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
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
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
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
which he built it on his person Euen as when we say The valor of a Captaine got the victory we say it not to signify that his valor in abstracto got the victory without his person but to expresse the meanes wherby he got it And in like manner when S. Hierome and S. Ambrose (g) Ep. 61. Ad Pamma aduers error Ioâ—n Hierosol S. Ambros l. de fide resurrect said Not Peter but his fayth walked vpon the waters it was not to deny that his person truly and formally walked on them but to declare that the cause which made him walke on them was not the naturall vertue or actiuity of his body but the fayth he had giuen to the words of Christ And so likewise it is in our case for as these two propositions The fayth of Peter walked on the waters and Peter walked on the waters are both true but in a different sense for the fayth of Peter walked on them causally as being the cause why Peter walked and the person of Peter walked on them truly properly and formally So likewise are these two both iointly true though in a different sense The Church is built vpon the person of Peter and The Church is built on the fayth or confession of Peter because the primacy of Peters fayth confession was the cause which moued Christ to choose Peter for the fouÌ„dation of his Church rather then any of the other Apostles to that end he gaue him the name and solidity of a Rock that the gates of hell might neuer preuaile against the Church built on him In like manner when S. Augustine and other expositors teach that Christ is the Rock or foundation on which the Church is built their exposition differeth not from the former in substance but only in manner of speach for as Salmeron (h) Tom. 4. part 3. Tract 2. and Suarez (i) Defens fid l. 3. c. 11. n. 11. haue well obserued their meaning cannot be that the Rock on which Christ promiseth to build his Church for the future is his owne person formally considered as in himselfe both because on him it was already built from the tyme of his incarnation as also because he speaketh not to himselfe but to Peter saying Thou art Peter c. And therefore as when in the words immediatly preceding he called Peter by his owne name Simon the Sonne of Iohn he spake to Peter in particular so likewise he did when immediatly he added and I say to thee that thou art Peter that is a Rock and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And the same is yet made more euident by other profes which Bellarmine (k) L. 1 de Pont. c. 10. §. Primo pronomen alleageth Wherfore the sense is that Christ promiseth to build his Church on himselfe obiectiuely that is to say as confessed by Peter which exposition differeth not from the former and is expressly deliuered by S. Ambrose (l) In c. 3.1 ad Cor. in these words The true and approued sense is that the Church is built by God vpon Christ but yet as confessed by Peter and not by any other which is as if it were said vpon thee confessing Christ and vpon the confession which Peter made of Christ or vpon Christ confessed by Peter So S. Ambrose and so also S. Augustine saying (m) L. 1. Retract c. 21. Afterwards I expounded thus these words of our Lord Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church that it should be vnderstood to be built vpon him whom Peter confessed saying thou art Christ c. And that by this exposition S. Augustine intendeth not to deny the Rock meant by Christ in those words to be S. Peter is a truth that may not be denyed both because in that very place he sayth that This sense is celebrated by many in the verses of S. Ambrose saying The Cock crowing the Rock of the Church washed out his offence as also because he there affirmeth that in other places of his workes he had expounded those words not of Christ but of Peter as the rest of the Fathers do which exposition he recalleth not but leaueth to the readers discretion to choose which of the two he liketh best Let the reader chose sayth he (n) Ibid. which of these two senses is the more probable From whence it must needes follow that albeit he doubted whether of those two senses agreeth best to the words of Christ in that place yet of the truth to the thing it selfe to wit that Peter is the Rock on which Christ built his Church he neuer doubted If he had thought that to be a false sense he had done very absurdly in not recalling it but leauing to the readers choyce to follow eyther that or the other for it had bene to leaue it in his choyce to follow a true sense or a false an orthodoxe verity or an hereticall error which though you do yet none but such as you will presume S. Augustine to haue done By this it appeares that all those testimonies of Fathers Popes and other authors which you to make a florish heap vp in the foure first Sections of your fourth Chapter to proue that the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church is not Peter but the Confession of Peter or Christ for either of both will serue your turne so that Peter be excluded are impertinently alleaged for the meaning of them is that the Church is not built vpon Peter meerely as he was a weake man and abstracting from his confession of Christ but vpon him as confessing Christ and for his confession and in reward therof And so likewise it is built vpon Christ not excluding Peters confession but vpon him as confessed by Peter All which is euident out of those very Fathers and expositors which you produce for the contrary For they so fully and so vnanswerably auouch Peter to be the Rock on which Christ built his Church and you so certainly know it to be true that much against your will you are inforced vpon the rack of truth to confesse so much though you do it mincingly saying (o) Pag 42. We may not dissemble thus much that some Fathers doe expound by Rock Peter You should haue said All Fathers and all Councels which treat of that subiect and all Catholike expositors And I must intreat the reader here in prudence to consider how vnaduisedly you alleage Catholike approued authors against this truth which no vnderstanding Protestant will in his iudgment beleeue that any of them euer denyed it being a mayne and euen the greatest point of difference betweene vs and you and which being decided the rest would easily follow Wherfore it caÌ„not be but that you wrong the Catholike authors which you cite in fauor of your doctrine and the like you do to the ancient Fathers To examine euery particular were an endlesse labour for your falsifications for the most part consist
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
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
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
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
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
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
the Roman eares spare the fayth which was praysed by the voyce of the Apostle He declared his iudgment (y) Ep. 8. when aduising Demotrias to auoyd the cruell tempest of Heresy which rising out of the Easterne parts at that tyme when Anastasius of happy and holy memory goaâ—â—ned the Roman Church attempted to pollute and corrupt the sincerity of that fayth which was commended by the mouth of the Apostle he prescribeth her this rule that the keep fast the fayth of S. Innocentius sonne and Successor to Anastasius in the Apostolicall Chayre He declared his iudgment when he said (z) Proom lib. 2. Comment ad Galat The fayth of the people of Rome is praysed Where is there so great conâ—â—â—rse to Churches and to Martyrs sepulchers Where soundeth Amen like thunder from He euen c. Not that the Romans haue any other fayth then the rest of the Christian Churches but that there is in them more deuotion and simplicity of fayth He declared his iudgment when he said to Marcella (a) Ep. 17. In Rome is the holy Church there are the trophies of the Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the fayth celebrated by the Apostle and gentility trodden vnder foot the Christian name daily aduancing it selfe on high He declared his iudgment when he said (b) Ep. 16. that Peter Patriarke of Alexandria persecuted by the Arians sted to Rome as to the safest hauen of communion These testimonies of S. Hierome declare his iudgment of the Roman Church against which you obiect (c) Pag. 91. that he reproued an ill custome not of the Pope or Church of Rome but of the Deacons of that Church who though few in number yet growing proud in regard they had the treasure of the Church in their custody contrary to the ancient practise of that Church and of all other which was that Priests fitting with the Bishop Deacons should stand they of Rome began to presume by little and little to fit This custome S. Hierome reprehended because it proceeded from pride and wanted authority for sayth he if authority be required greater is the authority of the world then of a Citty which is true in things of this nature that nether concerne fayth nor the Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for who feeth not that a custome no way concerning sayth or iurisdiction but discipline and warranted by all other Churches of the would was of greater authority then a contrary custome brought in by a few Deacons of the Roman Church without any warrant of the Bishop of Rome And who seeth not that these words of S. Hierome are impertinently brought against the Roman sayth or the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome for in them he neither speaketh against the Roman fayth nor maketh any comparison betwene the Church of Rome the rest of the world in point of iurisdiction but only betweene the authority of all the other Churches of the world and the authority of a few Deacons of the Roman Church in a custome no way repugnant to fayth nor touching the iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome And finally who seeth not that your intention is to delude and deceaue your readers For he that hath so many and so pregnant testimonies of S. Hierome in which he expresly declareth that the Roman fayth is the. Catholike fayth that it admitteth no delusions nor can be changed that the way to auoyd heresy is to hold fast the fayth of the Roman Church that we must remaine in her as being that Church which hath Succession from the Apostles that he is the safest port of communion that the Church of Christ is built vpon the Roman See and that he which is not in the communion of the Bishop of Rome gathereth not but scattereth that he is prophane and belongs not to Christ but to Antichrist He I say that hath so many and so forcible testimonies of S. Hierome yet comming to deliuer his iudgment concerning the Roman Church concealeth them all and obiecteth one only testimony wholly impertinent as you do what intention can he be thought to haue but to deceaue men in the most important affaire of their saluation But you reply (d) Pag. 91. This is that testimony of S. Hierome wherin the Fathers of the Councell of Basil did in a manner triumph in opposition to the Popes clayme How proue you this With a sentence of Aeneas Siluius O imposture For you know that the Councell of Basil was a Schismaticall Conuenticle moreouer you know that the words which you obiect are not of the Councell of Basil but of Aeneas Siluius and that he hath retracted them with the whole booke out of which you tooke them Are not then you a deceiptfull merchant to cosen your customers with such false wares Nor do I well see how you can be excused from contradiction for you say (e) Ibid. S. Hierome was a professed and deuout child of the Church of Rome when Rome was yet a true and naturall Mother and no Step-dame Ergo in S. Hieromes dayes the Church of Rome became a Step-dame which could not be otherwise then by falling into error How then is it true that as afterwards you grant (f) Pag. 17â— 19â— the Roman Church remained pure and free from error in fayth 600. yeares after Christ which was not in S. Hieromes tyme but 200. yeares after him SECT III. The iudgment of S. Gregory concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and his title of Vniuersall Bishop YOur scope here is to disproue the vniuersall authority of the Bishop of Rome by the iudgment of S. Gregory refusing and reprehending in Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople the title of Vniuersall Bishop as likewise did Pelagius and Leo Bishops of the same See And first you tell vs (g) Pag. 91. It can be no sufficient argument for concluding a Papall authority to obiect against you the testimonies of Popes in their owne cause It was necessary for you to premit this Caueat for howsoeuer you here pretend that S. Gregory S. Leo and Pelagius did not acknowledge in themselues any superiority or iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church your guilty conscience tels you the contrary and therfore you slight their testimonies as of men partiall and that speake in their owne cause And the like you do afterwards againe with reproachfull and contumelious words for wheras Bellarmine (h) L. 2. de Pont. c. 21. in profe of the ancient practise of appealing to the Pope produceth the testimonies of S. Leo and S. Gregory you (i) Pag. 30â— 304 reiect them as of partiall witnesses and compare them to Adonias who traiterously sought to set the crown on his owne head which is in effect to say that as Adonias traiterously assumed to himselfe the dignity of a King not due vnto him so did these Popes vnlawfully challenge to themselues the dignity of Pastors and Gouernors of
a bloudy Tyrant So you who by calling Phocas a bloudy Tyrant would diminish the dignity of the Roman See as though that See had not had for her protectors and deuoted Children the most godly and religious Emperours of the Christian world (u) Of this see Coccius to 1. l. 7. art 8. Yea by how much more pious they haue bene so much the more deuoted haue they bene to the Chayre of S. Peter And although Phocas his cruelty be not excusable yet he was not so vngodly but that as he preserued the right of Roman Church so he performed other workes of Christian piety Such were his clensing Rome from all filth of Idolatry and his causing that famous Temple of Pantheon which was built in honor of all the heathenish Gods to be dedicated to Christ in honor of his blessed Mother and all the Martyrs 3. You cauill at Bellarmine (y) Pag. 96. without cause for saying that the Bishop of Constantinople by clayming the title of Vniuersall Bishop sought to make himselfe sole Bishop and the rest only his Vicars for Bellarmine sayth nothing but out of the expresse words of Saint Gregory himselfe (z) L. 4. ep 34. 36. â—â— 7. ep 70. Nor is it against this that diuers Bishops of the East which still held and exercised their ancient iurisdiction gaue to the Patriarke of Constantinople the Name of Vniuersall for they did giue him the sole name without yelding to him any part of their Episcopall iurisdiction which therfore they still exercised as freely and fully as before he laid clayme to that title 4. Without and contrary to all truth you obiect S. Leo against the title of Vniuersall Bishop for he was not only so called by the Councell of Chalcedon as you haue heard but he himselfe also vsed that title (a) Ep. 54. as appeareth out of the Latin Volume of his Epistles and out of the Greeke Copy of the same annexed to the Councell of Chalcedon (b) So noteth Spondanus anno 451. n. 34. To which I adde that speaking of such as you are he sayth (c) Ep. 89. Whosoeuer denieth the Supreme Authority of the Roman Chayre cannot diminish the power therof but puffed vp with the spirit of pride plungeth himselfe headlong into hell 5. I must not omit to aduertise you that you abuse Binius (d) Pag. 9â— fathering on him certaine words in his Annotation vpon the third Action of the Councell of Chalcedon as taken out of Baronius which words Binius hath not nor doth he in that Annotation so much as once mention Baronius but sheweth out of S. Gregory that the name of Vniuersall Bishop was giuen to the Popes his predecessors in that Councell and by other Fathers after wards as also that Syxtus and Zephyrinus vsed the same title long before that tyme and finally that S. Leo writing to Martian the Emperor (e) Ep. 54. stiled himselfe Episcopus Romanae vniuersalis Ecclesia Wherfore when S. Gregory sayth that his predecessors vsed not that title he only denieth that they vsed it in a solemne manner alwayes and in all their inscriptions as Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople did who witnes S. Gregory almost in euery lyne intitled himselfe Vniuersall Bishop SECT IV. S. Dionyse his iudgment concerning the Supremacy of the Roman Church CAsaubon say you (f) Pag. 100. spurs vs a necessary Question Why S. Dionyse the Areopagite professedly wryting of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy and gouerment was so vtterly silent in not mentioning the Vniuersall Visible Head of the Church reigning at Rome if at that tyme there had bene any such Monarchicall Head there Before I answer I must spur you a more necessary question why S. Dionyse professedly wryting of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy did not reckon secular Princes at least in generall whom you not only place in the Hierarchy of the Church but make Heads therof Now to Casaubons question I answeare that S. Dionise treateth not of any Church in particular nor of the Bishop of any particular See but of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy and orders in generall which he defineth thus (g) De Recles hierarch c. 1. Qui Hierarchiam dixit omnium simul sacrorum ordinum dispositionem dixit He that names a Hierarchy names the disposition or due ranking of all sacred orders And among the sacred orders he giues the first and chiefest place to Bishops The diuine order of Bishops sayth he (h) Ibid. c. 8. is the first and chiefest of those orders that see God From this number he excludeth not but includeth the Bishop of Rome as being the Head and Chiefe of all Bishops for as S. Thomas the Maister of Diuines defining a Hierarchy (i) 1. p. q. 108. art 1. corp sayth A Hierarchy is a holy Principality by which name of Principality two things are vnderstood namely the Prince himselfe and a multitude ordered vnder the Prince Who is this Prince in the Hierarchy of the Church but the Prince of the Apostles whom Christ made Pastor Gouernor of his flock and whom S. Dionyse did acknowledg for such (k) De diuin nomin c. 3. post med when speaking of the Apostles and Bishops vnder the name of Diuines he sayth Peter was present the most ancient and supreme top or Head of Diuines These passages of S. Dionyse Casaubon and you either out of ignorance could not find or if you could and did why do you conceale them SECT V. S. Ignatius his iudgment of the Roman Church CAsaubon and you with him obiect (l) Pag. 100. out of the Epistles of S. Ignatius that ancient Bishop of Antioch that he being frequent in setting forth the order Ecclesiasticall and dignity of Bishops forbeareth all mention of S. Peter or any Roman Pope What Ignatius his iudgment was of the great dignity of the Bishop and Church of Rome he himselfe declared when writing to the Romans he addressed his Epistle To the Church sanctified and illuminated in the will of God which hath done all things according to fayth and the loue of Iesus-Christ our God and Sauiour and which gouerneth in the region of the Romans worthy of God worthy of eminency worthy of memory worthy of blessednesse worthy of prayse founded in the loue and fayth of Christ hauing the name of Father c. Although this holy Martyr writ to the Trallians Magnesians Philippians Antiochians Ephesians Philadelphians and to those of Tharsis Smyrna and gaue great prayses vnto them yet he attributeth to the Roman Church as her peculiar prerogatiues that she is illuminated in the will of God that she is founded in the loue and fayth of Christ that she is of eminent dignity that she hath by reason of her Bishop the name of a Father which is to say that the rest as children are subiect to her and that she gouerneth in the region of the Romans the sense of which words cannot be that she gouerneth the Roman Dioces for no Church gouerneth
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
to place his See at Rome rather then in any other Citty was the dignity of Rome To the end sayth S. Leo (c) Serm. 1. de Apost Pet. Paul that the light of truth which was reuealed for the saluation of all nations might from the Head of the world be communicated more effectually to the whole body Of this cause the Fatherâ— of Chalcedon speake when they say (d) Act. 15. Rome got the Primacy because it was the chiefe seate of the Empire And both these causes are comprehended by the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian in their Law made a litle before the Councell of Chalcedon in these words (e) Nouel Theodos tit 24. Three things haue established the primacy of the See Apostolike the merit of S. Peter who is Prince of the Episcopall society the dignity of the City and the Synodicall authority 3. You obiect (f) Pag. 118. The Fathers of Chalcedon gaue priuiledges to the Patriarkes of Constantinople equall to the Church of Rome This we deny for in the Councell of Chalcedon there was no mention made of equal priuiledges this clause was afterwards added by Anatolius or by the Clerkes of Constantinople (g) See this proued aboue in this Chap. sect 4. and to this S. Gregory seemeth to relate when he sayth (h) L. 5. ep 14. The Councell of Chalcedon in one place hath bene falsified by the Grecians And the Fathes of Chalcedon neuer intended by this Canon to giue the Patriarkes of Constantinople any priuiledge of exemption from their obedience and subiection to the Pope but only to grant them precedency before the other Patriarkes of the East as hath bene proued (i) In this Chap. sect 4. And the same is manifest out of the writings of Leo Pope who though in his epistle to the Fathers of Chalcedon and in diuers others which he writ to the Emperor Martian to Pulcheria the Empresse to Anatolius himselfe and to diuers other Bishops of this subiect he speake against Anatolius for his ambitious attempt yet in none of them doth he say or insinuate that those Fathers gaue to Anatolius or that Anatolius himselfe euer aspired to equality of priuiledges with the B. of Rome but only reprehended him for wronging the Patriarkes of Alexandria and Antioch in procuring himselfe to be preserred before them The same is yet further proued because when Rome was fallen into the hands of the Gothes and Wandals the Patriarkes of Constantinople making vse of the tyme and setting this Canon on foote againe procured the Emperor Zeno to establish by a law that the Patriarke of CoÌ„stantinople shold haue the precedency before the other Patriarkes And the like they obtayned from Iustinian after the recouery of Rome when he ordayned (k) Nouel 131. that the Archbishop of Constantinople shold haue the second place after the holy See Apostolike and be preferred before all the other See Lastly the same is proued by the subiection which the Patriarkes of Constantinople acknowledged to the Pope after the Councell of Chalcedon and by the authority which he exercised ouer them for not long after that tyme when Acacius B. of Constantinople an enemy to the Councell of Chalcedon had fallen into the faction of heretikes the Churches of the Patriarkeship of Constantinople had recourse to Symmachus Pope as to their Pastor as Superior to their Patriarke Seeing your Children perish sayd they (l) Ep. Eccles Orient ad Symach in volum Orthodox impress Bafil in the preuarication of our Father Acacius delay not or rather to speake with the Prophet stumber not but make hast to deliuer vs. And when the same Acacius for his adhering to Peter Moggus an hereticall inuasor of the See of Alexandria was deposed by Felix Pope though he stood out as long as he liued contemning the Popes sentence sent vnto him to Constantinople yet the Emperor Iustine that succeeded Anastasius caused Felix his sentence to be executed on him after his death making his name to be razed out of the Records of the Church and from the recitall in the sacred mysteries Wee haue giuen order sayth Iustine to Hormisdas Pope (m) Epist. ad Hormisd that the Reuerend Church of Constantinople and many others accomplish your desire in razing out the names of those whom you haue commanded to be taken away from the sacred records And in conformity to this Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople writing to the same Hormisdas said (n) Epist ad Hormisd I anathematize Acacius somtime Bishop of this City and promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred mysteries the names of them that are excluded from the communion of the Catholike Church that is to say that agree not in all things with the See Apostolike And Theodorus Anagnostes reporteth (o) Ad calc hist. Eccles Theodor. ex edit Robert Stopha that when Anastasius the Emperor vrged Macedonius Patriarke of Constantinople to abrogate the Councell of Chalcedon he answeared he could not do it without a generall Councell in which the B. of Rome must be president And when Anthymus B. of Trebizond inuaded the See of Constantinople Agapetus Pope being arriued thither deposed him euen in the City of Constantinople it selfe and in the sight of Iustinian the Emperor and excommunicated the Empresse Theodora that protected him and with his owne hands ordained Menas in his place the truth of all which is auerred by Iustinian himselfe (p) Nouel 42 by Marcellinus Comes (q) In Chron. by Liberatus (r) Breuiar c. 12. and Victor of Tunes (s) In Chron. edit per Ioseph Scâ—lig And did not Menas Patriarke of Constantinople make open profession of obeying the See Apostolike in all thinges (t) In Conc. Constan sub Meâ— Act. 4. And when Iohn the first Pope of that name was arriued at Constantinople Iustine the Emperor inuiting him to sit in a seat by Epiphanius Patriarke of that City that they might seeme both to be of equall dignity Iohn refused to sit vntill according to the prerogatiue of his See a throne was prepared for him aboue Epiphanius (u) Nicoph l. 17. c. 9. which passing in the City of Constantinople it selfe and in Epiphanius his owne Church and that many yeares after this decree of the Councell of Chalcedon was made euidently sheweth that it neuer tooke effect since neither Epiphanius nor any of the other Patriarkes here named liuing after the Councell of Chalcedon claymed any right of Equall Priuiledges therby but all of them remained subiect to the Pope as before the Councell they had bene And that which purreth this out of al doubt is that albeit the Patriarkes of Constantinople at length obtained that precedency before the other Patriarkes of the East which in the Councells of Constantinople and Chalcedon they labored for yet neuerthelesse euen then they still acknowledged themselues subiect to the Pope witnesse S. Gregory who writing to Iohn B. of Syracusa sayth (x) L. 7. ep â—4 Who doubts but
the Canons of the holy Fathers to be violated by any rashnesse and that if any trusting in the power of their City shold offer to vsurpe any thing contrary to the dignity of his person they should represse them as iustice requireth Which in like manner Leo himselfe testified to Maximus Patriarke of Antioch (s) Ep. 62. If they say that the brethren which I send in my steed to the Synod haue done any thing more then what concernes fayth that shall be of no force because they were sent by the See Apostolike only to root out heresies and defend the fayth CHAP. XX. The fifth Councell Generall beliued the supreme Authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome SECT I. Doctor Mortons ignorance and contradictions concerning this Councell IN your discourse of the fifth Generall Councell contradictions ignorance vntruthes march by troopes for 1. (t) Pag. 122. here you suppose the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas Archbishop of that Citty to be the fifth generall and afterwards you directly affirme the same (u) Pag. 289. marg lit 0. when speaking of the Councell vnder Menas and alleaging the Synodicall relation made out of the Epistle of Pope Agapetus extant in the first action therof you call it Concilium secundum Constantinopolitanum quod erat quintum generale The second Councell of Constantinople which was the fifth generall And againe twice more (x) Pag. 347. lin 14. pa. 348. lin 11. you repeate that this Councell vnder Menas was a generall Councell And yet in another place contradicting your selfe you say no lesse expresly (y) Pag. 238. lin 11. that it was not a generall Councell It was then a generall Councell and it was not a generall Councell Reconcile these two eris mihi magnus Apollo 2. You acknowledge (z) Pag. 238. 347. that this Councell vnder Menas was held in the inter-regnum or vacancy between the death of Pope Agapetus and the election of his successor the yeare 536. and yet not without contradiction you proue out of Baronius and Binius (a) Pag. â—â—2 in t is sect 6. pag. 123. lit m. that the fifth generall Councell was held the yeare 553. which was neither in the vacancy after Agapetus his death nor in the tyme of Siluerius his successor but in the 14. yeare of Vigilius full 17. yeares after the other vnder Menas And as these two Councells differed in tyme so they did in matter for in that vnder Menas was handled the execution of the second sentence which Agapetus Pope before his death pronounced against Anthymus but in the fifth generall was discussed the cause of the Three Chapters Is it not then great ignorance in you to confound these two Councells the one being particular consisting of 50. Bishops only the other generall of more then 165. the one held vnder Menas the yeare 536 and the other vnder Vigilius Pope the yeare 553 and to frame Arguments out of them both as out of one and the same Councell 3. You say (b) Pag. 189. marg lit o. that the Councell vnder Menas was the second Councell of Constantinople and yet you had said before (c) Pag. 235. marg lit s. that it was the fifth Councell of Constantinople neither the one nor the other being true for betweene this and the first generall Councell of Constantinople there were held eleuen or twelue other Councells vnder diuers Patriarkes of that City as you may read in Baronius (d) Apud Spond Ind. verb. Constantinop Concil 4. To proue this Councell vnder Menas to be a generall Councell you alleage (e) Pag. 347. Binius who sayth directly the contrary to wit that it consisted of such Bishops only as were neere to Constantinople and some others then resident in the City all of them being but 50. in number whose names are expressed in the beginning of the first action And the same is testified by Baronius (f) Anno 536. and Bellarmine (g) L. 1. de Conc. c. 5. l. 2. de Pont. c. 13. by Zonaras (h) In vita Iustinian and Nicephorus (i) Lib. 17. c. 9. SECT II. Doctor Mortons ignorance further discouered and his falsifying of Binius COming to the relation of what passed in the fifth Generall Councell you say (*) Pag. 122. Anthimij causa ab Agapeto Papa condemnata Binius Tom. 2. p. 416. post in Synodo Constantinopol ventilata Idem Binius in Not. Conc. Constant. sub Menna This is an egregious falsification for Binius hath no such words and therfore your setting them downe englished in a different character as his is another false sleight that by fathering them on him you might ground on his authority the Argument which out of them immediatly you frame against the authority of the Pope saying (k) Ibid. This argueth the no-dominion of the Pope ouer that Councell which will take vpon them to examine that cause which the Pope before had condemned But these your words besides falshood containe excessiue ignorance for Agapetus pronounced two sentences of condemnation against Anthymus By the one he deposed him from the See of Constantinople by the other from the See of Trebizond In the former sentence the Councell had no hand for it was definitiue and absolutely perfected and put in execution Menas being ordeined in Anthymus his place by Agapetus his owne hands before his death But because Anthymus was not only an vsurper of the See of Constantinople but also guilty of heresy Agapetus being solicited by the Eastern Bishops ordained that wheras vpon the sentence of his deposition from the See of Constantinople his owne See of Trebizond had bene reserued vnto him if he did not cleare himselfe from the crime of heresy he should also be deposed from that See and withall excommunicated and depriued of all Sacerdotall title and of the very name of a Catholike But because Agapetus dyed before the tyme which he gaue Anthymus to purpe himselfe from the imputation of heresy Menas the Patriarke after his death assembled a Councell not to re-examine mine and ventilate the sentence of deposition which Agapetus pronounced against Anthymus as you ignorantly mistake but to put in execution the second sentence which he had begun but preuented by death could not finish All this is cleare out of the petition of the Regulars of Syria reported in the Councell it selfe when speaking of the first sentence of Agapetus they say (l) In Conc. sub Mena. Act. 1. God sent into this Citty Agapet truly Agapet that is truly beloued of God and man Pope of old Rome for the deposition of Anthymus and of the aforesayd heretikes as heretofore he sent great Peter to the Romans for the destruction of Simâ—n the Magician This reuerend person then knowing by the requests of many of ours the things iniustly attempted vpon the Churches and knowing them by sight would not so much as admit into his presence Anthymus transgressor
meanes like a prudent and solicitous Pastor to worke both partes to an accord and establish peace in the Church But finding the Emperor and the Easterne Bishops violent in the prosecution of their decree and that the Bishops of Venice and the regions adioyning as also those of Ireland following his opinion relying on his authority had condemned this Councell of Constantinople and that the Church therby was in danger to be rent in sunder with Schisme and on the other syde considering that the subiect of that Contention was no matter of fayth and neither the one part nor the other any way repugnant to the Councell of Chalcedon as S. Gregory hath noted (y) L. 3. ep 37. but a thing of it selfe indifferent he altered his opinion and yelded to confirme this decree purchasing to himselfe that commendation which S. Augustine (z) Ep. 162. giues to the most famous Gouernors of Gods people both in the old new Testament which is that They tolerate for the good of vnity that which they hate for the loue of equity and imitating the example of S. Leo the great who testifies of himselfe (a) Ep. 14. that for the loue of peace he yelded to confirme the ordination of Maximus B. of Antioch which Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople without any example against the Canons had presumptuously vsurped to himselfe Nor can Vigilius herein be argued of leuity for if he altered his mind he did it vpon iust causes for the auoyding of Schisme and following the example of S. Paul who hauing first giuen his voyce for the abolishing of circumcision (b) Act. 15.11 afterwards vpon iust cause circumcised Timothy (c) Act. 16.3 and yet againe reprehended Peter that by his dissimulation he induced the Gentiles to circumcision and other Iewish ceremonies (d) Gal. 2.11 14. You to proue the no-necessity of subiection to the Pope obiect the standing out of the Easterne Bishops against Vigilius (e) Pag 123. 124. But you might by the like Argument proue that subiects are not bound to obey their Prince because some of them stand out in rebellion against him And as litle to the purpose is your telling vs (f) Pag 123. fin that those Bishops condemned all them that defended the Three Chapters for contrarily we tell you that the Bishops of the West in their Councell at Aquileia condemned all those Bishops and their Councell at Constantinople and had more right to do it then the Easterne Bishops to condemne them for they did it in defence of the Popes authority whose opinion they followed Your vrging (g) Pag. 123. the persecution which Iustinian raised against Vigilius to bring him to confirme the decree of the Easterne Bishops maketh wholly against you for why did both he and the Bishops themselues vrge Vigilius so â—uch to confirme their decree but because they knew that no decree of any Councell can be of force vnlesse it be approued by the See Apostolike (h) See this proued aboue Chap. 17. sect 6. Finally the Popes authority 〈◊〉 effectually proued out of this Councell for as much as by vertue of Vigilius his confirmation it hath obtained the force of a lawfull Councell and deserued the title of the fifth generall wheras without his confirmation it would not haue bene receaued by the Church more then that of Ariminum or the second of Ephesus which the See Apostolike hath reiected And the same is confirmed by Eutichius Patriarke of Constantinople who though he prefided in this Councell yet acknowledged the right of presiding not to belong to himselfe but to Vigilius when inuiting him to the Councell he sayd (i) Ep. ad Vigil in quinta Syn. Collat. 1. Our desire is to haue the Three Chapters examined your Blessednesse presiding ouer vs. SECT IV. Doctor Mortons glosse vpon the Word Obedience TO conclude your discourse of the fifth generall Councell as vntruly ignorantly as you began you say (k) Pag. 124. Idle and vaine is your obiection out of that Synod from one word Obedience which they professed to the Catholike See by not discerning betwene a logicall and a morall obedience for they promised obedience to that See in all her orthodoxe and reasonable perswasions but not to her peremptory commands and conclusions for you may obey S. Augustine by subscribing to his iudgment without submitting to his iurisdiction So you where first you ignorantly make this profession of obedience to the Roman Church to be of the fiâ—â—h generall Councell and alleage Bellarmine for your author who expresly sayth that they are words of the Synod held vnder Menas before the fifth generall Councell 2. Your glosse vpon the word Obedience is idle and false for you wrest it to an improper signification I deny not but that the words of Obedience and Command may be taken improperly as if when your equall or inferior requests you to do a fauor for him or perswades you to your owne good you answeare I will obey your commands vnderstanding by his Commands his requests and persuasions But that the B. of Rome as being gouernor of the vniuersall Church hath true power and authority to Command according to the most first and proper signification of the word and that the greatest Bishops Councels haue acknowledged in themselues obligation to obey in the same sense hath bene already proued (d) Chap. 18. sect 1. False therfore is you glosse that this Councell acknowledged not in themselues obligation to obey the B. of Rome nor in him authority to command but only to persuade You defend an ill cause which vpon no other ground but only to excuse your disobedience to the See Apostolike inforceth you to wrest the words of the Councell to an improper signification And as your glosse vpon the word Obedience is false so is it repugnant euen to common sense for let a generall Councell be called of all the Orthodox Bishops in the world let them condemne an Arius an Eutyches or a Pelagius if your glosse may be allowed any of these heretikes or any other neuer so impious may refuse to submit himselfe and obey their decrees saying He will obey them in all their Orthodoxe and reasonable persuasions but not in their peremptory commands and conclusions and so obey them in nothing at all For what heretike will not say that the decrees of a generall Councell against his heresy are not Orthodoxe and reasonable persuasions but peremptory commands and conclusions Cold this euasion iustify Arius his disobedience or excuse him from heresy No and so neither can your glosse iustify your cause or satisfy any man of iudgment And as your glosse is false so is your dealing imposterous for the words of the Councell truly alleaged by Bellarmine out of whom you cite them are Apostolicam Sedem sequimur obedimus ipsius communicatores communicatores habemus condemnatos ab ipsa nos condemnamus We follow and obey the See Apostolike
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
Apostles And wheras you (r) Pag. 131. appeale to our consciences and bid vs in all our reading shew vnto you if we can that Polycrates and other Asian Bishops so excommunicated by Pope Victor were held by any other Catholike Bishops of those tymes to be therby without the state of saluation we contrarily appeale to the conscience of any christian man whether it be not damnable doctrine to mantaine as you do that these Qartadeciman heretikes after they knew themselues to be excommunicated by the Pope and anathematized by so many Councels if they repented not but persisted obstinatly in the defence of their heresy cold be in state of saluation And lastly wheras you add (s) Pag. 131. that wee full well know that S. Hierome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiasticall writers numbred Polycrates among those who did aduance the Catholike fayth we know that you speake ignorantly and vntruly for S. Hierome in that his Catalogue doth not only number Catholikes but also diuers heretikes that writ of Ecclesiasticall affaires as Eusebius Caesariensis whome the same S. Hierome (t) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. cals The ring-leader of the Arians And so likewise he numbreth Nouatianus Donatus and Photinus whom in that very Catalogue he acknowledgeth not only to be heretikes but authors and propagators of seuerall heresies And in no other condition doth he number Polycrates whom he commendeth not for aduancing the Catholike fayth as you affirme but hauing set downe a piece of his epistle written to Pope Victor in defence of his error sayth He reports it to shew the wit and authority of the man where by authority he vnderstands not authority of right but of fact that is the credit which Polycrates had among the Quartadecimans CHAP. XXIV Doctor Morton in opposition to the Roman Church defendeth the Hereticall Doctrine of Rebaptization FIRMILIANVS B. of Caesarea in Cappadocia with other Asian Bishops out of their great hatred to heresy decreed in their Councells of Iconium Synnada that Baptisme giuen by Heretikes was inualid and therfore that Heretikes returning to the Catholike Church were to be baptized a new This Doctrine from Asia crept into Africa and Agrippinus B. of Carthage hauing layd the first grounds therof Cyprian with other African Bishops afterwards imbraced the same so far that for the authorizing therof they assembled a Councell of 80. Bishops at Carthage All which notwithstanding that doctrine as being contrary to the tradition and practise of the Catholike Church was forbidden by Stephen then Pope of Rome in these words Nihil innouetur sed seruetur quod traditum est Let no innouation be made but that obserued which hath come by tradition Firmilianus with other Bishops of Asia notwithstanding this prohibition persisted still in their error and were for that cause excommunicated by Stephen Wherat Firmilianus storming in his fury spued out reprochfull and contumelious words against him But Cyprian although he defended the same error yet not as a doctrine of fayth nor condemning the contrary nor censuring the Pope or the rest that defended it as any way guilty of Heresy for as S. Augustine writing against the Donatists and excusing Cyprian (u) L. 2. de Bapt. t. 18. l. 2. c. 4. sayth If he held that opinion it was before it was condemned by a a generall Councell to which he would most easily haue submitted his iudgment if any such had bene held in his tyme. And moreouer if he held it it was with so great temper that as both he himselfe (x) Ep. ad Iuba in Conc. Carthag and S. Augustine (y) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18. 19. l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9 alibisaepe for him testifieth for the defence therof he neuer forsooke the communion of the Roman Church but as S. Peter dissented from S. Paul concerning the circumcision of Gentils newly conuerted and yet both of them still remayned in Catholike vnity and peace so likewise though Cyprian touching rebaptization differed in opinion from Stephen yet he still remayned in communion with him And therfore when the Donatists defended their heresy by the authority of Cyprian and his Councell S. Augustine answeared (h) Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 32. l. 2. c. 31. alibi saepe that Cyprians patronage could not auaile them because they were out of the communion of the Roman Church in which Cyprian liued and dyed This is the controuersy as it passed betweene Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and Stephen Pope briefly related And you in obiecting it against the Popes authority shew impiety folly and falshood Impiety 1. In taking part with Firmilianus Cyprian in their opposition to Pope Stephen and approuing their doctrine which you know to be erroneous that soone after being condemned by a generall Councell it hath euer since bene held for an absolute heresy not only by Catholikes but also by Protestants And doth not S. Augustine say (i) L. 2. de Bapt. c. 2. that albeit Cyprian Bishop Martyr were a man of great fame and merit yet not of greater then Peter the Apostle and Martyr in whom the principality of the See Apostolike was so eminent which sheweth that Cyprian ought to haue borne respect to Stephen Pope sitting in the See inuested in the authority of Peter Prince of the Apostles And doth he not shew (l) L. 2. Cont. Crescon c. 32. that Cyprian erred herein and that the Epistles which he writ of this subiect are of no force because the contrary was decreed by the authority of the whole Church which is to be preferred before the authority of Cyprian or of any one man whatsoeuer And doth he not (m) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 23. seqq learnedly confute the Epistle which Cyprian writ to Pompeius in defence of his error And wheras you to iustify Cyprian obiect (n) Pag. 134. that he gathered a Councell of 87. Bishops which concluded contrary to the Pope and his Councell celebrated in Italy you know that S. Augustine doubted (o) L. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. whether any such Councell were euer held and if it were whether the greater part of the Votes were not against Cyprian because the Donatists could reckon but 50. Asian and 70. African Bishops that adhered to Firmilianus and Cyprian (p) S. Aug. cont Crescon l. 3. c. 3. wheras many thousands held with Stephen Pope against them And the same S. Augustine (q) L. 6. de Bapt. per tot answeareth and confuteth seuerally euery one of the verdictes of the Bishops which were said to be giuen in that Councell assembled by Cyprian 2. You cannot be excused from impiety in obiecting (r) Pag. 137. against the Popes authority the words which Firmilianus and Cyprian in their passion let slip from their mouthes against Stephen for S. Augustine (s) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 25. held them vnworthy to be mentioned and couered them with this excuse The things which
him I am And I answere you that this is a friuolous obiection for as Onuphrius hath noted (x) Tract voc obscur Eccles the name of Pope anciently vntill after the tyme of S. Gregory was common to all Bishops of great Cities as of Rome Carthage Alexandria Antioch Hierusalem and the like and you afterwards shewing the futility of your obiection proue the same (y) Pag. 241. Wherfore S. Cyprian acknowledging that the Christians of Africa of whome only both he and the Proconsull spake did call him Their Pope and that he was so did not acknowledge himselfe to be Pope per antonomasiam for in that sense the name of Pope was not then vsed but to be B. of Carthage that is to say the chiefe Father and Primate of all the Christians of Africa How then proueth this that the name of Pope being from the tyme of S. Gregory appropriated to the B. of Rome to signify his supreme authority doth not since that appropriation declare him to be Pope per antonomasiam For words signify ad placitum that which according to the common vse and acception of men they import And finally that the name of Pope when it is applied to the B. of Rome importeth a singular dignity proper to him alone is conuinced by the Epithets which ancient Fathers speaking to him adde to that name as when they call him Vniuersall Pope for so he is styled by the Councell of Cyprus (z) Ep. Synod ad Theodor. Pap. by S. Athanasius and all the Bishops of Aegypt (a) Ep. ad Marc. Pap. CHAP. XXVI The Councells of Carthage and Mileuis acknowledged the supreme Authority of the B. of Rome AGAINST the prerogatiue of appeales to Rome you obiect (b) Pag. 141. the Councell of Mileuis held Anno 402. And yet afterwards you say that the same Councell was held in the yeare 416. and cite Binius as your Author for both Binius speaketh of two different Councells held at Mileuis in those seuerall yeares and vnder different Consuls and you confound them taking them both for one and father your ignorance on Binius And with like ignorance you affirme (c) Ibid. the decree touching appeales to haue bene made by the Councell of Mileuis Anno 402. for the Councell held that yeare was the first of Mileuis in which the decree concerning appeales was not made but in the second Anno 416. 2. You must remember that when Bellarmine in proofe of the Popes vniuersall authority among other arguments produceth examples of African Bishops instituted or deposed by him as also the ancient custome of appealing to him out of Africa you answeare (d) Pag. 289. 304. that the Africans are within the Popes Patriarkeship which you call his Dioces and therfore rather subiect to him then to others If then the Africans were within the Popes Dioces they were subiect to him as to their lawfull Iudge and had right to appeale to him and he to admit their appeales and iudge their causes Wherfore if in the Mileuitan or any other Councell or occasion whatsoeuer the Africans inhibited appeales out of Africa to the Pope their inhibition was an act of disobedience and rebellion against their lawfull Superior and no lesse a crime then if the subiects of a temporall Monarke should forbid appeales to their Soueraigne With what face then can you iustify them therin But the truth is that you slaunder them iniustly for as there is nothing more euident then that the Councell of Carthage and this of Mileuis held in the cause of Pelagius and Celestius did fully acknowledge the supreme authority of the Pope and professed their obedience to him both in words and deeds so there is nothing more certaine then that they denied not his prerogatiue of Appeales without which his authority cannot consist If the African Bishops did not belieue the soueraigne power of the See Apostolike why did S. Cyprian addresse his Councell held in fauor of Rebaptization to Stephen Pope (e) S Hierom. aduers Lucifer And why did the Councell of Carthage held against Pelagius and Celestius send their decrees to Innocentius Pope to be confirmed by his authority saying (*) Aug. ep 92. This our proceeding holy Lord and Brother we conceaued we ought to represent to your Charity that to the statutes of our mediocrity might be added the authority of the See Apostolike for the defence of many mens saluation also for the correction of some mens frowardnesse Nor do they require this of Innocentius by way of charity only but require him as their Pastor to take compassion on them Pastoralibus visceribus with the bowels of mercy which he as their Pastor oweth to them as to his sheep And hauing rehearsed the opinions of Pelagius and Celestius they conclude What other things soeuer are obiected by them we doubt not but that your Reuerence when you haue examined the decrees of the Bishops which are said to be made vpon this occasion in the East will frame such a iudgment wherat we all may reioyce in the mercy of God Innocentius hauing receaued this Epistle praised the Fathers of the Councell (f) Aug. ep 91. that Antiquae traditionis exempla sequentes following the examples of ancient tradition and knowing what is due to the See Apostolike they had sent their decrees to be approued by his iudgment for as much sayth he as we all that sit in this place desire to follow the Apostle himselfe from whom the Episcopall office and the authority of this name hath proceeded the which Apostle we following do now as well know how to condemne euil things as to approue those which are worthy of prayse And then declaring what that is which the ancient tradition hath deliuered he addeth (g) Ibid. The Fathers haue ordeyned not by humane but by diuine sentence that they should not account any thing that is treated in prouinces distant and far of to be ended vntill first it were come to the knowledge of the See Apostolike to the end that the sentence 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 and running with the purity of their originall through the diuers regions of the whole world might take what they ought to ordeyne and what to auoide In like manner the Councell of Mileuis writ to the same Pope as to their Pastor (h) Aug. ep 92. Because our Lord by the guift of his speciall grace hath placed you in the Apostolike See vouchsafe we beseech you to apply your pastorall diligence to the great dangers of the weake members of Christ And S. Augustine who was present at this Councell and Secretary therof writ to Hilary of the same subiect (i) Ep. 94. When I did write these things we knew that a decree had bene made against them Pelagius and Celestius in the Church of Carthage to
be directed to the holy and Venerable Pope Innocentius And we likewise had written from the Councell of Mileuis in Numidia to the same Apostolike See And what did they write We hope sayth the Councell (k) Aug. ep 92. these men which hold so peruerse pernicious opinions will sooner yeld to the authority of your Holinesse drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures by help of the mercy of our Lord Iesus-Christ who vouchsafeth to gouerne you consulting with him and to heare you praying vnto him To this Epistle of the Councell Innocentius answeared (l) Aug. ep 93. You prouide diligently and worthily for the Apostolike honor c. following in the consultation of difficult things the forme of the ancient rule which you know as well as I to haue bene alwayes obserued by the whole world But I omit this for I thinke it is not vnknowne to your wisdome for why els did you confirme this by your deeds but because you know that answeres do alwayes flow from the Apostolicall fountaine throughout all Countries to those that aske them And especially as often as matter of fayth is in question I conceiue that all our brethren and fellow-Bishops ought not to referre what may be profitable in common to all Churches to any but to Peter that is to the author of their name and dignity as your Dilection hath done If you answeare that Innocentius writ this but spake vntruly in his owne cause S. Augustine will satisfy you who highly prayseth both these answeares of his Vpon this affaire sayth S. Augustine (m) Ep. 106. relations were sent from the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the Apostolicall See c. And besides the relations of the Councells we writ also priuate letters to Pope Innocentius of blessed memory in which we discoursed more largely of the same subiect And he answeared vs to euery point as it was conuenient and fitting the Prelate of the Apostolike See should answeare And againe (n) Ep. 157. Pelagius and Celestius hauing bene the authors or most violent promotors of this new Heresy they also by meanes of the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councells with the help of God who vndertakes the protection of his Church haue bene condemned in the extent of the whole world by two reuerend Prelates of the Apostolike See Pope Innocentius and Pope Zozimus vnlesse they reforme themselues and do pennance Out of this it is euident 1. That it was the ancient tradition and custome that Councels should send their decrees to the Pope to be confirmed by his authority 2. And that it is so ordeyned not by humane but by diuine sentence 3. That all other Churches of the world compared to the Roman are as streames that flow from their mother source and are to imbrace as pure whatsoeuer doctrine she deliuereth and reiect whatsoeuer she condemneth 4. That the Fathers of both these Councels did acknowledg the Pope to be their Pastor 5. And that they did belieue his authority to be takē out of the holy Scriptures 6. That Christ guideth him in his consultations and decrees of fayth 7. That the custome ancient rule beareth that in doubts especially of fayth the See Apostolike is to be consulted and nothing determined vntill answeare had from thence Now to your obiection (o) Pag. 141. seqq that the Councell of Mileuis denied any right of Appeales from Africa to the Church of Rome which in your eyes is so forcible that you repeat it afterwards againe (p) Pag. 321.322 seqq and descant on it at large against Bellarmine who sheweth (q) L. 2. de Pont. c. 24. it to be wholly impertinent and from the matter for the question of appeales to the B. of Rome is not of Priests and inferior Clerkes of whom only the Councell of Mileuis speaketh but of Bishops for the Councell of Sardica which hath declared (r) Can. 4. 7. that Bishops may appeale to the Pope hath withall decreed (s) Can. 27. that Priests and inferior Clerkes are to be iudged by their owne Bishops that if they conceiue themselues to be wronged by them they appeale to other Bishops of the same prouince And the same had bene ordeyned not long before by the Councell of Nice (t) Iulius ep 1.2.3 apud Bin. to 1. pag. 399. seqq and afterwards by S. Leo (u) Ep. 84. ad Anastas Thessal S. Gregory (x) L. 2. indict 11. ep 6. ordeyning that maior causes be iudged in the first instance by a Councell of Bishops of the same prouince by way of appeale by the See Apostolike And to goe no further the same was answeared by the holy Pope Innocentius to whom the Councell of Mileuis sent their decrees to be confirmed (y) Aug. ep 92. For when Victricius B. of Rhoan desiring to order the gouerment of his Church according to the Roman discipline required instructions from him he (z) Ep. 2. addressed vnto him diuers rules to be obserued of which the third is that If dissentions arise betweene Priests or other Clerkes of the inferior order they are to be iudged ended by the Bishops of the same Prouince as the Councell of Nice hath determined And for the causes of Bishops he addeth (a) Ibid. If they be maior causes that are in question let them after the Episcopall iudgment be referred to the See Apostolike as the Synod of Nice and the ancient customes ordeyne This Epistle of Innocentius was cited by the Bishops of France in the second Councell of Tours 700. yeares since And his very words concerning the appeales of Bishops to the See Apostolike are inserted in forme of a Law into the Capitulary of Charlemaine And Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes in his epistle to Nicolas Pope (b) Erodoard histor Eccles Rhem. lib. 3. repeating the same decree of Innocentius sayth We Metropolitans trauilling in our prouinciall Councels haue care after iudgment to referre the maior causes that is of fayth and of maior persons that is of Bishops to the determination of the soueraigne See And speaking of Priests and inferior Clerkes Let it not please God that we thould depise the priuiledge of the first and supreme See of the holy Roman Church as to weary your soueraigne Authority with all the controuersies and quarrels of the Clergy as well of the superior as of the inferior order which the canons of the Nicen Councell and the decrees of Innocentius and other Popes of the holy See of Rome command to be determined in their owne Prouinces From hence it followeth that the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis which you obiect against appeales to Rome makes nothing at all for your purpose your peremptory conclusion is (c) Pag. 141. that the Councell of Mileuis denieth any right of appeales from Africk to the Church of Rome To make this good you should haue shewed that the Councell of Mileuis forbids the appeales of Bishops
that any such Canons were extant in the Councell of Sardica I cannot but meruaile at so great boldnesse for that those Canons were extant in the Councell of Sardica is a truth proued not only by all editions of the Councells and all Catholike writers but auerred by the Magdeburgians by Osiander Peter Martyr and Iohn Caluin (i) Brereley Protest Apolog tract 1. sect 7. subdia â— It is true that Caluin accuseth Zozimus of hainous impudency and fraud in citing the Councell of Sardica for that of Nice But his accusation hath no other ground then his hatred to the See of Rome for were it true as it is not that the Canons which Zozimus sent were not of the Councell of Nice but of Sardica and that he had sent them as Canons of Nice it had not bene fraud or forgery in him as it was not in S. Mathew (k) Cap. 27. â— to cite Hieremy for Zachary because it was the same Spirit of God that spake in both those Prophets And so likewise the Councell of Sardica was of no lesse authority then that of Nice Againe the Councell of Sardica consisted in great part of the same Fathers that the Nicen Councell did and was an explication and confirmation therof Wherfore the Sardican Canons might not vnfitly beare the name of Nicen Canons as the Constantinopolitan Creed because it is an explication and confirmation of the Nicen beares the name of the Nicen Creed Moreouer the ancient Fathers numbring the Councells after that of Nice euer reckon immediatly the first of Constantinople which they do vpon no other ground then because they repute the Councell of Sardica to be an Appendix of the Councell of Nice and therfore as all one with it For these reasons Zozimus might without any forgery or falshood haue cited the Canons of the Councell of Sardica vnder the title of Nicen Canons as it is the custome of the Greekes to cite the Trullan Canons vnder the title of the Canons of the sixth generall Councell because they pretend the Trullan Councell to be an Apendix and supplement of the sixth Councell generall And so in like manner S. Gregory of Tours (l) De gâ—st Fran. l. 9. c. 33. citing a Canon of the Councall of Grangres without either fraud or forgery calls it a Canon of the Nicen Councell because the Councell of Gangres was a branch and slip of the Councell of Nice Finally and if these Canons were not indeed of the Councell of Nice but of Sardica how can Zozimus be thought to haue vsed any fraud or forgery in alleaging them as the Councell of Nice since it had bene more aduantagious for his purpose against the Africans to haue alleaged them as Canons of the Councell of Sardica for as much as the fifth generall Councell beareth witnesse (m) Act. â— that in the Councell of Nice there was no other B. of Africa but only Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage wheras in the Councell of Sardica were present and subscribed 30. African Bishops who are all named in particular by S. Athanasius (n) Apol. 2. which might haue bene a great motiue to the Africans to submit to those Canons as being approued and signed by so many Bishops of their owne nation But the truth is that albeit the Africans had notice of a Councell held at Sardica yet as Peron learnedly proueth (o) Repliq. l. 1. Chap. 49. the Donatists had suppressed in Africa the copies of the true Councell of Sardica and those which the Africans had in the tyme of S. Augustine and the sixth Councell of Carthage were copies of the Anti-councell which Sozomen mentioneth (p) L. 3. c. 10. held by the Arians at Philippopolis neere to Sardica which they to gaine credit to it and to their cause called The Councell of Sardica and published it in Africa vnder that name And this is the reason why S. Augustine professeth (q) Ep 163. Conâ— Cresâ—on l. 3. c. 34. that he knew no other Councell of Sardica but that of the Arians in which S. Athanasius was condemned wheras the true Councell of Sardica iustified S. Athanasius and confirmed the Councell of Nice This true Councell of Sardica you acknowledge to haue bene a generall Councell of the whole Church (r) Pag. 144. fin 14â— This the Centurists haue copied out and inserted into their fourth Century And this it is in which as well they as also Caluin Peter Martyr and Osiander acknowledge the Canons for appealing to Rome to haue ben made wherof if the African Fathers had notice they would not haue replied to Pope Celestine (s) Ep. ad Celestin We find it not to haue bene determined by the Fathers in any Synod that Legates should be sent from your Holinesse to order matters heere for it is expresly decreed in the Councell of Sardica (t) Can. 7. that if it shall seeme good to the B. of Rome he may send Legates to iudge the causes of Appellants in their owne Prouinces This sheweth how vntruly you deny that in the Councell of Sardica were extant any Canons for Appeales to Rome And since your owne brethren acknowledge them with what conscience do you iustify the Africans in their deniall of them or blame the Pope for defending his right against them especially since you confesse (u) Pag. 289. 304. that the Africans were subiect to the Pope as to their Patriarke SECT IV. Vntruthes and falsifications of Doctor Morton discouered and his Obiections answeared FIrst you obiect (x) Pag. 145. that 217. African Bishops S Augustine being a principall one shew that the Popes claime of Appeales had no patronage from the Councell of Nice but rather that there was in that Councell another Canon to controle it and that maketh much against such appeales by determining that Popes being so far remote from Africk could not be so competent iudges in such causes Except say they some will thinke that God will inspire one singular man with iustice and deny that grace to innumerable persons assembled togeather in a Synod These words Syr are not of the Councell of Nice but of the African Fathers in their Epistle to Celestine Pope Is it not then a mere delusion to obiect them as a Canon of the Nicen Councell to controle appeales to Rome They speake not of matters of fayth for the same Fathers a little before had sent to Innocentius Pope to confirme with his authority the sentence of Condemnation which they had pronounced against Pelagius and Celestius in the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis acknowledging (y) Aug. ep â—2 that God did guide him in his consultations of fayth and therfore hoping that those Heretikes would more easily yield to his authority drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures then to the authority of their Councells Wherfore in the words obiected they speake only of particular and personall causes of fact ciuill and criminall in which as those Fathers declare witnesses were to
was the definitiue sentence pronounced by blessed Melchlades how entire how prudent how peaceable in so much that S. Augustine greatly commendeth him for it saying (h) Ibid. O blessed man O sonne of Christian peace and Father of Christian people Neuerthelesse those rebellious Donatists rested not but from the iudgement of the Pope appealed againe to the Emperor which he so much misliked that he called it (i) Ep. ad Episc Cathol ad calc gest purgat Cecil Felic A great phrensy incredible arrogancy a thing not fit to be spoken or heard a mad impudency of fury a recourse to a secular iudgement from an heauenly and a contempt of Christes authority And yet out of a great desire he had to gaine them yelding to their importunity or as S. Augustine sayth (k) Ep. 166. giuing way to their peruersnesse and hoping that what he did would be auowed by the See Apostolike he granted them another Councell of 200. Bishops at Arles which hauing duely examined their cause confirmed the Popes sentence therfore gaue them no more satisfaction then the Roman Councell had done Wherfore from this Councell they had recourse againe to the Emperor beseeching him to take the examination of the cause into his owne hands which he did but yet A sanctis antistitibus postea veniam petiturus (l) S. Aug. ep 162. with intention to aske pardon afterwards of the holy Bishops for medling in a cause that belonged not to his Court but to theirs But what did Constantines iudgement appease the fury of those obstinat heretikes No The Emperor sayth S. Augustine (m) Ibid. is chosen Iudge the Emperors iudgement is despised But no wonder for what els could be expected from such rebellious spirits but that as they had refused to stand to the sentence of the Church so also they should contemne the iudgement of the Emperor Who is there then that seeth not how far this history is from prouing that Constantine acknowledged in himselfe any authority to meddle in Ecclesiasticall causes since he durst not iudge the cause of a Bishop and charged the Donatists with neuer heard of impudency arrogancy impiety fury pernersnesse porensy and contemp of Christs authority in flying from the iudgement of the Church to his secular tribunall And that if in this cause he did any way assume to himselfe the person of a Iudge it was with protestation to aske pardon of the holy Bishops and in hope it would be auowed by them for as much as what he did was out of a desire to quiet the Donatists and reduce them to the peace and communion of the Catholike Church And how far this example of the Donatists is from helping your cause or hurting ours S. Augustine will yet better informe you (n) Cont. lic Petil. l. 2. c. 92. Ep. 166. for as when they were condemned by the Church they fled to Cōstantine so when they were repulsed and condemned by him they despised his iudgement and appealed to Iulian an Apostata from Christian religion and a professed enemy to Christ beseeching him to restore vnto them the Churches which Catholike Princes had taken from them and to that end honored him with this Elogy (o) Ep. 166. That in him alone all iustice remained which gaue S. Augustine cause to say vnto them (p) Ibid. If it were in your power you would not now call against vs Constantine a Christian Emperor because he defended the truth but you would rather raise Iulian the Apostata from hell How far these words of S. Augustine may touch you for producing this example of the sacrilegious Donatists as a precedent of your doctrine and Constantine as a paterne for secular Princes to meddle in Ecclesiasticall iudgments I leaue to the readers censure for if as you pretend this example of the Donatists flying from the iudgment of the Church to Constantine be of force to proue that the Popes iudgement will suffer an higher appeale why shall it not also be of force to proue that the iudgement of Constantine will suffer an higher appeale to Iulian the Apostata for the example of these Donatists is a precedent for the one as well as for the other A second history which you obiect (q) Pag. 16◠to proue that the Popes iudgement will suffer an higher appeale is that in the case of Athanasius Constantine chargeth all the Bishops of the Prouince of Tyre to appeare before him without delay and to shew how sincerely and truly the had giuen their iudgements The case is this Diuers hereticall Bishops of the East Arians Meletians and Colluthians assembled themselues at Tyre to accuse Athanasius of many crimes which themselues had maliciously forged and suborned false witnesses to testify against him that so they might seeme to haue iust occasion to abstaine from his communion condemne him Constantine being informed therof at the intreaty of Athanasius call's them to him to yeld accompt of their proceeding Ergo say you the Popes iudgment will suffer an higher appeale A false consequence for S. Athanasius fled from the said Councell of Tyrus vnto Constantine not as to his competent Iudge but as to the Protector of Innocency and of the Church to be maintayned in the possession of his Bishopricke honor life against which his Arian aduersaries were with such violent and insuperable malignity bent as he had no meanes to auoyd so great mischiefs tending to the ouerthrow of Catholike Religion but by imploring the ayde of the supreme secular Power That in this case Clergymen and Bishops may haue recourse vnto the arme of temporal Princes S. Paul (1) Act. 28. Coactus sum appellare Caesarem shewed by his example as (2) Athanas Apolog. 2. ad Constantium S. Athanasius and (3) August Epist 48.50 204. S. Augustine and out of them Suarez (4) Suarez defensio fidei lib. 4. c. 10. n. 5. obserueth Lastly you obiect (r) Pag. 161. fin 162. that When the cause Ecclesiasticall requireth Constantine proceedeth to denounce punishment by his owne authority against whomsoeuer that shall honor the memory of those Bishops Theognis and Eusebius These two Bishops were Arians and great fyrebrands of that blasphemous sect which had bene condemned an athematized by the holy Councell of Nice and moreouer had committed many other most enormous crimes some of which Constantine hauing mentioned in his Epistle to the people of Nicomedia addeth (s) Theod. l. 1. hist. c. 20. If any one shall be so temerarious and audacious as to goe about to praise and honor the memory of those plagues of the Church Theognis and Eusebius he shall presently be punished by me for his folly These words of Constantine shew that he did not threaten punishment to any Ecclesiasticall person but to the people of Nicomedia if they should audaciously presume to honor those Heretikes whom the Church had condemned which was not to assume any Ecclesiasticall authority to
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
being wronged by the false Councell of Ephesus had presented a libell of appeale to his Legates he would command a generall Councell to be held within Italy for the Nicen Canons require this necessarily to be done after the putting in of an Appeale To these I adde Theodoret testifying in expresse words that he appealed to Leo Pope These witnesses shew that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations was not very vncouth but very familiar in the dayes of Theodoret and in former ages and that the right of appealing to the Roman See was acknowledged and testified by holy Popes of the primitiue times by generall Councells by Emperors by Bishops and by all ancient writers And the same might be proued by other examples if these were not sufficient to shew your ignorance in denying if not rather your boldnesse in out-facing so knowne a truth SECT V. That S. Athanasius appealed to Iulius Pope and Theodoret to Leo as absolute Iudges and that by their authority both of them were restored to their Churches THat S. Athanasius appealed to Iulius Pope and by his authority was restored to his seat hath bene effectually proued (r) Chap. 38. sect 6. And to what there was said I adde here the testimony of Liberatus who speaking of Iohn Patriarke of Alexandria deposed by the Emperor Zeno sayth (s) In Breuia c. 18. He appealed to the B. of Rome as also Blessed Athanasius did And that Theodoret appealed to Leo as to an absolute Iudge that had power to command him and sentence his cause he himselfe witnesseth as you haue heard (t) Sect. praeced init Neuerthelesse you taking vpon you to know what passed in Theodorets cause better then Theodoret himselfe say (u) Pag. 304. He addressed his requests to the B. of Rome not as to a peremptory Iudge but as to a Patron and arbitrary dais-man one vpon whose authority he depending acknowledgeth in expresse words his reason to wit the integrity of the fayth of the Pope and promising to abide his award with the assistance of others And before you had said (x) Pag. 255. marg lit m. The euent sheweth that there was in this busines no iuridicall proceeding at all Only Theodoret vpon his confession of his Orthodoxe fayth was receaued into communion with Leo as Leo might haue ben with Iohn of Constantinople in like case These are your words to proue that Theodoret appealed not to the Pope as to an absolute Iudge that had authority to annull the sentence of the Councell that deposed him and restore him to his See but only as to an Arbitrator by reason of the integrity of his fayth when as he contrarily in expresse words beseecheth Renatus (y) Ep ad Renat to perswade the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of Rome to vse his Apostolicall authority and command him to appeare before his Councell that is his Consistory because that holy See hath the guidance and gouerment of all the Churches of the world And writing to Pope Leo he sayth (z) In Ep. ad Leon. I attend the sentence of your Apostolike throne and beseech your Holinesse to succour me appealing to your right and iust iudgment and to command that I be brought before you c. And I promise to stand to your iudgment contenting my selfe with that which you shall determine what euer it be And I beseech you that I may be iudged according to my writings If Theodoret had studied to expresse the Popes iudiciall authority to sentence his cause could he haue done it in more cleare and effectuall words then these It is true that as he acknowledgeth the Roman Church to be priuiledged aboue others for many causes so especially for that she hath remained free from all blemish of heresy none hauing euer possessed that See which hath held any thing contrary to truth or which hath not kept the Apostolicall grace entyre and without blemish The reason why he mentioneth the purity of fayth alwayes preserued in the Roman Church is because he had bene accused and deposed as guilty of heresy in his writings And therfore he appealeth confidently to the Pope as to one whose iudgment in matters of fayth is is infallible and to whom the decision of all such Controuersies belongeth acknowledging withall as you haue heard the Roman Church to be the Head of all Churches and the Pope to be his absolute Superior and Iudge with authority to command him and sentence his cause And Leo Pope accordingly vsing the authority of a Iudge declared him free from heresy and restored him to his See wherupon the Senators that assisted at the Councell of Chalcedon said with the approbation of the whole Councell (a) Act. 1. Let the most Reuerend Bishop Theodoret come in because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his See Who then seeth not the insufficiency of your answeare that Theodoret appealed not to the Pope as to an absolute Iudge but made his requests vnto him as to an arbitrary Dais-man for appeales are not made to Arbitrators but to absolute Iudges An Arbitator is he to whom the determination of a controuersy is remitted by agreement of both parties which in Theodorets cause can haue no place for his aduersaries neuer agreed to haue his cause remitted to the Pope If therfore the Pope had not bene an absolute Iudge Theodorets appealing to him had bene in vaine nor could he haue recouered his seat by the Popes sentence for a sentence pronounced without authority is of no effect And though after the Councell of Chalcedon had admitted Theodoret vpon the Popes restitution to take his place amongst the Bishops some of them doubting of his fayth because he had written against Cyrill of Alexandria in fauor of Nestorius and therfore fearing the Pope might haue restored him vpon misinformation vrged him to anathematize Nestorius againe yet that no way helpeth your cause nor derogateth from the Popes authority for when Theodoret had anathematized Nestorius the Councell proceeded not to a new sentence of restitution but subscribing to that of Leo cried out all with one voyce (b) Act. 2. Long liue Archbishop Leo Leo hath iudged the iudgment of God SECT VI. That S. Chrysostome appealed to Innocentius Pope as to an absolute Iudge and by his authority was restored to his Church of Constantinople S. Chrysostome being deposed from his Patriarchall See at the procurement of Eudoxia the Empresse wife to Arcadius Emperor of the East by a Councell of Bishops vnder Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria had recourse by letters of appeale to Innocentius Pope This you deny saying (b) Pag. 307. n. that wheras Bellarmine and Baronius referre you to the story it selfe you can finde nothing lesse in it then the matter of Appeale for say you Chrysostome made his requests not to the Pope alone but to the other Reuerend Bishops within the Roman Prouince together with him But this is a mistake proceeding
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
proceeds from the Father alone which error of the Greekes is also testified and learnedly confuted by that famous Cardinall Bessarion and by Gennadius Scholarius in two speciall Treatises of this subiect and before them by S. Thomas of Aquine (d) Opusc contr error Graec. against whom writ Nicolaus Cabasilas whose booke is extant in the Vatican was soone after confuted by Demetrius Cidoinus a Greeke Catholike And to omit other Protestant writers Thomas Rogers in his booke of the 39. Articles perused by the authority of the Church of England allowed to be publike sayth (e) Art 3. propos 3. pag. 25. This discouereth all them to be impious to erre from the way of truth which hold and affirme that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father but not from the Sonne as this day the Grecians the Russians the Muscouites mantaine and in proofe therof he alleageth other Authors Finally the same is testified by Kekerman (f) Sistem Theolog. pag. 63. and Doctor White (g) Way Ep. Ded. n. 8. affirming that the Latin Greeke Churches brake vpon the Controuersy of the proceeding of the holy Ghost From hence it followeth that the Greekes which are not of the Roman Communion are absolute Heretikes and erre fundamentally for what error can be more fundamentall then that which is immediatly against the blessed Trinity God himselfe This you could not be ignorant of but that you may not seeme to be absurd in professing that Protestants are accordant in communion with heretikes you seeke to free the Grecians from heresy which you haue no other meanes to performe but by falsifying Catholike Authors 1. Therfore to this end you alleage (h) Pag. 334. lit q. marg these words as of Cardinall Tolet Gracus intelligens dicit Spiritum sanctum procedere per Filium quod non aliud significat quà m quod nos dicimus And in your text you english them thus The vnderstanding Greekes saying that the holy Ghost proceedeth by the Sonne signify therby nothing but what we our selues professe O egregious imposture Tolet there explicating these words of S. Iohn qui à Patre procedit expresly condemneth the Greekes of error in that point and proueth out of S. Cyrill that these words of S. Iohn confute their error Locus prasens c. This present passage sayth he (i) In caput 15. Ioan. Annot 25. doth no way fauor the error of the Grecians but rather confuteth and ouerthroweth the same for out of these words it is plaine that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne and the Father which Cyrill though an vnderstanding Grecian confesseth saying that the holy Ghost is of the Sonne and of the Father and that he proceedeth from the Father but by the Sonne Which signifieth nothing els but what we say These are Tolers words in which you see he chargeth the Greekes with error in their beliefe of the holy Ghost and therby conuinceth you of an vntruth in saying (k) Pag. 334. that Tolet freeth them from heresy in this point But to make good this vntruth you corrupt his words for whereas he speaking not of the later Greekes but only of that ancient and Orthodoxe Father S. Cyrill sayth Cyrillus Graecus intelligens c. Cyrill an vnderstanding Grecian sayth in this point no other thing but what we professe you both in your Latin and English leaue out Cyrillus as if Tolet had not mentioned him and translate Graecus intelligens in the plurall number The vnderstanding Greekes which you do purposely to perswade your reader that Tolet speaketh not of S. Cyrill nor of any particular man but in generall of the Later Grecians and freeth them from that error of the holy Ghost with which you haue heard him so expresly charge them Can there be a more wilful falfication then this 2. But your dealing with others is no better You cite (l) Pag 331. lit a. Castro to proue that the Greeks haue bene diuided many hundreds of yeares from the Latines But because you would haue your Reader conceaue that Castro holds them not to be heretikes and out of the state of saluation you set downe these words as his Per multas annorum centurias Graci à Latinis diuisi with is a plaine falsification for Castro's words are Duodecima haeresis est quae negat Spiritum sanctum procedere à Patre à filio Hanc haeresim docuerunt tutati sunt Graeci per multas annorum centurias itae vt haec fuerit vna ex praecipuis causis propter quas à Romana Catholica Ecclesia diuisi sint The twelth heresy is that which denieth the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Sonne This heresy the Greekes haue taught and mansained many hundreds of yeares in so much that this is one of the chiefest causes for which they are diuided from the Roman and Catholike Church Here therfore you māgle Castro's words And to mantaine your vndertaken falsity that the Greekes notwithstanding their diuision from the Roman Church are partes of the Church Catholike and in state of saluation you conceale that he affirmeth them to be heretikes and that the chiefe cause of their diuision from the Roman Church is their heresy concerning the holy Ghoast 3. With like preiudice of conscience you cite (m) Pag. 335. Azor who in that very place (n) Instit. l. moral part 1. l. 8. c. 20. §. Decimo directly affirmeth the Greekes to be heretikes and that although some thinke that concerning their beliefe of the fire of Purgatory and some other few points of fayth they differ not from the doctrine of the Roman Church really and in sense but only in words and in that respect are not heretikes but schismatikes yet he concludeth that whatsoeuer their beliefe concerning these articles is they are Heretikes and perhaps in these very points because they erre culpably in them but that wee often call them Schismatikes because we retaine the ancient manner of speach for first the Greekes diuided themselues often from the Church by schisme and in progresse of time brought heresies into the Church 4. You cite (o) Pag. 334. Suarez saying that the Greekes are schismatikes because they erre in those things which belong to the vnity of the Church though indeed they be heretikes also because they deny the vnity of the Head And immediatly before he had alleaged out of S. Hierome that all Schismatikes feigne to themselues some heresy to the end they may seeme not to haue departed from the Church without cause Agayne he expresly sayth (p) De Deo trino vno l. 10. c. 1. n. 2. that the Greeks erre in holding the holy Ghoast not to proceed from the sonne and that for this error among many others the Greeke Church hath diuided it selfe from the Roman Church denying obedience to the Pope These are the Authors which you produce to saue the Greekes from the infamous note of heresy wherin you
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
therfore to be contemned as being admitted but of late which is not only a false translation but a manifest peruerting of the sense for Castro speaketh not of the doctrine or lawfulnesse of granting indulgences but de earum vsu of the vse of them which therfore in your english you cunningly omit that ouâ— of him you may proue the doctrine of them to be new Yea and concerning the very vse of them he proueth it to be most ancient by the same arguments Roffensis before him had done concluding that you and all others which contemne a thing practised so many hundreds of yeares by the Catholike Church and established by generall Councels are iustly accounted heretikes So farre is Castro from fauoring Luthers cause The third Author is Bellarmine out of whom you cite these words (n) Pag. 385. Thesaurus Ecclesiae spiritualis est fundamentum indulgentiarum Which words you english Thus The ground of indulgences is the spirituall treasury of workes consisting in the satisfactory and meritorious workes of supererogation done by the faithfull Which treasury to haue bene anciently wanting you proue also out of Bellarmine setting downe these words as his Hoc caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Louanienses This your Doctors of Louaine and some Scholemen as you know affirme was anciently wanting in the Church So you and then you tell vs (o) Ibid. out of Suarez who those Schole men were namely Mayzo and Durandus In this short passage of yours there are almost as many vntruthes and falsifications as words For first the Latin words are not Bellarmines but your owne fathered on him And so also are the English which neuerthelesse you set downe in a different character as his not only disagree from the Latin but containe false doctrine repugnant to all Catholike Diuines and in particular to Bellarmine who in that very place (p) L. 1. de Indulg c. 2. proposit 2. teacheth that meritorious workes as such cannot be applied to others nor belong to the treasure of the Church but only as satisfactory 3. You falsify making Bellarmine to limit the spirituall treasure of the Church to workes of supererogation only which is ignorantly spoken and not taught by Bellarmine nor any Catholike Diuine 4. You father on him falsly those last words Hoc thesauro caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Louanienses for they are not his nor doth he attribute any such doctrine to the Deuines of Louain nor so much as once name them in all that Chapter Is it not then great perfidiousnesse so to abuse and falsify both him and them Nor is your dealing better with Suarez for to omit that in the place you cite he treateth of no such matter nether he nor Bellarmine euer say that Duraud denied this treasure of the Church but only that he held it to consist of the satisfactions of Christ and not of the Saints Which yet he speaketh by way of doubt Theologicall dispute rather then affirmatiuely for coming to deliuer his owne opinion he sayth plainly and resolutely (q) 4. Dist 20. q. 3. Est in Ecclesia c. There is in the Church a spirituall treasure of the passion of Christ and his Saints who suffered farre greater torments then their sinnes deserued And therfore the Church out of this treasure may communicate to one or more so much as may suffice to make satisfaction for their sinnes either in part or in whole according as the Church shall please to communicate this treasure more or lesse which is nothing els but the sufferings of Christ and his Saints communicated to vs to satisfy for our sinnes Wherfore indulgences auaile by way of payment for so much as by Christ his Saints the paine to which we are lyable is paied But if he had held that the spirituall treasure of the Church consisteth of the satisfactions of Christ only that would auaile you nothing for he defendeth Indulgences which you deny and if he erred in any thing he errred not with obstinacy as you do but submitted all his workes to the correction of the holy Catholike Roman Church as you haue read in Bellarmine but conceale it I conclude therfore that the great cloud of witnesses which you haue brought to iustify Luthers doctrin against indulgences is either of Heretikes or of Catholikes in workes prohibited by the Church or if not prohibited abused and falsified by you SECT X. The causes giuen by Doctor Morton in excuse of Luthers departure from the Roman Church THe causes you haue deuised to iustify Luthers departure from the Roman Church are partly impious partly false and imposterous Impious as your excepting against the Masse (r) Pag. 387. to which Luther was persuaded by the Diuell calling it Idolatry as you do And not vnlike to this is your example of Firmilianus (s) Pag. 388. who being for the time an obstinate mantainer of Rebaptization was excommunicated by Stephen a holy Pope and notwithstanding that Stephens sentence was imbraced by all the Catholikes of the world and the doctrine of Firmilianus condemned by the holy Councell of Nice and euer since esteemed hereticall not only by Catholikes but also by Protestants you shame not to iustify Firmilianus (t) Ibid. and all the rest that followed the same heresy with him to condemne Pope Stephen as a Schismatike for excommunicating him Such examples I confesse you may find to defend Luthers departure from the Roman Church The rest of the causes which you alleage (u) Pag. 387. are false and imposterous as that the Roman Church mantaineth new articles of fayth and Satanicall doctrines that she blasphemeth the truth and tyrannically forceth men to subscribe which as they are false and slanderous accusations so you vtter them gratis and without any proofe at all and say nothing to iustify Luther but what a Donatist an Arian or any other heretike neuer so blasphemous will say for himselfe may with as good ground as Luther or you for him But you alleage (x) Pag. 389. Cassander whom you call our Cassander notwithstanding that heretofore you haue had a double admonition (y) See aboue Chap. 2. that he was a wicked heretike Prima classis whose workes being condemned and prohibited by the Church are of no more authority with vs then your Grand Imposture And not vnlike to this is your other example of Stephen Gardiner B. of Winchester as already hath bene shewed (z) Ibid. And as little to your purpose is another example which here you adde (a) Pag. 392. of an Epistle of Robert Grosthead B. of Lincolne taken out of the history of Mathew Paris which was set forth corruptedly by English Protestants and then by the Tigurine Lutherans who haue added many things both in their marginall notes and in the text in selfe against the authority of the Roman Church (b) See Bellar. l. de Scriptor Out of this Epistle of Grosthead to Innocentius the fourth you obiect a long
the vniuersall Church hauing no right therunto A most vngodly comparison for these two Popes were of the most holy learned and renowned Prelates that euer sate in the Chayre of S. Peter since his tyme whose sanctity God hath testified with most illustrious miracles and whom all posterity hath iustly honored with the surname of Great S. Leo is he that with great care and vigilancy suppressed the Manichees that came flying out of the Africa to Rome other places of Italy that vsed singular industry to roote out the Donatists in Africa the Pelagians in France the Priscilianists in Spaine writing to the Bishops of greatest learning and fame that were then liuing in those Countries to be watchfull and assemble Councells for the condemning and extirpating those heresies and like wise he himselfe against the errors of Nestorius Eutyches Dioscorus assembled in the East that famous Councell of 630. Bishops at Chalcedon who all acknowledged him to be their Head and themselues his members and children and that to him the gouerment of the Church was committed by our Sauiour (k) In relat ad Leon. and who esteemed his words as the words of S. Peter and his iudgments as oracles of God crying out all which one voyce (l) Act. 1. Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo Leo hath iudged the iudgment of God Nor was S. Gregory of lesse renowne for to omit the admirable humility wherwith he refused the dignity of supreme Pastor the conuersion of our English nation and other great workes which he performed for the good of the Church the excellent bookes he writ for which he hath deserued the title of Doctor of the Church and the many famous miracles wherwith God declared his sanctity who is ignorant of the admirable Elogies wherwith ancient writers haue celebrated his prayses Among others that famous Archbishop of Toledo and Primate of Spayne S. Hildephonsus writeth of him (m) In lib. de viris illust that in sanctity he surpassed Antony in eloquence Cyprian in wisdome Augustine by the grace of the holy Ghost was endowed with so great light of humane science that in former ages none had bene equall vnto him And Petrus Diaconus testifieth (n) Vit. S. Greg. that he saw the holy Ghost in forme of a doue at his care inspiring him whiles he was writing which alone might haue made you forbeare the traducing of so admirable a man But returning to our question this very euasion of yours to wit that the testimonies of Popes are no sufficient argument to conclude a Papall authority because they speake in their owne cause sufficiently conuinceth that you know them to haue acknowledged such authority in themselues and that when you deny it you speake without all ground of truth for who can think that S. Leo S. Gregory and many other Popes renowned Martyrs and glorious Confessors most eminent in humility and all kind of vertue and to whose sanctity God added the seale of diuine miracles should with a Luciferian pride arrogate to themselues Pastorall authority power ouer the Church of God throughout the whole world if that dignity had not bene giuen by Christ to S. Peter and in him to them I deny therfore that when they maintayne their authority they speake in their owne cause They speake in the cause of God as witnes your selfe (o) Pag. 4◠S. Paul did when he said (p) Rom. 11. I will magnify myne office in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentiles And the like did S. Gregory when vpon that text he collected a generall lesson for the defence of his owne iurisdiction against such as you are saying (q) L. 4. ep 36. The Apostle teacheth vs so to carry humility in our hart that we do keep and preserue the dignity of that order wherunto we are called Wherfore as if a Vice-Roy should defend maintaine the dignity of his place for the seruice of the King his Maister and the repression of seditious persons he that should oppose him and resist his authority vnder color that he speaketh in his owne cause would be accounted no better then a rebell so no other reckoning is to be made of him that reiects the testimonies of Popes the Vicars and Lieutenants of Christ on earth because they defend their authority for they do it to defend the honor of Christ their Maister to magnify their office with S. Paul and with S. Gregory to preserue the dignity of that order wherunto they are called which dignity S. Augustine (r) Ep. 92. and the whole Councell of Mileuis acknowledge to be taken out of the authority of holy Scriptures But here by the way I desire to be resolued of a doubt You confesse (s) Pag. 301. that power of appeales if it be right and proper is a most certaine argument of dominion Againe you cōfesse (t) Pag. 303. marg fin n. 8. that S. Gregory excommunicated Iohn a Greeke Bishop of the first Iustinianaea because he had presumed to iudge Adrian Bishop of Thebes after he had appealed to the See Apostolike which conuinceth S. Gregory to haue belieued that the Bishops of the Greeke Church might lawfully appeale from their owne Metropolitans and from their Patriarke of Constantinople to the See Apostolike that the same See had true and proper right to admit their appeales and re-iudge their causes which it could not haue if the Pope had not true proper authority ouer the Greeke Church How then can you deny that S. Gregory belieued himselfe to haue that authority or that he practised the same Yea that he had power and iurisdiction not only ouer the Greeke Church but also ouer the vniuersall Church practised the same is a thing so certaine that your Protestant brethren Friccius Peter Martyr Carion Philippus Nicolai the Centurists and Osiander (u) Apud Brier Protest Apol. Tract 1. sect 7. subdiu 9. à n. 11. ad 29. shew out of his writings these particulars That the Roman Church appointeth her watch ouer the whole world that the Apostolike See is the Head of all Churches that the Bishop of Constantinople is subiect to the Apostolike See that S. Gregory challenged to himselfe power to command Arch-bishops to ordayne or depose Bishops that he assumed to himselfe right for citing Arch-bishops to declare their causes before him when they were accused and also to excommunicate depose them giuing commission to their neighbour Bishops to proceed against them that in their prouinces he placed his Legates to examine and end the causes of such as appealed to the Roman See that he vsurped power of appointing Synods in their prouinces and required Arch-bishops that if any cause of great importance happened they should referre the same to him appointing in prouinces his Vicars ouer the Churches to end smaller matters and to reserue the greater causes to himselfe All this is testified by your owne brethren to which Doctor Sanders
(x) Visib Monarch l. 7. à n. 433. ad 541. addeth much more of the same kind out of S. Gregories owne workes and in his owne words as that the See Apostolike by the authority of God is preferred before all Churches That all Bishops if any fault be found in them are subiect to the See Apostolike That she is the Head of fayth of all the faythfull members That if any of the foure Patriarkes had done against the Popesletters that which was done by the Bishop Salona so great a disobedience could not haue passed without a most grieuous scandall That the See Apostolike is the head of all Churches That the Roman Church by the words which Christ spake to Peter was made the Head of all Churches That no scruple nor doubt ought to be made of the fayth of the See Apostolike that all those things are false which are taught contrary to the Doctrine of the Roman Church That to returne from Schisme to the Catholike Church is to returne to the communion of the Bishop of Rome That he which will not haue S. Peter to whom the keyes of heauen were committed to shut him out from the entrance of lyfe must not in this world be separated from his See That they are peruerse men which refuse to obey the commands of the See Apostolike I conclude therfore with Doctor Sanders that he which readeth all these particulars and more of the same kinde that are to be found in the workes of S. Gregory and yet with a brasen forehead feareth not to interpret that which he writ against the name of Vniuersall Bishop so as if he could not abide that any one Bishop should haue the chiefe seate and supreme gouerment of the whole militant Church that man sayth he seemes to me either to haue cast of all vnderstanding and sense of a man or els to haue put on the obstinat peruersnesse of the Diuell How comes it then to passe that you are not ashamed to vrge here and els where so often in this your grand Imposture S. Gregories refusing the name of vniuersall Bishop as an argument to disproue his authority and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church especially since it hath bene so often and so fully answered by vs But because here you insist so much theron I will for the readers satisfaction briefly declare in what sense Pelagius and S. Gregory refused that title and how to better your argument you abuse and falsify our Authors The title of Vniuersalis Episcopus Vniuersall Bishop may be taken two wayes first for a Bishop that challengeth an vniuersall power ouer all other Bishops clayming to himselfe a right of hearing and determing all Ecclesiasticall causes in his owne and their Diocesses leauing them no other right to exercise any Episcopall iurisdiction power but only such as they shall receaue frō him as his Vicars In this sense S. Gregory conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to stile himselfe Vniuersall Bishop as it appeareth out of his plaine and expresse words in diuers of his Epistles (z) L. 4. ep 32.34 36.38 l. 7. ep 70. to which the margent will direct you And in this sense he calleth the name of vniuersall Bishop A prophane and Antichristian title 2. It may be taken in the same signification with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae so that it signify a Bishop to whom belongeth the gouerment of the vniuersall Church and the determining of all such causes as appertaine to her in generall without taking away or hindering the ordinary power and right of other Bishops and leauing each of them in their seuerall places degrees with full power and authority to iudge and determine all Causes Ecclesiasticall belonging to their Diocesses and within them In this sense the tytle of Vniuersall Bishop is not condemned by S. Gregory as new or prophane or any way vnlawfull but agreeth to the Pope no lesse then the title of Bishop of the vniuersall Church And therfore as S. Gregory (a) Ep. ad omnes Episc stileth himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church so likewise when Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria writing to him (b) L. 4. ep 36. gaue him the title of vniuersall Bishop he acknowledged (c) L. 4. ep 36. that in this sense he might lawfully accept therof and that the Councell of Chalcedon and the following Fathers had giuen it to his predecessors But yet he refused it out of his great humility as also he denied himselfe to be a Priest (d) L. 4. ep 31. and as S. Paul called himselfe the greatest of sinners (e) 1. Tim. 1.15 and thought himselfe vnworthy to be called Apostle (f) 1. Cor. 15. ◠And chiefly lest he might be thought to accept of it in the former sense vnlawfull iniurious to other Bishops in which he conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to vsurpe it And finally that therby he might better represse his insolency This doctrine is deliuered by Baronius and Bellarmine of whom because they declare Vniuersalis Episcopus in this second sense to be all one with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae you say (g) Pag. 94. They would gladly confound these two titles therby to proue their Popes to be proper Monarkes ouer the whole Church because some predecessors of S. Gregory haue bene called Bishops of the vniuersall Church which is their peruerse error refuted by one of their learned Iesuits But you must pardon me if I tell you that this is a shamefull vntruth for Baronius and Bellarmine deliuer the same double acception of Vniuersalis Episcopus which I haue declared and likewise affirme that in one of them it may be attributed to the Pope but not in the other which is not to confound but to distinguish that confusion and mistake may be auoyded And the thing it selfe is euident for if the title of Vniuersalis Episcopus might not be taken in a sense vnlawfull S. Gregory would not haue condemned it in Iohn of Constantinople as a new prophane Antichristian title And againe if it might not be taken in a sense lawfull neither the Councell of Chalcedon nor the following Fathers (h) Apud S. Greg. l. 4. ep 36. would haue giuen it to the Bishops of Rome The former sense is vnlawfull because it taketh away all ordinary power and iurisdiction due to other Bishops in their Diocesses The second is lawfull because it leaueth to them their ordinary power and iurisdiction From whence it followeth that as S. Gregory in this second sense did instile himselfe Episcopum Vniuersalis Ecclesiae (i) Ep. ad omnes Episcop so if Vniuersalis Episcopus be taken in the same sense it is also lawfull and due to the Bishops of Rome and in this sense he taketh it when he sayth that the Councell of Chalcedon and the following Fathers gaue it to his predecessors But the former sense he condemned as prophane and Antichristian reprehended in Iohn of Constantinople And Salmeron for