before there was any Church at all in Britaine and most especially because she begot and founded the Brittish Church Wherfore with great reason K. Henry the eight confesseth (o) Lib. de 7. Sacram. contra Luther art 2. that all the Churches of the faythfull acknowledge and reuerence the most holy See of Rome for their Mother And our late Soueraigne K. Iames of famous memory in the Summe of the conference before his Maiesty affirmeth (p) Pag. 75. that the Roman Church was once the Mother Church and consequently that as well the Church of Brittaine as all others were her daughters which right she being once possessed of cold neuer lose vnlesse you will make false the words of Christ who promised that the gates of hell which are false and hereticall Doctrines shall neuer preuaile against her Lastly I will not omit to put you in minde of two other slâ—ights The one is that wheras you know all antiquity to haue belieued and left expressed in their workes that the Roman Church is The head and Mother of all Churches and that it were not difficult if needfull to set downe their testimonies in their owne words you mention no other authority for our beliefe of that truth but the late Councell of Trent The other is that you runne on in your owne mistake calling it in vs a mad point of genealogizing to conclude that Rome must be mother to those Daughters of S. Peter which were begotten 7. yeares before she was borne and which therfore you call (q) Pag. 31. 36. Mothers grand-mothers and Aunts to her If by motherhood you vnderstand antiquity of tyme though it were indeed a mad point of Genealogizing to call the Roman Church Mother in respect of any Church that was founded before her yet in this very sense of Motherhood it is false that the Roman Church is a daughter to the Brittish for the Brittish was founded after the Roman But you know that by Motherhood we vnderstand superiority and iurisdiction and therfore as it were a mad manner of arguing to inferre that Caesarea in Palestine is not Superior in iurisdiction and mother to the Church of Hierusalem after which she was founded so it is in you to inferre that the Roman Church is not superior in iurisdiction and Mother to all Churches because she was founded after some of them CHAP. VII S. Peters Primacy defended TO proue that S. Peter was not of the now Roman fayth coÌ„cerning his owne primacy you (r) Pag. 38. seqq obiect those words of our Sauiour Mat. 16. vpon this Rocke for in them say you (s) Pag. 38. the fayth of S. Peter did not conceiue any Monarchicall or supreme iurisdiction promised vnto himselfe by Christ The natiue obuious and true sense of these words of Christ deliuered by the agreeing coÌ„sent of ancient Fathers Councels and all Orthodoxe writers is that Christ spake them to Peter in reward of that admirable confession of his fayth wherby he proclamed Christ to be The Sonne of the liuing God made him an impregnable Rock and promised to build his Church vpon him as vpon a foundation so firme and immoueable that the gates of hell which are errors and heresies should neuer preuaile against it This sense you cannot disgest therfore seek to elude it by abusing and falsifying the Fathers and other expositors For the better vnderstanding hereof it is to be noted that wheras you alleage some Fathers affirming that the rock on which Christ promised to build his Church is the fayth and confession of Peter and others saying that it is Christ himselfe these their expositions are no way contrary either in themselues or to our Doctrine for as Bellarmine (t) L. 1. de Pont. c. 10. §. Nemo dubitat obserueth no man doubts but that Christ is the chiefe foundation of the Church and that so much may be gathered out of these his words for if Peter be a secondary foundation supplying the place of Christ on earth it followeth that Christ himselfe is the first and chiefe foundation or as S. Augustine (u) In Psal 86. and S. Gregory (x) L. 28 Moral c. 9. call him Fundamentum fundamentorum The foundation of foundations Agayne they are not to be vnderstood of the person of Christ abstracting from the Confession of Peter but including it as the obiect confessed nor of Peters confession abstracting from Peter himselfe but including him as the person that confesseth Wherfore the sense is that Christ promised to build his Church vpon himselfe confessed by Peter or which is all one vpon Peter confessing Christ and for the confession he made of Christ Which to speake in the Schoole language is to say that Christ built his Church causally vpon Peters confession and formally vpon his person because that excellent confession of Peter was the cause which moued Christ to chose Peters person for the foundation of his Church The confession of Peter sayth S. Hilary (y) Cau. 16. in Mathaeum hath receaued a worthy reward declaring what reward it was he addeth O in the title of a new name happy foundation of the Church and worthy stone of her edifice O blessed Porter of Heauen c. And againe (z) Lib. e. de Trim. This is he that in the silence of all the other Apostles beyond the capacity of humane infirmity acknowledging the sonne of God by the reuelation of the Father merited by the Confession of his fayth a supereminent place 2. S. Basil (a) L. 2. Cont. Eunom Because Peter excelled in fayth he receaued the building of the Church on himselfe 3. S. Ambrose (b) Serm. 47. Peter for his deuotion is called a rock and our Lord is called a Rock for his strength he rightly deserueth to be a partaker in the name that is partaker in the worke for Peter layd the foundation in the house 4. S. Hierome (c) In cap. 16. Math. Because thou Simon hast said to me Thou art Christ the Sonne of God I also say to thee not with a vayne or idle speach that hath no effect for my saying is doing therfore I say to thee Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And againe (d) Ibid. He rewardeth the Apostle for the testimony he had giuen of him Peter had said Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God His true confession receaued a reward c. 5. S. Chrysostome (e) In psal 50. Heâ—re what he sayth to Peter that Pillar that foundation and therfore called Peter as being made a Rock by fayth 6. Theophilact (f) Ad cap. 1â— Math. Our Lord rewardeth Peter bestowing on him a singular fauour which is that he built his Church vpon him By these testimonies of Fathers it appeares that to say Christ built his Church vpon the confession of Peter is not to deny that he built it on the person of Peter but to expresse the cause for
proceeds from the Father alone which error of the Greekes is also testified and learnedly confuted by that famous Cardinall Bessarion and by Gennadius Scholarius in two speciall Treatises of this subiect and before them by S. Thomas of Aquine (d) Opusc contr error Graec. against whom writ Nicolaus Cabasilas whose booke is extant in the Vatican was soone after confuted by Demetrius Cidoinus a Greeke Catholike And to omit other Protestant writers Thomas Rogers in his booke of the 39. Articles perused by the authority of the Church of England allowed to be publike sayth (e) Art 3. propos 3. pag. 25. This discouereth all them to be impious to erre from the way of truth which hold and affirme that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father but not from the Sonne as this day the Grecians the Russians the Muscouites mantaine and in proofe therof he alleageth other Authors Finally the same is testified by Kekerman (f) Sistem Theolog. pag. 63. and Doctor White (g) Way Ep. Ded. n. 8. affirming that the Latin Greeke Churches brake vpon the Controuersy of the proceeding of the holy Ghost From hence it followeth that the Greekes which are not of the Roman Communion are absolute Heretikes and erre fundamentally for what error can be more fundamentall then that which is immediatly against the blessed Trinity God himselfe This you could not be ignorant of but that you may not seeme to be absurd in professing that Protestants are accordant in communion with heretikes you seeke to free the Grecians from heresy which you haue no other meanes to performe but by falsifying Catholike Authors 1. Therfore to this end you alleage (h) Pag. 334. lit q. marg these words as of Cardinall Tolet Gracus intelligens dicit Spiritum sanctum procedere per Filium quod non aliud significat quà m quod nos dicimus And in your text you english them thus The vnderstanding Greekes saying that the holy Ghost proceedeth by the Sonne signify therby nothing but what we our selues professe O egregious imposture Tolet there explicating these words of S. Iohn qui à Patre procedit expresly condemneth the Greekes of error in that point and proueth out of S. Cyrill that these words of S. Iohn confute their error Locus prasens c. This present passage sayth he (i) In caput 15. Ioan. Annot 25. doth no way fauor the error of the Grecians but rather confuteth and ouerthroweth the same for out of these words it is plaine that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne and the Father which Cyrill though an vnderstanding Grecian confesseth saying that the holy Ghost is of the Sonne and of the Father and that he proceedeth from the Father but by the Sonne Which signifieth nothing els but what we say These are Tolers words in which you see he chargeth the Greekes with error in their beliefe of the holy Ghost and therby conuinceth you of an vntruth in saying (k) Pag. 334. that Tolet freeth them from heresy in this point But to make good this vntruth you corrupt his words for whereas he speaking not of the later Greekes but only of that ancient and Orthodoxe Father S. Cyrill sayth Cyrillus Graecus intelligens c. Cyrill an vnderstanding Grecian sayth in this point no other thing but what we professe you both in your Latin and English leaue out Cyrillus as if Tolet had not mentioned him and translate Graecus intelligens in the plurall number The vnderstanding Greekes which you do purposely to perswade your reader that Tolet speaketh not of S. Cyrill nor of any particular man but in generall of the Later Grecians and freeth them from that error of the holy Ghost with which you haue heard him so expresly charge them Can there be a more wilful falfication then this 2. But your dealing with others is no better You cite (l) Pag 331. lit a. Castro to proue that the Greeks haue bene diuided many hundreds of yeares from the Latines But because you would haue your Reader conceaue that Castro holds them not to be heretikes and out of the state of saluation you set downe these words as his Per multas annorum centurias Graci à Latinis diuisi with is a plaine falsification for Castro's words are Duodecima haeresis est quae negat Spiritum sanctum procedere à Patre à filio Hanc haeresim docuerunt tutati sunt Graeci per multas annorum centurias itae vt haec fuerit vna ex praecipuis causis propter quas à Romana Catholica Ecclesia diuisi sint The twelth heresy is that which denieth the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Sonne This heresy the Greekes haue taught and mansained many hundreds of yeares in so much that this is one of the chiefest causes for which they are diuided from the Roman and Catholike Church Here therfore you māgle Castro's words And to mantaine your vndertaken falsity that the Greekes notwithstanding their diuision from the Roman Church are partes of the Church Catholike and in state of saluation you conceale that he affirmeth them to be heretikes and that the chiefe cause of their diuision from the Roman Church is their heresy concerning the holy Ghoast 3. With like preiudice of conscience you cite (m) Pag. 335. Azor who in that very place (n) Instit. l. moral part 1. l. 8. c. 20. §. Decimo directly affirmeth the Greekes to be heretikes and that although some thinke that concerning their beliefe of the fire of Purgatory and some other few points of fayth they differ not from the doctrine of the Roman Church really and in sense but only in words and in that respect are not heretikes but schismatikes yet he concludeth that whatsoeuer their beliefe concerning these articles is they are Heretikes and perhaps in these very points because they erre culpably in them but that wee often call them Schismatikes because we retaine the ancient manner of speach for first the Greekes diuided themselues often from the Church by schisme and in progresse of time brought heresies into the Church 4. You cite (o) Pag. 334. Suarez saying that the Greekes are schismatikes because they erre in those things which belong to the vnity of the Church though indeed they be heretikes also because they deny the vnity of the Head And immediatly before he had alleaged out of S. Hierome that all Schismatikes feigne to themselues some heresy to the end they may seeme not to haue departed from the Church without cause Agayne he expresly sayth (p) De Deo trino vno l. 10. c. 1. n. 2. that the Greeks erre in holding the holy Ghoast not to proceed from the sonne and that for this error among many others the Greeke Church hath diuided it selfe from the Roman Church denying obedience to the Pope These are the Authors which you produce to saue the Greekes from the infamous note of heresy wherin you
communicated with Cornelius Pope but because as there he expresseth to be in his Communion was to be in the communion of the Catholike Church And writing to Cornelius himselfe he calles the Chayre of S. Peter (u) L. 4. ep 8. the roote and Mother of the Catholike Church and (x) L. 1. ep 3. the principall chayre from whence sacerdotall Vnity is deriued from whence he inferreth that whosoeuer departeth from that (y) L. de vnit Ecclesiae See holds not the fayth nor is in the Church So teacheth ancient Pacianus (z) Ep. 2. for Nouatian as S. Cyprian affirmeth hauing made himselfe an adulterous and contrary Head to Cornelius the lawfull Pope and thereby separated himself from the Roman Church Pacianus for that very cause pronounceth him to haue dyed out of the state of saluation Although sayth be Nouatian hath bene put to death yet he hath not bone crowned And why not because he was out of the peace of the Church out of concord out of that Mother wherof whosoeuer will be a Martyr must be a portion So teacheth Optatus that learned Bishop of Mileuis in Africa when writing against Parmenianus the Donatist he (a) L. 2. cont part Parmen sayth Thou canst not deny out that thou knowest the Episcopall chayre to haue bene first set vp in Rome for Peter in which seat was placed the Head of all the Apostles Peter from whence he hath bene also called Cephas to the end that in this only chayre Vnity might be preserued to all least the other Apostles might attribute to themselues each one his particular Chayre and that he should be a Schismatike and a sinner that would against the only chayre set vp another And againe shewing the Donatists to be Schismatikes and out of the state of saluation because they opposed the Roman Church he (b) Ibid. sayth From whence is it that you attempt to vsurpe to your selues the Keyes of the kingdome you that fight against the chayre of Peter by your bold and sacrilegious presumption Thus writ Optatus 1200. yeares since and by his argument we may now proue Protestants to be Schismatikes no lesse then he did the Donatists So teacheth S. Ambrose (c) De obitu Satyri professing that to communicate with Catholike Bishops and to communicate with the Roman Church is all one And writing to Siricius Pope and acknowledging all those to be Heretikes whom the Roman Church condemneth as such he sayth (d) L. 10. ep 81. Whom your Holines hath condemned knowe that we also hold them condemned according to your iudgment So teacheth S. Hierome who writing against Lucifer the Schismaticall Bishop of Calaris in Sardinia and the Luciferians his followers that boasted themselues to be the true Church sayth to Lucifer (e) Epist. 8. I could dry vp all the riuers of thy arguments with the only sun-shine of the Church but because we haue now reasoned longe I will in few words declare plainly vnto thee my iudgment which is that we are to remayne in that Church which being founded by the Apostles dureth vntill this day And else where declaring what Church he meaneth he aduiseth Demetrias that if she will auoyd the snares of Heretikes she hold fast the fayth of Innocentius Pope sonne and successor in the Apostolicall chayre to Anastasius who had broken the pestilent head and stopped the hissing mouthes of that Hydra which attempted to pollute and corrupt the simplicity of the Roman fayth commended by the voyce of the Apostle And againe writing to Dâ—masus Pope he sayth (f) Ep. 57. I am ioyned in communion with your Blessednes that is to say with Peters Chayre I know the Church is built vpon that Rocke whosoeuer is not in the Arke shall perish at the comming of the floud he that eates the lambe out of this house is prophane whosoeuer gathers not with you scatters that is to say whosoeuer is not of Christ is of Antichrist So teacheth S. Basill In very deed sayth he in a letter to the (g) Ep. 69. per Sabin Diac. Pope that which was giuen by our Lord to thy piety is worthy of that most excellent voyce which proclaymed thee blessed to wit that thou maiest discerne betwixt that which is counterfeyt that which is lawfull and pure and that without any diminution thou maist preach the fayth of our Ancestors It is then certaine in S. Basils beliefe that the assurance which Christ gaue to S. Peter that the gates of hell which are errors and Heresies should neuer preuaile against the Roman Church was not made to S. Peter in his owne person only nor only for his tyme but in him to all his Successors and to them in him is granted that admirable priuiledge of preaching the fayth of Christ pure and without any diminution So teacheth S. Maximus alià s (h) In ep ad Orientales apud S. Tho. in Opuse 1. prope fin Maximianus All the bounds of the earth that haue receaued our Lord sincerely and all Catholikes throughout the whole earth that confesse the true fayth looke vpon the Church of the Romans as vpon a Sunne and shall receaue from her the light of the Catholike and Apostolike fayth and not without cause for Peter is the first that is read to haue made a perfect confession of the fayth our Lord reuealing it vnto him Math. 16. When he said Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God whereupon our Lord said vnto him I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth fayle not And (i) Ibid. againe We professe the Vniuersall Church to be framed and founded vpon the rock of Peters confession according to the sentence of our Sauiour in which Church it is necessary to remayne for the saluation of our Soules and to yield obedience to her keeping her fayth and confession So teacheth S. Augustine who among the Arguments which held him in the Catholike Church reckoneth the succession of Bishops in the Roman See euen from S. Peter vntill his tyme I am kept sayth (k) L. eont epist. Funda c. 4. he in the Church by the succession of Priests from the very See of Peter the Apostle to whom our Sauiour after his resurrectien committed his sheepe to be fed euen to the present Bishop And exhorting the Donatists which bragged that they also had Bishops he (l) Epist. 165. sayth If the order Succession of Bishops be to be obserued how much more assuredly safely indeed do we begin our accompt from S. Peter himselfe vnto whom as he represents the whole Church our Lord said Math. 16. vpon this Rock I will build my Church for Linus succeeded to Peter Cletus to Linus and hauing reckoned vp all the Popes vnto Anastasius who then sate in S. Peters chayre he coÌ„cludeth against the Donatists In this order of succession there is not any one Donatist to be found to which we may adde no nor yet any Protestant Since therefore the Church in
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 Alexandria and other Easterne Bishops which had bene personally present at the Councell of Nice being soone after cast out of their Seates by the Arians did fly to Rome and appeale to Pope Iulius for redresse as to their lawfull Superior and Iudge Or if this Canon do limit the iurisdiction of the Pope to the Patriarkeship of the West as it doth that of the B. of Alexandria to the prouinces named in the canon how comes it to passe that as Socrates (b) L. 2. c. 1â— Sozomen (c) L. 3. c. 7. and Nicephorus (d) L. 9. c. 8. report Iulius by the ancient dignity and prerogatiue of his See and because the care of them all belonged to him restored each of them to their Churches and rebuking the Arians for their iniust proceedings threatned to punish them vnlesse they desisted to innouate and cited Athanasius and some of the chiefe of the Arians to make their appearance at Rome on a set day and answere for themselues in iudgment and that Athanasius obeying transported himselfe in all diligence to Rome And how comes it to passe that when the Arians in their mock-Councell of Philippopolis required the Fathers assembled at Sardica to absteyne from the communion of Athanasius the other Bishops whom they had deposed those Fathers representing all the Catholikes of the world answered (e) Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. that they neuer had nor would now abstaine from their communion and principally because Iulius B. of Rome hauing examined their cause had not condemned them And how comes it to passe that Peter Successor to S. Athanasius in the See of Alexandria whom Theodosius and Gratian (f) Cod. Tit. 1. l. 1. call A man of Apostolicall sanctity being in like manner deposed by the Arians appealed to Rome as to the safest hauen of communion (g) S. Hieron Ep. 16. and relying on the authority of Pope Damasus his letters returned to Alexandria (h) L. 4. c. 30. and by vertue of them recouered his Seat expelled Lucius the Arian intruder Doth not all this shew that the authority of the Roman Church was not limited by the Nicen Councell to the Patriarkship of the West vnlesse you will haue vs belieue that you vnderstand the sense and meaning of the Councell better then S. Athanasius and other holy Bishops which were present at it and at the Councell of Sardica and better then Peter that renowned Patriarke of Alexandria that liued soone after these Councells In confirmation of this I adde that the Councell of Nice ordeyneth (i) Can. 6. that the ancient custome goe on Now the ancient custome was that all Churches should resort to the Roman Church by reason of her more mighty principality (k) Iren. l. 3. c. 3. and because she is the Chayre of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued (l) Cyp. ep 55. ad Cornel. and because in her the principality of the Apostolike Chayre hath alwayes florished (m) S Aug. ep 162. And if we come to the Patriarkes of Alexandria of whom this Canon particularly speaketh they did alwayes euen before the Councell of Nice acknowledge themselues subiect to the B. of Rome as appeareth by the example of Dionysius Patriarke of that Citty who being fallen into suspicion of heresy long before the Councell of Nice the Catholikes of Alexandria had not recourse to the Synods of their owne prouinces nor to any other Patriarke of the East but went to Rome to accuse him before Dionysius Pope They went vp to Rome sayth S. Athanasius (n) De sent Dionys to accuse him before the B. of Rome being of his owne name And a litle after (o) Ibid. And the B. of Rome sent to Dionysins to cleare himselfe of those things whereof they had accused him and suddenly he answered sending his bookes of defence and apology And againe (p) De Syn. Arim. Soleu Some hauing accused the B. of Alexandria before the B. of Rome to hold the Sonne for a creature the Synod of Rome that is the Popes Consistory consisting of the neighbour Bishops and the principall Church-men of Rome without whose aduice he iudgeth nothing of importance was offended with him the B of Rome writ to him the opinion of all the Assistants and he for his iustification addressed to him a Booke of defence and apology This playnely sheweth that the custome before the Councell of Nice was that the Bishop and people of Alexandria did acknowledge the Pope of Rome to be their Superior which custome therefore the Councell will haue to goe on But that the true meaning of this Canon may the better be vnderstood it is to be noted that the entire Acts of the Councell of Nice being lost that which remayneth of them in the vulgar copies is but fragments Among the rest this very Canon hath not passed without mutilation for the beginning of it as it is related by Dionysius Abbas an author of 1000. yeares standing is Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum The Roman Church hath alwayes had the primacy This beginning troubleth your patience and to refute it you say (q) Pag. 108. They shame not to preferre one vulgar booke before all other Greeke and Latine Copies False For that beginning of the Canon is in like manner extant in an ancient Manuscript of the famous Monastery of S. Vedastus in Atras written aboue 800. yeares since (r) Of this see Pamelius in Annot. ad lib. Cyp. de Vnit Eccles n. 16. and which taketh away all occasion of doubt it is so read in the famous Councell of Chalcedon (s) Act. 16. True say you (t) Pag. 108. but by the Popes Legates But what Were not the Popes Legates reuerend Bishops and Presidents of that Councell And when they read this beginning of the Canon did the Fathers of that Councell except against it as you do Nay after they had read and considered it did they not say (u) Act. 16. Ex his quae gesta vel ab vnoquoque deposita sunt perpendimus omnem primatum honorem praecipuum secundum canones antiquae Romae Deo amantissmo Archiepiscopo conseruari By those things which haue bene done and the proofes which haue bene produced on both sydes we find that according to the Canons all primacy and chiefe honor is preserued to the most beloued of God the Archbishop of old Rome Then which words none can be more effectuall to declare the primacy of the Pope to be Primacy of authority and iurisdiction and not of order only as you falsely comment both because primacy of order is not all primacy nor is it the chiefe honor for the honor due to superiority of gouerment and iurisdiction is farre aboue it Besides that as I haue already shewed (x) Aboue Chap. 12. and shall in the next Chapter proue (y) Sect. 2. this your shift of Primacy of Order to which you often
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
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
the proud but consent with the humble Wherfore this Canon first made in the Councell of Constantinople and afterwards renewed in the Councell of Chalcedon was neuer confirmed but still resisted by the See Apostolike and therfore hath alwayes remained inualid That sayth Gelasius (m) De Anathem vinculo which the See Apostolike consented not to the Emperor imposed it not nor Anatolius vsurped it but all was put into the hands of the See Apostolike and therfore what the See Apostolike confirmed of the Councell of Chalcedon hath remained valid and what that See hath reiected could neuer obteyne any force and she hath annulled that only which the Synodicall assembly adiudged to be vsurped against order It resteth therfore that albeit this decree haue many other nullities yet this one of the want of confirmation from the See Apostolike abundantly conuinceth the inualidity therof as hath bene already proued And because Anatolius knew that if it were once vnderstood that this Canon was resisted and condemned by the See Apostolike it would be condemned by the iudgment of all Catholikes in the world he craftily suppressed the letters of condemnation as Leo in his answere to the Emperor Martian testifieth (n) Ep. 59. I writ to your Glory and to the B. of Constantinople letters which euidently shewed that I approued those things which had bene defined in the Councell of Chalcedon concerning the Catholike fayth But because by the same letters I reproued those things which by occasion of the Synod had bene vnlawfully attempted he Anatolius rather chose to conceale my applause then to publish his owne ambition And to Pulcheria the Empresse (o) Ep. 60. Wheras the most religious Emperor hath willed me to write letters to all the Bishops which assisted at the Councell of Chalcedon to confirme what was there defined concerning the rule of fayth I haue willingly performed it lest the deceipt full dissimulation of some might breed any doubt of my sentence although by meanes of the B. of Constantinople to whom I had largely testified my ioy what I had written might haue come to the knowledge of all if he had not rather chosen to conceale my contentment then to publish the rebuke of his owne ambition Wherfore it is euident that as this Decree when it was first made in the Councell of Constantinople remayned inualid for want of Confirmation from the See Apostolike (p) See aboue Chap. 17. sect 5. 6. so for the same want it tooke no effect when it was renewed in the Councell of Chalcedon in so much that Anatolius was enforced to desist from his clayme and excuse the attempt he had made laying the blame on others as it is cleare out of these words of Leo to him (q) Ep. 7â— This thy fault which to augment thy power thou hast committed as thou sayest by the persuasion of others thy Charity had blotted out better and more sincerely if thou hadst not imputed wholly to the Counsell of thy Clergy that which could not be attempted without thy allowance c. But deare Brother I am glad that thy Charity protesteth thou art now displeased with that which euen then ought not to haue pleased thee The profession of thy loue and the testimony of the Christian Prince is sufficient to re-admit thee into common grace nor doth thy amendment seems late that hath gotten so reuerend a surety This recantation of Anatolius sheweth that his attempt of hauing the second place after the Pope and enioying the like priuiledges after him was vnlawfull and proceeded merely from his ambition SECT V. Falsifications and vntruthes of Doctor Morton discouered and his Arguments answeared VVHat you produce in defence of this Canon are either falsifications vntruthes or friuolous cauills for first you falsify Azor (r) Pag. 118. His words are The Canons and decrees of Councells which are either of fayth or of the law of God or of nature the Pope can neither annull nor alter but if the decrees and Canons be of those things which belong to human right he may annull them or alter them in whole or in part And this sayth he is the common opinion of Diuines and Canonists You very honestly mangle his words not mentioning the first part of them in which he sayth The Pope can neither annull nor alter the decrees of Councells which are of matters of fayth or of things commanded by the law of God or nature And wheras he addes that the Pope can annull or alter the Decrees of Councells which are of human right you in your english leaue out those words which are of human right to persuade your Reader that Azor sayth and that our Diuines and Canonistes with common consent allow the Pope power to change the Decrees of fayth and annull the precepts of God and of nature whereas he speaketh only of lawes that concerne Ecclesiasticall discipline which according to diuers occasions and circumstances may be altered for the good of the Church If this be not an imposture what is 2. You obiect (s) Pag. 12 1â—9 The Fathers of Chalcedon thought that the Church of Rome got the primacy not by diuine but by humane right to wit because Rome was the chiefe Impâ—riall seat Answere There are two causes of the primacy of the Roman Church the one immediate the other mediate The immediate cause is the dignity of S. Peter wherwith Christ honored him when he made him the foundation of his Church (t) Math. 16.18 and the Pastor of his flock (u) Ioan. 21. vers 15.16.17 And so much the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledged when they called the Popes Epistle The speach of the See of S. Peter (x) In alloquut ad Imperat and when they said to Leo (y) In relat ad Leon. Dioscorus hath extended his phrensy against him to whom the custody of the Vine which is the Catholike Church was committed by our Sauiour that is to say against your Apostolike Holinesse The same truth the Mileuitan Councell in which S. Augustine was Secretary had professed not long before acknowledging the Popes authority to be of diuine right when speaking to Innocentius they said (z) Aug. ep 92. that his authority was taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures And Gelasius with a Councell of 70. Bishops (a) In decreto de lib. Apocryph The Roman Church hath not bene preferred before other Churches by the constitutions of Synods but hath obtained the primacy by the voyce of our Lord and Sauiour in the Ghospell And as the same Gelasius rightly obserueth (b) Ep. ad Episc Dardan Milan Rauenna Sirmium Treuers and Nicomedia were for a long tyme seates of the Empire and yet the Fathers neuer thought that any Primacy was therfore due to the Bishops of those Cities Neuerthelesse it may be said in a true sense that the mediate and remote cause of the Primacy of the Roman Church that is to say the cause which moued S. Peter
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
that any such Canons were extant in the Councell of Sardica I cannot but meruaile at so great boldnesse for that those Canons were extant in the Councell of Sardica is a truth proued not only by all editions of the Councells and all Catholike writers but auerred by the Magdeburgians by Osiander Peter Martyr and Iohn Caluin (i) Brereley Protest Apolog tract 1. sect 7. subdia â— It is true that Caluin accuseth Zozimus of hainous impudency and fraud in citing the Councell of Sardica for that of Nice But his accusation hath no other ground then his hatred to the See of Rome for were it true as it is not that the Canons which Zozimus sent were not of the Councell of Nice but of Sardica and that he had sent them as Canons of Nice it had not bene fraud or forgery in him as it was not in S. Mathew (k) Cap. 27. â— to cite Hieremy for Zachary because it was the same Spirit of God that spake in both those Prophets And so likewise the Councell of Sardica was of no lesse authority then that of Nice Againe the Councell of Sardica consisted in great part of the same Fathers that the Nicen Councell did and was an explication and confirmation therof Wherfore the Sardican Canons might not vnfitly beare the name of Nicen Canons as the Constantinopolitan Creed because it is an explication and confirmation of the Nicen beares the name of the Nicen Creed Moreouer the ancient Fathers numbring the Councells after that of Nice euer reckon immediatly the first of Constantinople which they do vpon no other ground then because they repute the Councell of Sardica to be an Appendix of the Councell of Nice and therfore as all one with it For these reasons Zozimus might without any forgery or falshood haue cited the Canons of the Councell of Sardica vnder the title of Nicen Canons as it is the custome of the Greekes to cite the Trullan Canons vnder the title of the Canons of the sixth generall Councell because they pretend the Trullan Councell to be an Apendix and supplement of the sixth Councell generall And so in like manner S. Gregory of Tours (l) De gâ—st Fran. l. 9. c. 33. citing a Canon of the Councall of Grangres without either fraud or forgery calls it a Canon of the Nicen Councell because the Councell of Gangres was a branch and slip of the Councell of Nice Finally and if these Canons were not indeed of the Councell of Nice but of Sardica how can Zozimus be thought to haue vsed any fraud or forgery in alleaging them as the Councell of Nice since it had bene more aduantagious for his purpose against the Africans to haue alleaged them as Canons of the Councell of Sardica for as much as the fifth generall Councell beareth witnesse (m) Act. â— that in the Councell of Nice there was no other B. of Africa but only Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage wheras in the Councell of Sardica were present and subscribed 30. African Bishops who are all named in particular by S. Athanasius (n) Apol. 2. which might haue bene a great motiue to the Africans to submit to those Canons as being approued and signed by so many Bishops of their owne nation But the truth is that albeit the Africans had notice of a Councell held at Sardica yet as Peron learnedly proueth (o) Repliq. l. 1. Chap. 49. the Donatists had suppressed in Africa the copies of the true Councell of Sardica and those which the Africans had in the tyme of S. Augustine and the sixth Councell of Carthage were copies of the Anti-councell which Sozomen mentioneth (p) L. 3. c. 10. held by the Arians at Philippopolis neere to Sardica which they to gaine credit to it and to their cause called The Councell of Sardica and published it in Africa vnder that name And this is the reason why S. Augustine professeth (q) Ep 163. Conâ— Cresâ—on l. 3. c. 34. that he knew no other Councell of Sardica but that of the Arians in which S. Athanasius was condemned wheras the true Councell of Sardica iustified S. Athanasius and confirmed the Councell of Nice This true Councell of Sardica you acknowledge to haue bene a generall Councell of the whole Church (r) Pag. 144. fin 14â— This the Centurists haue copied out and inserted into their fourth Century And this it is in which as well they as also Caluin Peter Martyr and Osiander acknowledge the Canons for appealing to Rome to haue ben made wherof if the African Fathers had notice they would not haue replied to Pope Celestine (s) Ep. ad Celestin We find it not to haue bene determined by the Fathers in any Synod that Legates should be sent from your Holinesse to order matters heere for it is expresly decreed in the Councell of Sardica (t) Can. 7. that if it shall seeme good to the B. of Rome he may send Legates to iudge the causes of Appellants in their owne Prouinces This sheweth how vntruly you deny that in the Councell of Sardica were extant any Canons for Appeales to Rome And since your owne brethren acknowledge them with what conscience do you iustify the Africans in their deniall of them or blame the Pope for defending his right against them especially since you confesse (u) Pag. 289. 304. that the Africans were subiect to the Pope as to their Patriarke SECT IV. Vntruthes and falsifications of Doctor Morton discouered and his Obiections answeared FIrst you obiect (x) Pag. 145. that 217. African Bishops S Augustine being a principall one shew that the Popes claime of Appeales had no patronage from the Councell of Nice but rather that there was in that Councell another Canon to controle it and that maketh much against such appeales by determining that Popes being so far remote from Africk could not be so competent iudges in such causes Except say they some will thinke that God will inspire one singular man with iustice and deny that grace to innumerable persons assembled togeather in a Synod These words Syr are not of the Councell of Nice but of the African Fathers in their Epistle to Celestine Pope Is it not then a mere delusion to obiect them as a Canon of the Nicen Councell to controle appeales to Rome They speake not of matters of fayth for the same Fathers a little before had sent to Innocentius Pope to confirme with his authority the sentence of Condemnation which they had pronounced against Pelagius and Celestius in the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis acknowledging (y) Aug. ep â—2 that God did guide him in his consultations of fayth and therfore hoping that those Heretikes would more easily yield to his authority drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures then to the authority of their Councells Wherfore in the words obiected they speake only of particular and personall causes of fact ciuill and criminall in which as those Fathers declare witnesses were to
what if that Pope had carried himselfe proudly towards the Emperor is that any Argument to disproue the Doctrine Primacy of the Roman Church or any excuse to you for your leauing the Catholike fayth and departing from the Church of Christ But such Arguments are fittest for a grand Imposture 3. Because you cannot answeare Bellarmines Arguments nor deny the truth of his Doctrine otherwise then by giuing the lye to the holy Saints and renowned Doctors of Gods Church you passe ouer their testimonies his whole discourse out of them with a fraudulent reticence of the particulars and thinke to be euen with him making vp by scoffing what you cannot by arguing Bellarmine say you (q) Pag. 160. sin 161. in his last worke intitled the Duty of a Christian Prince dedignifieth and abaseth Princes by wresting violently to a generall rule of office and duty all the examples of honor be could rake out of the ashes of Princes Kings and Emperors yeilded either to Popes Bishops or Priests in the superlatiue excesse of their humility zeale and deuotion and with extreme dotage exacteth very soberly a prebition and drinking of Bishops and Priests before them These are your words in which you cunningly reduce all Bellarmines proofes to examples that by scoffing at the example of S. Martin for you mention no other you may seeme to haue answeared all the rest of his proofes in which not only Princes by their examples but the holy Doctors with most cleare and vnanswearable words auerre the truth of his Doctrine Nor is it Bellarmine whom you condemne of extreme dotage but in him that most ancient venerable renowned Bishop of Tours S. Martin a man of Apostolicall sanctity that was sayth S. Bernard (r) Serm. in festo S. Martimi rich in merits rich in miracles rich in vertues that raised three dead men to life that restored light to the blinde hearing to the deafe speach to the dumbe that healed the halting and lame the withered and dry that escaped great perills by his diuine vertue that repelled the flames of fire opposing his owne body against them that clensed a leper with a kisse cured the palsy euercame Diuells saw Angells and prophesied things to come This Apostolicall Prelate being earnestly inuited to dinner by the Emperor Maximus when diuers of his fellow Bishops assembled in a Prouinciall Synod were present at Court and seeing them vse base and obiect flattery to the Emperor and other temporall Princes making themselues and their Episcopall Dignity contemptible to the Laity with no small dishonor to Gods Church and hurt as well to their owne as to lay-mens soules he in whom alone sayth Seuerus Sulpitius (s) Vita 8. Martin c. 23. Apostolicall authority remained to admonish the Emperor and Princes there present of their reuerence due to their Pastors and also to let the Bishops all other Pastors see their basenesse in vilifiyng themselues to their sheep giuing them occasion to contemne disobey them in things important for the good of their soules he I say when at dinner the Emperors owne cup was first presented vnto him by the Emperors command hauing drunke therof gaue it not to the Emperor but to his Chaplaine because sayth Sulpitius he thought no man there more worthy to drinke after himselfe then his Priest This is the example of S. Martin alleaged by Bellarmine reported and commended by Sulpitius and many other ancient and iudicious authors that haue written his life as an heroicall act of true Episcopall magnanimity and grauity If you and such as vilify the Episcopall function and lay it as S. Ambrose sayth (t) Ep. 32. vnder lay-mens feet relish it not tâ—is no wonder but that being the fact of Martin the myrror of Prelates you should scoffe at it and at Bellarmine for reporting it in proose of Sacerdotall dignity who can but wonder and thinke you to faile not only in iudgment but euen in point of ciuility good manners that will offer to controle S. Martin and teach good manners not only to him but to Seuerus Sulpitius a man of most noble parentage borne and bred vp in Rome the Head Mistres of Ciuill Policy and Vrbanity But when you say Bellarmine hath raked out of the asbesof Princes Kings and Emperors all the examples he could of honor yielded either to Popes Bishops or Priests in the superlatiue excesse of their humility zeale and denotion and wrested them to a generall rule of office and duty I must craue pardon if I thinke you to ouerlath and that willingly for Bellarmine could haue told you that the holy Bishop and Martyr Ignatius (u) Ep. ad Philadelph so ancient that as he writeth of himselfe he saw our Sauiour in mortall flesh prescribing that order of obedience in Christs Church wherby vnity may be preserued in all admonisheth Princes and soldiers to obey the Emperor Priests Deacons and all the rest of the Clergy and people whosoeuer they be soldiers Princes yea the Emperor himselfe to obey the Bishop the Bishop Christ as Christ obeyeth his Father that so vnity may be preserued in all And in his Epistle to the Christians of Smirna headuiseth them in the first place to honor God next the Bishop as bearing his image and then the King He could haue told you that the 318. Fathers assembled in the Councell of Nice one of the foure which S. Gregory reuerenced as the foure Ghospells decreed (x) Con. 80 〈◊〉 Grac. Arab as a doctrine to be belieued by all Christians that the B. of Rome is aboue all Christian Princes and people as being the Vicar of Christ our Lord ouer all people ouer all the Christian Church He could haue told you that when pennance was enioyned to Philip the first Christian Emperor (y) Euseb l. â— hist c. 7. for faultes that were bruited of him he willingly performed what was enioyned him by the Priest shewing by his deeds that the feare of God and a great esteeme of Religion liued in him He could haue told you that the most religious Emperor Theodosius being excommunicated by S. Ambrose (z) Thâ—â—d â— c. â—7 was so farre from denying the authority of S. Ambrose ouer him that he submitted himselfe with all humâ—lity and crauing absolution with harty repentance and teares obtained it As Arcadius also in like case did of Innocentius Pope (a) Niceph. l. 13. c. 33. Cedren Glycas in Arcad. He could haue told you that Iustinian writ to Pope Iohn We yield honor to the Apostolike See and to your Blessednesse which is and euer hath bene our desire and honor your Holynesse as it becometh vs to honour our Father He could haue told you of Charles the Great who as he was inferior to no Prince that euer was in wisdome and valour so he most excelled in true piety deuotion and zeale to Gods cause most especially in his filiall affection and obedience to the See Apostolike in so
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
Doctor Morton for you not only maintaine erroneous Tenets in matter of fayth but are so wilfully obstinate therin that hauing bene heretofore often admonished and euidently conuinced by Catholike writers of your shamefull ouer-lashing as also of your corrupting the Fathers Councells other writers in proofe of those your Tenets you still hold on the same course in your Grand Imposture and other your later writings to your owne shame and the great discredit of your cause which if it were good needed not such iugling to defend it But the greatest part of Protestants either wanting learning or meanes to examine the truth of points in controuersy and thinking you not to be only learned but also sincere in deliuering the truth vnto them which I know you not to be simply giue credit to you and such as you are and thinke they may safely embrace your doctrine and rely vpon your word They I say are not Heretikes but men deceaued and misled by heretikes or to vse S. Augustines phrase (e) De vtil creden c. â— Credentes haereticis men that bâ—lieue heretikes and therfore are not comprehended in the excommunication of Bulla cana which is pronounced against such only as by reason of their wilfull obstinacy are true and formall heretikes or as S. Paul sayth (f) Tit. 3.11 that sinne being subuerted and condemned by their owne iudgment I deny not but that many of these men being of excellent iudgement and vnderstanding may by what they haue heard or read haue iust reason to doubt of the truth of Protestancy and therfore if such out of slouth and carelesnesse or for feare of dishonor and disesteeme in the eyes of the world or of temporall lostes and troubles they see Catholikes exposed vnto omit to examine the truth I know not how to excuse them from culpable negligence in the most important affaire of their saluation which without true fayth cannot be atchieued SECT VI. Other slanderous accusations of Doctor Morton answeared YOur good will to Catholikes makes you rake vp in your Sermon and Imposture all the examples you can call to mind to make them hatefull to Protestant Princes and people To this end you so often mention the Powder treason (g) Serm. pag. 29. Impost pag. 177. 405. of which some vnaduised headlong gentlemen were guilty yet other Catholikes were freed from the guilt therof by the long and exquisite search of Iustice made for the discouery of all partakers therin as also by the confessions of those vnfortunate gentlemen themselues who being strictly seuerally and often examined constantly professed that no man els was guilty of their designe nor priuy to their intentions but they only whose names were already giuen vp to the State And finally the Protestant Minister Author of the booke intituled Triplici node triplex cuneus testifieth (h) Pag. 2. that our late Soueraigne King Iames of famous memory by whose allowance or rather appointment that booke was written did not hold other Catholikes guilty of that damnable plot as indeed they were not The equity of his Maiesty sayth he is such as he professed in his Proclamation and Parliament speach that he would not vse other Catholikes the worse for that which sheweth that he held them guiltlesse All this being true as it is how comes it to passe that you make no end of vp brayding and defaming all Catholikes with this action of exprobrating to an infinite number of innocent that of which a few nocent were guilty of slandering them with this designe that had no part in it many of them being not borne when the thing passed or if borne not capable of such designes or if capable yet abhorred the same as much if not more then your selfe If I were disposed to deale with you by the art of Retorsion which manner of Argument you often vse against vs in this your Grand Imposture I could tell you of your Protestant brethren that in our dayes at Antwerp they placed a whole barke of gun-powder in the vaulted great street of that City to blow vp the Prince of Parma with his Nobility and commanders of warre being to passe that way I cold tell you of another zealous brother in Hage that would haue blowne vp the State-house with the whole Counsell of Holland vpon priuat reuenge And I could tell you that at Edenbrough in Scotland the like traine of powder was layd for the cruell murther of our gracious Maiesties Grand-Father which not succeeding hindeath was archieued by another no lesse bloudy and barbarous violence Would you thinke it reason or conscience in me if I should impute these temerarious actions of a few Protestants to you all If I should exprobrate them to the innocent as well as to the nocent Pardon me therfore if I impute to you lack of that equity and conscience science which ought to shine in a man of your ranke as in a patterne not only of morall honesty but also of ciuill courteous behauiour With like preiudice of conscience you vpbraid vs with the Massacre of Paris (i) Impost pag. 405. to which not we but your good Brethren the Huguenors of France by their Traiterous plots gaue occasion and therfore are iustly censured as the true Authors therof In the yeare 1572. August 23. Colligni the Admirall of France a most wicked man and fyrebrand of the Huguenots in that kingdome being wounded in both his hands and one of his armes with a Musquet discharged out of a house in Paris Charles the ninth then King of France being greatly offended therat vsed all diligence to finde out the malefactor and not only sent often messengers to the Admirall to vnderstand of his health but went himselfe in person with the Queene his wife his Mother and his brethren to visit comfort him promising to punish the malefactor seuerely according to his deserts if he could be discouered Neuerthelesse the Admirall suspecting without ground that he had bene wounded by the Kings appointment entred into priuate Counsell with the King of Nâ—uarre then newly married to Margaret sister to the French King with Prince CondeÌ„ and other his confederates plotting traiterously with them to kill the King the Queene his wife his Mother and brethren and so at one blow to cut of the whole family and proclame the King of Nauarre King of France appointing withall what Nauarre himselfe what CondeÌ„ what Captaine Pilie and what Montgomery his associates were to do and what passages to take for the effecting of this his treacherous designe Which being disclosed by some that were priuy vnto it the King out of hand called to him the King of Nauarre and CondeÌ„ who confessing the plot and asking pardon obtained it But because delaies were dangerous in a case wherin the life of the King and of many other Princes with the destruction and ruine of the whole Kingdome did run so great hazard the Admirall by his command was killed the next day in his
and practised the same authority 7. Not vnlike to these are the answeares you giue to S. Athanasius (x) Pag. 254. S. Chrysostome (y) Pag. 255. and Theodoret who being iniustly deposed from their Bishoprickes appealed to to Iulius Innocentius and Leo Popes with manifest acknowledgment of their authority ouer all Bishops and Churches of the world as shall be proued SECT II. Others of Doctour Mortons Answeares to the ancient Fathers examined SOme Easterne Bishops who with great scandall of the Church and perturbation of the people refused to insert the name of Chrysostome into the Dyptikes or tables of publike records were for that cause excommunicated by Innocentius with command that they should not be admitted into the peace and communion of the Roman Church vntill they restored him This though it be an Argument of the supreme power of the B. of Rome you wrest it to a contrary sense Among them that refused to restore the name of Chrysostome were Alexander Patriarke of Antioch and Acacius Bishop of Beroë but these two to the end they might be admitted into the Communion of the Roman Church restored his name and performed what els Innocentius in ioyned them (a) Spond anno 408. n. 11. Of these two you are silent they were not for your purpose But because some others stood out for a time you lay hold on them who vpon due examination will proue as litle to your purpose as the two you conceale Your first example (b) Pag. 258.259 is of Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria who stood out vntill the end of his life But God that would not haue a man so well deseruing of his Church to die in the state of excommunication ordained by his prouidence that the soule of Theophilus could not depart out of his body vntill an Image of S. Chrysostome being brought vnto him he adored it doing pennance for his former error and by that meanes restored himselfe to the peace of the Church This his recantation is reported by Isidorus Diaconus and out of him by S. Iohn Damascen (c) L. 3. de imag prope fin Wherfore your deniall of it is a falsity framed without ground by your selfe out a desire that Theophilus should haue died out of the Communion of the Roman Church as you liue Your second example (d) Pag. 257. is of Atticus Patriarke of Constantinople who being excommunicated for the same cause persisted sometime in his error but at length moued by the example of Theophilus and Maximianus a Bishop of Macedonia making intercession for him (e) Baron anno 408. Innocentius yeilded to absolue him prouided that he would himselfe aske absolution and restore the name of Chrysostome Hereupon Atticus witnesse Theodoret (f) L. 5. hist. c. 34. sent many embassages to Rome to obtaine the communion of Innocentius but could neuer obteine it vntill partly by perswasion of the Emperor and partly fearing a tumult of the people he restored the name of Chrysostome and writ letters to Cyrill B. of Alexandria persuading him to do the like Wherfore Baronius truly sayth (g) Anno 425. that Atticus restored Chrysostome by the command and compulsion of Innocentius and not by the distraction and tumultuosnesse of the people only as you comment for if he feared the tumult of the people it was in regard the people were incensed against him for not restoring Chrysostome as Innocentius had commanded And if as you obiect (h) Pag. 258. he called two Bishops that had died in the communion of the Roman Church Schismatikes he spake in passion seing himselfe excōmunicated by the B. of Rome and knew as you also do that he spake vntruly for if it were thought Schisme to be in the communion of the Roman Church as you say he did why did he so earnestly desire and send so many Embassages to be admitted into her communion Was is to make himselfe a Schismatike Nay was it not to free himselfe from schisme Why do not you imitate him Your third example (i) Pag. 259.260.261 is of Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria who if for a tyme he obeyed not Innocentius in restoring the name of Chrysostome it was because he iudged the command of Innocentius to be against the Canons witnesse his owne words alleaged by your selfe (k) Pag. 259. fin But his iudgment was erroneous and because what he did was out of a pious zeale as he conceaued God reduced him by a miraculous Vision wherin he saw himselfe cast out of the Church by Chrysostome and a troupe of Saints that assisted him therin but that the Blessed Virgin Mary did make intercession for him as one that had defended her honor against Nestorius Cyrill moued with this vision condemning his owne iudgment concerning Chrysostome and calling a Prouinciall Synod restored his name to the sacred records as the other Patriarkes had done To this you make two replies first (l) Pag. 261. you call this A tale of Nicephorus a fabulous Author that liued 800. yeares after Cyrills death But you wrong Nicephorus for he reportes it out of Nicetas that liued almost 500. yeares nearer Cyrills tyme then himselfe and out of other ancient historians Hoc sayth he (m) L. 14. c. 28. in arcana Nicetae Philosophi historia apud alios inueni 2. You reply (n) Pag. 261. that Cyrills restoring Chrysostome cannot any whit serue our turne because he did not simply by submission to the Popes decree but by vertue of a Vision in a dreame Surely you seeme to haue bene in a dreame when you deuised this answeare for there cannot be a greater Argument of the Popes authority then that God by a miraculous vision should notify to Cyril that by reason of his resistance made to the decree of Innocentius he was out of the Church And in how great Veneration did Cyrill hold the B. of Rome he I say that being greatly exasperated against other Bishops for the name of Chrysostome yet neuer let slip from his mouth any the least irreuerent word against Innocentius And who can be ignorant that he firmely belieued the supreme authority of the Roman See when he presided in the Councell of Ephesus as Vicar to Celestine Pope (o) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 1. Without whose order as he durst not depart from the Communion of Nestorius so he executed on his person punctually what Celestine commanded And finally his beliefe was that saluation cannot be had out of the Roman Church (p) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 4. SECT III. Doctor Mortons Answere to the testimony of Acacius examined A Cacius Patriarke of Constantinople writing to Simplicius Pope professed that the care of all Churches belonged to him You answeare (q) Pag. 161. fin 162. The vniuersall care of all Churches was applied to S. Paul in the dayes of Peter and to other Bishop in whom there was no Monarchicall Popedome This satisfieth not for the vniuersall care of all Churches may be of
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.
against this Epistle to be of no force 3. You except (r) pag. 28â— against the Epistle of Pius because you will not belieue him to haue commanded that if any drops were shed out of the Chalice in the Eucharist they should be licked vp and the board scraped You belieue not this because you belieue not the reall presence of the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist but thinke it reuerence inough if your Clerke take home your bread that remaines and crimble it into his potage and drinke vp the wine merily with his guests at dinner and yet some of you tell the people it is the body and bloud of Christ Howsoeuer your Argument is wholly from the matter for this command of Pius is not in his first Epistle which you deceiptfully cite in your margent nor in any of his Epistles but in his decrees which the Church approueth (s) Breuiar Roman Iul. 11. from whence to inferre that his Epistles are apocryphall is a consequence which I suppose you will not grant I am sure euery one will see to be absurd The error which out of Baronius you mention (t) Pag. 282. in two of Pius his Epistles might easily creepe into the copies by negligence or mistake of the Scribe and therfore is no sufficient Argument to disauthorize them and much lesse the rest in which there is no such mistake 4. You reiect (u) Ibid. the Epistles of Soter and Alexander because you cannot thinke the vse of Incense at the Altar nor the expiation of small offences by holy water to be so ancient For your better instruction coÌ„cerning the ancient vse of incense at the altar I remit you to (x) L. 1. de ritib Eccles c. 9. DuraÌ„tius who sheweth how foolishly it is relected by heretikes to Bellarmine (y) L. 2. de Missa c. 15. and Brereley in his Liturgy of the Masse (z) Pag. 40. n. 12 pag. 94. lit D. Concerning the antiquity of holy-water for the expiation of small offences casting out of Diuels and other great miracles wrought by sprinkeling therof read Baronius (a) Spoud Indic V. Aquae Beâ—ed antiq vsus Bellarmine (b) L. 3. de Eccles triumph c. 7. l. 2. de Missa c. 15. Durantius (c) L. 1. de rit c. 21. and Brereley (d) Liturg. pag. 64. lit u. x. pag. 94. l. b. c. They will certify you that both these ceremonies are Apostolicall traditions vsed in the Church from the beginning shew your reiecting of those ancient Epistles because they are mentioned in them to be cauilling without ground 5. Because Cooks findeth in some of those Epistles a word or a phrase which some one Author thinkes not to be so ancient in that sense or forsooth not so elegant and Ciceronian you are pleased to call them all horrid and barbarous (e) Pag. 279. to help out the matter you exemplisy in Caius which is none of the fourteene alleaged by Bellarmine But you consider not that diuers of those Epistles were written in Greeke and that the Latine phrase is not of the authors but of the translators And as Nicolas the first (f) Ep. 8. apud Bin to 3. pag. 682. speaking to the vngodly Emperor Michaell of Latin translated into Greeke sayth If it beget barbarismes the fault is not in the Latin tongue but in the Translators striuing not only to keep the sense but vsing force to render word by word so I say to you if in the Epistles of ancient Popes you find some words or manners of speach not so vsuall the fault is not in the Epistles but in the Translators striuing to render them word by word And to go no further for the confutation of this cauill you obiect against vs (g) Pag. 291. out of an Epistle of Adrian the first that liued almost 800. yeares after Christ these words Consecrationes Episcoporum Archiepiscoporum sicut olitana constat traditio nostra dioecosis existentes in which whether you regard the word olitana or the phrases sicut olitana constat traditio consecrationesnostrae dioecesis existentes you may vnder colour that the phrase of this Epistle is horrid and barbarous reiect it with as much ground as you do the Epistles of Popes that liued in the first 300. yeares after Christ The truth therfore is that you reiect those because they make wholly against you and receaue this because you find something in it which may serue you for an Argument against vs though without ground for Adrian in that Epistle most effectually proueth the authority of the Roman See wherof something hath bene spoken already (h) Chap. 33. sect 2. SECT II. The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of Popes that liued in the second 300. yeares after Christ THere is no stronger Argument then that which is drawne from the confession of the Aduersaries for as Tertullian obserueth (i) In Apologet No man lieth to his owne shame and therfore he is soner to belieued that confesseth against himselfe then he that denieth in his owne behalfe Which truth the Father of the Roman eloquence vnderstood by the light of nature saying (k) Orat. P. Qui. Thy testimony which in another mans cause is litle to be regarded when it is against thy selfe is of great weight And you acknowledge (l) Answere to the Prot. Apol. Epist. Dedicat. that the testimony of the aduersary is the greatest reason of satisfaction Let vs then see whether you wil not beare witnesse for vs against your selues that the Popes of the first 600. yeares after Christ acknowledged and exercised their authority and iurisdiction ouer all the Churches of the world and this chiefly in their Epistles for of most of them there are no other writings extant Their testimonies in this behalfe are plentifully alleaged by Maister Brereley (m) Protest Apologâ—tra 1. sect 3. subdiu 10. sect 7. subd 5. and in particular concerning the Popes of the second 300. yeares of whom our question here is he sayth They Protestant writers consesse and say that in the fifth age the Roman Bishops applied themselues to get and establish dominion ouer other Churches To this end they vsurped to themselues the right of granting priuiledges and ornaments to other Archbishops they confirmed Archbishops in their Sees deposed excommunicated and absolued others arrogating also to themselues power of citing Archbishops to declare their causes before them and that against a Bishop appealing to the Roman See nothing should be determined but what the B. of Rome censured That they appointed Legats in remote Prouinces which were somtimes no meaner men then some one or other of the Patriarkes That they challenged authority to heare and determine all vprising controuersies especially in questions of fayth That they tooke vpon them power of appointing generall Councells and to be Presidents in them and euen by their Deputies when
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
passage in which he acknowledgeth in most effectuall words his beliefe of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome For in the very first words of his Epistle he sayth Be it known to your Wisdome that I obey the Apostolike mandats with filiall affection deuoutly reuerently and that I make resistance to those things which are against the Apostolike mandats zealing the honor of my Father for to both I am bound ex diuino mandato by the commandment of God for the Apostolike mandats neither are nor can be any other then the doctrines of the Apostles and of our Lord Iesus Christ Maister and Lord of the Apostles whose place and person our Lord the Pope chiefly holdeth in the Hierarchy of the Church A iudicious reader would thinke it a hard matter for any man out of these words and doctrine of Grosthead to frame an argument against the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome and yet are you so witty that you haue done it but by what art By cutting and mangling the Bishops words as the reader will see if he please to compare them with the Latin set downe in your Margent and euen that Latin mangled and falsified as it is you thought best not to english because it would haue giuen light to a iudicious reader to see your dealing What you adde (c) Pag. 394. of the Bishops not receauing a Prouision sent by the Pope maketh nothing for you for by the whole discourse of his Epistle it appeareth that he iudged the Prouision to be procured fraudulently by surreption therfore not to be a true mandate of the See Apostolike and vpon that ground he made resistance vnto it which the ciuill (d) Cod. Si cont ius L. Etsi Canon law (e) De rescript C. Dilectus in such cases declare to be lawfull without any impeachment to the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome SECT XI Whether Protestants had any Professors of their fayth before Luther THere is no way more expedite or effectuall to conuince heretikes to be such their doctrines to be prophane nouelties then to require of them a Catalogue of primitiue Fathers and learned men which haue agreed with them and dissented from the Roman Church in all those points in which they dissent from her as contrarily there is no way more effectuall for an Orthodoxe man to proue himselfe to be such then to shew that the Fathers Doctors of Gods Church in all ages from the beginning haue professed and taught the same doctrine he professeth and teacheth To this triall S. Athanasius challenged the Arians Behold sayth he to them (f) In decret Nic. Syn. cont Euseb we haue proued the succession of our doctrine deliuered from hand to hand from-Father to sonne you new Iewes you children of Caiphas what predecessors of your names can you shew To the same triall that most religious Emperor Theodosius prouoked the heretikes of his time for as Sozomen recordeth (g) L. 7. c. 11. hauing called together the chiefe of the Nouatians Arians and Macedonians he demanded of them whether they thought that the ancient Fathers which gouerned the Church before those dissensions in matter of Religion fell out were holy and Apostolicall men whether they did allow of their expositions of holy Scripture and would accept of them as of competent Iudges for the triall of their cause and ending of all controuersies Those Heretikes highly praysed the doctrine and expositions of the Fathers but yet could not agree among themselues to haue the bookes of the Fathers produced and their owne doctrines tried by them Wherupon Theodosius forbid them all exercise of their religion and inflicted other punishments vpon them With him accorded herein the Emperor Iustinian publishing by an especiall Law (h) L. 5. 6. that to confute the lyes of impious Heretikes and represse the madnesse of those that giue assent vnto them it is necessary to manifest vnto all what the most holy Priests of God haue taught and to follow them How often doth S. Augustine stop the mouthes of the Pelagians (i) Cout Iul. Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. l. 2. versus fin l. 5. c. 17. cont duas Ep. Pelag. l. 4. c. 12. with the testimonies of almost all the famous Bishops and Doctors both of the East West specifying them by their names somtimes twelue somtimes fourteene together adding to them the rest in generall The same kind of Argument was vsed by S. Leo the Great (k) Ep. 97. when hauing vrged against the Nestorians and Eutychians the testimonies of the holy Fathers Athanasius Hilary Ambrose and Chrysostome Theophilus Alexandrinus Basil the great and Cyril he concludeth thus to the Emperor to whom he writeth To these testimonies if you vouchsafe to attend you shall find that we teach no other thing then what our holy Fathers haue taught throughout the whole world and that no man dissenteth from them but impious heretikes Lastly the same manner of arguing from the testimonies of Fathers was vsed in the sixth generall Councell against the Monothelites in the second of Nice against the Image-breakers and in the Councell of Florence against the error of the Grecians denying the holy Ghost to proceed from the Sonne To this triall learned Catholikes haue often challenged the Sectaries of this age to that end haue set forth Catalogues of the most learned Doctors of Gods Church from the very time of Christ shewing them to haue bene members of the Roman Church and to haue belieued and taught the now Roman fayth not only in the generall heads wherin Protestants agree with vs but also in each of the seuerall points in which they dissent from vs to haue held them to be hereticall and confuted them as such euen as we do alleaging their testimonies at this day against Protestants The truth of this is to be seene in Iodocus Coccius a German who as it is declared in the Preface to his first Tome being in his youth a Lutheran afterwards partly by frequenting the Sermons of Catholike Preachers partly by hearing disputations in Schooles partly by obseruing the meruailous concord of Catholiks and the fatall discord of Protestants in matters of fayth partly by considering seriously and weighing with himselfe that the Churches of Protestants were confined to a few Prouinces and not spread ouer the whole world as the Church of Christ (l) Isa 49. was prophesied to be and that they wanted succession and continuance being newly sprung vp and lastly by a diligent perusall of the writings of ancient Fathers whom be found to agree wholly with vs and dissent from Protestants abandoned them and abiuring their doctrine east himselfe into the armes of his Catholike Mother the Roman Church And aswell for the confusion of heretikes confirmation of Catholikes as also to yeild vnto all men a reason of his fayth he vndertooke an immense labor in which he spent 24. yeares of reading the
which he built it on his person Euen as when we say The valor of a Captaine got the victory we say it not to signify that his valor in abstracto got the victory without his person but to expresse the meanes wherby he got it And in like manner when S. Hierome and S. Ambrose (g) Ep. 61. Ad Pamma aduers error Ioâ—n Hierosol S. Ambros l. de fide resurrect said Not Peter but his fayth walked vpon the waters it was not to deny that his person truly and formally walked on them but to declare that the cause which made him walke on them was not the naturall vertue or actiuity of his body but the fayth he had giuen to the words of Christ And so likewise it is in our case for as these two propositions The fayth of Peter walked on the waters and Peter walked on the waters are both true but in a different sense for the fayth of Peter walked on them causally as being the cause why Peter walked and the person of Peter walked on them truly properly and formally So likewise are these two both iointly true though in a different sense The Church is built vpon the person of Peter and The Church is built on the fayth or confession of Peter because the primacy of Peters fayth confession was the cause which moued Christ to choose Peter for the fouÌ„dation of his Church rather then any of the other Apostles to that end he gaue him the name and solidity of a Rock that the gates of hell might neuer preuaile against the Church built on him In like manner when S. Augustine and other expositors teach that Christ is the Rock or foundation on which the Church is built their exposition differeth not from the former in substance but only in manner of speach for as Salmeron (h) Tom. 4. part 3. Tract 2. and Suarez (i) Defens fid l. 3. c. 11. n. 11. haue well obserued their meaning cannot be that the Rock on which Christ promiseth to build his Church for the future is his owne person formally considered as in himselfe both because on him it was already built from the tyme of his incarnation as also because he speaketh not to himselfe but to Peter saying Thou art Peter c. And therefore as when in the words immediatly preceding he called Peter by his owne name Simon the Sonne of Iohn he spake to Peter in particular so likewise he did when immediatly he added and I say to thee that thou art Peter that is a Rock and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And the same is yet made more euident by other profes which Bellarmine (k) L. 1 de Pont. c. 10. §. Primo pronomen alleageth Wherfore the sense is that Christ promiseth to build his Church on himselfe obiectiuely that is to say as confessed by Peter which exposition differeth not from the former and is expressly deliuered by S. Ambrose (l) In c. 3.1 ad Cor. in these words The true and approued sense is that the Church is built by God vpon Christ but yet as confessed by Peter and not by any other which is as if it were said vpon thee confessing Christ and vpon the confession which Peter made of Christ or vpon Christ confessed by Peter So S. Ambrose and so also S. Augustine saying (m) L. 1. Retract c. 21. Afterwards I expounded thus these words of our Lord Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church that it should be vnderstood to be built vpon him whom Peter confessed saying thou art Christ c. And that by this exposition S. Augustine intendeth not to deny the Rock meant by Christ in those words to be S. Peter is a truth that may not be denyed both because in that very place he sayth that This sense is celebrated by many in the verses of S. Ambrose saying The Cock crowing the Rock of the Church washed out his offence as also because he there affirmeth that in other places of his workes he had expounded those words not of Christ but of Peter as the rest of the Fathers do which exposition he recalleth not but leaueth to the readers discretion to choose which of the two he liketh best Let the reader chose sayth he (n) Ibid. which of these two senses is the more probable From whence it must needes follow that albeit he doubted whether of those two senses agreeth best to the words of Christ in that place yet of the truth to the thing it selfe to wit that Peter is the Rock on which Christ built his Church he neuer doubted If he had thought that to be a false sense he had done very absurdly in not recalling it but leauing to the readers choyce to follow eyther that or the other for it had bene to leaue it in his choyce to follow a true sense or a false an orthodoxe verity or an hereticall error which though you do yet none but such as you will presume S. Augustine to haue done By this it appeares that all those testimonies of Fathers Popes and other authors which you to make a florish heap vp in the foure first Sections of your fourth Chapter to proue that the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church is not Peter but the Confession of Peter or Christ for either of both will serue your turne so that Peter be excluded are impertinently alleaged for the meaning of them is that the Church is not built vpon Peter meerely as he was a weake man and abstracting from his confession of Christ but vpon him as confessing Christ and for his confession and in reward therof And so likewise it is built vpon Christ not excluding Peters confession but vpon him as confessed by Peter All which is euident out of those very Fathers and expositors which you produce for the contrary For they so fully and so vnanswerably auouch Peter to be the Rock on which Christ built his Church and you so certainly know it to be true that much against your will you are inforced vpon the rack of truth to confesse so much though you do it mincingly saying (o) Pag 42. We may not dissemble thus much that some Fathers doe expound by Rock Peter You should haue said All Fathers and all Councels which treat of that subiect and all Catholike expositors And I must intreat the reader here in prudence to consider how vnaduisedly you alleage Catholike approued authors against this truth which no vnderstanding Protestant will in his iudgment beleeue that any of them euer denyed it being a mayne and euen the greatest point of difference betweene vs and you and which being decided the rest would easily follow Wherfore it caÌ„not be but that you wrong the Catholike authors which you cite in fauor of your doctrine and the like you do to the ancient Fathers To examine euery particular were an endlesse labour for your falsifications for the most part consist