ours Now it is to be cōsidered in whether they did well in whether ill To decide this cōtrouersie let vs heare the cēsure of the best Catholike Authors of those times Optatus a most worthy prelate that liued amōg the Donatists Lib 1. con Parm. blamed them greatly for appealing frō the iudgment of Bishops vnto the Emperor constantine the great relateth how the same good Emperor detesteth that their appeale breaking out into these words O furious and mad boldnes they Ad quam appellatio nem constantinus Imperator sic respondit O rabida furoris auda cia sicut in causis gentilium fieri solet appellatio nem inter posuerunt Aug. Ep. 166. Quia constantinus non est ausus de causa episcopi iudicare eam finiendam Episcopis delegauit Idem Epistola 162. Neque est ansus Christianus imperator sic eorum fallaces querelas suscipere vt de iudicio episcorum ipse iudicaret sed alios episcopos dedit a quibus ipsi rursum ad ipsum imperatorem prouocarent quam re illos quemadmodum detestetur audistis eorum peruersitatibus tandem cessit vt de illa causa post episcopos iudicaret a sanctis antitistibus postea veniam petiturus c. like the pagans haue put in an appeale which was from the Bishops to the Emperor S. Austin an other Antagonist of the Donatists in rehearsing the demeanor of the said Emperor towards the same appeale sheweth his owne opinion therabout He first recordeth that the Emperor would not take vpon him to iudge of the iudgments of the Bishops till hee was pressed thervnto by the Donatists impudencie which to represse hee finallie gaue them the hearing yet vnder the correction of the Bishops meaning afterward to craue pardon of them therfore all this that great doctor hath set downe in expresse tearmes further S. Athanasius of this matter vseth these words If the iudgmēt of this cause belōg to Bishops what hath the Emperor to do therwith if contrarywise these thinges be forged by the threates of Emperors what need is there of Bishops when was it euer heard that the iudgmēt of the church took its authority from the Emperour he relateth there this sentēcee of the great Hosius to the Emperor Athanasius epist ad solitar vitam agentes Si istud est iudicium episcoporum quid commune cum eo habet imperator sin contra ista minis Caesaris constantur quid opus est hominibus titulo episcopis quando a condito aeuo auditum est quod iudicium Ecclesiae authoritatē suā ab imperatore accepit ibidem in epistola Hosii ad Imperatorem Ne te misceas ecclesiasticis neque nobis in hoc genere praecipe sed potius ea a nobis disce tibi Deus imperium commisit nobis qua sunt ecclesiae concredidit intermedle not with ecclesiasticall causes nor cōmaund vs in that kind but rather learne those matters of vs God hath giuē you the Empire but hath cōmitted to vs the charge of the church To whō I will ioyne S. Ambrose who to the Emperor Valētinian addresseth this discourse whē haue you heard most gratious Emperor that laymē did iudge ouer Bishops in causes of faith Surely if your sacred maiesty please to pervse the course of holy scriptures or practise of former times you shall find none that deny bishops in matter of faith Ambros l. 2 epist 13. ad Aug. valentin Quando audisti clemētissime imperator in causa fidei laicos de episcopis iudicasse c. At si certe vel scripturarum seriem diuinarum vel vetera tempora retractemus qui◠est qui abnuat in causa fidei in causa inquam fidei Episcopos solere de imperatoribus Christianis non imperatores de episcopis iudicare c. Pater tuus deo fauente vir maturioris atatis qui dicebat non est meu◠iudicare inter Episcopos c. in matter I say of faith to haue been Iudges over Emperors not Emperors ouer Bishops your father being by the fauour of God a man of riper yeres did say it belongeth not to me to iudg ouer Bishops It being then most certain and evident by the verdit of S. Athanasius Hosius S. Ambrose S. Austin and Optatus that the Catholike church in that her natiue purity did mainteyne that opinion that temporall Princes had no authoritie to determyne ecclesiasticall causes The Donatists therin agreed with the true Catholike church and when they did fly from the iudgment of Bishops vnto temporall princes as supreme iudges in causes ecclesiasticall then they traced out the pathway vnto the protestants misbelief and therin were condemned and the protestants in them by the verdict of the most approued Prelats and best learned doctors of the primitiue church Let this then bee scored vp for a principall resemblance betweene the protestants and the Donatists R. AB 4. THe Donatists by false rumors discouraged men from coming to church and gaue out of the Catholike Bishops that some of them at the time of celebration of the sacraments Optatus l. 3. 7. did set an image vpon the aultar or communion table wherat the minds of men were greatly moued and euery one said hee that tasteth therof tasteth of a prophane thing so contrary was it holden to religion then which M. Bishop approueth now to set images vpon the Aultar But in this also the Papists are their followers who in the like sort devise rumors and tales of our divine service to make men abhorre to haue communion with vs. W. B. THis resemblance is more common then the high way For men of what religion soever they bee do seeke out reasons to disswade others from participation in holy rites with all other religions and specially from that which is most contrarie to their owne And neuer were any sectaries that deuised more lewd and vile slanders of any religion then the protestants haue done of the Roman And among others they do vse the verie same motiue of the Donatists to discourage men from going to masse To wit that there are Images in the churches set vpon the high aultars So that M. Abbot in multiplying his resemblances doth but multiply and increase the protestants conformity with the Donatists to the shame of their owne religion what kind of Image that was which the Donatists rumored should bee set vpon the Aultar for of the communion table or of Ministers there was no newes in the old daies of Optatus but of Aultars sacrifice and priests it is not certaine whether it were of Dragons and Leopards such as the protestants set vp in their churches or rather of some false God I cannot find in that Author Only I am assured it could not bee of any holy picture of Christ or of anie of his Saints such as Catholiks place in their churches because long before that in Tertullians daies there was engraven vpon the chalice wherin they offred vp the sacrifice of Christs
thing in this matter is that rocke vpon which Christ built his church Is not this deduction plaine enough But what will you say if the same most Autentike Doctor do in expresse tearmes affirme the church of Rome to bee that self same rocke then all the world maie see that to bee most apparantly true which I said And M. Abbot must needes confesse that hee ouershot himself verie grosly These bee S. Austins owne words come my brethren if you please August in Psalco partem donati Venite fratres si vultis vt inseramini in vite dolor est cum vos videmus praecisos ita iacere Numerate Sacerdotes ab ipsa Petri sede in ordine illo patrum quiâ— cui successit videre ipsa est petra quaÌ„ non vincunt superba inferorum porta and bee graffed in the vine It grieveth vs to behold you lying so cutt of Recken the priests even from the seate of Peter and in that rew of fathers regard to whom who succeeded that seate is the rocke which the proud gates of hell do not overcome The seat of Peter and succession of Bishopâ— of Rome is that rock in S. Austins iudgment against which hell gates shall not prevaile was not that the verie same rocke vpon which Christ built his church S. Hierom was another most learned Doctor of the ancient church Hier. Epist 57. ad Damasum Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens beatitudini tua id est Cathedra Petri communione consocior super illam petram aedificatain ecclesiam scio as all the learned know hee testifieth the same most plainly in these words vnto Damasus then Bishop of Rome I following none as chief but Christ am in communion associated vnto your holines that is vnto the chaire of Peter vpon this rocke I know the church of Christ to bee builded Lo S. Hierom knew and confessed S. Peters chaire in which Damasus the pope then sate to bee the same rocke vpon which Christ built his church Pope Iulius the first was yet a more ancient and a verie holie and grave father hee teacheth the same plainlie in these words Ex Iulij increpatoria ad Orientales Ipsa Romana sedes omnibus maior praelata est ecclesijs quae non solum Canonum sanctorum patrum decretis sed D. Saluatoris nostri voce singularem obtinuit principatum Tu es inquit Petrus super hanc petram adificabo ecclesiam meam The sea of Rome is preferred before all churches which not only by decrees of Canons and holie fathers hath obtained that singuler principalitie but by the voice of our lord when hee said Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will build my church If the church of Rome by these words of our Saviour vpon this rock I will build my church were preferred before all others as that graue holie prelate teacheth then must it needes follow that the church of Rome was the rock vpon which Christ built his church Damasus was also a very ancient holy Ex Epistola 4. B Damasi ad Stephanum Epist Concilia Aftiâ—ae Scitis fratres dilectiss firmamentum à deo fixum immobile atque titulum lucidissimum suorum sacerdotum id est omnium Episcoporum Apostolicam sedem esse constitutam verticem Ecclesiarum Tu es enim sicut diuinum pronuntiat verbum Petrus super hanc petram adâ—ficabo Ecclesiam meam and learned Prelate he writeth in this sort you know most beloued brethren the Apostolik see of Rome to be constituted by God a fixed and vnmoueable firmament a most bright title of all byshops and topp of churches euen as the word of God doth pronunce saying thou art Peter and vpon this rock I will build my church he then also took and expounded those words of Christ to appertaine vnto the see of Rome The testimonie of these fewe ancient renowmed fathers is more then sufficient to iustifie what I said and to assure the vpright readers that some of the ancient fathers did interprete the church of Rome to bee that rock vpon which our Saviour built his church wherby they maie see how vnciuilly M. Abbot dealt with mee having no other ground for it then his owne ignorance coopled with audaciousnes Bicause M. Abbot doth in this paragraff thrust in here and there manie broken sentences out of the fathers against the supreme authoritie of the Bishop of Rome I hold it convenient to fortifie the same with some select testimonies of the best renowmed prelates of the Greeke and Easterne churches for if they whom it concerned most to stand for the dignitie and prerogatiues of their owne churches being the greatest personages in that part of the world which was farthest of from Rome do neuertheles acknowledg the Bishop of Rome to haue had in the time of pure antiquitie commanding authoritie and power over themselues and their churches then no vnpartiall and vpright mind can doubt but that the church of Rome alwaies hath had or should haue had authoritie of power and superioritie in goverment over all other churches of the world Athanasius one of the prime Doctors of the Greeke church both for holynes of life greatnes of learning soundnes of faith and by his place patriarch of Alexandria which was the highest seat in the easterne coasts This most reverend Archbishop and renowmed Champion of Christs church being grievously persecuted by the Arrian heretikes and verie iniuriously thrust out of his Bishoprike by their meanes made his recourse vnto Iulius then pope of Rome and besought him to call his aduersaries being also Easterne Bishops to Rome to answer there for those wrongs that they had done him by which fact of his he acknowledged most perspicuously the church of Rome to haue power and authoritie over Easterne Bishops to determine their ecclesiasticall causes Thus it standes of record in the Ecclesiasticall history Athanasius flying from AlexaÌ„dria went to Rome Zozomen lib. 3. histor cap. 7. Athanasius autem fugiens Alexandria Romam venit codem tempore Paulus etiam Constantinopolitanus Episcopus forte illuâ— accessit Marcellus quoque Episcopus Anciroe Azelopus Gazae c. Lucius Adrianopoli Quorum criminationes cum Episcopus Romanus intellexisset omnes fidei Concilij Nicenâ— consentientes reperisset in communionem recepit Ac cum propter sedu dignitatem cura omnium ad cum spectaret singulis suam Ecclesiam restituit scripsitque ad Episcopos Orientis cosque incusavit quod inconsulto de his viris iudicassent deditque mandatum vt quidam illorum nomine ad diem constitutum accederent qui etiam minatus est se de reliquo non passurum eos invltos nisi novis rebuâ— studere desisterent Paulus Bishop of Constantinople another great sea of the Greeke church was also fled thither for succour and diuers other Bishops of the said Easterne church whose accusations when the Bishop of Rome had heard
giue mee leaue to imploy one probable presumption that in my poore opinion doth much fortifie the same It is collected out of those letters which in ancient time were called literae formatae and granted either vnto Bishops at their first creation or vnto priests that were dismissed by licence from their ordinary This kind of letters was in great vse in the primitiue church for no stranger was admitted into communion among the Catholiks without them The invention of these leters is referred to the first generall councell holden at Nice and the forme of them is recorded authentically in the end of the Chalcedon councell immediatlie before the letters of the Illustrious persons that wrote in or about that councell vnder this title Atticus Episcopus qualiter formata Epistola fiat In this epistle fower letters principally were set for an assured token that hee in whose favour they were granted was a sound Catholike The three former letters were the first letters of the father of the sonne and of the holy Ghost to testifie that hee believed aright in the blessed Trinitie and therfore was no Arrian Sabellian Macedonian or such like heretike the fourth letter in that formall Epistle was a the first letter of S. Peters name therby to signifie that the bearer was receiued into the vnitie of that church of which S. Peter as chief governor kept the keies the other letters of his name that graÌ„ted that Epistle Distinct 73. ca. 1. to whom it was granted I omitt as not necessary to this purpose hee that will may see a copiâ— of such an Epistle sett downe at large in Gratian where the misterie also of these letters is deciphered to bee such as I haue declared namely that the fourth letter was put for S. Peters name to make knowen that the bearer therof was a true member of that church in qua Petro datum est ius ligandi atque absoluendi in which to S. Peter was giuen the right of binding and loosing Out of which notable monument of antiquitie I draw this argument so well assured it was and a thing so notoriously knowne and approved in those purer daies of the primitiue church that S. Peter and the popes of Rome his successors were the chief governors of Christs church and the insoluble band of the vnitie therof that the first letter of S. Peters name was chosen for an vndoubted badge and token of being a sound member receiued into the vnity of the said Catholike church for why should the first letter of S. Peters name rather then any other of the Apostles bee taken for such an infallible marke of society with the catholike church had it not been a cleere overuled case that hee who like an even squared stone lay vpon that rocke and did adhere vnto the head of the church was vndoubtedly a true member therof This argument as it shall serue for a coÌ„clusion of that which goeth before so it will make a conuenient passage to that which followeth in M. Abbots text 15 There was saith hee a church when there was no Roman church at all how then could that church bee builded vpon the Roman church This is a verie poore obiection for speaking as wee now do of the church which was since our Saviours time if hee take that season next to Christs ascension S. Peter was head of that church during his owne life and after him the Bishops of Rome his lawfull successors No man ever said that the church or Bishop of Rome was head of the church before S. Peter had placed his seate there If M. Abbot will accord vs that ever since that time the church of Rome hath been head of the rest as in truth it hath been wee will easily grant him that before it had no such priviledg Another like slugg M. Abbot thrusteth forth thus If the church of Rome bee that rock and other churches bee builded thervpon then it would follow that the gates of hell should never haue prevailed against any other of those churches but it hath prevayled against them Ergo. True good Sir if those other churches had stuck close to the said rocke the gates of hell had never prevailed against them but they foolishly flitting from that firme rocke were sowsed in the surging seas and swallowed vp by the gulfe of hell M. Abbot saw this to bee so full an answere that hee could not tell what to saie to it but that wee haue no assurance that the church of Rome shall continue alwaies builded vpon Christ Iesus this is M. Abbots last refuge and to it as to a safe anchor he doth twenty times fly in this book wherfore it shall haue a full answer in its due place but let vs first see whether the Bishops of Rome be S. Peters lawfull successors because that comes next M. Abbot doth either graunt it to bee true or at least hee supposeth it for true for hee disproues it not wherfore I need not staÌ„d loÌ„g about it so much the rather because it is recorded by S. Iraeneus Iren. l. 3. v. 3. Tertull. de prescr 36. Euseb l. 2. hist c. 2. Epiphar heres 27. Optat. mi leuit l. 2. perm Hieron de viris ill 1. August Epistola 1â—5 Tertullian Eusebius Optatus mileuitanus S. Hierom S. Austin and briefly by the full consent of all that haue made anie Catalogue of S. Peters successors It is evident and confessed by both sides that our Saviour established such a forme of government in his church that hee would haue to continew as long as the same church continued that is alwaies to the worlds end which was according to our doctrine that one should bee head and supreme gouernor over all the rest to preserue vnity in faith and conformity in rites of religion And by name that one was S. Peter for his life time All which I haue before proved out of holy scriptures and the ancient fathers S. Peter finally making choise of Rome for the seat of his Bishoprick liued there many yeres and in the end died Bishop of Rome wherfore they that were choseÌ„ Bishops of Rome were to succede him as in that seate so in that supreme governmeÌ„t of Christs church which daily experience teacheth vs. for wee see that whosoever is chosen bishop of any place for example of Canterburie hee presentlie vpon his installing entreth vpon all the priuiledges of honour and government which the former Bishops his predecessors died possessed of so that no sooner any man is created Archbishop of Canterbury but that imÌ„ediatly hee is therby Metropolitane of England and hath comanding authority ouer all the Bishops of that prouince with law full Iurisdiction to heare and determyne all such causes that by appeale do come to his courts In like maÌ„ner Linus being chosen Bishop of Rome after the death of S. Peter entred into possession of full power authoritie not onlie ouer the Diocese of Rome but also over all the Bishops of Christs church
Romans that he should neuer afterward be able to lift vp his head against them in any matter of faith wherin S. Hierom seemes to bee so confident that he doubts not to write to Ruffinus that which M. Abbot may take as spoken to himself Notwithstanding know you that the Romane faith by the Apostles mouth praised S. Hieron Apol. 3. con Ruffinum Attamen scito Romanam fidem Apostolico ore laudatam eiusmodi praestigias non recipere Etiam si Angelus aliter annunciet quam semel praedicatum est Pauli auctoritate munitam non posse mâ—tari doth not admit anie such deceites and tromperies yea if an Angel should preach anie other thing besids that which hath been alreadie preached yet that faith being by the Apostles authoritie fortified could neuer bee changed will M. Abbot yet be so shameles as to stand vp and to giue this graue holie doctor the lie as he must needs do if hee will yet sing his old song and saie that the Roman faith notwithstanding all the Apostles praier and prophecie is foulie changed and that in verie manie great points with the forsaid testimonies may be linked for the antiquitie of it this that standeth on record in the third generall councell holden at Ephesus S. Peter the head of the Apostles and pillar of faith c. did receiue from Christ the keies of the kingdome of heauen c. and doth vnto this daie liue in his successors and determine causes And shall alwaies liue Behold S. Peter alwaies liueth in the Bishops of Rome his successors to determin causes and gouerne the church what then shall become of M. Abbots change will he make S. Peter also a changeling This point I will close vp with this memorable sentence of S. Leo. The soundnes of that faith praised in the prince of the Apostles is euerlasting Leo in serm 2. Assumptionis suae ad sumum Pontificem Soliditas enim illius fidei quae in Apostolorum Principe est laudata perpetua est Et sicut permanet quod in Christo Petrus credidit ita permanet quod in Petro Christus instituit c. Manet ergo dispositio veritatis beatus Petrus in accepta fortitudine petra perseuerans suscepta ecclesiae gâ—bernacula non reliquit and like as that which Peter beleeued of Christ continueth for euer so doth that which Christ did institute in Peter c. Therfore the ordinance of the truth standeth fast and blessed Peter perseuering by his successors in that strength of a rocke hath not forsaken the gouernment of the church Seing the faith and fortitude of Saint Peter shall continue for euer in his successors the bishops of Rome that cuckoes song of M. Abbots that the now church of Rome is in matter of faith degenerated from the old must needs be false And what more manifest signe can one demaund therof then that all the wits of the protestants hauing travailed after nothing more for this fiftie yeeres cannot yet find out any one errour in matter in faith wherin the church of Rome hath at any time dissented from her self in former ages I know right well that they avouch boldlie that it hath changed manie articles of faith but let him that will haue credit given to him so saying name the error it self in particuler and the time when it was first receiued and by what pope it was approued which if no learned Protestant be able to performe let them be well assured that repeat it neuer so often over and ouer that the church of Rome is not the same now as it was in S. Austins time they deserue not to be beleeued Neither am I ignorant that some more hardy then their fellowes haue gone about to designe the time when the church of Rome began her Apostacy But therin they agree no better then the false Elders that accused Susanna of adulterie did of the tree vnder which the fained fact was pretended to bee done And therfore be no more worthy of credit then they were 30 M. Abbot goeth on to proue that I racked and wronged my authors and saith that Tertullian whoÌ„ I alleaged as sending to the church of Rome to learne the true doctrine doth send also to other churches as well as to the church of Rome Be it so but if he appealed vnto the church of Rome as well as to others did I him any wrong in saying that he appealed vnto the church of Rome I did not saie that he excluded all or ane ony other Doth not M. Abbot rather rack my words and wrong himself in imposing that vpon mee which I said not Besids M. Abbot doth offer great wrong to Tertullian not so much by racking his words as by chopping them quite of in the middest for where Tertullian saith If thou border on Italy thou hast the church of Rome vnde nobis authoritas presto est whence authority comes to vs. M. Abbot cuts of the latter part of the sentence which imports that men in Africk for that was Tertullians countrie did acknowledg the church of Rome to haue authority ouer them M. Abbot then hauing so cunningly conueyed the matter by cutting of that which made for vs doth afterward aske mee what was there left to serve my turne if his conueiance be no cleanlier then so it were better for him to leaue those trickes ro them that haue more nimbles fingers The Cathalogue of the Bishops of Rome set downe by Epiphanius doth serue to shew that the Bishops of Rome are S. Peters true successors which M. Abbot and the protestants sometimes when they are at a stand do not stick to deny Optatus Bishop of Milevitane S. Austins auncient did proue as M. Abbot cannot deny his part to be Catholike in that it comunicated with the church of Rome yet M. Abbot to detract some what from the see of Rome addeth that Optatus did not proue his part Catholike by communicating simply with the church of Rome but for that communicating with the church of Rome it communicated with the church of the whole world which words of Optatus are so farr of from detracting any thing from the church of Rome that they do much magnifie the comodity of her communion for he saith not that he communicated with the church of Rome and with all other churches making them seuerall parts but that in communicating with the church of Rome he communicated with the churches of the whole world thereby declaring the comunion with the church of Rome to be the meanes of communicating with all others which is the very same that we do now go about to proove His words which containe manie memorable instructions are these spoken vnto Parmenianus a Donatist Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest an Episcopall chaire to haue been placed in the city of Rome Optatus mileuit l. 2. co parmenianum Igitur negare non potes scire te in vrbe Roma Petro primo Cathedram Episcopalem esse
meant to make himself a God Optat. l 3 co Parm. Cum per solum deum soleāt homines iurare passus est homines per se iurare tanquam per deum Ibid. Omnes discipulos suam Partem appel labat etc. quasi iam populum cum deo diuiserat among the rest hee would haue men to sweare in his name as Christian men vse in lawfull causes to sweare by the name of God Besides hee tearmed all of his sect pars mea my part seuering them as Optatus takes it from the part of Christ and people of God in these points specially according to Optatus did hee aspire to bee like God what pope did euer the like they are so farre of from parting stakes with Christ as that they professe themselues to bee the seruants of all Christs seruants And who was euer yet required to sweare by the popes name so that M. Abbot by multiplying such lame halting similitudes must needs looke for little credit of either iudgment or honesty R. AB SEcondly the Donatists tooke vpon them that they had alwaies been possessors of vnity and of the church of God insomuch as they reckened Nero Domitian and the rest to haue been persecutors of their church wheras their beginning to bee Donatists was after the time of those persecutions No otherwise do the papists take vpon them to haue been alwaies the church of God and that their Martirs were slayne wheras their beginning to bee papists which properly is for worshipping their Lord God the pope is of farr latter time c. W. B. VVhat a ridiculous and lowsie resemblance is this First it differeth little from that which hath been said three times before at the least that the Donatists take their church for the true church therfore it deserues to be let passe as it comes This might haue some grace if it had been applied to the Protestants who take their beginning of a late vpstart Frier not one hūndreth yeres agoe as all the world knoweth and yet blush not to avowch that it was their church that was persecuted 1400 yeres before it was hatched as the Donatists who descending of Donatus would not withstanding haue had the church that was persecuted long before Donatus was borne to haue been their congregation As for the Roman church M. Abbot doth in this chapter as you shall see anon confesse it to haue been alwaies and therfore they may trulie saie even by his own confession that Nero Domitian the rest persecuted their church As for those papists that worship the pope for their God Dic quibus in terris eris mihi magnus Apollo If M. Abbot can tell vs where they dwell or in what land they liued and when what were their names I shall hold him if not for a great Apollo yet for as great an oracle as that of Apollo in the meane season let it run on in the reckening of his other bables and tales R. ABBOT THE Donatists alleaged that Emperors and princes had nothing to do in church matters Optat. l. 3. con Par men held it a great fault in the Catholike Bishops to cōplayne to the Emperor of them what hath the Emperor to do with the church sayd their pope Donatus Aug. con Gaudent l. 2. c. 26. For the teaching of Israël saith Gaudentius God gaue charge to prophets not to kings And Christ sent fishermen and not souldiers for the planting of the faith Thus vpbraiding the Emperors for cōdemning their schisme and vsing force of armes to represse the infinit rage of their mad-braind Circumcellians Of the same humour bee the papists who make princes to be sonnes onlie of the church but no gouernors therof Dist 96. si Imper Kings must learne of Bishops and not teach them what appertaines to Religion because God will haue church matters governed by priests and not by secular powers And Christian Emperors must submit their executions vnto the rulers of the church therfore they hold the comissioners and officers of Princes to bee no competent Iudges in their causes they cary themselues contemptuously towards them c. W. B. THE Donatists are no sure cards to trust vnto in that cause of princes dealing with ecclesiasticall persons and in ecclesiasticall causes Because they maie serue for an example on all sides For like audacious and restles wrangling spirits they did run in that cause frō one extremitie to the other First against the rules and practise of the primitiue church they would needs appeale from the iudgment of Bishops vnto the Emperor hoping by false informations to haue found some vnlawfull fauour in his court a Opt. l. 1. co Parm. Donatus appellandum esse ab episcopis credidit wherof we haue for most soūd witnesses both Optatus in these words Donate the ringleader of the Donatists thought good to appeale from the Bishops to the Emperor And S. Austin who saith of them That they wearied the Emperor with their daily appeales Againe they first of all sued vnto the Emperor then appealed vnto him Aug. ep 166. Quotidia nis interpellationibus ipsi imperatori taedium fecerunt Ibidem A iudicibius Episcopis ad constantinum appellauerūt a quo toties conuicti con fusi redierunt a pernicie furoris nō recesserūt and after all that would not stand to his iudgmēt This was their first attempt wherin they shewed thēselues kindly protestants after wards being beatē with their own rod they began like wiser children to acknowledg that it did not belong to temporall princes to heare and determyne ecclesiasticall causes as their sentēces cited by M. Abbot do declare where if they had staid the Catholike Bishops of those times would not haue blamed them as you shall heare But they fell at last to the other extremity crying out against the Emperor both for punishing their mad-braynd Circumcellians that set churches on fire robbed and murdered and also for that hee came ouer all the Donatists as schismatiks and Heretiks with a pecuniary mulct making them to pay for their obstinate folly for which they cried out against the Emperor and his officers This did the Donatists Now to the applicatiō Both the protestants and wee condēne the Donatists for denying princes to haue temporall power to suppresse seditious persons robbers and murtherers and to punish them that be by the church declared heretiks either by the purse or otherwise But wee differ in the other point The protestants do hold princes to bee supreme iudges aswell in causes ecclesiasticall as temporall and therfore must needs approue of appeales made fro the Bishops to them wee granting to them full soueraigne power in causes tēporall do affirme that they be not ordinarie Iudges in causes Ecclesiasticall I say ordinary because by cōsent of both parties as it was in some causes of the Donatists they maie bee chosen arbitrators or iudges The Donatists held both these opiniōs first that of the protestāts afterwards
finding these Bishops conformable to the faith of the Nicene councell of which Athanasius had been a principall piller hee admitted them into communion of all spirituall matters And wheras by the dignitie of his sea the charge of all persons did apperteine vnto him hee restored them backe to their Bishoprickes And did write vnto the Bishops of the east blaming them for that they had vnaduisedly iudged of those personages and sent them a mandate that some of them should appeare at a certaine day in the name of the rest who also threatned that he would not afterward let them passe vnpunished if they gaue not ouer to molest others Is not heere plaine proofe of the Bishop of Rome his power and commaunding authoritie ouer the greatest Bishops in the east They appealed vnto him for iudgment hee heard their causes hee reversed the sentences given against them by the Bishops of the east hee finallie restored againe their Bishopricks vnto them cited the others to appeare before him and theatned to punish them if they continued in their ill doeing Hosius ad Imperator Constantium Citatus ab Athanas epist ad solit vitam agentes Ne te misceas Ecclesiasticis neque nobis in hoc genere praecipe sed potius ea à nobis disce tibi Deus imperium coÌ„misit nobis quae sunt Ecclesiae concredidit quemadmodum qui tuum imperium malignis oâ—ulis carpit contradicit ordinationi divinae Ita tu cave ne quae sunt ecclesiae ad te trahens magno crimini obnoxius fiaâ— The same is also witnessed by Athanasius himself in his epistle to them that lead a solitarie life and in his second Apologie where hee doth relate the whole busines and teacheth expresly that it did not belonge to CoÌ„stantius then Emperour to determine ecclesiasticall causes but that he ought to learne them of Bishops To Athanasius I will ioyne Cirillus bicause hee was patriarch of the same sea of Alexandria Cirillus epist 18 ad CelestinuÌ„ and as learned and valiant a maintayner of the third generall councell held at Ephesus as Athanasius had been of the first kept at Nice Extat Tomo 1. Concil Ephes cap 29. This most learned Archbishop confesseth the like commanding power to haue been in Celestinus then pope of Rome that thother did before in Iulius Quoniam vero deus hiscâ— in rebus prudentiam à nobis exigit long aque ecclesiarum consuetudo suadet vt istiusmodi sanctitati tuae communiceÌ„tur non possum equidem quod apertum est ad pietatem non perscribere post malefacta exposita subiungit Et quamvis res ita se habeat non prius tamen illius communionem confidenter deserere ausi fuimus quam haec ipsa pâ—etati tuae indicaremus Digneris proinde quid hic sentias declâ—rare quo liquido nobis constet communicare ne nos cum illo oporteat an vero libere eidem denunciare neminem cum eo communicarâ— qui eiusmodi Erroneam doctrinam fovet praedicat Porro tâ—a integritatis mens ac super hac re sententia non modo pijssimis Macedoniae Epistopis sed totius quoque Orientis Antistibus perspicue per literas exponi debet Thus hee writeth to him Bicause in busines of this nature God requireth of vs wisdome and the long continued custome of the church doth admonish vs to communicate them with your holines I cannot but giue your pietie to vnderstand what is here discouered of Nestorius Bishop then of Constantinople whose foule crimes and pestilent errours when hee had laid open and certified how hee had done his endevour to move him to repentance but all in vaine hee afterward addeth Albeit these things bee soe yet wee durst not forbeare communicating with him before wee had related these things to your pietie Vouchsafe therfore to declare what you deeme to bee done therin that wee may assuredly know whether wee ought to communicate with Nestorius or els boldlâ—e denounce that no man ought to communicate with him that doth dâ—fend such erronious doctrine your holines good pleasure and sentence in this matter is to bee notified not onlie to the Bishops of Macedonia but vnto all the prelates of the east Behold the maÌ„ner of proceeding in these pure times of the church S. Cirill who for learning was perhaps better able then Celestinus to iudge of the errour of Nestorius and being patriarch of Alexandria by his place held the highest court of Iudgment in the east church Celestin Papa Cyrillo Archiepiscopo habetureodem Tomo 1. Concil Ephes cap. 16. yet would hee not take vpon himself to determine of Nestorius heresies or to excommunicate him but referred both vnto the Bishop of Rome whose sentence therin both hee and all the Bishops of the east did require and embrace In this manner did the same pope Celestinus returne answere vnto S. Cirill Most Reverend brother do you take vnto you our authoritie Quamobrem nostra autoritate ascita nostráque vice loco cum potestate vsus eiusmodi non absque exquisita severitate sententiam exequeru nempe vt nisi à decem dierum intervallo ab huius nostrae admonâ—tionis die numerandorum nefariam doctrinam suam conceptis verbis anathematizeâ— eamque de Christi dei nostri â—eneratione fidem in posterum confessurum se spondeat quam Romana tuae sanctitatu ecclesia vniuersa denique religio Christiana praedicat illico sanctitas tua illi ecclesiae prospiciat and vsing our power and place do you execute against Nestorius the sentence of excommunication with exquisite severitie vnles within ten daies after hee hath been admonished from vs hee do recant and recall his errours and let your holines provide a more worthy person for that Bishoprike which mandate of his Cirillus with the whole couÌ„cell following proceeded to the deposition of Nestorius in this maÌ„ner No man doth doubt Tomo secundo eiusdem Concil Ephes cap. 16. Nulli dubium imo seculis omnibus nâ—tum est sanctum beatissimumque Petrum Apostolorum principem caput fideâ—que columnam ecclesiae Catholicae fundamentum à Domino nostro Iesu Christo caelestis regni claues accepisse solvendique atque ligandi potestate quam acceperat vsum fuisse necnon per successores suos huc vsque semper vivere causas decernere semperque victurum esse Huius itaque ordinarius successor vicarius sanctus beatissimusque papa Episcopus noster Celestinus nos suos pro se quasi vicarios misit c. Et hac est praefatio sententia Nos canonum vi sanctissimi que patris comministri nostri Celestini ecclesia Romanae Antistitis epistola compulsi hanc tristem in illam sententiaÌ„ tulimus naie it hath been in all ages notorious that the most blessed S. Peter priÌ„ce head of the Apostles the pillar of faith and foundation of the Catholike church did receive of our Saviour Iesus Christ
in all such cases and causes that do belong to the supreame governors court and cognizance in as large and ample manner as S. Peter had before enioyed and died posessed of this being a matter depending vpon common equity and daily practise doth require no other proofe nor can haue anie better then the aknowledgment of all the Orthodox and most eminent christian prelates of both Latin and Greeke east and west churches which I haue before pleÌ„tifully produced and wheÌ„ more need shal bee will yet produce more 17 M. Abbot admitting as I said the pope of Rome to bee S. Peters successor yet argueth that they may faile in faith bicause Caiphas did succeed lineally to Aaron yet Caiphas gaue senteÌ„ce against Christ further hee alleageth that seÌ„tence out of the law All are not the children of Saints that hold the places of saints but they that practise the workes of saints M. Abbot foreseeing that wee would answere that many successors though not so holy iust and wise as their predecessors were yet haue the same authoritie and Iurisdiction over their floc k which their predecessors had And albeit they may comitt some fault vnworthy their calling yet they do not therby leese the dignitie of their place And that namely our Saviour had praied for S. Peter that his faith should not faile but that hee not withstanding his owne frailty should haue strength from God through the vertue of Christs praier to confirme his brethren in the true faith This M. Abbot foreseeing doth acknowledg it to bee true yet that hee may not bee thought to have nothing more to saie doth aske vs with Austin as hee speaketh Did hee praie for Peter and did hee not praie for Iames and Iohn to saie nothing of the rest it is manifest that in Peter they all are contayned and praying for Peter hee is knowne to praie for them all All this is true but not against any thing that wee saie for it being granted that our Saviour made manie good praiers for all his Disciples doth it follow therof that his praier made for the preservation of Saint Peters faith was not heard nay rather doth it not thervpon most evidentlie ensue out of M. Abbots owne discourse which is that everie one of the elect obtaineth that without faile which Christ praied for in their names that Christ his praier made for S. Peter obtayned for him that his faith should never faile But M. Abbot like an ill Alhymist would faine distill out of those words of S. Austin that Peter by that praier had no priviledg aboue the rest which is both coÌ„trarie to the expresse words of our Saviour who doth distinguish Peter from the rest and to him apart did speake those wordes Luca 22. Behold saith our Saviour Satan hath desired to sift you that was all the Apostles to whom those words were spoken but I haue praied for thee Peter see how particularly hee commeth to him that thy faith do not faile and thou Peter once conuerted strengthen thy brethren M. Abbots collection is also against S. Austin himself for though S. Austin do saie that in praying for Peter hee praied for them all his meaning is not that hee praied that every one of them in particuler might receiue the same gift which was bestowed on S. Peter but that Christ in praying that Peters faith might not faile that hee also might haue strength to confirme his brethren may bee truly said to haue praied for them all because they were to rely vpon the stability of Peters faith and to receiue comfort from him wherfore they being assured that Peters faith should not faile they ioyning in faith with him were also assured that they should not faile August quaest noui testa q. 75. And this to bee S. Austins meaning the words following in the very same sentence which M. Abbot did guilefully clipp of do manifestly shew In praying for Peter Quid ambigitur pro Petro rogabat â—ro Iacobo Ioanne non rogabat vt caeteros taceam manifestum est in Petro omnes contineri rogans enim pro Petro pro omnibus rogasse dignoscitur semper enim in praeposito populus aut corripitur aut laudatur Christ praied for them all for that alwaies in the Governour the people are either corrected or praised So that hee praied for them not in particuler but as they were contained in their president Saint Peter Out of which so farr of is it that thence can bee gathered as M. Abbot did that Peter had not anie priuiledg aboue the rest of the Apostles that it followeth cleerly in S. Austins Iudgment that hee was president and head of that colledg of the Apostles 18 M. Abbot being amazed at this point of succession and not knowing well what to saie to it makes a stand and admitting Christ to haue meant some singuler favour to Peter doth aske by what art I can deriue the effect of Christs praier from Peter to the popes from an holie Apostle to a ranke and succession of men amongest whom there haue been so manie Atheists Infidels Idolaters Heriticks and so manie incarnate Devills and hatefull monsters of mankind This foule troubled floud of his currish eloquence I omitt as vnciuill To the matter I haue alreadie answered that it verie much concerned the perpetuall puritie vnitie of Christs church that the effect of our Saviours holy praier should not bee closed vp with S. Peters life but bee continued to the worlds end that there might bee alwaies in the church one liuing visible and certaine Oracle to coÌ„sult in all doubtfull questions which should arise And one supreme governor to confirme the weake to correct the proud and to hold all in one vniforme order of perfect discipline which to haue been S. Peters successors the Bishops of Rome Christs institution ioyned with the ordinarie manner of proceeding of the vniuersall church from the purest antiquity doth testify as hath been declared And wheras M. Abbot doth demaund of mee by what art I can deriue the effect of Christs praier from Peter vnto a succession of men I might better aske of him what ignorance oppressed him when hee could not vnderstand that that which was graÌ„ted to one man might not as well bee graunted to another man and so continued from one to another to the worlds end But saith hee Peter was an holy Apostle and the others were sinfull creatures Be it so Did not M. Abbot himself immediatly before confesse that evill men might bee lawfull successors even vnto Saints as Caiphas was to Aaron And here as though hee had cleane forgotten himself doth seeme to woonder ar my art that would make evill Bishops of Rome Successors to good S. Peter how can a man of discretion rely vpon anie thing M. Abbot saies when hee findeth him so contrarie to himself within the compasse of so few lynes yet it is well knowne to all the learned that exceeding manie Bishops of
circumstance of the very same Epistle S. Ierom finding the Bishops of the East vnder whom hee then liued to bee at fowle square about the word Hypostasis which may signifie either a substaÌ„ce or a person and being vehemently sollicited as a very learned man to deliuer his opinion whether they should say one or three hipostases would neither trust his owne learning which was singular nor rely vpon the iudgment of Paulinus by whom hee was made Priest who was both a very learned man and the patriarch of Antioch his proper pastor and prelate but knowing well that the finall and infallible resolution of all such doubts appertained vnto the Bishops of Rome addressed himself vnto him as vnto Christs vicar and S. Peters successor And was so far of from saying that hee would follow it no farther then hee followed S. Peter or from taking vpon himself so much as once to iudge of the popes senteÌ„ce that hee would beleeue and embrace whatsoever hee should determine Hiâ—ron epist 57. ad dama sum papam Disâ—ernite si placet obseero non ti meho tres hypostases dicere si iuhetis Ibidem Obtestor beatitudineÌ„ tuam per crucifixum vt mihi Epistolis tuis siue tacendarum siue dicendarum hypostaseon detuâ— auctoritas Ibidem Non nouivitalem miletum respuo ignoro Paulinum Quicunque tecum non colligit spargit hoc est qui christi non est Antichristi est and most instaÌ„tly besought Pope Damasus to commaund him and give him authority to say either three hypostases or but one And finally doth conclude that hee who would not be ruled by the pope in such doubtfull causes was none of Christs flocke but belonged to Antichrist Let S. Hierom then bee taken for a perfect patterne of true obedieÌ„ce vnto the popes senteÌ„ces and let M. Abbot staÌ„d for an exaÌ„ple of wranglers and perverters of the ancieÌ„t fathers true meaning And for that M. Abbot brags in the end of this discourse that hee told not one lie in it which might bee taken for a miracle if it were true Let the reader know that hee belieth here that worthy patriarch Paulinus Ex phan heres 77. wheÌ„ he saith of him that hee taught not the doctrine of Peter in that questioÌ„ For Paulinus was of no other opinioÌ„ touching the blessed Trinity then was that great light of that parte of the world S. Athanasius as witnesseth that sound recorder of antiquity most holy Bishop Epiphanius So that for no other cause in the world did S. IeroÌ„ write vnto pope Damasus for finall resolutioÌ„ of that difficulty theÌ„ for that hee was fully perswaded that it beloÌ„ged vnto the Bishop of Rome rather theÌ„ to any other Patriarch to determine all such hard doubtfull questioÌ„s M. Abbots key-cold glosse takeÌ„ out of Erasmus his scholies vpoÌ„ that Epistle is not worth the answering for hee being but a late and slipperie writer no fast hold can bee taken on him Againe his words bee as vncertaine as hee that spoke theÌ„ he supposeth that the Cyty of Rome may hap to degenerate in the end May hapso may hap no. So the Bishop of Rome do continue alwaies Orthodox as we make no doubt but through the vertue of our Saviours praier hee shall our pole-starr in darke questions shall alwaies remayne firme and cleere Though the city of Rome which god forbid should bee ouerrun either by the Turke or by any other wicked race of misbelieuers to wars the later end of the world as it was in the beginning of the Christian religion ruled by heathen Emperors Of M. Abbots interpretation of S. Peters faith and coÌ„fession hath been spoken sufficiently I hope in the first chapter whither I referre the Reader Hitherto of M. Abbots former resemblances betwene the Donatists and the Papists in steed of iustification wherof hee hath in each of them confessed some one oversight or other besids hee hath made many sorie shifts to vphold them And hath poudered them also with diuers vntruths M. Abbot hauing acquited himself so brauely in his precedent braÌ„ches of comparison now hee will no doubt as worthily and wisely multiply and increase them The first staffe of his multiplication staÌ„deth vpon Donatus the pope as hee stileth him but hee might more modestly haue termed him the Abbot of the Donatists R. AB THAT Archheretike exalted himself aboue the Emperor Optatus l. 3. co â—arm and therby as Optatus reporteth made himself more then a man euen as it were a God bicause there is none aboue the Emperor but God And albeit hee did not expresly call himself God yet he did that which was aequivalent for hee made his party to stand in more feare of him then they did of God Hee advanced himself aboue all other Bishops thinking none comparable to himself Is not the pope of Rome such another Hee hath exalted himself aboue all other Bishops he hath lifted himself aboue the Emperor and therby as Optatus concludeth made a god of himself Extrauag Iohis 22. Cum interim in glossa in edit Par. 1601. cuÌ„ priuilegio Gregorij 13. besids he in effect taketh vpon him to bee God by dispensing against the law of God and by disanulling the institution of Christ yea in very words hee hath yeelded to be called a god leaving yet standing in the glosse of the Canon Law vncorrected Our lord god the pope he will haue men stand in no lesse awe of him then of God himself whiles he maks shew of Gods anger at his coÌ„maund to inflict it where hee will W. B. IF mens owne inventions how silly soever seemed not vnto themselues ouer daintie pretious M. Abbot would haue chosen rather to haue blotted out his former childish resemblances then to haue added new vnto them of the like light nature This his first is so generall on the parte of the Donatists and so vnproper to bee applied to the pope and papists as he tearmeth them that it is worse then naught was there ever any Archheretike that preferred not his owne iudgement and inuention before both Popes and Emperors too if they could not get them to imbrace their heresies and in this high kind of pride and disdaine there was never any perhaps that passed the protestants Grandsier and Ringleader Martin Luther who with his Bible Luther libro aduersus Regem Angliae Ibidem was in his owne conceit to be preferd before a thousand Austins a thousand Ciprians and a thousand churches In the eie of the world I wil be saith hee so honest that they shall not be worthy to loose the lâ—â—chet of my shoe And touching my doctrine I am to Deuils Kaysars kings princes and to all the world too too froward and proude In glossa co praeten sum edictum Imperiale And in another place I Doctor Martin Luther of Iesus Christ an vnworrhy Euangelist do say that the Emperors of Rome Turky and Persia the Pope Cardinals Bishops priests fryers and