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
the proud but consent with the humble Wherfore this Canon first made in the Councell of Constantinople and afterwards renewed in the Councell of Chalcedon was neuer confirmed but still resisted by the See Apostolike and therfore hath alwayes remained inualid That sayth Gelasius (m) De Anathem vinculo which the See Apostolike consented not to the Emperor imposed it not nor Anatolius vsurped it but all was put into the hands of the See Apostolike and therfore what the See Apostolike confirmed of the Councell of Chalcedon hath remained valid and what that See hath reiected could neuer obteyne any force and she hath annulled that only which the Synodicall assembly adiudged to be vsurped against order It resteth therfore that albeit this decree haue many other nullities yet this one of the want of confirmation from the See Apostolike abundantly conuinceth the inualidity therof as hath bene already proued And because Anatolius knew that if it were once vnderstood that this Canon was resisted and condemned by the See Apostolike it would be condemned by the iudgment of all Catholikes in the world he craftily suppressed the letters of condemnation as Leo in his answere to the Emperor Martian testifieth (n) Ep. 59. I writ to your Glory and to the B. of Constantinople letters which euidently shewed that I approued those things which had bene defined in the Councell of Chalcedon concerning the Catholike fayth But because by the same letters I reproued those things which by occasion of the Synod had bene vnlawfully attempted he Anatolius rather chose to conceale my applause then to publish his owne ambition And to Pulcheria the Empresse (o) Ep. 60. Wheras the most religious Emperor hath willed me to write letters to all the Bishops which assisted at the Councell of Chalcedon to confirme what was there defined concerning the rule of fayth I haue willingly performed it lest the deceipt full dissimulation of some might breed any doubt of my sentence although by meanes of the B. of Constantinople to whom I had largely testified my ioy what I had written might haue come to the knowledge of all if he had not rather chosen to conceale my contentment then to publish the rebuke of his owne ambition Wherfore it is euident that as this Decree when it was first made in the Councell of Constantinople remayned inualid for want of Confirmation from the See Apostolike (p) See aboue Chap. 17. sect 5. 6. so for the same want it tooke no effect when it was renewed in the Councell of Chalcedon in so much that Anatolius was enforced to desist from his clayme and excuse the attempt he had made laying the blame on others as it is cleare out of these words of Leo to him (q) Ep. 7â— This thy fault which to augment thy power thou hast committed as thou sayest by the persuasion of others thy Charity had blotted out better and more sincerely if thou hadst not imputed wholly to the Counsell of thy Clergy that which could not be attempted without thy allowance c. But deare Brother I am glad that thy Charity protesteth thou art now displeased with that which euen then ought not to haue pleased thee The profession of thy loue and the testimony of the Christian Prince is sufficient to re-admit thee into common grace nor doth thy amendment seems late that hath gotten so reuerend a surety This recantation of Anatolius sheweth that his attempt of hauing the second place after the Pope and enioying the like priuiledges after him was vnlawfull and proceeded merely from his ambition SECT V. Falsifications and vntruthes of Doctor Morton discouered and his Arguments answeared VVHat you produce in defence of this Canon are either falsifications vntruthes or friuolous cauills for first you falsify Azor (r) Pag. 118. His words are The Canons and decrees of Councells which are either of fayth or of the law of God or of nature the Pope can neither annull nor alter but if the decrees and Canons be of those things which belong to human right he may annull them or alter them in whole or in part And this sayth he is the common opinion of Diuines and Canonists You very honestly mangle his words not mentioning the first part of them in which he sayth The Pope can neither annull nor alter the decrees of Councells which are of matters of fayth or of things commanded by the law of God or nature And wheras he addes that the Pope can annull or alter the Decrees of Councells which are of human right you in your english leaue out those words which are of human right to persuade your Reader that Azor sayth and that our Diuines and Canonistes with common consent allow the Pope power to change the Decrees of fayth and annull the precepts of God and of nature whereas he speaketh only of lawes that concerne Ecclesiasticall discipline which according to diuers occasions and circumstances may be altered for the good of the Church If this be not an imposture what is 2. You obiect (s) Pag. 12 1â—9 The Fathers of Chalcedon thought that the Church of Rome got the primacy not by diuine but by humane right to wit because Rome was the chiefe Impâ—riall seat Answere There are two causes of the primacy of the Roman Church the one immediate the other mediate The immediate cause is the dignity of S. Peter wherwith Christ honored him when he made him the foundation of his Church (t) Math. 16.18 and the Pastor of his flock (u) Ioan. 21. vers 15.16.17 And so much the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledged when they called the Popes Epistle The speach of the See of S. Peter (x) In alloquut ad Imperat and when they said to Leo (y) In relat ad Leon. Dioscorus hath extended his phrensy against him to whom the custody of the Vine which is the Catholike Church was committed by our Sauiour that is to say against your Apostolike Holinesse The same truth the Mileuitan Councell in which S. Augustine was Secretary had professed not long before acknowledging the Popes authority to be of diuine right when speaking to Innocentius they said (z) Aug. ep 92. that his authority was taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures And Gelasius with a Councell of 70. Bishops (a) In decreto de lib. Apocryph The Roman Church hath not bene preferred before other Churches by the constitutions of Synods but hath obtained the primacy by the voyce of our Lord and Sauiour in the Ghospell And as the same Gelasius rightly obserueth (b) Ep. ad Episc Dardan Milan Rauenna Sirmium Treuers and Nicomedia were for a long tyme seates of the Empire and yet the Fathers neuer thought that any Primacy was therfore due to the Bishops of those Cities Neuerthelesse it may be said in a true sense that the mediate and remote cause of the Primacy of the Roman Church that is to say the cause which moued S. Peter
Bishop and Pastor as not being true Pope and cleaueth to one opposite vnto him men dying in the state of this Disobedience cannot possibly be true Martyrs nor be saued Thirdly there is Disobedience moral in matter of good life manners against precepts enacted by the Church for the better auoyding punishing of ill behauiour Now in the state of this kind of Disobedience men may be saued for the disobeying of these kind of orders and commands may proceed either from contumacy and contempt or from errour and ignorance If out of contempt then is it damnable so that none dying therin can be Martyrs or goe to heauen But with Disobedience of the second kind caused by ignorance Saluation and Martyrdome may stand for their ignorance may be inuincible or else probable and grounded vpon good seeming reasons Or if it be vincible and faulty yet may it be abolished by their contrition for all their sinnes or falce Martyrij by the sickle of Martyrdome done away This supposed I say the Disobedience of the African Bishops was not Heretical because in all matters of sayth they were conforme to the Church of Rome and by manifold practise shewed that about doubts and controuersies of this kind they held it necessary to haue recourse to (n) Ep. Concil Mileuit 92. inter Epist August the Pastorall Chayre and care of Peter to the (o) Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 10. l. 4. ep 8. Roote and matrice of the Catholike Church to the Rocke which the (p) August Psal cont part Donat. proud gates of Hell do neuer ouercome to the maine indeficient fountaine which with the streames of wholesome doctrine watereth all Christians ouer the whole world The ancient rules say they the foure Primates of Afrike (q) Ep. ad Theodor. Papam Extat in Concil Lateran 1. consult 2. Bin. to 2. p. 1075. haue ordayned that whatsoeuer is treated in Prouinces distant and farre of should not be deemed to be ended vntill first it were come to the knowledge of the See Apostolike to the en that the sentente which should be found iust might be confirmed by the authority of the same See and that from thence all other Churches as streames flowing from their mother source might take the beginning of their preaching and the Sacraments of Saluation Their Disobedience then could not be Heretical nor was it Schismatical because they acknowledged the Pope euen that Pope with whome they did disagree to be their Pastor and Superior whose (r) August Epist. 157. Iniuncta nobis à Venerabili Papa Zozimo Ecclesiastica necessitas lawfull Commaunds they were bound to obey that all Maior causes all matters controuersies aboue Iurisdiction of greater moment to wit such as concerne sayth and the life and gouernment of Bishops are to be referred vnto him and to be finally and infallibly decided by him Neither thirdly was their Disobedience ioyned with contumacy and contempt because though they refused to deferre vnto the Appeales which Priest infertour Clergymen might make to the Pope yet they do it with great humility and respect and by way of submissiue intreaty in their (s) Ep. ad Caelestin apud Sur. Tom. l. Coucil pag. 520. letter to Pope Celeftine Praefato debitae Salutationis officio impendio deprecamur vt deinceps ad aures vestrashinc venientes non facilius admittatis The behoofe of due Salutation or Reuerence being premised we humbly beseech you that those which come from hence with their Appeales you will not admit them vnto audience ouer-easily Therefore their disobedience was out of ignorance for they did not doubt but the Pope had power to command the Bishops of Africa to yield vnto the Appeales that were made vnto him but they esteemed the practise of that power not to be in those circumstances for the good of the Church of Africa They saw by appealing to Rome that dissolute and vnruly Clergymen would cause much vexation vnto the Bishops their lawfull Iudges prolonge the cause differre the sentence and many times escape deserued punishment which impunity might easily grow into liberty and audacity and extreme disorder Wherefore the power giuen of Christ to his Church and Vicar on earth being giuen (t) â— Cor. 1â— 10 for edifying not for destroying they were persuaded that the Pope could not prudently command them to deferre vnto such Appeales and if he did that they should not be bound to obey therein You demand (u) Pag. 150â— whether the Pope of Rome whom we entitle Monarch of the Church Catholike and Bishop of Bishops would accept it as a matter of subiection for Protestants with S. Augustine and those other African Bishops to deny that any ought to be called Bishop of Bishop and not to yield to his demands in point of Iurisdiction vpon any pretence of Diuine Law but to exact of him proofe by a Canon of an ancient Councell I answere The African Bishops deny the title of Prince of Bishops to any Arch-bishop or Primate within Africke but not to the Roman Bishop yea they entitle him in expresse termes (x) Aruob in Psal 138. Tertullian lib. de pudicit c. 1. Stephanus Mauritaniae in Africa Episcopus Epist. ad Damasum Bishop of Bishops the Holy Father of Fathers the soueraigne Bishop of all Bishops and Pastors they call his Authority the Princedome of the Apostolike Chayre euer vigent in the Roman Church they acknowledge that they are bound to obey all his iust commandes that all Christians may and must Appeale to him about Controuersies of Religion and the Catholike Fayth August ep 1â—2 A postolitae Cathedrae principatum Item the foure Primates of Afrike in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Theodor in Conc. Lateran 1. Consul 2. Bintom 2 pag. 1078. Patri Patrum summo omnium Praesulum Pontifici Theodoro By which is answered what you alleage pag. 46. out of the 26. Canon of the Councell of Carthage yea Bishops also in criminal causes from the condeÌ„nation giuen against them by their fellow-Bishops But that the Pope should admit the Appeales so easely of euery African Priest and Clergyman hereof they doubt whether it be expedient for the African Church Now Bishops may be sometimes excused if they do not obey the Pope in matters that are extremely burthensome and hard specially when they haue probable reasons that it is not prudently commanded nor will proue for the good of soules But Protestants you are disobedient vnto the See of Peter and the Soueraigne Bishop of all Bishops in points of Iurisdiction allowed vnto him by ancient Councells Your disobedience is ioyned with Contumacy contempt contumely and base language You deny Appeales vnto him in matters and doubts about Christian Fayth Wherefore you want that dutifull subiection to Peters chayre without which none can be of the number of Christ his sheepe nor consequently be saued yea you are guilty of that damnable disobedience whereof S. Leo sayth (y) Epist 93. c.
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
to goe and Siricius successor to Damasus gaue to Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria power to iudge his cause And notwithstanding all the Emperors fauor he was not confirmed in the Patriarkship vntill at the intreaty of Theophilus Chrysostome the Pope had pardoned his offence and he himselfe had sent Legates to obtaine his confirmation If this be not sufficient to proue the Popes authority ouer the Bishops of Antioch what is And when you aske (g) Pag. 297. Whether the Christian Churches could be good Catholikes and in state of samation that communicated with Flauianus at the time of his opposition to the Pope it is a question sprung from ignorance for the cause of Flauianus being in agitation it was so far from being vnlawfull to communicate with him or with them that adhered either to him or Paulinus and Euagrius that for auoyding of further schisme the Councel of Capua ordained that Communion should be denied to neither party SECT XI Doctor Morton in defence of his Doctrine chargeth ancient Bishops with exercising Acts of authority out of the limits of their owne iurisdiction VVE haue proued the Popes to be supreme Gouernors of the vniuersall Church because they haue exercised acts of iurisdiction ouer the greatest Bishops of the East and West You make your apposition as you say (h) Pag. 297. by parallels and examples of other Bishops in antiquity executing Acts of confirming and deposing Bishops without the limits of their owne iurisdiction which is tacitly to contradict your selfe confessing that the Popes haue confirmed and deposed Bishops out of their owne Patriarkship to which you confine their authority but that they had no iurisdiction our those Bishops The falsity of this answeare who seeth not for confirming and deposing of Bishops is an act of iurisdiction which no Bishop hath power to exercise out of the limits of his iurisdiction And therfore to say that either the Popes or other Bishops haue executed acts of confirming or deposing Bishops without the limits of their owne iurisdiction is to accuse them of pride and iniustice in arrogating to themselues liberty to transgresse the limits of their iurisdiction executing acts of authority where they had no right But as to deny the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Popes you wrong them so to make good your deniall of their authority you wrong the other Bishops in whom you instance The first is S. Athanasius B. of Alexandria who say you (i) Pag. 300. appointed a Bishop ouer the Indians This Bishop though you name him not was Frumentius who hauing liued among the Indians and returning from thence informed S. Athanasius of the great hope he conceaued of their Conuersion to Christ if preachers were sent vnto them The fayth which Frumentius preached was the Roman fayth and he serued God after the manner of the Roman Church and induced all Christians that traded with the Indians to do the like (k) Ruffin l. 2. c. 9. Sozom. l. 2. c. 2.3 S. Athanasius with the aduice of his Clergy created him Bishop at Alexandria and sent him with other Priests to preach the Ghospell to the Indians and reduce them to the Communion of the Roman Church Where do you find in all this that S. Athanasius instituted or confirmed any Bishop without the limits of his owne iurisdiction Did he not consecrate Frumentius Bishop in his owne Church at Alexādria Did he send him to preach or exercise iurisdiction within the Dioces of any other Bishop No. He sent him to a barbarous people to reduce them to the fayth of Christ and obedience of the Roman Church which was then and is still lawfull for any Bishop in like case to do that being no where forbidden nor contrary to any Law diuine or humane nor any way derogating from the authority of the B. of Rome but most gratefull to him whose greatest desire is to reduce the whole world to the fayth of Christ and whose approbation for such enterprises is alwayes iustly presumed especially since therby the glory of the Roman Church is increased and her iurisdiction enlarged as by the conuersion of both Indies in these later tymes we see Your second example (l) Pag. 300. is of Theophilus B of Alexandria laboring to ordaine Chrysostome to be the B. of Constantinople For this you alleage Sozomen who sayth (m) L. 8. c. 2. that Chrysostome being famous for his Vertue learning throughout all the Roman Empire by voyce of the Clergy and people of Constantinople and of the Emperor himselfe was chosen Archbishop of that Imperiall City but that Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria resisted his ordination laboring to promote to that dignity Isidore a Chaplaine of his owne This is the relation of Sozomen why do you report it vntruly Your third example (n) Ibid. is of S. Gregory Nazianzen vnto whom say you Meletius B. of Antioch and Petrus of Alexandria confirmed the See and Patriarkship of Constantinople For this you bring Theodoret (o) L. ◠hist. c. 8. and Gregorius Presbyter Theodoret sayth no such thing but only that albeit the Canons to preuent ambition forbid the remouing of Bishops from one See to another yet the opinion of Meletius was that in those circumstances Gregory might hold the Bishoprick of Constantinople by reason of the great domage that Church sustained for want of a Bishop in so dangerous a time But that Meletius designed or ordained him Bishop Theodoret sayth it not nor is it true for he was created Bishop by the Councell of Constantinople which Theodoret in that Chapter mentioneth And the same is verified by other historians Gregory sayth Socrates (p) L. 5. c. 5. by the common consent of many Bishops was transferred from the Bishoprike of the City of Nazianzum to the Bishoprike of Constantinople And Sozomen (q) L. 6. c. 17. Gregory by the voices of many Bishops was designed B. of Constantinople for no Catholike Bishop nor Church of Orthodoxe people being in that City the doctrine of the Councell of Nice was in danger to be wholly exploded How then could you say that Meletius and Petrus of Alexandria confirmed vnto Gregory Nazianzen the See of Constantinople Especially since Theodoret in that very Chapter expresseth the names of diuers of those Bishops which in the generall Councell of Constantinople conferred that dignity on him and repressed the insolency of Maximus whom Timothy B. of Alexandria would haue intruded into that See Your fourth example (r) Pag. 300. is Moyses who being a man famous for miracles was ordained Bishop by certaine exiles It is true for the Romans vpon agreement of peace with Mauia Queene of the Saracens who desired to haue Moyses created Bishop of her Nation brought him to Alexandria to be consecrated by Lucius then Patriarke of that city who being an Arian heretike Moyses refused to be consecrated by him and therfore the Arians were enforced to permit him to be consecrated by the Catholike Bishops of the Roman
thing vncertaine Many thinke it to be of Damasus and his you will haue it to be But the contrary is manifest for the epistle speaketh of Bonosus an Arch-heretike who had bene condemned by Iudges appointed in thē Councell of Capua which was not held in time of Damasus but of Siricius successor to Damasus It is therefore euident that the request of Bouosus which you obiect out of this epistle to haue his cause heard againe could not be to Damasus his first condemnation being not vntill after Damasus his death When you can shew this epistle to be of Damasus you shall receaue an answeare which it were easy to giue you now if I listed to spend time in refuting your tedious discourse of racking the verbe Competit to a strict sense and which not one but many wayes is deficient as all your arguments for the most part are Your addition (e) Pag. 318. marg l. that if the epistle be not of Damasus it is certainly of some Pope and that all hold it so is affirmed by you gratis and as easely denied by me CHAP. XL. Whether the Easterne Churches be at this day accordant in Communion with Protestants SECT I. The state of the Question THE nine first Sections of your fourtenth Chapter you spend in prouing that the Grecians Aegyptians Aethiopians Assyrians Armenians Russians Melchites and other remote nations at this day dissent from the Roman Church and are accordant in Communion with Protestants The foundation of your whole discourse you lay in these words (f) Pag. 330. Whatsoeuer Christians haue not ruinated any fundamental article of sauing fayth set downe in our ancient Creeds and are vnited vnto the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus our Lord by a liuing fayth all Protestants esteeme them as true members of the Catholike Church and notwithstanding diuers their more tolerable errors and superstitions to be in state of saluation albeit no way subiect or subordinate to the Roman Church These are your words which containe in themselues open implication namely that one may be vnited to the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus by a liuing fayth and be in state of saluation and yet be out of the Catholike Church which to be none els but the Roman and that out of her there is no saluation hath bene already proued (g) Chap. 1. sect 2.3.4 From this false principle you deduce that the Grecians Asians Aegyptians Assyrians Aethiopians Africans Melchites Russians and Armenians notwithstanding their separation from the Roman Church are at this day truly professed Christian Churches (h) Pag. 379. partes of the Catholike Church (i) Pag. 406. fin 407. init faythfull Christians professing the fayth of the ancient Fathers (k) Pag. 417. in state of saluation and raile bitterly at the Church of Rome for denying the same But how great ignorance and impiety you shew and how many most shamefull vntruthes you vtter in the prosecution of this Argument it is easy to declare Some of them I shall present to the Readers view And to proceed methodically I will reduce what I am to say to two heades 1. I will proue that as the Christians of these remote nations anciently were so many of them at this day are accordant in beliefe and communion with the Roman Church yeild obedience to the Pope as to the Vicar of Christ on earth and as to the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church 2. That the inhabitants of these nations which are not Roman Catholikes are not of one beliefe or Communion with Protestants but wholly dissent from them holding most blasphemous and damnable heresies acknowledged for such by Protestants themselues From whence it will follow that you affirming them to be faythfull Christians of the same beliefe with the ancient Fathers charge the ancient Fathers with blasphemous heresies and make them incapable of saluation SECT II. Whether the Grecians of the primitiue and successiue times agreed in fayth and Communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome and particularly at the Councell of Florence THat the Greekes in the first Councell of Constantinople and afterwards in that of Calcedon endeauored to giue to their Patriarke of Constantinople the second place of dignity in the Church next after the Pope and before the other Patriarkes we acknowledge But that they sought therby to exempt themselues from their obedience and subiection to the Pope hath bene effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 5. Chap. 19. sect 4. I speake not this to deny that anciently there were of the Grecians many Heretikes which opposed the Roman Church and by her authority were condemned and that eight Patriarkes of Constantinople in particular as also Eutyches an Arch-heretike of the same City were anathematized and east out of the Church for heresy And wheras the Westerne Church by the example and diligence of the Bishops of Rome was preserued from heresy the Churches of the East new heresies daily springing vp were so pitifully torne and ten in peeces that S. Hierome complaining therof to Pope Damasus said (m) Ep. 57. Because the East striking against it selfe by the ancient fury of the people teares in litle morsells the vndeuided coate of our Lord wouen on high and that the foxes destroy the vine of Christ in such sorte that it is difficult among the drie pits that haue no water to discerne where the sealed fountaine and the inclosed garden is I haue therfore thought that I ought to consult with the Chaire of Peter and the fayth praised by the mouth of the Apostle This was the miserable state of the Easterne Churches in those dayes being gouerned somtimes by Catholike Bishops that acknowledged subiection to the Church of Rome and somtimes by Heretikes that opposed her authority vntill at length Photius hauing iniustly driuen Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople from his See and intruded himselfe into his place and being for that cause often excommunicated by Nicolas the first and Iohn the eight Popes of Rome to mantaine his iniust title withdrew himselfe from their obedience and to the end he might haue some colour to perseuer in that separation cauilled at the doctrine of the Roman Church which teacheth that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Sonne and writ against it And the Greekes following him in this error separated themselues from the Communion of the Roman man Church Yet not so but that they haue often eleauen times sayth S. Antoninus (n) Hist. par 2. tit 22. c. 23. acknowledged their error and reconciled themselues to her and especially thrice in most solemne manner in three seuerall Councells of Barium in Apulia of Lions in France and of Florence in Tuscany but still returning to their error against the holy Ghost and disobedience to the Church of Rome as dogs to their vomit Almighty God punished them with a heauy hand deliuering them vp to a miserable captiuity seruitude vnder the Turke And that they might know the
indiuiduall person v. g. Vrban the eight is true Pope and true Head of the Church Sect. 2. pag. 692. Whether the Church of Rome be at any time a body headlesse Sect. 3. pag. 693. Whether the Roman Church haue at any time a false Head Sect. 4. pag. 696. Whether the Roman Church at any time be diuided into many Heades Sect. 5. pag. 700. Whether the Roman Church be doubtfully headed Sect. 6. pag. 702. Of the Councell of Constance defining a Councell to be aboue the Pope Sect. 7. pag. 704. The same matter prosecuted out of the Councell of Basil Sect. 8. pag. 706. Doctor Mortons instances of France and England to proue the no-necessity of Vnion with the Church of Rome Sect. 9. pag. 709. CHAP. XXXXIV Whether Luther his followers had any iust cause to separate themselues from the Roman Church pag. 711. Whether any Protestants haue held that the Catholike Church before Luthers fall was wholly extinguished Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Catholike Church assembled in a generall Councell may erre in her definitions of fayth Sect. 2. p. 714. Whether Protestants hold the Church of Christ to be inuisible Sect. 3. pag. 720. What causes may suffice to depart from the communion of a particular Church Sect. 4. pag. 725. Of Luthers excommunication and his conference with the Diuell Sect. 5. pag. 731. Whether the Roman Church be as subiect to Errors as any other Church Sect. 6. pag. 735. Whether there be in the Scripture any Prophesy that the Church of Rome shall fall from the fayth Sect. 7. pag. 740. Whether Luther were iustly excommunicated Sect. 8. p. 741. Of the first occasion of Luthers reuolt from the Church And that Doctor Morton to defend his doctrine against Indulgences falsifieth sundry Authors Sect. 9. pag. 744. The causes giuen by Doctor Morton in excuse of Luthers departure from the Roman Church Sect. 10. pag. 749. Whether Protestants had any professors of their fayth before Luther Sect. 11. pag. 751. That all changes of fayth haue bene noted in the persons times and places of their beginnings Sect. 12. pag. 757. The lineall succession of Bishops in the See of Rome is a true and certaine marke of the Catholike Church Sect. 13. pag. 760. Of the conformity of Protestants and Donatists in their separation from the Catholike Church Sect. 14. pag. 763. That the fayth of the now Roman Church is acknowledged by Protestants to be sufficient for saluation Sect. 15. pag. 765. CHAP. I. GENERALL PRINCIPLES PREMISED for the better vnderstanding of the ensuing Apology SECT I. The importance of the Subiect THOVGH there be many questions in Religion controuerted betweene Protestants and vs yet none more important or more necessary to be knowne then that of the Church Protestants agree with vs so far as to belieue that there is shall be to the end of the world extant on earth One Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church which is the (a) 1. Tim. 3.15 Pillar and touchstone of truth which all men that will not be as Heathens and Publicanes must heare and (b) Math. 18.17 obey which is the second Eue framed out of the side of our second Adam Christ whome whosoeuer will not acknowledge to be his Mother cannot haue him to be his (c) S. Aug. de Symb. l. 4. c. 10. Father She is the mysticall body of our (d) Ephes 5.23 Lord out of which sayth S. Augustine (e) Ep. 50. ad 〈◊〉 the holy Ghost imparteth life to no man She is the Vineyard (f) Math. 20.1 seqq in which he that laboureth not shall not receiue the wages of euerlasting life She the Arke of Noe (g) S. Hiero. ep 57 S. Gaudent tract 2. de lect Euang in which whosoeuer is not or out of which whosoeuer departeth shall perish She is the wellspring of truth (h) Lactant. 4 diuin iustit â— vlt. Orig. hom 15. in Math. Theod in c. 2.2 ad Thessal the House of fayth the Temple of God in which mens prayers are heard and their sacrifices accepted all other congregations being Synagogues of Sathan denns of Diuels She is the garden of God (i) Cant. 4.12.13.15 in which whosoeuer groweth not is not a flower planted by the hand of Christ but a weed to be plucked vp and cast into hell fire Finally she is the kingdome of Christ (k) 2. Reg 7.12 1 Paralip 17.11 Psal 44.7 Luc. 1.33 Colosâ— 1.13 in which whosoeuer is not is none of Christs people Whosoeuer sayth (l) Eb. 152. ad popul fact Donas cont ep Parmen l. 2. c. 3. S Augustine is diuided from the Catholike Church although he thinke himselfe to liuâ— neuer so laudably for this only crime that he is diuided from the vnity of Christ the wrath of God abideth on him And speaking of Emeritus an hereticall (m) Serm. super gestis cum Emerito post med Bishop He cannot haue saluation but in the Catholike Church Out of the Church he may haue all things but saluation he may haue honour he may haue Sacraments he may sing Alleluia he may answere Amen he may haue the Ghospell he may haue and preach beliefe in the name of the Father and the Sonne the holy Ghost but saluation he can find no where but in the Catholike Church Wherefore since the saluation of our soules cannot be had out of the Catholike Church it is most necessary for euery man to inquire and learne which and where is that Temple of God that kingdome of Christ that store-house of truth and that second Eue our spirituall Mother that knowing her resorting to her he may be cherished in her lap and nourished at her brests with the milke of her holsome Doctrine The beliefe of all Catholikes is that these foresaid aâ—tributs agree to the Roman Church and to no other congregation in the world and that therfore she alone is the Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church in which whosoeuer is may in which whosoeuer is not cannot be saued Vpon this our Doctrine you passe a censure suitable to your modesty Videlicet that it is False Imposterous Scandalous Schismaticall Hereticall Blasphemous euery way Damnable (n) Pag. 5.182.419 Presumgtuous (o) Pag. 336. Impious (p) Pag 95. Execrable (q) Pag 127. Damnably hereticall (r) Pag 91. Pernicious Antichristian (s) Pag 99. Sacrilegious (t) Pag. 336. Sathanicall Idolaâ—rous (u) Pag. 387. This is your censure and to make it good you write a large volume which you intitle The Grand Imposture of the now Roman Church but mistake your selfe in the name for the booke is ought to haue been intituled The Grand imposture of Doctor Thomas Morton against the Roman Church of this and all former ages for vpon due examination such he will find it to be that shall please to passe his Eye ouer the ensuing Apology and I doubt not but after the perusall thereof he will rest conuinced that
Catholike and (g) Cont. Gand. l. 3. c. 1. Serm. 131. de temp ep 170. the interpretatioÌ„ of S. Augustine the Catholike Church be that which is vniuersally spread ouer the world the Roman Church and none els but she is the Catholike Church for Vniuersality agreeth to none but to her all Sects lurking in corners Wherfore you not only inconsideratly but against your selfe produce S. Augustine here (h) Pag. 89. and Optatus afterwards (i) Pag 341. to proue that your Protestant Church is the Catholike Church S. Augustine sayth (k) L de pastor c. 8. Not all heretikes are spread ouer the face of the earth yet there are heretikes spread ouer the whole face of the earth some heere some there yet they are wanting no where they know not one another One fact for example in Africa another heresy in the East another in Aegypt another in Mesopotamia In diuers places they are diuers One Mother Pride hath begot them all as our one Mother the Catholike Church hath brought forth all faythfull people dispersed throughout the whole world So said S. Augustine to the Donatists and so say we to you There are diuers sectcs in the world Wiclefists in Bohemia but in any other part of the world they are not There be Lutherans in Germany in Denmarke c. but in the rest of the world they be not There are ridged Caluinists in Geneua France and Scotland to whom you may ad your English Puritans but in other parts of the world they are not There are Protestants a more temperate sort of Caluinists in England but out of England they are not These therfore and all other sects of heretikes whatsoeuer are confined to a few Countries and therfore none of them can be the Catholike Church which is vniuersally spead ouer the whole world as the Roman Church is therfore she and none els but she is the Catholike Church Optatus speaking also to the Donatists sayd (l) L. 2. contra Parmen You will haue the Church to be where you are and you will haue it not to be where you are not that it may be with you you will haue it to be in a corner of Africa and that it may not be with vs you will not haue it to be in allmost innumerable Ilands Prouinces and Countries where we are and you are not So we say to Protestants you will haue the Catholike Church to be in England where you are but you will not haue it to be in so many other countries of Europe Africa Asia and America almost innumerable where we are you are not If your Church be the Catholike Church if it be vniuersally spread ouer the face of the earth as the Catholike Church must be we say to you as S. Augustine did to the Donatists (m) Ep. 163. Giue vs formed letters to men of your fayth and communion in all parts of the earth This you cannot do but we can for we are not only in Countries almost innumerable of Europe Africa Asia and America where you are not but we are also in England in France and all other Countries in which you are We therfore can giue you letters of communion to men of our Religion professing the fayth liuing in the communion of the Roman Church throughout all the world as well in places where you are as where you are not The Roman Church therfore â—â—e al one and â—onâ— but she is vniuersally spread ouer the face of the earth whersoeuer the name of Christ is knowne and therfore if Christ haue any Catholike Church on earth none but she is the Catholike Church The words which you obiect out of the Conferâ—nce of Carthage which in some copies are ioyned to Optâ—tus are neither his nor S. Augustine but of Balduinus a late Protestant writer of small credit But be they whose you please they are not pertinent to your purpose for no man doubts but that as the Church of Christ began at Hierusalem where his Ghospell was first preached by S. Peter and from thence by degrees spread ouer the world so whosoeuer is in communion of this Church vniuersally spread hath God for his Father and the Catholike Church for his Mother as S. Augustine professed himselfe to haue But withall he teacheth (n) Psal cont part Donat. and so doth all Antiquity that this Catholike Church so spread ouer the world is built vpon S. Peter and his Successors as vpon a Rock which the proud gates of Hell cannot ouercome and so doth S. Hierome saying (o) Ep. 57. to Damasus of the Roman See I know the Church to be built vpon this Rock In regard wherof he â—â—â—â—â—nceth all them that are not in the communion of the Bishop of Rome not to be of Christ but of Antichrist And for the same cause S. Augustine (p) Psal cont part Donat. grieued iâ— see the Douâ—tistâ—l ye cut of from the Roman Church and exhorted them as â—eunite themselues to her as branches to their Vine SECT II. The iudgment of S. Hierome concerning the Church Catholike WHat his iudgment was you haue partly heard 〈◊〉 â—â—eliâ—â—â—â—â— the Roman See to be the Rock on which the Catholike Church is built he was in her communion and (q) Ep. 57. â—eld you that refuse her communion to be a prophane person belonging to 〈◊〉 â—â—brist he held her to be The 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 whosâ—â—uer els shall be found at the â—â—â—â—ing 〈…〉 shall 〈◊〉 His iudgment was (r) Dial. cont Lucifer that if Christ 〈…〉 Church diffused throughout the world as the 〈◊〉 is â—hat wâ—s ordiâ—â—â— only as the sect of the Lucifâ—riâ—nâ— against whom he writeth was or only in a few Northerne parts of the world as your Protestant Congregaâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 fit iâ—â—e â—â—â—â—creding pâ—orâ— His iudgment was (s) Ibid. that 〈◊〉 â—orâ—â—ayne in that Church which being founded by the â—postles dâ—â—â—th vntill this day which is none els but the Roman 〈◊〉 in her alone there hath bene and still is a neuer interrupted Succession of Bishops from S. Peter vnto Vrban the eight who 〈◊〉 gâ—â—â—â—â—eâ—h that Church wheras there is no other Church founded by the Apostles in which Succession is not either wholly decaied or hath not bene often interrupted and broken of by heretikes or Arch-heretikes those Churches being wholly possessed by them His iudgment was that which he declarâ—â— when he said of Ruffinus (t) L. 1. Apol. aduers Ruffin Which fayth doth he call his is If that which the Roman Church holdeth then we are Catholikes And speaking to Ruffinus (u) Ibid. Know that the Roman fayth commended by the voyce of the Apostle admitteth not such delusions though an Angell should teach otherwise thâ—â—â—â—â—â—eth bene on â—â—â—â—iuered it cannot be altered being sensed 〈◊〉 Paul â—â—thority He declared his iudgment when he said to such as you are (x) Ep. 6. ad Pammach Ocean Whosoeuer thou are that auouchest noâ— Sects I pray thee haue respect to
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
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
be directed to the holy and Venerable Pope Innocentius And we likewise had written from the Councell of Mileuis in Numidia to the same Apostolike See And what did they write We hope sayth the Councell (k) Aug. ep 92. these men which hold so peruerse pernicious opinions will sooner yeld to the authority of your Holinesse drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures by help of the mercy of our Lord Iesus-Christ who vouchsafeth to gouerne you consulting with him and to heare you praying vnto him To this Epistle of the Councell Innocentius answeared (l) Aug. ep 93. You prouide diligently and worthily for the Apostolike honor c. following in the consultation of difficult things the forme of the ancient rule which you know as well as I to haue bene alwayes obserued by the whole world But I omit this for I thinke it is not vnknowne to your wisdome for why els did you confirme this by your deeds but because you know that answeres do alwayes flow from the Apostolicall fountaine throughout all Countries to those that aske them And especially as often as matter of fayth is in question I conceiue that all our brethren and fellow-fellow-Bishops ought not to referre what may be profitable in common to all Churches to any but to Peter that is to the author of their name and dignity as your Dilection hath done If you answeare that Innocentius writ this but spake vntruly in his owne cause S. Augustine will satisfy you who highly prayseth both these answeares of his Vpon this affaire sayth S. Augustine (m) Ep. 106. relations were sent from the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the Apostolicall See c. And besides the relations of the Councells we writ also priuate letters to Pope Innocentius of blessed memory in which we discoursed more largely of the same subiect And he answeared vs to euery point as it was conuenient and fitting the Prelate of the Apostolike See should answeare And againe (n) Ep. 157. Pelagius and Celestius hauing bene the authors or most violent promotors of this new Heresy they also by meanes of the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councells with the help of God who vndertakes the protection of his Church haue bene condemned in the extent of the whole world by two reuerend Prelates of the Apostolike See Pope Innocentius and Pope Zozimus vnlesse they reforme themselues and do pennance Out of this it is euident 1. That it was the ancient tradition and custome that Councels should send their decrees to the Pope to be confirmed by his authority 2. And that it is so ordeyned not by humane but by diuine sentence 3. That all other Churches of the world compared to the Roman are as streames that flow from their mother source and are to imbrace as pure whatsoeuer doctrine she deliuereth and reiect whatsoeuer she condemneth 4. That the Fathers of both these Councels did acknowledg the Pope to be their Pastor 5. And that they did belieue his authority to be takē out of the holy Scriptures 6. That Christ guideth him in his consultations and decrees of fayth 7. That the custome ancient rule beareth that in doubts especially of fayth the See Apostolike is to be consulted and nothing determined vntill answeare had from thence Now to your obiection (o) Pag. 141. seqq that the Councell of Mileuis denied any right of Appeales from Africa to the Church of Rome which in your eyes is so forcible that you repeat it afterwards againe (p) Pag. 321.322 seqq and descant on it at large against Bellarmine who sheweth (q) L. 2. de Pont. c. 24. it to be wholly impertinent and from the matter for the question of appeales to the B. of Rome is not of Priests and inferior Clerkes of whom only the Councell of Mileuis speaketh but of Bishops for the Councell of Sardica which hath declared (r) Can. 4. 7. that Bishops may appeale to the Pope hath withall decreed (s) Can. 27. that Priests and inferior Clerkes are to be iudged by their owne Bishops that if they conceiue themselues to be wronged by them they appeale to other Bishops of the same prouince And the same had bene ordeyned not long before by the Councell of Nice (t) Iulius ep 1.2.3 apud Bin. to 1. pag. 399. seqq and afterwards by S. Leo (u) Ep. 84. ad Anastas Thessal S. Gregory (x) L. 2. indict 11. ep 6. ordeyning that maior causes be iudged in the first instance by a Councell of Bishops of the same prouince by way of appeale by the See Apostolike And to goe no further the same was answeared by the holy Pope Innocentius to whom the Councell of Mileuis sent their decrees to be confirmed (y) Aug. ep 92. For when Victricius B. of Rhoan desiring to order the gouerment of his Church according to the Roman discipline required instructions from him he (z) Ep. 2. addressed vnto him diuers rules to be obserued of which the third is that If dissentions arise betweene Priests or other Clerkes of the inferior order they are to be iudged ended by the Bishops of the same Prouince as the Councell of Nice hath determined And for the causes of Bishops he addeth (a) Ibid. If they be maior causes that are in question let them after the Episcopall iudgment be referred to the See Apostolike as the Synod of Nice and the ancient customes ordeyne This Epistle of Innocentius was cited by the Bishops of France in the second Councell of Tours 700. yeares since And his very words concerning the appeales of Bishops to the See Apostolike are inserted in forme of a Law into the Capitulary of Charlemaine And Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes in his epistle to Nicolas Pope (b) Erodoard histor Eccles Rhem. lib. 3. repeating the same decree of Innocentius sayth We Metropolitans trauilling in our prouinciall Councels haue care after iudgment to referre the maior causes that is of fayth and of maior persons that is of Bishops to the determination of the soueraigne See And speaking of Priests and inferior Clerkes Let it not please God that we thould depise the priuiledge of the first and supreme See of the holy Roman Church as to weary your soueraigne Authority with all the controuersies and quarrels of the Clergy as well of the superior as of the inferior order which the canons of the Nicen Councell and the decrees of Innocentius and other Popes of the holy See of Rome command to be determined in their owne Prouinces From hence it followeth that the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis which you obiect against appeales to Rome makes nothing at all for your purpose your peremptory conclusion is (c) Pag. 141. that the Councell of Mileuis denieth any right of appeales from Africk to the Church of Rome To make this good you should haue shewed that the Councell of Mileuis forbids the appeales of Bishops
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
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
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
confiderat when he called Eugenius Pope The God of Pharao as God called Moyses Did Ladislaus that famous King of Hungary blaspheme when he called Nicolas the fifth A God vpon earth (d) Orat. ad Nicol. 5. Acknowledge then that this your obiection is an imposterous cauill against the Bishop and Church of Rome or rather a calumny inuented to mantaine a bad cause which with other Arguments you cannot vphold CHAP. XXXVI The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of ancient Fathers discouered SECT I. Some of his Answeares examined WHAT hath bene produced hitherto out of antiquity conuincingly proueth the vniuersall Authority and Iurisdiction of the B. of Rome to haue bene acknowledged from the beginning by all the Catholikes of the world Here you vndertake to answeare the testimonies of ancient Fathers alleaged by Bellarmine but performe it not Some of them you passe ouer not only without answeare but without any mention of them as of Valentinian the Emperor Venerable Bede S. Anselme Hugo de S. Victore and S. Bernard whom yet Caluin (e) L. 4. instit c. 7. §. 22. cites for himselfe acknowledgeth to be a Saint 2. To the testimonies of S. Ignatius and Irenaeus you answeare but satisfy not as hath bene proued (f) Chap. 15. sect 5. 6. And the like hath bene shewed of your answeares to the testimonies of S. Basil (g) Chap. 34. sect 4. and Iustinian (h) Chap. 30. sect 5. the Emperor 3. Of S. Prosper you say (i) Pag. 270. fin 271. init His meaning might haue bene better knowne if he had written in prose and not assumed vnto him the liberty of a Poet. But who seeth not this to be a mere shift void of truth for as in verse he sayd (k) L. De ingrat c. 2. Now Rome the great Apostle Peters seat Head of Pastorall Honour here below Hath by fayths Empire made her selfe more great then she by all her armed powers could grow So likewise he said in prose (l) De vocat gentium c. 16. The soueraignty of the Apostolicall Priesthood hath made Rome greater by the Tribunall of religion then by the Throne of Power Bellarmine alleageth both the one and the other as well in prose as in verse But because both of them are vnanswerable you vnder colour that the one is in verse reiect S. Prosper as fabulous in both for the liberty which Poets assume vnto them is to report fables insteed of truthes This is the reuerence you beare to that holy and renowned Father and such the solutions wherwith you shift off the testimonies of antiquity and yet beare your Readers in hand that you belieue as they belieued 4. The B. of Patara in Licia (m) Liberat. in Breu. c. 22. vpon the banishment of Pope Siluerius represented to the Emperor Iustinian the iudgment of God vpon the expulsion of the Bishop of so great a Seate saying There are many Kings in the world but not one of them as the Pope who is Head ouer the Church of the whole world You answeare (n) Pag. 156. Liberatus who reported this history was an author deceaued by heretikes belieued not himselfe what he reported for the Pope Giue vs any one author that excepted against this relation of Liberatus before your selfe or that sayd he himselfe beliued not what he reported for the Pope If it shall be lawfull for you to reiect testimonies of antiquity vpon no other ground but because they are against your selfe what authority may not with such answeares be eluded You know this not to satisfy and therfore haue inuented another that this Greeke Author must be taken in the Greeke sense of Primacy of order This satisfieth as litle as the former for the B. of Patara compares the spirituall authority of the Pope with the temporall of Kings protesting that no King hath temporall power ouer all the Kingdoms of the earth as the Pope hath spirituall ouer the Church of the wholeworld Againe that the Popes Primacy in the Greeke sense is not Primacy of iurisdiction but of Order only is said gratis and vntruly The Greeke Fathers in the Councell of Chalcedon spake in the Greeke sense yet they acknowledged (o) In relat ad Leon. the Pope to be their Head and to rule ouer them at the Head doth ouer the members Theodoret spake in the Greeke sense when he said (p) In Ep. â—â— Renat The See of Rome hath the sterne of gouernment ouer all the Churches of the world Theodosius spake in the Greeke sense (q) Const. â— Nouel The 24. when he called the Pope Rector of the vniuersality of Churches This therefore is the Greeke sense and in this sense the B. of Patara spake to Iustinian 5. S. Epiphanius (r) Haeres 58. reporteth that Vrsacius Valens Bishops chiefe sticklers of the Arians touched with remorse for their treachery against Athanasius went vp to Rome and presenting libels of pennance to Iulius Pope craued pardon for their offence and promised to stand to his iudgment which sheweth that they acknowledged him to be the Head and Iudge of Bishops This testimony though set downe in your Latine margent curtalled (s) Pag. 254. yet in your English you make no mention of it but pretending to answeare by a similitude tell vs a tale of a tubbe of A. R. in the County of Suffolke crauing pardon of the Sheriffe of Middelsex for a notorius offence done vnto him But to omit that hereby the English reader can haue no notice at all of the force of this testimony your answeare is nether similitude nor solution but petitio principij a false supposition that Vrsacius and Valens asked pardon of Iulius for a notorious offence done vnto him Their offence was not against Iulius but against Athanasius and yet of this offence they asked pardon of Iulius because they knew that to him as to the Head of the Church it belonged to remedy the disorders of the Church and that as he had power to punish them for their offence so he had also to pardon them vpon their submission and promise of amendment which to that end they made 6. No lesse impertinent is the other flimflam which you adde (t) Pag. 254. as an answeare to the testimony of Dionysius Alexandrinus of two Gentlemen the one being a Iustice of peace agreeing to haue their difference to be ordered by another Iustice of peace for when Dionysius Patriarke of Alexandria was fallen into suspicion of heresy (u) Athanas de sent Dion Et de Sin Arim Seleuc the Catholikes of Alexandria went vp to Rome to accuse him before the Pope The Pope admonished him to cleare himselfe and he obeying presently sent vp a booke of defence and apology which sheweth that both the people Patriarke of Alexandria acknowledged that the cause of Bishops and of fayth were to be tried at the Popes tribunall and that the Pope knew himselfe to haue
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
certainly allowed and decreed by it 5. The same is confirmed out of the Councell of Sardica which being held soone after that of Nice made three decrees concerning Appeales The first (i) Cap. 3. that if in the cause of a Bishop who conceaues himselfe to be wronged a new iudgement be required the Bishop of Rome is to giue the Iudges The second (k) Cap. 4. that if a Bishop deposed by the next Bishops say his cause ought to be iudged againe none is to be installed in his See vntill the Bishop of Rome haue pronounced vpon it The third (l) Cap. 5. that a Bishop accused may haue recourse to Rome by way of appeale These Canons of Sardica sufficiently declare the beleefe of the Nicen councell touching the authority of the Bishop of Rome for as Harmen opulus writeth (m) In Epit. Can. By the aduice of the Emperor and of the Bishop of Rome the Synod if Sardica was assembled consisting of 341. Fathers which confirmed the fayth of the Councell of Nice and published the Canons Wherfore these canons touching appeales extant in the Councell of Sardica are either the very Nicen canons inserted into that of Sardica or declarations of them for the Sardican Councell consisting for the most part of the same Bishops that the Nicen did it is a senselesse thing to say that when those Bishops in their Councell at Sardica so expresly and so effectually declare the Bishop of Rome to be the supreme iudge of all Bishops they professe a new doctrine contrary to that which a litle before they had professed in the Councell of Nice 6. The authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer the whole Church is yet further declared in the Nicen Councell decreeing thus (n) Can. 39. ex 80. Graec. Arab. A Patriarke is so ouer all those that are vnder his power as he that hath the See of Rome is Head and Prince of all Patriarkes for he is the chiefest as Peter was to whom power was giuen ouer all Christian Princes and all their subiectes as being the Vicar of our Lord ouer all people and ouer the vniuer sall Church 7. The same is proued by the order of subscribing in the Councell for Victor and Vincentius being not Bishops but simple Priests because they were Legates to the Pope presided in the Councell togeather with Osius B. of Corduba and subscribed in the first place before all the Bishops and Patriarkes which they could not haue done but only in regard they represented his person who was Superior to all Bishops and Patriarkes 8. Though Constantine the Emperor was a great cause of the Bishops meeting in the Councell of Nice both because he persuaded that meanes of Concord as also because he defrayed their charges and by his letters called them together yet he called them not by his owne authority but as Ruffinus sayth (o) L. 1. c. 1. fin apud Spond Anno 325. n. 5. ex Sacerdotum sententia by the determination or decree of the Priests as in like manner he called an other Councell of 275 Bishops at Rome at the same time in which it is said Siluester gathered the whole Councell with the aduice of the Emperor The same is testified by Damasus in Syluesters life and by the sixt generall Councell saying (p) Act. 18. Constantine and Syluester worthy of prayse called the famous Councell of Nice And how can it be thought that it was called by any other authority then of the Pope seeing S. Athanasius and the Bishops of Aegypt in their Councell at Alexandria witnesse (q) Ep. Synod ad Felic that the Nicen Councell made a decree that no generall Councells should be held without the allowance of the B. of Rome and this decree it is which Iulius Pope the next but one to Syluester alleaged against the Arians (r) Ep. ad Orientales rebuking thē sharply that they had infringed it by calling their Councell at Antioch without his allowance which is also testified by Socrates Sozomen and Theodoret as you haue heard 9. And as this Councell was called by Syluester Pope so that it required confirmation from him we are certified by the Roman Councell vnder Felix the third (s) In ep Synod Felic c. 3. and by the Councell of Nice it selfe saying (t) In summ Conc. Nice Placuit c. It hath seemed good that all these Acts and decrees be sent to Syluester B. of Rome And in their letter to Syluester (u) Apud Baron An. 325. ex collect Crescon Whatsoeuer is determined in the Nicen Councell we beseech you that it may be seconded with the confirmation of your mouth And that Syluester accordingly confirmed their decrees we may learne from a Councell of the Bishops of Italy held at Rome in which he presiding sayd (x) Apud Bar. An. 325. Bin. to 1. pag. 382. Whatsoeuer is determined by the 318. holy Priests at Nice in Bithinia for the strength of the holy Catholike and Apostolike Church we with our mouth accordingly confirme and all those that shall dare to dissolue the definition of the holy and great Councell assembled at Nice in the presence of the most religious and venerable Prince Constantine the Emperor we anathematize them And all answeared So be it SECT I. Doctor Mortons Obiections against the precedent Doctrine answeared THough you either could not or would not find any thing of all that which hath bene alleaged out of the Councell of Nice in proofe of the Popes authority yet you cold find two argumēts to obiect against it The first is (y) Pag. 105. seqq The Councell of Nice decreeth that the ancient custome goe on to wit that the Patriarke of Alexandria haue power ouer Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis because the B. of Rome hath so accustomed To this argument Bellarmine hath answeared (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. that the Canon speakes of the Patriarke of Alexandria with restriction assigning to him the Prouinces of Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis and of the Pope without restriction not prescribing any lymits to his iurisdiction nor ordeyning any thing concerning the authority of the Roman Church but making her a rule and patterne for the gouerment of other Churches commanding that the B. of Alexandria haue power ouer those three prouinces because the B. of Rome hath accustomed so to allow or permit And this canon is so explicated by Nicolas the first (a) Ep. ad Michael Imper that liued almost 800. yeares since and for his learning and sanctity hath deserued the surname of Great And the same explication is confirmed by the practise both of the Roman and of the Alexandrian Church For if according to your construction the Roman Church by this canon be proued to haue no superiority of iurisdiction ouer the Church of Alexandria or other Easterne Churches but only ouer those which are within the Patriarkeship of the west how comes it to passe that S. Athanasius Patriarke
of Alexandria and other Easterne Bishops which had bene personally present at the Councell of Nice being soone after cast out of their Seates by the Arians did fly to Rome and appeale to Pope Iulius for redresse as to their lawfull Superior and Iudge Or if this Canon do limit the iurisdiction of the Pope to the Patriarkeship of the West as it doth that of the B. of Alexandria to the prouinces named in the canon how comes it to passe that as Socrates (b) L. 2. c. 1â— Sozomen (c) L. 3. c. 7. and Nicephorus (d) L. 9. c. 8. report Iulius by the ancient dignity and prerogatiue of his See and because the care of them all belonged to him restored each of them to their Churches and rebuking the Arians for their iniust proceedings threatned to punish them vnlesse they desisted to innouate and cited Athanasius and some of the chiefe of the Arians to make their appearance at Rome on a set day and answere for themselues in iudgment and that Athanasius obeying transported himselfe in all diligence to Rome And how comes it to passe that when the Arians in their mock-Councell of Philippopolis required the Fathers assembled at Sardica to absteyne from the communion of Athanasius the other Bishops whom they had deposed those Fathers representing all the Catholikes of the world answered (e) Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. that they neuer had nor would now abstaine from their communion and principally because Iulius B. of Rome hauing examined their cause had not condemned them And how comes it to passe that Peter Successor to S. Athanasius in the See of Alexandria whom Theodosius and Gratian (f) Cod. Tit. 1. l. 1. call A man of Apostolicall sanctity being in like manner deposed by the Arians appealed to Rome as to the safest hauen of communion (g) S. Hieron Ep. 16. and relying on the authority of Pope Damasus his letters returned to Alexandria (h) L. 4. c. 30. and by vertue of them recouered his Seat expelled Lucius the Arian intruder Doth not all this shew that the authority of the Roman Church was not limited by the Nicen Councell to the Patriarkship of the West vnlesse you will haue vs belieue that you vnderstand the sense and meaning of the Councell better then S. Athanasius and other holy Bishops which were present at it and at the Councell of Sardica and better then Peter that renowned Patriarke of Alexandria that liued soone after these Councells In confirmation of this I adde that the Councell of Nice ordeyneth (i) Can. 6. that the ancient custome goe on Now the ancient custome was that all Churches should resort to the Roman Church by reason of her more mighty principality (k) Iren. l. 3. c. 3. and because she is the Chayre of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued (l) Cyp. ep 55. ad Cornel. and because in her the principality of the Apostolike Chayre hath alwayes florished (m) S Aug. ep 162. And if we come to the Patriarkes of Alexandria of whom this Canon particularly speaketh they did alwayes euen before the Councell of Nice acknowledge themselues subiect to the B. of Rome as appeareth by the example of Dionysius Patriarke of that Citty who being fallen into suspicion of heresy long before the Councell of Nice the Catholikes of Alexandria had not recourse to the Synods of their owne prouinces nor to any other Patriarke of the East but went to Rome to accuse him before Dionysius Pope They went vp to Rome sayth S. Athanasius (n) De sent Dionys to accuse him before the B. of Rome being of his owne name And a litle after (o) Ibid. And the B. of Rome sent to Dionysins to cleare himselfe of those things whereof they had accused him and suddenly he answered sending his bookes of defence and apology And againe (p) De Syn. Arim. Soleu Some hauing accused the B. of Alexandria before the B. of Rome to hold the Sonne for a creature the Synod of Rome that is the Popes Consistory consisting of the neighbour Bishops and the principall Church-men of Rome without whose aduice he iudgeth nothing of importance was offended with him the B of Rome writ to him the opinion of all the Assistants and he for his iustification addressed to him a Booke of defence and apology This playnely sheweth that the custome before the Councell of Nice was that the Bishop and people of Alexandria did acknowledge the Pope of Rome to be their Superior which custome therefore the Councell will haue to goe on But that the true meaning of this Canon may the better be vnderstood it is to be noted that the entire Acts of the Councell of Nice being lost that which remayneth of them in the vulgar copies is but fragments Among the rest this very Canon hath not passed without mutilation for the beginning of it as it is related by Dionysius Abbas an author of 1000. yeares standing is Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum The Roman Church hath alwayes had the primacy This beginning troubleth your patience and to refute it you say (q) Pag. 108. They shame not to preferre one vulgar booke before all other Greeke and Latine Copies False For that beginning of the Canon is in like manner extant in an ancient Manuscript of the famous Monastery of S. Vedastus in Atras written aboue 800. yeares since (r) Of this see Pamelius in Annot. ad lib. Cyp. de Vnit Eccles n. 16. and which taketh away all occasion of doubt it is so read in the famous Councell of Chalcedon (s) Act. 16. True say you (t) Pag. 108. but by the Popes Legates But what Were not the Popes Legates reuerend Bishops and Presidents of that Councell And when they read this beginning of the Canon did the Fathers of that Councell except against it as you do Nay after they had read and considered it did they not say (u) Act. 16. Ex his quae gesta vel ab vnoquoque deposita sunt perpendimus omnem primatum honorem praecipuum secundum canones antiquae Romae Deo amantissmo Archiepiscopo conseruari By those things which haue bene done and the proofes which haue bene produced on both sydes we find that according to the Canons all primacy and chiefe honor is preserued to the most beloued of God the Archbishop of old Rome Then which words none can be more effectuall to declare the primacy of the Pope to be Primacy of authority and iurisdiction and not of order only as you falsely comment both because primacy of order is not all primacy nor is it the chiefe honor for the honor due to superiority of gouerment and iurisdiction is farre aboue it Besides that as I haue already shewed (x) Aboue Chap. 12. and shall in the next Chapter proue (y) Sect. 2. this your shift of Primacy of Order to which you often
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
blessed memory as of all our predecessers we command your Dilection to keepe so that if any one contemne them he may know that pardon shall be denied him And to the Bishops of Maurirania (i) Ep. 8â— We command that the cause of Lupicinus Bishop be heard there whom we haue restored to our communion he himselfe earnestly and often desiring it These few testimonies of holy and renowned Popes that liued before S. Gregory are sufficient to shew how ignorantly you affirme that it was not the style of Popes in the ancient and primitiue tymes to Command And as the ancient Popes commanded when it was necessary for them to shew their authority so the Bishops euen the greatest Patriarkes acknowledged in them authority to command and in themselues subiection and obligation to obey For did not S. Athanasius vpon Pope Iulius his citation obey taking his iourney from Aegypt to Rome (k) Theoder l. 2. hist c. 4. and doth he not professe his subiection to Marcus Pope (l) Ep. ad Marc. when he sayth We are yours and with all that are committed to our charge are and will euer be obedient to you And do not the African Fathers writing to Bonifacius Pope promise to obey his Mandates vntill a more diligent inquisition of the Nicen Canons And do not the Fathers of the Mileuitan Councell beseech Innocentius the first to shew his authority against the Pelagians Many say they (m) Ep. ad Innocent oppose against them in defence of Grace and the truth of the Catholike fayth c. But we belieue that with the helpe of the mercy of our Lord Iesus Christ they that hold these opinions so peruerse and pernicious will more easily yeld to the authority of your Holinesse drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures And when Paschasinus B. of Lilibaea Lucentius of Ascoli Legates of Leo pope said to the Councell of Chalcedon (n) Conc. Chalced. Act. 1. We haue in our hands the Commands of the blessed and Apostolike Prelate of the Citty of Rome wherby he hath vouchsafed to ordaine that Dioscorus sit not in the Councell and that if he offer to do it he be cast out 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 which neuer was lawfull nor hath euer benedone And did not the Councell obey the Popes command causing Dioscorus not to sit among the Bishops as a Iudge but as a person guilty to stand in the midest of the place to yeld account of hid proceedings And did not the Bishops of Dardania in their Epistle to Gelasius acknowledge that they had receaued his commands with due reuerence and thanke him that he had vouchsafed to visit them with his Pastorall admonitions And did not the Bishops of France in the second Councell of Tours say (o) Can. 21. Our Fathers haue alwayes obserued what the authority of the See Apostolike hath commanded And when Chrysostome was deposed by a Councell of Bishops at Constantinople did he not appeale to Innocentius Pope and petition him in these wordes (p) Ep. 1. ad Innocent Vouchsafe to command that these things so wickedly done we being absent and not refusing iudgment may not be valide as in truth they are not and that they which haue caried themselues so iniustly may be submitted to the punishment of the Ecclesiasticall lawes And when Theodoret B. of Cyre was deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus did he not write to Leo Pope (q) 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 to command that I transport my selfe to you and verify that my Doctrine followes the Apostolike steps And finally did not the Emperors Theodosius Valentinian (r) Nouel Theod. tit 24. publish a law which ordeynes that to all Bishops those thinges shall be lawes which haue bene or shall be ordeyned by the Apostolike See in such sorte that whatsoeuer Bishop being called by the Pope shall refuse to appeare shall be constrayned therunto by the Gouernor of the Prouince These and a thousand more examples which may be alleaged conuince that it was the stile of ancient Popes before S. Gregories tyme to command when necessity required it and that all Bishops and generally all Christians acknowledged this power in the Popes and in themselues obligation to obey And as for S. Gregory in particular who say you vtterly abhorred the word Command as he was a man of admirable humility so his gouerment was not dominiering in the Clergy but according to the commandment of Christ (s) Lue. 2â— 27 and of S. Peter his predecessor (t) 1. Pet. 5.2 with great meekenesse and humility and therfore writing to Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria he wisheth him L. 7. ep â—5 not to mention any command of his for when crimes exact it not sayth he all Bishops according to the condition of humility are equall And in many places of his workes he teacheth (x) L. 4. ep 38. l. 2. Pasto. c. 7. Hom. 18. in Ezechiel that the Ecclesiasticall Gouernor ought to make himselfe a companion and equall to his subiects and whiles they do well to preferre himselfe before them in nothing but yet so that if they offend he shew his power and authority in correcting them This therfore is the reason why in his Epistle to Eulogius which you obiect he beseecheth him not to say that he commanded for being he writ not to him to taxe him of any crime or offence committed though by the authority of his place he knew himselfe to be his Superior yet by humility he made himselfe his equall and wished him not to say that he commanded for sayth he I commanded not but endeauored to signify those things which are profitable All which notwithstanding the same S. Gregory to shew that in authority and iurisdiction he was Superior to Eulogius and all other Bishops and had power to command and punish them when they ossended sayth (y) L. 7. ep 64. For wheras the Patriarke of Constantinople confesseth himselfe subiect to the See Apostolike I know no Bishop that is not subiect to it And what he professed in words he practised in deedes commanding and exercising his iurisdiction ouer the Bishops of all Christian nations as out of his writings and the confessions of our owne more learned brethren I haue formerly proued (z) Chap. 15. sect 3. But because you so boldly auerre that he vtterly abhorred the word Command (a) Pag. 114. I will briefly shew how ignorantly and vntruly you speake for to Anthemius he writeth (b) L. 11. ep 35. Because notice hath bene giuen vs that the Bishops of Campania are negligent c. therfore with this authority we command you to call them together and by vertue of our Command to giue them a strict
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
professe by acknowledging (c) Ibid. that he ruled ouer them as the Head doth ouer the members and therfore beseeching him to confirme their decrees with his authority they adde (d) Ibid. We pray you to honor our iudgment with your decrees and that as in what concernes the Weale we haue held correspondence to our Head so your Soueraignty wold fulfill vnto your Children what is fit and conuenient These testimonies so cleare and pregnant cannot but conuince the vnderstanding of any impartiall reader that the Councell of Chalcedon beleeued the vniuersall authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome whom therefore the same Councell often calleth (e) Act. 1.2.3 Bishop of the vniuersall Church SECT III. Whether the title of Vniuersall Bishop which the Councell of Chalcedon gaue to the Pope argue in him no more but a generall care of the good of the Church such as belonges to euery Bishop and to euery Christian. OF all the proofes hereunto alleaged you take no notice two only excepted namely of the title of Vninersall Bishop and of the metaphor of a Vine by which the Councell expresseth the vniuersall Church saying (f) In relat ad Leon. that the custody therof is by Christ our Sauiour committed to the Pope These two you call Two postes to support the ruinous Monarchy of the B. of Rome And your answeare to them here (g) Pag. 117.118 and afterwards againe (h) Pag. 236. is that these attributes import no vniuersall power of iurisdiction in the Pope but of prouidence and care which euery Bishop shold haue in wishing and to his power endeauoring the vniuersall good of the whole Church But if the words of the Councell import no more it will follow that the custody of the vniuersall Church that is the gouerment therof was by Christ committed not only to euery Bishop but also to euery Christian man and woman who should wish and to their power procure the vniuersall good of the whole Church But you obiect (i) Pag. 116.117 236. that Eleutherius Pope writing to the Bishops of France sayth The vniuersall Church of Christ is committed to you that you may labor for all men and that according to Binius his exposition the meaning of Eleutherius is that for as much as heretikes oppugne the Catholike and vniuersall Church is belongeth to euery Bishop to haue an vniuersall care to defend and support it And this say you is a true answere indeed But you speake vntruly and interprete falsly for Binius hath no such word as Vniuersall care nor doth he speake of Bishops only but sayth that a care solicitude of defending the vniuersall Church against heretikes belongeth not only to Bishops but to euery Christian for as much as we are commanded by God Eccl. c. 4. to fight fortruth and iustice vntill death How do these words of Binius proue that the Pope hath not or that the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledged him not to haue authority and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church but only a charitable care of her good as S. Paul had and as euery Bishop and euery Christian man and woman according to their power are bound to haue for did not that Councel giue to Pope Leo the title of Vniuersall Archbishop and Patriarke or as you set it downe (k) Pag. 235. of Bishop of the vniuersall Church but these words say you (l) Ibid. were not the words of the Councell but of two Deacons writing to the Councell and of Paschasinus the Popes Legate False for it was giuen to him (m) Act. 3. in foure different petitions of Theodorus and Ischyrion Deacons of Alexandria of Athanasius a Priest of the same City and of Sophronius And the Councell approuing thereof commanded theyr petitions to be registred in the Acts. Moreouer the same title was giuen him by Paschasinus who though he were his legate was a Reuerend Bishop as also by Martian the Emperor the Councell no way excepting therat And did not S. Gregory and after him the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas testify that the whole Councell of Chalcedon with the following Fathers gaue the same title to Leo Pope And did not Leo a man of admirable sanctity learning instyle himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church And did not the Regulars of Constantinople and of Syria and the Bishops of the Patriarkships of Antioch and Hierusalem giue the same tytle to Agapetus Pope in the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas (n) See all this proued aboue Chap. 15. sect 3. Againe did not the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledge in Leo power to restore Theodoret to his Bishoprick of Cyre bordering vpon Persia from which he had bene deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus (o) Act. â— Did it not acknowledge in him authority to depose Dioscorus the greatest Patriarch of the East (p) Act. 3. Did not all those Fathers being the representatiue body of the Vniuersall Church professe (q) In relat ad Leon. that Leo Pope did preside rule ouer them as the Head ouer the members Is this Authority common to euery Bishop Or did Eleutherius or the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledge any such thing But he that will see how imposterously you wrest the testimony of Eleutherius against the vniuersall power and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome and against the meaning of the Councell of Chalcedon let him read the epistle and he shall finde that Eleutherius a litle before the words which you obiect declareth that althought it be lawfull to examine the accusations and crimes obiected against Bishops either before their Metropolitans or before the Bishops of their owne Prouince yet that it is not lawfull to end them there for as much as it hath bene decreed by the Apostles their Successors that the finall decision of Bishops causes is to be referred to the See Apostolike and no others substituted in their places vntill their iudgments be ended at Rome Can there be a more full expression of the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church then to professe him to be the sole supreme Iudge of all Bishops Or can there be a greater imposture then to obiect this epistle of Eleutherius for the contrary SECT IV. Whether the Councell of Chalcedon did giue to the B. of Constantinople priuiledges equall with the B. of Rome YOu obiect heere (r) Pag. 118. and often repeate that the Fathers of Chalcedon did giue priuiledges to the Patriarke of Constantinople equall with the Church of Rome Answeare The Fathers of Chalcedon in absence of the Popes Legates of the Patriarke of Alexandria and of all the Bishopes of Aegypt at the suggestion of Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople renewed the decree of the 150. Fathers made in the first generall Councell of that City which was that the B. of Constantinople shold haue the second place of honor after the B. of Rome And to this decree was added that he should haue equall priuiledges
of the Canons but iustly deposed him from the Episcopall See of this Citty Loe here the first sentence absolutely finished by Agapet before his death And then speaking of the second sentence they adde (m) Ibid. Afterwards the Bishops of Palestine assembled in this Citty and others of the East and deputies of others and we did againe present petitions touching Anthymus and the other heretikes and demanded that Anthymus should certify his beliefe by writ to the See Apostolike and should purge himselfe from all hereticall errors in this case returne to the Church of Trebizond or if he would not do it that he should be finally condemned and deposed from all Sacerdotall dignity and action And a litle after (n) Ibid. These our iust requests the same most holy personage Agapet preuenting and seeing that Anthymus had fayled to appeare condemned him with the aforesaid heretikes and despoiled him of all office and dignity Sacerdotall and of all title Orthodoxall euen till the pennance of his errors The same is declared by all the Fathers of that Councell who in their sentence pronounced against Anthymus speaking of his first deposition say (o) Act. 4. The Blessed Pope Agapet of most holy and happy memory setting with God his hand to the sacred Canons deposed Anthymus from the See which belonged not to him pardoning those which had participated and communicated in the act And then passing to the second sentence they adde (p) Ibid. But because that euen in doctrine Anthymus was charged with many accusations and that many petitions were preferred against him by diuers reuerend personages to the most religious Emperor and the most blessed Pope the same most blessed Pope after much paine taken with a Fatherly care to regaine his soule c. pronounced a sentence in writing against him full of Clemency and seemly holynesse granting him tyme of repentance and ordayned that vntill he had changed his opinion and satisfyed the doctrines canonically defined by the Fathers be should neither haue the title of a Catholike nor of a Priest This sheweth that the Councell intermedled not at all with the first sentence of Agapet by which Anthymus was deposed from the See of Constantinople but because this second sentence of his deposition from the See of Trebizond was not absolute but left depending and subiect to reuocation if he should appeare and purge himselfe from heresy the Councell taking the cause where the Pope left it and according to the order giuen by him cited Anthymus thrice to appeare and because he appeared not executed the Popes sentence on him deposing him from the Bishopricke of Trebizond and depriuing him of the title of a Priest and the name of a Catholike We say they (q) Act. 4. in sentent cont Anthym following those things which haue bene rightly examined by the most blessed Pope ordayne that he as an vnprofitable and rotten member be cast out of the body of the holy Churches of God and depriued of the Bishopricke of Trebizond and depriued of all sacred dignity and action and according to the sentence of the most holy Pope stript euen of the name of a Catholike Who now seeth not how ignorantly and vntruly you haue said (r) Pag. 122. that The cause of Anthymus which the Pope had condemned was afterwards ventilated in the Councell of Constantinople For those Fathers neither questioned nor any way examined either the first or the second sentence of the Pope against Anthymus but assembled themselues to put in execution the sentence which Agapet had pronounced and being preuented by death could not see executed All which is so farre from making against the iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the Bishops of the East that it is a strong proofe therof And that it may better appeare how vnaduised you are to vrge this history against the authority of the Roman Church it is to be noted that Anthymus an Eutychian heretike not contenting himselfe with his owne Bishopricke of Trebizond by the fauor of Iustinian who as yet knew not that he was an heretike and chiefly by the craft of Theodora the Empresse an Eutychian and for that cause a great fauorer of Anthymus intruded himselfe to the See of Constantinople But Agapet Pope coÌ„ming thither deposed him and with his owne hands ordayned Menas in his place which was an admirable effect of the power of S. Peter in his Successor for at that tyme Constantinople was the seate of Iustinian and the Head of the Empire wheras Rome was oppressed and made a slaue vnder the tiranny of Gothes a barbarous and Arian people The Church of Constantinople was most florishing and glorious and that of Rome greatly depressed and afflicted Iustinian the Emperor waâ— vâ—ctorious and triumphant and contrarily the Pope brought to such straytes that Theodat an Arian King of the Gothes threatned to ruinate the Roman Church vnlesse he would goe to Constantinople solicite the Emperor for peace and procure him to call his armies out oâ— Italy which vâ—â—â—ge therfore Agapet could not refuse though he were so poore that for the performance therof he was inforced to pawne the sacred Vessells of his Church wheras on the other side Anthymus being exalted by the Emperor and Empresse from the Bishoptick of Trebâ—zond to the Patriarkeship of Constantinople was very powrefull in meanes and highly fouored by them both And yet neuerthelesse and that the Empresse threatned Agapet if he deposed Anthymus and promised him great rewards if he would leaue him in the See of Constantinople the holy Pope soon after his ariuall being a stranger and without support deposed him casting him out of that See euen in the very Imperiall Citty in the presence of the Emperor that fauoured him and excommunicated Theodora the Empresse that obstinatly maintained him and with his owne hands ordained Menas a Priest of Constantinople in his place and pardoned Peter Patriarke of Hierusalem and other Bishops of the East that had communicated with him All this is accordingly reported by Marcellinus Comes (s) In Chron. Liberatus (t) Breu. c. 12. Victor of Tunes (u) In Chron. edit per Ios Scal. ad calc Chron. Euseb and Iustinian himselfe (x) Nou. 42. and is so cleare an euidence for the supreme authority of the B. of Rome that it admitteth no colour of answeare SECT III. Of the matter treated in the fifth generall Councell THe matter disputed in this Councell was about certaine writings of Theodorus Mopsuestinus Ibas and Theodoret commonly called Tria capitula The three Chapters Before the Councell Vigilius Pope with the Bishops of the West defended the Three Chapters which the Easterne Bishops opposed and what both of them did was vpon pious considerations in defence of the Councell of Chalcedon The Bishops of the East assembled in a Councell at Constantinople condemned the Three Chapters But Vigilius knowing that the Westerne Bishops stood in opposition to their sentence refused to confirme it hoping by that
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
Apostles And wheras you (r) Pag. 131. appeale to our consciences and bid vs in all our reading shew vnto you if we can that Polycrates and other Asian Bishops so excommunicated by Pope Victor were held by any other Catholike Bishops of those tymes to be therby without the state of saluation we contrarily appeale to the conscience of any christian man whether it be not damnable doctrine to mantaine as you do that these Qartadeciman heretikes after they knew themselues to be excommunicated by the Pope and anathematized by so many Councels if they repented not but persisted obstinatly in the defence of their heresy cold be in state of saluation And lastly wheras you add (s) Pag. 131. that wee full well know that S. Hierome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiasticall writers numbred Polycrates among those who did aduance the Catholike fayth we know that you speake ignorantly and vntruly for S. Hierome in that his Catalogue doth not only number Catholikes but also diuers heretikes that writ of Ecclesiasticall affaires as Eusebius Caesariensis whome the same S. Hierome (t) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. cals The ring-leader of the Arians And so likewise he numbreth Nouatianus Donatus and Photinus whom in that very Catalogue he acknowledgeth not only to be heretikes but authors and propagators of seuerall heresies And in no other condition doth he number Polycrates whom he commendeth not for aduancing the Catholike fayth as you affirme but hauing set downe a piece of his epistle written to Pope Victor in defence of his error sayth He reports it to shew the wit and authority of the man where by authority he vnderstands not authority of right but of fact that is the credit which Polycrates had among the Quartadecimans CHAP. XXIV Doctor Morton in opposition to the Roman Church defendeth the Hereticall Doctrine of Rebaptization FIRMILIANVS B. of Caesarea in Cappadocia with other Asian Bishops out of their great hatred to heresy decreed in their Councells of Iconium Synnada that Baptisme giuen by Heretikes was inualid and therfore that Heretikes returning to the Catholike Church were to be baptized a new This Doctrine from Asia crept into Africa and Agrippinus B. of Carthage hauing layd the first grounds therof Cyprian with other African Bishops afterwards imbraced the same so far that for the authorizing therof they assembled a Councell of 80. Bishops at Carthage All which notwithstanding that doctrine as being contrary to the tradition and practise of the Catholike Church was forbidden by Stephen then Pope of Rome in these words Nihil innouetur sed seruetur quod traditum est Let no innouation be made but that obserued which hath come by tradition Firmilianus with other Bishops of Asia notwithstanding this prohibition persisted still in their error and were for that cause excommunicated by Stephen Wherat Firmilianus storming in his fury spued out reprochfull and contumelious words against him But Cyprian although he defended the same error yet not as a doctrine of fayth nor condemning the contrary nor censuring the Pope or the rest that defended it as any way guilty of Heresy for as S. Augustine writing against the Donatists and excusing Cyprian (u) L. 2. de Bapt. t. 18. l. 2. c. 4. sayth If he held that opinion it was before it was condemned by a a generall Councell to which he would most easily haue submitted his iudgment if any such had bene held in his tyme. And moreouer if he held it it was with so great temper that as both he himselfe (x) Ep. ad Iuba in Conc. Carthag and S. Augustine (y) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18. 19. l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9 alibisaepe for him testifieth for the defence therof he neuer forsooke the communion of the Roman Church but as S. Peter dissented from S. Paul concerning the circumcision of Gentils newly conuerted and yet both of them still remayned in Catholike vnity and peace so likewise though Cyprian touching rebaptization differed in opinion from Stephen yet he still remayned in communion with him And therfore when the Donatists defended their heresy by the authority of Cyprian and his Councell S. Augustine answeared (h) Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 32. l. 2. c. 31. alibi saepe that Cyprians patronage could not auaile them because they were out of the communion of the Roman Church in which Cyprian liued and dyed This is the controuersy as it passed betweene Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and Stephen Pope briefly related And you in obiecting it against the Popes authority shew impiety folly and falshood Impiety 1. In taking part with Firmilianus Cyprian in their opposition to Pope Stephen and approuing their doctrine which you know to be erroneous that soone after being condemned by a generall Councell it hath euer since bene held for an absolute heresy not only by Catholikes but also by Protestants And doth not S. Augustine say (i) L. 2. de Bapt. c. 2. that albeit Cyprian Bishop Martyr were a man of great fame and merit yet not of greater then Peter the Apostle and Martyr in whom the principality of the See Apostolike was so eminent which sheweth that Cyprian ought to haue borne respect to Stephen Pope sitting in the See inuested in the authority of Peter Prince of the Apostles And doth he not shew (l) L. 2. Cont. Crescon c. 32. that Cyprian erred herein and that the Epistles which he writ of this subiect are of no force because the contrary was decreed by the authority of the whole Church which is to be preferred before the authority of Cyprian or of any one man whatsoeuer And doth he not (m) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 23. seqq learnedly confute the Epistle which Cyprian writ to Pompeius in defence of his error And wheras you to iustify Cyprian obiect (n) Pag. 134. that he gathered a Councell of 87. Bishops which concluded contrary to the Pope and his Councell celebrated in Italy you know that S. Augustine doubted (o) L. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. whether any such Councell were euer held and if it were whether the greater part of the Votes were not against Cyprian because the Donatists could reckon but 50. Asian and 70. African Bishops that adhered to Firmilianus and Cyprian (p) S. Aug. cont Crescon l. 3. c. 3. wheras many thousands held with Stephen Pope against them And the same S. Augustine (q) L. 6. de Bapt. per tot answeareth and confuteth seuerally euery one of the verdictes of the Bishops which were said to be giuen in that Councell assembled by Cyprian 2. You cannot be excused from impiety in obiecting (r) Pag. 137. against the Popes authority the words which Firmilianus and Cyprian in their passion let slip from their mouthes against Stephen for S. Augustine (s) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 25. held them vnworthy to be mentioned and couered them with this excuse The things which
apud Author cit that he with them all might reioyce in the peace restored to the Church by his meanes And in another to Xistus his successor (g) Apud Euseb l. 5. hist c. 4. he declareth the Popes authority ouer all those Bishops beseeching him to pardon their offence restore them to his communion I writ to Stephen sayth he an Epistle for all those Bishops To conclude you adde another falshood saying (h) Pag. 135. that we grant Stephen Pope to haue excommunicated not only Firmilianus with other Eastern Bishops but also S. Cyprian and you proue it by the testimony of Cassander and hereticall and prohibited Author whome you contrary to your owne knowledge cite as a Catholike writer that so you may haue some colour to call his lies our Confessions as here you doe And indeed what man of common sense can persuade himselfe that the Roman Church would honor S. Cyprian as a glorious Saint and Martyr as she doth if he had died out of her communion and especially if he had contemned her excommunication Lastly I must aduertise you of another absurdity whiles you tell vs (i) Pag. 138. that we should aduise in this case rather with Firmilianus a Bishop liuing in the dayes of S. Cyprian then with S. Augustine who came 150. yeares after for this is to tell vs that we must rather belieue Firmilianus a party and for a tyme guilty both of the heresy of the Quarta decimans of Rebaptization then S. Augustine an Orthodox Doctor and an impartiall witnesse But yet if we aduise with Firmilianus he will condemne you 1. Because he retracted his errors before his death returning to the communion of the Roman Church and witnesse S. Basil (k) De Spir. S. ad Amphil. c. 29. was admitted among the Catholike Bishops in the Councell of Antioch held against Paulus Samosatenus And 2. because in his Epistle to Cyprian he acknowledgeth Stephen to be successor of S. Peter on whom the foundations of the Church were layd And the reason which he yeldeth for his not obeying Stephen is that he must rather obey God then man (l) Extat apud Pamel pag. 198. which is a reason not to be giuen but by one that knowes himselfe bound to obey him that commands if his command be not contrary to the commandment of God as he thought Stephens to be though erroneously as you haue heard CHAP. XXV Other Arguments of Doctor Morton our of S. Cyprian answeared FRom this your mayne Argument of the opposition of Firmilianus and S. Cyprian you passe to other obiections shewing as you say (m) Pag. 134. in tit sect 4. the full opposition of S. Cyprian and other Bishops against Stephen B. of Rome But seeing you acknowledge (n) Pag. 291. alibi the Roman Church to haue bene pure and free from error for the space of 600. yeares and the Popes that liued in S. Cyprians time to be glorious Saints and Martyrs of Christ (o) Pag 172.178.181.287 with what conscience do you make S. Cyprian fully opposite to them and to differ in masters of fayth from them for what els is that but to make S. Cyprian an heretike that so he may seeme to be like to your selfe Now to your obiections of the full opposition of S. Cyprian to Pope Stephen The first is (p) Pag. 134. that S. Cyprian impugned the Popes pretended power of appeales to Rome in proofe wherof you produce ignorantly the examples of Fortunatus and Felicissimus for they appealed not to Pope Stephen but to Cornelius betwene whom and Stephen sate Lucius another Pope Againe the obiection is impertinent for the definitions of Councells confirmed by the Popes and the decrees of the Popes themselues ordeyne that maior causes that is to say of fayth and of Bishops be referred to the See Apostolike but that minor causes that is of the liues manners of Priests and inferior clerkes be finally sentenced ended in their owne prouinces by their Bishops and Metropolitans or by the Councells of their Prouince This is declared by S. Augustine who speaking of Cecilianus B. of Carthage that had bene condemned in Africa by a Councell of 70. Bishops sayth (q) Ep. 162 There was no question then of Priests or Deacons or other Clerkes of the inferior order but of the Colleagues that is so say of Bishops who might reserue their causes intire to the iudgment of the other Colleagues and principally of the Churches Apostolike and therfore that Cecilian might haue contemned the multitude of his enemies conspiring against him for as much as he saw himselfe vnited by communicatory letters with the Roman Church in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike had alwayes florished This sheweth the futility of your obiection For Fortunatus and Felicissimus were not Bishops but simple Priests who hauing bene iudged by their owne Bishops ought not to haue appealed to Rome and therfore Cornelius reiected their appeale and excommunicated them as S. Cyprian declares in that very Epistle which you obiect and returned Felicissimus back into Africa with other his associates sent by Fortunatus for Fortunatus himselfe went not in person to Rome as you mistake but sent Felicissimus with other Schismatikes like himselfe And that S. Cyprian by complaining to Pope Cornelius of these rebellious sugitiâ—â—s did not deny his power of appeales not the subiection of the African Churches to the See of Rome his words in that very Epistle (r) Ep. 55. three lines before to goe no further plainly declare when speaking of these Schismatikes he sayth They presume to saile to the Chaire of Peter and the principall Church from whence sacerdotall Vnity is deriued and to carry betters from schismaticall and prophane persons not hauing in mind that the Romans are they whose fayth was praised by the mouth of the Apostle and to whome vnfaithfulnes can haue no accesse Your second obiection is (s) Pag. 134. that the Councell of Carthage did deny to any whomsoeuer the title of Bishop of Bishops This is an vntruth for the words are not of the Councell but of S. Cyprian who speaketh only of his fellow Bishops of Africa assembled with him in that Councell and to them only he directs his speach wishing them to deliuer their opinion freely without regard to the authority which he as their Primate had ouer them But in what sense soeuer you take the words they are of no force as being vttered in an erroneous Councell which the Church hath condemned which S. Augustine (t) L. 6. de Baptism per tot hath confuted from which S. Cyprian himselfe afterwards disclaymed retracting his error Your third is (u) Pag. 134. that S. Cyprian would not acknowledge the name of Pope per antonomasiam to be proper to the B. of Rome as we teach because at the tyme of his Martyrdome being demanded of the Proconsull Art thou he whom the Christians call their Pope He answeared
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
interuene that could not without much difficulty passe the seas for the debility of sexe or of age or other impediments In regard wherof they requested the Pope not to be facill in admitting appeales of that nature 2. You obiect (z) Pag. 146.151 If it were granted that the Canons for appeales were to be found in the Councell of Sardica yet the Popes Monarchy would stil stand vpon but humane authority for the grant of appeales made in that Synod to Iulius Pope was but vpon fauor not vpon duty not an old custome but a new constitution If it please you say they so much to honor the memory of Peter let vs write to Iulius B. of Rome c. And againe If you all be pleased c. From these words you inferre that the graÌ„t of appeales to Rome is no more but ad placitum and that if the Pope for his pretension could haue drawne a two edged sword ex iure diuino he would not haue fought with this wodden dagger of humane Constitution This wodden Argument you thinke to be of such moment that for want of better you repeate it afterwards againe (a) Pag. 302.303 Your reasoÌ„ I know not for the very words which you obiect shew that the Councell of Sardica did not ground appeales to Rome vpon humane Constitution but vpon diuine right for what is it to honor in the Pope the memory of Peter but to acknowledge him to be S. Peters Successor and consequently Head of the Church And therfore what in their Canon they expresse in these words That we may honor the memory of Peter let it be written to Iulius B. of Rome c. they declare in their Epistle to the same Iulius saying It is very good and fit that from all Prouinces the Bishops haue reference to their head that is to the See of the Apostle Peter Wherfore as the dignity of Head of the Church had belonged to the See of S. Peter from all antiquity by diuine institution as the African Fathers in the Councel of Mileuis haue declared (b) Aug. ep 92. professing the Popes authority to be taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures so likewise had the right of Appeales implicitly conteined in that dignity And on this right was grounded the custome of appealing to Rome from all antiquity as it appeareth out of the Epistle of Iulius Pope (c) Apud Athan. Apolog 2. written to the Arians before the Councell of Sardica Are you ignorant sayth he that the custome is that we be first written to that from hence may proceed the iust decision of things and therfore if there were any suspicion conceaued against the Bishops there you should haue written to vs. And by this right it is that Athanasius Paul and other Bishops of the East being driuen from their seates by the Arians appealed to Iulius Pope before the Councell of Sardica and he restored to each of them their Churches by the prerogatiue of his See and because the charge of all belonged to him (d) Socra l. 2. c. 12. Sozom. l. â— c. 7. Wherfore the Councell of Sardica did not then first institute appeales to Rome as you pretend but only reduce into a written law that which had belonged to the See of Rome by diuine right and had bene formerly practised by custome only And this written Law it is which Osius proposed to be made saying If is please your Charity that we honor the memory of Peter c. In which sense Nicolas the first truly said (e) Ep. ad Michael Imper. The priuiledges of the Roman See were giuen by Christ our Lord celebrated and honored by the Councels but not giuen by them And before him Gelasius an African and scholler to S. Augustine with a Councell of 70. Bishops (f) In Decret de Apocryph Scriptur The holy Roman Church hath not bene preferred before others by any constitutions of Synods but hath obtained the primacy by the voyce of our Lord and Sauiour in the Ghospell saying Thou art Peter c. And the same truth had bene professed long before that tyme by Iulius Pope in his first Epistle to the Easterne Bishops in the cause of Athanasius (g) Extat apud Bin. to 1. pag. 399. Nor is it new for a Councell to make a written decree for the presetuation and obseruance of that which formerly had bene practised in the Church by custome only why els did the first Councell of Constantinople speaking of the ordination of Bishops by their Metropolitans say (h) Apud Theodoreâ— l. 5. hist c. 9. It is as you know a law both grounded on custome and on the decision of the Councell of Nice The example of a King wherwith you conclude this point is against your selfe for although she dignity of a King include a supreme right of appeales to be made vnto him yet it is no derogation to his Royall dignity to haue a written law enacted in Parliament for the preseruation of that right against all such as shall either iniustly deny the same or at least shall thinke the practise of them to be inconuenient 3. You say (i) Pag. 146. Antiquity hath denied that any Canon for appeales was to be found in the Councell of Sardica This is an vntruth sufficiently refuted by what hath bene said (k) Sect. 2. 3. and by your owne Confession pretending that the right of Appeales is not by diuine institution but by humane because the decree which the Councell of Sardica made in fauor of them was a humane constitution But that you may not seeme â—o speake without ground you falsify Salmeron (l) Pag. 147. He speaking of the reseruation of cases in the inward court of conscience that is in the Sacrament of pennance sayth (m) In 1. part 5. disp 8. In S. Cyprians tyme non erant casus peculiares conscientiae ipsi Pontifici reseruati No peculiar cases of conscience were reserued to the Pope You to make him speake of the contentions Court to deny that any Appeales were anciently reserued to the Pope peruert his words thus Tempore Cypriani non erant casus peculiares reseruati conscientiae Pontificis In the tyme of Cyprian there were no peculiar cases reserued to the conscience of the Pope or as you english In the dayes of S. Cyprian there was no reseruation of any such cases namely of appeales in vse for of them you speake Answere now Is it all one to say non erant casus peculiares conscientiae ipsi Pontifici reseruati as Salmeron sayth to say non erant casus peculiares reseruati conscientiae Pontificis as you say No there cannot be a more wilfull falsification For 1. you misplace Salmerons words 2. You turne Pontifici into Pontificis And 3 you put conscientiae into the construction of the datiue case which Salmeron hath in the genitiue How can this iuggling be excused 4. You say (n) Pag. 144. The African
Catholike Bishop then they did when they were heretikes from the lawes of the Emperors This was the cause why S. Augustine and this sixth Councell of Carthage beseeched Celestine not to grant Clerkes executors to all Appellants And this conuinceth you of an vntruth in saying (b) Pag. 145. fin 151. that the African Fathers call that Papall presumption of Appeales a smoaky secular arrogancy which they will not indure for it is not the Popes clayme of appeales that they qualify with the name of typhe or smoaky secular arrogancy but partly the vexation and insolence of Apiarius and other Priests despising and shaking off the yoake of Episcopall discipline and partly the force military Violence which the executors sent from Rome did somtimes vse in executing the iudgments of the See Apostolike For speaking to Boniface Pope of the insolency of Apiarius they say (c) Conc. Afric c. 101. But we hope by the help of Gods mercy that your Holinesse gouerning in the Roman See we shall no longer suffer this typhe And because the executors did somtimes make vse of secular forces they beseech Celestine (d) Ibid. c. 105. not to grant Clerkes executors to all that demand thē lest the typhe of the world be introduced into the Church Which is agreeable to the decree of the Councell of Ephesus forbidding Iohn Patriarke of Antioch to make vse of any military power to hinder the Bishops of Cyprus from electing to themselues an Archbishop without his consent lest sayth the Councell vnder pretence of executing sacred things the typhe of secular power be introduced into the Church And in the same sense the Author (*) Cap. 26. of S. Fulgentius his life said that Fulgentius commanded nothing with the typhe of secular dominion And no lesse vntruly (e) Pag. 145. fin you make the Africans say in their Epistle to Celestine that they will not indure the Papal presumtion of appeales there being no such thing to be read in that Epistle For what they speake of not induring hath no relation to Appeales but to the crimes of Apiarius As for the wretched Apiarius say they he hauing bene already cast out of the Church of Christ for his infamous crimes by our brother Faustinus we are no more in care for as much as by the meanes of the approbation and moderation of your Holinesse Africa will no longer indure him 5. You say (f) Pag. 155. This Councell denounced excommunication to all that thinke it lawfull to appeale beyond the seas This is another vntruth for the Councell speakes not of Bishops but of Priests and inferior Clerkes only so much you contradicting your selfe had acknowledged a little before setting downe the very words of the Councell thus (g) Pag. 146. If any Priest shall thinke that he ought to appeale beyond the sea meaning to Rome let him not be receaued any longer into the communion of the Church of Africke You reply (h) Pag. 155. that this answeare is a sophistry confuted by the consequence of the Councell for if inferior Clergy were prohibited much more was the same prouision made in behalfe of Bishops This consequence we deny as false sophistry for albeit they proposed this among their requests to Pope Celestine yet they made no decree nor prouision therof nor if they had cold it haue bene of force as being directly contradictory to the Canons of the two famous Councels of Nice and Sardica (i) See aboue Chap. 26. and also to the beliefe of S. Augustine saying (k) Ep. 162. that Cecilian might haue appealed beyond the sea because he was not of the number of Priests or other inferior Clerkes but of Bishops And moreouer he represented to Celestine Pope (l) Ep. 261. that wheras Antony B. of Fussala being depriued of his Bishoprick by the Bishops of Africa and left only with the bare title of Bishop had appealed to Boniface his predecessor he would be pleased to confirme the sentence of the Bishops of Africa because sayth he there had bene many like sentences in Africa euen the See Apostolike pronouncing the iudgmēt or confirming the iudgment of others as of Priscus Victor and Lawrence Bishops of the Cesarian Prouince SECT V. Whether this Controuersy of Appeales wrought in the Africans any separation of Communion from the Roman Church TO make your argument more plausible you say (m) Pag. 148. that by reason of this controuersy between the Africans and the Bishops of Rome Aurelius B. of Carthage his fellow Bishops of Africk with whom S. Augustine did consent were for the space of an hundred yeares separated frō the Church of Rome Of all the vntruths vttered in this your discourse of the sixt Councell of Carthage this is the greatest which therfore you haue reserued to the last place Finis coronat opus For that the African Fathers euen of this sixth Councell of Charthage during the very tyme of this controuersy remained still vnited to the See of Rome is proued 1. By the clause of their Epistle written to Pope Celestine in the end of this controuersy (n) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 646. Our Lord keepe your Holinesse many yeares praying for vs Lord and Brother which were the very worlds of peace and communion vsed in Formed letters that were neuer giuen to any but to Catholikes of the same communion (o) Aug. ep 162.163 2. Out of S. Augustine who in the current of this difference writing to Boniface Pope dedicating one of his chiefest workes vnto him sayd (p) Cont. duas ep Pelag. ad Bonifa l. 1. Thou disdainest not thou who art not high minded though thou presidest higher to be a friend of the humble 3. Out of the testimony which Pope Celestine gaue of S. Augustine after his death (q) Ep. ad Epise Galliae c. 2. Augustine a man of holy memory for his lyfe merits we haue had alwaies in our communion nor hath the rumor of any sinister suspicion euer so much as touched him which Epistle of Celestine to the French is alleaged by Pettus Diaconus (r) L. de incarn grat and by Prosper (s) Cont. Collat c. 42. to iustify S. Augustines doctrine against the Pelagians 4. And the same Prosper (t) L. de promiss predict par 3. c. 38. calles Aurelius Archbishop of Carthage vnder whom the African Councell was held after his death A Father and Bishop of worthy memory and a Citizen of the heauenly country which praise he would not haue giuen him if he had died out of the communion of the Roman Church for Prosper in that very booke (u) Part. 4. c. 5. sayth that a Christian communicating with that Church is a Catholike but if he be separated from it he is an heretike and Antichrist 5. Capreolus immediat successor to Aurelius writing to the Bishops assembled in the Councell of Ephesus (x) Act. Conc. Ephes to 2. c. 9. Wee pray you
and Scots not celebrating Easter after the manner of the Roman Church were for that cause separated from her Communion AMONG other examples of ancient Churches which you pretend to haue bene separated from the Church of Rome and yet in state of saluation you produce for your last instance (l) Pag. 156. 157. 158. the Britans and Scots who kept their Easter if not wholly after the Iewish manner yet contrary to the custome of the Roman Church of the whole Christian world Wherin you are guilty of diuers vntruthes For first you speake of this their custome as ancient among the Britans wheras Bede (m) L. 2. hist Anglo c. 19. recordeth that Honorius Pope about the yeare 635. and Iohn the fourth a few yeares after writ to the Britans and Scots letters full of authority and learning for correcting this errorâ— that Pope Iohn in the beginning of his Epistle (n) Extat apud Bin. to 2. pag. 1029. manifestly declareth nuperrime temporibus istis exortam esse haeresim hanc that this heresy was very lately sprung vp among them which Florentius Wigorniensis also testifieth saying (o) In Chron. an 628. Eo tempore c. At that time Honorius Pope did reproue the error of the Quartadecimans in the celebration of Easter sprung vp among the Scots 2. You attribute this custome to the Britans Scots in generall as if they had bene all guilty therof wheras Venerable Bede attributes it not to all the Britans non totis sayth he (p) L. 3 hist cap. 25. not to all of them nor to all the Scots but especially to such as dwelled in Ireland and also to some of them that dwelled in Britany Besides the whole English Church in a manner was free from that error 3. You assume (q) Pag. 190. as granted by vs that the Britans and Scots were schismatically diuided from the Church of Rome but not heretically That their opinion was Hereticall you haue heard Bede testify saying that this heresy was very lately sprung vp among them And who knoweth not that as hath bene proued (r) Chap. 23. the Quartadecimans had bene long before that time anathematized by the three first generall CouÌ„cells of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus and the maintainers of that error registred for heretikes by Philastrius S. Augustine Theodoret and others All which notwithstanding you are not ashamed to say (s) Pag. 157. init that the Britan Church did Orthodoxally in following the Quartadociman rite contrary to the custome of the Roman Church 4. Though the Britans and Scots in this their obseruation did disagree from the rest of the Christian world yet because they did it not with a schismaticall intention but out of simplicity and ignorance of the Ecclesiasticall computation they liuing in a corner of the world whither no learned Catholike Calculator of times had as yet come vnto them the See Apostolike did still retaine them in her communion deeming this error pardonable in them And therfore when the Abbot Colmanus in the famous conference held betweene him and Wilfridus concerning this matter vrged in defence of their custome (t) Apud Bed l. 3. hist. c. 25. that they could not belieue that their Reuerend Father Columba and his successors being men so beloued of God did contrary to the holy Scriptures in celebrating Easter as vntill that tyme they had done Wilfride answeared (u) Ibid. I deny not but that your Fathers were seruants of God and beloued of him whom they loued with a rude kind of simplicity but with a godly intention Nor do I thinke that this their obseruation of Easter was greatly hurtfull vnto them so long as none had come to them to informe them of the decrees of more perfection which they ought to haue obserued For I belieue that if a Catholike Calculator had come vnto them they would haue followed his admonitions c. And therfore sayth Baronius (x) Anno 604. n. 5. It seemed not good to the Catholike Church to blotout of the Catalogue of Saints such men as had liued among them eminent in sanctity and whom God had illustrated with miracles 5. But to proue that the Scottish and Brittish Churches were not subiect to the Roman you alleage (z) Pag. 157. marg Galfridus out of the Centurists saying Dinothus a learned Abbot proued with many Arguments that they owed no subiection to Augustine whom S. Gregory had sent to preach the fayth of Christ to the English This is a falsification which therfore you vent in the Centurists name for Galfridus hath not any one word of the Britans or Scots no-subiection to the Church of Rome but only a passionate and cholerick speach of the Britans not acknowledging any superiority of Augustine ouer them seing he was sent only to the English and that the authority of their owne Archbishop was not taken away by his comming for ought they knew which question of iurisdiction falleth out daily between Bishops euen where the Popes authority is most acknowledged Yea moreouer that both the Britans and Scots acknowledged the authority of the B. of Rome ouer them Galfridus against you and your Centurists beareth witnesse reporting (a) L. 9. c. 12. 11. that on the day of Pentecost at Chester King Arthur being present there was a great meeting of Princes Lords and Bishops for his Coronation And that of three Archbishops which Britaine had at that time of Chester London and Yorke Dubritius Archbishop of Chester being Primate of Britaine and Legate of the See Apostolike did the office of the Church and crowned King Arthur If therfore the Pope had his Legate in Britaine and that no lesse a man then the Primate of all Britaine it is manifest that the Britans acknowledged the authority of the See Apostolike oâ—er them Which is yet made more euident because as your Bale (b) De script Eceles fol. 30. confesseth Dauid that famous Welsh Bishop was canonized by Pope Calixtus the second and not only Bale but S. Prosper (c) Chron. â—n 432.434 Bede (d) L. 1. hist c. 13. 17. and Marianus Scotus (e) Chron. an 430. write that Celestine Pope sent Palladius and Germanus learned Bishops into Britaine to extirpate the Pelagian heresy and to reduce the Scots to true piety and Patricius who had studied Diuinity in Rome and was a man most excellent in learning and sanctity to the Irish and Scots to defend them from the same heresy All which sheweth that aswell the Britans as also the Scots Irish euen before the comming of S. Augustine were in the communion of the Roman Church and that the Pope had supreme care ouer them in spirituall affaires since he appointed them Bishops from Rome Iustly therefore may we conclude that your denying the subirction of the British Scotish and Irish Churches to the See of Rome at the time of S. Augustines coming into this Iland to preach to the English is grounded
much that he hath left an especiall Constitution as a perpetuall monument therof to the world (b) Apud Gratis d. 19. c. 30. in Conc. Triburieu c. 30. He could haue told you that Basilius Macedo being present at the eight generall Councell in his Oration to the Fathers there assembled made (c) Act. 6. append open profession of his obedience to be Bishop and Church of Rome and that he gaue this memorable aduice to the Laity (d) Oras in fine Conc. that whereas not they but Bishops haue the charge of gouerment in the Church with the power of binding and loosing the dignity of Pastors belongs to them and that as well himselfe as all lay-men are sheep to be fed to be sanctified to be bound and losed from their bonds by them And if from Emperors he had passed to Kings he could haue told you that howbeit in the time of Lucius the first Christian King of this Iland there were many Churches sounded in Germany France and Spaine yet he desiring to be made a Christian required not the Sacrament of Baptisme from any Bishop of those Countries nearer at hand but writ and sent Embassadors to Eleutherius Pope that from him as from the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church himselfe his Queene and people might receaue so necessary a Sacrament as they did by the hands of Fugatius and Damianus whom Eleutherius sent for that purpose into Britaine (e) Bed hist. Augl l. 1. c. 4. de sex aesat He could haue told you that Of win King vnderstanding that the keyes of Heauen were giuen to S. Peter and that the Bishop of Rome was his Successor resolued not to oppose him but so farre forth as he knew and was able to obey his decrees in all things (f) Bed hist. Augl l. 3. c. 25. He could haue told you that Pope Adrian the first being dead and Leo chosen in this place Kenulphus King of the Mercians writ to him (g) Continuat histor Bode l. 1. c. 12. giuing thankes to God that he had prouided for his flock so solicitous a Pastor to whose commands said he I thinke fit to lend humbly an obedient eare And hauing asked his benediction he addeth This benediction all the Kings of the Mercians which haue gone before me haue obtained And that which I humbly craue and desire to obtayne from you O most holy is that you accept of me as your adopted Child as I choose and with all obedience reuerence you in the place of a Father He could haue told you that S. Edward the Confessor writing to Nicolas Pope (h) Alred Rieual in vita S. Edward addressed his letter to him with this inscription To the soueraigne Father of the vniuersall Church Nicolas Edward by the grace of God King of England due subiection If from England he had passed to other Countries he could haue told you that the most Christian King of France Lewis the eleauenth writing to Pius the second saluted him with this title (i) Ep. ad Pium 2. To our most blessed Father Pius the second Pope filiall obedieuce And in the Epistle We haue you that are the Vicar of the liuing God in so great veneration that with a willing minde we are ready to heare your sacred admonitions especially in Ecclesiasticall affaires as the voyce of our Pastor for we professe and know you to be the Pastor of our Lords flock and we obey your commands And among the documents which this holy King S. Lewis on his death-bed left in writing to Philip his Sonne this was one (k) Nangius de gest S. Ludou Surius 25. Aug. Be thou deuout and obedient to the Roman Church as to a Mother and shew thy selfe dutifull to the Bishop therof as to thy spirituall Father It were not difficult to adde more testimonies in the same kind of other Kings of France as of Charles and Hugh of Alphonsus the wise and Ferdinand the Catholike of Spaine of Leo King of the Armenians of Sigismund of Poland c. But these may suffice to persuade any iudicious reader that the most wise and godly Christian Emperors and Kings that Christendome hath bred haue belieued the Pope to be their Pastor and spirituall Father and themselues bound to yeld obedience to him in the affaires of their soules and withall to shew the falshood of your contrary Tenet CHAP. XXX Whether Christian Emperors haue inuested themselues in Ecclesiasticall affaires YOV maintaine the affirmatiue which you proue with seuerall examples all of them directly against your selfe SECT 1. Constantine the Great inuested not himselfe in Ecclesiasticall Causes IN the first place you alleage the example of Constantine the great who was so farre from medling with Ecclesiasticall causes that being solicited in the Councel of Nice to heare and determine certaine controuersies of Bishops he answeared (l) Ruffin l. 1 c. 1.8 Greg. l. 4 〈◊〉 72. Baron an 32â— God hath constituted you Priests and giuen you power to iudge of vs and therfore we are rightly iudged by you but you cannot be iudged by men Wherefore expect yee the iudgment of God alone and let your quarrels whatsoeuer be referred to his diuine iudgment for God hath giuen you to vs as Gods and it is not fit that man should iudge Gods but he alone of whom it is written (m) Psal 81.1 God stood in the congregation of Gods and iudgeth Gods in the middest of them In these words Constantine acknowledgeth the Episcopall power to be aboue the Imperiall and that a Priest in Ecclesiasticall causes hath power to iudge of an Emperor if he be in his Parish wheras contrariwise the Priest cannot be iudged by the Emperor more then the Pastor by his sheep or God by men But you obiect (n) Pag. 161. Constantine iudged the cause of Cecilian B. of Carthage And this you esteeme to be so choice an Argument that afterwards you repeate it twice againe (o) Pag. â—21 327. but very vnaduisedly this very example alone being of it selfe an abosolute demonstration of the falshood of your Doctrine for first the Donatists that required iudges from Constantine in the cause of Cecilian were heretikes who as they had forsaken the communion of Gods Church and as S. Augustine sayth (p) Ep. 1â—â— were guilty of the horrible crime of erecting Altar against altars so in their recourse to Constantine they violated the lawes of the Church for it is said S. Martin (q) Seuer Sulpititius â—ist sâ—â—â—cra l. 2. to the Emperor Maximus a new and neuer heard of impiety that a secular iudge should iudge a cause of the Church And S. Athanasius (r) Ep. ad Solit What hath the Emperor to do with the iudgments of Bishops Hath it euer heue heard since the beginning of the world that the iudgments of the Church did take their force from the Emperor (s) Ep. ad Constant extat aâ—ud Baron anno 355.
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
with all that are committed to vs are and will euer be obedient to you And in his Epistle to Felix Pope For as much as our Predecessors and we haue alwayes receaued assistance from your holy Apostolike See and haue had experience of the care you haue of vs we following the decrees of the Canons fly for succour vnto it as vnto a Mother from whence our predecessors haue receaued their orders doctrine and reliefe And againe (h) Ibid. Which by no meanes we dare presume to do to wit to define matters of fayth without consulting you the Canons commanding that in maior causes nothing be determined without the B. of Rome c. For therfore Christ hath placed you and your predecessors in the height of Eminency and commanded you to haue care of all Churches c. And he addeth (i) Ibid. that It belongs to the Pope to iudge the causes of all Bishops If therfore to appeale to the Pope as to his Iudge if to acknowledg in him power to restore the greatest Patriarkes to their Sees if to professe that the iudgment of Bishops belongeth to him and that all maior causes are to be referred to his tribunall if to belieue the Roman Church to be the Head and Mother of all Churches and the Pope to be Bishop of the vniuersall Church and finally if to professe actuall and promise perpetuall obedience to the See Apostolike be Arguments of S. Athanasius his beliefe of the soueraigne authority of the See Apostolike of his obligation to obey her and to liue in vnion with her and in subiection to her then are you guilty of Imposture in omitting these and other pregnant testimonies of the same kind extant in his second Apology and obiecting in lieu of them a false tale of Liberius excommunicating Athanasius deuised by your selfe to seduce your readers And hereby you are conuinced of another vntruth in saying (k) Pag. 191. that Athanasius sought not any vnion with Felix who was Pope insteed of Liberius for these his testimonies shew that he was in communion with him and acknowledged himselfe subiect to him as to the Gouernor of the vniuersall Church But you say (l) Pag. 190. and that impertinently to the matter in hand which is to proue S. Athanasius his no subiection to the Roman Church that When we esteeme Felix to be the legitimat Pope and Liberius a Schismatike remoued from the society of Catholikes and from his Papall function wee fight notably against our owne principles which are 1. That there cannot be two Popes together and 2. That no Pope can be deposed vnlesse he appeare to be a manifest heretike which if he be he ceaseth to be Pope without any iudgement at all That there cannot be two Popes together we acknowledge to be a principle of ours Nor did it happen otherwise in the case of Liberius for when he returned to the Papacy it was by acceptation of the Clergy people of Rome equiualent to a new election and this not vntill after Felix his death For as Sozomen prudently obserueth (m) L. 4. c. 14. God by his speciall prouidence called Felix out of this life soone after Liberius returned to Rome lest the See of Peter should be defamed with the note of schisme two Popes gouerning at once contrary to the lawes of the Church The second principle is not ours but an ignorance of yours For a Pope ceaseth to be a Catholike consequētly falleth from his Papacy not only by publicke profession of heresy but also by making publicke profession of Schisme and outward communion with heretikes though in his hart he detest their doctrine for to be a Catholike it is not only necessary to belieue the Catholike fayth inwardly but also to make profession thereof outwardly abandoning the cōmunion of heretikes Wherfore the syllogisme which here you make (n) Pag. 190. sin 191. concludeth nothing the Minor proposition that Liberius notwithstanding his consenting to the condemnation of Athanasius and communicating with heretikes was a Catholiks Bishop is absolutely false And wheras you professe to set downe this Minor as the words of Bellarmine you falsify him for albeit he say that if a Pope become a manifest heretike he ceaseth eo ipso to be Pope yet in the same place (o) L. 2. de Pont. c. 30. §. Eadem est sententia he sufficiently expresseth that not only heretikes but also schismatikes are out of the Church and loose all spirituall iurisdiction ouer those which are in the Church SECT IV. S. Basills beliefe of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome proued and Doctor Mortons obiections answeared IT seemed to vs sayth S. Basil (p) Ep. 52. writing to Athanasius to be to good purpose that we write to the B. of Rome that he consider the affaires of these parts and giue his iudgement to the end that being there is difficulty in sending from thence persons by a common and Synodicall decree he may vse his authority and choose men capable of the labour of such a iourney c. And that hauing with them the Acts of Arimin they may disanull those things which haue bene done by force Bellarmine (q) L. 2. de Pont. c. 15. bringeth this testimony you except against him as peruerting S. Basil by false translation which you proue out of Baronius for where Bellarmine translateth vt res nostras videas that the B. of Rome see or view our affaires Baronius rendreth vt res nostras consideret that he consider our affaires But who seeth not this to be a mere cauill for what difference is there between intreating the Pope to take the affaires of the Easterne Churches into his consideration as Baronius readeth or to see and looke into them as Bellarmine translateth Whether you follow the one or the other it is manifest that S Basil thought it a fit way to redresse the calamities of those Churches that the Pope should take them into his consideration or haue a vigilant eye ouer them the requiring wherof from him liuing in a Countrey so remote and in another Patriarkship sheweth that S. Basil belieued some charge of visiting those Churches to belong to him superior to that which the Easterne Patriarkes had Nor doth your answeare satisfy saying (r) Pag. 195. He required not from the Pope any help or visitation of dominion or iurisdiction but only of confortation of louing and brotherly consideration hoping that the persuasions of stangers especially being indued with Gods grace would be more preualent with the Easterne people then the Counsell of their owne Bishops for this euasion is conuinced of falshood by the very words of S. Basil It is fit sayth he (s) Ep. 52. that we beseech the Pope to shew his authority in the busines sending men that may bring with them the Acts of Arimin and disannull the thinges done by force And immediatly after he professeth himselfe ready to be corrected by the Popes Legates if
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
Bishops I know not what Bishop is not subiect vnto it Doth not this testimony immediatly follow in Bellarmine Yes and it is so euident that Caluin (h) L. 4. Iust. c. 7. § 1â— on the rack of truth is inforced to confesse that S Gregory in no place of his workes vanteth more of the greatnesse of his See then in these very words and that in them he attributeth to himselfe the right of punishing Bishops when they offend Is it not then imposterous to conceale this so cleare an euidence and others brought in by Bellarmine and reiect them all because you haue found a way to cauill at one especially since not only out of S. Gregories workes and the testimonies of your Protestant Brethren it is a truth not to be denyed that he belieued himselfe to haue and practised iurisdiction ouer all Bishops whatsoeuer But you say (k) Pag. 285. If Gregory in some tearmes seeme to speake somwhat loud as though he were very Great yet be confined himselfe to the Constitution of Iustinian He resolueth according to the constitution of Iustinian that the triall of Bishops causes in the first instance belongs to their Metropolitan as the cause of the Metropolitan doth to his Patriarke But withall he teacheth (l) L. 2. ep 6. that they may appeale to the See Apostolike and furthermore addeth (m) L. 11. ep 56. that If a Bishop haue no Metropolitan nor Patriarke ouer him then sayth he his cause is to be heard decided by the See Apostolike which is the head of all Churches And this is agreeable to the profession which Iustinian himselfe made in the Law Inter claras (n) Cod. tit â— l. 8. and in the Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (o) Cod. t is 1. l. 7. In the rest of this Section (p) Pag. 284. you tell vs that â—â—n of those Popes eited by Bellarmine call the Church of Rome and Bishop therof Head of all Churches or one that hath the care of all Churches or one hauing principality They do so and withall so vnanswearably affirme the Vniuersall iurisdiction of the Roman Church that you thought best not to mention their words but to put them off saying The like attributes haue bene anciently ascribed to other Churches and Bishops which how false it is you haue already heard (q) Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. Chap. 35. Chap. 36 sect 3. To giue a good farewell you conclude thus (r) Pag. 285. fin 280. There are diuers other testimonies out of Leo Gelasius and other Popes who breathed out many sentences full of ostentation of their owne greatnesse Hitherto you haue held vs in hand that the primitiue Popes did not challenge any iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church but now you say that S. Gregory in some termes seemes to speake somwhat loud as though he were very Great and that Leo Gelasius and other Popes breathed out many sentences full of ostentation of their owne greatnesse but whatsoeuer they vented out it was typhus saecularis and a swelling impostume which was lanced that it bled withall by the Councell of Carthage vnder S. Cyprian and the Councell of Africke vnder S. Augustine and that selfe-loue bewitching many Popes of the more primitiue tymes they boasted themselues to be the only Vicars of Christ and have bene taxed for their great arrogancy by the ancient Fathers of their owne tymes And afterwards (s) Pag. 303. fin 304. you compare S. Leo and S. Gregory to Adonias that sought traiterously to pull the crowne from his Fathers head and make himselfe King to which he had right This forsooth is the reuerence you beare to the primitiue Popes whom antiquity hath had in so great veneration as of S. Leo and S. Gregory in particular you haue heard (t) Chap. 15. sect 3. Truth which enforceth testimony from her enemies compelleth you to confesse (u) Pag. 172.178.182.287 that the Primitiue Popes were Holy Popes Holy Fathers excellently goodly learned and that many of them are glorious Martyrs and Saints whose memory is blessed And yet the same truth enforceth you heere to confesse that those Popes acknowledged themselues to be the only Vicars of Christ on earth to haue an vniuersall authority and to haue practised the same for which albeit you taxe them with great arrogancy yet in adding that the ancient Fathers of their owne time did the like you passe the limits of modesty and truth And who seeth not the absurd manner of arguing which in proofe hereof you vse Your words are (x) Pag. 286. in titulo sect 13. Our generall discouery of the vanity of your proofes of Papall Monarchy from the mouthes of Popes themselues who haue bene anciently noted of pride Your assumpt then is to disproue the Papall Monarchy from the mouthes of Popes themselues But you produce not any one testimony nor any one word of any one Pope but make a briefe repetition of your Arguments which in their seuerall places haue bene proued to be partly impertinent partly false and partly hereticall Impertinent as of Tertullian False as of the African Councell S. Cyrill S. Basil S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine Hereticall as of Polycrates resisting Victor and of the Arians whom to conceale that they were heretikes you call The Orientalls And finally part of them of such as for a time defended the false doctrine of Rebaptization as S. Cyprian and his Councell of Carthage which though S. Augustine haue answeared (y) L. 6. de Baptism per tot and confuted word by word you take no notice therof but vrge it as currant and of authority against the B. of Rome yet that all may not seeme to be repetitions you bring forth one new Argument (z) Pag. 286. as drawne from the mouthes of Popes themselues which is that one Flaccidius relying on the greatnesse of the Citty of Rome equalled the Deacons of Rome with Priests This you obiect as the testimony of S. Augustine himselfe pointing at the vaine boasting of Rome wheras it is not S. Augustines but of the Author quaestionum noui veteris Testamenti whom heretofore (a) Pag. 52. when he was not for your purpose you reiected as an hereticall author but now his words are of S. Augustine himselfe and an Argument drawne from the very mouthes of ancient and holy Popes Necessity enforceth you to such absurdities for better Arguments are not to be found in such a cause The blindnesse of your zeale permitted you not to see the inconsequence contrariety of your doctrine whiles you professe (b) Pag. 287. that the primitiue Popes were Holy men and yet that they were proud arrogant and challenged dominion aboue others beyond the limits of their owne iurisdiction Yes say you (c) Ibid. why not They were holy Disciples of Christ who ambitiously wished that they might sit the one on the right hand of Christ and on the other on
without their help that they made thēselues executors of his authority caused the letters of restitution which he he had grāted to Bishops iniustly deposed to be obeyed SECT VI. Doctor Morton to crosse the Popes Authority in restoring Bishops deposed takes part with the Arians and iustifies their impious proceedings against S. Athanasius and other Catholike Bishops TO proue the Popes authority of restoring Bishops by his letters authority alone we haue for precedents the examples of the great Prelates Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria Paul of Constantinople Marcellus Primate of Ancyra in Galatia Asclepas B. of Gaza in Palestine Lucius of Adrianopolis in Thracia who being iniustly deposed by the Arians appealed to Iulius Pope and he by his authority restored them to their seats You not knowing how otherwise to auoid the force of these examples haue thought best to take part with the Arians against S. Athanasius to iustlify their opposition against Pope Iulius mantaine their contempt of his authority To this end you say (h) Pag. 290. Among those Easterne Bishops which condemned Athanasius in the Councell of Antioch there were many orthodoxe There were indeed in that Councell according to the relation of S. Athanasius (i) De Synod and Socrates (k) L. 2. c. 5. 90. Bishops and according to S. Hilary (l) L. de Syn. 97. or if we beleeue Sozomen (m) L. 3. c. 5. 96. Of this number there were only 36. Arian Bishops These only were they that plotted the deposition of Athanasius these only made the decrees of that Councell and subscribed to them as Iulius in his Epistle afterward written to them and out of it Athanasius (n) Apolog. 2. testify These only were they that capitulated with Iulius Pope to haue communion with him not vpon condition that he should communicate with those Bishops whom they had ordeyned as you ignorantly affirme but vpon condition that he should abandon the communion of Athanasius and the other Catholike Bishops which being deposed by them had appealed to him for redresse and by his authority recouered their Churches againe And because the decrees of that Councell were made by Arians only they haue euer bene held to be absolutely hereticall The Arians sayth Sozomen (o) L. 8. c. 20. after they had with calumnies circumuented Athanasius and cast him out of his Church of Alexandria fearing lest things might be brought about againe made this Canon endeauoring to haue their plots against him remaine indiscussed The same is expresly affirmed by S. Chrysostome (p) Apud Niceph. l. 13. n. 18. against whom when his aduersaries that had deposed him to iustify their fact and blame him for returning to his Church alleaged a Canon of this Councell of Antioch he answeared It is not a Canon of the Church but of the Arians And the same is testified by the holy Pope Innocentius (q) Apud Niceph. l. 13. c. 31. so much commended by S. Augustine Wherfore you cannot be excused from an vntruth in saying that among those Easterne Bishops that condemned Athanasius reproued the Pope for restoring him there were many Orthodoxe for none of the Orthodoxe Bishops consented therto But that the Arians who had spit in the face of Christ and trampled his Diuinity vnder their feet should also contemne the Pope his Vicar on earth ti 's no wonder as neither it is that you should therin bandy with them for no heretike euer fell from the Church but he toke the Pope for his enemy at the same tyme. 2. To iustify your disobeying and resisting the authority of the Church of Rome and Bishop therof you say (r) Pag. 295. lit O. marg text The Orientals to wit the Arian Bishops resisted and excommunicated the Pope and in proofe herof you set downe in your margent these words as of Sozomen l. 3. c. 7. Illi Iulium Episcopum Romanum quòd cum Athanasio Paulo communicaret abdicarunt Sozomen there hath no such words He sayth They obiected to Inlius as a crime that he communicated with Athanasius and the Bishops that were with him and accused him that in annulling their Councell and abrogating their sentence he had done against the Ecclesiasticall Law so they called the hereticall Canon which themselues had made in the Councell of Antioch to iustify their impious proceedings and promised to communicate with him on condition he would confirme the deposition of Athanasius and the Orthodoxe Bishops which had fled to him for succor 3. You say (s) Pag. 306. fin 307. The Popes command to the Orientals who had deposed Athanasius to receaue him againe was answeared with contempt and they argued à paribus with him What els cold be expected from sacrilegious Arians or what from you but to obiect against vs their resistance to the Bishop and Church of Rome as lawfull to make good yours not vnlike to theirs But what did all their arguing auaile them for notwithstanding their contempt and all the resistance they were able to make by themselues and by the power of Constantius the Arian Emperor their abettor and patron Athanasius Paul and the other Bishops whom they had deposed were by vertue of Iulius his letters restored to their Churches and their restitution imbraced as iust by vniuersall consent of all the Catholikes in the world in so much that when the Arians meeting at Philippopolis required the Orthodoxe Bishops assembled in the Councell of Sardica to abstaine from the Communion of Athanasius and those other Catholike Bishops protesting that otherwise they would haue no communion with them the godly Bishops there assembled and representing all the Orthodoxe Bishops of the world answeared (t) Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. that they neuer had nor would now abstaine from their Communion and principally because Iulius B. of Rome hauing examined their cause had not condemned them But that the Arians were not so refractary to the Popes authority as you are and would make them to be to countenance your error is a truth easily proued for at last Vrsacius and Valens the two principall aduersaries of S. Athanasius departed from their pursuite and went to Rome to aske pardon of the Pope They came in person sayth Seuerus Sulpitius (u) Hist. sacraae l. 2. to aske pardon of Iulius B. of Rome And themselues in the Act of their Pennance (x) Athan. Apol. 1. Your Piety in your naturall goodnesse hath vouchsafed to pardon our error And at the end of their Act they made this protestation (y) Athanas ibid. Moreouer we promise that if vpon this occasion those of the East or Athanasius himselfe shall maliciously appeale vs in iudgment we will not depart from what you shall ordaine 4. You tell vs (z) Pag. 306. lit k. out of Sozomen The restoring of S. Athanasius to his Bishoprike againe by Iulius was only by his communicatory letters to declare that he thought him worthy to be restored for if we inquire
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
Communion (s) Ruffin l. 2. c. o. Socrat. l. 4. c. 〈◊〉 Sozo l. o. c. 38. who though banished by the Arians had not therby lost their iurisdiction and therfore might ordaine Moyses without entrenching on the liberties of other Bishops or passing the limits of their owne And what they did was confirmed by Damasus Pope who saith Socrates (t) L 4. c. 30. by his letters approued the fayth of Moyses and confirmed the creation of Peter that is to say of that renowned Patriarke successor to S. Athanasius who being expelled by Lucius appealed to Damasus Pope and by him was restored to his Church of Alexandria Wherfore this example sheweth the Roman Church to be the Head of Catholike communion and that if Moyses had bene brought to to you to be consecrated Bishop he would haue shunned you as he shunned Lucius Your fift example (u) Pag. 300. is of Athanasius B. of Alexandria deposing Bishops without AEgypt This you report out of Socrates (x) L. 3. c. 20. who hath no such words nor treateth of any such subiect Your last example (y) Pag. 300. is of Cyrill of Hierusalem who was cast out of his Bishoprick by Acacius B. of Casarea This maketh against your selfe for the B. of Hierusalem was Suffragan to the B. of CÄ™sarea who therfore might depose him without exceeding the limits of his iurisdiction It is true that the Metropolitan cannot without iust cause depose his Suffragan and therfore because Acacius being an Arian deposed Cyril merely out of hatred to the Catholike faith and for certaine crimes which himselfe had feigned against him the deposition was iniust and iudged to be such by the Councell of Seleucia (z) Theod. l. 2. c. 27. Sozo l. 4. c. 24. So crat l. 2. c. 35. Niceph. l. 9. c. 19. where Acacius durst not appeare to haue the cause of Cyrill examined and therfore both he and his complices for the wrong done to Cyrill and for other their hereticall machinations were themselues deposed and Cyrill restored to his seat at Hierusalem These are your sixe examples which vpon examination proue all against your selfe and therfore your horned argument framed out of them doth nothing els but goare your owne bowels CHAP. XXXIX Of Appeales to Rome decreed in the Councell of Sardica SECT I. Whether the Councell of Sardica were a generall Councel IN the Councell of Sardica it was decreed * Cap. 3.4.5 1. That if in the cause of a Bishop who thinkes himselfe to be wronged a new iudgment be required the B. of Rome is to giue the Iudges 2. That if a Bishop deposed by the next Bishops say his cause ought to be iudged againe none is to be placed in his See vntill the B. of Rome haue pronounced vpon it 3. That a Bishop accused may haue recourse to Rome by way of Appeale Against the authority of the Councell of Sardica you obiect (a) Pag. 301. 1. That Bellarmine produceth in this place this Councell as a sound argument which elswhere heranketh among those Councels that are to be partly allowed and partly reiected as if coyne partly mixed and counterfeit ought to be taken for good payment This argument is an imposture for to the Councell of Sardica came 376. Bishops of which 300. were Catholikes the other 76. Arians (b) Socrat. l. 2. c. 16. These 76. refused to enter into the Councell at Sardica vnlesse Athanasius and Paul were expelled which condition the Catholike Bishops admitted not but answeared (c) Sozom. l. 31. c. 10. They neuer had nor would now abstaine from the communion of Paul and Athanasius especially because Iulius B. of Rome hauing examined their cause had not condemned them Hereupon those 76. Arian Bishops separating themselues from the body of the Councell held an Antisynod of their owne at Philippopolis a City not far from Sardica which is reproued as being a Conuenticle of Arians Of this Bellarmine speaketh when he sayth The Councell of Sardica is partly reproued But the decrees for appealing to Rome were not made in this mock-Councell yea this reproued Athanafius for appealing and Iulius Pope for admitting his appeale but by the true Councell held at Sardica which hath euer bene approued by the Church in no part reproued This Councell of 300. Bishops it is which Bellarmine alleageth in proofe of Appeales How then can you be excused in saying that he produceth this Councell in this place as a sound Argument which elswhere he ranketh among those Councells that are to be partly allowed and partly reiected for he neuer sayth that this Councell of 300. Bishops is in any part to be reiected 2. You obiect (e) Pag. 302. that this Councell is not a generall Councell for say you though in respect of the calling of it by Constantius we may not vnworthily say that it was generall yet if we obserue that it was afterwards distracted and diuided into two places we may rather esteeme it particular This vrgeth not for the distraction consisting in so small a number of Bishops and they Arians their absence could not take from the true Councell of Sardica which represented all the Catholike Bishops in the world the name of a generall Councell which had bene imposed on it at the first calling no more then the Anti-Synod held at Ephesus in fauour of Nestorius by the Bishops of the Patriarkship of Antioch hindred the true Councell of Ephesus from being perfectly and absolutely generall And in conformity to this you els where suppose and confesse (f) Pag. 144. sin 145. the Sardican Councell to be a generall Councell according to the testimonies of S. Athanafius Socrates Seuerus Sulpitius Iustinian Baronius Binius To which number you might haue added Vigilius that ancieÌ„t B. of Trent (g) Cout Eucych l. 5. Theodoret (h) L. 2. c. 8. Hincmarus (i) Opuse â—â— c. 20. Nor did Constantius alone call this Councell but also his brother Constans and that not by their authority but by the authority of Iulius Pope who as it is plaine out of Socrates (k) L. 2. c. 16. called the Bishops and appointed a day for them to meote at Sardica to begin the Councell SECT II. Other obiections of Doctor Morton against Appeales to Rome answeared YOu third obiection (l) Pag 302. that the right which the Pope can claime for Appeales dependeth altogeather vpon humane constitutions hath bene already answeared (m) Aboue Chap. 27. sect 4. 4. You except (n) Pag. 304. against some of the examples which Bellarmine produceth of Appeales made to the Pope as being of such as were within his owne Patriarkship and therefore rather subiect to him then to others from whence to inferre that appeales out of other Patriarkships may be made vnto him is say you (o) Ibid. as if a Proctor should say My Client had tith in his owne parish therfore do the next Parishes adioyning owe their tithes vnto him But
this example condemneth your Doctrine for if all that are in the Patriarkship of the West be the Popes subiects and haue right to appeale vnto him why do you Protestants who cannot deny your selues to be within his Patriarkship disclaime from his obedience Why do you not submit to your lawfull Superior Why do you forbid appeales and all recorse vnto him And if as here you confesse he hath as much right to the appeales of them which are within his owne Patriarkship as a Parson hath to the tithes of his owne Parish why do you defend that it was lawfull for the Africans whom you acknowledge to be within his owne Dioces (p) Pag. 289. and therfore rather subiect to him then to others (q) Pag. 304. to forbid appeales vnto him Why do you so often inueigh against the Popes for requiring and mantaining their owne right herein 5. You except (r) Ibid. against other appeales because they were of heretikes or other persons notoriously impious as of Basilides Marcion Fortunatus and Felix or Felicissimus for so you should haue said But by this Argument you may as well proue that a King hath no right of Appeales in his kingdome for who knoweth not that not only persons that are wronged by inferior Iudges but also others which haue bene iustly condemned do sometimes appeale the former to be righted and the later in hope to procure their iust condemnation to be reuoked by fauor or by misinforming their Soueraigne Wherfore as it were sophistry to inferie that a King hath not soueraigne authority in his kingdome because some that appeale vnto him are wicked persons so it is to except against the Popes supreme authority because some that appeale vnto him are wicked persons that haue bene iustly condemned by their immediat Superiors Your inference should haue bene that because all sortes of persons nocent and innocent haue appealed to the Pope from all partes of the world it rightly followeth that he is supreme Iudge of the vniuersall Church SECT III. Examples of innocent Appellants IN proofe of the ancient custome of appealing to Rome we produce the examples of S. Athanasius S. Chrysostome Theodoret and Flauianus You answeare (s) Pag. 304. They addressed their requests to the B. of Rome not as to a peremptory Ludge but as to a Patron and arbitrary Days-man And of Theodoret and Chrysostome you had said before (t) Pag. 255. They only required from the Bishops of Rome a subsidiary help as one King may from another and as the B. of Arles may from the B. of Paris But this to be false sophistry I shall easily proue if first I giue the reader a taste of your ignorance concerning the antiquity of Appeales to Rome from remote Nations in generall SECT IV. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the Antiquity of appealing to Rome from remote Nations THeodoret being iniustly deposed from his Bishopricke of Cyre a City bordering vpon Persia appealed to Leo Pope saying (u) 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 and verify that my Doctrine followes the Apostolicall pathes You startling at these so vnanswearable words of Theodoret bid vs (x) Pag. 255. marg lit m. note that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations was very vncouth in those dayes giuing vs therby a good testimony of your ignorance in Ecclesiasticall history for that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations was not very vncouth but very familiar in those dayes and long before those dayes euen from the first ages of the Church who knoweth not that is versed in antiquity For 1. Sixtus Pope that liued 300. yeares before Theodoret ordayneth (y) Ep. 2. that if any Bishop be wronged he appeale freely to the holy and Apostolike See 2. Marcellus the first declareth (z) Ep. 1. ad Episc Antioch Prou. that accoding to the constitutions of the Apostles and their successors all Bishops when there is occasion may appeale to the See Apostolike 3. Felix the second (a) Ep. ad Syn. Alex. As often as Bishops shall thinke themselues wronged by those of their Prouince or by their Metropolitan or haue them in suspicion let them appeale to the See of Rome 4. The same is ordained by Victor (b) Ep. ad Theoph. caterosque Episc Aegyp by Zephyrinus (c) Ep. ad Episc Sicil. by Fabianus (d) Ep. ad Hilar and Melchiades (e) Ep. ad Episc Hispan 5. And what these ancient Popes decreed the holy Councell of Nice related by Iulius (f) Ep. 2. confirmed ordaining that all Bishops accused of grieuous crimes may freely appeale to the See Apostolike fly to it as to a Mother for defence and succour The authority of this Canon is proued by Pisanus (g) L. 3. Conc. Niceni apud Bin. to 1. pag. 350. And that the Nicen Councell made such a decree S. Leo (h) Ep. 25. testifieth and you els where forgetting your selfe acknowledge (i) Pag. 308. marg lit r. 6. The Councell of Sardica related not only by Catholike writers but also by the Centurists decreeth (k) Cap. 4. that if any Bishop being deposed by the next Bishops and protesting that his cause ought to be iudged a new fly for succour to the B. of Rome no other is to be installed in his See after he hath put in his Appeale but that his cause be sentenced by the B. of Rome 7. And when Iohn surnamed Talaia Patriarke of Asexandria was cast out of his See by the Emporor Zeno and Peter Moggus set vp in his place Iohn sayth Liberatus (l) Liberat. 6.18 addressed himselfe to Calendion Patriarke of Antioch and hauing taken from him Synodic all letters of intercession appealed to the Pope of Rome Simplicius 8. When Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople was condemned by the false Councell of Ephesus Valentinian the Emperor writ to Theodosius his Father-in-Law (m) Extat Ep inter Ep. preamb. Conc. Chalced. that Flauianus according to the custome of Councells appealed by petition to the Blessed Bishop of the City of Rome And Liberatus (n) Cap. 12. That sentence hauing bene pronounced against Flauianus he appealed to the B. of Rome by petition presented to his Legates 9. And Leo (o) Ep. 8. writing to the same Flauianus Eutyches protestes that in full iudgment he presented to you a request of appeale and that it was not receaued 10. And Flauianus answering Leo (p) Extat Ep. inter Ep. Leonis ante Ep. 7. Eutyches hath informed you that in the time of iudgment he presented to vs and to the holy Councell heare assembled libells of appeals to your Holinesse which was neuer done by him 11. And the same Leo (q) Ep. 25. writing to Theodosius the yonger beseecheth him that for as much as Flauianus
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
S. Peter Head of the Apostles to the end that all being subiect to one occasion of schisme among them might be taken away This passage you alleaged out of S. Hierome in your laâ—e Sermon preached at Durham before his Maiesty (s) Pag. 42. to proue the necessity of Bishops against the Scots A Bishop then is necessary to appease the contentions that may happen among your Ministers But contentions and strifes may also arise among Bishops An Archbishop therfore is necessary to quiet them But they may likewise arise betweene Archbishops as they did betweene Theophilus Chrysostome Flauianus and Dioscorus Cyril and Nestorius who shall end them If you say a generall Councell who shall summon that Councell Not a temporall Prince for no one hath power ouer all nations from whence the Bishops are to be called besides that temporall Princes are often at variance among themselues And when a generall Councell is called what if the Bishops agree not or decline from the truth as in the Councel of Ariminum the second of Ephesus they did Who shall compose their differences and iudge their causes vnlesse some one Head of the whole Church be appointed by Christ whose iudgement is infallible and to whose censure all are bound to submit Wherfore the Puritans argument propounded by M. Cartwright (t) Second Reply part 1. pag. 58â— concludeth euidently against you that This point of keeping peace in the Church is one of those which requireth aswell a Pope ouer all Archbishops as one Archbishop ouer all Bishops in a Realme From this vnity of the Head the Church of Christ vniuersally spread ouer the earth takes her vnity Euen as there are sayth S. Cyprian (u) De vnit Eccles many beames of the sunne and one light many bowes of one tree and yet one strength founded in one roote and many brookes flowing from one fountaine a vnity therof conserued in the spring euen so the Church of our Lord casting forth her light displaieth her beames euery where throughout the world and yet her light is one she extends her bowes ouer the whole earth and spreads her flowing riuers farre and neere and yet there is one Head one beginning and one fruitfull and plentifull Mother And lest you might answeare that this one Head of the whole Church mentioned by S. Cyprian is none other but Christ he declareth himselfe saying (x) Ibid. Our Lord to manifest vnity hath constituted one chaire ordained by his authority that vnity should haue beginning from one And explicating who this one is he sayth (y) Ibid. Vpon Peter being one he buildeth his Church and to him commendeth his sheepe to be fed c. The primacy is giuen to Peter that the Church may be shewed to be one And therefore he cals the Chaire of Peter (z) Ep. 55. The principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity proceedeth S. Augustine (a) L. de pastor c. 13. Our Lord committed his sheepe to Peter to commend vnity in him There were many Apostles and to one it is sayd feede my sheepe S. Leo (b) Serm. 3. de assump sua Peter being one is chosen out of the whole world to be constitated ouer the vocation of all nations ouer all the Apostles and all the Fathers of the Church to the end that although there be many Priests and many Pastors in the people of God yet Peter may peculiarly gouerne them all whom Christ also principally ruleth And S. Bernard speaking to Eugenius Pope (c) L. 2. de consider Thou being one art Pastor not only of the sheepe but of all Pastors c. Christ committed all his sheep to one to commend vnity in one flock and in one shepheard Where there is vnity there is perfection If therfore Christ committed his whole flock to Peter being one if one Head among twelue Apostles were necessary to take away occasions of Schisme among them their number being but small how much more necessary was it that for the same cause the whole Church which by reason of the multitude of Bishops and people is more liable to schisme should be gouerned by one Head Who although he be a weake man Christ praying for him (d) Luc. 22.32 hath secured vs that his fayth shall not faile and to the end he may confirme all his brethren hath placed him (e) Aug. ep 166. in the chaire of Vnity in which euen ill men are enforced to speake good things And though he be but one yet he is assisted by other Bishops as his Coadiutors and they by inferion Pastors that so the Bishops watching ouer the inferior Pastors and the supreme Pastor ouer the Bishops the gouerment of the Church labor therof might be diuided among many and yet chiefly committed to one to whom the rest were to haue recourse as the Apostles had to Peter Among the most Blessed Apostles sayth S. Leo (f) Ep. 84. there was in the likenesse of honor a difference of power And although the election of them all was alike yet it was granted to one that he should be aboue the rest in authority from which modell the distinction of Bishops hath proceeded with great prouidence it hath bene ordained that all should not claime all things to themselues but that in seuerall Prouinces there should be seuerall Bishops whose sentence should hold the first ranck among their brethren and againe that others constituted in the greater cities should haue a more ample charge and that by them the gouerment of the vniuersall Church might flow to the seat of Peter and that none might euer dissent from their Head This was the doctrine of that renowned Father and the same hath bene the beliefe of all Orthodoxe Christians And you that oppose it by telling vs a tale of a wrens head placed vpon the sholders of a man shew your selfe not to vnderstand the things of God (g) Math. 16.13 but to measure them by your shallow capacity not considering that according to his promise the supreme Pastor to whom he hath committed the charge of his flock is gouerned by the holy Ghost in his consultations of fayth and that as without his assistance no multitude of Prelates is able to gouerne the whole Church so with his helpe one may performe it as experience teacheth But you obiect (h) Pag 350. 1. That we cannot haue certitude of any B. of Rome because his ordination dependeth vpon the intention of the Ordainer then which what can be more vncertaine This you had obiected before and haue receaued your answere (i) Chap. 5. sect 7. And S. Cyprian (k) L. 4. ep 9. hath told you that to raise such doubts is to doubt of the prouidence of God and to rebell against his ordination 2. You obiect (l) Pag. 350. Iohn the twelth wanting yeares and other conditions necessary for that dignity tooke possession of the Roman Church by intrusion and that therfore in his time the
aboue the little hills vnto which all nations shall flow (a) Isa 2.2 to a Tabernacle seated in the sunne (b) Psal 28.6 of which S. Augustine speaking sayth (c) In â—um Psal He placed his tabernacle in the sunne that is to say his Church in manifestation or open view not in a corner not such as is hidden as if it were couered c. In the sunne he placed his tabernacle what doest thou meane O Heretike to fly into darknesse To a light that is not hidden vnder a bushell but set vpon a candelstick Which if Protestants see not How sayth S. Augustine (d) Tract 2. in 1. Ep. Ioan. can I call them other then blinde that see not so great a mountaine and shut their eyes against the Lampe set vpon the candelstick But what meruaile for sayth he (e) L. 2â— coâ—â— Parm. c. 3. it is the condition of all heretikes not to see the thing which in the world is most cleare constituted in the light of all nations out of the vnity wherof whatsoeuer they do can no more warrant them from the wrath of God than the spiders web from the extremity of cold Finally we belieue with S. Augustine (f) Cont. lit Petil. l. 2. c. 104. that the Catholike Church hath this certaine marke that she cannot be hidden This is the doctrine and beliefe of all Catholikes Do you herein accord with vs Do you hold the Catholike Church to be alwaies visible and alwaies as conspicuous as a lampâ— vpon a Candelstick as a city vpon a mountaine as a tabernacle in the sunne Why then do you say that she was so many yeares latent and inuisible that she could not be shewad that she was vnknowne and vnheard of that she was no where externall and visible that she was wholly destroied With what modesty then can you say that Protestants hold not any greater inuisibility or rather obscurity of the Church Catholike then that which the Romanists are forced to confesse But in proofe of this Thesis and in opposition to the holy Scripture and S. Augustine you say to vs (g) Pag. 367. fin you regard not that the Church of Christ as it is somtime in lustre glorious as the sunne so againe it is according to the iudgement of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose somtimes as the moone which hath her increases and decreases Yes we regard it well and you ought to haue regarded that although S. Augustine compare the Church to the moone in this respect that her externall lustre is somtimes diminished by persecutions and her glory obscured by the ill liues of some of her children yet he frequently compareth her to the sunne and belieueth with the Prophet (h) Isa 60.29 that her sunne shall neuer set and her moone shall not be diminished and (i) Ep. 48. that when by scandalls her light is most obscured etiam tunc in suis fortissimis eminent euen then she is eminent in her most steedfast Champions and in them remaineth resplendent and glorious displaying beames of light ouer the whole earth So farre is S. Augustine from your absurd paradoxe of the inuisibility totall decay of the Church And in what sense S. Ambrose compareth her to the moone he declareth saying (k) L. 4. Hexam c. 2. The Church hath her times of persecution and of peace she seemeth to decay as the moone but decaieth not She may be shadowed she cannot perish because she is diminished by the fall of some in persecutions to the end she may be filled with the confessions of Martyrs and that being illustrated with trophies of the bloud shed for Christ she may diffuse greater light of her deuotion and fayth throughout the whole world If Costerus Castro Lindanus and Stapleton affirme that the Arian heresy in a short time infected almost all the Churches of the world so haue Lutheranisme Caluinianisme Zuing lianisme with other new Sects sprung from them in these later times infected many prouinces of Europe But therfore is the Catholike Church in those Prouinces inuisible How then do you see Catholikes to persecute them to imprison them And euen so much more when the Arian heresy was in the greatest ruffe the Catholike Church was euery where still eminently visible as that very passage of Liberius proueth which here you produce for the contrary for Constantius the Arian Emperor hauing by threats drawne many Bishops especially of the East to subscribe to the condemnation of Athanasius and as Theodoret out of his Apology reporteth (l) L. 2. histor c. 15. the rest that refused to subscribe either concealing themselues for feare or being sent into banishment he called Liberius vnto him and vrged him not to communicate with Athanasius saying he was condemned by the whole world and defended by none but by him Liberius answeared (m) Theod. l. 2. hist. c. 16. Esto quod solus sim c. Be it that I am alone the cause of the fayth is not therfore the worse for there was a time when there were but three Children to resist the Kings commandment These three Children were brought by Nabuchodosor out of Iury into Babylon As then there were none in Babylon to defend Gods cause but only those three so sayth Liberius and out of him Salmeron here obiected by you be it that I am now left here alone to desend the cause of Athanasius the cause of the fayth is not therfore the worse This you bring to proue that the Church was then or may somtimes be brought to so low an ebbe that there be but three yea only one Orthodoxe man remaining But it is an ignorant mistake for albeit there were then in Babylon three only Children to resist Nabuchodonosor yet in Iury there was remaining a numerous Church of Orthodoxe people And so likewise though there was then no other Bishop present to withstand Constantius yet there were in the Church of God at that time many Catholike Bishops renowned for their learning and constancy and diuers of them then actually in banishment whose restitution to their Churches Liberius in that very Dialogue often demanded of Constantius And who knoweth not that beside many Catholike Bishops reckoned by S. Athanasius (n) Apud Theod. l. 2. hist. c. 14.15.16 there liued at the same time other most eminent Prelates and Doctors as Saint Hilary Pacianus Didymus Titus Bostrensis S. Cyrill of Hierusalem Optatus Eusebius Vercellensis S. Ephrem S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Epiphanius S. Basil S. Gregory Nyssen S. Ambrose and many others And as there were many Catholike Pastors so were there Catholike people gouerned by them Yea who knoweth not that both the Roman and all the Westerne Church at that time was full of Orthodoxe Pastors people in so much that after the Roman MatroÌ„s by aduice of their Husbands (o) Theod. ibid. c. 17. had presented themselues before Constantius and obteyned Liberius his returne from exile the Bishops of the East sent Legates vnto
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
wordes sayth Sanders it is apparent that S. Augustine would haue had the matter of Appeales referred to the Pope and ordered as he should thinke best So that whereas you cite Sanders saying All the African Bishops were seuered from the Church of Rome his true wordes import the direct contradictory Non omnes Episcopi Africani All the Bishops of Afrike did not oppose the Roman Bishop You also alleage him de visibili Monarch pag. 368. n. 411. where he hath nothing to your purpose but only alleageth the wordes of Eulalias of Carthage his recantation We anathematize all those that proudly lift vp their neckes against the Holy Roman and Apostolical Church From these wordes can you gather your dismal assertion that All the African Bishops from the dayes of Cyprian vntill Boniface the second that is for three hundred yeares were excommunicated by the Pope and seuered from the Communion of the Roman Church The Iesuite Salmeron sayth no more then (g) Salmeron tom 12. tract 68. §. Ad Canonem that in the dayes of S. Cyprian the African Bishops began to be seuered from the Roman Church and that in the dayes of Pope Innocent and Aurelius Bishop of Carthage they were bitter and displeased against the Church of Rome But he doth not say that all the African Bishops were so nor that they withdrew their Communion and obedience from the Roman Church Yea in the dayes of S. Cyprian though he and fourescore African Bishops were displeased with Pope Stephen because he did strongely and constantly oppose their impious doctrine of Anabaptisme yet they neuer proceeded to make a Schisme and separation from the Roman Church Contrariwise the very same fourescore Bishops who had made a decree for Anabaptisme met together againe as S. Hierome doth testify (h) Hieron Dialog cont Lucifer Illi ipsi Episcopi qui Rebaptizandos haereticos cum Cypriano statuerunt ad antiquam consuetudinem reuâ—luti nouum emisâ—re decretum and repealed their decree which might haue caused their separation from the RomaÌ„ Church So false is it that all the Bishops of Africa from the dayes of S. Cyprian vntill the time of Boniface the second were seuered from the Church of Rome that euen those very Bishops of those dayes were not seuered By the Epistle of Boniface the second grant it be true no more is proued then that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage superbirâ— cepit was somewhat arrogant and proud against the Pope and that Eulalius of Carthage did against the example of his other Predecessors imitate Aurelius therin as he doth testify saying in the said Epistle of Boniface that he felt himselfe Peccatis Aurelij praegrauatum ouer-burthened with the sinnes of Aurelius But that all the Christians of Africa namely those many Martyrs that suffered persecution vnder the Arian Wandalls were tainted with this bitternes of distast and Schismaticall dis-vnion against the Roman Bishop is a fable by your selfe newly coyned and vented abroad Now to the third point proposed although the Epistle of Boniface do not iustify your slander against all the Bishops Martyrs of Africa that they were excommunicated by the Pope and out of the communion of the Roman Church yet there be many Arguments that may seeme to euince that the same is counterfeit the relation thereof being incoherent First you (i) Pag. 148. The Epistle of Boniface the second wherin about the yeare 606. the same Pope complaineth c. say that the reunion of the Church of Africa to the Church of Rome happened about the yeare 606. and in the time of Boniface the second These thinges hange not togeather and consequently are false for Boniface the second dyed in the yeare 531. that is almost an hundred yeares before the yeare 606. Secondly the said Epistle of Boniface the Second affirmes that Eulalius his reconciliation with the Church of Rome was performed in the daies of Iustine the Emperour (k) Iustini elementissimi Principis Orientis sacrarum literarum exemplaria ad voâ— destinauimus that this Emperour writ letters to the said Boniface about it Now Iustine the Emperour was dead three or foure yeares before Romiface the Second was chosen Pope Thirdly the Epistle of Boniface is written to Eulalius Bishop of Alexandria But the Bishop of Alexandria in the dayes of Boniface the second was not named Eulalius but Timothaeus an Heretike and an Aduersary of the Roman Church You saw this difficulty and to auoyd it feare not to do against the command of the Holy Ghost (m) Vide titulum Psalmi 58. Augu. tract 117. in Ioan. Ne corrumpaes Tituli inscriptionem For the Title of that Epistle in Surius being Epistola eiusdem Bonifacij ad Eulalium Alexandrinum Episcopum (n) Pag. 248. in marg at x you change it and make it to be Epistola Bonifacij ad Alexandrum Episcopum the Epistle of Boniface to Bishop Alexander nor do you tell vs of what Church or See this your Alexander was Bishop Fourthly in the time of Boniface the secoÌ„d Gilimer the Arian Wandal was King of Africa during whose reigne there was no Catholike Bishop in Carthage (o) See Baron Anno 620. seqq nor in any Church of Africa but only Arians Finally your Apostata-Bishop of Spalato Antonius de Dominis in his (p) De Repub. Eccles. lib. 4. c. 8. n. 34. London-writings which he published vnder your nose with your so great approbation and applause doth so lay about him against the Epistle of Boniface that you who are so stiffe a defender therof had best to stand aside for feare of knocks In the Controuersy about Appellations sayth he (q) Communio inter Africam Romam non est abrupta the Communion between Africa and Rome was neuer broken as Baronius and Binius do proue very well The reconciliation or recantation made by the Church of Carthage vnto Boniface the Second which some one hath faigned (r) Mara est impostura is a meere Imposture as the said Authors demonstrate Thus he May you not number this man among the Children of the Tribe of Dan and angry fellowes who doth so peremptorily auerre the Epistle of Boniface to be a meere forgery and a grand Imposture with greater reason then you haue done Bellarmine for only saying I suspect it is counterfeit In fine these Arguments abundantly shew that this Epistle of Boniface may be questioned and reiected and yet all the other Epistles of ancient Popes set downe in the Body of our Councells cells subsist firme against which the like implicancies and incoherencies cannot be vrged As for Bishop Lindan he speaketh against them who discard this Epistle voluntarily and without euident proofes saying that they might aswell infringe the credit of any ancient history which his inference is of no force against them who refuse it as counterfeit not voluntarily but constrained by the pregnant incompossibilities thereof with other knowne vndeniable truthes CHAP. XXVIII Whether the Britans