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
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
that all men are to learne from her the Doctrine of fayth deliuered vnto her by the blessed Apostles And this is the reason why Tertullian speaking of Marcion and Valentinus (q) Ibid. c. 30. proueth them to be heretikes because they had fallen from the faith into which they had beleeued in the Roman Church Nam constat c. For sayth he and his words no lesse agree to Luther and Caluin then to Marcion and Valentinus it is manifest that they first beleeued the Catholike Doctrine in the Roman Church vntill in the tyme of the blessed Bishop Eleutherius for their turbulent spirit of nouelty wherwith they did also peruert their Brethren they were often excommunicated and at length cast out for euer to perpetuall ruine By this it appeareth that the Roman fayth was then held to be the Catholike fayth and the Roman Church which Tertullian calleth The Catholike Church (r) L. 4. cont Marcio c. 4. the Head and Mistresse of all Churches in the world for Marcion was borne at Sinope in Pontus and for his heresy and lewdnesse of lyfe excommunicated by his owne Father a holy Bishop who refusing to absolue him he went to Rome to seeke absolution but his Father opposing obteyned it not ValeÌ„tine was as Aegyptian borne and hauing fallen into heresy in Cyprus came to Rome in the tyme of Higinius Pope and feigning himselfe to be a Catholike was receaued into the Communion of the Roman Church but falling often backe into heresy as a dog returning to his vomit was finally cast out of the Church by the blessed Pope Elutherius as you haue heard Tertullian report And why did these heretikes as also Cerdon at the same tyme when they sought absolution from heresy come from so remote countreyes subiect to other Patriarkes and why from all the Easterne Church and why all of them to the Church of Rome in particular but because they knew her to be the Head Mistres of all Churches that had power to absolue all those which had bene excommunicated by any other Bishops whatsoeuer and to be the originall and center of Catholike Communion and that so long as they remayned out of her bosome they nether were nor should be esteemed Catholikes nor to be in state of saluation Herby it appeares how little reason you had to say out of Beatus Rhenaus (s) Pag. 131 1â—â— though Tertullian giue an honorable testimony to the Church of Rome yet be did not esteeme her so highly as wee see her accounted of at this day And since you acknowledge that Rhenanus his mouth for that and other his inconsiderat speeches is gagged by the Index expurgatorius you shew litle iudgment in obiecting his authority against vs. SECT VIII Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church VVHat hath bene sayd sheweth the futility of your argument out of Vincentius Lyrinensis which is like to the two former out of S. Iraeneus and Tertullian And how little support you haue for your cause in the authority of this ancient and learned Father he will testify for himselfe for when the Doctrine of rebaptizing Heretikes at their returne to the Catholike Church defended by Firmilianus Bishop of Cefarea Agrippinus S. Cyprian Bishops of Carthage and many others wrought so great inconueniences that it gaue a paterne of sacriledge to all heretikes and occasion of error to some Catholikes Vincentius declareth how Stephen then Pope of Rome suppressed it by his authority When sayth he (t) L. cont propha haeres nouat c. â— all men euery where exclamed against the nouelty of that Doctrine all Priests in all places ech one according to his zeale did opppse then Pope Stephen of blessed memory Bishop of the Apostolike See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops but yet more then the rest thinking it as I suppose reason so much to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth as he did surmount them in the authority of his place To conclude in his epistle which then was sent to Africa he decreed the same in these words Let nothing be innouated but that which comes by tradition be obserued And (u) Ibid. c. 10. notwithstanding that the contrary doctrine had sayth he such pregnant wits such eloquent tongues such a number of Patrons such shew of truth such testimonies of Scripture but glosed after a new and naughty fashion and that it was decreed in an African Councell yet the authority of the Pope declaring it a nouelty was of so great force that after he had condemned it all those things were abolished were disanulled were abrogated as dreames as fables as superfluous And afterwards (x) Ibid. c. 43. he alleageth as witnesses of his Doctrine diuers Greeke Fathers and addeth to them the authority of S. Felix Martyr and S. Iulius both Bishops of the Roman Church whom to declare their soueraigne authority he calleth The Head of the world And he concludeth Ibid. c. 45. Least in such plenty of proofes any thing should be wanting wee haue added for a conclusion a double authority of the See Apostolike the one of S. Sixtus a venerable man that now honoresh the Church of Rome the other of Pope Celestine of blessed menory his predecessor And their decrees he calleth Apostolicall and Catholike decrees SECT IX Other Obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared YOur obseruations are (y) Pag 101. seqq that S. Athanasius S. Augustine the Councels of Constantinople of Aegypt and of Cauthage reckoning diuers Bishops to shew their agreement in fayth with them name not only the Pope but other Bishops and write both to him them and consult with him and them as with their fellow Bishops which you say is to giue the Bishop of Rome so many mates and to equalize other Bishops with him But who seeth not what poore stuffe these your obseruations are For if one concerning matters of fayth should consult with his parish Priest and his Bishop would it follow that he equalizeth the parish Priest with the Bishop and maketh him his mate Or if you writing to the King and his Counsell I should lay to your charge that by consulting with his Maiesty and his Counsell you giue his Maiesty so many mantes as he hath Counsellors and equalize them in power and dominion with him would you not thinke mâ— a trifling and indeed a childish opponent how then shall wee thinke otherwise of you that by like consequence go about to equalize other Bishops with the Pope among themselues CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome THAT the Councell of Nice acknowledged the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ouer all Bishops is proued 1. Because Iulius a most holy Pope in his third Epistle which S. Athanesius hath inserted into his second Apology writing to the Arians and declaring vnto them the right of the Roman See to haue the
hearing and finall decision of the causes of Bishops fayth Are you ignorant that the custome is that wee be first written vnto that from hence may proceed the iust decision of things And therfore if any suspicion were conceyued against your Bishops there it ought to haue bene referred hither to our Church And then declaring vnto them that this authority of the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged by the Councell of Nice he denounceth vnto them that in condemning Athanasius without expecting his sentence they had done contra Canones against the Canons to wit of the Nicen Councell which he setteth downe at large in his second epistle to them that as well Athanasius in appealing from their Councell to him as also he in repealing their actes in restoring to their seates Athanasius the other Bishops whom they had deposed and in summoning their aduersaries to appeare at Rome yeld account of their proceedings had done quod Ecclesiastici Canonis est according to the Canons of the Church 2. The same is proued by the testimony of Innocentius the first whom S. Augustine S. Hierome and other Fathers of that age highly commend He ordayneth (z) Ep. ad Victric Rhotomag Epise that if any difference arise betweene Priests their cause be iudged by the Bishops of the same Prouince but that greater causes be referred to the See Apostolike as the Nicen Councell hath ordeyned 3. The same is proued out of S. Leo the Great who writing to Theodosius the yonger (a) Ep. 4â—â— and representing vnto him the sacrilegious proceeding of the second Councell of Ephesus which he by his owne authority had called and impiously maintained that Flauianus the holy Patriarke of Constantinople which in that Councell had bene iniustly deposed and many wayes wronged fled to him for redresse presenting a Writ of Appeale to his Legates intreateth his assistance for the calling of a generall Councell in Italy adding that the Nicen Canous necessarily require the calling of a Councell after the putting in of an Appeale This sheweth that the Councell of Nice decreed the lawfulnesse of appeales from generall Councels to the Pope Nor are you ignoraÌ„t thereof for afterwards (b) Pag. 308. you bring these very words of S. Leo against Appeales to him but not without great Eclypse of iudgment for in them two things are clearly expressed the one that according to the Nicen canoÌ„s Bishops wheÌ„ they are wronged may lawfully appeale to the Pope the other that after the putting in of an Appeale to him a generall Councell ought to be called that to the greater satisfaction of all parts the cause may be fully examined reiudged by the common consent of the Church which no more preiudicateth the Popes Authority then it doth the Kings that after an appeale made to Maiesty a Parliament be called for the decision of the cause for as the King is Head of the Parliament so is the Pope of a generall Councell And hereby it appeares how litle iudgment you shew in obiecting the African Councell to proue that the Councell of Nice denyed appeales to Rome both because your selfe alleaging this testimony of the Nicen Councell out of S. Leo proue them to be lawfull as also because the African Councell is wholly against you as hereafter shall be proued (c) Below Chap. 27. 4. That the Councell of Nice acknowledged the vninersall authority and iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome is proued out of Socrates a Greeke historian of aboue 1200. yeares standing who speaking of the Arian Councell at Antioch (d) L. 2. c. 5. proueth it to be vnlawfull because Iulius Bishop of Rome was not there nor sent any in his steed although the acclesiasticall canon forbids to rule the Churches without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome And Sozomen (e) L. 3. c. 9. Iulius reprehended them the Arians that they had secretly altered the fayth of the Nicen Councell and that against the lawes of the Church they had not called the Pope to their Synod for there was a sacerdotall law which pronounceth all things to be inualide that are done without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome And Theodoret (f) L 2. hist c. 4. Iulius Bishop of Rome following the canon of the Church commanded them the Arian Bishops to come to Rome and summoned the Diuinâ— Athanasius to answeare for himselfe in iudgment And the same is reported by Nicephorus Now this Canon so vniformely auouched by these Greeke historians which forbiddeth Bishops to be deposed or any Ecclesiasticall decrees to be made without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome can be of no other then of the Nicen Councell or els of that of Sardica which confirmed the decrees of the Councell of Nice and is reputed as an appendix vnto it both because as you haue heard Innocentius afflirmeth the Councell of Nice to haue made such a law as also for that since the Apostles tyme vntill the tyme of those two Councels there had bene held no other generall Councell in the Church And finally because Iohn that learned Disputant of the Latines in the Councell of Florence (g) Sess 20. in their name answeareth Marcus Ephesius the disputant of the Greekes that the most ancient epistles of Iulius and Liberius Popes which Iulian Cardinall of S. Sabina had shewed to the Grecians in that Councell did conuince that blessed Athanasius being persecuted by the Arians in their Councell at Antioch writ to Felix Marcus Iulius and Liberius all of them successiuely Popes of Rome for a true copy of the Actes of Nice which were kept entire and incorrupt at Rome all those that were in the East being corrupted by the Arians and that their answere was They wold not send the originall acts which being written in Greeke and Latine and subscribed by the Nicen Fathers and sealed with their seales were kept by the Bishop of Rome with great veneration but that they wold send him copied out seuerally such Canons as were for his purpose And moreouer he sheweth that when Athanasius had appealed from the Councell of Antioch to the See of Rome and that the Arians obiected it vnto him as a thing vnlawfull Liberius promised to send him copied out the Nicen decree for the lawfulnesse of appealing to Rome and that Iulius in his Epistle sharply rebuked the Arians for hauing presumed to call a Councell without his allowance shewing theÌ„ out of a decree of the Councell of Nice that no Councell could euer be held without the authority of the Bishop of Rome And lastly Pisanus (h) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 345.346 in proofe of these Nicene decrees produceth the testimonies of the Councell of Constantinople of Marcus of Stephanus and Innocentius Popes of Athanasius and the Bishops of Aegypt of other Orientals of Marianus Scotus Iuo Carnotensis and Gratianus All which with the rest here alleaged shew your vnshamefastnesse in vrging the Councell of Nice against Appeales to Rome which were so
he sent to the Councell instructions in writing what forme they ought to obserue in their iudgment And finally the Councell it selfe acknowledged that the Pope presided in it You say they to Leo (m) In relat ad Leon. presided in this assembly as the head doth to members exhibiting your good will by those that held your place And the faythfull Emperor presided for ornament sake and to see good order kept that is to hinder by his secular power such tumults and murders as had bene lately committed in the second false Councell of Ephesus Who seeth not that the whole Councell in these words acknowledged the Pope to be their Superior and themselues to be his subiects since they professe that he ruled ouer them at the head doth ouer the members SECT II. That the Councell of Chalcedon by the authority of Leo Pope deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus and restored Theodoret. THe supreme authority of the Pope is yet further proued out of the Councell of Chalcedon For Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople hauing reckoned vp the enormities of Eutyches requested Leo Pope to confirme the sentence of condemnation which in a Coūcell at Constantinople he had pronounced against him Moued then saith he (n) In ep praeambul Concil Chalced most holy Father with all these attempts of Eutyches with those thinges which haue bene done and are done against vs and against the holy Church worke confidently according to your courage as it belongs to the Priesthood and making the common cause and the discipline of the holy Churches your owne Vouchsafe to confirme by your writings the condemnation which hath bene regularty made against him Leo according to this petition of Flauianus condemned Eutyches and depriued him of his dignity Dioscorus sayth the Councell of Chalcedon writing to Leo (o) Relat. ad Leon. by the decrees of his tyranny hath declared Eutyches innocent and restored to him the dignity wherof he was depriued by your Holinesse What els is this but to say that albeit Eutiches had bene condemned by Flauianus his owne Bishop and lawfull Iudge yet afterwards when Flauianus by Eutyches his negotiation being deposed in the false Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo Pope and Leo declaring him innocent deposed Eutyches the Councell of Chalcedon imbraced this sentence of Leo and attributed to him the finall deposition of Eutyches as to the supreme Iudge that had power to reiudge the iudgments of other Bishops Which power Valentinian the third writing to Theodosius acknowledged and declared in this very cause of Flauianus We ought sayth he (p) In ep praeamb Conc. Chalced. to preserue inuiolable in our dayes the dignity of particular reuerence to the blessed Apostle Peter that the holy Bishop of Rome to whom antiquity hath attributed the Priesthood aboue all may haue place to iudge in matters of fayth and of Bishops c. For therfore according to the custome of Councells the Bishop of Constantinople Flauianus appealed to him in the contention which is risen about points of fayth The same power was like wise acknowledged by the Councell of Chalcedon in the cause of Theodoret Bishop of Cyre who being deposed by the second Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo and was restored by him and therupon admitted to take his place in the Councell of Chalcedon Let the right Reuerend Bishop Theodores come in say the Emperors officers (q) Conc. Chalc. act 1. that he may haue part in the Synod because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his Rishoprick and the most sacred and religious Emperor hath ordayned that he assist in the holy Councell Now that the Emperor ordayned not this as challenging any authority ouer Bishops but only as one that by his officers assisted at the Councell to execute the Popes decrees and to see peace and good order kept you haue heard the Councell testify (r) Sect. praeced and he himselfe declared the same saying to Pope Leo (s) In ep praeamb Concil Chalced. Our desire is that peace be restored to the Churches by this Councell celebrated vnder your authority The authority then is in the Pope not in the Emperor And when the cause of Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria came to be examined the Councell inquiring of the Popes Legates what charge they had against him Lucentius one of them answeared (t) Act. 1. Euagr. l. 2. c. 18. Dioscorus must yeld an account of his Iudgement because hauing no right to do the office of a Iudge he attempted it and presumed to hold a Synod without the authority of the See Apostolike a thing which nether was nor cold euer lawfully be done And Paschasinus another of the Legats (u) Act. 1. Wee haue here the commandes of the blessed and Apostolike Prelate of the City of Rome which is the Head of all Churches wherby his Apostolate hath vouchsafed to command that Dioscorus Archbishop of Alexandria sit not in the Councell but yet that he be admitted to be heard Wherupon the Councell commanded him not to sit as a Iudge among the Bishops but to stand in the middest as a person accused to answeare for himselfe (x) Euag. l. 2. c. 4. And the Councell hauing heard his whole cause condemned him requesting the Popes Legates to pronounce the sentence of condemnation against him (y) Act. 3. We beseech your Holinesse who haue the place and primacy of the most holy Pope Leo to pronounce the sentence against him Wherupon the Legates Paschasinus Lucentius and Bonifacius pronounced it in these words (z) Ibid. Therefore Leo the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of the great and ancient Rome hath by vs and by this present Synod together with the thrice blessed and worthy of all praise Peter the Apostle who is the Rock and Head of the Catholike Church and the foundation of the right fayth deposed Dioscorus from the Episcopall dignity and depriued him of all Sacerdotall function To this sentence all the Bishops subscribed And it is to be noted that wheras many most enormous crimes of Dioscorus are there rehearsed (a) Ibid. yet that which the Councell iudged to exceed all the rest was that he had presumed to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of great Rome Leo which enormity of his the whole Councell exaggerating to Leo sayd (b) Relat. ad Leon. And after and aboue all these things he hath extended his phrensy euen against him to whom the guard of the Vine hath bene committed by our Sauiour that is to say against your Apostolike Holinesse and hath dictated an Excommunication against you that seeke to vnite speedily the body of the Church In which words the Councell plainly professeth that the custody and charge of the whole Church signified vnder the name of a Vine was giuen to the Pope by our Sauiour and that he because he is Head of the Church laboreth to vnite the body thereof which also they
of the Canons but iustly deposed him from the Episcopall See of this Citty Loe here the first sentence absolutely finished by Agapet before his death And then speaking of the second sentence they adde (m) Ibid. Afterwards the Bishops of Palestine assembled in this Citty and others of the East and deputies of others and we did againe present petitions touching Anthymus and the other heretikes and demanded that Anthymus should certify his beliefe by writ to the See Apostolike and should purge himselfe from all hereticall errors in this case returne to the Church of Trebizond or if he would not do it that he should be finally condemned and deposed from all Sacerdotall dignity and action And a litle after (n) Ibid. These our iust requests the same most holy personage Agapet preuenting and seeing that Anthymus had fayled to appeare condemned him with the aforesaid heretikes and despoiled him of all office and dignity Sacerdotall and of all title Orthodoxall euen till the pennance of his errors The same is declared by all the Fathers of that Councell who in their sentence pronounced against Anthymus speaking of his first deposition say (o) Act. 4. The Blessed Pope Agapet of most holy and happy memory setting with God his hand to the sacred Canons deposed Anthymus from the See which belonged not to him pardoning those which had participated and communicated in the act And then passing to the second sentence they adde (p) Ibid. But because that euen in doctrine Anthymus was charged with many accusations and that many petitions were preferred against him by diuers reuerend personages to the most religious Emperor and the most blessed Pope the same most blessed Pope after much paine taken with a Fatherly care to regaine his soule c. pronounced a sentence in writing against him full of Clemency and seemly holynesse granting him tyme of repentance and ordayned that vntill he had changed his opinion and satisfyed the doctrines canonically defined by the Fathers be should neither haue the title of a Catholike nor of a Priest This sheweth that the Councell intermedled not at all with the first sentence of Agapet by which Anthymus was deposed from the See of Constantinople but because this second sentence of his deposition from the See of Trebizond was not absolute but left depending and subiect to reuocation if he should appeare and purge himselfe from heresy the Councell taking the cause where the Pope left it and according to the order giuen by him cited Anthymus thrice to appeare and because he appeared not executed the Popes sentence on him deposing him from the Bishopricke of Trebizond and depriuing him of the title of a Priest and the name of a Catholike We say they (q) Act. 4. in sentent cont Anthym following those things which haue bene rightly examined by the most blessed Pope ordayne that he as an vnprofitable and rotten member be cast out of the body of the holy Churches of God and depriued of the Bishopricke of Trebizond and depriued of all sacred dignity and action and according to the sentence of the most holy Pope stript euen of the name of a Catholike Who now seeth not how ignorantly and vntruly you haue said (r) Pag. 122. that The cause of Anthymus which the Pope had condemned was afterwards ventilated in the Councell of Constantinople For those Fathers neither questioned nor any way examined either the first or the second sentence of the Pope against Anthymus but assembled themselues to put in execution the sentence which Agapet had pronounced and being preuented by death could not see executed All which is so farre from making against the iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the Bishops of the East that it is a strong proofe therof And that it may better appeare how vnaduised you are to vrge this history against the authority of the Roman Church it is to be noted that Anthymus an Eutychian heretike not contenting himselfe with his owne Bishopricke of Trebizond by the fauor of Iustinian who as yet knew not that he was an heretike and chiefly by the craft of Theodora the Empresse an Eutychian and for that cause a great fauorer of Anthymus intruded himselfe to the See of Constantinople But Agapet Pope coÌ„ming thither deposed him and with his owne hands ordayned Menas in his place which was an admirable effect of the power of S. Peter in his Successor for at that tyme Constantinople was the seate of Iustinian and the Head of the Empire wheras Rome was oppressed and made a slaue vnder the tiranny of Gothes a barbarous and Arian people The Church of Constantinople was most florishing and glorious and that of Rome greatly depressed and afflicted Iustinian the Emperor waâ— vâ—ctorious and triumphant and contrarily the Pope brought to such straytes that Theodat an Arian King of the Gothes threatned to ruinate the Roman Church vnlesse he would goe to Constantinople solicite the Emperor for peace and procure him to call his armies out oâ— Italy which vâ—â—â—ge therfore Agapet could not refuse though he were so poore that for the performance therof he was inforced to pawne the sacred Vessells of his Church wheras on the other side Anthymus being exalted by the Emperor and Empresse from the Bishoptick of Trebâ—zond to the Patriarkeship of Constantinople was very powrefull in meanes and highly fouored by them both And yet neuerthelesse and that the Empresse threatned Agapet if he deposed Anthymus and promised him great rewards if he would leaue him in the See of Constantinople the holy Pope soon after his ariuall being a stranger and without support deposed him casting him out of that See euen in the very Imperiall Citty in the presence of the Emperor that fauoured him and excommunicated Theodora the Empresse that obstinatly maintained him and with his owne hands ordained Menas a Priest of Constantinople in his place and pardoned Peter Patriarke of Hierusalem and other Bishops of the East that had communicated with him All this is accordingly reported by Marcellinus Comes (s) In Chron. Liberatus (t) Breu. c. 12. Victor of Tunes (u) In Chron. edit per Ios Scal. ad calc Chron. Euseb and Iustinian himselfe (x) Nou. 42. and is so cleare an euidence for the supreme authority of the B. of Rome that it admitteth no colour of answeare SECT III. Of the matter treated in the fifth generall Councell THe matter disputed in this Councell was about certaine writings of Theodorus Mopsuestinus Ibas and Theodoret commonly called Tria capitula The three Chapters Before the Councell Vigilius Pope with the Bishops of the West defended the Three Chapters which the Easterne Bishops opposed and what both of them did was vpon pious considerations in defence of the Councell of Chalcedon The Bishops of the East assembled in a Councell at Constantinople condemned the Three Chapters But Vigilius knowing that the Westerne Bishops stood in opposition to their sentence refused to confirme it hoping by that
Paulus Diaconus (s) L. 6. e. 4. and other historians testify and you may read in Baronius (t) Anno 692 Bellarmine (u) L. 1. de Binius (x) Tom. 3. pag. 152. and Canus (y) L. 5. de loc c. vlt. who rightly obserue that as not by the Pope so neither by any of the Patriarkes of the East nor by any authority of antiquity it hath bene receaued as a true Councell but held to be and so Bede (z) Loco cis calls it Erratica Synodus An erring Synod in so much that the Greeke Historians Theophanes Zonaras Cedrenus Glycas and others thought best to bury it in silence neuer reckoning it among the Councells nor making any mention at all of it And with great reason for how Almighty God punished both the wicked Patriarke Calinicus and the Emperor who pleaseth may read in Baronius (a) Anno 691. All which being true as it is it must follow that you shew great ignorance or els lack of Conscience in attributing to the eight generall Councell a decree of this impious Conuenticle and obiecting it against a religious custome of the Saturday fast in Lent piously obserued by the Roman Church from the Apostles tyme. If it be an abuse why did not the seauen first Oecumenicall Councels take notice of it Do not the Greeke authors with one voyce cry out that in thinges of this nature which are not repugnant to fayth or good manners the variety of ancient customes vsed in diuers Churches is to be obserued And did not S. Hierome being consulted about this very custome of the Saturday fast long before the Trullan Synod answeare (b) Ep. 28. Let euery countrey abound in their owne sense and reuerence the precepts of their Fore-fathers as Apostolicall lawes And did not S. Ambrose (c) Spond anno 384. n. 6. in this very particular aduise Monica S. Augustines Mother to obserue the custome of whatsoeuer place she was in And do not both he and S. Augustine (d) Apud S. Aug. ep 86. professedly proue against you and such as you are that wheras the Easterne Church from the tyme of the Apostles fasted not but feasted on Saturdayes contrary to the custome of the Westerne Church both of them did it vpon good and pious considerations declared by the ancient Fathers (e) Apud Baro. an 692. And doth not S. Augustine (f) Loco cit shew that variety to be a singular ornament to the Church And do not the Councells of Agatha (g) C. 22. and Eliberis (h) C. 26. subscribe to that custome of the Roman other Westerne Churches What authority then had those Trullan Bishops to make themselues Iudges of the Roman Church and of all the Churches of the West ouer whom they had no authority as your selfe well knoweth And hereby is discouered your folly that not contenting your selfe with proposing heere this Argument so impertinent and friuolous you repeate it afterwards againe saying (i) Pag. 220. 221. that S. Augustine approuing the custome of the Easterne Church wounds the Papacy and signifies that the Roman Church had not then any peremptory authority to determine all causes for the Roman Church then did and still doth allowe variety of Customes in diuers Churches though sometimes contrary to her owne when they are not repugnant to fayth or good manners Such was the Easterne custome of not obseruing the Saturday-fast which therfore she allowed How then doth S. Augustine wound the Papacy in allowing the Orientalâ—s to obserue their custome since the Roman Church agreeth with him in allowing the same To proue out of S. Augustine that the Roman Church had not then authority to determine all Ecclesiasticall causes you should haue shewed that he held endlesse and indeterminable any cause which she had once determined or that he allowed what she had once condemned which whiles you do not you spend your breath in vaine Finally wheras you aske (k) Pag. 127. Whether the Church of Rome would at this day swallow and disgest such an hoat morsell as the Trull an decree was you insinuate that then she could and did swallow that morsell which how false it is you haue heard since neither Sergius Pope nor any of his successors could euer be brought to confirme that deceee or the Synod that made it which alone sheweth the transcendent authority of the Roman Church in those dayes for want of whose allowance and confirmation that Synod was then and euer since hath bene reproued as an impious Assembly whose decrees therfore you are ill aduised to obiect in fauor of your cause against the Roman Church CHAP XXIII Doctor Morton defendeth the hereticall custome of the Asian Bishops against Victor Pope BELLARMINE and other Catholike writers to proue the authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome practised ouer the Easterne Church in the first ages after Christ among other examples alleage the sentence of excommunication pronounced by Victor Pope against Polycrates and many other Asian Bishops for not celebrating the feast of Easter vpon the Sunday as the Roman Church did but according to the Iewish computation at the full moone of March on what day soeuer it sell wheras witnesse Eusebius (l) Lib. 5. hist c. 22. the rest of the Churches throughout the whole world insisting in the Apostolicall tradition and custome did neuer obserue their Easter on any other day then that on which our Lord arose from death which was on Sunday And so it was decreed to be kept by the Councells of Palestine of Rome of Pontus of France of Osraena of Achaia and of other Bishops almost Innumerable (m) Euseb Ibid. To which I adde out of Tertullian (n) De praescrip c. 53. that Blastus by persuading the obseruation of that Iewish custome did endeauour to bring Iudaisme againe into the Church which also Eusebius testifieth saying (o) L. 5. hish c. 14. Blastus hauing drawne many into error did labor to bring in a new Sect for the destruction of truth Vpon these grounds Victor excommunicated him and the Asian Bishops for their obstinate defence of that custome which Pius his predecessor had forbidden You obiect (p) Pag. 130. that the Asian Bishops stood out a long time against Victor and contemned his excommunication and that Polycrates pleading their cause in his Epistle to Pope Victor alleaged that they had receaued their custome from S. Iohn who leaned an our Lords brest that it was practised by Philip the Apostle and continued by Polycarp Thraseas and Sagonius all of them Bishops and Martyrs and that Polycrates himselfe hauing liued 65. yeares in the communion of the faythfull was nothing moued with those terrors meaning of excommunication which were vrged against him and the rest And you adde (q) Pag. 131. out of Eusebius that this Act of Victor did not please all other Bishops who did greatly reproue him for troubling the peace of the Church
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
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
himselfe but to do his duty and what the lawes of God and his Church require at the hands of euery good Christian Prince which is to defend and maintaine the authorities and iudgements of the Church But I must aduertise you of some ignorant mistakes you say (t) Pag. 161. out of S. Augustine that Constantine committed the cause of Cecilian to Melchiades Pope But in three other places (u) Pag. 221. 327. 328. contradicting your selfe and S. Augustine you say he committed it to Pope Iulius shewing therin your ignorance in Ecclesiasticall history for if as S. Augustine truly sayth it was committed to Melchiades how could it be committed to Iulius who was not chosen Pope till aboue 20. yeares after Melchiades his death and betweene whom and Iulius were other two Popes Syluester Marke With like ignorance you say (x) Pag. 161. The Emperor chargeth all the Bishops of the Prouince of Tyre to appeare before him for Tyre hath not many Bishops nor is it a Prouince but a City in the prouince of Phenicia in which the Arians held their wicked Councell against S. Athanasius SECT II. Doctor Mortons second Example of Theodosius examined THat Theodosius acknowledged no subiection to the B. of Rome you proue by his interesting himselfe in Ecclesiasticall affaires Of the Emperor Theodosius say you (y) Pag. 161. we read that he gaue to the Bishop Dioscorus authority and superiority of place to moderate causes in a Councell This you speake of that most godly and religious Emperor Theodosius the elder for here and in your Index of the tenth Chapter prefixed before this your Grand Imposture you name him immediatly after Constantine and before Theodosius the yonger and both in the same Index and page 167. you expresly declare that the Emperor which you obiect against vs immediatly after Constantine is Theodosius the elder And finally because vnlesse by this Theodosius you meane the elder you obiect nothing at all out of him against vs which yet in the places alleaged you professe to do in this Chapter Wherfore I must make bold to tell you that in this your instance you discouer extreme ignorance in Ecclesiasticall history for Theodosius the elder died the yeare 394. which was 50. yeares before Dioscorus was made Bishop How then could he giue to Dioscorus authority and superiority of place to moderate causes in a Councell If you had not bene ignorant and willing to lay hold of any thing true or false to help your selfe in the defence of a bad cause you should haue said that Theodosius not the elder but the yonger sauoring the Arch-heretike Eutyches and seduced by his high Chamberlaine Chrysaphius an Eutychian Heretike gaue authority to Dioscorus an hereticall Bishop of Alexandria of the same sect with Eutyches to moderate causes not in a true Councell but in a sacrilegions Conuenticle at Ephesus in which Eutyches was absolued his heresy approued the Catholike Bishops that had condemned him in a Synod at Constantinople vnder Flauianus Patriarke of that City not permitted to speake all such as were knowne to be zealous maintainers of the Catholike fayth against Eutyches deposed others sent into banishment the Popes Legates thrust out of the Councell the holy Patriarch Flauianus by the faction of Dioscorus barbarously misused beaten and wounded to death the Bishops that figned compelled therto by famin and force of armes the Emperors soldiers ruling all by violence and tyranny and many other outragious villanies committed in so much that this Conuenticle hath neuer deserued the name of a lawfull Councell but by all writers is called Synodus Piratica and Latrocinium Ephesinum The piraticall Synod and the Ephesine theeuery or as Socrates termeth it (z) L. 1. c. 9. 10. Vesanum Ephesi Conciliabulum The frantike Conuenticle of Ephesus And the Acts therof were soone after condemned by Leo Pope (a) Ep. 24. and repealed by the holy Councell of Chalcedon (b) Act. 1. I appeale now to the Reader whether you haue not shewed great ignorance and in the highest degree wronged that most religious Emperor Theodosius the elder in making him patron of the Eutychian heresy and charging him falsly with assembling that sacrilegious Synagogue of Ephesus and most of all in producing him for your Protestant doctrine against the Roman Church to which he so firmely adhered that he held her to be the Head and center of Catholike communion And therfore intending to establish the true fayth and free the whole Empire from the pernicious doctrines of diuers heretikes which liued in those dayes he made that famous Law which Iustinian hath inserted into his Code and marcheth in the front therof (c) Cod. tit 1. L. 1. Our will is that all the people ruled by the Empire of our Clemency shall liue in the same religion which the diuine Apostle Peter deliuered to the Romans as the religion insinuated by him witnesseth vntill this present day and which it is manifest that the high Priest Damasus followeth and Peter of Alexandria a man of Apostolicall sanctity that is to say Peter who being driuen out of his Seat of Alexandria by Lucius the Arian intruder appealed to Rome (d) Socrat. l. 4. c. 36. and had bene newly restored confirmed by Damasus in the Patriarchall seat of that City And the same or not vnlike to this law of Theodosius is that which Gratian that gouerned the Empire together with Theodosius made to reduce all heretikes to the true Church and fayth of Christ He made a law sayth Theodoret (e) L. 5. hist c. 2. by which he commanded the holy Churches to be deliuered to them that agreed in communion with Damasus which commandment as he further expresseth (f) Ibid. c. 2. init was without contradiction executed throughout all Nations By this it appeares that if Doctor Morton had liued in the dayes of Theodosius Gratian they would haue taken from him the Church of Dutham deliuered it to a Bishop of the Romā Cōmunion SECT III. Doctor Mortons third instance of Theodosius the yonger and Honorius examined YOu go on obiecting (g) Pag. 162. out of the Glosse in C. Renouantes Theodosius the yonger and Honorius both Emperors say that the Patriarke of Constantinople hath the same right ouer those in subiection to him which the Pope hath euer his Why do you falsify The Chapter is taken out of the Trullan Synod vnder Iustinian the yonger who liued long after Theodosius Honorius Againe the words of the Glosse are Imperator dicit The Emperor sayth but mention of Honorius or Theodosius there is none that 's your false comment The Glosse citeth the Emperor in Authentica de Ecclesiasticis titulis which was not written by Honorius nor by Theodosius but by Iustinian the elder And how far he was from equalling the B. of Constantinople with the Pope you may vnderstand not only by other his Lawes (h) See Sect. sequent but euen by this very
citation and application of these attributes you deale not vprightly as is to be seene in Canisius from whom you tooke them (b) Catechisinit in Encorn Pat. But leauing that to the readers examination your owne answeare destroyeth it selfe for those ascriptions you confesse import no authority But doth the title of Rector or Gouernor import no authority As the power authority of the Head of a Colledge or Gouernor of a cōmonwealth cannot be better or more effectually expressed then by saying He is Rector of the Colledge or Gouernor of the Common-wealth so if S. Ambrose had studied to confute your answeare and expresse the Popes Monarchicall power authority ouer the whole Church he could not haue done it more effectually then by stiling him Rector or Gouernor of the house of God which is his Church for that title neuer was nor can euer be giuen to any other but to the Pope of Rome whom Christ hath made Pastor Gouernor of his whole flock (c) Ioan. 21.15 seqq And to this S. Ambrose alludeth (d) L. 10. ep 81. when writing to Siricius Pope he calls him A watchfull and pouident Pastor that with pious solicitude defends the flock of Christ from wolues that is from heretikes 3. What S. Ambrose his iudgment was concerning the infallibility of the Bishop and Church of Rome he declareth when writing to Siricius Pope of certaine heretikes whom he had condemned he sayth (e) Ibid. Whom your Holinesse hath condemned know that we also hold them condemned according to your iudgment S. Ambrose was fare more learned then Siricius and yet by reason of the infallibility of the Roman Church in determining causes of fayth and condemning heresies he submitteth to the iudgment of Siricius Impertinently therfore do you obiect (f) Pag. 214. to proue S. Ambrose his no-subiection to the Church of Rome that the Pope asked his iudgment concerning the day of Easter for a Counsellor may be more learned then a King the King may aske his iudgment and yet the authority of determining the cause is not in the Counsellor but in the King And the Counsell or though he be more learned is subiect and bound to obey the King as S. Ambrose was and acknowledged himselfe bound to obey Siricius Nor do you find vs to hold that the Pope in his determinations ought not to proceed prudently asking the aduice of learned men 4. To proue that S. Ambrose acknowledged no subiection to the Church of Rome you report (g) Pag. 214. out of Baronius that certaine Clergy-men of Milan 670. yeares after the death of S. Ambrose called the Bishoprick of Milan S. Ambrose his Church and withstood Petrus Damianus the Popes Legate alleaging that the Church of Ambrose had bene alwaies free in it selfe and neuer subiect to the lawes of the Pope of Rome But why do you conceale the truth of this history The ancient splendor and beauty of the Church of Milan being defaced and greatly decayed partly by the impurity of Clergy-men that being infected with the heresy of the Nicolaites liued incontinently and obstinatly defended the same to be lawfull and partly by Simoniacall Priests the people of Milan sent Legates to the Pope beseeching him to commiserate the lamentable state and cure the desperate diseases of that famous Church The Pope not Leo the Ninth as you mistake but Nicolas the second between whom and Leo there were other two Popes Victor and Stephen condescending to so iust a request sent two holy and learned men Petrus Damiani Cardinall of Ostia Anselme B. of Luca as his Legates to visit that Church and armed them with his owne authority to correct the offenders and ordayne whatsoeuer should be thought expedient for the reformation of so great disorders The Legates being ariued at Milan had no sooner intimated their Commission but the people stirred vp by those lewd and factious Clergy-men began to oppose them alleaging that the Church of Ambrose had bene alwais free in it selfe and neuer subiect to the Lawes of the Pope of Rome These are the only words which you cull out of Baronius whole narration leauing out what precedeth and making no mention of what followeth which is that Petrus Damiani stepping vp into the Pulpit after he had quieted the people proued effectually the soueraigne authority granted by Christ to the Roman Church ouer all Churches that whosoeuer denies that authority is an heretike The people giuing eare to his words were appeased and with one accord promised to do whatsoeuer he should ordayne There was present a great number of Clergy-men and scarce any of them that had not bene promoted to orders by Simony For the remedy of so great a mischiefe the Legats required from Guido the Archbishop an inuiolable caution and promise not to admit any from thence forward to holy orders for money and also to roote out the heresy of the Nicolaites Wherunto he willingly yeilded with imprecation of Gods wrath and reuenge on himselfe if he performed it not He gaue this caution in writing the Priests and Clerkes subscribed vnto it Which being done he prostrated himselfe on the ground asking pennance of the Legates for his offence And in like manner the Clergy-men admitting pennance were reconciled in tyme of Masse and receaued new ornaments from the Bishops hand hauing first made a profession of their fayth in which they anathematized all Heresies extolling themselues against the holy Catholike and Apostolike Church particularly those of the Nicolaites and Symonians This is the story and what greater folly can there be then to argue that S. Ambrose a most holy and learned Doctor opposed the authority of the Roman Church because a few lewd hereticall Clergy-men of Milan 670. yeares after his death disclaimed from the obedience of the B. of Rome to the end they might hold on their damnable courses and escape that punishment which their offences so iustly deserued And can there be a greater Imposture then to alleage a few rash words vttered by the people at the instigation of those heretikes to conceale that they togeather with the people Archbishop being admonished by the Popes Legats acknowledged their error with harty sorrow and promise of amendment and obedience to the See Apostolike By this a iudicious reader will perceaue that you neither regard what you alleage true or false nor stick to patronize vice and heresy in them that with you will oppose the Bishop and Church of Rome But you that follow them in their disobedience why do you not also follow them in their repentance When Theodosius in excuse of the great slaughter he had made at Thessalonica alleaged to S. Ambrose that King Dauid also had offended committing adultery and murther S. Ambrose answeared (h) Paulinus in vita Ambros Sequutus es errantem sequere poenitentem As you haue followed Dauid in his finne so follow him in his repentance And if he were now liuing he would
Pastor of the sheepe not of one City nor of one Countrey but of all the sheep of Christ without any exception or limitation (g) See all this proued aboue Chap. 14. sect In this sense the name of Pastor was neuer giuen to any other Apostle or Bishop but only to S. Peter and his successors The rest of the Apostles sayth S. Bernard (h) L. 2. de confideras obtayned each of them their peculiar flocks Iames contented with Hierusalem yieldes the vniuer sality to Peter And long before him Eucherius that famous and learned Bishop of Lions (i) Hom. in Vigil S. Pe◠Christ first committed to Peter his Lambes and then his sheepe because he made him not only a Pastor but Pastor of Pastors Peter therfore feedeth the Lambes and the sheepe he feedeth the yong ones and the dammes he gouerneth the subiects and the Prelates and is therfore Pastor of all for besides Lambes and sheep there is nothing in the Church Your euasion (k) Pag. 243. n. 20. that if by Pastor we vnderstand curam studium care and study towards the good of the vniuersall Church in this all other Bishops are Pastors as well as the Pope is impertinent for charity obligeth not only Bishops but euery Christian man and woman to haue a care and study towards the good of the vniuersall Church according to their abilities But the Pope is not only bound to a charitable care and study as all others are but by reason of his Pastorall office and function is the guide and Gouernor of the vniuerfall Church throughout the whole world And vntill you can shew the like Pastorall power and iurisdiction attributed to any other Bishop you must confesse his title of Pastor to be without parallell The like hath bene proued (l) Aboue Chap. 14. sect 3. of his titles of Doctor of Pope (m) Chap. 23. of Vicar of Christ (n) Chap. 14. sect 2. of Apostolicall man (o) Chap. 14. sect 3. and Apostolate applied to his person and function and of Apostolicall See to the Roman Church Nor is it hard to proue the same of all the other titles mentioned by Bellarmine He is called Father of Fathers and Prince of Priests which titles though they may in a true sense be giuen to euery Patriark and Archbishop in respect of other Bishops subiect to them and to euery Bishop in respect of the inferior Pastors of his Dioces yet not in the same sense in which they are giuen to the Pope In like manner the name of Pontifex and Summus Pontifex are sometimes giuen to other Bishops but not as to the Pope for he is called by the foure Primats of Africa (p) See Spond anno 646. n. 1. their Synods Pater Patrum Summus omnium Praesulum Pontifex the Father of Fathers and the chiefe Bishop of all Bishops And Venerable Bede (q) L. 1. hist Angl. c. 1. sayth of S. Gregory that in toto orbe gerebat Pontificatum that his Episcopall power was ouer the whole world which S. Anselm◠also expressed dedicating his booke De incarnatione to Vrbanus Pope with this inscription Domino Patri vniuersae Ecclesiae in terra peregrinantis Summo Pontifici Vrbano To the chiefe Bishop Vrbanus Lord Father of the vniuersall Church militant on earth Where do you find any parallell to this title of the Pope The like I say of the title of Rector domus Dei Ruler or Gouernor of the house of God for albeit each of the Apostles were Rulers and Gouernors of the Church and so S. Andrew is so called in the Collect vsed on his festiuall day yet the ordinary Episcopall authority and iurisdiction of none of them nor of any other Bishop whatsoeuer but only of S. Peter and his successors extends to the rule Gouerment of the vniuersall Church For which cause Valentinian the third intituleth the Pope Rector of the Vniuersality of Churches And both he and Theodosius say (s) Constit. Nouell Tit. 24. So the peace of the Church shall be conserued by all if the Vniuersality acknowledge her Rector And Theodoret being deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo Pope because sayth he (t) Ep. ad Renat The holy Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the world Where do you find the title of Ruler or Gouernor of the Church attributed to any other Apostle or Bishop in this sense The same I say of the title of Head of the Church for in the Nicen Councell (u) Can. 39. ex Graec. Arab the B. of Rome is called Head and Prince of all Patriarkes The Councell of Sardica (x) Insert in fragment Hilar citatur expresseth the same in their Epistle to Pope Iulius à Nicol. c. i◠Ep. ad Episc Gal. It is very good fit that from all the Prouinces the Bishops haue reference to their Head that is to the See of the Apostle Peter In the Councell of Ephesus (y) Part. 2. Act. 2. when the Legates of Celestine Pope arriued thither they gaue thankes to the Fathers there assembled that by their holy and religious voices they had shewed themselues holy members to the blessed Pope their holy Head The Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon (z) In relat ad Leon. call Leo Pope their Head themselues his members and acknowledge him (a) Ibid. to rule ouer them as the Head doth ouer the members And his Legates in the same Councell said (b) Act. 1. We haue the commands of the Pope of Rome who is the Head of all Churches and the Councell contradicted not but presently obeyed his commands S. Prosper sayth (c) L. De ingrat c. 2. Rome the See of Peter is made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world possessing by religion what it doth not by force of armes which S. Leo also expresseth saying (d) Serm. 1. in Nata Apost Petri Pauli Rome by the sacred See of Peter being made Head of the world hath a larger extent of gouerment by diuine religion then by earthly dominion Eugenius B. of Carthage (e) Vict. Vticen l. ◠calls the Roman Church The Head of all Churches S. Fulgentius (f) De incarn grat c. 11. The Top of the world And Ennodius sayth (g) Lib de Synod sub Symmacho habit The dignity of the See Apostolike is Venerable throughout the whole world whiles all the faithfull are subiect vnto it as being the Head of the whole body Iustinian intituleth the Pope (h) Cod. Tit. 1. L. 7. The Head of all the holy Prelates of God and the Head of all Churches And the Bishops of the lower Maesia (i) Apud Bin. to 2. pag 154. professe Leo B. of Rome to be Truly the Head of all Churches You answere first (k) Pag. 242. that S. Basil calls Athanasius Top or crowne of the head of all S. Basill
and practised the same authority 7. Not vnlike to these are the answeares you giue to S. Athanasius (x) Pag. 254. S. Chrysostome (y) Pag. 255. and Theodoret who being iniustly deposed from their Bishoprickes appealed to to Iulius Innocentius and Leo Popes with manifest acknowledgment of their authority ouer all Bishops and Churches of the world as shall be proued SECT II. Others of Doctour Mortons Answeares to the ancient Fathers examined SOme Easterne Bishops who with great scandall of the Church and perturbation of the people refused to insert the name of Chrysostome into the Dyptikes or tables of publike records were for that cause excommunicated by Innocentius with command that they should not be admitted into the peace and communion of the Roman Church vntill they restored him This though it be an Argument of the supreme power of the B. of Rome you wrest it to a contrary sense Among them that refused to restore the name of Chrysostome were Alexander Patriarke of Antioch and Acacius Bishop of Beroë but these two to the end they might be admitted into the Communion of the Roman Church restored his name and performed what els Innocentius in ioyned them (a) Spond anno 408. n. 11. Of these two you are silent they were not for your purpose But because some others stood out for a time you lay hold on them who vpon due examination will proue as litle to your purpose as the two you conceale Your first example (b) Pag. 258.259 is of Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria who stood out vntill the end of his life But God that would not haue a man so well deseruing of his Church to die in the state of excommunication ordained by his prouidence that the soule of Theophilus could not depart out of his body vntill an Image of S. Chrysostome being brought vnto him he adored it doing pennance for his former error and by that meanes restored himselfe to the peace of the Church This his recantation is reported by Isidorus Diaconus and out of him by S. Iohn Damascen (c) L. 3. de imag prope fin Wherfore your deniall of it is a falsity framed without ground by your selfe out a desire that Theophilus should haue died out of the Communion of the Roman Church as you liue Your second example (d) Pag. 257. is of Atticus Patriarke of Constantinople who being excommunicated for the same cause persisted sometime in his error but at length moued by the example of Theophilus and Maximianus a Bishop of Macedonia making intercession for him (e) Baron anno 408. Innocentius yeilded to absolue him prouided that he would himselfe aske absolution and restore the name of Chrysostome Hereupon Atticus witnesse Theodoret (f) L. 5. hist. c. 34. sent many embassages to Rome to obtaine the communion of Innocentius but could neuer obteine it vntill partly by perswasion of the Emperor and partly fearing a tumult of the people he restored the name of Chrysostome and writ letters to Cyrill B. of Alexandria persuading him to do the like Wherfore Baronius truly sayth (g) Anno 425. that Atticus restored Chrysostome by the command and compulsion of Innocentius and not by the distraction and tumultuosnesse of the people only as you comment for if he feared the tumult of the people it was in regard the people were incensed against him for not restoring Chrysostome as Innocentius had commanded And if as you obiect (h) Pag. 258. he called two Bishops that had died in the communion of the Roman Church Schismatikes he spake in passion seing himselfe excōmunicated by the B. of Rome and knew as you also do that he spake vntruly for if it were thought Schisme to be in the communion of the Roman Church as you say he did why did he so earnestly desire and send so many Embassages to be admitted into her communion Was is to make himselfe a Schismatike Nay was it not to free himselfe from schisme Why do not you imitate him Your third example (i) Pag. 259.260.261 is of Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria who if for a tyme he obeyed not Innocentius in restoring the name of Chrysostome it was because he iudged the command of Innocentius to be against the Canons witnesse his owne words alleaged by your selfe (k) Pag. 259. fin But his iudgment was erroneous and because what he did was out of a pious zeale as he conceaued God reduced him by a miraculous Vision wherin he saw himselfe cast out of the Church by Chrysostome and a troupe of Saints that assisted him therin but that the Blessed Virgin Mary did make intercession for him as one that had defended her honor against Nestorius Cyrill moued with this vision condemning his owne iudgment concerning Chrysostome and calling a Prouinciall Synod restored his name to the sacred records as the other Patriarkes had done To this you make two replies first (l) Pag. 261. you call this A tale of Nicephorus a fabulous Author that liued 800. yeares after Cyrills death But you wrong Nicephorus for he reportes it out of Nicetas that liued almost 500. yeares nearer Cyrills tyme then himselfe and out of other ancient historians Hoc sayth he (m) L. 14. c. 28. in arcana Nicetae Philosophi historia apud alios inueni 2. You reply (n) Pag. 261. that Cyrills restoring Chrysostome cannot any whit serue our turne because he did not simply by submission to the Popes decree but by vertue of a Vision in a dreame Surely you seeme to haue bene in a dreame when you deuised this answeare for there cannot be a greater Argument of the Popes authority then that God by a miraculous vision should notify to Cyril that by reason of his resistance made to the decree of Innocentius he was out of the Church And in how great Veneration did Cyrill hold the B. of Rome he I say that being greatly exasperated against other Bishops for the name of Chrysostome yet neuer let slip from his mouth any the least irreuerent word against Innocentius And who can be ignorant that he firmely belieued the supreme authority of the Roman See when he presided in the Councell of Ephesus as Vicar to Celestine Pope (o) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 1. Without whose order as he durst not depart from the Communion of Nestorius so he executed on his person punctually what Celestine commanded And finally his beliefe was that saluation cannot be had out of the Roman Church (p) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 4. SECT III. Doctor Mortons Answere to the testimony of Acacius examined A Cacius Patriarke of Constantinople writing to Simplicius Pope professed that the care of all Churches belonged to him You answeare (q) Pag. 161. fin 162. The vniuersall care of all Churches was applied to S. Paul in the dayes of Peter and to other Bishop in whom there was no Monarchicall Popedome This satisfieth not for the vniuersall care of all Churches may be of
after the authority wherby Athanasius was restored it was by the command of the Emperor Constantius as the same historian recordeth These are your words then which none can be more vntrue for that Iulius in his letters did not only giue his aduice declaring that he thought Athanasius worthy to be restored but operatiuely exercised his power authority and by vertue of them effectually and absolutely restored Athanasius and those other Bishops is a truth not only acknowledgeth by your Protestant writers as you haue heard (a) Chap. 37. sect 2. but in it selfe so certaine that I thinke no man but Doctor Morton could haue the face to deny it Iulius B. of Rome sayth Socrates (b) L. 2. c. 11. by reason of the priuiledge of his Church aboue others defended their cause and sent them back with letters written to the Easterne Bishops wherby each of them might be restored to their place and reprehended seuerely those that had rashly deposed them And they going from Rome and relying vpon the letters of Iulius recouered their seates againe Which is also expressed in the title of that Chapter The B. of Rome sayth Sozomen (c) L 3. c. 7. hauing examined their complaintes and found that they agreed touching the Decrees of the Councell of Nice receaued them into his communion and because by reason of the dignity of his See the charge of all belonged to him he restored to each of them his Church And in the title of that Chapter Athanasius Paul by the letters of Iulius receaued their seates againe Are not these words cleare inough But yet moreouer doth not Nicephorus say (d) L. 9. c. 8. that Iulius by the greatnesse of his See and out of the ancient priuiledge prerogatiue therof knowing that the charge of all Bishops whersoeuer belonged to him as to a Iudge armed ech of them with powerfull letters and sending them back into the East restored their Churches vnto them And do not he and Sozomen adde (e) Ibid. that he rebuked the Arians for that they had rashly deposed those Bishops and troubled the Churches not standing to the decrees of the Councell of Nice and commanded that some of them in the name of all should on a set day appeare at Rome to giue account of the iustice of their sentence and threatned not to let them passe without punishment vnlesse they did cease to innouate And doth not Felix Pope (f) Ep. ad Athanas cet Episc Aegypt who liued soone after that tyme deliuer the same in most cleare and effectuall words And finally do not he Theodoret (g) L. 2. hist c. 4. Sozomen (h) L. 3. c. 7. and S. Athanasius himselfe (i) Apolog. 2. out of the vndoubted Epistle of Iulius report that Iulius following the Ecclesiasticall Law commanded the Arian Bishops to come to Rome and summoned the diuine Athanasius canonically to present himselfe in iudgment and that as soone as he receaued this citation he transported himselfe in diligence to Rome but the Authors of the tragedy went not because they knew their lies would be openly discouered How thinke you now Did not Iulius with the authority of a Iudge restore those Orthodoxe Bishops to their Churches and that by the prerogatiue of his See and because the charge of all Bishops belonged vnto him Did he not command and Canonically cite both Athanasius and his aduersaries to appeare in iudgment at Rome and appoint them a day for it And finding Athanasius to be free from the crimes which his enemies had maliciously forged against him did he not threaten to punish them vnlesse they desisted to innouate and trouble the Churches Is this nothing but to declare that he thought those Orthodoxe Bishops worthy to be restored Is it not to exercise the authority of a Iudge And this sheweth the falshood of your addition (k) Pag. 306. fin that the authority wherby Athanasius was restored was the command of the Emperor Constantius For he being an Arian was so far from commanding him or any of those Catholike Bishops to be restored that as Socrates writeth (l) L. 2. c. 12. when he heard that Paul B. of Constantinople was restored by the letters of Iulius he stormed therat and caused the Prefect of the City by his secular power to thrust him out againe as he in his owne person once before had done (m) See Spon anno 342. n. 7. 8. And the Arian crew supported by him so molested Athanasius that they enforced him to fly againe to Rome and Constantius himselfe perseuered in persecuting him as long as he durst which was witnes Sozamen (n) L. 3. c. 19. and Theodoret (o) L. 2. c. 11. 12. vntill Athanasius and Iulius made complaint therof to his brother Constans a Catholike Emperor who assisting the Ecclesiasticall authority of Iulius with his Imperiall power writ threathing letters to Constantius and so effectuall that he durst resist no longer but permitted Athanasius according to the iust sentence giuen by Iulius to returne to his Church and affisted him therin And how far Constantius was from hauing any power to restore Bishops or to forbid them from returning to their seates appeareth in this that when he commanded the Bishops assembled at Ariminum (p) Socrat. l. 2. c. 29. not to dissolue their Councell but to expect his answere they sent a peremptory message vnto him and neglecting his command as of one that had no authority to meddle in Ecclesiasticall affaires presently dissolued their Councell and returned to their Churches Let the reader now iudge how many vntruthes you haue told in this one history and whether you may not be thought guilty of impiety in defending and canonizing the outragious proceedings of blasphemous heretikes and iultifying the sacrilegious violence offered to Catholike Bishops for not subscribing to their heresy and finally in answearing (q) Pag. 285. that the testimonies of ancient Popes in proofe of their authority may be confuted and indeed confounded by as ancient oppositions as of the Orientals against the authority of Pope Iulius Such examples we allow you to mantaine your doctrine and disobedience to the Bishop Church of Rome But I presume that euery vnderstanding Protestant will disclaime from such an Aduocate and thinke that by such precedents his cause is not defended but disgraced condemned and parallalled with Arianisme SECT VII Other passages of Doctor Morton examined BEllarmine in proofe (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 18. of the Popes authority alleageth that Sixtus the third deposed Polychronius You say (a) Pag. 195. margin lit l. He numbreth him as one of the eight Patriarkes which Nicolas the first of that name reckoneth in his Epistle to Michaell the Emperor This is another vntruth The eight Patriarkes which Bellarmine mentioneth out of the Epistle of Nicolas were of Constantinople namely Maximus Nestorius Acacius Anthymus Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus Petrus All these were deposed by the Bishops of
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
and a professed enemy to the Roman Church as all heretikes are against Appeales to Rome obiecteth the Councell of Chalcedon in which sayth he it was decreed that if a Clerke haue a cause against a Clerke it is to be iudged by the Bishop if against a Bishop by the Archbishop if against an Archbishop by the Primate or of the Bishop of Constantinople To this obiection the holy and learned Pope Nicolas the first answeared neere 800. yeares since (m) In Ep. ad Michael Imper. that by Primate which is there in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifies a Prince is meant the B. of Rome This explication Turrianus (n) Pro Ep. Rom. Pont. l. 3. c. 4. Bellarmine (o) L. 2. de Pont. c. 2◠and Binius (p) Tom. 2. pag. 129. confirme both because the title of Prince more fitly agreeth to him then to any other Primate as also because it cannot be shewed that in time of the Councell of Chalcedon there were especially in the East any Primates distinct from the Archbishops and Patriarkes Wherfore the sense is that if a Bishop haue a cause with his Metropolitan it is to be iudged by the Pope or by the B. of Constantinople if the parties be neerer to him and willing to stand to his iudgment This say you (q) Pag. 309. it false for the Canon vseth a Climax or gradation from Clerke to Bishop from Bishop to Archbishop from Archbishop to Primate or the B. of Constantinople from whence you inferre that if our exposition be true the B. of Constantinople is aboue the Pope as a Generall is aboue a Coronell because in gradation of Appeales the last is alwaies the highest and most excellent A thing not only contrary to the Councell of Chalcedon which acknowledgeth the Pope to be supreme Head of the whole Church (r) In relat ad Leon. but neuer so much as dreamed of by any of the Greekes nor by the Bishops of Constantinople themselues who by their claime of equal priuiledges neuer challenged authority aboue the Pope nor equall with him ouer the whole Church but only that as he by the institution of Christ is supreme Iudge of all causes ecclesiasticall throughout the world so they in the second place vnder him and by his permission might haue authority to iudge throughout the East the causes of all that should be willing to accept of their iudgement which authority the Pope though intreated by the Councell of Calcedon refused to grant vnto them as being a wrong to the other Patriarkes And therefore Bellarmine (s) L. 2. de Pont. c. 22. out of Leo and Liberatus rightly obserueth that this Canon obiected by Nilus was neuer receaued in the Church as being vnlawfully made in absence of the Popes Legates who presided in the Councell This is the substance of this controuersy in the prosecution wherof you falsify the Councell of Calcedon and are guilty of some other errors of which I shall briefly aduertise you 1. Therfore Bellarmine truly sayth that custome the best interpreter of lawes plainly sheweth it was neuer lawfull to appeale to the B. of Constantinople but only from places within his owne Patriarkship and that no example can be giuen of an Appeale made to the Easterne Church out of the West South or North. You to crosse Bellarmine say (t) Pag. 310. that the Councell of Calcedon speaketh generally of euery Church and in proofe therof falsify the Councell adding to the beginning of the Canon these words In quacunque Ecclesia In euery Church putting them downe in a different character as the words of the Canon and citing both it and them out of Binius who hath this Canon (u) Tom. 2. pag. 129. of three different versions and yet no such words in any of them 2. You haue hitherto pretended afterwards repeate againe that no one man can be Head of the whole Church on earth Yet now vpon condition that the Pope may not haue that dignity you are contented to allow it the B. of Constantinople For you say (x) Pag. 302. fin We confesse that the supreme right of appeales is proper to a Monarke it being as essentiall a part of his Monarchy to haue the right of appeales as it is for him to be a Monarke from whence it will follow that you here granting to the B. of Constantinople a supreme right of appeales from all the Churches of the world make him a Monarke ouer all the Churches of the world 3. Out of the gradation which the Councell maketh from Clerke to Bishop from Bishop to Archbishop from Archbishop to the Pope or the B. of Constantinople you inferre the Bishop of Constantinople to be aboue the Pope which is a senselesse paradoxe collected from a false groūd for if because an Archbishop is to be iudged by the Pope or by the B. of Constantinople you may inferre the B. of Constantinople to be equall with the Pope or aboue him you may by like consequēce inferre that in an army a Coronell is equall to the Generall or aboue him because a cōmon soldier is to be iudged by his Captaine the Captaine by his Generall or by his Coronell for in this gradation the Coronell is the last and therfore by your rule the highest and most excellent With such sophistry you answeare our arguments and frame your owne 4. Bellarmine sayth The Councell is to be vnderstood of the first iudgement But this say you (y) Pag. 311. euidently crosseth the Popes exposition False for the Pope alloweth to the B. of Constantinople permissiuely the first iudgement of Easterne causes if the parties be willing to accept of his iudgment but not the second by way of appeale out of his owne Patriarkeship 5. Why do you conceale what Bellarmine and Binius adde namely that if we should grant to you your inference out of this Canon it would not follow that the B. of Constantinople is of equal authority with the Pope for the Popes power extendeth not only to right them which are wronged by their Metropolitans but also to iudge the Metropolitans and Patriarkes themselues and to right thē euen when they are wronged by whole Councels of Bishops as the examples of Athanasius Chrysostome Flauianus Theodoret and others conuince SECT IX The rest of Docter Mortons Arguments against Appeales to Rome THe rest of your instances against appeales as of Fortunatus and Felicissimus (z) Pag. 311. taken from S. Cyprian of the Councell of Mileuis (a) Pag. 321. of the cause of Cecilian (b) Pag. 324.325 from S. Augustine haue ben already (c) Chap. 25.26 30. sect 2. answered One only remaineth taken from an Epistle as you say (d) Pag 318. of Damasus Pope It is not among the epistles of Damasus but of S. Ambrose and yet his it cannot be for in it mention is made of him as of a third person Wherfore whos 's the epistle is is a
thing vncertaine Many thinke it to be of Damasus and his you will haue it to be But the contrary is manifest for the epistle speaketh of Bonosus an Arch-heretike who had bene condemned by Iudges appointed in thē Councell of Capua which was not held in time of Damasus but of Siricius successor to Damasus It is therefore euident that the request of Bouosus which you obiect out of this epistle to haue his cause heard againe could not be to Damasus his first condemnation being not vntill after Damasus his death When you can shew this epistle to be of Damasus you shall receaue an answeare which it were easy to giue you now if I listed to spend time in refuting your tedious discourse of racking the verbe Competit to a strict sense and which not one but many wayes is deficient as all your arguments for the most part are Your addition (e) Pag. 318. marg l. that if the epistle be not of Damasus it is certainly of some Pope and that all hold it so is affirmed by you gratis and as easely denied by me CHAP. XL. Whether the Easterne Churches be at this day accordant in Communion with Protestants SECT I. The state of the Question THE nine first Sections of your fourtenth Chapter you spend in prouing that the Grecians Aegyptians Aethiopians Assyrians Armenians Russians Melchites and other remote nations at this day dissent from the Roman Church and are accordant in Communion with Protestants The foundation of your whole discourse you lay in these words (f) Pag. 330. Whatsoeuer Christians haue not ruinated any fundamental article of sauing fayth set downe in our ancient Creeds and are vnited vnto the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus our Lord by a liuing fayth all Protestants esteeme them as true members of the Catholike Church and notwithstanding diuers their more tolerable errors and superstitions to be in state of saluation albeit no way subiect or subordinate to the Roman Church These are your words which containe in themselues open implication namely that one may be vnited to the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus by a liuing fayth and be in state of saluation and yet be out of the Catholike Church which to be none els but the Roman and that out of her there is no saluation hath bene already proued (g) Chap. 1. sect 2.3.4 From this false principle you deduce that the Grecians Asians Aegyptians Assyrians Aethiopians Africans Melchites Russians and Armenians notwithstanding their separation from the Roman Church are at this day truly professed Christian Churches (h) Pag. 379. partes of the Catholike Church (i) Pag. 406. fin 407. init faythfull Christians professing the fayth of the ancient Fathers (k) Pag. 417. in state of saluation and raile bitterly at the Church of Rome for denying the same But how great ignorance and impiety you shew and how many most shamefull vntruthes you vtter in the prosecution of this Argument it is easy to declare Some of them I shall present to the Readers view And to proceed methodically I will reduce what I am to say to two heades 1. I will proue that as the Christians of these remote nations anciently were so many of them at this day are accordant in beliefe and communion with the Roman Church yeild obedience to the Pope as to the Vicar of Christ on earth and as to the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church 2. That the inhabitants of these nations which are not Roman Catholikes are not of one beliefe or Communion with Protestants but wholly dissent from them holding most blasphemous and damnable heresies acknowledged for such by Protestants themselues From whence it will follow that you affirming them to be faythfull Christians of the same beliefe with the ancient Fathers charge the ancient Fathers with blasphemous heresies and make them incapable of saluation SECT II. Whether the Grecians of the primitiue and successiue times agreed in fayth and Communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome and particularly at the Councell of Florence THat the Greekes in the first Councell of Constantinople and afterwards in that of Calcedon endeauored to giue to their Patriarke of Constantinople the second place of dignity in the Church next after the Pope and before the other Patriarkes we acknowledge But that they sought therby to exempt themselues from their obedience and subiection to the Pope hath bene effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 5. Chap. 19. sect 4. I speake not this to deny that anciently there were of the Grecians many Heretikes which opposed the Roman Church and by her authority were condemned and that eight Patriarkes of Constantinople in particular as also Eutyches an Arch-heretike of the same City were anathematized and east out of the Church for heresy And wheras the Westerne Church by the example and diligence of the Bishops of Rome was preserued from heresy the Churches of the East new heresies daily springing vp were so pitifully torne and ten in peeces that S. Hierome complaining therof to Pope Damasus said (m) Ep. 57. Because the East striking against it selfe by the ancient fury of the people teares in litle morsells the vndeuided coate of our Lord wouen on high and that the foxes destroy the vine of Christ in such sorte that it is difficult among the drie pits that haue no water to discerne where the sealed fountaine and the inclosed garden is I haue therfore thought that I ought to consult with the Chaire of Peter and the fayth praised by the mouth of the Apostle This was the miserable state of the Easterne Churches in those dayes being gouerned somtimes by Catholike Bishops that acknowledged subiection to the Church of Rome and somtimes by Heretikes that opposed her authority vntill at length Photius hauing iniustly driuen Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople from his See and intruded himselfe into his place and being for that cause often excommunicated by Nicolas the first and Iohn the eight Popes of Rome to mantaine his iniust title withdrew himselfe from their obedience and to the end he might haue some colour to perseuer in that separation cauilled at the doctrine of the Roman Church which teacheth that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Sonne and writ against it And the Greekes following him in this error separated themselues from the Communion of the Roman man Church Yet not so but that they haue often eleauen times sayth S. Antoninus (n) Hist. par 2. tit 22. c. 23. acknowledged their error and reconciled themselues to her and especially thrice in most solemne manner in three seuerall Councells of Barium in Apulia of Lions in France and of Florence in Tuscany but still returning to their error against the holy Ghost and disobedience to the Church of Rome as dogs to their vomit Almighty God punished them with a heauy hand deliuering them vp to a miserable captiuity seruitude vnder the Turke And that they might know the
them Sect. 3. pag. 182. Doctor Mortons rayling against the Inquisition Sect. 4. pag. 187. CHAP. XV. Of the signification of the word Catholike the iudgment of diuers Fathers obiected by Doctor Morton against the Roman Church pag. 195. That the word Catholike proues the Roman Church to be the true Church Sect. 1. ibid. The iudgment of S. Hierome concerning the Church Catholike Sect. 2. pag. 198. The iudgment of S. Gregory concerning the Supremacy of the B. of Rome and his title of vniuersall Bishop Sect. 3. pag. 201. S. Dionyse his iudgment concerning the supremacy of the Roman Church Sect. 4. pag. 302. S. Ignatius his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 5. p. 303. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 6. p. 304. Tertullian his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 7. pag. 308. Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 8. pag. 311. Other obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared Sect. 9. pag. 312. CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the B. and Church of Rome pag. 313. Doctor Mortons obiections against the precedent doctrine answeared Sect. 1. pag. 318. CHAP. XVII The second generall Councell held at Constantinople belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome pag. 324. By what authority this Councell was called Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Primacy of the Pope be Primacy of Authority and Iurisdiction or of Order only Sect. 2. pag. 328. Whether the names of Brother Collegue and Fellow-Minister which the Pope giueth to other Bishops and they to him argue them to be of equall Authority and Iurisdiction with him Sect. 3. pag. 330. A friuolous cauill of Doctor Morton against Bellarmine answeared Sect. 4. pag. 335. Of the Decree of this second Councell generall made in fauor of the Archbishop of Constantinople Sect. 5. pag. 336. That no Canon of any Councell can be of force vntill it be confirmed by the See Apostolike Sect. 6. pag. 338. That the Bishops of Constantinople knew this Canon to be of no force Sect. 7. pag. 340. CHAP. XVIII The third Councell generall being the first of Ephesus belieued the supreme authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome ouer all Bishops pag. 343. Of the deposition and condemnation of Nestorius by the command of Pope Celestine and whether the style of ancient Popes were to command Sect. 1. ibid. The Councell of Ephesus acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the cause of Iohn Patriarke of Antioch Sect. 2. pag. 351. Of the Ordination of the Bishops of Cyprus treated in the Councell of Ephesus Sect. 3. pag. 352. Whether it may be gathered out of the Councell of Ephesus that the authority of the Pope is aboue a generall Councell Sect. 4. pag. 353. CHAP. XIX The Councell of Chalcedon belieued the supreme authority of the B. of Rome pag. 355. That Leo Pope called the Councell of Chalcedon by his authority and presided in it by his Legates Sect. 1. ibid. That the Councell of Chalcedon by the authority of Leo Pope deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus restored Theodoret Sect. 2. pag. 356. 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 belongs to euery Bishop and to euery Christian Sect. 3. pag. 360. Whether the Couneell of Chalcedon did giue to the B. of Constantinople priuiledges equall with the B. of Rome Sect. 4. pag. 362. Falsifications and vntruths of Doctor Morton discouered his Arguments answeared Sect. 5. pag. 367. CHAP. XX. The fifth Councell generall belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop Church of Rome p. 375. Doctor Mortons ignorance and contradictions concerning this Councell Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons ignorance further discouered and his falsifying of Binius Sect. 2. pag. 377. Of the matter treated in the fifth generall Councell Sect. 3. pag. 381. Doctor Mortons glosse vpon the word Obedience Sect. 4. pag. 383. CHAP. XXI Of the sixth generall Councell pag. 385. That it acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the fixth Councell condemned Honoriu Pope as an Heretike Sect. 2. pag. 387. CHAP. XXII Of the seauenth and eight generall Councells pag. 391. That these two Councells acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the eight generall Councell Sect. 2. pag. 392. Whether the eight generall Councell condemned the Saturday-fast allowed by the Roman Church Sect. 3. pag. 394. CHAP. XXIII Doctor Morton defendeth the hereticall custome of the Asian Bishops pag. 397. CHAP. XXIV Doctor Morton in opposition to the Roman Church defendeth the hereticall Doctrine of Rebaptization pag. 402. CHAP. XXV. Other Arguments of Doctor Morton out of S. Cyprian answeared pag. 408. CHAP. XXVI The Councells of Carthage and Mileuis acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome pag. 411. CHAP. XXVII Appeales to Rome proued out of the African Councell which was the sixth of Carthage p. 419. The state of the question Sect. 1. ibid. That the Nicen Canons were more then twenty in number And that the Canons concerning appeales to Rome were true Canons of the Nicen Councell Sect. 2. pag. 421. Whether if there had bene no Canon for appeales to Rome in the Councell of Nice it had bene forgery in Pope Zosimus to alleage a Canon of the Sardican Councell for a Canon of Nice Sect. 3. pag. 426. Vntruthes and falsifications of D. Morton discouered and his obiections answeared Sect. 4. pag. 429. Whether this Controuersy of appeales wrought in the Africans any separation of Communion from the Roman Church Sect. 5. pag. 437. CHAP. XXVIII Whether the Britans and Scots not celebrating Easter after the manner of the Roman Church were for that cause separated from her communion p. 450. CHAP. XXIX Of the great reuerence of ancient Christian Emperors and Kings to the Pope pag. 454. CHAP. XXX Whether Christian Emperors haue inuested themselues in Ecclesiasticall affaires pag. 461. Constantine the Great inuested not himselfe in Ecclesiastical causes Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons second Example of Theodosius examined Sect. 2. pag. 469. Doctor Mortons third instance of Theodosius the yonger and Honorius examined Sect. 3. pag. 471. Doctor Mortons fourth instance of Theodosius and Valentinian examined Sect. 4. pag. 473. Doctor Mortons fifth instance of Iustinian examined Sect. 5. pag. 475. CHAP. XXXI Of the authority and place of Emperors in Councells pag. 480. CHAP. XXXII Whether Popes haue challenged ciuill subiection from Emperors and Kings Christian and Heathen pag. 483. Doctor Mortons first Argument out of Innocent the third examined Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons second Argument out of Hieremy the Prophet examined Sect. 2. pag. 486. Doctor Mortons third Argument out of the examples of diuers Popes examined Sect. 3. pag. 490. Doctor Morton contradicteth himselfe Sect. 4. pag. 494. CHAP. XXXIII
an other French Lawier whom you call Our noble Historian whereas the whole course of his history sheweth him to haue bene a Huguenot or litle better Nor are you contented with citing him as a Catholike author but to helpe out the matter you falsify him most notoriously as hereafter (s) Chap. 44. sect 9. shall be proued A third sleight is to vrge as Catholike authors some that are of suspected fayth as 1. Erasmus (t) Pag 208. who albeit in the end he abandoned Luther * 303. u. 306. a 381. g 380. f. g. and dyed Catholike as out of his owne confession and Osianders testimony Brierley (u) Aduertism before his Protest Apol. hath proued yet for some tyme he fauoured Luther in regard therof is challenged by Doctor Humfroy and Doctor Reynolds for a man of your religion and by Iohn Foxe Canonized for a Protestant Saint (x) Acts and Mon. pa. 402. Kalend. 22. Decemb. His rash and vnaduised writings gaue occasion to Lutherans and Zuinglians to Father on him diuers of their hereticall Tenents and therfore are generally reproued by Catholikes (y) Ind. lib. prohib condemned by the Church which you cold not be ignorant of therfore your persisting still to alleage him against vs as an approued Catholike author is inexcusable 2. To this classe may be reduced others who though Catholikes yet fell into some errors as Beatus Rhenanus Claudius Espencaus Papyrius Massonius Ioannes Ferus and Gulielmus Barklaius of which the foure first are prohibited by the Church nor were you ignorant therof for speaking of Rhenanus you say (z) Pag. 101. Rhenanus writ so whiles he had the vse of his tongue but since you haue gagged him by your Index expurgatorius By what authority then do you vngagge him whom the Roman Church which he acknowledged to be his Mother hath so iustly gagged And though William Barkley be not registred in the Index as a condemned author his booke being set forth since the Index was made yet Bellarmine (a) Tract de potest Papae aduers Barclaium in praesat hath produced against his doctrine the agreeing consent of the most learned Diuines of Italy France Spayne England and Scotland as also the decrees of ancient Popes and generall Councels and therfore with great reason hath censured him for that being no Diuine but a Lawier he presumed to write a booke De potestate Papa in temporalibus which contayning diuers errors being left imperfect at his death was afterwards published without name of author printer or place of impression for although some copies say it was printed at Mussipont yet Bellarmine conuinceth that to be an (b) Ibid. vntruth Iohn Barkeley sonne to William hath confessed the same (c) In praef Parenesis giuing notice to all men that it was published in England by Protestants and hath withall acknowledged his Father to haue erred in that booke and retracted his owne defence therof All this might haue moued you to forbeare the alleaging of Barkeleys booke against vs. And so much the vrge in this your Grand imposture the very same passage of his which your ancient Antagonist (d) F. Persons Treatise to mitigations Chap. 6. pag. 202. here tofore shewed you to haue obiected in an other treatise of yours corruptly against our common beliefe and practise falsifying and sophisticating both his and our meaning And the like abuse he sheweth you to haue offred to (e) Ibid. Tolosanus whose testimony you yet againe impertinently produce here against (f) Pag. 172. vs. 3. And to this classe may be reduced Polydore Virgill (g) Grand Impost pag. 46.97 e. 164. p. 382. â— 386 c. who being a Catholike author his Booke De inuentoribus rerum hath bene enlarged and corrupted by heretikes and is for that cause prohibited 4. Your fourth sleight is to alleadge and insist much on some writings of Aenae as Siluius Cardinall Cusanus and Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester which they set forth in their youth but afterwards repented and publikely retracted Aenaeas Siluius that was afterwards Pope Pius the second being in his yonger yeares present at the Councell of Basil and Secretary therof writ a booke exalting the authority of a Councell and depressing the authority of the Pope which booke is not only forbiden by the Church but he himselfe also being more mature in yeares more ripe in iudgment and more solidly learned repenred the writing therof when he came to be Pope set forth a speciall bull to retract it (h) Extat hac Bulla apud Binium to 4. pag. 512. seqq in which among other words he sayth In minoribus agentes c. Whiles I was in minority not yet entred into any holy orders being present at Basil among those who made themselues a generall Councell said they represented the vniuersall Church I writ a small booke of Dialogues c. in which ignorantly as Paul did I persecuted the Roman and chief See Wherfore I admonish in our Lord that you giue no credit to such former writings of mine as do in any sorte extenuate the Soueraigne authority of the See Apostolike And then hauing declared that he made not this change by his comming to the Popedome but before he was either Pope or Bishop and set downe the causes that moued him therto he addeth Hauing considered all these things I submitted my selfe to Pope Eugenius saying with Hierome I am ioyned in communion with the chayreof Peter vpon which I know the Church to be built and I had at that tyme no other orders but of Priesthood only when I returned to the obedience of Eugenius By this it appeares that when Bellarmine sayth (*) Lib. de Scriptor in Aenea Siluio he retracted his error in his old age and being Pope he speaketh only of the setting forth of the said Bull to make his retractation publikely knowne to the whole world but the error it selfe he recalled before he was either Pope or Bishop as you haue heard And this discouereth your want of sincerity who in diuers places of your Grand Imposture alleaging testimonies of Aeneas to shew his iudgment concerning the Roman Church conceale all those in which his doctrine and beliefe is truly deliuered and set downe (i) Pag. 91. d. 210. * .249 d. only such as you could pick out of his former workes written in his youth forbidden by the Church and retracted by himself which dealing is no lesse impostetous then if you should deliuer as S. Augustins doctrine that which in his Retractations he hath recalled But you seeke to lessen this Imposture by adding an other to it for lest peraduenture your Reader might haue notice of this retractation of Aeneas and therby discouer your bad dealing you couer it by insinuating that he made no such recantation till he was Pope for hauing cited a passage of his you say (k) Pag. 210. So Aeneas out of Hierome whilest
at Hierusalem (s) Act. 15.7 seqq which as it was the first Christian Councell so was it the pattern of all others that since that tyme haue bene held in the Church of Christ For from this Councell it proceeded and euer since hath bene the custome of generall Councells that the Pope presiding by himselfe or by his legates first declareth the fayth of the Roman Church all Bishops subscribing and condemning the contrary And this is done to the imitation of this Apostolicall Synod in which Peter spake first and the rest following him confirmed his sentence Paul and Barnaby by relating the great signes and wonders God had done among the Gentils by them and Iames both by shewing the sentence giuen by Peter to accord with the words of the Prophets and by giuing this verdit of his owne (t) Act. 15.19 I iudge that they which of the Gentils are conuerted to God are not to be disquieted c. These are the wordes which you obiect (u) Pag. 64. to proue that not Peter but Iames gaue sentence in the Apostolicall Synod but without ground for the word I iudge contaynes no definitiue sentence not expresseth any authority but only signifieth It seemes to me or my verdict is the contrary were to make Iames Superiour to Peter which no man euer said Besides that the definitiue sentence was giuen by Peter the ancient Fathers expresly affirme none of them so much as insinuating that is was giuen by Iames. All the multitude sayth S. Hierome (x) Ep. 89. ad Aug. c. 2. held their peace and into his Peters sentence Iames the Apostle and all the Priests togeather did passe And long before him Tertullian (y) L. de pudicitia In that controuersy of keeping the law Peter by instinct of the holy Ghost spake of the vocation of the Gentils And hauing set downe S. Peters words he addeth This sentence both losed those things that were omitted of the law and bound those that were reserued It was therfore the authority of Peter that did bind and lose in that Councell for which cause S. Hierome (z) Ibid. calls S. Peter The Prince or author of the decree And finally the sentence of Peter was confirmed and ratified by the whole Councell and sent to Antioch by Paul and others chosen to that purpose to the end they might publish it as an Ordinance of the holy Ghost 6. Peter exercised his pastorall function by promulgating the Ghospell both to the Iewes and Gentils To the Iewes for he first of all the Apostles vpon the very day of Pentecost immediatly after the receauing of the holy Ghost preached vnto them Iesus Christ (a) Act. 2.14 seqq and exhorting them to pennance at that one Sermon conuerted about 3000. soules He spake sayth S. (b) Ad cap. 2. Act. Chrysostome as the month of all and the other eleuen stood by approuing with their testimony what he sayd Peter also was the man that first preached to the Gentils and that by speciall Commission from God as he declared in the Councell of Hierusalem saying (c) Act. 15.7 Men brethren you know that of old dayes God among vs chose that by my mouth the Gentils shold heare the word of the Ghospell and beleeue And to this end when God sent Cornelius the Centurion vnto him to be instructed he shewed vnto him that maruelous vision (d) Act. 10 1◠which is described in the Acts of the Apostles to declare that the tyme of founding the Church among the Gentils was now come And by bidding him kill and eat he declared him to be the Head of the Church for eating is an action that belongs to the head Hereupon Peter out of hand preached the Ghospell to Cornelius and other his friends and kindred and baptized them (e) Act. 10.35 seqq Againe who but Perer foūded the Churches of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithinia in which Constantinople is who founded the Patriarchall seates of Antioch where the faythfull were first called Christians but Peter Who the other seates of Alexandria and Rome the one by S. Marke his Disciple and the other by himselfe but Peter For Christ according to his promise chose him to found his Church and as S. Ambrofe sayth (f) Serm. 47. first of all to begin it both amongst the Iewes and Gentils giuing him therby the same place in his Church which the foundation hath in a materiall building and by that meanes notifying his supereminent dignity vnto vs for as S. Chrysostome wisely obserueth (g) In cap. 2. Act. One thing it is to open a gate that is shut giue begining to a worke as S. Peter did and another thing to prosecute the same worke after it is begun as the rest of the Apostles did 7. Peter of all the Apostles wrought the first miracle after the ascension of Christ in confirmation of the Ghospell which he had promulgated curing a man that was lame from the wombe of his mother (h) Act. 3.7 which S. Ambrose interpreteth to be an act of his supreme Pastorall power the healing and consolidating the lame mans feete betokening him to be the firme and solide foundation of the Church Because Peter sayth S. Ambrose (i) Serm. 68. is the Rock on which the Church is built with great reason he first healeth the feete that as he holdeth the foundation of fayth in the Church so likewise in man he may confirme the foundations of his limbes It was Peter also that raised Tabitha from death (k) Act. 9.40 working that kind of miracle first before any other of the Apostles And that aswell in working these first miracles as by performing other admirable things in the first place before the other Apostles he exercised his iurisdiction and authority S. Chrysostome expresseth in these words (l) Hom. 21. in Acta Peter walking as a Captaine in his army did consider which part was vnited and well ordered and which wanted his presence See how diligently he runnes vp and downe and is found to be the first in euery place When an Apostle is to be chosen he 's the first When the Iewes are to be certified that the Apostles are not druncke when the lame man is to be cured when the Ghospell is to be preached he is before others When the Princes and Ananias are to be proceeded against and when cures are to be made by a shadow Peter is the man and when miracles are to be wrought he steps out first where there is danger and where gouerment is necessary there Peter is but when things are in peace and tranquility they are left to all the Apostles indifferently Lastly Peter by the iudgment of our Lord was appointed to feed his flock whē he said vnto him (m) Ioan. 2◠26.27 feed my lambes feed my sheep By lambes he vnderstandeth the faythfull people by sheep which are the dammes of the lambes the Bishops and other Pastors of the
and againe (o) In c. 1. ad Gal. he went to him as to one greater then himselfe and that not in a vulgar manner but as he obserueth out of the Greeke Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to behold and admire him as a personage of great excellency and maiesty as men goe to behold and admire great and famous Cities for which cause and to satisfy himselfe with a perfect view of his person and behauiour notwithstanding his great employments he stayed 15. dayes with him If therfore the generall accord of sacred expositors be of weight this 1. place of S. Paul which you produce to disproue his subiection to S. Peter is so farre from disprouing it that it strongly proueth it and his owne acknowledgment therof Againe 14. yeares after this time sayth S. Paul I went vp to Hierusalem according to reuelation to conferre with them the Ghospell which I preach among the Gentils From this place you argue (q) Pag. 5â— that S. Paul held himselfe equall in authority with S. Peter for S. Hierome whom you alleage out of Salmeron sayth it is one thing to conferre an other thing to learne for among them that conferre there is equality What equality of iurisdiction and power No for a subiect may conferre with his Superiour a Collegiall with his Rector but of Doctrine and learning only as S. Hierome there declareth adding that betweene him that teacheth and him that learneth he that learneth is the lesser to wit in knowledge And therfore I grant that S. Paul went not to learne of S. Peter he had learned his Ghospell by reuelation immediatly from Iesus Christ the same Maister that taught S. Peter Nor did he receaue from S. Peter or the other Apostles power or authority to preach for that likewise he had immediatly from Christ in this sense he sayth (*) Gal. 2.6 The Apostles added nothing to me Neuerthelesse because he had not conuersed with Christ in mortall flesh nor learned his Doctrine from the other Apostles which had bene instructed by him before his death lest the Gentils to whom he preached being incensed against him by false Apostles might haue any doubt of the truth of his Doctrine or of his Commission to preach for their satisfaction and that his preaching might not be in vaine and without profit to the hearers he went to Hierusalem and conferred his Ghospell with the chiefe Apostles to the end that the Gentils might be certified of the truth of his Doctrine knowing it to haue their approbation and to be the same that they preached But you that borow your argument from Salmeron (r) In Ep. ad Gal. Disput â—2 why do you conceale what followeth in his Comment If sayth he it was needfull for so great an Apostle of Christ to conferre his Ghospell with the Apostles and Peter how much more necessary was it that Luther and Caluin should haue brought theirs to be conferred with the See Apostolike With what pillars of the Church did they conferre it as Paul did or with what Miracle did they proue it they that could neuer persuade themselues so much as to come to the See Apostolike and Roman Church the mother of all Churches to conferre nor to the Oecumenicall Councell of Trent that was gathered for their soules health sake that was free and open to them that did courteously intreat them and with a safe conduct inuite them to come So Salmeron whose words you thought best not to mention both because they shew your Doctrine to be destitute of lawfull authority and also because they refute the fabulous report which you (s) Pag. 404. make out of Thuanus your historian that diuers Protestants came to the Councell and desired of the Popes Legates liberty to dispute but could not be admitted for Samleron was present at the Councell as one of the Popes Diuines who therfore knew what passed in the Councell better then Thuanus And to Salmerons testimony I adde your owne confessions in the late Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of Scotland against the pretended Generall assembly holden at Glascow (t) Pag. 13. and in your Apology of the Church of England which also expresseth the reasons why you refused to come set downe in your owne words and refelled by Doctor Harding in his Confutation of the same Apology (u) Part. ad Chap. 7. fol. 293. seqq How far therfore you are from the Doctrine example of S. Paul in this point not only Salmeron but Venerable Bede and S. Anselme (x) In cap. 2. ad Gal. haue declared out of S. Augustine whose words both they and Salmeron set downe to this purpose If the Apostle Paul himselfe sayth S. Augustine (y) L. 28. contra Paust c. 4. being called from Heauen after the Ascension of our Lord had not found the Apostles liuing that by communicating and conferring his Ghospell with thew he might shew himselfe to be of the same society the Church would giue no credit at all vnto him But when they knew that he preached the same Doctrine which they did that he liued in communion and vnity with them and did worke Miracles as they did our Lord therby commending him he deserued so great authority that his words at this day are heard in the Church euen as if Christ were heard to speake in him as he most truly said With these Fathers accordeth S. Hierome (z) Epist 89. quae est 10. inter epist. August defining that Paul had not had security of preaching the Ghospell if it had not bene approued by Peters sentence and the rest that were with him So S. Hierome whose testimony with the rest shew how beggarly a cause you haue since those very Scriptures which you produce in defence therof are so many verdicts against you A third text of S. Paul (*) 2. Cor. 12.11 you set downe thus I am nothing inferior vnto the Chiefe of the Apostles But I cannot commend your translation for none but Peter is Chiefe of the Apostles to whom therfore S. Paul compares not himselfe in the singular number as you here and els where falsifiing his words make him to say but to the Chiefe Apostles in the plurall number and yet not that in authority and iurisdiction of which he speaketh not but in the dignity of an Apostle in his great labors in his Miracles in his reuelations in his dangers and iourneys vndertaken for the preaching of Christ as the Context before and after sheweth S. Ambrose Theodoret S. Anselme S. Thomas Aquinas and other expositors declare (a) In eum locum But you vrge the testimonies of Fathers (b) Pag. 60. fin vpon this text of S. Paul And first that S. Ambrose saith (c) In 1. Cor. c. 12. Paul was no lesse in dignity then Peter You falsity S. Ambrose there compares not Paul with Peter in particular but speaking of him and the rest in generall sayth that albeit he were called to the
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
the collecting of Councells So you but falsly as hath bene already proued (l) Chap. 1â— â— 8. And to go no further for examples That very sixth generall Councell which you mention beareth witnesse for Bellarmine against you saying As soone as Arius arose the Emperor Constantine and Syluester worthy of prayse assembled the great and famous Councell at Nice And that Constantine did not call that Councell by his authority hath bene proued (m) Ibid. and is confirmed out of the sixth Councell it selfe which was called by the authority of the Pope as it appeareth out of the Epistle of Constantine the Emperor to Donus (n) Inter praeambul 6. Synod apud Bin. to 3. pag. 6. in which he earnestly intreateth him to send Legates in his name with sufficient instructions and authority for the celebration of a Councell to represse heretikes and restore peace to the Church promising withall to see them securely conueighed to Constantinople to receaue them with due honor and the Councell being ended to returne them home with safety Donus being dead before this letter came to Rome it was receaued by Agatho his Successor who yielding to so pious a desire of the Emperor caused diuers Synods to be held in the West to examine the Monothelites Doctrine Which being done he called a Synod at Rome to establish more firmely the Catholike fayth against those Heretikes and then sent his Legates to Constantinople vpon whose ariuall the Emperor as knowing that without the authority of the See Apostolike no Councell could be valid signified by letters (o) Extat apud Bin. to 3. pag. 7. to the Patriarkes of Constantinople and Hierusalem that the Pope hauing yelded to his desire of calling a Councell had sent his legates representing his owne person and with them order and instructions how to proceed therin and therfore wished them with their Metropolitans and Bishops to resort to Constantinople All which sheweth how vntruely you say that Emperors are the supreme and first compulsarie causes for the collecting of Councells for indeed how can that authority belong to them who haue no more then the sixth Councell sheweth Which being ended the Popes Legates though none of them were Bishops but two of them Priestes and the third a Deacon as they had presided in the Councell so they subscribed in the first place before all the Bishops and Patriarkes and the Emperor in the last place after all and in these words Legimus consensimus (p) Apud Bin. to 3. pag. â—7 shewing therby that he had no authority of a Iudge in the Councell but that his duety was as it is also of other Emperors to agree vnto what the Bishops by their authority as Iudges had determined 2. To proue that the Emperor was the supreme and first comâ—ulsaty cause of collecting the second generall Councell at Constantinople you produce Theodoret as a witnesse (q) Pag. 109. 110. that not Damasus but he was the absolute Commander If Theodoret say that the Emperor commanded he sayth it not to shew that he commanded by his owne authority but by the power he had receaued from Damasus so that his command and conuocation was only executory of Damasus his authority for why els doe not those Bishops say that the Emperor called them and why do they say to Damasus You called vs as your owne members by letters sent to the Emperor but because Damasus was he that chiefely called them and the Emperor no otherwise then by vertue of Damasus his letters sent vnto him to that effect Euen as Basilius the Emperor in like manner called the eight generall Councell by the Mandate of Pope Adrians letters (r) Apud Bin. to 3. pag. 881. Volumus c. Wee will sayth Adrian to the Emperor that a full Councell be held at Constantinople by the industry of your Piety in which our Legates presiding c. And this would haue bene no lesse cleare concerning the calling of the second generall Councell at CoÌ„stantinople if what you set downe in your Latin and Greeke marginals you had syncerely rendred in your English text which most imported your readers for the vnderstandding of the truth And the same is yet further proued out of two very antient Manuscripts the one of the Vatican and the other of S. Maria Maior in which it is said (s) Apud Baron anno 381. Damasus confirmed the sentence of condemnation pronounced against Macedonius and Eunomius in the second Synod which by his command and authority was held at Constantinople And lastly whether Damasus did belieue that the authority of calling Councells belonged to the Emperor or to himselfe may be gathered out of another Epistle of his written in answere to one Stephen an Archbishoppe of Mauritania and three African Councells (t) Damas Ep. 4. apub Bin. to 1. pag. 499. in which hauing declared that he had the Episcopall charge or ministery ouer the house of God which is the vniuersall Catholike Church and that the See Apostoleke is constituted by God ouer all Priests and Bishops he addeth for as you know it is not Catholike that a Synod be held without the authority of the holy See Apostolike nor a Bishop condemned but in a lawfull Synod assembled by the same authority nor are any Councells read to be valid but only such as haue their strength from the Apostolicall authority And hereby you are conuinced of an vntruth in saying (u) Pag. 110. that Damasus his letters were not mandatory to the Orientals but letters of request to the Emperor Theodosius for obteyning liberty to collect and assemble a Synod For albeit Damasus requested Theodosius to assist him therin as the duty of a Christian Emperor was to do yet witnes Theodoret (x) L. 5. c. 8. he with his Roman Synod without whose aduice he dispatcheth no busines of moment sent letters to the Easterne Bishops themselues to call them to a Councell at Rome which letters they hauing receaued by the Emperor returne an answere to Damasus not taxing him for want of authority to call them but excusing their not obeying his command by reason of the shortnes of tyme the great inconueniences their long absence would haue bred to their Churches newly freed from the persecutions and troubles of Heretikes Which excuse sufficiently sheweth that they acknowledged in him authority to call them SECT II. Whether the Primacy of the Pope be Primacy of Authority and Iurisdiction or of Order only BEllarmine (y) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. proueth the Popes authority ouer the Orientals by their acknowledging him to be their Head and themselues to be his members You answere (*) Pag. 110. that the similitude of Head and members implieth no superiority of iurisdiction but only of Order that is of priority of place of voyce and the like But this euasion is coÌ„futed by the very comparison it selfe for the Head hath not only priority of place aboue the members but gouerneth and
man highly esteemed by you hath taught you (t) Not. in ep Cyp. ad Cornel that the word Brother there signifieth not equality but society of religion And nothing els is signified by the words Colleague and Fellow-minister when other Bishops are so instiled by the Pope or the Pope by them For that ancient Father Vincentius Lyrinensis speaking of Pope Stephen and other Bishops opposing the doctrine of rebaptization defended by Firmilianus and Cyprian sayth (u) Cont. haer cap. 9. Then the blessed Stephen made resistance together with but yet before his Colleagues iudging it as I conceaue a thing worthy of him to excell them in fayth so much as he did in the authority of his place And Innocentius the first in answere to the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis (x) Inter ep Aug. ep 93. I conceaue 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 say to the author of their name and dignity And the Bishops of Aegypt in the Synod of Alexandria call S. Athanasius their Colleague (y) Athan. Apol. de fuga sua who yet was their Head and had iurisdiction ouer them as the Coūcell of Nice declareth (z) Can. 6. And lastly the Bishops of the Councell of Ephesus call Celestine Pope their fellow-minister (a) Par. 2. Act. 1. and yet in the same place stile him their most holy Father and make themselues executors of his decrees Constrained necessarily say they by the force of the Canons and by the letters of our most holy Father and Fellow-minister Celestine we are come not without teares to pronounce this heauy sentence against Nestorius I conclude therfore that these words Brother Colleague and fellow-minister when they are vsed by the Pope to other Bishops or by other Bishops to the Pope signify nothing els but society of religion and vnity of communion from whence to inferre as you do that other Bishops are of equall authority with the Pope is a peece of ignorance no way suiting with a man of your reading and altogeather vnbeseeming him that holds the place of so great a Bishop SECT IV. A friuolous cauill of Doctor Morton against Bellarmine answeared YOu obiect (b) Pag. 109. fin that wheras Theodoret sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is letters the yeares past Bellarmine against all Lexicons readeth The mandate of letters Is not this fine art trow yee c. If any should translate the yeare past into Mandate might it not be suspected that the mans witts were now in the wayne as being ignorant c. So you who by seeking to shew your wit in scoffing at Bellarmine discouer your ignorance and folly Bellarmines intent is to shew that the Councell of Constantinople was called by the Popes authority because the Fathers of the Councell writing to Damasus acknowledge that they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his letters which Bellarmine translateth mandato literarum by command of his letters following the version of Christopherson and with good cause for who is so stupid as not to vnderstand that it is all one to call the Bishops to a Councell by his letters as the Greeke sayth or by the authority and Mandate of his letters as Christopherson translated But to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Mandate neither did Bellarmine so translate nor would any man whose wits are not in the wayne haue imputed so grosse an ignorance to that learned Cardinall especially since in two different places he setteth downe the same passage at large and expresseth both Mandato litterarum (c) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. In Respon ad Apol. pro iuram fidel pag. 375. and Anno superiore saying Mandato litterarum superiore anno à vestra Reuerentia ad sanctissimum Imperatorem Theodosium missarum by the Mandate of letters sent the last yeare by your Reuerence to the most religious Emperor Theodosius Which sheweth that if he had left out of the Latin Anno superiore as you citing his words cunningly do it had not bene to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Mandate but to omit Anno superiore as a particle wholly impertinent either to proue or disproue the Popes power of calling generall Councells which no way dependeth on the yeare but on the authority and dignity of his place SECT V. Of the Decree of this second Councell generall made in fauor of the Archbishop of Constantinople AGainst what hath bene said you oppose a (d) Pag. 112. 113. Canon of the second Councell ordayning that the B. of Constantinople haue the honor of primacy next after the B. of Rome because Constantinople is new Rome This Obiection reboundeth on your owne head For if the Bishop of Constantinople sought then to obtayne the second place after the Pope because Constantinople is new Rome it is therby manifest that before that tyme the B. of old Rome had the primacy aboue all Bishops The primacy I say not of order only for this the Bishops of Constantinople neuer denied to the Pope but of authority and iurisdiction ouer the Patriarkes of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem for that authority it was in which they sought to participate with him though in the second place after vnder him which they cold not haue done vnlesse the primacy of authority ouer those Patriarkes had primitiuely and originally belonged to him So farre therfore is this your Argument from euincing any thing against the Popes authority that it confirmeth the same And so much the more because the Canon obiected whatsoeuer the sense of it be and whatsoeuer the Bishops of Constantinople pretended by it is of no force for the Councell in which it was made consisted only of the Bishops of the East and therfore was not Generall of it selfe but only by the adiunction and confirmation of another Councell of the Westerne Bishops held at Rome vnder Damasus Pope at the same tyme which neither knew of this Canon before it was made nor confirmed it after it was made as S. Gregory hath testified saying (e) L. 6. ep 31. The Roman Church neither hath nor receaueth the Canons or the Actes of the Councell of Constantinople but she hath admitted that Synod in what it defined against Macedonius And the same is testified by S. Leo (f) Ep. 53. who reprehending Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople for seeking to renew this Canon in the Councell of Chalcedon sayth The signature of certaine Bishops made as thou vauntest more then threescore yeares since cannot iustify thy intention to the vpholding whereof being of it selfe from the beginning ruinous and long since quite fallen thou hast sought weake and feeble props for neuer hauing bene transmitted by thy predecessors to the knowledge of the See Apostolike it could be of no force That this Canon was neuer allowed by the See Apostolike you know but shift it off saying (g) Pag 112. Truly it
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
Argument is of no force both because neither this Canon nor any other of what Councell soeuer is powerfull to limit his authority nor hath force further then it is confirmed by him as hath bene proued as also because he is not only Bishop of the Roman Dioces in particular but of the vniuersall Church Other Bishops sayth S. Bernard (s) L. 2. de Confider c. 9. according to the Canons are called to a part of solicitude he to the fullnesse of power the power of other Bishops is confined to certaine limits his is extended also to them that haue receaued power ouer others He if there because can shut Heauen to a Bishop and depose him from his Bishoprick He can erect new Bishopricks (t) S. Bernar. ep 131. where they were not He of Bishopes can make Archbishops and contrarywise of Archbishops Bishops if reason so dictate vnto him Wherfore albeit as considered in the quality of a particular Bishop of the Roman Dioces he cannot ordaine Bishops out of that Dioces more then other Bishops can out of theirs yet as he is Pastor and Bishop of the vniuersall Church he can depose and ordaine Bishops in other Dioceses as Agapet deposed Anthymus Patriarke of Constantinople and ordeyned Menas in his place And the Ecclesiasticall histories are full of examples of the same nature which therfore conuince that the Councell of Ephesus by that decree intended not to prescribe any limits of iurisdiction to the Pope but only to command all particular Bishops not to entrench vpon the liberties of others which decree Celestine Pope confirmed with all the rest of that Councell (u) Ep. 2. ad Syn. Ephes as no way contrary to his Vniuersall authority SECT IV. Whether it may be gathered out of the Councell of Ephesus that the authority of the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell YOu say (x) Pag. 115. If the Councell could not depose Nestorius without the Popes mandate nor durst depose Iohn Patriarke of Antioch but reserued the cause to the iudgment of the Pope the issue must be directly this that the Pope is absolutely aboue a generall Councell And was not this say you (y) Pag 116. more then holdnesse in your Cardinall Bellarmine to inferre this supreme authority out of this Councell O egregious imposture Bellarmine only relateth what passed in the Councell namely that those Fathers durst not pronounce a definitiue and vltimate sentence against the two Patriarkes but reserued it to Celestine Pope as to the supreme Iudge of all Bishops Your guilty conscience telling you that the issue therof directly must be that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell you make that inference out of the Councell against your selfe and falsly father it on Bellarmine for though els where he defend that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell yet neither there nor here he makes any such inference out of this Councell of Ephesus And no lesse imposterous is your alleaging the Councells of Constance and Basil against that Doctrine of Bellarmine for the Councell of Basil is a damned Conuenticle and that of Constance when it defined a Councell to be aboue the Pope was not a generall Councell nor speaketh of him that is certainly known to be true Pope but of three Popes in tyme of Schisme when it was doubtfull which of them or indeed whether any of them were true Pope Nor was that decree euer confirmed but expresly condemned by the Councells of Florence and Lateran as you know Binius (z) To. 1. Not. ad Concil Constan. pag. 1662. and Bellarmine (a) L. 2. de Conc. c. 17. haue obserued But to proue that the Pope is not aboue a Councell you vrge (b) Pag. 116. out of Stapleton that the contrary was neuer expresly decreed in any Councell But in this you are as false as in the rest for you cite Stapleton in his thirteenth booke De principijs doctrinalibus wheras in that worke he hath but twelue bookes in all But be the proposition his or whose you please and be it that no Councell hath expresly defined that the Pope is aboue a Councell doth it therfore follow that the Doctrine is not true Is nothing true but what is defined in Councells Who seeth not how inconsequent this your consequence is CHAP. XIX The Councell of Chalcedon belieued the supreme authority of the B. of Rome SECT 1. That Leo Pope called the Councell of Chalcedon by his Authority and presided in it by his Legates OVT of the famous Councell of Chalcedon one of the foure which S. Gregory (c) L. 1. ep 24. reuerenced as the 4. Ghospells the supreme authority of the B. of Rome ouer the whole Church is proued many wayes 1. Because this Councell was called by his authority If it please your Holinesse sayth Martian the Emperor to Leo Pope (d) Extat in Ep. preamb. Conc. Chalced. that a Synod he held vouchsafe to signify so much by your letters that I may direct mine into all the East into Thracia and Illyria to the end that all the most holy Bishops may meete at a set place where your Holinesse shall please to appoint and by their wisdome declare those things which may be profitable for Christian Religion and the Catholike fayth as your Holinesse according to the Ecclesiasticall rules shall define And Pulcheria the Empresse writing to the same Pope (e) Extat epist. ibid. Your Reuerence vouchsafe to signify according as you haue ordeyned that all the Bishops of the East of Thracia and Illyria may come together into one Citty and by your authority determine there in a holy Councell what the Christian fayth and your Piety require concerning the Catholike profession and the Bishops which haue bone excommunicated And the Bishops of the second Maesia in their Epistle to Leo the Emperor (f) Apud Biâ— to 2. pag. 154. Maâ—y holy Bishops were assembled in the Citty of Chalcedon by the commandment of Leo B. of Rome who is truly the Head of all Bishops And Gelasius Pope 40. yeares after the Councell of Chalcedon (g) De Anathem vinculo The See Apostolike delegated the Councell of Chalcedon to be held for the common fayth and the Catholike and Apostolike truth And againe (h) Ibid. The Pope alone ordeyned that by his authority the Councell of Chalcedon should be held 2. And as by his authority he called this Councell so by his Legates he presided in it My Brethren sayth he speaking of this Councell (i) Ep. 94. presided in my steed in the Orientall Synod And writing to the Councell it selfe (k) Ep. 47. Your brotherhood is to conceaue that in these my brethren Paschasinus and Lucentius Bishops Bonifacius and Basill Priests which are sent by the See Apostolike I preside in your Synod And be confident that I am not absent from you who am present in these my Vicars And to Pulcheria the Empresse he sayth (l) Ep. 5â— that by those his brethren
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
from Africa to Rome for of them only the question is But insteed of prouing this you produce a Canon in which euen as it is reported by your selfe no mention is made of Bishops but only a command giuen that Priests Deacons or other inferior Clerkes appeale not from the Bishops of their owne prouince eyther to Rome or to any other transmarine Church which no more impeacheth the soueraigne power of the Pope or disproueth his right of appeales out of Africa then it would impeach the authority of the King of France if to preuent the multitude of vnnecessary suites and keepe his people in awe of their immediate Superiors his Maiesty and his Courts of Parliament with his assent should prouide by a speciall law that in minor causes no appeales be made froÌ„ them to himselfe To this I adde that Innocentius confirmed this Councell of Mileuis (d) Aug. ep 93. which he would not haue done if it had prohibited the appeales of Bishops to his See which he himselfe in his epistle to Victricius claymeth and proueth out of the Councell of Nice to be lawfull And the same is confirmed out of S. Augustine who was present at the Councell of Mileuis and speaking of Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage that had bene iniustly condemned by the Donatists in a Councell of 70. Bishops fayth (e) Ep. 162. Cecilian might haue contemned the multitude of his enemies conspiring against him for as much as he knew himselfe to be in the Communion of the Roman Church in which had alwaies florish't the principality of the See Apostolike that he might haue reserued his cause entire to be iudged a new there because it was not a cause of Priests or Deacons or other Clerkes of the inferior order but of a Colleague that is to say of a Bishop This discourse of S. Augustine conuinceth that Bishops may appeale to Rome though Priests and other inferior Clerkes may not How comes it then to passe that you say (f) Pag. 323. Bellarmine when he sayth that S. Augustine in the place alleaged doth iustify appeales of Bishops beyond the sea to Rome speakes so still as though be were scarse able to report a truth Bellarmine may indeed with truth tell you that when you sayd (g) Ibid. The case of Cecilian which S. Augustine speaketh of was not a case of appeale but of delegation by the authority of the Emperor to the Pope and to other Bishops you speake as one that is scarce able to report any thing out of him without an vntruth for he speaketh not of what passed de facto in the case of Cecilian but of the right that Cecilian had to appeale to the Pope which right S. Augustine could not haue alleaged vnlesse he had belieued that Bishops in their wrongs might lawfully appeale to him And that the case of Cecilian was not a case of appeale to the Pope but a delegation from the Emperor is an vntruth that shall be confuted hereafter (i) Chap. 30. sect â— From hence Bellarmine collecteth that albeit the Councell of Mileuis prohibited the appeales of Priests and inferior Clerkes to Rome yet they nether did nor could prohibite the Pope to admit of such appeales if they were made Against this you reply (k) Pag. 322. that where there lyeth a prohibition against appealing to a Iudge that Iudge is not held a superior Iudge False if it be taken vniuersally without limitation for a prohibition may be iniust as being made without sufficient authority such is the prohibition of Protestants forbidding all Appeales to Rome Againe a prohibition may be made with dependance on the will and confirmation of a Superior to whom the right of appeales belongeth Such was the prohibition made in the Councell of Mileuis which therfore without the Popes confirmation was inualid and is not valid further then he confirmed it Wherfore though by confirming it he did authorize the AfricaÌ„ Bishops to impose on their Priests other Clerkes a command of not appealing to Rome yet by granâ—ing them that authority he cannot be thought to renounce his owne right so farre as that if a Priest appeale vnto him he may not admit his appeale when he shall finde it expedient as it may be in case the Priest or Clerke can make euidence of his innocency prouing by sufficient witnesses that he hath bene iniustly condemned by the Bishops of his owne prouince out of misinformation or other motiues CHAP. XXVII Appeales to Rome proued out of the African Councell which was the sixth of Carthage SECT I. The state of the Question APIARIVS an African Priest of the Citty of Sicca being of a lewd scandalous life was excommunicated by Vrbanus B. of the same City He trauelled twice to Rome and making his complaints to Zozimus Pope appealed to his iudgmeÌ„t Zozimus sent him back into Africa wishing the African Bishops to examine his cause diligently And for as much as not only Apiarius but as it appeareth out of two Epistle of the African Bishops to Boniface and Celestine successors to Zozimus some Bishops also had appealed vnto him out of Africa and the African Bishops complained therof he sent vnto theÌ„ three Legates Faustinus B. of Potentia Philip and Asellus Priests and with them the Canons made in the Councell of Nice concerning appeales to Rome The Africans not finding those Canons in their copies of the Nicen Councell sent Deputies into the East to procure authenticall copies from Cyril Patriarke of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople But when they came their copies were found to containe no more then 20. which is the nuÌ„ber exstant in our Latin editions and in which there is no mention of appeales to Rome This obiection hath bene often vrged by Protestants and as often answeared by vs and particularly by the most eminent Cardinals Baronius (l) Anno 419. Bellarmine (m) L. 2. de Pontif. c. 25. and Peron (n) Repliq. l. 1. Chap. 49. In them you may read the solution It will be sufficient for me to giue the Reader out of them and other Authors a touch of your vnsyncere dealing wherby he may also come to vnderstand what the issue of this controuersy was First therfore Bellarmine Peron (o) Loc. cit and Brereley (p) Prot. Apol tract 1. sect 7. Subdiu 2. n. 3. shew that the ancient Fathers and Councels and in particular the Africans themselues whom this matter most concerned highly commend those three Popes Zozimus Boniface and Celestine with whom this controuersy was and grace them with titles of great reuerence honor calling Zozimus The most blessed Pope Zozimus Zozimus of venerable memory that they call Boniface The venerable Bishop of the Roman Church The most blessed Bishop of the City of Rome The holy and blessed Pope The Reuerend Pope Boniface Boniface of holy memory The most blessed and our honorable brother Boniface and that S. Augustine dedicated to him one of his principall workes And
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
Fathers in the end descended to a flat and peremptory resolution in opposition of the Papall claime of appeales This is a flat and peremptory vntruth for the Africans neuer contested with the Pope about appeales in matters of fayth but acknowledged that they ought to referre them to him as appeareth out of the practise of the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis which sent their decrees of fayth to Innocentius Pope to be confirmed by his authority (o) See aboue Chap. 26. Their contestation was about Appeales of the inferior Clergy in ciuill and criminall causes Of them they writ to Zozimus Pope but he being dead before the ariuall of their letters they writ againe to Boniface his Successor acknowledging that they had receaued from him Mandata literas Commandments and letters which what was it else but to professe him to be their Superior And withall they represented to Boniface the great troubles which the late appeales out of Africa to Rome had brought vpon them that therfore great caution ought to be vsed lest other such or worse should happen And because they had not found in their copies of the Nicen Councell those Canons concerning appeales which Zozimus had sent in the instruction of his Legates they required tyme to send into the East for authenticall copies of the Nicen Canons but in the meane tyme they obserued the commandment of Zozimus restoring Apiarius to the communion to his Priesthood Apiarius say they to Boniface (p) Ep ad Bonifac. crauing pardon hath bene restored to the communion And againe (q) Ibid. It hath pleased vs that Apiarius should retire from the Church of Sicca retayning the honor of his degree And in their Epistle to Celestine Apiarius had bene formerly restored to his Priesthood Nor did they shew their obedience only in restoring Apiarus but moreouer in attending the comming of the Easterne Copies of the Nicen Councell they promised with great humility and with all respect protested to obserue from point to point all that was contained in the instruction of the Popes Legates For Daniel Notary of the Councell hauing read the first article which was that Bishops may appeale to the Pope Alipius said (r) Conc. Afric c. 4. We protest to obserue these things vntill the coming of the perfect copies And the second article being read which was That the causes of Priests and inferior Clerkes were to be finally determined by the Bishop of their owne Prouince S. Augustine said (s) Ibid. c. 7. We protest also to obserue this article sauing a more diligent inquiry of the Councell of Nice And the whole Councell speaking of both these articles to Boniface Pope said (t) Cap. 101. in Ep. ad Bonif. These thinges which in the fore-said instruction haue bene alleaged vnto vs of the appeales of Bishops to the Priest of the Roman Church and of the causes of Clerkes to be ended by the Bishops of their owne Prouinces We protest to obserue vntill the proofe of the Nicen Councell And we trust in the will of God that your Holinesse also will helpe vs in it By this it appeares that the Canons of Appeales to Rome sent by Zozimus were admitted and the practise of them in Africa allowed by the whole Councell vntill the comming of the Nicen copies out of the East which sheweth that their contestation was not about the Popes right of appeales els they would haue forbidden them absolutely euen in that interim but about the expediency of them and the manner of prosecuting them by Legates and executors sent from Rome Which is yet further confirmed by these their words to Pope Celestine (u) Ep. ad Celest. Wherfore premising the office of due salutation we beseech you affectionatly that hereafter you will not so easily admit to your eares those that come from these partes nor vestore to the communion such as haue bene excommunicated by vs. And a litle after To the end that they who in their owne Prouince haue bene depriued of the communion may not seeme to be hastily and otherwise then is fit restored to the communion by your Holynesse These words are another remonstrance of their acknowledgment of the Popes power ouer them and of their subiection to him for they say not to Celestine that he had not authority to restore the Communion to those that had bene excommunicated by them but humbly beseech him not to do it easily and without mature deliberation but rather that he will send them back into Africa to be iudged vpon the place where their causes might be discussed more exactly and the truth more certainely knowne by the attestation of witnesses which could not without much difficulty and charges passe to Rome And wheras the Councell of Sardica (x) Can. 7. hath decreed that if a Bishop appeale to Rome and the Pope esteeme is iust that the examination of his cause be renowed it shal be in the Popes power if he please to send Legates from Rome to ioyne with the Bishops of the same prouince from whom the appeale is made that by them the cause may be tried and iudged a new the Africans denied not this power of the B. of Rome nor any way excepted against the sending back of the Appellāts into Africa to haue their causes tried againe by the Bishops of their owne prouince but only beseeched him that he would be pleased not to send Legates who by prosecuting the causes of Appellants too violently did somtimes giue occasion of complaint Wherfore beseeching Pope Celestine they say (y) Conc. Afric c. 107 That you wil not send your Clerkes executors to all that demand them nor permit that we may seeme to introduce the smoaky pride of the world into the Church of Christ which propounds the light of simplicity and the day of humility to them that desire to see God The motiue which the Africans had to make this petition was the insolent cariage of Antony B. of Fussala in Numidia who as S. Augustine reporteth (z) Ep. 261. for his enormous crimes being depriued of his Bishoprick by procurement of the inhabitants of Fussala and left with the bare title of Bishop fraudulently got testimoniall letters of his innocency from the Primate of Numidia at the very time of this sixth Councell of Carthage and appealed to Boniface Pope who answeared with great caution that he should be restored si nulla in eius narratione surreptio intercessisset if there were no surreption in the relation of his cause Boniface dying and Celestine succeeding they of Fussala prosecuted their suite earnestly against him And he contrarily threatned that Celestine would send Clerkes executors and if need were souldiers to restore him to his Bishoprick He threatned them sayth S. Augustine (a) Ibid. with secular power as if they were to come to execute the iudgments of the See Apostolike so that the miserable inhabitants being Christians and Catholikes feared more grieuous vsage from a
And Osius admonishing Constantius the Arian Emperor Intermeddle not O Emperor in Ecclesiasticall causes nor take vpon you to command vs in this kinde but rather learne those things from vs. To you God hath committed the Empere the affaires of the Church to vs. And as he that maliciously carpeth at our gouerment resists the ordinance of God so take you heed that in assuming to your selfe those things which belong to the Church you make not your selfe guilty of a most hainous crime for it is written giue to Cesar those things which are Cesars and those which are Gods to God The like reprehension was giuen to the same Emperor by Leontius that famous B. of Cesaraea who had bene present at the Councell of Nice whom Cregorius Presbyter (t) Spoud anno 32â— â—â— â— tearmeth equall to the Angells I wonder said he to Constantius (u) Suid. in Leouâ— that you being appointed to order and gouerneone thing do meddle with others you are chiefe commander in military and ciuill affaires and you presume to ordaine what Bishops shall do in things that belong to Bishops alones And when the Captaine of the hereticall Emperor Valens required the Priests and Deacons of Edessa to submit to the Emperor in matters of religion representing to them that it was madnesse to resist so great a Monarch Eulogius a Priest of the same City answeared pleasantly (x) Theodor. l. 4. hiâ—t c. â—â— What hath Valens together with the Empire gotten also the place and dignity of a Bishop And when Dalmatius the Tribune with a publike Notary was sent by Valentinian the yonger to summon S. Ambrose to a disputation with Auxentius the Arian Bishop and others of his sect in the Emperors pallace before him and his Courtiers (y) L. â— op 3â— I answered sayth S. Ambrose to the Emperor the same that your Father of glorious memory not only answered in words vpon like occasion but also established by his lawes that in causes of fayth and Ecclesiasticall order Priests only are to iudge of Priests yea further that if a Bishop should be questioned for his manners this iudgment should likewise appertaine to Bishops c. When haue you euer heard mâ—st clement Emperor that lay men did iudge of Bishop in matters of fayth You are yet youg in yeares you will by Gods grace and the maturity of age be better informed and then you will be able to iudge what manner of Bishop he is to be accounted that subiects the right of Priesthood to lay men Your Father being a man of riper yeares said It belongs not to me to be a Iudge among Bishops and will your Clemency now say that you ought to be their Iudge So S. Ambrose But what need we further proofes Did not Constantine himselfe whom here you obiect refuse to heare the causes of Bishops answearing (z) Ruffin l. 1. c. 1. S. Greg. l 4. ep 72. That Bishops had power to iudge of Emperors but not Emperors to iudge of Bishops shewing therby that he acknowledged himselfe to haue no power of a Iudge in Ecclesiasticall causes Yea and this very fact of Constantine which you obiect is so farre from yelding any precedent for secular Princes to iudge Ecclesiasticall causes that it manifestly concludeth the contrary for when the Donatists required him to giue them Iudges in the cause of Cecilian B. of Carthage he stood amazed at their impudency He durst not sayth S. Augustine (a) Ep. 166. iudge the cause of a Bishop And Optatus (b) L. 1. cont Parmen He answeared them with a spirit full of indignation you aske of me iudgment in this world of me I say that do my selfe attend the iudgement of Christ You would haue me to make my selfe a Iudge of the Ministers of Christ I that do my selfe expect the iudgement of Christ. Wherfore though Constantine at the importunity of the Donatists granted them Iudges of the Gaules as they required he did it not without making this protestation before hand that it belonged not to him to meddle with the iudgement of Christs Ministers And notwithstanding that the Donatists who demanded Iudges and the Iudges which Constantine assigned them as also Constantine himselfe were then all actually present in France yet he caused the Donatists together with the Iudges which he had giuen them to trauaile to Rome that according to the ancient custome and lawes of the Church (c) Athan. Apol. â— Sozom l. 3. c. 9. And See aboue Chap. 26. the cause might be iudged by the Popes direction and vnder his presidency And this remission of the cause from his owne Court to the Popes tribunall was not by way of commission or delegation from himselfe as from a Superior Iudge to the Pope as to an inferior as you falsly suppose but by way of remission to him to whom he knew that iudicature in right to belong for how could the Emperor that professed himselfe to haue no right of a Iudge in the causes of Bishops giue power and commission vnto others to iudge the cause of Cecilian Wherfore although S. Augustine in regard of the Donatists intention call this remission a delegation yet withall he declareth that the reason of this delegation was because the Emperor durst not iudge the cause of a Bishop which sheweth that it was not a delegation of authority and power but a relegation or remission of the cause to whom the iudgement therof in right appertained Nor doth it import that he remitted not this cause to the Pope alone but to him and other Bishops his Colleagues for he remitted it not to them equally but to the Pope as to the chiefe Iudge and President and to the others as to the Pope Assessors Melchiades sayth S. Augustine (d) Cont. Iulian l. â— c. 2. Bishop of the Apostolike See being President Reticius was present as a Iudge with others And againe (e) Cont. Parmen l. 1. c. 5. By the arbitrement of Constantine the cause was heard by Bishops Iudges ouer whom presided Melchiades B. of the Citty of Rome Behold how exactly S. Augustine attributes to euery one what belonged vnto them Constantine was an Arbitrator the other Bishops present as Iudges assessors to Melchiades and as witnesses of his proceedings Melchiades chiefe Iudge and President And therfore he as hauing full authority did not content himselfe with taking for his Assistents the three French Bishops nominated by the Emperor but by his owne authority added to them other fifteene of Italy whose names Optatus rehearseth (f) Cont. Parmen l. 1. wheras if he had not bene absolute Iudge by his owne authority but only by delegation from Constantine he could not haue added any other Iudges to those three which Constantine nominated Againe his authority appeared in this that none of the Assistants but he in the name of the whole Councell and as President therof pronounced the sentence How innocent sayth S. Augustine (g) Ep. â—â—2
in any thing he had erred and acknowledgeth in the Pope authority of a Iudge We are ready sayth he to be iudged by you prouided that they which slander vs may appeare face to face with vs before your Reuerence Doth all this import nothing but a request of louing and brotherly visitation or consideration Could S. Basil in more effectuall words expresse the Popes power and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church then by requesting him to send his Legates with authority to annull the Acts of a generall Councell as that of Arimin was No they are testimonies so forcible that with no glosse can be eluded But you reply (u) Pag. 194. against Bellarmine that he will needes haue S. Basil to desire the Popes Decree wheras Baronius readeth Counsell or Aduice Here againe you cauill for the Greeke word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by interpretation of Budaeus signifieth voluntatem sententiam iudicium Why then was it not lawfull for Bellarmine to say S. Basil desired the Popes decree for to desire him to giue his sentence and iudgement what was it els but to acknowledge in him the authority of a Iudge with power to sentence to iudge to decree Ecclesiasticall causes in the East Which power he also declareth in other places of his workes for do not both he (x) Ep. 73. al. 74. and S. Gregory Nazianzen (y) Epist ad Clede testify that Eustathius B. of Sebaste by vertue of Liberius his letters presented to the Easterne Bishops in the Councell of Tyana and by vertue of his command intimated in them was receaued into the communion of the whole Easterne Church and restored to his See Eustathius sayth S. Basil to the Bishops of the West hauing bene cast out of his Bishoprick because he was deposed in the Synod of Melitine aduised himselfe to find meanes to be restored trauailing to you Of the things that were proposed to him by the most Blessed Bishop Liberius and what submission be made we know not Only he brought a letter that restored him which being shewed to the Councell of Tyana he was reestablished in his Bishops seat Againe doth not S. Basil (z) Ep. 77. compare the Church to a body wherof the Westerne part by reason of the Roman See is the Head and the Eastern the Feet And doth he not from this very Metaphor denominate the B. of Rome Head of the vniuersall Church and all other Bishops fellow-members of the same body (a) Ep. 70. ad Episc transmar edit Paris an 1603. Againe doth he not beseech Pope Damasus (c) Ibid. to send Legates with order to examine the accusations laid to his charge and to appoint a place for him to meet them that his cause might be iudged by them and he punished if he were found guilty And doth he not require the same Pope (d) Ep. 74. to giue order by his letters to all the Easterne Churches that they admit into their communion all such as hauing departed from the Catholike truth shall disclaime from their Errors and to renounce the Communion of them that shall persist obstinatly in their nouelties And lastly declaring the Popes authority in determining all doubts and controuersies of fayth he sayth In very deed that which was giuen by our Lord to your Piety is worthy of that most excellent voyce which proclamed you blessed to wit that you may discerne betweene that which is counterfeit and that which is lawfull and pure and without any diminution may preach the fayth of our Ancestors I conclude therfore that if S. Basil beleeued aright the Pope hath authority to restore Bishops deposed to their Sees to send Legates with power to dissolue the Acts of generall Councels to condemne hereticall doctrines to iudge the causes of Bishops to punish delinquents And is this nothing els but charitable aduice but perswasion but counsell Is it not to vse authority to exercise iurisdiction But you obiect (f) Pag. 1â—6 that S. Basil in his owne name and in the name of his fellow Bishops in the East hauing written often to Pope Damasus and other Westerne Bishops and sent to Rome foure seuerall legations requiring helpe and comfort from them in their afflictions could not receaue any answeare in so much that S. Basil taxeth them with supercilious pride haughtinesse and that they did neither know the truth nor would learne it This you obiect out of Baronius from whom you might haue taken the solution which is that S. Basil was oppressed and as it were ouerwhelmed with waues of sorow and affliction not only for the common calamity of the Orientall Church but also for his owne particular for as much as by Eustathius B. of Sebaste and others who hiding the venime of their heresy feigned themselues to be Catholikes he was accused and defamed of heresy in the East and brought into suspition euen with his owne Monkes and his dearely beloued Neocaesarians And this made him likewise not to be well thought of in the West in so much that Damasus Pope for a time desisted from that familiar communication by letters which Basil expected and differred the sending of Legates to examine his cause and cleare the truth which he had required greatly desired Yet as you (g) Pag. 198. confesse was he then a member of the Catholike Church and held communion with the Church of Rome both in fayth and charity Nor was Damasus so wholly wanting to his comfort but that euen then when he was suspected of heresy vpon his letters he called a Councell at Rome in which he condemned Apollinarius Vitalis and Timotheus (h) Baron anno 373. Sozo l. 6. c. 25. called Vitalis to Rome and excommunicated Timotheus as he testifieth in his Epistle to the Easterne Bishops (i) Apud Theodo l. 5. histor c. 11. expressing withall the profession which they had made to him of their beliefe of the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Now if S. Basil in these afflictions and grieuing at the intermission of such communicatory letters from the Westerne Bishops and chiefly from Damasus as he expected let fall from his mouth some hasty words as other holy men whom Baronius (k) An. 373. nameth in like occasions haue done is that by you to be reproached vnto him or is it any argument of his deniall of the Supremacy of the B. of Rome which he hath taught so clearely so constantly so effectually in so many places of his workes Yea albeit S. Basil gaue a litle way to the motions of nature yet by vertue he soone recalled himselfe retracting what he had said as his letters full of humility written soone after to Damasus the other Westerne Bishops expresse You sayth (l) Ep. 1. in addiâ— he are praised by all mortall men that you remaine pure and without blemish in fayth keeping entire the doctrine taught you by the Apostles It is not so with vs among whom there are some
Her fayth is built vpon the word of Christ promising (t) Math. 16.18 that the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile against her and (u) Luc. 22.32 that the fayth of Peters See shall neuer faile Wherfore as it is impossible that Christ should faile in the performance of his promise so is it impossible that the necessity of vnion with the Roman Church should not be perpetuall Lastly you bring examples of antiquity (x) Pag. 125. requiring vnion with other Churches as well as with the Roman This Argument you haue prosecuted before (y) Pag 100.101 out of your owne obseruations of antiquity with many examples some of which you repeate here adding others vnto them (z) Pag. 229.230 The answere you haue receaued (a) Chap. 15. sect 9. to which I add that your Argument is as if you persuading rebells to ioyne not only with their Soueraigne but also with other his loyall subiects I shold lay to your charge that you hold loyall subiects to be of equall authority with their Soueraigne It is true that while subiects stand loyall to their Prince he that ioynes in loyalty with them is a loyall subiect But the reason why he is a loyall subiect is not because he ioyneth with them but because both he and they ioyne in obedience and subiection to their Soueraigne In like manner it is true that whatsoeuer Churches are in Communion with other Orthodoxall Churches that agree with the Roman in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike hath alwaies florished (b) Aug. ep 162. they are to be accompted Orthodoxall and Catholike Churches but the reason why they are to be accompted Catholike is not for their agreement among themselues but because they all agree with the Church of Rome the Head and originall Source of Catholike communion for which cause S. Cyprian explicating what a Catholike is makes no mention of other Apostolicall Churches which were extant in his dayes but absolutely defineth (c) L. 4. Ep. 2. 8. that to be a Catholike is to communicate with the B. of Rome And S. Ambrose (d) Orat. de obitu Satyri that to agree with Catholike Bishops is to agree with the Roman Church from which sayth he (e) L. 1. ep 4. ad Imperat. the rights of Venerable Communion do flow vnto all other Churches she being the source and they streames deriued from her as from their natiue fountaine (f) Innocent apud Aug. ap 91. And S. Irenaeus (g) L. 3. c. 3. pronounceth it necessary for all Churches not excepting the Apostolicall to agree with the Church of Rome by reason of her more mighty principality that is because her sayth cannot faile she being the Rock on which the Catholike Church is built (h) Hieron Ep. 57. ad Damas and against which the gates of hell cannot preuaile (i) Aug in Psal cont partem Donati as they haue done against all the other Apostolicall Churches SECT IX S. Hilary B. of Arles acknowledged himselfe subiect to the B. of Rome THe last witnesse you bring (k) Pag. 225. to proue the no-necessity of vnion and subiection to the Pope Church of Rome is S. Hilary B. of Arles in France who though he deserued great commendation for his labors against the Pelagian heresy and defence of S. Augustines workes yet for a tyme he stayned his glory when exceeding the limits of due moderation and insisting in the steps of Patroclus an inuasor of that See he presumed to vsurpe to himselfe the rights of the Metropolitans of Vienna and Narbona ordaining deposing Bishops in their districts a thing which no way belonged to him and had bene forbidden by the Councell of Turin (l) C. 13. This being complained of against Patroclus first to Boniface and then to Celestine Popes lastly to the blessed Pope Leo against Hilary that he had presumed to depose Celidonius a Bishop of the Prouince of Vienna and he being still liuing to ordaine Proiectus in his place he was so far from persisting in this crime to the end of his life that he went himselfe in person to Rome in a most submissiue and penitent manner to make satisfaction for his offence He vndertooke sayth the author of his life (m) Apud Cuiac obseruat l. 5. c. 38. a iourney to Rome on foote and entred into the City without any horse or beast of cariage and presented himselfe to Pope Leo reuerently offering him obedience and humbly intreating that he might ordaine the state of the Churches after the accustomed manner c. but if it were not his will he would not importune And againe (n) Ibid. He applied himselfe wholly to appease the spirit of Leo with a prostrate humility Hauing pleaded his cause being found guilty he departed from Rome without staying his sentence and returned presently to Arles neuer laying any further claime to the iurisdiction which formerly he had vsurped as appeareth out of the Epistle which Leo writ against him to the Bishops of the Prouince of Vienna (o) Leo Ep. 89. wherin hauing fully declared and proued the supreme authority of the See Apostolike to be instituted by Christ himselfe he annulled what had bene iniustly presumed by Hilary and prescribed a rule to be obserued in the creation of Bishops And lest Hilary shold raise tumults seeking to support his cause by force of armes as formerly he had done Leo required of Valentinian the third that if any such attempt were made he would cause it to be suppressed by Aetius commander of the soldiers in France This the Emperor performed writing to Aetius that famous Rescript which afterwards Theodosius the yonger inserted in his new Constitutions intituling it The Law of Theodosius and Valentinian in which he relateth the whole story of Hilary and professeth his great veneration of the See Apostolike and of the Popes supreme authority ouer all Churches Bishops and particularly his right to conuent them before him and prescribe Lawes vnto them ordaining withall that if any Bishop being summoned by him shall refuse to appeare the Gouernor of the Prouince shall enforce him to obey to the end sayth he that in all things that Reuerence be obserued which our Parents bare to the Roman Church This is the history of Hilary truly related out of the author of his life out of the Epistle of Leo out of the Rescript of Valentinian Is it not then vnshamefastnesse in you to say (p) Pag. 225. that we without any proofe would make you belieue that at length Hilary yeilded to the Pope making no further apology for the defence of his cause What Is the relation made by the Author of his life no proofe Is the epistle of that renowned Pope S. Leo the great no profe Is the Rescript of Valentinian inserted into the ciuill law by Theodosius neuer doubted of by any man of learning or iudgment no proofe But you tell vs that Iacobus
themselues were absent These testimonies of your owne Brethren are so many sharpe wedges in the hart of your cause and shew in you either ignorance or lack of cōscience in denying so manifest a truth Nor do your Writers testify this of those Popes in generall but in particular euen of those very twelue whose testimonies you heere seeke to elude Of Iulius whom you (n) Pag. 2841 call the first man of the inquest they say (o) Brerel ibid. n. 60.61 that wheras the Ecclesiasticall canon decreed that no Councell should be celebrated without the sentence of the B. of Rome Iulius made challenge therby for which Danaeus reproueth him and other Bishops of Rome M. Cartwright and the Centurists say of him (p) Ibid n. 63. that in the Councell of Antioch he ouer-reached in claiming the hearing of causes that apperteyned not to him and M. Symonds (q) Ibid. n. 64. that he decreed that whosoeuer suspected his Iudge might appeale to the See of Rome And wheras in his Epistle to the Easterne Bishops extant in the second Apology of S. Athanasius he expresseth the authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome ouer all others in these words An ignoratis c. Are you ignorant that the custome is we should be first written vnto and that from hence the iust decision of things should proceed And that if any suspicion were conceaued against your Bishops there you should haue written to this Church for the things which I signify to you we haue receaued from the blessed Peter You answeare (r) Pag. 184. Iulius plainly speaketh of document and instruction receaued from Peter not of dominton or iurisdiction which may be an answere to many of the rest But this answeare is refuted not only by the ancient historians as afterwards you shall heare but also by the Centurists who set downe these very words of Iulius (t) Cent. 4. col 746. and (u) Col. 529. reprehend him for them and out of that his Epistle shew that with the authority of a Iudge he summoned the Easterne Bishops commanding them to come to Rome assigned them a day of appearance before him to be iudged and hauing heard the whole cause gaue sentence rebuking the Eusebians and by the preregatiue of his See restored the Catholike Bishops to theirs The same Epistle is alleaged by D. Philippus Nicolai (x) De reg Christ. l. 2. pag. 149. a learned Protestant who out of Socrates Sozomen and the Epistle it selfe witnesseth that Iulius doth more then once declare himselfe alone by especiall priuiledge to be Bishop of the primary See and that by diuine ordinance the right of calling Councells and of iudging the causes of Bishops and other weighty affaires of that nature belonged to him alone I conclude therfore that Iulius speaketh not of document and instruction receaued from Peter but of authority and iurisdiction Not vnlike to this answere is your affirming (y) Pag. 284. fin 285. that the Bishops of the East challenged Iulius for writing to them alone by his owne authority for there is no such challenge in their Epistle (z) Extat Ep. apud Bin. to 2. pag. 401. Yea as Sozomen (a) L. 3. c. 7. testifieth and the beginning of the Epistle it selfe sheweth in it they professe the primacy of the Roman Church though otherwise falsly obiecting to Iulius the breach of the Canons a thing not to be wondred at for they that wrot were Arians in hatred of him because he had annulled their Councell of Antioch and restored Athanasius And as the Epistle was written by Arians so it is also reported by Socrates and Sozomen from Sabinus a Macedonian Heretike who tooke part with the Councel of Antioch against the Pope and against the Councell of Nice to which as also to Athanasius and to the Blessed Trinity it selfe he was a professed enemy In regard wherof their Epistle is of no more weight then if Lutherans or Caluinists should now write the like And hereby it appeareth how vntruly you say (b) Pag. 185. that Some of the testimonies of ancient holy Popes expressing the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Roman See may be confuted and indeed confounded by as ancient opposisions of the Orientalls against Pope Iulius c. for those Orientalls were heretikes Hauing thus shifted off the testimony of Iulius whom you call the first man of the inquest you passe immediatly to S. Gregory the last of the twelue which Bellarmine alleageth omitting all the rest And wheras he out of the works of this holy Pope produceth diuers testimonies clearely conuincing the subiection of all Churches to the Roman you omitting the rest as being vnanswearable find meanes to except against one (d) Pag. 284. which is Who doubts but that the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the See Apostolike which the most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother Eusebius Bishop of the same City continually protest This testimony of S. Gregory you reject vpon pretence that the Epistle is supposititious and counterfeit Some of the Popes alleaged by Bellarmine say you speake not but their counterfeites as the last Iurist Pope Gregoryin an Epistle wherin Eusebius B. of Constantinople is said to haue bene subiect vnto him when as as our Doctor Reynolds hath proued there was no Eusebius B. of Constantinople in the dayes of S. Gregory But to Doctor Reynolds I oppose the most eminent Cardinall Peron a man of greater renowne learning authority who answeareth (e) Replip l. 1. Chap. 34. 1. That Cyriacus which was then Bishop of Constantinople might haue two names and be called Eusebius Cyriacus as S. Hierome was called Eusebius Hieronymus 2. That Eusebius might be there taken adiectiuely and signify pious or religious as when Arius (f) A pud Theod. l. 1. hist c. 5. writ to Eusebius B. of Nicomedia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Farewell Eusebius truly Eusebius that is truly religious And 3. that it is an error of the Exemplarist who of eiusdem ill written and blotted made Eusebius for the ancient copies of this Epistle current for the space of 200. yeares after S. Gregory make no mention of Eusebius but read simply and our brother B. of the same City as it appeares out of the relation of Amalarius Fortunatus who liued 800. yeares since and setteth downe this whole Epistle of S. Gregory word by word (f) De dini offic l. 4. c. 2. in Biblioth Pat edit Colon to 9. part 1. and his testimony alone liuing 800. yeares nerer S. Gregories tyme then Doctor Reynolds or your selfe is a sufficient proofe of the authority of this Epistle against you both But what Though you except against this Epistle yet in the next which no man hath doubted of S Gregory in like manner sayth (g) L. 7. ep 64. For wheras he the B. of Constantinople being accused of a certaine crime profefieth himselfe subiect to the See Apostolike if any fault be found in
Rome and are so many witnesses against you of the Popes authority acknowledged and practised ouer the Bishops of Constantinople Polichronius was B. of Hierusalem and deposed by Sixtus Pope as Bellarmine proueth out of the Acts of Sixtus which acts witnesse Baronius (b) Anno 432. fin are cited by Nicolas the first by Petrus Damiani and other later writers And if as you obiect (c) Pag. 295. Baronius found no other Records of any Polychronius that was B. of Hierusalem at that tyme doth it therfore follow there was none such To omit the later writers he mentioneth Petrus Damiani and Nicolas were men eminently learned the one liued 600. the other 800. yeares nearer the time of Sixtus then Baronius did and the Acts of Sixtus are yet more ancient then either of them Wherefore in those dayes Record might be extant of Polychronius and his deposition by Sixtus reported in those Acts which before Baronius his time were lost or if not lost yet might not come to his knowledge 2. You answeare (d) Pag. 295. Your Popes must be thought to haue restored Bishops only by endeauoring and desiring that they might be restored You exemplify in Basilides whose cause sheweth it was a knowne truth in those dayes that the Pope had authority to restore Bishops deposed for why els did Basilides trauaile from Spaine to Rome to procure letters of restitution from him Of this Basilides you say (e) Pag. 289. fin 190. Cyprian constituted Sabinus Bishop insteed of Basilides whom he had deposed But you shew great ignorance in Ecclesiasticall history for Cyprian neither deposed Basilides nor coÌ„stituted Sabinus in his place Basilides was not an African nor any way belonging to Cyprians iurisdiction who was Primate of Africa only but Bishop of Leon in Spaine and for his enormous crimes being iustly deposed by the Bishops of that Countrey fled to Stephen Pope and by a false information of his owne innocency deceaued him that by his authority and command he might be restored to his Bishoprick The Bishops of Spaine who had condemned him sent Sabinus and Felix into Africa to informe S. Cyprian truly of the case to aske his aduice and require his intercession to the Pope that he would not restore Basilides S. Cyprian approued their proceeding and answeared that if Basilides had obtayned from the Pope any sentence of restitution it was surreptitious by reason of the false information he had giuen which alone was sufficient to make his restitution void as not only the Ciuill (f) Cod. cont ius L. Etsi but also the Canon Law (g) De Rescrip C. Dilectus declareth decreeing in a case like to this of Basilides that sentences procured from the See Apostolike by surreption are inualid and of no force Wherfore S. Cyprian rightly answeared that albeit Stephen for his incircumspection might be argued of negligence in giuing so easy credit to a false information and suffering himselfe to be deceaued therby yet the chiefe fault was in Basilides who with lies had sought to iustify himselfe This is all that antiquity recordeth of this controuersy which sheweth that in those ancient times the custome of Bishops when they thought themselues wronged by their Metropolitans was to appeale to the Pope as Basilides did against which custome nor against the Popes authority to admit of Appeales neither the Bishops of Spaine nor S. Cyprian excepted as appeareth in this that they blamed not Basilides for appealing to one that had no power to reiudge his cause but for his surprise made vpon the Pope and the Popes want of circumspection in suffering himself to be deceaued by a false information 3. You say (h) Pag. 290. Cyprian confirmed the election of Pope Cornelius whose communion both he as himselfe speaketh his Colleagues and fellow-bishops gaue approbation vnto To confirme the election of a Bishop is an Act of iurisdiction which therfore can proceed from none but a Superior This authority though you deny to the Pope yet out of a desire to annihilate his authority you ouer-shoote your marke so far as to make him inferior to all the Bishops of Africa and to stand in need of their confirmation a thing which S. Cyprian mentioneth not He only signifieth to Cornelius that Nouatianus hauing made a schisme in the Church and set himselfe vp as Antipope in opposition to Cornelius and the Africans being doubtfull which of the two they should acknowledge and obey as true Pope S. Cyprian sayth he exhorted all that sailed out of Africa to Rome to abandon Nouatianus and adhere to Cornelius and procured letters from his brethren at Rome to those of Africa that being fully certified of the truth they might sayth he to Cornelius acknowledge and firmely imbrace you and your communion that is to say the communion of the Catholike Church All therfore that you haue gained out of S. Cyprian is to proue your selfe to be out of the communion of the Catholike Church for to be of the Catholike communion and to be vnited to the Pope in S. Cyprians beliefe is one and the same thing 4. The like abuse you offer to S. Gregory saying (i) Pag. 29â— that he sought approbation from the foure Patriarkes As soone as this holy Pope was placed in the chaire of S. Peter following the custome of his Predecessors he writ a circular or Synodicall letter for so anciently those letters were called to the foure Easterne Patriarkes that hauing notice of his election they might know whom to obey and whom to haue recourse vnto in all doubts of fayth and other maior causes which was no more to seeke confirmation or approbation from them then if a King of Poland or any other electiuâ— Prince being chosen should write a circular letter to hiâ— Nobles giuing them notice of his Election and admonâ—shing them of their duty and allegiance vnto him This to haue bene the effect of those Synodicall letters is proued out of Gelasius Because sayth he to Laurence Bishop of Lignidis with fraternall loue you put vs in mynde that we should send a forme of fayth as a certaine medicine to the Bishops throughout Illyria and others although this hath bene most amply performed by our predecessor of Blessed memory yet because the custome is that when a Bishop of the Roman Church is newly made he send a forme of his fayth to the holy Churches I haue endeauored to renew the same in a compendious breuity to the end the reader by this our Epistle may vnderstand in what fayth he is to liue according to the ordinations of the Fathers And as the Popes when they were chosen did send these Synodicall letters prescribing a forme of fayth to be obserued by all Bishops so likewise all Metropolitans did send to the Popes newly chosen a profession of their fayth to the end it might be approued by the See Apostolike So did S. Cyprian to Cornelius Pope calling it (k) L. 2. ep 10. a diuine
tradition and an Ecclesiasticall institution and moreouer adding that he had commanded all the Bishops of his Prouince to doe the like SECT VIII Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning Excommunication And of heretikes excommunicating the Pope EXcommunication is a most grieuous Ecclesiasticall censure which can be inflicted by none but an Ecclesiasticall Superior that hath iurisdiction power to binde and loose to punish absolue the person excommunicated A thing so certaine that no puny-Diuine can be ignorant therof Wherfore you discouer more then vulgar ignorance in defining (l) Pag. 290. Excommunicating of others to be but a denying to haue communion with them By this definition euery subiect may excommunicate his Superior Ecclesiasticall or temporall for euery subiect of neuer so meane a ranke Ecclesiastick or laick may deny to haue communion with his Bishop or his Soueraigne and therby excommunicate them Yea by the same definition any Heretike may excommunicate the Pope or any other Bishop or Councell by which he is condemned for he may deny to haue communion with them Is this good Diuinity And yet it is yours who from this definition as from a true principle deduce that when ancient Popes excommunicated hereticall Bishops of the Easterne Church it was no act of iurisdiction in them ouer those Bishops but (m) Ibid. only a disuniting of themselues from them by denying to haue communion with them which also the same Bishops might deny to haue with the Popes And vpon this ground you iustify as well you may the Arians who being excommunicated by Iulius Pope toke to themselues liberty to excommunicate him in their false Councell at Philippopolis (n) Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. And vpon the same ground when Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria grew to so great a height of madnesse as to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against Leo the Great and first Pope of that name because he had condemned Eutyches and his heresy you say (o) Pag. 290. fin 291. He did it vpon the knowne iudgment of the Easterne Church and vpon a common right and hability to do it which as it is an answeare full of ignorance so I know not how to excuse it from impiety for although Dioscorus were an Arch-heretike though contrary to the Lawes of the Church he had by his owne authority assembled a Councell at Ephesus and approued in it the heresy of Eutyches and condemned the Orthodoxe Doctrine and not only excommunicated but beaten and wounded to death Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople a stout champion of the Catholike fayth yet none of these crimes were alleaged against him as the cause of his excommunication and deposition but only his presumptuous attempting to excommunicate the Pope and his disobedience to him Dioscorus sayth Anatolius Archbishop of Constantinople (p) Conc. Chalced. Act. 9. Socrat. l. 2. c. 18. speaking to the Councell of Chalcedon hath not bene deposed for the fayth but because he had excommunicated my Lord the Archbishop Leo and that hauing bene thrice cited he would not appeare And the Councell of Chalcedon it selfe writing to Leo (q) Relat. ad Leon. After all these things he hath extended his phrensy euen against him to whom the guard of the Vine is committed by our Sauiour that is to say against your Holinesse hath moditated an excommunication against you who hasten to vnite the body of the Church So enormous a crime did this holy Councell iudge it to be for any Bishop euen the greatest Patriarke of the East as Dioscorus was to pronounce sentence of Excommunication against the Pope But to make this matter more euident what Christian euer heard that the iudgment of any Bishop could be valid against the Bishop of the primary See which sayth the Councell of Sinuessa (r) Nicol. Papa Ep. ad Micha Imper. is to be iudged by no man The primitiue Fathers thought it so vnlawfull to be separated from the B. of Rome that they pronounce all that are diuided from his communion to be branches cut of from the Vine which is the Catholike Church to be heretikes of a peruerse iudgment or els presumptuous selfe-liking schismatikes and sinners not to gather but to scatter not to be of Christ but of Antichrist (s) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 4. And finally so absurd a thing it was euer held for any Christian to excommunicate the Pope that the Emperor Martian writing to certaine hereticall Monkes of Palestine who being enemies to the Councell of Chalcedon had presumed to excommunicate Leo Pope telleth them (t) Apud Bin. to 2. pag. 144. that therby they had and with good cause made themselues a laughing stook to the Heathens themselues What you obiect (u) Pag. 290. out of Nicephorus that Menas Patriarke of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Vigilius Cardinall Peron hath learnedly proued to be a mere fable and were it true it was an vnlawfull attempt and inualid as you haue heard SECT IX Adrian and Nicolas Popes obiected by Doctor Morton ADrian and Nicolas the two first Popes of those names required of Constantine and Michaell Emperors of the East the restitution not only of the temporall patrimony of S. Peter iniustly taken away from the Roman Church by hereticall Emperors their predecessors still with-held by them but also of the Ecclesiasticall right of ordayning and gouerning ten Prouinces of the East as their peculiar Diocesse according to the custome of their predecessors This obiection you (x) Pag. 291. 292. tooke from Baronius (y) Anno 800. He hath giuen you an answeare to him I remit you But wheras you say These Popes did not thinke themselues to haue iurisdiction ouer the whole Church of Christ it is worth the nothing that they euen in those very Epistles which you obiect not only affirme but most effectually proue the iurisdiction of the B. of Rome ouer the whole Church and of Adrian somthing to this purpose hath bene said already (z) Chap. 33. sect â— SECT X. Of the deposition of Flauianus Patriarke of Antioch BEllarmine (a) L. â— de Pont. c. 18. produceth many examples of Easterne Bishops deposed by the Pope In answeare wherto you say (b) Pag. 295. fin 296. The chiefest example which your Cardinall may seeme principally to insiston is that Pope Damasus as he calleth it deposed Flauianus Patriarke of Antioch And therfore haue I singled out this example for a singular Argument of retorsion to proue the no-iuridicall or iudiciall authority of the Roman iurisdiction ouer the Patriarkes of Antioch Bellarmines first and chiefest examples are of eight Patriarkes of Constantinople which are so many witnesses of the Popes authority against you Among these he chiefly inssisteth on the example of Anthymus whom Agapet Pope deposed in the City of Constantinople it selfe as you haue heard (c) In this Chap. sect 4. and he proueth out of Nicolas the first Liberatus Zonaras and Gelasius The reason therfore why you passing ouer these examples single
out that of Flauianus is not because that is the chiefest Bellarmine insisteth on but because in that you find something to quarrell at which you finde not in the rest But vpon examination the euidence of this very example singled out by your selfe will shew how vnanswearable the rest are The ease is this The Church of Antioch being in schisme two Bishops Paulinus and Meletius pretending right to that Patriarchall seate and some adhering to the one some to the other not without danger of a great tumult they came to agreement (d) Socrat. l. 5. c. 5. Sozom. l. 7. c. 3. that all such Ecclesiasticks as were thought fit to gouerne that Church or were in expectation therof which were sixe in number should bind themselues by a solemne oath not to admit of that Bishoprick so long as either Paulinus or Meletius liued and after the death of either of them to let the superuiuer peaceably enioy that seat alone Meletius being dead the Antiochians contrary to their oath aduanced Flauianus to the Bishoprick in opposition to Paulinus and he contrary to his oath admitted therof at which Damasus Pope and all the Bishops of the West were greatly offended (e) Sozom. l. 7. c. 11. not without cause by reason of the new schisme it caused not only in that Church and in a great part of the East but also because it was contrary to the agreement made by oath and a great wrong to Paulinus who was very old and a personage of so great veneration for his sanctity and merit that Valens an hereticall Emperor driuing many Catholike Bishops from their Churches in to banishment neuer offered to touch him (f) S. Hieron Bp. 61. ad Pamach Socrat. l. 4. c. 2. Wherefore Damasus and the rest of the Westerne Bishops writ communicatory letters to him as to the true Bishop of Antioch but abstayned from the communion of Flauianus and excommunicated Diodorus and Acacius that had ordayned him (g) Sozom. l. 7. c. 11. And wheras the Councel of Constantinople vnder Nectarius had confirmed Flauianus they the Westerne Bishops annulled that confirmation and by their letters accompained with others of the Emperor Gratian vsing also therin the helpe of Theodosius who writ to the same effect they commāded the Councell of Constantinople to come to Rome (h) S. Hiero. Ep. 27. ad Eustoch Theod. l. 5. hist. c. 8. fin c. 9. put the election of Flauianus againe in triall at a generall Councell assembled there giuing withall to both parties assignation to appeare Flauianus distrusting the equity of his cause appeared not (i) Theod. l. 5. hist. c. 23. but had recourse to excuses and to the Emperor But Paulinus obeying transported himselfe to Rome in company of other Bishops and renowned personages of the East Wherof S. Hierome speaking sayth (k) Ep. 16. ad Princip The Ecclesiasticall necessity drew me to Rome with the holy Bishops Paulinus and Epiphanius whereof the one gouerned the Church of Antioch in Syria and the other the Church of Salamina in Cyprus And againe (l) Ep 17. ad Eustoch When the Imperiall letters had drawne to Rome the Bishops of the East and West Paula saw there the admirable men and Bishops of Christ Paulinus B. of Antioch and Epiphanius B. of Salamina in Cyprus Wherby it appeareth that albeit the election of Flauianus had bene confirmed by the Councell of Constantinople Paulinus was still held to be the true B. of Antioch and Flauianus his competitor in reputation of an intruder for want of confirmation from the See Apostolike And therefore as he appeared not so neither did the Bishops of the Constantinopolitan Councell which had confirmed him but by letters written to to the Pope and Councell of Rome excused themselues You say they (m) Theod. l. 5. hist c. 9. moued with brotherly charity called vs as your members by the letters of the most religious Emperor c. But beside that our Churches being newly restored if we should haue done this had bene wholly abandoned it was a thing which many of vt could no way put in execution for as much as we trauailed to Constantinople vpon the letters of your Reuerence sent the last yeare after the Councell of Aquileia to the most religious Emperor Theodosius hauing prepared our selues for none but that iourney of Constantinople only and hauing gotten the consent of the Bishops remaining in the Prouinces for none but that And in the end of the same Epistle they make intercession for Flauianus fearing lest the cause of Paulinus would be fauored by Damasus by reason he had bene ordayned Patriarke of Antioch by Lucifer a Sardinian Bishop and Legate to Liberius predecessor to Damasus The businesse standing thus Paulinus died but the schisme liued still For his Disciples created to themselues Euagrius a new Bishop in opposition to Flauianus (n) Socrat. l. 5. c. 15. Sozom. l. 7. c. 15. wherby not only that Church but the whole world was shaken (o) Amb. Ep. 78. and brought into danger of schisme for remedy wherof Siricius Pope called a Councell at Capua to which though the Bishops of the East and West resorted in great numbers yet Flauianus still appeared not Flauianus sayth S. Ambrose (p) Ibid. hath cause to feare and therfore he flies a triall And againe (q) Ibid. One only Flauianus not subiect to Lawes as it seemes to him appeareth not when we are all assembled The Councell to preuent further danger of schisme ordained that whiles the cause was in agitation communion should not be denied to the Catholikes that adhered to either party and to make an end of that long strife committed the examination and decision of the whole cause to Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria both by reason of the great authority of his See in the East as also because his Pariarkship bordered vpon that of Antioch where the parties were present and finally because he was a man impartiall The sacred Synod sayth S. Ambrose (r) Ibid. writing to Theophilus hauing committed the right of examining this cause to your vnanimity and to our other Colleagues of Aegypt it is necessary that you summon againe our brother Flauianus And moreouer he aduertiseth Theophilus that he ought to cary the businesse so as that the finall decision therof might be reserued to the B of Rome and confirmed by him We conceaue sayth he (s) Ibid. that you ought to referre the cause to our holy brother B of the Roman Church for we presume you will iudge so as cannot displease him And al use after When hauing receaued the tenor of your acts we shall see you haue iudged things so as the Roman Church shall vndoubtedly allow therof we will receaue with ioy the fruit of your examination By this it appeares that S Ambrose held the B of Rome to be the supreme Iudge of Bishops and that to him appertained the finall decision of their causes And the same
from your ignorance for as the Syrians to expresse Mayster or Lord vse the word Rabbi which hath a plurall signification because a person of quality containes in himselfe the authority of many so when we write to an Honorable person it is vsuall to speake vnto him in the plurall number to signify that he hath in himselfe the dignity and authority of many So writ Eusebius B. of Milan to Pope Leo alone (c) Extat inter Ep. Leo. post ep 52. God hath placed yee Prelates of the Apostolike See worthy Protectors of his worship So writ Theodoret to the same Pope alone (d) Ep. ad Leon. Vos enim per â—mnia conuenit esse primos So writ the Bishops of Syria to Iustinian the Emperor (e) Conc. Constant sub Mena. Act. 1. Our Lord preserue yee deuout and zealous guardians of the fayth So writ the Councell of Mopsuestia to Vigilius Pope (f) In Conc. 5. Act. 5. It is conuenient O most Holies that since you hold the chiefe dignity of Priesthood c. And so did Chrysostome write in the plurall number to Innocentius Pope alone as it is manifest both out of the inscription of his Epistle which is singular and directed to Innocentius alone as also out of Paladius (g) In vita Chrysost who cites it as addressed to him alone 2. You say (h) Pag. 307. Chrysostome made his requests to the Pope not to cite the parties complained against but only to write vnto them and this not by any peremptory charge but only by reproofe of their vmust dealing and of admonition c. Heere I accuse you of somthing more then ignorance for the words of Chrysostome to Innocentius are (i) Ep. 1. ad Innocent Vouchsafe to write and ordaine by your authority that these things so wickedly done I being absent and not refusing iudgment may be inualid as of their owne nature they are and that they who haue proceeded so iniustly may be submitted to the punishment of the Ecclesiasticall Lawes And command that I who am innocent and not conuicted of any crime be restored to my Church And againe (k) Ep. â— ad Innocent One thing I beseech your vigilant Soule that albeit they which haue filled all with tumulies be sick of an impenitent and incurable disease if yet they will remedy those things that then they may not be punished nor excommunicated What more expresse forme of appeale or what more euident acknowledgment of the Popes authority iudiciall power then this Doth not Chrysostome beseech Innocentius to disannull by his letters authority the Acts of the Councell which had deposed him To abrogate their sentence pronounced against him to replace him in his Bishoprick and to punish his aduersaries according to the Lawes of the Church but yet to spare them if they would repent Is not this to acknowledge in him the power of an absolute Iudge And is not this extant to be read in Chrysostomes Epistles and in his life written by Palladius You to keep this from your readers set not downe any of Chrysostoms words in the text of your discourse And though in your margent you set downe some of them in Latin in a small letter yet euen that you do not without imposture for you mangle them leauing out those in which he besecheth the Pope to vse his authority in punishing his aduersaries according to the Ecclesiasticall Canons and in restoring him to his Church Againe you are guilty of vntruth in saying (l) Pag. 307. that Chrysostome made not any requests to the Pope to cite the parties complained against For doth he not say (m) Ep. ad Innoc apud Pallad in vita ipsius But yet if the authors of wickednesse will declare for what crimes they haue iniustly deposed me let their euidences be giuen in Let processes be produced let my accusers come let a true and incorrupt iudgment sit I refuse it not I decline it not yea I earnestly desire it let vs be iudged Iâ— his to request the Pope to write to his aduersaries not by any peremptory charge but only by way of reproofe and admonition for their vniust dealing Doth he not beseech him that his aduerlaries may appeare and bring in their euidences against him and that his cause may be tried a new by him as by a iust and in corrupt Iudge But you say (n) Pag. 30â— When all the Pope cold do is performed what the last refuge was he did signify in his letters to the Orientalls saying The only remedy of curing these euills is the calling of a Councell and vntill then the matter is to be committed to the will and pleasure of God Here you are accusable of an iniust reticence of what Innocentius did and how he shewed himselfe alone and without a Councell to be an absolute Iudge for doth not Palladius say (o) In vit Chrys Innocentius decreed that the iudgment of Theophilus should be abrogated and annulled Doth not Sozomen in that very place which you alleage (p) L. 8. c 26. testify that Innocentius condemned those things which were done against Iohn And by this single sentence of Innocentius alone without any Synod Iohn was absolued as Gelasius an Author of the same age reporteth saying (q) Ep. ad Episcop Dardan A Synod of Catholike Bishops hauing condemned Iohn of Constantinople of holy memory the See Apostolike alone because it consented not therunto absolued him Nor did he shew the authority of a Iudge only in absoluing Iohn and condemning his aduersaries but especially in that hearing of his death he excommunicated the Emperor Arcadius the Empresse Eudoxia his wife who had bene the chiefe causes of his condemnation and banishment for as Nicephorus (r) L. 13. c. 33. and Georgius Patriarke of Alexandria (s) In vita Chrys an Author of 1000. yeares antiquity cited by S. Damascens and Photius (u) In Georg. Alex. and followed by Cedrenus (x) In Arcad. Glycas (y) In Annal. in Arcad. other Greeke Authors testify (t) L. 1. de Imaginibus Innocentius hauing seuerely reprehended them both for the enormity of their offence pronounced Excommunication against them in these words And therfore I the meanest and a sinner as Depositary of the Throne of the great Apostle Peter cut off thee her from the participation of the immaculate Mysteries of Christ our God and ordaine that whatsoeuer Bishop or Clerke of the holy Church of God which shall presume to administer them to you after he hath read this my Censure shal be deposed All this is to be read in the history of Chrysostome to which you say Baronius and Bellarmine referre you Had it not then bene honesty to take notice of these particulars but that was not for your purpose This also conuinceth you to speake vntruly when you say (z) Pag. 308. The Pope confesseth insufficiency in himselfe and that the only remedy is in
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