Theodoret himself in his Epâ—stle to Leo placed before his Commentaries upon Pauls Epistle saith Behold after all this travail and sweat I am condemned being not so much as accused But I look for the sentence of your Apostolick Sea and I humbly beseech and require your Holiness in this case to aid me justum vestrum rectum appellanti judicium appealing to your right and just judgement and command me to come before you c. And in his Epistle ad Renatum Praesbyterum he further saith Nudarunt me Sacerdotio c. Dâ—pâ—ecor teut sanctissimo Archiepiscopi Leoni sundeas ut Apostolica authoritate utatur jubeatque ad vestrum adire Concil um tenet enim sancta ista sedes gubernacula regendarum cuncti Orbis Ecclesiarum c. did accordingly make his appeal to Pope Leo and was thereupon by him [g] Cent. 5. col 1013. lin 26. it is said Restituit Theodoreto Episcopatum Sanctissimus Leo. And see the same in Concilio Chalcedonensi act 1. restored to his Bishoprick that [h] Chrysostom in Ep. ad Innocentium saith I beseech you write that these things so wrongfully done in my absence and I not refusing judgement may not be of force as of their own nature they are not and that those who have done wrong may be subject to the penalty of the Ecclestastical Laws c. and command us to be restored to our Church c. See this in Palladius in vita Chrysostomi extat in Aloysio Lipomanno tom 2. l. 3. part 2. And Chrysostom Ep. 2. ad Innocentium desireth that his enemies if they will repent may not be excommunicated Chrysostom did the like to Innocentius who thereupon [i] See in Cent. 5. col 663. lin 36. Pope Innocentius his Epistle to Arcadius the Emperor and his wife who were adverse to Chrysostom and took part with Theophilus where he saith I the least of all and a sinner having yet the Throne of the great Apostle Peter committed to me do separate and remove thee and her from receiving the immaculate mysteries of Christ our God and every Bishop or any other of the Clergy which shall presume to Minister or give to you those holy mysteries after the time that you have read the present letters of my bond I pronounce them void of their dignity c. Arsacius whom you placed in the Bishoplicke Throne in Chrysostoms room though he be dead we depose and command that his name be not written in theroll of Bishops In like manner we depose all other Bishops which of purposed advise have communicated with him c. To the deposing of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria we adde excommunication c. decreed Chrysostomus adversary Theophilus to be excommunicated and deposed that lastly the famous and [k] So it is tearmed by Mr. Thomas Bell in his regiment of the Church pag. 158. initio antient Council of Sardis consisting of [l] See Socrates history l. 2. cap. 16. initio Zozomen l. 2. cap. 11. 300. Bishops and above assembled from [m] See Cent. 4. col 747. lin 50. and Theodoret hist l. 2. cap. 8. Spain France Italy Sardinia Greece Egypt Thebais Libia Palestine Arabia c. and most other parts of the Christian world and whereat sundry Fathers of the Nicene Council were [n] Of this presence thereat see Theodoret hist l. 2. cap. 7. Socrates hist l. 2. cap. 16. and Carion in Chro ni pag. 282. post med present [o] The seventh Canon of this Council acknowledged and recited by the Centurists Cent. 4. col 764. l. 6. And by Osiander in epitom c. pag. 294. is Placuit ut si Episcopus c. It hath sermed good to us that if a Bishop be accused if the Bishops of the Province assembled together have judged the matter and have deprived him if the party deprived do appeal and fly to the Bishop of Rome c. If the party accused desiring his cause to be heard once again do intreat the Bishop of Rome ut è Latera suo Praesbyteros mittat to send Legates from his side it shall be in the power of the Bishop to do as he shall think good c. And see also in those Authors the 4. and 5. Canons of the said Council decreed appeals to the Bishop of Rome And so confessedly that the same is accordingly granted and the said Council therefore reproved by [p] Osiander in Epitom c. pag. 294. circa med a pud Brereley tract 2. cap. 1. sect 3. at 104. margent speaking of the Council of Saâ—dis decreeing appeals to Rome professeth to deliver the then common received opinion and reason thereof saying Inveteratus communis de manu traditus fuit error quod Petrus fuerit Romae primus Episcopus ideo hunc honorem habendum censuit successori Petri juxta communionem opinionem c. Osiander Calvin [q] Of Calvin and Peter Martyr see in Brereley tract 1. sect 7. in the mrgent at d. subd or exemple 2. Peter Martyr [r] Frigevillaeus Gauvius in his Palma Christiana pag. 30. 122. 124. circa med Trigevillaus Gauvius and [s] The Centurists do confess and recite this Canon ut supra at 70. the Century Writers In so much that whereas the Arians had expelled Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria Paulus Bishop of Constantinople and divers other Catholick Bishops of the East Church it is testified that Julius Bishop of Rome upon the Arians first accusation made to him against Athanasius [t] Nicephorus l. 9. c. 6. and Hâ—st Tripartit l. 4. c. 6. it is said Ipsis Romam vâ—nire praecepit venerabâ—lem Athanasium ad judicâ—um regulariter evocavâ—t ille continuo evocatione suscepta venit c. And see Theoâ—oret hist l. 2. c. 4. summoned Athanasius the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Canons And afterwards upon relation had from Athanasius of the truth of the matter [u] Hist Tripartâ—t l. 4. c. 15. and see Zozomâ—n hist l. 3. c. 7. Julius hearing the accusations and complaint of each one c. Commanded certain of the Bishops of the East to appear before him at a certain day c. And as the Centurists confess [x] Cent. 4. col 550. lin 20. and see this further in Socrates hist l. 2. c. 11. prope initium And Zozomen hist l. 3. c. 7. initio saith of Julius Accum propter sedis dâ—gnitatem cura omnium ad ipsum spectaret singulis suam Ecclesiam restituit restored every one of those foresaid other wronged Bishops to their own place or Bishoprick and that not by intreaty or arbitrably but as the Centurists say fretus Ecclesiae Romanae praerogativa [y] Cent. 4. col 550. lin 15. and Zozomen ut supra and see Socrates l. 2. c. 11. and Hist Tripartit l. 4. c. 15. Also D. Philippus Nicolai dâ— Regno Christi l. 2. pag. 149. circa med saith of this matter Julius Pontifex
Ministrorum pag. 403. post med did offer the name of universal Bishop to the Bishop of Rome Hitherto concerning those only Fathers that lived in the age or Century next ensuing the four hundred years after Christ and their not doubtful but confessed testimomonies of the Jurisdiction really executed and extended by the Popes of those times not only over their Neighbour Churches and Bishops in Italy but over remote Provinces and the other greatest Arch-Bishops and Patriarchs of the world as namely of Antioch Hierusalem Alexandria and Constantinople c. And by them then accordingly acknowledged As concerning now the like testimony from the more antient Fathers that lived in the age next precedent which is the time wherein Constantine the great lived although the Church began as then but as it were to take breath from her former long endured persecutions whereby neither her writers were so many nor her face of outward Government so known as in the times succeeding yet is there not wanting even for that time sufficient testimony in this kind In regard whereof the Centurists affirm that [t] Centur. 4. col 549. lin 42. In this age the mystery of iniquity was not idle To this end they further allege that [u] Centur. 4. col 550. lin 28. the Bishops of Rome challenged by Ecclesiastical Canon the disallowing of those Synods whereat they were absent And Mr. Cartwright saith accordingly of Damasus whom St. Hierom and Protestants themselves tearm [x] Apud Brereley tract 2. cap. 1. sect 3. at 106. pag. 296. Hieron Ep. 57. to Pope Damasus saith Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrae Petri communione consocior super illam petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit prophanus est c. Quicunque tecum non colligit spargit And Optatus l. 2. contra Donatistas saith Negarâ—non potest scire te in urbe Roma Petro primo Cathedram Episcopalem collatam esse in qua sederit omn um Apostolorum caput Petrus unde Cephas appellatus est in qua una Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur ne caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisqu defendeâ—ent ut jam schismaticus peccator esset qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collocaret ergo Cathedra unica est c. And again De dotibus supradâ—ctâ— Cathedra est prima quam probavimus per Petrum nostram esse And St. Austin Epist 102. prope initium saith In Ecclesia Romana semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus And apud Brereley pag. 106.107 at 5â— margent in Bullingers decades in English on the page next before the first decad is set down the Creed of Blessed Damasus Bishop of Rome c. and in the end of that page is also set down the Imperial Decree of the Emperors Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius to imbrace the Religion taught by Damasus and Peter of Alexandria whereof see Brereley tract 1. sect 8. subd 1. fine in the margent at 6. blessed that [y] Mr. Cartwright in his reply part 1. pag. 502. paulo post initium And in proof thereof he allegeth there in his margent Zozomen hist lib. 6. c. 23. post med he spake in the Dragons voice when he shameth not to write that the bishops of Romes sentence was alove all other to be attended for in a Synod And Mr. Whitaker confesseth the Ecclesiastical [z] Whitaker de Conciliis c. q. 2. pag. 42. fine 43. initio Canon of those times whereby it was decreed That no Council should be celebrated without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome And that [a] Ibid. pag. 44. pauio ante med saith bereof Fatemur Julium sibi talem authoritatem vendicasse And Mr. Cartwright in his 2. reply part 1. pag. 510. paulo post med saith Julius Bishop of Rome saith it was decreed by the Laws of the Church and immediatly after the Nicene Council that the Bishop of Rome must be called to the Synod and that that was voyd which was done there besides his sentence And see part 2. pag. 110. circa med This appeareth more plainly in Socrates and the Tripartite History For whereas the Arians had affembled a Council at Antioch whereat Maximus Bishop of Hierusalem and Julius Bishop of Rome were both of them absent Yet is the only absence of Iulius specially fet down as the only cause of disanulling the said Council And so accordingly it is said Maximus Bishop of Hierusalem was absent from thence c. Neither was Iulius Bishop of the greatest Rome present thereat neither did he appoint any in his place whereas yet the Eccelesiastical Canon doth command that no Council ought to be celebrated without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome Hist Tripartit l. 4. c 9. Socrates l. 2. c. 5. see Histor Tripart l. 4. c. 19. and see l. 5. c. 29. also in Socrates l. 2. c. 13. Julius doth accordingly allege this Canon Julius made challenge thereby For which [b] And whereas Bellarmine doth object this example of Iulius and other Bishops of Rome alleging this Canon Danaeus his only answer is That this objection nullius est momenti nam ab ipsius Romani Pontificis id est partis in sua causa testimonio profertur in resp ad Bellarm. part 1. p. 595. circa med at quarta ratio c. Danaeus reproveth him and certain other Bishops of Rome Also it is confessed that [c] M. Symonds upon the Revelations cap. 5. pag. 45. post med See also Cent. 4. col 550. lin 32. And Innocentius Epist ad Victoricum cap. 2. Damasus wrote to the Councils of Africk that the judgement of the causes of Bishops and all other matters of great importance may not be determined but by the authority of the Apostolick Sea And that accordingly [d] See this in Mr. Cartwrights 2. reply part 1. pag. 501. initio And the Conturists cent 4. col 529. lin 19. say Romani Episcopi regulam fecerunt ut ad se omnia praescribi primum mandarent ut patet ex Epistola lulii apud Athanasium Apologia secunda Inquit enim Iulius an ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse ut primum nobis scribatur c. Julius Bishop of Rome at the Council of Antioch outreached in claiming the hearing of causes that appertained not to him In like manner concerning appeals made to Rome it is testified that [e] Mr. Symonds upon the Revelations cap. 5. pag. 53. fine And see the like in Damasus Epist 2. ad Stephanum ad Concilia Africae Julius decreed that whosoever suspected his Judge might appeal to the Sea of Rome That also Theodoret a Greek Father who lived in the latter end of this Century and was deposed by the second Council of Ephâ—sus [f] See Cent. 5. col 1013 lin 12. it is said of Theodoret Appellat ad judiciuÌ„ leonis eique supplicat c. And
and the Bishop of Romes dignity than by the word of God was given to either of them And as concerning particulars to forbear what is generally [k] That Boniface the third claimed to be Head of the Universal Church Anno 607. is confessed by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi pag. 160. ante med by M. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 36. initio by Mr. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed pag. 307. by Mr. Downham in his Book of Antichrist l. 1. pag. 4. post med And by Mr. Whitaker de Ecclesia contra Bellarminum c. pag. 144. post med where he affirmeth this Boniface and all his Successors to be Antichrists And the very same is affirmed by Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 27. circa med by M. Powel de Antichristo in Praesat pag. 1. fine confessed of the 1000. years last past the Century Writers of Magdeburg in their fifth Century the last part or end whereof was one hundred and the beginning thereof two hundred years within the compass of Mr. Jewels own challenge do confess and say concerning even those antient times that [l] Cent. 5. col 774. lin 31. in this fifth age the Roman Bishops applyed themselves to get and establish Dominion over other Churches that to this end [m] Cent. 5. col 777. lin 55. and in example thereof say further there Sic Celestinus Cyrillo Alexandrino cui suas partes videlicet ut Synodo Ephesinae praesideret delegavit privilegium dedit usurpandi titulum Papae mitram they usurped to themselves right of granting privileges and ornaments to other Archbishops That also [n] Cent. 5. col 778 lin 16. and in example thereof say further there Nam Leo Max mum Ant ochenum confirmavit in Episcopaâ—u ac Proterâ—o Alexandrino Episcopo jura ant qua ejus Sedis juxta Canones Privilegia confirmasse â—nd â—atur Epist 68 Leonis 69. and ibid. lin 37. it is further said Vsurpabant sib pot starem mandandi alâ—is Episcopis ut quem spsi velient proponerent in dissitâ—s Ecclesiis Episcopum ordinarent aut quem ipsi nollent deponerent sic Câ—lâ—stinus in Epâ—stola ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum Joannem Antiochenum Rufum Thâ—ssalonicensem mandat 〈◊〉 ut Proclum Constantinopoli designarent Episcopum c. they confirmed Arch-Bishops in their Seas [o] See this next heretofore at 25. and see further cent 5 col 778. lin 46. and see next hereafter at 67. in the margent and of Anthimus of Constantinople deposed by Agapitus see cent 6. col 55. lin 20. and Liberatus in Bâ—eviar cap. 21. of Dioscorus in like manner deposed and see Gelasius in Epist ad Episcopos Dardaniae deposed [p] Cent. 5. col 779. lin 31. it is said Sumâ—bant sibi facultatem excommunicandi alios Archiepiscopos Ecclesias sic Leo excommunicavit Orientales Felix Ocaclum Gelasius damnavit Acatium Petrum miffis literis in Orientem excommunicatd and [q] Cent. 5. col 779. lin 38. And in example thereof say further there Nam Gelasius in tomo Anathematum Petrum Alexandrinum secundae Sedis Antistitem negat absolvi a quoquam pose se quam ab Episcopo primae sedis scilicet Romano absolved others [r] Cent. 5. col 779. lin 8. it is said Arrogant sibi potestatem citandi alios ad dicendam coram sese causam sic Constantinopolitanus Episcopus Romam citatur Maximum citaturum sese promittet Bonifacius arrogating also power to themselves of citing other arch-Arch-Bishops to declare their cause before them and that [s] Centur. 5. col 778. lin 5â— it is said Constituerunt postularunt ut in Episcoporum causis liceat ad sese appellari ut patet ex Actis sextae Carthaginensis Synodi Epistola ad Bonifacium Sixtus Epist 3. ad Orientales cap. 5. decernit ut contra Episcopum ad sedem Apostol cam appellantem nihil aliud statuatur quam Romanus Episcopus censuerit Gelasius in Epistola ad Faustum Magistrum impudenter mentitur in Canon bus sancitum esse ut Appellationes totius Ecclesiae ad examen Romanae sedis deferantur abipsa nusquam appelletur against a Bishop appealing to the Apostolick Sea nothing should be determined but what the Bishop of Rome censured that also [t] Cent. 5. col 780. lin 8. it is said Conati sunt eam sibi super Archiepiscopos vendicare authoritatem ut si quid illi agerent ex authoritate Romani Episcopi eg sse viderentur quasi servi ejus mancipia essent sic Leo Epist 84. indicat Antiftites Thessalonicenses semper vicem Apostolicae sedis implevisse ac monet Anasta sium who was then Bishop of Thessalonica ut in longinquis Provinciis quodam modo praesentiam suâ— Visitationis impendat nihil decernat nisi quod fibi probari agnoscat Sic Gelasius in Epistola ad Dardanos dicit se curam Alexandrinae Ecclesiae delegasse Acacio Constantinopolitano ideoque cum debuisse ad ipsum referre omnia And see further col 778. lin 26. col 779. lin 17. example is given of Legates sent into remote Provinces as Constantinople Ephesus and Africk Cent. 5. col 779. lin 43. it is said Ausi sunt ab Archi-Episcopis postulare ut si quid suo judicio non possent determinare ad sese referrent sic Leo Ep. 84. c. 7. Thessalonicensi hanc legem dictitat c. And see col 1230. lin 26. col 780. lin 45. And see further hereof Stephanus Mauritaniae Episcopus in Epistola ad Damasum And Anastasius Hierosolymitanus in Epist ad Felicem they appointed their Legates in remote Provinces challenging Authority to hear and determine all uprising controversies especially [u] See their testimony and examples hereof given col 781. lin 9. in Questions of Faith that likewise [x] Col. 781. lin 20. Generalia Concilia indicendi potestatem sibâ— sumpserunt ut patet Epist 93. cap. 7. Leonis c. Ac Synodos sine sua authoritate convocatas ut illegitimas rejecerunt they took upon them power of appointing general Councils and [y] Col. 781. lin 36. Jus pâ—â—dendi Synodis universalibus sibi adscripserunt c. Sic Celestinus Cyrillo Alexandrino in Ephesina Synodo Praesidendi potestatem suo nomine concessisse videri vult Ac Leo Paschasinum Siciliae Episcopum ut Chalcedonensi praesideret misit And see the subscription of Paschasinus in Concil Chalcid act 3. to be Presidents in general Councils And when themselves were absent even by [z] Vt supra and see this heretofore in the margent at 24. and see Centur. 5. col 781. lin 52. And see Danaeus in resp ad Bellarm part 1. pag. 323. their Deputies which were oftentimes no meaner than some one or other Patriarch [a] See next before at 34. also col 781. lin 57. In Synodis perpâ—ram acta
as well as they Therefore we Catholicks have the life and substance of Religion pag. 60. In the prime grounds or Principles of Christian Religion we have not forsaken the Church of Rome Therefore he grants that we have the prime grounds or Fundamentall Articles of Religion pag. 11. For those Catholick verities which she the Roman Church retains we yield her a member of the Catholick though one of the most unsound and corrupt members In this sense the Romanists may be called Catholicks Behold we are members of the Catholick Church which could not be if we erred in any one Fundamentall Point By the way If the Romanists may be called Catholicks why may not the Roman Church be termed Catholick And yet this is that Argument which Protestants are wont to urge against us and Potter in particular in this very place not considering that he impugns himself whiles he speaks against us not distinguishing between universall as Logicians speak of it which signifies one common thing abstracting or abstracted from all particulars and Catholick as it is taken in true Divinity for the Church spread over the whole world that is all Churches which agree with the Roman and upon that vain conceit telling his unlearned Reader that universall and particular are tearms repugnant and consequently one cannot be affirmed of the other that is say I Catholick cannot be affirmed of D. Potter nor D. Potter said to be a Catholick because a particular cannot be said to be universall or an universall pag. 75. To depart from the Church of Rome in some doctrines and Practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation pag. 70. They the Roman Doctors confesse that setting aside all matters controverted the main positive truths wherein all agree are abundantly sufficient to every good Christian both for his knowledge and for his practise teaching him what to believe and how to live so as he may be saved His saying that the Roman Doctors confess that setting aside all matters controverted c. is very untrue it being manifest that Catholicks believe Protestants to erre damnably both in matters of faith and practise yet his words convince ad hominem that we have all that is necessary yea and abundantly sufficient both for knowledge and practise for us to be saved And then he discoursing of the Doctrines wherein we differ from Protestants saith pag. 74. If the Mistaker will suppose his Roman Church and Religion purged from these and the like confessed excesses and novelties he shall find in that which remains little difference of importance between us Therefore de facto we believe all things of importance which Protestants believe After these words without any interruption he goes forward and sayes pag. 75. But by this discourse the Mistaker happily may believe his cause to be advantaged and may reply If Rome want nothing essentiall to Religion or to a Church how then can the Reformers justify their separation from that Church or free themselves from damnable Schisme Doth not this discourse prove and the Objection which he raises from it suppose that we want nothing essentiall to Religion Otherwise this Objection which he makes to himself were clearly impertinent and foolish if he could have dispatched all by saying we erre in essentiall points which had been an evident and more then a just cause to justify their separation which yet appears further by his Answer to the said Objection That to depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation And afterward in the next pag. 76. speaking of the Church of Rome he saith expresly Her Communion we forsake not no more than the Body of Christ whereof we acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a member though corrupted And this clears us from the imputation of Schism whose propertie it is to cut off from the Body of Christ the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates But if she did erre in any one Fundamentall point by that very errour she would cease to be a member of the Body of Christ and should be cut off from the hope of salvation therefore she doth not erre in any Fundamental point p. 83. We were never disjoyned from her the Church of Rome in those main essentiall truths which give her the name and essence of a Church You must then say that she errs not in any Fundamental Point For the essence of a Church cannot subsist with any such error And that it may appear how desirous he is that it should be believed Catholicks Protestants not to differ in the essence of Religion he adds these words immediately after those which we have last cited Whereof if the mistaker doubt he may be better informed by some late Roman Catholick writers One of France who hath purposely in a large Treatise proved as he believes the Hugonots and Catholicks of that Kingdom to be all of the same Church and Religion because of truths agreed upon by both And another of our Country as it is said who hath lately published a large Catalogue of learned Authors both Papists and Protestants who are all of the same mind Thus you see he ransacks all kind of proofs to shew that Catholicks and Protestants differ not in the substance and essence of Faith and to that end cites for Catholick writers those two who can be no Catholicks as Charity Maintained part 1. chap. 3. pag. 104. Shews the former in particular to be a plain Heretick or rather Atheist Lucian-like jesting at all Religion Pag. 78. he saith We hope and think very well of all those holy and devout souls which in former Ages lived and dyed in the Church of Rome Nay our Charity reaches further to all those at this day who in simplicity of heart believe the Roman Religion and professe it To these words of the Doctor if we subsume But it were impossible that any can be saved even by Ignorance or any simplicitie of heart if he erre in a Fundamentall point because as by every such error a Church ceases to be a Church so every particular person ceases to be a member of the true Church the Conclusion will be that we doe not erre in any Fundamentall point Nay pag. 79. he saith further We believe it the Roman Religion safe that is by Gods great Mercy not damnable to some such as believe what they professe But we believe it not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as professe it when they believe or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinate might believe the contrary Behold we are not only in a possibility to be saved we are even safe upon condition we believe that Faith to be true which we professe and for which we have suffered so long so great and so many