ad Theodos to 4. c. 8. tantisper for a while suspended him from the exercise of his Episcopall function that he might not hurt others And the same is gathered out of Celestines Epistle to the Councell (m) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 628. in which he sayth that after their sentence against Iohn diuers things remained to be considered and determined by him And this proceeding of the Ephesine Councell against Iohn was afterwards imitated by the sixth Councell generall in the cause of Macarius another Patriarke of Antioch as the Emperor Constantine Pogonate reportes in these words (n) In 6. Synod Act. 18. Macarius B. of Antioch and his adhereurs haue bene deposed by the consent of the whole Councell and reserued to the discretion of the most holy Pope It is therfore euident that both these Councells acknowledged the giuing of the last and definitiue sentence against those Patriarkes to belong to the Pope which is also confirmed by the words of Iuuenall B. of Hierusalem vttered in presence of the whole Councell of Ephesus (o) To. 4. c. 4. apud Bin. to 1. pag. 794. It is fit said he that Iohn the right reuerend B. of Antioch honoring this great holy and Oecumenicall Councell haue recourse hither to iustify himselfe of what is obiected against him and that he honor and obey the Apostolike throne of great Rome especially since the custome of Apostolike tradition and practise is that the seat of Amioch be perpetually ruled and iudged by that of Rome I appeale to the reader whether these Councells did not acknowledge the supreme power of the B. of Rome in reseruing to him the last sentence in the causes of these two great Patriarkes What then may we thinke of you that haue the boldnesse to out-face so manifest a truth SECT III. Of the ordination of the Bishops of Cyprus treated in the Councell of Ephesus BVt there remaines one which you (p) Pag. 116. call A principall obiection and it is that wheras Reginus Zenon and Euagrius Bishops of Cyprus had by a petition presented to the Councell of Ephesus made complaint of the Patriarke of Antioch (q) To. 2. Append. 1. c. 4. That contrary to the ancient custome practised from the tyme of the Apostles and contrary to the Canons of Nice he had presumed to ordeyne Bishops in that Iland the Councell decreed (r) Ibid. that no Bishop should encroath vpon the liberties of any other nor draw vnder his subiection any Prouince which belonged not to him from the beginning and therfore that if the ancient custome were not for the Bishop of Antioch to ordaine Bishops in Cyprus he should not trouble the Bishops of that Iland but leaue to them the ordination of their owne Bishops This Decree you will haue to exclude the authority of the B. of Rome as well as of any other But your
professe by acknowledging (c) Ibid. that he ruled ouer them as the Head doth ouer the members and therfore beseeching him to confirme their decrees with his authority they adde (d) Ibid. We pray you to honor our iudgment with your decrees and that as in what concernes the Weale we haue held correspondence to our Head so your Soueraignty wold fulfill vnto your Children what is fit and conuenient These testimonies so cleare and pregnant cannot but conuince the vnderstanding of any impartiall reader that the Councell of Chalcedon beleeued the vniuersall authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome whom therefore the same Councell often calleth (e) Act. 1.2.3 Bishop of the vniuersall Church SECT III. Whether the title of Vniuersall Bishop which the Councell of Chalcedon gaue to the Pope argue in him no more but a generall care of the good of the Church such as belonges to euery Bishop and to euery Christian. OF all the proofes hereunto alleaged you take no notice two only excepted namely of the title of Vninersall Bishop and of the metaphor of a Vine by which the Councell expresseth the vniuersall Church saying (f) In relat ad Leon. that the custody therof is by Christ our Sauiour committed to the Pope These two you call Two postes to support the ruinous Monarchy of the B. of Rome And your answeare to them here (g) Pag. 117.118 and afterwards againe (h) Pag. 236. is that these attributes import no vniuersall power of iurisdiction in the Pope but of prouidence and care which euery Bishop shold haue in wishing and to his power endeauoring the vniuersall good of the whole Church But if the words of the Councell import no more it will follow that the custody of the vniuersall Church that is the gouerment therof was by Christ committed not only to euery Bishop but also to euery Christian man and woman who should wish and to their power procure the vniuersall good of the whole Church But you obiect (i) Pag. 116.117 236. that Eleutherius Pope writing to the Bishops of France sayth The vniuersall Church of Christ is committed to you that you may labor for all men and that according to Binius his exposition the meaning of Eleutherius is that for as much as heretikes oppugne the Catholike and vniuersall Church is belongeth to euery Bishop to haue an vniuersall care to defend and support it And this say you is a true answere indeed But you speake vntruly and interprete falsly for Binius hath no such word as Vniuersall care nor doth he speake of Bishops only but sayth that a care solicitude of defending the vniuersall Church against heretikes belongeth not only to Bishops but to euery Christian for as much as we are commanded by God Eccl. c. 4. to fight fortruth and iustice vntill death How do these words of Binius proue that the Pope hath not or that the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledged him not to haue authority and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church but only a charitable care of her good as S. Paul had and as euery Bishop and euery Christian man and woman according to their power are bound to haue for did not that Councel giue to Pope Leo the title of Vniuersall Archbishop and Patriarke or as you set it downe (k) Pag. 235. of Bishop of the vniuersall Church but these words say you (l) Ibid. were not the words of the Councell but of two Deacons writing to the Councell and of Paschasinus the Popes Legate False for it was giuen to him (m) Act. 3. in foure different petitions of Theodorus and Ischyrion Deacons of Alexandria of Athanasius a Priest of the same City and of Sophronius And the Councell approuing thereof commanded theyr petitions to be registred in the Acts. Moreouer the same title was giuen him by Paschasinus who though he were his legate was a Reuerend Bishop as also by Martian the Emperor the Councell no way excepting therat And did not S. Gregory and after him the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas testify that the whole Councell of Chalcedon with the following Fathers gaue the same title to Leo Pope And did not Leo a man of admirable sanctity learning instyle himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church And did not the Regulars of Constantinople and of Syria and the Bishops of the Patriarkships of Antioch and Hierusalem giue the same tytle to Agapetus Pope in the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas (n) See all this proued aboue Chap. 15. sect 3. Againe did not the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledge in Leo power to restore Theodoret to his Bishoprick of Cyre bordering vpon Persia from which he had bene deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus (o) Act. â— Did it not acknowledge in him authority to depose Dioscorus the greatest Patriarch of the East (p) Act. 3. Did not all those Fathers being the representatiue body of the Vniuersall Church professe (q) In relat ad Leon. that Leo Pope did preside rule ouer them as the Head ouer the members Is this Authority common to euery Bishop Or did Eleutherius or the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledge any such thing But he that will see how imposterously you wrest the testimony of Eleutherius against the vniuersall power and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome and against the meaning of the Councell of Chalcedon let him read the epistle and he shall finde that Eleutherius a litle before the words which you obiect declareth that althought it be lawfull to examine the accusations and crimes obiected against Bishops either before their Metropolitans or before the Bishops of their owne Prouince yet that it is not lawfull to end them there for as much as it hath bene decreed by the Apostles their Successors that the finall decision of Bishops causes is to be referred to the See Apostolike and no others substituted in their places vntill their iudgments be ended at Rome Can there be a more full expression of the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church then to professe him to be the sole supreme Iudge of all Bishops Or can there be a greater imposture then to obiect this epistle of Eleutherius for the contrary SECT IV. Whether the Councell of Chalcedon did giue to the B. of Constantinople priuiledges equall with the B. of Rome YOu obiect heere (r) Pag. 118. and often repeate that the Fathers of Chalcedon did giue priuiledges to the Patriarke of Constantinople equall with the Church of Rome Answeare The Fathers of Chalcedon in absence of the Popes Legates of the Patriarke of Alexandria and of all the Bishopes of Aegypt at the suggestion of Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople renewed the decree of the 150. Fathers made in the first generall Councell of that City which was that the B. of Constantinople shold haue the second place of honor after the B. of Rome And to this decree was added that he should haue equall priuiledges
of the Canons but iustly deposed him from the Episcopall See of this Citty Loe here the first sentence absolutely finished by Agapet before his death And then speaking of the second sentence they adde (m) Ibid. Afterwards the Bishops of Palestine assembled in this Citty and others of the East and deputies of others and we did againe present petitions touching Anthymus and the other heretikes and demanded that Anthymus should certify his beliefe by writ to the See Apostolike and should purge himselfe from all hereticall errors in this case returne to the Church of Trebizond or if he would not do it that he should be finally condemned and deposed from all Sacerdotall dignity and action And a litle after (n) Ibid. These our iust requests the same most holy personage Agapet preuenting and seeing that Anthymus had fayled to appeare condemned him with the aforesaid heretikes and despoiled him of all office and dignity Sacerdotall and of all title Orthodoxall euen till the pennance of his errors The same is declared by all the Fathers of that Councell who in their sentence pronounced against Anthymus speaking of his first deposition say (o) Act. 4. The Blessed Pope Agapet of most holy and happy memory setting with God his hand to the sacred Canons deposed Anthymus from the See which belonged not to him pardoning those which had participated and communicated in the act And then passing to the second sentence they adde (p) Ibid. But because that euen in doctrine Anthymus was charged with many accusations and that many petitions were preferred against him by diuers reuerend personages to the most religious Emperor and the most blessed Pope the same most blessed Pope after much paine taken with a Fatherly care to regaine his soule c. pronounced a sentence in writing against him full of Clemency and seemly holynesse granting him tyme of repentance and ordayned that vntill he had changed his opinion and satisfyed the doctrines canonically defined by the Fathers be should neither haue the title of a Catholike nor of a Priest This sheweth that the Councell intermedled not at all with the first sentence of Agapet by which Anthymus was deposed from the See of Constantinople but because this second sentence of his deposition from the See of Trebizond was not absolute but left depending and subiect to reuocation if he should appeare and purge himselfe from heresy the Councell taking the cause where the Pope left it and according to the order giuen by him cited Anthymus thrice to appeare and because he appeared not executed the Popes sentence on him deposing him from the Bishopricke of Trebizond and depriuing him of the title of a Priest and the name of a Catholike We say they (q) Act. 4. in sentent cont Anthym following those things which haue bene rightly examined by the most blessed Pope ordayne that he as an vnprofitable and rotten member be cast out of the body of the holy Churches of God and depriued of the Bishopricke of Trebizond and depriued of all sacred dignity and action and according to the sentence of the most holy Pope stript euen of the name of a Catholike Who now seeth not how ignorantly and vntruly you haue said (r) Pag. 122. that The cause of Anthymus which the Pope had condemned was afterwards ventilated in the Councell of Constantinople For those Fathers neither questioned nor any way examined either the first or the second sentence of the Pope against Anthymus but assembled themselues to put in execution the sentence which Agapet had pronounced and being preuented by death could not see executed All which is so farre from making against the iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the Bishops of the East that it is a strong proofe therof And that it may better appeare how vnaduised you are to vrge this history against the authority of the Roman Church it is to be noted that Anthymus an Eutychian heretike not contenting himselfe with his owne Bishopricke of Trebizond by the fauor of Iustinian who as yet knew not that he was an heretike and chiefly by the craft of Theodora the Empresse an Eutychian and for that cause a great fauorer of Anthymus intruded himselfe to the See of Constantinople But Agapet Pope coÌ„ming thither deposed him and with his owne hands ordayned Menas in his place which was an admirable effect of the power of S. Peter in his Successor for at that tyme Constantinople was the seate of Iustinian and the Head of the Empire wheras Rome was oppressed and made a slaue vnder the tiranny of Gothes a barbarous and Arian people The Church of Constantinople was most florishing and glorious and that of Rome greatly depressed and afflicted Iustinian the Emperor waâ— vâ—ctorious and triumphant and contrarily the Pope brought to such straytes that Theodat an Arian King of the Gothes threatned to ruinate the Roman Church vnlesse he would goe to Constantinople solicite the Emperor for peace and procure him to call his armies out oâ— Italy which vâ—â—â—ge therfore Agapet could not refuse though he were so poore that for the performance therof he was inforced to pawne the sacred Vessells of his Church wheras on the other side Anthymus being exalted by the Emperor and Empresse from the Bishoptick of Trebâ—zond to the Patriarkeship of Constantinople was very powrefull in meanes and highly fouored by them both And yet neuerthelesse and that the Empresse threatned Agapet if he deposed Anthymus and promised him great rewards if he would leaue him in the See of Constantinople the holy Pope soon after his ariuall being a stranger and without support deposed him casting him out of that See euen in the very Imperiall Citty in the presence of the Emperor that fauoured him and excommunicated Theodora the Empresse that obstinatly maintained him and with his owne hands ordained Menas a Priest of Constantinople in his place and pardoned Peter Patriarke of Hierusalem and other Bishops of the East that had communicated with him All this is accordingly reported by Marcellinus Comes (s) In Chron. Liberatus (t) Breu. c. 12. Victor of Tunes (u) In Chron. edit per Ios Scal. ad calc Chron. Euseb and Iustinian himselfe (x) Nou. 42. and is so cleare an euidence for the supreme authority of the B. of Rome that it admitteth no colour of answeare SECT III. Of the matter treated in the fifth generall Councell THe matter disputed in this Councell was about certaine writings of Theodorus Mopsuestinus Ibas and Theodoret commonly called Tria capitula The three Chapters Before the Councell Vigilius Pope with the Bishops of the West defended the Three Chapters which the Easterne Bishops opposed and what both of them did was vpon pious considerations in defence of the Councell of Chalcedon The Bishops of the East assembled in a Councell at Constantinople condemned the Three Chapters But Vigilius knowing that the Westerne Bishops stood in opposition to their sentence refused to confirme it hoping by that
These Syr are not Eusebius his words but yours He sayth that they did earnestly exhort Victor to peace to a diligent care of charity towards his neighbours and bitterly reproued him as prouiding vnprofitably for the good of the Church So indeed Eusebius sayth according to the translation of Ruffinus And both of them being Heretikes shew their malice against the See Apostolike in saying that other Bishops did bitterly reproue Victor for comming to giue an example of this bitternesse they bring for their paterne the wordes of S. Irenaeus in all which there is not one bitter word but a gentle remonstrance full of submission to the person of Victor and to the authority of his See for he sayth not that Victor could not but that he should not haue cut off from the body of the Church so many prouinces for so small a cause which is not to argue him of want of power but for vsing his power indiscreetly Irenaeus sayth Eusebius (r) L. 5. hist c. 24. did fitly exhort Pope Victor that he would not vtterly cut off so many Churches from the body of the vniuersall Church of Christ. And wheras you (s) Pag. 132. traduce Christopherson our learned Bishop of Chichester for this translation of Eusebius it is a cauill sprung out of your ignorance for the Greeke verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Eusebius vseth fignifieth to cut off from the whole masse or body and so it is proued out of Ruffinus who translateth thus Irenaus reproued Victor for not doing well in cutting off from the vnity of the body so many and so great Churches And so likewise translateth your learned Protestant-brother Ioannes Iacobus Grynaeus in his Basilean edition of Eusebius And in the same manner translateth Nicephorus (t) L. 4. c. 38. all of them as well skilled in Greeke as your selfe to say no more And indeed how could Irenaeus reproue Victor for exceeding the limits of his power he that crieth out (u) L. 3. c. 3. To the Roman Church all Churches and all the faythfull from all places must necessarily haue recourse by reason of her more powerfull principality Wherfore it was not want of Power that Irenaeus reproued in Victor but indiscreet vsing of his power But that euen in this he was instaken and that Victor failed not euen in point of prudence nor vsed ouer-much rigor appeareth in this that hereby he repressed the Heresy of Blastus by which many were seduced as also because the famous Councell of Nice first many others afterwards confirmed his sentence and condemned the doctrine and practise of Blastus the Asians in this point in so much that all which since that tyme haue persisted in the contrary custome haue bene accounted Heretikes and vnder the name of Quartadecimani registred for such by the Fathers that haue made catalogues of heretikes That the Nicen Councell had iust cause to condemne this Quartadeciman error you dare not deny but you deny the same of Pope Victor yeld a disparity in these words (x) Pag. 132. Be it knowne vnto you that the decree of the Nicen Councell which ordayned that Easter should be kept vpon the Lords day maketh nothing for the Act of Victor his excommunicating the Asian Bishops because as that Councell was celebrated 200. yeares after so had it far more iust and necessary cause to make such a decree by reason of the heresy of Blastus who at that tyme defended an indispensable necessity of obseruing the Iewish ceremonial law The cause then for which you approue the decree of the Nicen CouÌ„cell and condemne that of Victor in the same cause is by reason of the heresy of Blastus who say you at that tyme of the Nicen Councell defended an indispensable necessity of obseruing the Iewish ceremoniall law which wordes present vnto vs an excellent testimony of your ignorance in ecclesiasticall history for Blastus liued not at the tyme of the Nicen Councell as you affirme but 130. yeares before in the very tyme of Victor Pope and of S. Irenaeus who writ against him as S. Hierome testifieth (y) L. de Scriptor And so likewise did Tertullian at the same tyme saying (z) De praescrip c. 53. Blastus seeketh couertly to bring in Iudaisine for he teacheth that Easter is not to be kept otherwise then according to the law of Moyses And with them agreeth Eusebius reporting (a) L. 5. bist c. 14. that Blastus begun to preach and diuulge his heresy in the tyme of Victor Pope Wherfore you saying that Blastus liued not in the time of Victor but of the Nicen Councell which was more then 100. yeares after present vs ignorantly with falshood insteed of truth in lieu of impugning the fact of Victor against your will confirme the same And by the way I will not omit to aduertise the reader of three things The first is that wheras you say (b) Pag. 132. The Nicen Councell was 200. yeares after Pope Victor excommunicated the Asians you cannot be excused from another ignorant mistake for it was not much aboue 120. yeares after that tyme the sentence of Victor being in the yeare 198. and the Councell of Nice the yeare 325. The second is that the sentence of Victor being ratified and confirmed and contrarily the Iewish custome of the Asians anathematized by the three first generall Councels of Nice Constantinople (c) Ca. 7. and Ephesus (d) P. â— act 6 as also by the second of Antioch (e) Ca. 1. the first of Arles (f) Ca. 1. and that Laodicea (g) Ca. 7. and they that obeyed not the sentence of Victor registred for heretikes by Philastrius (h) In catal Haer. S. Epiphanius (i) Haer. 50. S. Augustine (k) L. de Haeres haer 29. Theodoret (l) Haeret. fab l. 3. cap. 5. S. Damascen (m) Haeres 50. and Nicephorus (n) L. 4. c. 36.37.38 you neuerthelesse blush not to approue that hereticall custome and to say (o) Pag. 157. that the Britans and Scots in obseruing it some hundreds of yeares after it was thus condemned did much more orthodoxally then the Roman Church which sheweth that any custome so it be contrary to the practise of the Roman Church is to you Orthodoxall though in it selfe it be damnable and anathematized as hereticall by neuer so many Councells and Fathers as this Asian custome obserued by the Brittans and Scots was 3. And from the same spirit proceedeth your saying (p) Pag. 131. that Pope Victor was the Schismatâ—ke that troubled the peace of the Church and not the Asian Bishops since they for their obstinacy in defending the Iewish custome haue bene by all orthodox Fathers and Councels condemned as heretikes and contrarily Pope Victor euen as M. Whit gift your brother acknowledgeth (q) In his Defence pag. 5â—0 was a godly Bishop and Martyr and the Church at that tyme in great purity as not being long after the
appeares yet further in this that S. Iohn Chrysostome who was then Archbishop of Constantinople and fauored Flanianus as hauing a litle before bene a Priest of his beseeched Theophilus (t) L. 8. c. 3. to labor with him and helpe him to make the B. of Rome propitious to Flauianus and to this end by mutuall consent of both were chosen as Legates to be sent to Rome Acacius B of Beroea Isidore Priest And the same is confirmed by Sociates (u) L. 5. c. 25. Theophilus sayth he sending the Priest Isidore appeased Damasus that was offended and represented to him that it was profitable for the concord of the Church to parson the fault of Plauianus and so the Communion was restered to him Finally notwithstanding that the Emperor fauoured Flauianus and tooke vpon him to plead his cause in iudgment at Rome yet he neuer was receaued as Patriarke of Antioch nor his Legates admitted vntill the Pope at the intreary of so great personages had pardoned his fault and confirmed him in that See This is the true history of Flauianus which you haue singled out as an especiall example of retorsion against Bellarmine to proue the Popes no-iuridicall authority ouer the Patriarkes of Antioch but you performe it not for this example euidently sheweth the Popes authority exercised ouer the Easterne Churches many wayes as 1. In annulling the Confirmation of Flauianus made in the Councell of Constantinople 2. In calling those Bishops to Rome to put the cause in triall againe nor did they in their answeare except against his authority to call them but humbly acknowledging him to be their head and themselues to be his members excused their not coming for want of time and other reasons expressed in their Epistle 3. In calling not only the Westerne but also the Easterne Bishops to the Councell of Capua they obeying his command 4. By the Epistle of S. Ambrose wishing Theophilus to procure a confirmation of his sentence from the B. of Rome 5. By the intercession of Theophilus of S. Chrysostome and of the Emperor Theodosius himselfe made to the Pope to pardon Flauianus his fault and to confirme him in the Bishoprike of Antioch And 6. by the Legates which Flauianus himselfe in the end was faine to send to the Pope before he could be receaued as true Bishop of that See which he needed not to haue done if his confirmation had not depended on the Popes approbation All this being manifest out of Socrates and Sozomen whom Bellarmine citeth and also out of S. Ambrose impartiall relators of this cause you mention not any of them but fasten vpon the relation of Theodoret who being a Suffragan of the Patriarkship of Antioch and a creature to one of Flauianus his Successors was a great fauores of his person and hath reported his cause with more relation to fauor then to truth For first (x) L. 5 c. 23. he makes Flauianus absolute and lawfull Successor to Meletius and Paulinus an iniust pretender to that See wheras contrarywise Paulinus was the true Successor and Flauianus an inâ—â—â—der as being bound by oath not to permit himselfe nor any other to be ordained Bishop in place of Meletius but to let Paulinus enioy that dignity alone and peaceably whiles he liued 2. He mentioneth not this oath of Flauianus but signifieth that he came to the Bishoprike by a lawfull and Canonicall election without breach of any oath 3. To make good the cause of Flauianus against Euagrius he reporteth that Paulinus alone before his death ordained Euagrius contrary to the Lawes of the Church when as Socrates (y) L. 5. c. 15. and Sozomen (z) L. 7. c. 15. impartiall writers testify that Euagrius was not ordained by Paulinus but by his Disciples after his yeath 4. Nor is he to be credited in his report that Theodosius hauing heard Flauianus at Constantinople did not presse him to goe to Rome but bid him returne home to Antioch and that coming himselfe afterwards to Rome he vndertooke to answeare for Flauianus and to plead his cause in iudgment And yet notwithstanding euen this relation of Theodoret partiall as it is proueth the iuridicall authority of the Pope ouer the Patriarkes or Antioch if it be taken entirely as it is set downe by him and not mangled as you report it for he sayth (a) L. 5. c. 23. The Bishops of Rome not only that admirable man Damasus but also after him Siricius and Anastasius successor to Siricius inueighed greatly against the Emperor telling him here pressed them that practised tyranny against himselfe but left vnpunished those that by tyranny sought to ouerthrow the lawes of Christ Wherupon as the Emperor before had commanded him so now againe he labored to compell him to goe to Rome to haue his cause iudged there This sheweth that the Emperor acknowledged no lesse obligation in the greatest Patriarkes to obey the Pope then in the subiects of the Empire to obey the Emperor and that such Bishops as shew themselues disobedient to him violate the Lawes of Christ and deserue no lesse punishment then subiects that rebell against their Prince Againe The Emperor sayth Theodoret (b) Ibid. comming long after that tyme to Rome and being blamed againe by the Bishops for not repressing the tyranny of Flauianus said he would take vpon himselfe the person of Flauianus and pleade his cause in iudgment which last clause you in your relation of Theodorets words omit because it sheweth that the iudgment of Flauianus his cause belonged to the Court of Rome for the pleading of causes in iudgment is only before them that haue authority to iudge Finally though Theodoret relate partially this story of Flauianus yet that he intended not therby to deny the authority of the Pope ouer the Bishops of Antioch appeareth not only by what hath bene here proued to the contrary but also because in expresse words he professeth (c) In Ep. ad Kenat that the Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment ouer all the Churches of the world and therfore he being a Suffragan of the Patriarkeship of Antioch when he was deposed from his Bishoprike by the second Councell of Ephesus had not recourse to his owne Patriarke for redresse but appealed to Leo Pope and by him was restored He likewise knew that Iohn Patriarke of the same See had bene deposed by Celestine Pope (d) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 2. and Maximus confirmed in that See by Leo the Great (e) See this Chap. sect 3. All this sheweth how vntruly you say (f) Pag. 296. fin that Damasus deposed not Flauianus nor executed any act of iuridic all proceeding against him but that he was confirmed in his Bishoprike by the Emperor for Damasus annulled the sentence of the Councell of Constantinople that had confirmed him and cited both the Fathers of that Councell and him to appeare at Rome to haue his cause tried there and therupon the Emperor once and twice vrged him
the iudgment of a Councell for in case of an appeale two things are necessary the first is to iudge whether the cause be lawfull if it be to admit of the appeale to annull the sentence pronounced against the Appellant and restore the cause to the same state in which it was before his condemnation This Innocentius performed in the cause of Chrysostome He admitted his appeale he absolued him he annulled the Councell that condemned him he excommunicated the Emperor and the Empresse by whose procurement he had bene condemned and vpon their repentance absolued them All this he did without a Councell shewing that he acknowledged not insufficiency in himselfe nor thought the only remedy to be in a Councell The second thing required in case of an Appeale is to proceed to a new iudgment naming Iudges either of Bishops of the adioyning Prouinces or els by sending Legates from Rome with authority to iudge the cause together with the Bishops of the Prouinces adioining or if the weight of the cause require it to call a general Councell in which it may be determined with satisfaction of the whole Church as the Councell of Nice hath prescribed (a) Leo Ep. 25. This also was exactly performed by Innocentius Pope in the appeale of Chrysostome Innocent sayth Palladius (b) In vit Chrysost hauing receaued both parties into his Communion determined that the iudgment of Theophilus should be abrogated and annulled saying They should hold another Synod irreprouable of the Prelates of the West and East This was Innocentius his desire which as Sozomen reporteth he proposed by fiue Bishops (c) L. 8. c. 28. and two Priests of the Roman Church to Honorius and Arcadius wishing them to appoint a time and place for the Councell but could not effect it not for want of Ecclesiasticall authority to call the Bishops as you misinterpret but because as Sozomen declareth (d) Ibid. the enemies of Chrysostome opposed it being supported by the temporall power of Arcadius and Eudoxia without whose consent a Councell could not be held the cities in which it should be held being subiect to them and at their command Wherfore Innocentius did not acknowledge any Ecclesiasticall authority in the Emperor to call a Councell as you comment but only requested him as being Lord of the Empire to appoint a time and place when and where in some City of his the Councell might be held which he by his spirituall power intended to call It resteth therfore that whatsoeuer you haue obiected out of this history of Chrysostome against the Popes authority is nothing but vntruthes and ignorant mistakes among which I will score vp one other which is that in this matter of Appeales to Rome you say (e) Pag. 307. m. both your Cardinalls Baronius and Bellarmine giue for instance the example of Chrysostome B. of Antioch Those Cardinalls were not so ignorant as to call Chrysostome B. of Antioch that 's your mistake fathered on them He was a Priest of the Church of Antioch and after the death of Nectarius Patriarke of Constantinople by a Councell of Bishops chosen Patriarke of that Imperiall City and by meanes of the Emperor Arcadius brought from Antioch thither and there consecrated Bishop SECT VII That Flauianus appealed to Leo Pope as to an absolute Iudge AN other example of appealing to Rome is of Flauianus to which you answere two things shewing ignorance in the one and falshood in the other Ignorance in saying (f) Pag. 308. fin 309. iuit that of this same Flauianus you haue said inough already You haue indeed already spoken of Flauianus inough to the discredit of your cause (g) Pag. 296.297 but not of this same Flauianus for Flauianus of which there you spake was B. of Antioch and liued in tyme of Damasus Pope But Flauianus of which now you speake was B. of Constantinople and liued in time of Leo the Great 70. yeares after the other Is it not then too great a mistake in a man that professeth so much learning to shift of what we alleage in proofe of Appeales from the example of the one by what you haue said of the other especially their cases being farre different To ignorance you adde falshood saying (h) Pag. 308. fin It will be a hard matter for you out of the example of Flauianus to collect a right of appeale to the Pope from his appeale to a Synod To proue that Flauianus appealed not to the Pope but to a Synod you rehearse in your margen a Latin sentence of Leo writing to Theodosius the Empetor which you English not because Leo sayth not that Flauianus appealed to a Synod that 's your false comment but expresly affirmeth that he put vp a petition of Appeale to his Legates which was not to appeale to them but to him whose person the Legates represented Yea the very words of Leo which you recite directly testify that he which required a Councell was not Flauianus but Leo himselfe yielding for his reason the Nicen Canons which command that after the putting in of appeale in causes of such weight the calling of a generall Councell is necessary Moreouer that Flauianus appealed and not to a Synod but to the Pope is a truth declared not only by the words of Leo but testified also by other writers Flauianus sayth Liberatus (i) Cap. 1â— appealed to the Apostolick See by petition presented to his Legates And the Emperor Valentinian the third writing to Theodosius the second Emperor of the East (k) In eppraeambul Concil Châ—lced We ought in our dayes to preserue to the Blessed Apostle Peter the dignity of reuerence proper to him inuiolate that the Blessed Bishop of the City of Rome to whom antiquity hath yeilded the Priestood ouer all may haue way to iudge of Bishops and of fayth for therfore Flauianus B. of Constantinople following the custome of Councells hath appealed to him by petition in the contention moued concerning fayth And if you belieue not these witnesses belieue the Centurists who testify against you (l) Cent. 5. col 778. that somtimes Bishops condemned in Synods appealed to the See of Rome as did Flauianus in the Councell of Ephesus What testimonies more expresse then these Is it not manifest out of Liberatus out of Valentinian out of the Centurists yea and out of the very words of Leo which you produce for the contrary that Flauianus appealed not to a Synod but to him Who but Doctor Morton could deny so inuincible a truth And no lesse apparent it is that antiquity acknowledged in the Pope authority to iudge of Bishops and of fayth and that appeales vnto him were ordained by the ancient Councells for why els did Valentinian say to Theodosius his Father-in-Law that Flanianus appealed to the See Apostolike according to the custome of Councells SECT VIII Of Nilus equalling the B. of Constantinople with the Pope in his right of Appeales NIlus an hereticall Bishops of Thessalonica
S. Peter Head of the Apostles to the end that all being subiect to one occasion of schisme among them might be taken away This passage you alleaged out of S. Hierome in your laâ—e Sermon preached at Durham before his Maiesty (s) Pag. 42. to proue the necessity of Bishops against the Scots A Bishop then is necessary to appease the contentions that may happen among your Ministers But contentions and strifes may also arise among Bishops An Archbishop therfore is necessary to quiet them But they may likewise arise betweene Archbishops as they did betweene Theophilus Chrysostome Flauianus and Dioscorus Cyril and Nestorius who shall end them If you say a generall Councell who shall summon that Councell Not a temporall Prince for no one hath power ouer all nations from whence the Bishops are to be called besides that temporall Princes are often at variance among themselues And when a generall Councell is called what if the Bishops agree not or decline from the truth as in the Councel of Ariminum the second of Ephesus they did Who shall compose their differences and iudge their causes vnlesse some one Head of the whole Church be appointed by Christ whose iudgement is infallible and to whose censure all are bound to submit Wherfore the Puritans argument propounded by M. Cartwright (t) Second Reply part 1. pag. 58â— concludeth euidently against you that This point of keeping peace in the Church is one of those which requireth aswell a Pope ouer all Archbishops as one Archbishop ouer all Bishops in a Realme From this vnity of the Head the Church of Christ vniuersally spread ouer the earth takes her vnity Euen as there are sayth S. Cyprian (u) De vnit Eccles many beames of the sunne and one light many bowes of one tree and yet one strength founded in one roote and many brookes flowing from one fountaine a vnity therof conserued in the spring euen so the Church of our Lord casting forth her light displaieth her beames euery where throughout the world and yet her light is one she extends her bowes ouer the whole earth and spreads her flowing riuers farre and neere and yet there is one Head one beginning and one fruitfull and plentifull Mother And lest you might answeare that this one Head of the whole Church mentioned by S. Cyprian is none other but Christ he declareth himselfe saying (x) Ibid. Our Lord to manifest vnity hath constituted one chaire ordained by his authority that vnity should haue beginning from one And explicating who this one is he sayth (y) Ibid. Vpon Peter being one he buildeth his Church and to him commendeth his sheepe to be fed c. The primacy is giuen to Peter that the Church may be shewed to be one And therefore he cals the Chaire of Peter (z) Ep. 55. The principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity proceedeth S. Augustine (a) L. de pastor c. 13. Our Lord committed his sheepe to Peter to commend vnity in him There were many Apostles and to one it is sayd feede my sheepe S. Leo (b) Serm. 3. de assump sua Peter being one is chosen out of the whole world to be constitated ouer the vocation of all nations ouer all the Apostles and all the Fathers of the Church to the end that although there be many Priests and many Pastors in the people of God yet Peter may peculiarly gouerne them all whom Christ also principally ruleth And S. Bernard speaking to Eugenius Pope (c) L. 2. de consider Thou being one art Pastor not only of the sheepe but of all Pastors c. Christ committed all his sheep to one to commend vnity in one flock and in one shepheard Where there is vnity there is perfection If therfore Christ committed his whole flock to Peter being one if one Head among twelue Apostles were necessary to take away occasions of Schisme among them their number being but small how much more necessary was it that for the same cause the whole Church which by reason of the multitude of Bishops and people is more liable to schisme should be gouerned by one Head Who although he be a weake man Christ praying for him (d) Luc. 22.32 hath secured vs that his fayth shall not faile and to the end he may confirme all his brethren hath placed him (e) Aug. ep 166. in the chaire of Vnity in which euen ill men are enforced to speake good things And though he be but one yet he is assisted by other Bishops as his Coadiutors and they by inferion Pastors that so the Bishops watching ouer the inferior Pastors and the supreme Pastor ouer the Bishops the gouerment of the Church labor therof might be diuided among many and yet chiefly committed to one to whom the rest were to haue recourse as the Apostles had to Peter Among the most Blessed Apostles sayth S. Leo (f) Ep. 84. there was in the likenesse of honor a difference of power And although the election of them all was alike yet it was granted to one that he should be aboue the rest in authority from which modell the distinction of Bishops hath proceeded with great prouidence it hath bene ordained that all should not claime all things to themselues but that in seuerall Prouinces there should be seuerall Bishops whose sentence should hold the first ranck among their brethren and againe that others constituted in the greater cities should haue a more ample charge and that by them the gouerment of the vniuersall Church might flow to the seat of Peter and that none might euer dissent from their Head This was the doctrine of that renowned Father and the same hath bene the beliefe of all Orthodoxe Christians And you that oppose it by telling vs a tale of a wrens head placed vpon the sholders of a man shew your selfe not to vnderstand the things of God (g) Math. 16.13 but to measure them by your shallow capacity not considering that according to his promise the supreme Pastor to whom he hath committed the charge of his flock is gouerned by the holy Ghost in his consultations of fayth and that as without his assistance no multitude of Prelates is able to gouerne the whole Church so with his helpe one may performe it as experience teacheth But you obiect (h) Pag 350. 1. That we cannot haue certitude of any B. of Rome because his ordination dependeth vpon the intention of the Ordainer then which what can be more vncertaine This you had obiected before and haue receaued your answere (i) Chap. 5. sect 7. And S. Cyprian (k) L. 4. ep 9. hath told you that to raise such doubts is to doubt of the prouidence of God and to rebell against his ordination 2. You obiect (l) Pag. 350. Iohn the twelth wanting yeares and other conditions necessary for that dignity tooke possession of the Roman Church by intrusion and that therfore in his time the
aboue the little hills vnto which all nations shall flow (a) Isa 2.2 to a Tabernacle seated in the sunne (b) Psal 28.6 of which S. Augustine speaking sayth (c) In â—um Psal He placed his tabernacle in the sunne that is to say his Church in manifestation or open view not in a corner not such as is hidden as if it were couered c. In the sunne he placed his tabernacle what doest thou meane O Heretike to fly into darknesse To a light that is not hidden vnder a bushell but set vpon a candelstick Which if Protestants see not How sayth S. Augustine (d) Tract 2. in 1. Ep. Ioan. can I call them other then blinde that see not so great a mountaine and shut their eyes against the Lampe set vpon the candelstick But what meruaile for sayth he (e) L. 2â— coâ—â— Parm. c. 3. it is the condition of all heretikes not to see the thing which in the world is most cleare constituted in the light of all nations out of the vnity wherof whatsoeuer they do can no more warrant them from the wrath of God than the spiders web from the extremity of cold Finally we belieue with S. Augustine (f) Cont. lit Petil. l. 2. c. 104. that the Catholike Church hath this certaine marke that she cannot be hidden This is the doctrine and beliefe of all Catholikes Do you herein accord with vs Do you hold the Catholike Church to be alwaies visible and alwaies as conspicuous as a lampâ— vpon a Candelstick as a city vpon a mountaine as a tabernacle in the sunne Why then do you say that she was so many yeares latent and inuisible that she could not be shewad that she was vnknowne and vnheard of that she was no where externall and visible that she was wholly destroied With what modesty then can you say that Protestants hold not any greater inuisibility or rather obscurity of the Church Catholike then that which the Romanists are forced to confesse But in proofe of this Thesis and in opposition to the holy Scripture and S. Augustine you say to vs (g) Pag. 367. fin you regard not that the Church of Christ as it is somtime in lustre glorious as the sunne so againe it is according to the iudgement of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose somtimes as the moone which hath her increases and decreases Yes we regard it well and you ought to haue regarded that although S. Augustine compare the Church to the moone in this respect that her externall lustre is somtimes diminished by persecutions and her glory obscured by the ill liues of some of her children yet he frequently compareth her to the sunne and belieueth with the Prophet (h) Isa 60.29 that her sunne shall neuer set and her moone shall not be diminished and (i) Ep. 48. that when by scandalls her light is most obscured etiam tunc in suis fortissimis eminent euen then she is eminent in her most steedfast Champions and in them remaineth resplendent and glorious displaying beames of light ouer the whole earth So farre is S. Augustine from your absurd paradoxe of the inuisibility totall decay of the Church And in what sense S. Ambrose compareth her to the moone he declareth saying (k) L. 4. Hexam c. 2. The Church hath her times of persecution and of peace she seemeth to decay as the moone but decaieth not She may be shadowed she cannot perish because she is diminished by the fall of some in persecutions to the end she may be filled with the confessions of Martyrs and that being illustrated with trophies of the bloud shed for Christ she may diffuse greater light of her deuotion and fayth throughout the whole world If Costerus Castro Lindanus and Stapleton affirme that the Arian heresy in a short time infected almost all the Churches of the world so haue Lutheranisme Caluinianisme Zuing lianisme with other new Sects sprung from them in these later times infected many prouinces of Europe But therfore is the Catholike Church in those Prouinces inuisible How then do you see Catholikes to persecute them to imprison them And euen so much more when the Arian heresy was in the greatest ruffe the Catholike Church was euery where still eminently visible as that very passage of Liberius proueth which here you produce for the contrary for Constantius the Arian Emperor hauing by threats drawne many Bishops especially of the East to subscribe to the condemnation of Athanasius and as Theodoret out of his Apology reporteth (l) L. 2. histor c. 15. the rest that refused to subscribe either concealing themselues for feare or being sent into banishment he called Liberius vnto him and vrged him not to communicate with Athanasius saying he was condemned by the whole world and defended by none but by him Liberius answeared (m) Theod. l. 2. hist. c. 16. Esto quod solus sim c. Be it that I am alone the cause of the fayth is not therfore the worse for there was a time when there were but three Children to resist the Kings commandment These three Children were brought by Nabuchodosor out of Iury into Babylon As then there were none in Babylon to defend Gods cause but only those three so sayth Liberius and out of him Salmeron here obiected by you be it that I am now left here alone to desend the cause of Athanasius the cause of the fayth is not therfore the worse This you bring to proue that the Church was then or may somtimes be brought to so low an ebbe that there be but three yea only one Orthodoxe man remaining But it is an ignorant mistake for albeit there were then in Babylon three only Children to resist Nabuchodonosor yet in Iury there was remaining a numerous Church of Orthodoxe people And so likewise though there was then no other Bishop present to withstand Constantius yet there were in the Church of God at that time many Catholike Bishops renowned for their learning and constancy and diuers of them then actually in banishment whose restitution to their Churches Liberius in that very Dialogue often demanded of Constantius And who knoweth not that beside many Catholike Bishops reckoned by S. Athanasius (n) Apud Theod. l. 2. hist. c. 14.15.16 there liued at the same time other most eminent Prelates and Doctors as Saint Hilary Pacianus Didymus Titus Bostrensis S. Cyrill of Hierusalem Optatus Eusebius Vercellensis S. Ephrem S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Epiphanius S. Basil S. Gregory Nyssen S. Ambrose and many others And as there were many Catholike Pastors so were there Catholike people gouerned by them Yea who knoweth not that both the Roman and all the Westerne Church at that time was full of Orthodoxe Pastors people in so much that after the Roman MatroÌ„s by aduice of their Husbands (o) Theod. ibid. c. 17. had presented themselues before Constantius and obteyned Liberius his returne from exile the Bishops of the East sent Legates vnto