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
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
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
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
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
affirmeth that Christ to reward his fayth built his Church vpon him 9. And no lesse deceiptfully you alleage (k) Pag. 39. g. the RomaÌ„ glosse (l) Gloss Decret part 1. d. 10. in Cap. Dominus no fler to proue that not Peter but his confession without any relation to his person is the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church for the glosse sayth Christ would haue his owne name of Petra a Rocke giuen to Peter c. therfore called him Petrus And the Chapter on which this glosse is made is taken out of an Epistle of S. Leo in which he not only affirme (m) Ep. 83. Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built but addeth that whosoeuer denyeth this truth is impiously presumptuous and plungeth himselfe into Hell To these and otherlike obiections out of the Fathers and other Catholike authors you ad some confirmations of your owne The first is None say you (n) Pag. 41. will deny but that there was meant in Peters Confession that matter which he confessed but Peter confessed not himselfe but Christ saying Then art the Sonne of the lyuing God Ergo his confession had relation to Christ and not to himselfe A false and senslesse consequence for euery confession hath relation not only to the matter as to the obiect or thing confessed but also to him that coÌ„fesseth as to the agent from which it proceedeth and therfore to inferre that when Christ answering Peter and rewarding his confession sayd vnto him Thou art Peter c. he meant not Peter but himselfe to be the Rock is as senslesse an inference as to say that when Thomas cryed out vnto Christ (o) Ioan. 20.28 My Lord my God and Christ in reward of his confession sayd (p) Ibid. vers 29. Blessed art thou Thomas he pronounced not Thomas blessed but himselfe which was the matter Thomas beleeued 2. You obiect (q) Pag. 42. fin 43. All the Apostles and Prophets are called foundations wherby is not meant their persons or dominions but their doctrines I grant that Christ S. Peter the rest of the Apostles and Prophets are foundations on which the Church is built Christ is the chiefe and primary foundation by his owne power and strength Of him the Apostle sayth (r) 1. Cor. 3.11 Other foundation no man can lay besyde that which is layd which is Christ Iesus whome therfore S. Augustine (s) In Psal 86. and S. Gregory (t) L. 28. Moral c. 9. call Fundamentum fundamentorum The foundation of foundations Besydes Christ the Apostles and Prophets are also secondary foundations of the Church for the Prophets by fore-telling Christ and the Apostles by preaching his sayth and doctrine vphold the body of the Church to wit the faythfull who therfore are called (u) Ephes 2.20 Domostikes of God built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner-stone and for this cause the wall of the Citty of the Church is sayd (x) Apoc. 1.24 to haue 12. foundations and in them the 12. names of the 12. Apostles Among these secondary foundations Peter hath the first and chiefest place The rest of the faythfull in respect of him are ordinary stones he an impregnable Rock as being built immediatly vpon Christ and the rest by meanes of him in regard wherof it was sayd to him alone and to no other of the faythfull or Apostles Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And therfore S. Augustine sayth (y) Serm. 15. de Sanct. Our Lord called Peter the foundation of the Church for which cause the Church with reason worshippeth this foundation vpon which the height of the ecclesiafticall edifice is raysed 3. You say (z) Pag. 42. that when the Fathers expound by Rock Peter they meane ether a primacy of order or honor or els a priority of Confession in Peter not of Authority and Dominion and the same you repeate afterwards saying (a) Pag. 110. The similitude of head and members hath no colour of superiority but of priority of place or of voyce And this reason you alleage (b) Pag. 41. why though the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake yet he alone answered as being the mouth of the rest I grant that Peter spake in the name of the rest but to inferre that therfore Christ when he answered Peter saying Thou art Peter made him not a Rock or promised not to make him the foundation of his Church is a Non sequitur I grant also that the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake that he answered as the mouth of the rest not because he had any Commission from them but because out of his great feruor he preuented the rest and spake for them as their head and Superiour as Christ somtimes did for all his Apostles (c) Math. 9.11 Luc. 6.2 and as the Rector is wont to answere in the name of the whole Colledge So sayth S. Cyrill of Alexandria (d) L. 4. in Ioan. c. 18. They all answere by one that was their Superiour And againe (e) Ibid. l. 12. cap. 64. when our Sauiour asked his Disciples whom doe you say that I am Peter as being Prince and head of therest first cryed out Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God So S. Cyrill of Hierusalem (f) Catech. â—â— All the Apostles being silent for this doctrine was aboue their strength Peter Prince of the Apostles and the chiefe preacher of the Church sayth vnto him Thou art Christ c. And in the same sense S. Cyprian (g) L. 1. ep 3. sayth Peter on whom our Lord built his Church speaketh for all in the voyce of the Church And S. Augustine (h) Serm. 31. de verb. Apost c. 1. Peter bearing the figure of the Church most feruent in the loue of Christ chiefe in the order of Apostles and holding the Princedome of the Apostleship often answers one for all And againe (i) Tract 124. in Ioan. That in his answere he bare the person of the Church for the primacy of his Apostleship and for the primacy which he had among the Disciples And whereas you to elude this exposition of the Fathers say (k) Pag. 42. 110. that when they expound by Rock Peter or pronounce him to be the head and Captaine of the rest they meane not primacy of authority and iurisdiction but of order or honor is a distinction that caries with it its owne confutation and shall be effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 1. hereafter CHAP. IX S. Peter exercised his Authority and Iurisdiction of supreme Pastor and Gouernor ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church TO disproue S. Peters authority ouer the other Apostles you obiect first (a) Pag. 45.46 that S. Gregory vpon those words of the Apostle (b) Rom. 9.12 I will magnify my office in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentils
same iorney is both a going and a mission a going as it is performed by him that vndertakes the iorney and a mission as it proceeds from those that sent him euen as the same lesson is both doctrina and disciplina doctrina as it is deliuered by the Maister that teacheth and disciplina as it is receaued by the Scholler that learneth and as in Philosophy the same production is called Actio as it proceeds from the Agent Passio as it is receaued in the subiect And to say that the sending of Iohn with Peter argueth Iohn to be equall in authority with Peter is a great Non sequitur as if you should argue a Chanon to be of equall authority with the Deane or a Cardinall with the Pope if they be sent togeather CHAP. XI Sleights and falsifications of Doctor Morton to shift off the testimonies of Ancient Fathers teaching S. Peters supremacy BELLARMINE to proue S. Peters primacy ouer the other Apostles produceth conuincing testimonies of many Fathers both Greeke and Latin (p) L. 1 de Pont. c. 25. These you vndertake to answer or rather to elude by diuers sleights Some of them as being so cleare that you knew not how to deuise any answer vnto them you wholly omit without any mention of them as of S. Prosper Arator and Aetherianus Others you mention as of S. Leo the great of S. Gregory of Venerable Bede and S. Bernard but put them of with deuises We pretermit say (q) Pag. 50. marg n. 20. you the testimony of Pope Leo wherof reason is giuen hereafter but wheras Bellarmine alleageth two vnanswerable testimonies of S. Leo you are so far from giuing any reason of them that for ought I can find you neuer after mention eyther of them The testimonies of Bede and S. Bernard you reiect as not truly ancient wheras Bede liued almost 1000. and S. Bernard aboue 500. yeares since But the true reason indeed why you reiect them is not want of antiquity but because they clearely conuince your Doctrine of falshood For when S. Bernard the later of these two hath any thing which by misinterpreting his meaning or falsifying you can wrest to your purpose as afterwards you do (r) Pag. 170. 182. S. Bernard is ancient inough S. Gregory you shift of promising to speake of him largely afterwards S. Gregory did disclaime from the title of Vniuersall Bishop in that sense in which Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople did arrogate the same to himselfe Of this indeed you treate at large (s) Pag. 92. seqq but his testimonie which Bellarmine vrgeth in proofe of S. Peters pastorall power ouer the whole Church you neither answere nor so much as mention afterwards 3. Bellarmine citeth out of Eusebius his Chronicon these words Petrus natione Galilaeus Christianorum Pontifex primus Peter a Galilean borne the first chiefe Bishop of Christians He sayth not Peter the first Bishop of the Romans as in the same place he sayth Iames the first of Hierusalem and Euodius the first Bishop of Antioch but Peter the first chief Bishop of Christians which differēce of expression she weth that wheras Iames and Euodius were Bishops of two particular Dioceses Peter was the Bishop of all Christians This is one of the testimonies of Eusebius alleaged by Bellarmine which you conceale without giuing any answer vnto it though you name the place out of which he alleageth it The second is out of Eusebius his history which you are contented to mention that you may pick a quarrell against Bellarmine for you say (t) Pag. 49. marg he miscites the Chapter the 14. for the 13. But by desiring to carpe you discouer your ignorance for in the different versions of Eusebius the Chapters are differently diuided and though the passage which Bellarmine citeth be in the 13. Chapter according to the version of Christophorson yet in that of Ruffinus which he followeth it is in the 14. as he cites it And wheras Eusebius there calleth Peter Reliquorum omnium Apostolorum Principem The Prince of all the other Apostles you answere That it is with this restriction omitted by Bellarmine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his singular vertues sake But what doth this omission auaile your cause or hurt ours The Fathers agree in this that when Christ promised to make Peter the foundation of his Church it was for that excellent confession of his Diuinity and in reward therof as hath bene proued (*) Aboue Nu 11. and so likewise when he actually conferred on him the dignity of supreme Pastor it was a reward of his feruent loue But doth it follow that because this supereminent dignity was promised to Peter and conferred on him for his singular vertues it was nor therfore a primacy of Magistracy and iurisdiction but of order only Is not the office of Pastor of Christs flock an office of Magistracy and iurisdiction but such are the answers which you giue to insoluble arguments yet shame not to charge Bellarmine with vnconscionable dealing in vrging this place of Eusebius against you 4. He vrgeth S. Gregory Nazianzen saying Vides c. You see how among the Disciples of Christ all truly great and high and worthy to be chosen this to wit Peter is called a Rock and hath the foundations of the Church committed to his charge And he that is Iohn is loued more and reposeth on the brest of our Lord and the other-disciples did not take it in ill part that these were preferred before them These are the words of Nazianzen and these very words Bellarmine truly and punctually setteth downe whom therfore you vniustly traduce (u) Pag. 49. marg as deprauing Nazianzen whose words as he corrupteth not so neither doth he peruert his sense for out of them it is euident that as Christ preferred Iohn by louing him more then the rest so in far higher degree he preferred Peter before them and before Iohn also For who seeth not that Nazianzen acknowledgeth a far greater dignity in Peter then in Iohn or any other of the Apostles when he sayth that Christ called Peter a Rock and committed to his charge the foundations of the Church for that is to say that he made him Head and Gouernor therof it being a knowne truth that the foundation in a building is the same that the Head in a politicall body from whence it is that the famous Councell of Chalcedon (x) Act. 3. calleth Peter The foundation of true fayth and the rock and top of the Catholike Church which is a far greater dignity then to leane on Christs brest or any other that was conferred on Iohn or any of the other Apostles 5. Bellarmine (y) L. 1. de Pont. c. 25. vrgeth 3. testimonies out of S. Augustines workes The second you passe ouer without any answer to it or mention of it The third you reiect as taken out of a booke which Bellarmine himselfe and others acknowledge not to be
roundly without any answere at all therfore your said Antagonist told you as with reason he might that he greatly marueyled with what conscience or if not conscience with what forehead at least you could at that tyme write and print things that you did know or might haue knowne to be merely false and forged Is not this sayth he a signe of obstinate wilfulnesse that neither God nor truth is sought for by you but only to maintaine a part or faction with what slight or falshood soeuer Hauing giuen you this admonition though he remit you or rather the reader to the Warnword for a larger satisfaction yet he also briefly answereth (k) Ibid. num 55.56.57.58 shewing 1. Your grosse ignorance in ascribing that Canon to Pope Boniface wheras it is gathered by Gratian out of the sayings of S. Boniface an Englishman that was Archbishop of Ments in Germany and a holy Martyr 2. Your fraud in setting downe the words of the Canon corruptly both in Latin and English as by leauing out the beginning which sheweth the drift of the Canon and the end which containeth a reason of all that is said and cutting of other words in the middest to couer the pious meaning of S. Boniface 3. Your falshood in leauing out and altering some words and corruptly translating others with a heape of falsities as he rightly calleth them (l) Ibid. num 57. marg Wherefore if he had iust cause to marueile with what conscience or forehead you could then repeate an obiection so fully answered before farre greater cause haue I to maruayle now that after he hath againe giuen you this second answere and so fully discouered your fraud you are not ashamed yet againe to reiterate the same obiection without taking any notice of those errors wilfull falsities which that answerer laid to your charge To him and to the Warnword I remit the reader But because the glosse affirmeth the Pope to haue plenitude of power in disposing of Prebends and that none ought therin to say vnto him why do you so You call this the height of all desperate presumption in the Popes to make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes A bold censure Kings haue fullnesse of power to dispose of the temporall offices of their kingdomes and none ought to say vnto them Why do you so Will you therfore tell them that this their authority is the height of all desperate presumption to make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes No why then do you giue it that name and censure in the Popes You might haue done well to aske S. Bernards opinion He would haue told you (m) Ep. 131. that the plenitude of power is by a singular prerogatiue giuen to the See Apostolike That he which resisteth this power resisteth the ordination of God that he hath power if he iudge it profitable to erect new Bishoprickes where formerly they were not and of those that are in being to put downe some and set vp others as reason shall dictate vnto him so that he may lawfully of Bishops make Archbishops and contrariwise if it shall seeme necessary He can summon from the furthest partes of the earth whatsoeuer Ecclesiasticall persons of neuer so high degree and compell them to appeare before him and this not once or twice but as often as he shall find it expedient This is the power which the glosse speaketh of you call it the Height of all desperate presumption wherby the Popes make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes S. Bernard holds it to be a power giuen him by Christ and that whosoeuer refisteth it as you doe resists the ordinance of God Whether is it fit that Christian men should belieue S. Bernard or you especially since you acknowledg him to be a Saint which he cold not be if he had erred in fayth nor will any wise man thinke that in this point he was of any other beliefe then all the holy Fathers of Gods Church were whose doctrine he knew and vnderstood better then you do But not contenting your selfe with censuring condemning Popes you carpe at the holy Martyr S. Boniface whom all Germany reuerenceth as their Apostle for teaching that albeit the Pope shold by his scandalous life draw innumerable multitudes with him into hell yet no man may presume to correct him to wit iuridically by punishing or deposing him for that is the sense in which S. Boniface speaketh vnlesse he also depart from the fayth But you consider not the wrong which by thus carping at the Pope you offer to all Christian Princes for dare you say that if an Emperor a King or any other absolute Prince be of so scandalous a life that by his example he lead thousands with him into Hell he may therefore be deposed Wherfore since you will hold it to be good doctrine that albeit a temporall Prince yea or many Princes liuing at the same tyme shold by their vicious liues draw thousands with them into hell none of them may therefore be corrected iuridically why do you carpe at vs for defending the same of the Pope who is but one at once Your fifth obiection is (n) Pag. 64. sin 65. S. Paul alone writ to the Romans not S. Peter True for when S. Peter writ his Epistles he was at Rome and had conuerted many of the Romans to Christ and planted the Church among them before S. Paul came theither or writ his epistle to them Againe S. Peter writ his epistles to all the faythfull and in regard therof you intitle them Generall Epistles and we Catholike Epistles a title which is not giuen to those of S. Paul Your sixth Obiection is (o) Pag. 65. It was not sayd of Peters ship as it was of that wherein S. Paul was God hath giuen vnto thee all them that sayle with thee and except those to wit the Mariners remaine in the Ship you cannot be saued Among 28. famous priuiledges which Bellarmine (p) Lib. 1. de Pont. c. 17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24 sheweth to haue bene granted to S. Peter and not to S. Paul nor to any other of the Apostles you are content to conceale them all without making any mention of them vnlesse it be of two or three to carpe at them as here you doe at his ship postposing it to that in which S. Paul sailed because in a dangerous tempest God preserued the liues of all that were in the ship for his sake But in this your dealing is no better then in the rest for the holy Doctors take the ship of Peter to be a type of the Catholike Church out of which none can be saued eternally which they say not of the ship in which Paul sayled When Christ saw two ships standing by the lake of Genezareth going into the one ship (q) Luc. 5.3 that was Simons and sitting he taught the multitude out of the ship it was not without mystery that of those two ships Christ made choyce of Peters only to
(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
betake your selfe as to your last refuge when you are pressed with vnanswearable arguments is a mere shift inuented to delude ignorant readers with empty words voyd of truth And by this canon it is in like manner euident that the primacy was not then first giuen to the Church of Rome but preserued vnto it according to the canons Your second Argument (z) Pag. 107. to proue that the later Roman Councells are bastardly and illegitimate and that we haue little regard to the Councell of Nice is taken out of Theodoret writing that Constantine the Great required in that Synod that because the bookes of the Apostles do plainly instruct vs in diuine matters therfore we ought to make our determinations vpon questions from words which are diuinely inspired And then you tell vs that Bellarmine answeareth thus Coâ—stantine was a great Emperor indeed but no great Doctor of the Church who was yet vnbaptized and therfore vnderstood not the mysteries of religion Thus say you doth this your Cardinall twite and taunt the iudgment of that godly Emperor and as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth from his reader that which followeth in Theodoret namely that the greater part of that Councell of Nice obeyed the voyce of Constantine So you as you are wonâ— for first you falsify Bellarmine who sayth not that Constantine was yet vnbaptized but that that is the opinion of you Protestants and the old Arians from whence he argueth ad hominem against you that this testimony of Constantine is not of so great weight as Caluin and Kemnitius make it for if he were vnbaptized he could then be no great Doctor of the Church as being a Neophyte and therfore not so well skilled in the mysteries of Christian Religion What twiting or taunting of that godly Emperor your find in this answere of Bellarmine I know not but I know that you in holding Constantine to be then vnbaptized both seeke to disgrace that godly Emperor and withall to vphold the authority and credit of the Arian heretikes who to make him a Patron of their heresy gaue out that he was not baptized vntill a litle before his death and that then he receaued his baptisme from Eusebius B. of Nicomedia the chiefe ringleader of the Arian faction But that your dealing may the better appeare it is to be noted that Bellarmine is so farre from twiting or taunting that godly Emperor that he admitteth of his testimony Admitting sayth he (a) L. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. §. Admissâ— the authority of Constantine I say that in all those doctrines which concerne the nature of God there are extant testimomes in Scripture out of which if they be rightly vnderstood we may be fully and plainly instructed but the true sense of the Scriptures dependeth on the vnwritten tradition of the Church Wherfore the same Theodoret that reporteth this speach of Constantine declareth in the next Chapter that in the Councell of Nice Scriptures were produced on both sydes but the Arians were not conuinced with them because they expounded them otherwise then the Catholikes and therfore were condemned by the vnwritten tradition of the Church piously vnderstood to which condemnation no man euer doubted but that Constantine assented So Bellarmine And hereby it appeares that when you say Bellarmine citeth Theodoret yet as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth that which followeth in him namely that the greater part of the Councell obeyed the voyce of Constantine you wrong Bellarmine and a buse Theodoret who in those words relateth not to the determining of controuersies by Scriptures but to Constantines exhortation made to the Bishops of peace and concord among themselues which sayth Theodoret the greatest part of the Councell obeyed imbracing mutuall concord and true doctrine though diuers Arians disagreed some of whose names he there expresseth This you iniustly conceale like the ill Steward in the Ghospell that you may pick a quarrell with Bellarmine In confirmation of this I might adde that as S. Augustine (b) L. 5. de Baptism c. 23. and Vincentius Lyrinensis (c) Cont. haer c. 9. 10. haue testified the heresy of Rebaptization could not be disproued by Scripture but was condemned by Tradition And finally I might aske you why you like the bad Steward conceale what Theodoret writeth in that very place namely that what Constantine said he spake not to the Bishops as their Head but as a sonne that loued peace offered vp his words to the Priests as to his Fathers and that he would not enter into the Councell but after them all nor sit downe but with their leaue and in a low chayre Did he trow you belieue himselfe to be Head of the Church CHAP. XVII The second Generall Councell held at Constantinople belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome SECT I. By what authority this Councell was called BELLARMINE in proofe of the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction alleageth that the Fathers of the first generall Councell of Constantinople which was the second generall of the whole Church in their Epistle to Pope Damasus say They were gathered by his Mandate and confesse that the Church of Rome is the Head and they the members This say you (d) Pag. 109. is all that is obiected but vpon a mistake What then is the mistake Because Bellarmine in the Recognition of his workes afterwards obserued that it was not the Epistle of the second generall Synod but of the Bishops which had bene present at the Synod and met againe the next yeare after at Constantinople But if this Epistle were not of the Synod why do you speaking of it not without contradiction say (e) Pag. 10â— The generall Councell of Constantinople do endite an Epistle (f) Pag. 110. margin and inscribe it thus And why do you mentioning the inscription of the same Epistle call it Synodicae Epistolae inscriptio The inscription of the Synodicall Epistle And why doth Theodoret (h) L. 5. hist. c. 9. stile it Libellus Synodicus à Concilio Constantinopolitano missus A Synodicall writ sent by the Councell of Constantinople c But howsoeuer you alleaging that Bellarmine acknowledgeth his owne mistake is a mere cauill nothing auailing your cause for be it that those Bishops writ not their Epistle whiles they were assembled in Councell but when they met the next yeare after at Constantinople yet you must acknowledge the truth of what Bellarmine alleageth out of their Epistle vnlesse you will make them all lyers But let vs goe on Bellarmine sayth (i) Recogn pag. 46. in hoc Concil it is sufficiently proued out of the sixth generall Councell that this of Constantinople was called by the commaund of Pope Damasus you answeare (k) Pag. 109. that in proofe therof he referreth himselfe to another Councell against the vniuersall current of histories which with generall consent set downe the Mandates of Emperors as the supreme and first compulsary causes for
the collecting of Councells So you but falsly as hath bene already proued (l) Chap. 1â— â— 8. And to go no further for examples That very sixth generall Councell which you mention beareth witnesse for Bellarmine against you saying As soone as Arius arose the Emperor Constantine and Syluester worthy of prayse assembled the great and famous Councell at Nice And that Constantine did not call that Councell by his authority hath bene proued (m) Ibid. and is confirmed out of the sixth Councell it selfe which was called by the authority of the Pope as it appeareth out of the Epistle of Constantine the Emperor to Donus (n) Inter praeambul 6. Synod apud Bin. to 3. pag. 6. in which he earnestly intreateth him to send Legates in his name with sufficient instructions and authority for the celebration of a Councell to represse heretikes and restore peace to the Church promising withall to see them securely conueighed to Constantinople to receaue them with due honor and the Councell being ended to returne them home with safety Donus being dead before this letter came to Rome it was receaued by Agatho his Successor who yielding to so pious a desire of the Emperor caused diuers Synods to be held in the West to examine the Monothelites Doctrine Which being done he called a Synod at Rome to establish more firmely the Catholike fayth against those Heretikes and then sent his Legates to Constantinople vpon whose ariuall the Emperor as knowing that without the authority of the See Apostolike no Councell could be valid signified by letters (o) Extat apud Bin. to 3. pag. 7. to the Patriarkes of Constantinople and Hierusalem that the Pope hauing yelded to his desire of calling a Councell had sent his legates representing his owne person and with them order and instructions how to proceed therin and therfore wished them with their Metropolitans and Bishops to resort to Constantinople All which sheweth how vntruely you say that Emperors are the supreme and first compulsarie causes for the collecting of Councells for indeed how can that authority belong to them who haue no more then the sixth Councell sheweth Which being ended the Popes Legates though none of them were Bishops but two of them Priestes and the third a Deacon as they had presided in the Councell so they subscribed in the first place before all the Bishops and Patriarkes and the Emperor in the last place after all and in these words Legimus consensimus (p) Apud Bin. to 3. pag. â—7 shewing therby that he had no authority of a Iudge in the Councell but that his duety was as it is also of other Emperors to agree vnto what the Bishops by their authority as Iudges had determined 2. To proue that the Emperor was the supreme and first comâ—ulsaty cause of collecting the second generall Councell at Constantinople you produce Theodoret as a witnesse (q) Pag. 109. 110. that not Damasus but he was the absolute Commander If Theodoret say that the Emperor commanded he sayth it not to shew that he commanded by his owne authority but by the power he had receaued from Damasus so that his command and conuocation was only executory of Damasus his authority for why els doe not those Bishops say that the Emperor called them and why do they say to Damasus You called vs as your owne members by letters sent to the Emperor but because Damasus was he that chiefely called them and the Emperor no otherwise then by vertue of Damasus his letters sent vnto him to that effect Euen as Basilius the Emperor in like manner called the eight generall Councell by the Mandate of Pope Adrians letters (r) Apud Bin. to 3. pag. 881. Volumus c. Wee will sayth Adrian to the Emperor that a full Councell be held at Constantinople by the industry of your Piety in which our Legates presiding c. And this would haue bene no lesse cleare concerning the calling of the second generall Councell at CoÌ„stantinople if what you set downe in your Latin and Greeke marginals you had syncerely rendred in your English text which most imported your readers for the vnderstandding of the truth And the same is yet further proued out of two very antient Manuscripts the one of the Vatican and the other of S. Maria Maior in which it is said (s) Apud Baron anno 381. Damasus confirmed the sentence of condemnation pronounced against Macedonius and Eunomius in the second Synod which by his command and authority was held at Constantinople And lastly whether Damasus did belieue that the authority of calling Councells belonged to the Emperor or to himselfe may be gathered out of another Epistle of his written in answere to one Stephen an Archbishoppe of Mauritania and three African Councells (t) Damas Ep. 4. apub Bin. to 1. pag. 499. in which hauing declared that he had the Episcopall charge or ministery ouer the house of God which is the vniuersall Catholike Church and that the See Apostoleke is constituted by God ouer all Priests and Bishops he addeth for as you know it is not Catholike that a Synod be held without the authority of the holy See Apostolike nor a Bishop condemned but in a lawfull Synod assembled by the same authority nor are any Councells read to be valid but only such as haue their strength from the Apostolicall authority And hereby you are conuinced of an vntruth in saying (u) Pag. 110. that Damasus his letters were not mandatory to the Orientals but letters of request to the Emperor Theodosius for obteyning liberty to collect and assemble a Synod For albeit Damasus requested Theodosius to assist him therin as the duty of a Christian Emperor was to do yet witnes Theodoret (x) L. 5. c. 8. he with his Roman Synod without whose aduice he dispatcheth no busines of moment sent letters to the Easterne Bishops themselues to call them to a Councell at Rome which letters they hauing receaued by the Emperor returne an answere to Damasus not taxing him for want of authority to call them but excusing their not obeying his command by reason of the shortnes of tyme the great inconueniences their long absence would haue bred to their Churches newly freed from the persecutions and troubles of Heretikes Which excuse sufficiently sheweth that they acknowledged in him authority to call them SECT II. Whether the Primacy of the Pope be Primacy of Authority and Iurisdiction or of Order only BEllarmine (y) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. proueth the Popes authority ouer the Orientals by their acknowledging him to be their Head and themselues to be his members You answere (*) Pag. 110. that the similitude of Head and members implieth no superiority of iurisdiction but only of Order that is of priority of place of voyce and the like But this euasion is coÌ„futed by the very comparison it selfe for the Head hath not only priority of place aboue the members but gouerneth and
man highly esteemed by you hath taught you (t) Not. in ep Cyp. ad Cornel that the word Brother there signifieth not equality but society of religion And nothing els is signified by the words Colleague and Fellow-minister when other Bishops are so instiled by the Pope or the Pope by them For that ancient Father Vincentius Lyrinensis speaking of Pope Stephen and other Bishops opposing the doctrine of rebaptization defended by Firmilianus and Cyprian sayth (u) Cont. haer cap. 9. Then the blessed Stephen made resistance together with but yet before his Colleagues iudging it as I conceaue a thing worthy of him to excell them in fayth so much as he did in the authority of his place And Innocentius the first in answere to the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis (x) Inter ep Aug. ep 93. I conceaue that all our Brethren and fellow-Bishops ought not to referre what may be profitable in common to all Churches to any but to Peter that is to say to the author of their name and dignity And the Bishops of Aegypt in the Synod of Alexandria call S. Athanasius their Colleague (y) Athan. Apol. de fuga sua who yet was their Head and had iurisdiction ouer them as the Coūcell of Nice declareth (z) Can. 6. And lastly the Bishops of the Councell of Ephesus call Celestine Pope their fellow-minister (a) Par. 2. Act. 1. and yet in the same place stile him their most holy Father and make themselues executors of his decrees Constrained necessarily say they by the force of the Canons and by the letters of our most holy Father and Fellow-minister Celestine we are come not without teares to pronounce this heauy sentence against Nestorius I conclude therfore that these words Brother Colleague and fellow-minister when they are vsed by the Pope to other Bishops or by other Bishops to the Pope signify nothing els but society of religion and vnity of communion from whence to inferre as you do that other Bishops are of equall authority with the Pope is a peece of ignorance no way suiting with a man of your reading and altogeather vnbeseeming him that holds the place of so great a Bishop SECT IV. A friuolous cauill of Doctor Morton against Bellarmine answeared YOu obiect (b) Pag. 109. fin that wheras Theodoret sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is letters the yeares past Bellarmine against all Lexicons readeth The mandate of letters Is not this fine art trow yee c. If any should translate the yeare past into Mandate might it not be suspected that the mans witts were now in the wayne as being ignorant c. So you who by seeking to shew your wit in scoffing at Bellarmine discouer your ignorance and folly Bellarmines intent is to shew that the Councell of Constantinople was called by the Popes authority because the Fathers of the Councell writing to Damasus acknowledge that they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his letters which Bellarmine translateth mandato literarum by command of his letters following the version of Christopherson and with good cause for who is so stupid as not to vnderstand that it is all one to call the Bishops to a Councell by his letters as the Greeke sayth or by the authority and Mandate of his letters as Christopherson translated But to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Mandate neither did Bellarmine so translate nor would any man whose wits are not in the wayne haue imputed so grosse an ignorance to that learned Cardinall especially since in two different places he setteth downe the same passage at large and expresseth both Mandato litterarum (c) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. In Respon ad Apol. pro iuram fidel pag. 375. and Anno superiore saying Mandato litterarum superiore anno à vestra Reuerentia ad sanctissimum Imperatorem Theodosium missarum by the Mandate of letters sent the last yeare by your Reuerence to the most religious Emperor Theodosius Which sheweth that if he had left out of the Latin Anno superiore as you citing his words cunningly do it had not bene to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Mandate but to omit Anno superiore as a particle wholly impertinent either to proue or disproue the Popes power of calling generall Councells which no way dependeth on the yeare but on the authority and dignity of his place SECT V. Of the Decree of this second Councell generall made in fauor of the Archbishop of Constantinople AGainst what hath bene said you oppose a (d) Pag. 112. 113. Canon of the second Councell ordayning that the B. of Constantinople haue the honor of primacy next after the B. of Rome because Constantinople is new Rome This Obiection reboundeth on your owne head For if the Bishop of Constantinople sought then to obtayne the second place after the Pope because Constantinople is new Rome it is therby manifest that before that tyme the B. of old Rome had the primacy aboue all Bishops The primacy I say not of order only for this the Bishops of Constantinople neuer denied to the Pope but of authority and iurisdiction ouer the Patriarkes of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem for that authority it was in which they sought to participate with him though in the second place after vnder him which they cold not haue done vnlesse the primacy of authority ouer those Patriarkes had primitiuely and originally belonged to him So farre therfore is this your Argument from euincing any thing against the Popes authority that it confirmeth the same And so much the more because the Canon obiected whatsoeuer the sense of it be and whatsoeuer the Bishops of Constantinople pretended by it is of no force for the Councell in which it was made consisted only of the Bishops of the East and therfore was not Generall of it selfe but only by the adiunction and confirmation of another Councell of the Westerne Bishops held at Rome vnder Damasus Pope at the same tyme which neither knew of this Canon before it was made nor confirmed it after it was made as S. Gregory hath testified saying (e) L. 6. ep 31. The Roman Church neither hath nor receaueth the Canons or the Actes of the Councell of Constantinople but she hath admitted that Synod in what it defined against Macedonius And the same is testified by S. Leo (f) Ep. 53. who reprehending Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople for seeking to renew this Canon in the Councell of Chalcedon sayth The signature of certaine Bishops made as thou vauntest more then threescore yeares since cannot iustify thy intention to the vpholding whereof being of it selfe from the beginning ruinous and long since quite fallen thou hast sought weake and feeble props for neuer hauing bene transmitted by thy predecessors to the knowledge of the See Apostolike it could be of no force That this Canon was neuer allowed by the See Apostolike you know but shift it off saying (g) Pag 112. Truly it
to place his See at Rome rather then in any other Citty was the dignity of Rome To the end sayth S. Leo (c) Serm. 1. de Apost Pet. Paul that the light of truth which was reuealed for the saluation of all nations might from the Head of the world be communicated more effectually to the whole body Of this cause the Fatherâ— of Chalcedon speake when they say (d) Act. 15. Rome got the Primacy because it was the chiefe seate of the Empire And both these causes are comprehended by the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian in their Law made a litle before the Councell of Chalcedon in these words (e) Nouel Theodos tit 24. Three things haue established the primacy of the See Apostolike the merit of S. Peter who is Prince of the Episcopall society the dignity of the City and the Synodicall authority 3. You obiect (f) Pag. 118. The Fathers of Chalcedon gaue priuiledges to the Patriarkes of Constantinople equall to the Church of Rome This we deny for in the Councell of Chalcedon there was no mention made of equal priuiledges this clause was afterwards added by Anatolius or by the Clerkes of Constantinople (g) See this proued aboue in this Chap. sect 4. and to this S. Gregory seemeth to relate when he sayth (h) L. 5. ep 14. The Councell of Chalcedon in one place hath bene falsified by the Grecians And the Fathes of Chalcedon neuer intended by this Canon to giue the Patriarkes of Constantinople any priuiledge of exemption from their obedience and subiection to the Pope but only to grant them precedency before the other Patriarkes of the East as hath bene proued (i) In this Chap. sect 4. And the same is manifest out of the writings of Leo Pope who though in his epistle to the Fathers of Chalcedon and in diuers others which he writ to the Emperor Martian to Pulcheria the Empresse to Anatolius himselfe and to diuers other Bishops of this subiect he speake against Anatolius for his ambitious attempt yet in none of them doth he say or insinuate that those Fathers gaue to Anatolius or that Anatolius himselfe euer aspired to equality of priuiledges with the B. of Rome but only reprehended him for wronging the Patriarkes of Alexandria and Antioch in procuring himselfe to be preserred before them The same is yet further proued because when Rome was fallen into the hands of the Gothes and Wandals the Patriarkes of Constantinople making vse of the tyme and setting this Canon on foote againe procured the Emperor Zeno to establish by a law that the Patriarke of CoÌ„stantinople shold haue the precedency before the other Patriarkes And the like they obtayned from Iustinian after the recouery of Rome when he ordayned (k) Nouel 131. that the Archbishop of Constantinople shold haue the second place after the holy See Apostolike and be preferred before all the other See Lastly the same is proued by the subiection which the Patriarkes of Constantinople acknowledged to the Pope after the Councell of Chalcedon and by the authority which he exercised ouer them for not long after that tyme when Acacius B. of Constantinople an enemy to the Councell of Chalcedon had fallen into the faction of heretikes the Churches of the Patriarkeship of Constantinople had recourse to Symmachus Pope as to their Pastor as Superior to their Patriarke Seeing your Children perish sayd they (l) Ep. Eccles Orient ad Symach in volum Orthodox impress Bafil in the preuarication of our Father Acacius delay not or rather to speake with the Prophet stumber not but make hast to deliuer vs. And when the same Acacius for his adhering to Peter Moggus an hereticall inuasor of the See of Alexandria was deposed by Felix Pope though he stood out as long as he liued contemning the Popes sentence sent vnto him to Constantinople yet the Emperor Iustine that succeeded Anastasius caused Felix his sentence to be executed on him after his death making his name to be razed out of the Records of the Church and from the recitall in the sacred mysteries Wee haue giuen order sayth Iustine to Hormisdas Pope (m) Epist. ad Hormisd that the Reuerend Church of Constantinople and many others accomplish your desire in razing out the names of those whom you haue commanded to be taken away from the sacred records And in conformity to this Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople writing to the same Hormisdas said (n) Epist ad Hormisd I anathematize Acacius somtime Bishop of this City and promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred mysteries the names of them that are excluded from the communion of the Catholike Church that is to say that agree not in all things with the See Apostolike And Theodorus Anagnostes reporteth (o) Ad calc hist. Eccles Theodor. ex edit Robert Stopha that when Anastasius the Emperor vrged Macedonius Patriarke of Constantinople to abrogate the Councell of Chalcedon he answeared he could not do it without a generall Councell in which the B. of Rome must be president And when Anthymus B. of Trebizond inuaded the See of Constantinople Agapetus Pope being arriued thither deposed him euen in the City of Constantinople it selfe and in the sight of Iustinian the Emperor and excommunicated the Empresse Theodora that protected him and with his owne hands ordained Menas in his place the truth of all which is auerred by Iustinian himselfe (p) Nouel 42 by Marcellinus Comes (q) In Chron. by Liberatus (r) Breuiar c. 12. and Victor of Tunes (s) In Chron. edit per Ioseph Scâ—lig And did not Menas Patriarke of Constantinople make open profession of obeying the See Apostolike in all thinges (t) In Conc. Constan sub Meâ— Act. 4. And when Iohn the first Pope of that name was arriued at Constantinople Iustine the Emperor inuiting him to sit in a seat by Epiphanius Patriarke of that City that they might seeme both to be of equall dignity Iohn refused to sit vntill according to the prerogatiue of his See a throne was prepared for him aboue Epiphanius (u) Nicoph l. 17. c. 9. which passing in the City of Constantinople it selfe and in Epiphanius his owne Church and that many yeares after this decree of the Councell of Chalcedon was made euidently sheweth that it neuer tooke effect since neither Epiphanius nor any of the other Patriarkes here named liuing after the Councell of Chalcedon claymed any right of Equall Priuiledges therby but all of them remained subiect to the Pope as before the Councell they had bene And that which purreth this out of al doubt is that albeit the Patriarkes of Constantinople at length obtained that precedency before the other Patriarkes of the East which in the Councells of Constantinople and Chalcedon they labored for yet neuerthelesse euen then they still acknowledged themselues subiect to the Pope witnesse S. Gregory who writing to Iohn B. of Syracusa sayth (x) L. 7. ep â—4 Who doubts but
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
him I am And I answere you that this is a friuolous obiection for as Onuphrius hath noted (x) Tract voc obscur Eccles the name of Pope anciently vntill after the tyme of S. Gregory was common to all Bishops of great Cities as of Rome Carthage Alexandria Antioch Hierusalem and the like and you afterwards shewing the futility of your obiection proue the same (y) Pag. 241. Wherfore S. Cyprian acknowledging that the Christians of Africa of whome only both he and the Proconsull spake did call him Their Pope and that he was so did not acknowledge himselfe to be Pope per antonomasiam for in that sense the name of Pope was not then vsed but to be B. of Carthage that is to say the chiefe Father and Primate of all the Christians of Africa How then proueth this that the name of Pope being from the tyme of S. Gregory appropriated to the B. of Rome to signify his supreme authority doth not since that appropriation declare him to be Pope per antonomasiam For words signify ad placitum that which according to the common vse and acception of men they import And finally that the name of Pope when it is applied to the B. of Rome importeth a singular dignity proper to him alone is conuinced by the Epithets which ancient Fathers speaking to him adde to that name as when they call him Vniuersall Pope for so he is styled by the Councell of Cyprus (z) Ep. Synod ad Theodor. Pap. by S. Athanasius and all the Bishops of Aegypt (a) Ep. ad Marc. Pap. CHAP. XXVI The Councells of Carthage and Mileuis acknowledged the supreme Authority of the B. of Rome AGAINST the prerogatiue of appeales to Rome you obiect (b) Pag. 141. the Councell of Mileuis held Anno 402. And yet afterwards you say that the same Councell was held in the yeare 416. and cite Binius as your Author for both Binius speaketh of two different Councells held at Mileuis in those seuerall yeares and vnder different Consuls and you confound them taking them both for one and father your ignorance on Binius And with like ignorance you affirme (c) Ibid. the decree touching appeales to haue bene made by the Councell of Mileuis Anno 402. for the Councell held that yeare was the first of Mileuis in which the decree concerning appeales was not made but in the second Anno 416. 2. You must remember that when Bellarmine in proofe of the Popes vniuersall authority among other arguments produceth examples of African Bishops instituted or deposed by him as also the ancient custome of appealing to him out of Africa you answeare (d) Pag. 289. 304. that the Africans are within the Popes Patriarkeship which you call his Dioces and therfore rather subiect to him then to others If then the Africans were within the Popes Dioces they were subiect to him as to their lawfull Iudge and had right to appeale to him and he to admit their appeales and iudge their causes Wherfore if in the Mileuitan or any other Councell or occasion whatsoeuer the Africans inhibited appeales out of Africa to the Pope their inhibition was an act of disobedience and rebellion against their lawfull Superior and no lesse a crime then if the subiects of a temporall Monarke should forbid appeales to their Soueraigne With what face then can you iustify them therin But the truth is that you slaunder them iniustly for as there is nothing more euident then that the Councell of Carthage and this of Mileuis held in the cause of Pelagius and Celestius did fully acknowledge the supreme authority of the Pope and professed their obedience to him both in words and deeds so there is nothing more certaine then that they denied not his prerogatiue of Appeales without which his authority cannot consist If the African Bishops did not belieue the soueraigne power of the See Apostolike why did S. Cyprian addresse his Councell held in fauor of Rebaptization to Stephen Pope (e) S Hierom. aduers Lucifer And why did the Councell of Carthage held against Pelagius and Celestius send their decrees to Innocentius Pope to be confirmed by his authority saying (*) Aug. ep 92. This our proceeding holy Lord and Brother we conceaued we ought to represent to your Charity that to the statutes of our mediocrity might be added the authority of the See Apostolike for the defence of many mens saluation also for the correction of some mens frowardnesse Nor do they require this of Innocentius by way of charity only but require him as their Pastor to take compassion on them Pastoralibus visceribus with the bowels of mercy which he as their Pastor oweth to them as to his sheep And hauing rehearsed the opinions of Pelagius and Celestius they conclude What other things soeuer are obiected by them we doubt not but that your Reuerence when you haue examined the decrees of the Bishops which are said to be made vpon this occasion in the East will frame such a iudgment wherat we all may reioyce in the mercy of God Innocentius hauing receaued this Epistle praised the Fathers of the Councell (f) Aug. ep 91. that Antiquae traditionis exempla sequentes following the examples of ancient tradition and knowing what is due to the See Apostolike they had sent their decrees to be approued by his iudgment for as much sayth he as we all that sit in this place desire to follow the Apostle himselfe from whom the Episcopall office and the authority of this name hath proceeded the which Apostle we following do now as well know how to condemne euil things as to approue those which are worthy of prayse And then declaring what that is which the ancient tradition hath deliuered he addeth (g) Ibid. The Fathers haue ordeyned not by humane but by diuine sentence that they should not account any thing that is treated in prouinces distant and far of to be ended vntill first it were come to the knowledge of the See Apostolike to the end that the sentence 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 and running with the purity of their originall through the diuers regions of the whole world might take what they ought to ordeyne and what to auoide In like manner the Councell of Mileuis writ to the same Pope as to their Pastor (h) Aug. ep 92. Because our Lord by the guift of his speciall grace hath placed you in the Apostolike See vouchsafe we beseech you to apply your pastorall diligence to the great dangers of the weake members of Christ And S. Augustine who was present at this Councell and Secretary therof writ to Hilary of the same subiect (i) Ep. 94. When I did write these things we knew that a decree had bene made against them Pelagius and Celestius in the Church of Carthage to
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.
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
of Baronius saying that herein he is iustly reproued by many as one inuading vpon and intruding into the office of diuine Causes He is indeed reproued by diuers that thinke him to haue made ecclesiasticall lawes by his owne authority But by others he is iustly excused and in particular by Baronius (r) Anno 528. alleaging for his iustification as you confesse (s) Pag. 166. that he being a man wholly illiterate his Ecclesiasticall Constitutions were made by Epiphanius and Menas Patriarkes of Constantinople but publised in his name to the end they might be better obserued which was no way hurtful but profitable to the Church whose lawes were neglected and contemned by vicious Emperors and hereticall Prelates and people which at that tyme abounded in the East and especially by the Patriarkes of Constantinople many of them hauing bene infected with heresy This is apparent out of the expresse testimonies of Iustinian himselfe who not once but often professeth (t) Nou. 1 de Monast monach Nou. 81.123.133.137 that concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires he decreed nothing but according to the prescript of the holy Canons and therfore Iohn the second Pope of that name in an Epistle to him (u) Extat apud Baron anno 534. approueth and confirmeth his Lawes being informed by two Bishops Hypatius and Demetrius his Legates that they were made by the interuention and consent of Bishops according to the Doctrine of the See Apostolike decrees of the holy Fathers Wherfore Iustinian in those constitutions did nothing but what a Catholike and religious Prince might lawfully do without preiudice to the authority of the See Apostolike or inuesting himselfe in any part of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction Moreouer that by his Lawes he intended not to derogate any thing from the authority of the Bishop or Church of Rome his Lawes themselues beare witnesse We preserue sayth he in his law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (x) Cod. tit 1. L. 7. the estate of the vnity of the most holy Churches in all things with the most holy Pope of old Rome to whom we haue also written the like for we will not suffer any thing to passe concerning the affaires of the Church which shall not be referred to his Blessednesse because he is the Head of all the holy Prelates of God And in the Law Inter claras (y) Cod. tit 1. L. 8. into which is inserted that famous Epistle which he sent by Hypatius and Demetrius with a solemne Embassage to Pope Iohn against Cyrus and Eulogius Legates of the Acemites he sayth Yielding honor to the Apostolike See and to your Holynesse which is and euer hath bene our desire and honoring your Blessednesse as it becometh vs to honor our Father we haue speedily giuen notice to your Holynesse of all things that belong to the ecclesiasticall state for we haue had great care to preserue the Vnity of your Apostolike See and the state of the holy Churches of God c. And thersore we haue made hast to subiect and vnite all the Priestes of the East partes to the See of your Holynesse nor do we suffer that any thing belonging to the state of the Churches be is neuer so cleare and vndoubted be vnknowne to your Holynesse who are the Head of all the holy Churches To these restimonies of Iustinian you haue deuised diuers answers 1. With some petty Protestant Lawier you cauill at his Epistle to the Pope and the Popes answere to him as fictitious (z) Pag. 256. But this to be a calumny is learnedly proued by the two famous lawiers Alciatus (a) Parerg. l. 4. c. 24. and Cuias (b) Obseru l. 12. c. 16. 2. By Liberatus a writer of the same tyme (c) In Breu. c. 20. who reportes Iustinians embassage sent to the Pope by Hypatius and Demetrius and the Popes answeare to him which are extant in the same Law 3. By the testimony which Iustinian himselfe giues therof in his Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (d) Cod. tit 1. L. 7. and in his Epistle to Agapet Pope 4. By Leunclauius a Protestant Lawier who hath translated and printed Iustinians Epistle to the Pope and the Popes answeare to him as the eight Law of the Code 2. Wheras Iustinian call's the Pope The chief and Head of all Bishops and the Roman Church The Head of all Churches you answeare (e) Pag. 256. that we haue heard how common the word Caput hath bene without any sense of Monarchy We haue indeed heard you say (f) Pag. 50. 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 you also haue heard (g) Chap 11. Chap. 17. sect 2. how vntrue and repugnant not only to the beliefe of antiquity but euen to common sense this is 3. You obiect (h) Pag. 256. If this Rescript of Iustinian be taken so rigidly as we would haue it it is contradictory to another Constitution of his in which he grants the chiefe right in ecclesiasticall causes to belong to the Gouernor of euery Prouince We know that as while Iustinian was Catholike he made no Lawes but with the consent of Bishops and confirmation of Popes so if after he fell into heresy and contemned the authority of the Church he made lawes repugnant to the Catholike fayth and discipline of the Church t' is no wonder That proueth against you that heretikes are they which make lawes contrary to the fayth and discipline of the Roman Church and that if Iustinian had still remained a Catholike he would haue made no such lawes as he did not before he fell into heresy 4. You obiect (i) Pag. 166. Iustinian before he fell into heresy banished two Popes Siluerius and Vigilius To proue that he banished Siluerius you set downe these words as of Baronius Siluerium Papam mittit in exilium Iustinian sendeth Siluerius Pope into banishment But you abuse Baronius He hath no such words nor attributes the banishment of Siluerius to the Emperor but sayth he was sent into exile by Bellisarius and Antonina his wife partly at the instigation of the hereticall Empresse Theodora offended with him because he would not replace in the See of Constantinople Anthymus an Eutychian heretike and an inuader of that See whom therfore Agapet Pope had iustly deposed and partly for certaine crimes forged against him by her and Vigilius Yea Baronius (k) Anno 538. witnesseth that the Bishop of Patara comming to the Emperor and shewing him how displeasing it was to God that the Pope who is ouer the Church of the whole world to whom no King in the world is comparable should be driuen from his See he presently commanded him to be recalled from the place of banishment to Rome that the accusations against him of Treason might be examined But if Baronius had said that Iustinian
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
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
free election and therfore that if the Successors of S. Peter should remoue their See from Rome the Roman Church in that case might erre This opinion sayth Bellarmine (e) L. 4. de Pont. c. 4. is not hereticall nor manifestly erroneous but he holdeth and proueth the contrary namely that the See of S. Peter was fixed at Rome by especiall command from Christ and cannot be remoued from thence and therfore that when the Fathers say The Roman Church cannot erre the word cannot is to be taken simply and absolutely without the caution which you falsly ascribe to him You adde (f) Pag. 273. Bellarmine should haue said with you that the Roman Church cannot erre so long as the ancient and sincere fayth is preserued at Rome which is to say that she cannot erre as long as she erres not Bellarmine was of more iudgment then to proue idem per idem But you say (g) Pag. 276. The list of all the Fathers which Bellarmine in the strength of his learning and iudgment hath produced to guard defend the Monarchy of the Church and B. of Rome is of the Greeke Fathers but thirteene of the Latin not aboue eleuen within the space of the first 600. yeares This is notoriously vntrue for in the two Chapters immediatly preceding he produceth the testimonies of aboue 1340. Fathers in the foure first Generall Councells and that vnder Menas and of 26. Popes the greater part of them glorious Martyrs and the rest holy Confessors as S. Iulius S. Damasus S. Siricius S. Zozimus S. Innocentius S. Leo S. Gelasius S. Gregory Were not all these Fathers that liued within the first 600. yeares which you call the primitiue times But what if Bellarmine had produced no more but thirteene Greeke eleauen Latin Fathers Doth not Cardinal Baronius throughout his learned Annals Doth not Iodocus Coccius (h) To. 1. thesau l. 7. art 4.5.6.7.8 Do not Doctor Sanders (i) Visic Monar tot Clau. Dauid tot and other Catholike writers produce testimonies of Popes Councells and of the most religious Emperors and Kinges that haue liued since Christ in great numbers all of them professing their beliefe of the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope and necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome Why do not you subscribe to so great a cloud of witnesses rather then to Martin Luther and a few Sectaries broaching Nouellisme opposing all Orthodoxe antiquity Lastly to close vp your answeres to the Fathers you produce Tertullian (k) Pag. 277. after his defection into Montanisme calling the Pope The blessed Pope and the chiefe Bishop of Bishops but that he did it by Irony and scorne So indeed sayth Massonius a forbidden author But be it true that he spake it by Irony yet that very manner of speach sheweth it was then the custome of the faythfull to giue those titles to the Pope If Tertullian called him so by Irorny and scorne it was because he was an heretike And so you imitating him cauill at vs for instiling the Pope Your Holinesse which title say you (l) Ibid. being first giuen to Pope Leo for his Holinesse sake and sanctity of life is continued to Popes who haue bene most wicked and retayned only in respect of their functions The case is this Benedict the cleauenth (m) Extrau l. 5. C. Dudum calleth Boniface the eight his Predecessor bona memoria of good memory The glosse sayth If a Pope haue defiled the Church with exactions simonies and filthy speaches he is not therfore to be instiled mal◠memoriae not of euill but of good memory according to the ciuill Law determining that regard is not to be had to what he did but to what it was fit for him to do that is sayth the glosse not to his person but to his dignity for although his person haue offended his dignity hath not and his personall offence is not to redound to the domage of the Church And howsoeuer Prelates haue offended they are Presidents and Fathers of the whole community and therfore to be honored as the Philosopher teacheth also the Ciuill Law calling them Gods for the Excellency of their Order and dignity of their office And for the same cause Kings albeit wicked in their liues are instiled Clara memoria vel Inclyta memoria of famous or renowned memory and Emperors Dina memoria of soueraigne or diuine memory To which I adde (n) Act. 24.25 that S. Paul called Festus President of Iury Optime Fest◠Most excellent Festus and this nor for his Vertue or Honesty for he was a wicked man but for his Office the custome being that all Presidents of Prouinces were so instiled (o) Baron Anno 58. n. 33. All this I suppose you will allow for hauing read most of it in the Glosse you except not against it or if you do your exception is without ground Other Prelates therfore although they be of vicious liues may be instiled Bonae memoriae Kings Clarae vel Inclytae memoriae Emperors Diuae memoriae Temporall gouernors may haue the title of Optimi yea and be called Gods for so you call Kings (p) Serm before his Ma. at Durham pag. 14. The Pope only forsoth who is the Vicar of Christ on earth because it displeaseth you must not be saluted by the title of Your Holinesse whiles he liues nor be said to be Bonae memoriae after he is dead Other gouernors must be honored by reason of their dignities and offices The Pope only must be excepted and Doctor Morton to helpe out the matter must falsify the Glosse making it say that an ill Pope after his death is to be intituled Of blessed Memory which words howsoeuer you (q) Pag. 277. set them downe as of the glosse and in great letters to make your falsification more remarkable are not of the glosse but feigned by you And finally whether an ill Pope after his death be or be not to be intituled Bonae or Malae memoriae what makes it to your intent which is to proue that Saluation may be had out of the Roman Church But if your volume had not bene stuffed with such impertinencies it cold not haue risen to so Grand an Imposture CHAP. XXXVII Of the authority of the Epistles of ancient Popes AS the Arians and other Heretikes haue contemned the Epistles of the Bishops of Rome so all orthodoxe Christians haue euer held them in great veneratiō Eusebius Caesariensis (r) L. 3. hist c. 12. writeth that the epistle of Clement Pope to the Corinthians was so highly esteemed that the custome was to reade it publikely in the Churches which also he reporteth (s) L. 4. hist. c. 22. of the Epistle of Soter Pope And how greatly these Epistles were reuerenced may appeare out of S. Irenaeus who highly commending the Epistle of Clement (t) L. 3. c. 3. setteth downe a summary therof And in like manner Clemens Alexandrinus (u) Serm. l.
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
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
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