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
which he built it on his person Euen as when we say The valor of a Captaine got the victory we say it not to signify that his valor in abstracto got the victory without his person but to expresse the meanes wherby he got it And in like manner when S. Hierome and S. Ambrose (g) Ep. 61. Ad Pamma aduers error Ioâ—n Hierosol S. Ambros l. de fide resurrect said Not Peter but his fayth walked vpon the waters it was not to deny that his person truly and formally walked on them but to declare that the cause which made him walke on them was not the naturall vertue or actiuity of his body but the fayth he had giuen to the words of Christ And so likewise it is in our case for as these two propositions The fayth of Peter walked on the waters and Peter walked on the waters are both true but in a different sense for the fayth of Peter walked on them causally as being the cause why Peter walked and the person of Peter walked on them truly properly and formally So likewise are these two both iointly true though in a different sense The Church is built vpon the person of Peter and The Church is built on the fayth or confession of Peter because the primacy of Peters fayth confession was the cause which moued Christ to choose Peter for the fouÌ„dation of his Church rather then any of the other Apostles to that end he gaue him the name and solidity of a Rock that the gates of hell might neuer preuaile against the Church built on him In like manner when S. Augustine and other expositors teach that Christ is the Rock or foundation on which the Church is built their exposition differeth not from the former in substance but only in manner of speach for as Salmeron (h) Tom. 4. part 3. Tract 2. and Suarez (i) Defens fid l. 3. c. 11. n. 11. haue well obserued their meaning cannot be that the Rock on which Christ promiseth to build his Church for the future is his owne person formally considered as in himselfe both because on him it was already built from the tyme of his incarnation as also because he speaketh not to himselfe but to Peter saying Thou art Peter c. And therefore as when in the words immediatly preceding he called Peter by his owne name Simon the Sonne of Iohn he spake to Peter in particular so likewise he did when immediatly he added and I say to thee that thou art Peter that is a Rock and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And the same is yet made more euident by other profes which Bellarmine (k) L. 1 de Pont. c. 10. §. Primo pronomen alleageth Wherfore the sense is that Christ promiseth to build his Church on himselfe obiectiuely that is to say as confessed by Peter which exposition differeth not from the former and is expressly deliuered by S. Ambrose (l) In c. 3.1 ad Cor. in these words The true and approued sense is that the Church is built by God vpon Christ but yet as confessed by Peter and not by any other which is as if it were said vpon thee confessing Christ and vpon the confession which Peter made of Christ or vpon Christ confessed by Peter So S. Ambrose and so also S. Augustine saying (m) L. 1. Retract c. 21. Afterwards I expounded thus these words of our Lord Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church that it should be vnderstood to be built vpon him whom Peter confessed saying thou art Christ c. And that by this exposition S. Augustine intendeth not to deny the Rock meant by Christ in those words to be S. Peter is a truth that may not be denyed both because in that very place he sayth that This sense is celebrated by many in the verses of S. Ambrose saying The Cock crowing the Rock of the Church washed out his offence as also because he there affirmeth that in other places of his workes he had expounded those words not of Christ but of Peter as the rest of the Fathers do which exposition he recalleth not but leaueth to the readers discretion to choose which of the two he liketh best Let the reader chose sayth he (n) Ibid. which of these two senses is the more probable From whence it must needes follow that albeit he doubted whether of those two senses agreeth best to the words of Christ in that place yet of the truth to the thing it selfe to wit that Peter is the Rock on which Christ built his Church he neuer doubted If he had thought that to be a false sense he had done very absurdly in not recalling it but leauing to the readers choyce to follow eyther that or the other for it had bene to leaue it in his choyce to follow a true sense or a false an orthodoxe verity or an hereticall error which though you do yet none but such as you will presume S. Augustine to haue done By this it appeares that all those testimonies of Fathers Popes and other authors which you to make a florish heap vp in the foure first Sections of your fourth Chapter to proue that the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church is not Peter but the Confession of Peter or Christ for either of both will serue your turne so that Peter be excluded are impertinently alleaged for the meaning of them is that the Church is not built vpon Peter meerely as he was a weake man and abstracting from his confession of Christ but vpon him as confessing Christ and for his confession and in reward therof And so likewise it is built vpon Christ not excluding Peters confession but vpon him as confessed by Peter All which is euident out of those very Fathers and expositors which you produce for the contrary For they so fully and so vnanswerably auouch Peter to be the Rock on which Christ built his Church and you so certainly know it to be true that much against your will you are inforced vpon the rack of truth to confesse so much though you do it mincingly saying (o) Pag 42. We may not dissemble thus much that some Fathers doe expound by Rock Peter You should haue said All Fathers and all Councels which treat of that subiect and all Catholike expositors And I must intreat the reader here in prudence to consider how vnaduisedly you alleage Catholike approued authors against this truth which no vnderstanding Protestant will in his iudgment beleeue that any of them euer denyed it being a mayne and euen the greatest point of difference betweene vs and you and which being decided the rest would easily follow Wherfore it caÌ„not be but that you wrong the Catholike authors which you cite in fauor of your doctrine and the like you do to the ancient Fathers To examine euery particular were an endlesse labour for your falsifications for the most part consist
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
by Anastasius Bibliothecarius which also he confirmeth because it was the frequent and almost ordinary custome of the Greekes to corrupt and falsify Bookes in hatred of the Roman Church and in fauor of their owne errors S. Leo complaines (u) Ep. 83. that they had corrupted his Epistle to Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople S. Gregory (x) L. 5. ep 14. ad Narsem that they had falsified the Councell of Chalcedon and he suspected the like of the Councell of Ephesus And where in his Dialogues (y) L. 2. c. 38. he hath Paraclitus à Patre semper procedit filio they in their copies leaue out filio and insteed thereof say in filio manet a thing which Ioannes Diaconus (z) Vita S. Greg. c. 75. obserueth testifiing that Zacharias Pope hauing translated that worke of S. Gregory faythfully and published it in the East the Greekes razed out the name of the Sonne in fauor of their heresy that the holy Ghost proceeds not from him but from the Father alone Againe Nicolas the first remitteth Michaell the Emperor to the Epistle of Adrian if sayth he it be not falsified after the manner of the Graecians but kept by the Church of Constantinople as it was sent by the See Apostolike And he had reason to say so for what he alleageth to Photius out of Adrians Epistle to Tharasius is not to be found in that Epistle as it is read in the eight Synod And finally this very sixth Councell discouered that the Greekes had falsified the fifth Councell generall fathering on Pope Vigilius and Menas Patriarke of Constantinople certaine quaternions of their owne If then they haue falsified the writings of the Fathers of the third the fourth the fifth and eight generall Councells what maruell if they haue done the like to the sixth and seauenth defaining Honorius and especially since a little after the sixth Councell they assembled themselues againe at Constantinople by their owne authority and made the Trullan Canons in hatred of the Roman Church To this I adde that in the Lateran Councell of 105. Bishops held before the sixth Synod by Martin the first Pope and Martyr against the Monothelites Sergius Cyrus Pyrrhus and Paul were condemned by name without any mention of Honorius whom yet those Bishops being graue men and impartiall would not haue left vncensured if he had bene guilty of the same heresy as neither would Paulus Diaconus Theophanes Cerameus Photius and Zonaras in their Catalogues of the heretikes condemned in the sixth Councell especially Photius and Zonaras being professed enemies to the Roman Church And finally Emmanuel Calleca a Grecian with all the Latin historians (a) See Cocc to 1. l. 7. arc 13. and Bell. l. 4. de Pont. c. 11. commend Honorius for a Catholike and holy Prelate These proofes most of them being brought by Bellarmine and so vnanswerably conuincing that Honorius neither was an heretike nor condemned by the sixth or seauenth Councell is it not strange that you should so confidently assume the contrary as a thing granted by him and that it being a matter of fact those Fathers were deceaued therin Good God say you (b) Pag. 125. the rare modesty of this man who will haue vs belieue that one Bellarmine liuing now 1000. yeares since that matter was in agitation should iudge better by his coniecture of the circumstances of a mater of fact then could 639. Bishops in their publike Synods iam flagrante crimine when as yet the cause was fresh their witnesses liuing and all circumstances which are the perfect intelligencers visibly before their eyes So you And Bellarmine may truly say Good God the strange conscience of Doctor Morton that will speake so vntruly for doth bellarmine bring no other proofes but his owne coniecture Doth he not produce the testimonies of Honorius his Secretary and of S. Maximus Martyr who were liuing at that tyme of Martin the first with a Councell of 105. Bishops of Iohn the fourth of Nicolas the first of Theophanes Isaurus of Emmanuel Calleca and of all the Latine Fathers that Honorius neuer assented to the Monothelites but euen in those his very Epistles which are obiected defended two wills and operations in Christ with all the Catholikes of the world And doth he not proue the same by the expresse testimony of Agatho Pope affirming that none of his predecessors were euer stayned with heresy and out of the sixth Councell it selfe receauing this testimony of Agatho as the words of S. Peter and as an oracle of the Holy Ghost Againe doth he in all this say that 639. Bishops were deceaued Nay doth he not proue by the testimony of Theophanes Isautus and Anastasius and collect the same out of many other authors that the condemnation of Honorius is not theirs but falsly inserted in their Councells by the Greekes according to their ordinary custome of corrupting Councells and other bookes in hatred to the See of Rome Good God then the seared conscience of Doctor Morton who can conceale all this and lay hold on a few words which Bellarmine addeth to wit that if any man be so obstinat that all this cannot satisfy him he may receaue another solution from Turrecremata which is that the Fathers of the sixth Synod condemned Honorius but out of false information and therfore erred therin as any Councell may in matter of fact The reason why you omit all the rest of Bellarmines doctrine catch at this solution of Turrecremata is to inferre that Popes may be heretikes that not only as priuat Doctors which some Catholikes grant but in their publike persons as Popes because those Fathers condemning Honorius in their publike Councell did iudge him according to his publike person These your words (c) Pag 126. containe a ridiculous fallacy for when we say The Pope cannot erre as Pope or which is all one as a publike person or ex Cathedra the sense is that he cannot either in a Councell or by himselfe ordayne any hereticall doctrine to be receaued by the Church Nor could you be ignorant of this for as Canus whon ye alleage granteth that Popes according to their priuat persons may be heretikes and that peraduenture one or two examples may be giuen therof so in that very place (d) L. 6. c. 8. pag. 214. he addeth that no example can be giuen of any Pope that though he fell into heresy did euer decree the same for the whole Church which is the thing you ought to haue disproued to shew that either the sixth or any other Councell iudged the Pope according to his publike person And lastly as for Honorius in particular Bellarmine (e) L. 4. de Pont. c. 11. rightly sheweth that Canus was in a double error concerning him whose opinion therfore is to be reiected CHAP. XXII Of the seauenth and eight Generall Councells SECT I. That these two Councells acknowledged the supreme Authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome
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
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
against this Epistle to be of no force 3. You except (r) pag. 28â— against the Epistle of Pius because you will not belieue him to haue commanded that if any drops were shed out of the Chalice in the Eucharist they should be licked vp and the board scraped You belieue not this because you belieue not the reall presence of the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist but thinke it reuerence inough if your Clerke take home your bread that remaines and crimble it into his potage and drinke vp the wine merily with his guests at dinner and yet some of you tell the people it is the body and bloud of Christ Howsoeuer your Argument is wholly from the matter for this command of Pius is not in his first Epistle which you deceiptfully cite in your margent nor in any of his Epistles but in his decrees which the Church approueth (s) Breuiar Roman Iul. 11. from whence to inferre that his Epistles are apocryphall is a consequence which I suppose you will not grant I am sure euery one will see to be absurd The error which out of Baronius you mention (t) Pag. 282. in two of Pius his Epistles might easily creepe into the copies by negligence or mistake of the Scribe and therfore is no sufficient Argument to disauthorize them and much lesse the rest in which there is no such mistake 4. You reiect (u) Ibid. the Epistles of Soter and Alexander because you cannot thinke the vse of Incense at the Altar nor the expiation of small offences by holy water to be so ancient For your better instruction coÌ„cerning the ancient vse of incense at the altar I remit you to (x) L. 1. de ritib Eccles c. 9. DuraÌ„tius who sheweth how foolishly it is relected by heretikes to Bellarmine (y) L. 2. de Missa c. 15. and Brereley in his Liturgy of the Masse (z) Pag. 40. n. 12 pag. 94. lit D. Concerning the antiquity of holy-water for the expiation of small offences casting out of Diuels and other great miracles wrought by sprinkeling therof read Baronius (a) Spoud Indic V. Aquae Beâ—ed antiq vsus Bellarmine (b) L. 3. de Eccles triumph c. 7. l. 2. de Missa c. 15. Durantius (c) L. 1. de rit c. 21. and Brereley (d) Liturg. pag. 64. lit u. x. pag. 94. l. b. c. They will certify you that both these ceremonies are Apostolicall traditions vsed in the Church from the beginning shew your reiecting of those ancient Epistles because they are mentioned in them to be cauilling without ground 5. Because Cooks findeth in some of those Epistles a word or a phrase which some one Author thinkes not to be so ancient in that sense or forsooth not so elegant and Ciceronian you are pleased to call them all horrid and barbarous (e) Pag. 279. to help out the matter you exemplisy in Caius which is none of the fourteene alleaged by Bellarmine But you consider not that diuers of those Epistles were written in Greeke and that the Latine phrase is not of the authors but of the translators And as Nicolas the first (f) Ep. 8. apud Bin to 3. pag. 682. speaking to the vngodly Emperor Michaell of Latin translated into Greeke sayth If it beget barbarismes the fault is not in the Latin tongue but in the Translators striuing not only to keep the sense but vsing force to render word by word so I say to you if in the Epistles of ancient Popes you find some words or manners of speach not so vsuall the fault is not in the Epistles but in the Translators striuing to render them word by word And to go no further for the confutation of this cauill you obiect against vs (g) Pag. 291. out of an Epistle of Adrian the first that liued almost 800. yeares after Christ these words Consecrationes Episcoporum Archiepiscoporum sicut olitana constat traditio nostra dioecosis existentes in which whether you regard the word olitana or the phrases sicut olitana constat traditio consecrationesnostrae dioecesis existentes you may vnder colour that the phrase of this Epistle is horrid and barbarous reiect it with as much ground as you do the Epistles of Popes that liued in the first 300. yeares after Christ The truth therfore is that you reiect those because they make wholly against you and receaue this because you find something in it which may serue you for an Argument against vs though without ground for Adrian in that Epistle most effectually proueth the authority of the Roman See wherof something hath bene spoken already (h) Chap. 33. sect 2. SECT II. The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of Popes that liued in the second 300. yeares after Christ THere is no stronger Argument then that which is drawne from the confession of the Aduersaries for as Tertullian obserueth (i) In Apologet No man lieth to his owne shame and therfore he is soner to belieued that confesseth against himselfe then he that denieth in his owne behalfe Which truth the Father of the Roman eloquence vnderstood by the light of nature saying (k) Orat. P. Qui. Thy testimony which in another mans cause is litle to be regarded when it is against thy selfe is of great weight And you acknowledge (l) Answere to the Prot. Apol. Epist. Dedicat. that the testimony of the aduersary is the greatest reason of satisfaction Let vs then see whether you wil not beare witnesse for vs against your selues that the Popes of the first 600. yeares after Christ acknowledged and exercised their authority and iurisdiction ouer all the Churches of the world and this chiefly in their Epistles for of most of them there are no other writings extant Their testimonies in this behalfe are plentifully alleaged by Maister Brereley (m) Protest Apologâ—tra 1. sect 3. subdiu 10. sect 7. subd 5. and in particular concerning the Popes of the second 300. yeares of whom our question here is he sayth They Protestant writers consesse and say that in the fifth age the Roman Bishops applied themselues to get and establish dominion ouer other Churches To this end they vsurped to themselues the right of granting priuiledges and ornaments to other Archbishops they confirmed Archbishops in their Sees deposed excommunicated and absolued others arrogating also to themselues power of citing Archbishops to declare their causes before them and that against a Bishop appealing to the Roman See nothing should be determined but what the B. of Rome censured That they appointed Legats in remote Prouinces which were somtimes no meaner men then some one or other of the Patriarkes That they challenged authority to heare and determine all vprising controuersies especially in questions of fayth That they tooke vpon them power of appointing generall Councells and to be Presidents in them and euen by their Deputies when
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
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
haue partly heard already (z) See aboue Chap. 42. sect 3. and who pleaseth to read more of the same kind let him peruse a late booke intituled The triall of the Protestant priuat spirit where (a) Chap. 9. sect 8. subdiu 4. pag. 333. seqq he shall find the ingenuous confessions both of English and forraine Protestants to the same effect By this it appeareth that if Luther were blind whilest he was with vs and his eyes opened when he went from vs it was not Christ that opened them but his familiar friend the Deuill who witnesse Ioannes Manlius Luthers owne scholler and Physitian (b) Loc commun printed at Basil 1562. Luth. tom 1. Germ. ad Senat Ciu. haunted him from his youth and appeared often to him in the night in forme of flying firebrands And Luther himselfe speaking of these his visions and familiar conuersation with the Deuill sayth (c) Colloq Germ fol. 283. Calu. ad mon. vlt. ad West â—ha cit à Schlussel l. 2. Theol. Calui art 1. I haue a Diuell or two that waite vpon me diligently they are not petty Deuils but great ones yea and Doctors of Diuinity among the rest of the Diuells And againe (d) Tom. 2. Germ. Ien. fol. 77. Belieue me I know the Diuell very well for now and then he walkes with me in my Chamber When I am with company be troubles me not but when he takes me alone then he teaches me manners And shewing that he was so familiar with him that they did eat together at the same table (e) Inâ—â—â—oncio Dom. Reminiscere fol. 19. apud Cochlaeum I am sayth he throughly acquainted with the Diuell for I haue eaten a bushell of salt in his company Yea he acknowledgeth that he was his bedfellow and lay with him oftner and closer to his side then his Kate the Nunne did (f) Colloq German fol. 275.281 And yet more that the Diuel did somtimes dance to fro in his braines in such sort that he could neither write nor read (g) In lit ad Elect. Saxoniae But that which most of all sheweth who it was that opened his eyes is the long Conference or Disputation which the Diuell had with him (h) Luth. to 6. Ger. Ien. l. de Missa ang fol. 28. tom 7. Witerub anno 2558 l. de Missa ang vnct Sacerd. fol. 2â—8 and therin persuaded and ouercame him with his Arguments to abandon the Masse inuocation of Saints and some other points of the Catholike fayth which conference is set downe at large by Luther himselfe b and acknowledged by many of your best learned Protestants For first Caluin cited by Conradus Schlusselberg (i) L 2. Theol. Caluin art 1. sayth Luthers doctrine concerning the supper is an opinion suggested by the Diuell Secondly Hospinian (k) Hist Sacr. par 2. fol. 131. reciteth our of Luthers workes a part of his confereÌ„ce with the Diuell saying Luther tells many things of this disputation the summe of which is that he was taught by the Diuell that Masse was naught and that being conuinced with the Diuells Arguments he abolished it And in his first Alphabeticall table prefixed before his booke among other Colloquies or Conferences be setteth downe this of Luther vnder the title of Colloquium Lutheri cum Diabolo in quo instruitu de erroribus Missa The conference of Luther with the Diuell in which he is instructed concerning the errors of the Masse Thirdly Dauid Paraeus said (l) In praelect Catechist l. 5. c. 17. pag. 257. Luther affirmeth that he learned from the black spirit the Diuell his reasons to condemne the Masse Ergo sayth Paraeus he was the Diuells disciple 4. Erasmus a man of esteeme among Protestants sayth (m) Cont. Ep. Luther non sob that Luther bringeth in the disputation of the Diuell in his booke De Missa angulari affirming moreouer from Luthers words that the Diuell did impugne Luthers mind about the Masse 5. The Caluinian Deuines of Zuricke in their (n) Pag. 25.26.127 Confession terme Luther The minister of Sathan and say that he writ his bookes impulsu spiritus Satanae c. by the suggestion of Sathan with whom he disputed and as it seemes was therin ouercome by Sathan I know that you out-facing all these witnesses and denying the truth of their report say (o) Apol. Cath. part 2. c. â—1 and in your direct Answeare to Theophilus Higgons pag. 5. Since that time to wit of Luther haue risen vp spirits of a lying malignancy that haue blurred and bespotted his life with all the reprochfull notes of monstrous infamy as if he had familiarity with the Diuell and was a wine-bibber But whether you be not guilty of that lying malignancy which you impute to vs. I leaue to the censure of any impartiall Iudge being that Luther in so many places of his workes giueth euidence against himselfe of his great familiarity with the Diuell setteth downe at large the whole Conference he had with him concerning the Masse and that so many of your best learned Protestants who liuing nearer Luthers time that had better meanes to know the truth then you are herein witnesses against you Why do you conceale all these particulars Why do you not deale ingenuously giuing your Reader notice of them Nay why do you professe o that you had seriously inquired into Luthers confession hereof with a purpose that if any such thing should sensibly appeare then vtterly to abhorre Luthers name suspect all his doctrine We finde and it is manifest that your meaning agreeth not with your wordes for vndertaking to answeare for Luther you answeare not but confesse the thing and insteed of answearing obiect another story which Delrius reporteth of the Diuel appearing to an Abbot in forme of an Angell and persuading him to say Masse If this were true it could be no reliefe to Luthers cause But to make it true you falsify Delrius for he sayth not that the Diuell perswaded an Abbot to say Masse but that he perswaded a Monke that was not a Priest to say Masse which as it was a perswasion fit to proceed from the Diuell so is it a very fit example to iustify Luthers instruction and doctrine receaued from the Diuell It is therfore most certaine that the Diuell appeared to Luther and disputed with him and that Luther being ouercome with his arguments abandoned the Masse And his Disciples of Wittemberge moued by his example did the like and as he did so also did they set forth a booke of their reasons which as Brereley hath noted (p) Luthers life Chap. 1. sect 2. pag. 20 are the very same the Diuell proposed to Luther and which Protestants at this day alleage against the Masse Finally other Protestants are not wanting to testify who it was that opened Luthers eyes Your Tigurine Diuines (q) Tract 3. cont suprem Luth. confess protest that he was full of Diuels