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
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
he sent to the Councell instructions in writing what forme they ought to obserue in their iudgment And finally the Councell it selfe acknowledged that the Pope presided in it You say they to Leo (m) In relat ad Leon. presided in this assembly as the head doth to members exhibiting your good will by those that held your place And the faythfull Emperor presided for ornament sake and to see good order kept that is to hinder by his secular power such tumults and murders as had bene lately committed in the second false Councell of Ephesus Who seeth not that the whole Councell in these words acknowledged the Pope to be their Superior and themselues to be his subiects since they professe that he ruled ouer them at the head doth ouer the members SECT II. That the Councell of Chalcedon by the authority of Leo Pope deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus and restored Theodoret. THe supreme authority of the Pope is yet further proued out of the Councell of Chalcedon For Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople hauing reckoned vp the enormities of Eutyches requested Leo Pope to confirme the sentence of condemnation which in a Coūcell at Constantinople he had pronounced against him Moued then saith he (n) In ep praeambul Concil Chalced most holy Father with all these attempts of Eutyches with those thinges which haue bene done and are done against vs and against the holy Church worke confidently according to your courage as it belongs to the Priesthood and making the common cause and the discipline of the holy Churches your owne Vouchsafe to confirme by your writings the condemnation which hath bene regularty made against him Leo according to this petition of Flauianus condemned Eutyches and depriued him of his dignity Dioscorus sayth the Councell of Chalcedon writing to Leo (o) Relat. ad Leon. by the decrees of his tyranny hath declared Eutyches innocent and restored to him the dignity wherof he was depriued by your Holinesse What els is this but to say that albeit Eutiches had bene condemned by Flauianus his owne Bishop and lawfull Iudge yet afterwards when Flauianus by Eutyches his negotiation being deposed in the false Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo Pope and Leo declaring him innocent deposed Eutyches the Councell of Chalcedon imbraced this sentence of Leo and attributed to him the finall deposition of Eutyches as to the supreme Iudge that had power to reiudge the iudgments of other Bishops Which power Valentinian the third writing to Theodosius acknowledged and declared in this very cause of Flauianus We ought sayth he (p) In ep praeamb Conc. Chalced. to preserue inuiolable in our dayes the dignity of particular reuerence to the blessed Apostle Peter that the holy Bishop of Rome to whom antiquity hath attributed the Priesthood aboue all may haue place to iudge in matters of fayth and of Bishops c. For therfore according to the custome of Councells the Bishop of Constantinople Flauianus appealed to him in the contention which is risen about points of fayth The same power was like wise acknowledged by the Councell of Chalcedon in the cause of Theodoret Bishop of Cyre who being deposed by the second Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo and was restored by him and therupon admitted to take his place in the Councell of Chalcedon Let the right Reuerend Bishop Theodores come in say the Emperors officers (q) Conc. Chalc. act 1. that he may haue part in the Synod because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his Rishoprick and the most sacred and religious Emperor hath ordayned that he assist in the holy Councell Now that the Emperor ordayned not this as challenging any authority ouer Bishops but only as one that by his officers assisted at the Councell to execute the Popes decrees and to see peace and good order kept you haue heard the Councell testify (r) Sect. praeced and he himselfe declared the same saying to Pope Leo (s) In ep praeamb Concil Chalced. Our desire is that peace be restored to the Churches by this Councell celebrated vnder your authority The authority then is in the Pope not in the Emperor And when the cause of Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria came to be examined the Councell inquiring of the Popes Legates what charge they had against him Lucentius one of them answeared (t) Act. 1. Euagr. l. 2. c. 18. Dioscorus must yeld an account of his Iudgement because hauing no right to do the office of a Iudge he attempted it and presumed to hold a Synod without the authority of the See Apostolike a thing which nether was nor cold euer lawfully be done And Paschasinus another of the Legats (u) Act. 1. Wee haue here the commandes of the blessed and Apostolike Prelate of the City of Rome which is the Head of all Churches wherby his Apostolate hath vouchsafed to command that Dioscorus Archbishop of Alexandria sit not in the Councell but yet that he be admitted to be heard Wherupon the Councell commanded him not to sit as a Iudge among the Bishops but to stand in the middest as a person accused to answeare for himselfe (x) Euag. l. 2. c. 4. And the Councell hauing heard his whole cause condemned him requesting the Popes Legates to pronounce the sentence of condemnation against him (y) Act. 3. We beseech your Holinesse who haue the place and primacy of the most holy Pope Leo to pronounce the sentence against him Wherupon the Legates Paschasinus Lucentius and Bonifacius pronounced it in these words (z) Ibid. Therefore Leo the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of the great and ancient Rome hath by vs and by this present Synod together with the thrice blessed and worthy of all praise Peter the Apostle who is the Rock and Head of the Catholike Church and the foundation of the right fayth deposed Dioscorus from the Episcopall dignity and depriued him of all Sacerdotall function To this sentence all the Bishops subscribed And it is to be noted that wheras many most enormous crimes of Dioscorus are there rehearsed (a) Ibid. yet that which the Councell iudged to exceed all the rest was that he had presumed to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of great Rome Leo which enormity of his the whole Councell exaggerating to Leo sayd (b) Relat. ad Leon. And after and aboue all these things he hath extended his phrensy euen against him to whom the guard of the Vine hath bene committed by our Sauiour that is to say against your Apostolike Holinesse and hath dictated an Excommunication against you that seeke to vnite speedily the body of the Church In which words the Councell plainly professeth that the custody and charge of the whole Church signified vnder the name of a Vine was giuen to the Pope by our Sauiour and that he because he is Head of the Church laboreth to vnite the body thereof which also they
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
be directed to the holy and Venerable Pope Innocentius And we likewise had written from the Councell of Mileuis in Numidia to the same Apostolike See And what did they write We hope sayth the Councell (k) Aug. ep 92. these men which hold so peruerse pernicious opinions will sooner yeld to the authority of your Holinesse drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures by help of the mercy of our Lord Iesus-Christ who vouchsafeth to gouerne you consulting with him and to heare you praying vnto him To this Epistle of the Councell Innocentius answeared (l) Aug. ep 93. You prouide diligently and worthily for the Apostolike honor c. following in the consultation of difficult things the forme of the ancient rule which you know as well as I to haue bene alwayes obserued by the whole world But I omit this for I thinke it is not vnknowne to your wisdome for why els did you confirme this by your deeds but because you know that answeres do alwayes flow from the Apostolicall fountaine throughout all Countries to those that aske them And especially as often as matter of fayth is in question I conceiue that all our brethren and fellow-Bishops ought not to referre what may be profitable in common to all Churches to any but to Peter that is to the author of their name and dignity as your Dilection hath done If you answeare that Innocentius writ this but spake vntruly in his owne cause S. Augustine will satisfy you who highly prayseth both these answeares of his Vpon this affaire sayth S. Augustine (m) Ep. 106. relations were sent from the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the Apostolicall See c. And besides the relations of the Councells we writ also priuate letters to Pope Innocentius of blessed memory in which we discoursed more largely of the same subiect And he answeared vs to euery point as it was conuenient and fitting the Prelate of the Apostolike See should answeare And againe (n) Ep. 157. Pelagius and Celestius hauing bene the authors or most violent promotors of this new Heresy they also by meanes of the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councells with the help of God who vndertakes the protection of his Church haue bene condemned in the extent of the whole world by two reuerend Prelates of the Apostolike See Pope Innocentius and Pope Zozimus vnlesse they reforme themselues and do pennance Out of this it is euident 1. That it was the ancient tradition and custome that Councels should send their decrees to the Pope to be confirmed by his authority 2. And that it is so ordeyned not by humane but by diuine sentence 3. That all other Churches of the world compared to the Roman are as streames that flow from their mother source and are to imbrace as pure whatsoeuer doctrine she deliuereth and reiect whatsoeuer she condemneth 4. That the Fathers of both these Councels did acknowledg the Pope to be their Pastor 5. And that they did belieue his authority to be takē out of the holy Scriptures 6. That Christ guideth him in his consultations and decrees of fayth 7. That the custome ancient rule beareth that in doubts especially of fayth the See Apostolike is to be consulted and nothing determined vntill answeare had from thence Now to your obiection (o) Pag. 141. seqq that the Councell of Mileuis denied any right of Appeales from Africa to the Church of Rome which in your eyes is so forcible that you repeat it afterwards againe (p) Pag. 321.322 seqq and descant on it at large against Bellarmine who sheweth (q) L. 2. de Pont. c. 24. it to be wholly impertinent and from the matter for the question of appeales to the B. of Rome is not of Priests and inferior Clerkes of whom only the Councell of Mileuis speaketh but of Bishops for the Councell of Sardica which hath declared (r) Can. 4. 7. that Bishops may appeale to the Pope hath withall decreed (s) Can. 27. that Priests and inferior Clerkes are to be iudged by their owne Bishops that if they conceiue themselues to be wronged by them they appeale to other Bishops of the same prouince And the same had bene ordeyned not long before by the Councell of Nice (t) Iulius ep 1.2.3 apud Bin. to 1. pag. 399. seqq and afterwards by S. Leo (u) Ep. 84. ad Anastas Thessal S. Gregory (x) L. 2. indict 11. ep 6. ordeyning that maior causes be iudged in the first instance by a Councell of Bishops of the same prouince by way of appeale by the See Apostolike And to goe no further the same was answeared by the holy Pope Innocentius to whom the Councell of Mileuis sent their decrees to be confirmed (y) Aug. ep 92. For when Victricius B. of Rhoan desiring to order the gouerment of his Church according to the Roman discipline required instructions from him he (z) Ep. 2. addressed vnto him diuers rules to be obserued of which the third is that If dissentions arise betweene Priests or other Clerkes of the inferior order they are to be iudged ended by the Bishops of the same Prouince as the Councell of Nice hath determined And for the causes of Bishops he addeth (a) Ibid. If they be maior causes that are in question let them after the Episcopall iudgment be referred to the See Apostolike as the Synod of Nice and the ancient customes ordeyne This Epistle of Innocentius was cited by the Bishops of France in the second Councell of Tours 700. yeares since And his very words concerning the appeales of Bishops to the See Apostolike are inserted in forme of a Law into the Capitulary of Charlemaine And Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes in his epistle to Nicolas Pope (b) Erodoard histor Eccles Rhem. lib. 3. repeating the same decree of Innocentius sayth We Metropolitans trauilling in our prouinciall Councels haue care after iudgment to referre the maior causes that is of fayth and of maior persons that is of Bishops to the determination of the soueraigne See And speaking of Priests and inferior Clerkes Let it not please God that we thould depise the priuiledge of the first and supreme See of the holy Roman Church as to weary your soueraigne Authority with all the controuersies and quarrels of the Clergy as well of the superior as of the inferior order which the canons of the Nicen Councell and the decrees of Innocentius and other Popes of the holy See of Rome command to be determined in their owne Prouinces From hence it followeth that the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis which you obiect against appeales to Rome makes nothing at all for your purpose your peremptory conclusion is (c) Pag. 141. that the Councell of Mileuis denieth any right of appeales from Africk to the Church of Rome To make this good you should haue shewed that the Councell of Mileuis forbids the appeales of Bishops
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.
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
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
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