of the Canons but iustly deposed him from the Episcopall See of this Citty Loe here the first sentence absolutely finished by Agapet before his death And then speaking of the second sentence they adde (m) Ibid. Afterwards the Bishops of Palestine assembled in this Citty and others of the East and deputies of others and we did againe present petitions touching Anthymus and the other heretikes and demanded that Anthymus should certify his beliefe by writ to the See Apostolike and should purge himselfe from all hereticall errors in this case returne to the Church of Trebizond or if he would not do it that he should be finally condemned and deposed from all Sacerdotall dignity and action And a litle after (n) Ibid. These our iust requests the same most holy personage Agapet preuenting and seeing that Anthymus had fayled to appeare condemned him with the aforesaid heretikes and despoiled him of all office and dignity Sacerdotall and of all title Orthodoxall euen till the pennance of his errors The same is declared by all the Fathers of that Councell who in their sentence pronounced against Anthymus speaking of his first deposition say (o) Act. 4. The Blessed Pope Agapet of most holy and happy memory setting with God his hand to the sacred Canons deposed Anthymus from the See which belonged not to him pardoning those which had participated and communicated in the act And then passing to the second sentence they adde (p) Ibid. But because that euen in doctrine Anthymus was charged with many accusations and that many petitions were preferred against him by diuers reuerend personages to the most religious Emperor and the most blessed Pope the same most blessed Pope after much paine taken with a Fatherly care to regaine his soule c. pronounced a sentence in writing against him full of Clemency and seemly holynesse granting him tyme of repentance and ordayned that vntill he had changed his opinion and satisfyed the doctrines canonically defined by the Fathers be should neither haue the title of a Catholike nor of a Priest This sheweth that the Councell intermedled not at all with the first sentence of Agapet by which Anthymus was deposed from the See of Constantinople but because this second sentence of his deposition from the See of Trebizond was not absolute but left depending and subiect to reuocation if he should appeare and purge himselfe from heresy the Councell taking the cause where the Pope left it and according to the order giuen by him cited Anthymus thrice to appeare and because he appeared not executed the Popes sentence on him deposing him from the Bishopricke of Trebizond and depriuing him of the title of a Priest and the name of a Catholike We say they (q) Act. 4. in sentent cont Anthym following those things which haue bene rightly examined by the most blessed Pope ordayne that he as an vnprofitable and rotten member be cast out of the body of the holy Churches of God and depriued of the Bishopricke of Trebizond and depriued of all sacred dignity and action and according to the sentence of the most holy Pope stript euen of the name of a Catholike Who now seeth not how ignorantly and vntruly you haue said (r) Pag. 122. that The cause of Anthymus which the Pope had condemned was afterwards ventilated in the Councell of Constantinople For those Fathers neither questioned nor any way examined either the first or the second sentence of the Pope against Anthymus but assembled themselues to put in execution the sentence which Agapet had pronounced and being preuented by death could not see executed All which is so farre from making against the iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the Bishops of the East that it is a strong proofe therof And that it may better appeare how vnaduised you are to vrge this history against the authority of the Roman Church it is to be noted that Anthymus an Eutychian heretike not contenting himselfe with his owne Bishopricke of Trebizond by the fauor of Iustinian who as yet knew not that he was an heretike and chiefly by the craft of Theodora the Empresse an Eutychian and for that cause a great fauorer of Anthymus intruded himselfe to the See of Constantinople But Agapet Pope coÌ„ming thither deposed him and with his owne hands ordayned Menas in his place which was an admirable effect of the power of S. Peter in his Successor for at that tyme Constantinople was the seate of Iustinian and the Head of the Empire wheras Rome was oppressed and made a slaue vnder the tiranny of Gothes a barbarous and Arian people The Church of Constantinople was most florishing and glorious and that of Rome greatly depressed and afflicted Iustinian the Emperor waâ— vâ—ctorious and triumphant and contrarily the Pope brought to such straytes that Theodat an Arian King of the Gothes threatned to ruinate the Roman Church vnlesse he would goe to Constantinople solicite the Emperor for peace and procure him to call his armies out oâ— Italy which vâ—â—â—ge therfore Agapet could not refuse though he were so poore that for the performance therof he was inforced to pawne the sacred Vessells of his Church wheras on the other side Anthymus being exalted by the Emperor and Empresse from the Bishoptick of Trebâ—zond to the Patriarkeship of Constantinople was very powrefull in meanes and highly fouored by them both And yet neuerthelesse and that the Empresse threatned Agapet if he deposed Anthymus and promised him great rewards if he would leaue him in the See of Constantinople the holy Pope soon after his ariuall being a stranger and without support deposed him casting him out of that See euen in the very Imperiall Citty in the presence of the Emperor that fauoured him and excommunicated Theodora the Empresse that obstinatly maintained him and with his owne hands ordained Menas a Priest of Constantinople in his place and pardoned Peter Patriarke of Hierusalem and other Bishops of the East that had communicated with him All this is accordingly reported by Marcellinus Comes (s) In Chron. Liberatus (t) Breu. c. 12. Victor of Tunes (u) In Chron. edit per Ios Scal. ad calc Chron. Euseb and Iustinian himselfe (x) Nou. 42. and is so cleare an euidence for the supreme authority of the B. of Rome that it admitteth no colour of answeare SECT III. Of the matter treated in the fifth generall Councell THe matter disputed in this Councell was about certaine writings of Theodorus Mopsuestinus Ibas and Theodoret commonly called Tria capitula The three Chapters Before the Councell Vigilius Pope with the Bishops of the West defended the Three Chapters which the Easterne Bishops opposed and what both of them did was vpon pious considerations in defence of the Councell of Chalcedon The Bishops of the East assembled in a Councell at Constantinople condemned the Three Chapters But Vigilius knowing that the Westerne Bishops stood in opposition to their sentence refused to confirme it hoping by that
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
the vniuersall Church hauing no right therunto A most vngodly comparison for these two Popes were of the most holy learned and renowned Prelates that euer sate in the Chayre of S. Peter since his tyme whose sanctity God hath testified with most illustrious miracles and whom all posterity hath iustly honored with the surname of Great S. Leo is he that with great care and vigilancy suppressed the Manichees that came flying out of the Africa to Rome other places of Italy that vsed singular industry to roote out the Donatists in Africa the Pelagians in France the Priscilianists in Spaine writing to the Bishops of greatest learning and fame that were then liuing in those Countries to be watchfull and assemble Councells for the condemning and extirpating those heresies and like wise he himselfe against the errors of Nestorius Eutyches Dioscorus assembled in the East that famous Councell of 630. Bishops at Chalcedon who all acknowledged him to be their Head and themselues his members and children and that to him the gouerment of the Church was committed by our Sauiour (k) In relat ad Leon. and who esteemed his words as the words of S. Peter and his iudgments as oracles of God crying out all which one voyce (l) Act. 1. Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo Leo hath iudged the iudgment of God Nor was S. Gregory of lesse renowne for to omit the admirable humility wherwith he refused the dignity of supreme Pastor the conuersion of our English nation and other great workes which he performed for the good of the Church the excellent bookes he writ for which he hath deserued the title of Doctor of the Church and the many famous miracles wherwith God declared his sanctity who is ignorant of the admirable Elogies wherwith ancient writers haue celebrated his prayses Among others that famous Archbishop of Toledo and Primate of Spayne S. Hildephonsus writeth of him (m) In lib. de viris illust that in sanctity he surpassed Antony in eloquence Cyprian in wisdome Augustine by the grace of the holy Ghost was endowed with so great light of humane science that in former ages none had bene equall vnto him And Petrus Diaconus testifieth (n) Vit. S. Greg. that he saw the holy Ghost in forme of a doue at his care inspiring him whiles he was writing which alone might haue made you forbeare the traducing of so admirable a man But returning to our question this very euasion of yours to wit that the testimonies of Popes are no sufficient argument to conclude a Papall authority because they speake in their owne cause sufficiently conuinceth that you know them to haue acknowledged such authority in themselues and that when you deny it you speake without all ground of truth for who can think that S. Leo S. Gregory and many other Popes renowned Martyrs and glorious Confessors most eminent in humility and all kind of vertue and to whose sanctity God added the seale of diuine miracles should with a Luciferian pride arrogate to themselues Pastorall authority power ouer the Church of God throughout the whole world if that dignity had not bene giuen by Christ to S. Peter and in him to them I deny therfore that when they maintayne their authority they speake in their owne cause They speake in the cause of God as witnes your selfe (o) Pag. 4◠S. Paul did when he said (p) Rom. 11. I will magnify myne office in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentiles And the like did S. Gregory when vpon that text he collected a generall lesson for the defence of his owne iurisdiction against such as you are saying (q) L. 4. ep 36. The Apostle teacheth vs so to carry humility in our hart that we do keep and preserue the dignity of that order wherunto we are called Wherfore as if a Vice-Roy should defend maintaine the dignity of his place for the seruice of the King his Maister and the repression of seditious persons he that should oppose him and resist his authority vnder color that he speaketh in his owne cause would be accounted no better then a rebell so no other reckoning is to be made of him that reiects the testimonies of Popes the Vicars and Lieutenants of Christ on earth because they defend their authority for they do it to defend the honor of Christ their Maister to magnify their office with S. Paul and with S. Gregory to preserue the dignity of that order wherunto they are called which dignity S. Augustine (r) Ep. 92. and the whole Councell of Mileuis acknowledge to be taken out of the authority of holy Scriptures But here by the way I desire to be resolued of a doubt You confesse (s) Pag. 301. that power of appeales if it be right and proper is a most certaine argument of dominion Againe you cōfesse (t) Pag. 303. marg fin n. 8. that S. Gregory excommunicated Iohn a Greeke Bishop of the first Iustinianaea because he had presumed to iudge Adrian Bishop of Thebes after he had appealed to the See Apostolike which conuinceth S. Gregory to haue belieued that the Bishops of the Greeke Church might lawfully appeale from their owne Metropolitans and from their Patriarke of Constantinople to the See Apostolike that the same See had true and proper right to admit their appeales and re-iudge their causes which it could not haue if the Pope had not true proper authority ouer the Greeke Church How then can you deny that S. Gregory belieued himselfe to haue that authority or that he practised the same Yea that he had power and iurisdiction not only ouer the Greeke Church but also ouer the vniuersall Church practised the same is a thing so certaine that your Protestant brethren Friccius Peter Martyr Carion Philippus Nicolai the Centurists and Osiander (u) Apud Brier Protest Apol. Tract 1. sect 7. subdiu 9. à n. 11. ad 29. shew out of his writings these particulars That the Roman Church appointeth her watch ouer the whole world that the Apostolike See is the Head of all Churches that the Bishop of Constantinople is subiect to the Apostolike See that S. Gregory challenged to himselfe power to command Arch-bishops to ordayne or depose Bishops that he assumed to himselfe right for citing Arch-bishops to declare their causes before him when they were accused and also to excommunicate depose them giuing commission to their neighbour Bishops to proceed against them that in their prouinces he placed his Legates to examine and end the causes of such as appealed to the Roman See that he vsurped power of appointing Synods in their prouinces and required Arch-bishops that if any cause of great importance happened they should referre the same to him appointing in prouinces his Vicars ouer the Churches to end smaller matters and to reserue the greater causes to himselfe All this is testified by your owne brethren to which Doctor Sanders
hearing and finall decision of the causes of Bishops fayth Are you ignorant that the custome is that wee be first written vnto that from hence may proceed the iust decision of things And therfore if any suspicion were conceyued against your Bishops there it ought to haue bene referred hither to our Church And then declaring vnto them that this authority of the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged by the Councell of Nice he denounceth vnto them that in condemning Athanasius without expecting his sentence they had done contra Canones against the Canons to wit of the Nicen Councell which he setteth downe at large in his second epistle to them that as well Athanasius in appealing from their Councell to him as also he in repealing their actes in restoring to their seates Athanasius the other Bishops whom they had deposed and in summoning their aduersaries to appeare at Rome yeld account of their proceedings had done quod Ecclesiastici Canonis est according to the Canons of the Church 2. The same is proued by the testimony of Innocentius the first whom S. Augustine S. Hierome and other Fathers of that age highly commend He ordayneth (z) Ep. ad Victric Rhotomag Epise that if any difference arise betweene Priests their cause be iudged by the Bishops of the same Prouince but that greater causes be referred to the See Apostolike as the Nicen Councell hath ordeyned 3. The same is proued out of S. Leo the Great who writing to Theodosius the yonger (a) Ep. 4â—â— and representing vnto him the sacrilegious proceeding of the second Councell of Ephesus which he by his owne authority had called and impiously maintained that Flauianus the holy Patriarke of Constantinople which in that Councell had bene iniustly deposed and many wayes wronged fled to him for redresse presenting a Writ of Appeale to his Legates intreateth his assistance for the calling of a generall Councell in Italy adding that the Nicen Canous necessarily require the calling of a Councell after the putting in of an Appeale This sheweth that the Councell of Nice decreed the lawfulnesse of appeales from generall Councels to the Pope Nor are you ignoraÌ„t thereof for afterwards (b) Pag. 308. you bring these very words of S. Leo against Appeales to him but not without great Eclypse of iudgment for in them two things are clearly expressed the one that according to the Nicen canoÌ„s Bishops wheÌ„ they are wronged may lawfully appeale to the Pope the other that after the putting in of an Appeale to him a generall Councell ought to be called that to the greater satisfaction of all parts the cause may be fully examined reiudged by the common consent of the Church which no more preiudicateth the Popes Authority then it doth the Kings that after an appeale made to Maiesty a Parliament be called for the decision of the cause for as the King is Head of the Parliament so is the Pope of a generall Councell And hereby it appeares how litle iudgment you shew in obiecting the African Councell to proue that the Councell of Nice denyed appeales to Rome both because your selfe alleaging this testimony of the Nicen Councell out of S. Leo proue them to be lawfull as also because the African Councell is wholly against you as hereafter shall be proued (c) Below Chap. 27. 4. That the Councell of Nice acknowledged the vninersall authority and iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome is proued out of Socrates a Greeke historian of aboue 1200. yeares standing who speaking of the Arian Councell at Antioch (d) L. 2. c. 5. proueth it to be vnlawfull because Iulius Bishop of Rome was not there nor sent any in his steed although the acclesiasticall canon forbids to rule the Churches without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome And Sozomen (e) L. 3. c. 9. Iulius reprehended them the Arians that they had secretly altered the fayth of the Nicen Councell and that against the lawes of the Church they had not called the Pope to their Synod for there was a sacerdotall law which pronounceth all things to be inualide that are done without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome And Theodoret (f) L 2. hist c. 4. Iulius Bishop of Rome following the canon of the Church commanded them the Arian Bishops to come to Rome and summoned the Diuinâ— Athanasius to answeare for himselfe in iudgment And the same is reported by Nicephorus Now this Canon so vniformely auouched by these Greeke historians which forbiddeth Bishops to be deposed or any Ecclesiasticall decrees to be made without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome can be of no other then of the Nicen Councell or els of that of Sardica which confirmed the decrees of the Councell of Nice and is reputed as an appendix vnto it both because as you haue heard Innocentius afflirmeth the Councell of Nice to haue made such a law as also for that since the Apostles tyme vntill the tyme of those two Councels there had bene held no other generall Councell in the Church And finally because Iohn that learned Disputant of the Latines in the Councell of Florence (g) Sess 20. in their name answeareth Marcus Ephesius the disputant of the Greekes that the most ancient epistles of Iulius and Liberius Popes which Iulian Cardinall of S. Sabina had shewed to the Grecians in that Councell did conuince that blessed Athanasius being persecuted by the Arians in their Councell at Antioch writ to Felix Marcus Iulius and Liberius all of them successiuely Popes of Rome for a true copy of the Actes of Nice which were kept entire and incorrupt at Rome all those that were in the East being corrupted by the Arians and that their answere was They wold not send the originall acts which being written in Greeke and Latine and subscribed by the Nicen Fathers and sealed with their seales were kept by the Bishop of Rome with great veneration but that they wold send him copied out seuerally such Canons as were for his purpose And moreouer he sheweth that when Athanasius had appealed from the Councell of Antioch to the See of Rome and that the Arians obiected it vnto him as a thing vnlawfull Liberius promised to send him copied out the Nicen decree for the lawfulnesse of appealing to Rome and that Iulius in his Epistle sharply rebuked the Arians for hauing presumed to call a Councell without his allowance shewing theÌ„ out of a decree of the Councell of Nice that no Councell could euer be held without the authority of the Bishop of Rome And lastly Pisanus (h) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 345.346 in proofe of these Nicene decrees produceth the testimonies of the Councell of Constantinople of Marcus of Stephanus and Innocentius Popes of Athanasius and the Bishops of Aegypt of other Orientals of Marianus Scotus Iuo Carnotensis and Gratianus All which with the rest here alleaged shew your vnshamefastnesse in vrging the Councell of Nice against Appeales to Rome which were so
certainly allowed and decreed by it 5. The same is confirmed out of the Councell of Sardica which being held soone after that of Nice made three decrees concerning Appeales The first (i) Cap. 3. that if in the cause of a Bishop who conceaues himselfe to be wronged a new iudgement be required the Bishop of Rome is to giue the Iudges The second (k) Cap. 4. that if a Bishop deposed by the next Bishops say his cause ought to be iudged againe none is to be installed in his See vntill the Bishop of Rome haue pronounced vpon it The third (l) Cap. 5. that a Bishop accused may haue recourse to Rome by way of appeale These Canons of Sardica sufficiently declare the beleefe of the Nicen councell touching the authority of the Bishop of Rome for as Harmen opulus writeth (m) In Epit. Can. By the aduice of the Emperor and of the Bishop of Rome the Synod if Sardica was assembled consisting of 341. Fathers which confirmed the fayth of the Councell of Nice and published the Canons Wherfore these canons touching appeales extant in the Councell of Sardica are either the very Nicen canons inserted into that of Sardica or declarations of them for the Sardican Councell consisting for the most part of the same Bishops that the Nicen did it is a senselesse thing to say that when those Bishops in their Councell at Sardica so expresly and so effectually declare the Bishop of Rome to be the supreme iudge of all Bishops they professe a new doctrine contrary to that which a litle before they had professed in the Councell of Nice 6. The authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer the whole Church is yet further declared in the Nicen Councell decreeing thus (n) Can. 39. ex 80. Graec. Arab. A Patriarke is so ouer all those that are vnder his power as he that hath the See of Rome is Head and Prince of all Patriarkes for he is the chiefest as Peter was to whom power was giuen ouer all Christian Princes and all their subiectes as being the Vicar of our Lord ouer all people and ouer the vniuer sall Church 7. The same is proued by the order of subscribing in the Councell for Victor and Vincentius being not Bishops but simple Priests because they were Legates to the Pope presided in the Councell togeather with Osius B. of Corduba and subscribed in the first place before all the Bishops and Patriarkes which they could not haue done but only in regard they represented his person who was Superior to all Bishops and Patriarkes 8. Though Constantine the Emperor was a great cause of the Bishops meeting in the Councell of Nice both because he persuaded that meanes of Concord as also because he defrayed their charges and by his letters called them together yet he called them not by his owne authority but as Ruffinus sayth (o) L. 1. c. 1. fin apud Spond Anno 325. n. 5. ex Sacerdotum sententia by the determination or decree of the Priests as in like manner he called an other Councell of 275 Bishops at Rome at the same time in which it is said Siluester gathered the whole Councell with the aduice of the Emperor The same is testified by Damasus in Syluesters life and by the sixt generall Councell saying (p) Act. 18. Constantine and Syluester worthy of prayse called the famous Councell of Nice And how can it be thought that it was called by any other authority then of the Pope seeing S. Athanasius and the Bishops of Aegypt in their Councell at Alexandria witnesse (q) Ep. Synod ad Felic that the Nicen Councell made a decree that no generall Councells should be held without the allowance of the B. of Rome and this decree it is which Iulius Pope the next but one to Syluester alleaged against the Arians (r) Ep. ad Orientales rebuking thē sharply that they had infringed it by calling their Councell at Antioch without his allowance which is also testified by Socrates Sozomen and Theodoret as you haue heard 9. And as this Councell was called by Syluester Pope so that it required confirmation from him we are certified by the Roman Councell vnder Felix the third (s) In ep Synod Felic c. 3. and by the Councell of Nice it selfe saying (t) In summ Conc. Nice Placuit c. It hath seemed good that all these Acts and decrees be sent to Syluester B. of Rome And in their letter to Syluester (u) Apud Baron An. 325. ex collect Crescon Whatsoeuer is determined in the Nicen Councell we beseech you that it may be seconded with the confirmation of your mouth And that Syluester accordingly confirmed their decrees we may learne from a Councell of the Bishops of Italy held at Rome in which he presiding sayd (x) Apud Bar. An. 325. Bin. to 1. pag. 382. Whatsoeuer is determined by the 318. holy Priests at Nice in Bithinia for the strength of the holy Catholike and Apostolike Church we with our mouth accordingly confirme and all those that shall dare to dissolue the definition of the holy and great Councell assembled at Nice in the presence of the most religious and venerable Prince Constantine the Emperor we anathematize them And all answeared So be it SECT I. Doctor Mortons Obiections against the precedent Doctrine answeared THough you either could not or would not find any thing of all that which hath bene alleaged out of the Councell of Nice in proofe of the Popes authority yet you cold find two argumēts to obiect against it The first is (y) Pag. 105. seqq The Councell of Nice decreeth that the ancient custome goe on to wit that the Patriarke of Alexandria haue power ouer Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis because the B. of Rome hath so accustomed To this argument Bellarmine hath answeared (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. that the Canon speakes of the Patriarke of Alexandria with restriction assigning to him the Prouinces of Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis and of the Pope without restriction not prescribing any lymits to his iurisdiction nor ordeyning any thing concerning the authority of the Roman Church but making her a rule and patterne for the gouerment of other Churches commanding that the B. of Alexandria haue power ouer those three prouinces because the B. of Rome hath accustomed so to allow or permit And this canon is so explicated by Nicolas the first (a) Ep. ad Michael Imper that liued almost 800. yeares since and for his learning and sanctity hath deserued the surname of Great And the same explication is confirmed by the practise both of the Roman and of the Alexandrian Church For if according to your construction the Roman Church by this canon be proued to haue no superiority of iurisdiction ouer the Church of Alexandria or other Easterne Churches but only ouer those which are within the Patriarkeship of the west how comes it to passe that S. Athanasius Patriarke
professe by acknowledging (c) Ibid. that he ruled ouer them as the Head doth ouer the members and therfore beseeching him to confirme their decrees with his authority they adde (d) Ibid. We pray you to honor our iudgment with your decrees and that as in what concernes the Weale we haue held correspondence to our Head so your Soueraignty wold fulfill vnto your Children what is fit and conuenient These testimonies so cleare and pregnant cannot but conuince the vnderstanding of any impartiall reader that the Councell of Chalcedon beleeued the vniuersall authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome whom therefore the same Councell often calleth (e) Act. 1.2.3 Bishop of the vniuersall Church SECT III. Whether the title of Vniuersall Bishop which the Councell of Chalcedon gaue to the Pope argue in him no more but a generall care of the good of the Church such as belonges to euery Bishop and to euery Christian. OF all the proofes hereunto alleaged you take no notice two only excepted namely of the title of Vninersall Bishop and of the metaphor of a Vine by which the Councell expresseth the vniuersall Church saying (f) In relat ad Leon. that the custody therof is by Christ our Sauiour committed to the Pope These two you call Two postes to support the ruinous Monarchy of the B. of Rome And your answeare to them here (g) Pag. 117.118 and afterwards againe (h) Pag. 236. is that these attributes import no vniuersall power of iurisdiction in the Pope but of prouidence and care which euery Bishop shold haue in wishing and to his power endeauoring the vniuersall good of the whole Church But if the words of the Councell import no more it will follow that the custody of the vniuersall Church that is the gouerment therof was by Christ committed not only to euery Bishop but also to euery Christian man and woman who should wish and to their power procure the vniuersall good of the whole Church But you obiect (i) Pag. 116.117 236. that Eleutherius Pope writing to the Bishops of France sayth The vniuersall Church of Christ is committed to you that you may labor for all men and that according to Binius his exposition the meaning of Eleutherius is that for as much as heretikes oppugne the Catholike and vniuersall Church is belongeth to euery Bishop to haue an vniuersall care to defend and support it And this say you is a true answere indeed But you speake vntruly and interprete falsly for Binius hath no such word as Vniuersall care nor doth he speake of Bishops only but sayth that a care solicitude of defending the vniuersall Church against heretikes belongeth not only to Bishops but to euery Christian for as much as we are commanded by God Eccl. c. 4. to fight fortruth and iustice vntill death How do these words of Binius proue that the Pope hath not or that the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledged him not to haue authority and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church but only a charitable care of her good as S. Paul had and as euery Bishop and euery Christian man and woman according to their power are bound to haue for did not that Councel giue to Pope Leo the title of Vniuersall Archbishop and Patriarke or as you set it downe (k) Pag. 235. of Bishop of the vniuersall Church but these words say you (l) Ibid. were not the words of the Councell but of two Deacons writing to the Councell and of Paschasinus the Popes Legate False for it was giuen to him (m) Act. 3. in foure different petitions of Theodorus and Ischyrion Deacons of Alexandria of Athanasius a Priest of the same City and of Sophronius And the Councell approuing thereof commanded theyr petitions to be registred in the Acts. Moreouer the same title was giuen him by Paschasinus who though he were his legate was a Reuerend Bishop as also by Martian the Emperor the Councell no way excepting therat And did not S. Gregory and after him the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas testify that the whole Councell of Chalcedon with the following Fathers gaue the same title to Leo Pope And did not Leo a man of admirable sanctity learning instyle himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church And did not the Regulars of Constantinople and of Syria and the Bishops of the Patriarkships of Antioch and Hierusalem giue the same tytle to Agapetus Pope in the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas (n) See all this proued aboue Chap. 15. sect 3. Againe did not the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledge in Leo power to restore Theodoret to his Bishoprick of Cyre bordering vpon Persia from which he had bene deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus (o) Act. â— Did it not acknowledge in him authority to depose Dioscorus the greatest Patriarch of the East (p) Act. 3. Did not all those Fathers being the representatiue body of the Vniuersall Church professe (q) In relat ad Leon. that Leo Pope did preside rule ouer them as the Head ouer the members Is this Authority common to euery Bishop Or did Eleutherius or the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledge any such thing But he that will see how imposterously you wrest the testimony of Eleutherius against the vniuersall power and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome and against the meaning of the Councell of Chalcedon let him read the epistle and he shall finde that Eleutherius a litle before the words which you obiect declareth that althought it be lawfull to examine the accusations and crimes obiected against Bishops either before their Metropolitans or before the Bishops of their owne Prouince yet that it is not lawfull to end them there for as much as it hath bene decreed by the Apostles their Successors that the finall decision of Bishops causes is to be referred to the See Apostolike and no others substituted in their places vntill their iudgments be ended at Rome Can there be a more full expression of the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church then to professe him to be the sole supreme Iudge of all Bishops Or can there be a greater imposture then to obiect this epistle of Eleutherius for the contrary SECT IV. Whether the Councell of Chalcedon did giue to the B. of Constantinople priuiledges equall with the B. of Rome YOu obiect heere (r) Pag. 118. and often repeate that the Fathers of Chalcedon did giue priuiledges to the Patriarke of Constantinople equall with the Church of Rome Answeare The Fathers of Chalcedon in absence of the Popes Legates of the Patriarke of Alexandria and of all the Bishopes of Aegypt at the suggestion of Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople renewed the decree of the 150. Fathers made in the first generall Councell of that City which was that the B. of Constantinople shold haue the second place of honor after the B. of Rome And to this decree was added that he should haue equall priuiledges
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
much that he hath left an especiall Constitution as a perpetuall monument therof to the world (b) Apud Gratis d. 19. c. 30. in Conc. Triburieu c. 30. He could haue told you that Basilius Macedo being present at the eight generall Councell in his Oration to the Fathers there assembled made (c) Act. 6. append open profession of his obedience to be Bishop and Church of Rome and that he gaue this memorable aduice to the Laity (d) Oras in fine Conc. that whereas not they but Bishops haue the charge of gouerment in the Church with the power of binding and loosing the dignity of Pastors belongs to them and that as well himselfe as all lay-men are sheep to be fed to be sanctified to be bound and losed from their bonds by them And if from Emperors he had passed to Kings he could haue told you that howbeit in the time of Lucius the first Christian King of this Iland there were many Churches sounded in Germany France and Spaine yet he desiring to be made a Christian required not the Sacrament of Baptisme from any Bishop of those Countries nearer at hand but writ and sent Embassadors to Eleutherius Pope that from him as from the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church himselfe his Queene and people might receaue so necessary a Sacrament as they did by the hands of Fugatius and Damianus whom Eleutherius sent for that purpose into Britaine (e) Bed hist. Augl l. 1. c. 4. de sex aesat He could haue told you that Of win King vnderstanding that the keyes of Heauen were giuen to S. Peter and that the Bishop of Rome was his Successor resolued not to oppose him but so farre forth as he knew and was able to obey his decrees in all things (f) Bed hist. Augl l. 3. c. 25. He could haue told you that Pope Adrian the first being dead and Leo chosen in this place Kenulphus King of the Mercians writ to him (g) Continuat histor Bode l. 1. c. 12. giuing thankes to God that he had prouided for his flock so solicitous a Pastor to whose commands said he I thinke fit to lend humbly an obedient eare And hauing asked his benediction he addeth This benediction all the Kings of the Mercians which haue gone before me haue obtained And that which I humbly craue and desire to obtayne from you O most holy is that you accept of me as your adopted Child as I choose and with all obedience reuerence you in the place of a Father He could haue told you that S. Edward the Confessor writing to Nicolas Pope (h) Alred Rieual in vita S. Edward addressed his letter to him with this inscription To the soueraigne Father of the vniuersall Church Nicolas Edward by the grace of God King of England due subiection If from England he had passed to other Countries he could haue told you that the most Christian King of France Lewis the eleauenth writing to Pius the second saluted him with this title (i) Ep. ad Pium 2. To our most blessed Father Pius the second Pope filiall obedieuce And in the Epistle We haue you that are the Vicar of the liuing God in so great veneration that with a willing minde we are ready to heare your sacred admonitions especially in Ecclesiasticall affaires as the voyce of our Pastor for we professe and know you to be the Pastor of our Lords flock and we obey your commands And among the documents which this holy King S. Lewis on his death-bed left in writing to Philip his Sonne this was one (k) Nangius de gest S. Ludou Surius 25. Aug. Be thou deuout and obedient to the Roman Church as to a Mother and shew thy selfe dutifull to the Bishop therof as to thy spirituall Father It were not difficult to adde more testimonies in the same kind of other Kings of France as of Charles and Hugh of Alphonsus the wise and Ferdinand the Catholike of Spaine of Leo King of the Armenians of Sigismund of Poland c. But these may suffice to persuade any iudicious reader that the most wise and godly Christian Emperors and Kings that Christendome hath bred haue belieued the Pope to be their Pastor and spirituall Father and themselues bound to yeld obedience to him in the affaires of their soules and withall to shew the falshood of your contrary Tenet CHAP. XXX Whether Christian Emperors haue inuested themselues in Ecclesiasticall affaires YOV maintaine the affirmatiue which you proue with seuerall examples all of them directly against your selfe SECT 1. Constantine the Great inuested not himselfe in Ecclesiasticall Causes IN the first place you alleage the example of Constantine the great who was so farre from medling with Ecclesiasticall causes that being solicited in the Councel of Nice to heare and determine certaine controuersies of Bishops he answeared (l) Ruffin l. 1 c. 1.8 Greg. l. 4 〈◊〉 72. Baron an 32â— God hath constituted you Priests and giuen you power to iudge of vs and therfore we are rightly iudged by you but you cannot be iudged by men Wherefore expect yee the iudgment of God alone and let your quarrels whatsoeuer be referred to his diuine iudgment for God hath giuen you to vs as Gods and it is not fit that man should iudge Gods but he alone of whom it is written (m) Psal 81.1 God stood in the congregation of Gods and iudgeth Gods in the middest of them In these words Constantine acknowledgeth the Episcopall power to be aboue the Imperiall and that a Priest in Ecclesiasticall causes hath power to iudge of an Emperor if he be in his Parish wheras contrariwise the Priest cannot be iudged by the Emperor more then the Pastor by his sheep or God by men But you obiect (n) Pag. 161. Constantine iudged the cause of Cecilian B. of Carthage And this you esteeme to be so choice an Argument that afterwards you repeate it twice againe (o) Pag. â—21 327. but very vnaduisedly this very example alone being of it selfe an abosolute demonstration of the falshood of your Doctrine for first the Donatists that required iudges from Constantine in the cause of Cecilian were heretikes who as they had forsaken the communion of Gods Church and as S. Augustine sayth (p) Ep. 1â—â— were guilty of the horrible crime of erecting Altar against altars so in their recourse to Constantine they violated the lawes of the Church for it is said S. Martin (q) Seuer Sulpititius â—ist sâ—â—â—cra l. 2. to the Emperor Maximus a new and neuer heard of impiety that a secular iudge should iudge a cause of the Church And S. Athanasius (r) Ep. ad Solit What hath the Emperor to do with the iudgments of Bishops Hath it euer heue heard since the beginning of the world that the iudgments of the Church did take their force from the Emperor (s) Ep. ad Constant extat aâ—ud Baron anno 355.
with all that are committed to vs are and will euer be obedient to you And in his Epistle to Felix Pope For as much as our Predecessors and we haue alwayes receaued assistance from your holy Apostolike See and haue had experience of the care you haue of vs we following the decrees of the Canons fly for succour vnto it as vnto a Mother from whence our predecessors haue receaued their orders doctrine and reliefe And againe (h) Ibid. Which by no meanes we dare presume to do to wit to define matters of fayth without consulting you the Canons commanding that in maior causes nothing be determined without the B. of Rome c. For therfore Christ hath placed you and your predecessors in the height of Eminency and commanded you to haue care of all Churches c. And he addeth (i) Ibid. that It belongs to the Pope to iudge the causes of all Bishops If therfore to appeale to the Pope as to his Iudge if to acknowledg in him power to restore the greatest Patriarkes to their Sees if to professe that the iudgment of Bishops belongeth to him and that all maior causes are to be referred to his tribunall if to belieue the Roman Church to be the Head and Mother of all Churches and the Pope to be Bishop of the vniuersall Church and finally if to professe actuall and promise perpetuall obedience to the See Apostolike be Arguments of S. Athanasius his beliefe of the soueraigne authority of the See Apostolike of his obligation to obey her and to liue in vnion with her and in subiection to her then are you guilty of Imposture in omitting these and other pregnant testimonies of the same kind extant in his second Apology and obiecting in lieu of them a false tale of Liberius excommunicating Athanasius deuised by your selfe to seduce your readers And hereby you are conuinced of another vntruth in saying (k) Pag. 191. that Athanasius sought not any vnion with Felix who was Pope insteed of Liberius for these his testimonies shew that he was in communion with him and acknowledged himselfe subiect to him as to the Gouernor of the vniuersall Church But you say (l) Pag. 190. and that impertinently to the matter in hand which is to proue S. Athanasius his no subiection to the Roman Church that When we esteeme Felix to be the legitimat Pope and Liberius a Schismatike remoued from the society of Catholikes and from his Papall function wee fight notably against our owne principles which are 1. That there cannot be two Popes together and 2. That no Pope can be deposed vnlesse he appeare to be a manifest heretike which if he be he ceaseth to be Pope without any iudgement at all That there cannot be two Popes together we acknowledge to be a principle of ours Nor did it happen otherwise in the case of Liberius for when he returned to the Papacy it was by acceptation of the Clergy people of Rome equiualent to a new election and this not vntill after Felix his death For as Sozomen prudently obserueth (m) L. 4. c. 14. God by his speciall prouidence called Felix out of this life soone after Liberius returned to Rome lest the See of Peter should be defamed with the note of schisme two Popes gouerning at once contrary to the lawes of the Church The second principle is not ours but an ignorance of yours For a Pope ceaseth to be a Catholike consequētly falleth from his Papacy not only by publicke profession of heresy but also by making publicke profession of Schisme and outward communion with heretikes though in his hart he detest their doctrine for to be a Catholike it is not only necessary to belieue the Catholike fayth inwardly but also to make profession thereof outwardly abandoning the cōmunion of heretikes Wherfore the syllogisme which here you make (n) Pag. 190. sin 191. concludeth nothing the Minor proposition that Liberius notwithstanding his consenting to the condemnation of Athanasius and communicating with heretikes was a Catholiks Bishop is absolutely false And wheras you professe to set downe this Minor as the words of Bellarmine you falsify him for albeit he say that if a Pope become a manifest heretike he ceaseth eo ipso to be Pope yet in the same place (o) L. 2. de Pont. c. 30. §. Eadem est sententia he sufficiently expresseth that not only heretikes but also schismatikes are out of the Church and loose all spirituall iurisdiction ouer those which are in the Church SECT IV. S. Basills beliefe of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome proued and Doctor Mortons obiections answeared IT seemed to vs sayth S. Basil (p) Ep. 52. writing to Athanasius to be to good purpose that we write to the B. of Rome that he consider the affaires of these parts and giue his iudgement to the end that being there is difficulty in sending from thence persons by a common and Synodicall decree he may vse his authority and choose men capable of the labour of such a iourney c. And that hauing with them the Acts of Arimin they may disanull those things which haue bene done by force Bellarmine (q) L. 2. de Pont. c. 15. bringeth this testimony you except against him as peruerting S. Basil by false translation which you proue out of Baronius for where Bellarmine translateth vt res nostras videas that the B. of Rome see or view our affaires Baronius rendreth vt res nostras consideret that he consider our affaires But who seeth not this to be a mere cauill for what difference is there between intreating the Pope to take the affaires of the Easterne Churches into his consideration as Baronius readeth or to see and looke into them as Bellarmine translateth Whether you follow the one or the other it is manifest that S Basil thought it a fit way to redresse the calamities of those Churches that the Pope should take them into his consideration or haue a vigilant eye ouer them the requiring wherof from him liuing in a Countrey so remote and in another Patriarkship sheweth that S. Basil belieued some charge of visiting those Churches to belong to him superior to that which the Easterne Patriarkes had Nor doth your answeare satisfy saying (r) Pag. 195. He required not from the Pope any help or visitation of dominion or iurisdiction but only of confortation of louing and brotherly consideration hoping that the persuasions of stangers especially being indued with Gods grace would be more preualent with the Easterne people then the Counsell of their owne Bishops for this euasion is conuinced of falshood by the very words of S. Basil It is fit sayth he (s) Ep. 52. that we beseech the Pope to shew his authority in the busines sending men that may bring with them the Acts of Arimin and disannull the thinges done by force And immediatly after he professeth himselfe ready to be corrected by the Popes Legates if
Bishops I know not what Bishop is not subiect vnto it Doth not this testimony immediatly follow in Bellarmine Yes and it is so euident that Caluin (h) L. 4. Iust. c. 7. § 1â— on the rack of truth is inforced to confesse that S Gregory in no place of his workes vanteth more of the greatnesse of his See then in these very words and that in them he attributeth to himselfe the right of punishing Bishops when they offend Is it not then imposterous to conceale this so cleare an euidence and others brought in by Bellarmine and reiect them all because you haue found a way to cauill at one especially since not only out of S. Gregories workes and the testimonies of your Protestant Brethren it is a truth not to be denyed that he belieued himselfe to haue and practised iurisdiction ouer all Bishops whatsoeuer But you say (k) Pag. 285. If Gregory in some tearmes seeme to speake somwhat loud as though he were very Great yet be confined himselfe to the Constitution of Iustinian He resolueth according to the constitution of Iustinian that the triall of Bishops causes in the first instance belongs to their Metropolitan as the cause of the Metropolitan doth to his Patriarke But withall he teacheth (l) L. 2. ep 6. that they may appeale to the See Apostolike and furthermore addeth (m) L. 11. ep 56. that If a Bishop haue no Metropolitan nor Patriarke ouer him then sayth he his cause is to be heard decided by the See Apostolike which is the head of all Churches And this is agreeable to the profession which Iustinian himselfe made in the Law Inter claras (n) Cod. tit â— l. 8. and in the Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (o) Cod. t is 1. l. 7. In the rest of this Section (p) Pag. 284. you tell vs that â—â—n of those Popes eited by Bellarmine call the Church of Rome and Bishop therof Head of all Churches or one that hath the care of all Churches or one hauing principality They do so and withall so vnanswearably affirme the Vniuersall iurisdiction of the Roman Church that you thought best not to mention their words but to put them off saying The like attributes haue bene anciently ascribed to other Churches and Bishops which how false it is you haue already heard (q) Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. Chap. 35. Chap. 36 sect 3. To giue a good farewell you conclude thus (r) Pag. 285. fin 280. There are diuers other testimonies out of Leo Gelasius and other Popes who breathed out many sentences full of ostentation of their owne greatnesse Hitherto you haue held vs in hand that the primitiue Popes did not challenge any iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church but now you say that S. Gregory in some termes seemes to speake somwhat loud as though he were very Great and that Leo Gelasius and other Popes breathed out many sentences full of ostentation of their owne greatnesse but whatsoeuer they vented out it was typhus saecularis and a swelling impostume which was lanced that it bled withall by the Councell of Carthage vnder S. Cyprian and the Councell of Africke vnder S. Augustine and that selfe-loue bewitching many Popes of the more primitiue tymes they boasted themselues to be the only Vicars of Christ and have bene taxed for their great arrogancy by the ancient Fathers of their owne tymes And afterwards (s) Pag. 303. fin 304. you compare S. Leo and S. Gregory to Adonias that sought traiterously to pull the crowne from his Fathers head and make himselfe King to which he had right This forsooth is the reuerence you beare to the primitiue Popes whom antiquity hath had in so great veneration as of S. Leo and S. Gregory in particular you haue heard (t) Chap. 15. sect 3. Truth which enforceth testimony from her enemies compelleth you to confesse (u) Pag. 172.178.182.287 that the Primitiue Popes were Holy Popes Holy Fathers excellently goodly learned and that many of them are glorious Martyrs and Saints whose memory is blessed And yet the same truth enforceth you heere to confesse that those Popes acknowledged themselues to be the only Vicars of Christ on earth to haue an vniuersall authority and to haue practised the same for which albeit you taxe them with great arrogancy yet in adding that the ancient Fathers of their owne time did the like you passe the limits of modesty and truth And who seeth not the absurd manner of arguing which in proofe hereof you vse Your words are (x) Pag. 286. in titulo sect 13. Our generall discouery of the vanity of your proofes of Papall Monarchy from the mouthes of Popes themselues who haue bene anciently noted of pride Your assumpt then is to disproue the Papall Monarchy from the mouthes of Popes themselues But you produce not any one testimony nor any one word of any one Pope but make a briefe repetition of your Arguments which in their seuerall places haue bene proued to be partly impertinent partly false and partly hereticall Impertinent as of Tertullian False as of the African Councell S. Cyrill S. Basil S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine Hereticall as of Polycrates resisting Victor and of the Arians whom to conceale that they were heretikes you call The Orientalls And finally part of them of such as for a time defended the false doctrine of Rebaptization as S. Cyprian and his Councell of Carthage which though S. Augustine haue answeared (y) L. 6. de Baptism per tot and confuted word by word you take no notice therof but vrge it as currant and of authority against the B. of Rome yet that all may not seeme to be repetitions you bring forth one new Argument (z) Pag. 286. as drawne from the mouthes of Popes themselues which is that one Flaccidius relying on the greatnesse of the Citty of Rome equalled the Deacons of Rome with Priests This you obiect as the testimony of S. Augustine himselfe pointing at the vaine boasting of Rome wheras it is not S. Augustines but of the Author quaestionum noui veteris Testamenti whom heretofore (a) Pag. 52. when he was not for your purpose you reiected as an hereticall author but now his words are of S. Augustine himselfe and an Argument drawne from the very mouthes of ancient and holy Popes Necessity enforceth you to such absurdities for better Arguments are not to be found in such a cause The blindnesse of your zeale permitted you not to see the inconsequence contrariety of your doctrine whiles you professe (b) Pag. 287. that the primitiue Popes were Holy men and yet that they were proud arrogant and challenged dominion aboue others beyond the limits of their owne iurisdiction Yes say you (c) Ibid. why not They were holy Disciples of Christ who ambitiously wished that they might sit the one on the right hand of Christ and on the other on
out that of Flauianus is not because that is the chiefest Bellarmine insisteth on but because in that you find something to quarrell at which you finde not in the rest But vpon examination the euidence of this very example singled out by your selfe will shew how vnanswearable the rest are The ease is this The Church of Antioch being in schisme two Bishops Paulinus and Meletius pretending right to that Patriarchall seate and some adhering to the one some to the other not without danger of a great tumult they came to agreement (d) Socrat. l. 5. c. 5. Sozom. l. 7. c. 3. that all such Ecclesiasticks as were thought fit to gouerne that Church or were in expectation therof which were sixe in number should bind themselues by a solemne oath not to admit of that Bishoprick so long as either Paulinus or Meletius liued and after the death of either of them to let the superuiuer peaceably enioy that seat alone Meletius being dead the Antiochians contrary to their oath aduanced Flauianus to the Bishoprick in opposition to Paulinus and he contrary to his oath admitted therof at which Damasus Pope and all the Bishops of the West were greatly offended (e) Sozom. l. 7. c. 11. not without cause by reason of the new schisme it caused not only in that Church and in a great part of the East but also because it was contrary to the agreement made by oath and a great wrong to Paulinus who was very old and a personage of so great veneration for his sanctity and merit that Valens an hereticall Emperor driuing many Catholike Bishops from their Churches in to banishment neuer offered to touch him (f) S. Hieron Bp. 61. ad Pamach Socrat. l. 4. c. 2. Wherefore Damasus and the rest of the Westerne Bishops writ communicatory letters to him as to the true Bishop of Antioch but abstayned from the communion of Flauianus and excommunicated Diodorus and Acacius that had ordayned him (g) Sozom. l. 7. c. 11. And wheras the Councel of Constantinople vnder Nectarius had confirmed Flauianus they the Westerne Bishops annulled that confirmation and by their letters accompained with others of the Emperor Gratian vsing also therin the helpe of Theodosius who writ to the same effect they commāded the Councell of Constantinople to come to Rome (h) S. Hiero. Ep. 27. ad Eustoch Theod. l. 5. hist. c. 8. fin c. 9. put the election of Flauianus againe in triall at a generall Councell assembled there giuing withall to both parties assignation to appeare Flauianus distrusting the equity of his cause appeared not (i) Theod. l. 5. hist. c. 23. but had recourse to excuses and to the Emperor But Paulinus obeying transported himselfe to Rome in company of other Bishops and renowned personages of the East Wherof S. Hierome speaking sayth (k) Ep. 16. ad Princip The Ecclesiasticall necessity drew me to Rome with the holy Bishops Paulinus and Epiphanius whereof the one gouerned the Church of Antioch in Syria and the other the Church of Salamina in Cyprus And againe (l) Ep 17. ad Eustoch When the Imperiall letters had drawne to Rome the Bishops of the East and West Paula saw there the admirable men and Bishops of Christ Paulinus B. of Antioch and Epiphanius B. of Salamina in Cyprus Wherby it appeareth that albeit the election of Flauianus had bene confirmed by the Councell of Constantinople Paulinus was still held to be the true B. of Antioch and Flauianus his competitor in reputation of an intruder for want of confirmation from the See Apostolike And therefore as he appeared not so neither did the Bishops of the Constantinopolitan Councell which had confirmed him but by letters written to to the Pope and Councell of Rome excused themselues You say they (m) Theod. l. 5. hist c. 9. moued with brotherly charity called vs as your members by the letters of the most religious Emperor c. But beside that our Churches being newly restored if we should haue done this had bene wholly abandoned it was a thing which many of vt could no way put in execution for as much as we trauailed to Constantinople vpon the letters of your Reuerence sent the last yeare after the Councell of Aquileia to the most religious Emperor Theodosius hauing prepared our selues for none but that iourney of Constantinople only and hauing gotten the consent of the Bishops remaining in the Prouinces for none but that And in the end of the same Epistle they make intercession for Flauianus fearing lest the cause of Paulinus would be fauored by Damasus by reason he had bene ordayned Patriarke of Antioch by Lucifer a Sardinian Bishop and Legate to Liberius predecessor to Damasus The businesse standing thus Paulinus died but the schisme liued still For his Disciples created to themselues Euagrius a new Bishop in opposition to Flauianus (n) Socrat. l. 5. c. 15. Sozom. l. 7. c. 15. wherby not only that Church but the whole world was shaken (o) Amb. Ep. 78. and brought into danger of schisme for remedy wherof Siricius Pope called a Councell at Capua to which though the Bishops of the East and West resorted in great numbers yet Flauianus still appeared not Flauianus sayth S. Ambrose (p) Ibid. hath cause to feare and therfore he flies a triall And againe (q) Ibid. One only Flauianus not subiect to Lawes as it seemes to him appeareth not when we are all assembled The Councell to preuent further danger of schisme ordained that whiles the cause was in agitation communion should not be denied to the Catholikes that adhered to either party and to make an end of that long strife committed the examination and decision of the whole cause to Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria both by reason of the great authority of his See in the East as also because his Pariarkship bordered vpon that of Antioch where the parties were present and finally because he was a man impartiall The sacred Synod sayth S. Ambrose (r) Ibid. writing to Theophilus hauing committed the right of examining this cause to your vnanimity and to our other Colleagues of Aegypt it is necessary that you summon againe our brother Flauianus And moreouer he aduertiseth Theophilus that he ought to cary the businesse so as that the finall decision therof might be reserued to the B of Rome and confirmed by him We conceaue sayth he (s) Ibid. that you ought to referre the cause to our holy brother B of the Roman Church for we presume you will iudge so as cannot displease him And al use after When hauing receaued the tenor of your acts we shall see you haue iudged things so as the Roman Church shall vndoubtedly allow therof we will receaue with ioy the fruit of your examination By this it appeares that S Ambrose held the B of Rome to be the supreme Iudge of Bishops and that to him appertained the finall decision of their causes And the same
this example condemneth your Doctrine for if all that are in the Patriarkship of the West be the Popes subiects and haue right to appeale vnto him why do you Protestants who cannot deny your selues to be within his Patriarkship disclaime from his obedience Why do you not submit to your lawfull Superior Why do you forbid appeales and all recorse vnto him And if as here you confesse he hath as much right to the appeales of them which are within his owne Patriarkship as a Parson hath to the tithes of his owne Parish why do you defend that it was lawfull for the Africans whom you acknowledge to be within his owne Dioces (p) Pag. 289. and therfore rather subiect to him then to others (q) Pag. 304. to forbid appeales vnto him Why do you so often inueigh against the Popes for requiring and mantaining their owne right herein 5. You except (r) Ibid. against other appeales because they were of heretikes or other persons notoriously impious as of Basilides Marcion Fortunatus and Felix or Felicissimus for so you should haue said But by this Argument you may as well proue that a King hath no right of Appeales in his kingdome for who knoweth not that not only persons that are wronged by inferior Iudges but also others which haue bene iustly condemned do sometimes appeale the former to be righted and the later in hope to procure their iust condemnation to be reuoked by fauor or by misinforming their Soueraigne Wherfore as it were sophistry to inferie that a King hath not soueraigne authority in his kingdome because some that appeale vnto him are wicked persons so it is to except against the Popes supreme authority because some that appeale vnto him are wicked persons that haue bene iustly condemned by their immediat Superiors Your inference should haue bene that because all sortes of persons nocent and innocent haue appealed to the Pope from all partes of the world it rightly followeth that he is supreme Iudge of the vniuersall Church SECT III. Examples of innocent Appellants IN proofe of the ancient custome of appealing to Rome we produce the examples of S. Athanasius S. Chrysostome Theodoret and Flauianus You answeare (s) Pag. 304. They addressed their requests to the B. of Rome not as to a peremptory Ludge but as to a Patron and arbitrary Days-man And of Theodoret and Chrysostome you had said before (t) Pag. 255. They only required from the Bishops of Rome a subsidiary help as one King may from another and as the B. of Arles may from the B. of Paris But this to be false sophistry I shall easily proue if first I giue the reader a taste of your ignorance concerning the antiquity of Appeales to Rome from remote Nations in generall SECT IV. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the Antiquity of appealing to Rome from remote Nations THeodoret being iniustly deposed from his Bishopricke of Cyre a City bordering vpon Persia appealed to Leo Pope saying (u) Ep. ad Leon. I attend the sentence of your Apostolike throne and beseech your Holinesse to succour me appealing to your right and iust iudgment and to command that I be brought before you and verify that my Doctrine followes the Apostolicall pathes You startling at these so vnanswearable words of Theodoret bid vs (x) Pag. 255. marg lit m. note that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations was very vncouth in those dayes giuing vs therby a good testimony of your ignorance in Ecclesiasticall history for that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations was not very vncouth but very familiar in those dayes and long before those dayes euen from the first ages of the Church who knoweth not that is versed in antiquity For 1. Sixtus Pope that liued 300. yeares before Theodoret ordayneth (y) Ep. 2. that if any Bishop be wronged he appeale freely to the holy and Apostolike See 2. Marcellus the first declareth (z) Ep. 1. ad Episc Antioch Prou. that accoding to the constitutions of the Apostles and their successors all Bishops when there is occasion may appeale to the See Apostolike 3. Felix the second (a) Ep. ad Syn. Alex. As often as Bishops shall thinke themselues wronged by those of their Prouince or by their Metropolitan or haue them in suspicion let them appeale to the See of Rome 4. The same is ordained by Victor (b) Ep. ad Theoph. caterosque Episc Aegyp by Zephyrinus (c) Ep. ad Episc Sicil. by Fabianus (d) Ep. ad Hilar and Melchiades (e) Ep. ad Episc Hispan 5. And what these ancient Popes decreed the holy Councell of Nice related by Iulius (f) Ep. 2. confirmed ordaining that all Bishops accused of grieuous crimes may freely appeale to the See Apostolike fly to it as to a Mother for defence and succour The authority of this Canon is proued by Pisanus (g) L. 3. Conc. Niceni apud Bin. to 1. pag. 350. And that the Nicen Councell made such a decree S. Leo (h) Ep. 25. testifieth and you els where forgetting your selfe acknowledge (i) Pag. 308. marg lit r. 6. The Councell of Sardica related not only by Catholike writers but also by the Centurists decreeth (k) Cap. 4. that if any Bishop being deposed by the next Bishops and protesting that his cause ought to be iudged a new fly for succour to the B. of Rome no other is to be installed in his See after he hath put in his Appeale but that his cause be sentenced by the B. of Rome 7. And when Iohn surnamed Talaia Patriarke of Asexandria was cast out of his See by the Emporor Zeno and Peter Moggus set vp in his place Iohn sayth Liberatus (l) Liberat. 6.18 addressed himselfe to Calendion Patriarke of Antioch and hauing taken from him Synodic all letters of intercession appealed to the Pope of Rome Simplicius 8. When Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople was condemned by the false Councell of Ephesus Valentinian the Emperor writ to Theodosius his Father-in-Law (m) Extat Ep inter Ep. preamb. Conc. Chalced. that Flauianus according to the custome of Councells appealed by petition to the Blessed Bishop of the City of Rome And Liberatus (n) Cap. 12. That sentence hauing bene pronounced against Flauianus he appealed to the B. of Rome by petition presented to his Legates 9. And Leo (o) Ep. 8. writing to the same Flauianus Eutyches protestes that in full iudgment he presented to you a request of appeale and that it was not receaued 10. And Flauianus answering Leo (p) Extat Ep. inter Ep. Leonis ante Ep. 7. Eutyches hath informed you that in the time of iudgment he presented to vs and to the holy Councell heare assembled libells of appeals to your Holinesse which was neuer done by him 11. And the same Leo (q) Ep. 25. writing to Theodosius the yonger beseecheth him that for as much as Flauianus
them Sect. 3. pag. 182. Doctor Mortons rayling against the Inquisition Sect. 4. pag. 187. CHAP. XV. Of the signification of the word Catholike the iudgment of diuers Fathers obiected by Doctor Morton against the Roman Church pag. 195. That the word Catholike proues the Roman Church to be the true Church Sect. 1. ibid. The iudgment of S. Hierome concerning the Church Catholike Sect. 2. pag. 198. The iudgment of S. Gregory concerning the Supremacy of the B. of Rome and his title of vniuersall Bishop Sect. 3. pag. 201. S. Dionyse his iudgment concerning the supremacy of the Roman Church Sect. 4. pag. 302. S. Ignatius his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 5. p. 303. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 6. p. 304. Tertullian his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 7. pag. 308. Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 8. pag. 311. Other obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared Sect. 9. pag. 312. CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the B. and Church of Rome pag. 313. Doctor Mortons obiections against the precedent doctrine answeared Sect. 1. pag. 318. CHAP. XVII The second generall Councell held at Constantinople belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome pag. 324. By what authority this Councell was called Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Primacy of the Pope be Primacy of Authority and Iurisdiction or of Order only Sect. 2. pag. 328. Whether the names of Brother Collegue and Fellow-Minister which the Pope giueth to other Bishops and they to him argue them to be of equall Authority and Iurisdiction with him Sect. 3. pag. 330. A friuolous cauill of Doctor Morton against Bellarmine answeared Sect. 4. pag. 335. Of the Decree of this second Councell generall made in fauor of the Archbishop of Constantinople Sect. 5. pag. 336. That no Canon of any Councell can be of force vntill it be confirmed by the See Apostolike Sect. 6. pag. 338. That the Bishops of Constantinople knew this Canon to be of no force Sect. 7. pag. 340. CHAP. XVIII The third Councell generall being the first of Ephesus belieued the supreme authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome ouer all Bishops pag. 343. Of the deposition and condemnation of Nestorius by the command of Pope Celestine and whether the style of ancient Popes were to command Sect. 1. ibid. The Councell of Ephesus acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the cause of Iohn Patriarke of Antioch Sect. 2. pag. 351. Of the Ordination of the Bishops of Cyprus treated in the Councell of Ephesus Sect. 3. pag. 352. Whether it may be gathered out of the Councell of Ephesus that the authority of the Pope is aboue a generall Councell Sect. 4. pag. 353. CHAP. XIX The Councell of Chalcedon belieued the supreme authority of the B. of Rome pag. 355. That Leo Pope called the Councell of Chalcedon by his authority and presided in it by his Legates Sect. 1. ibid. That the Councell of Chalcedon by the authority of Leo Pope deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus restored Theodoret Sect. 2. pag. 356. Whether the title of Vniuersall Bishop which the Councell of Chalcedon gaue to the Pope argue in him no more but a generall care of the good of the Church such as belongs to euery Bishop and to euery Christian Sect. 3. pag. 360. Whether the Couneell of Chalcedon did giue to the B. of Constantinople priuiledges equall with the B. of Rome Sect. 4. pag. 362. Falsifications and vntruths of Doctor Morton discouered his Arguments answeared Sect. 5. pag. 367. CHAP. XX. The fifth Councell generall belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop Church of Rome p. 375. Doctor Mortons ignorance and contradictions concerning this Councell Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons ignorance further discouered and his falsifying of Binius Sect. 2. pag. 377. Of the matter treated in the fifth generall Councell Sect. 3. pag. 381. Doctor Mortons glosse vpon the word Obedience Sect. 4. pag. 383. CHAP. XXI Of the sixth generall Councell pag. 385. That it acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the fixth Councell condemned Honoriu Pope as an Heretike Sect. 2. pag. 387. CHAP. XXII Of the seauenth and eight generall Councells pag. 391. That these two Councells acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the eight generall Councell Sect. 2. pag. 392. Whether the eight generall Councell condemned the Saturday-fast allowed by the Roman Church Sect. 3. pag. 394. CHAP. XXIII Doctor Morton defendeth the hereticall custome of the Asian Bishops pag. 397. CHAP. XXIV Doctor Morton in opposition to the Roman Church defendeth the hereticall Doctrine of Rebaptization pag. 402. CHAP. XXV. Other Arguments of Doctor Morton out of S. Cyprian answeared pag. 408. CHAP. XXVI The Councells of Carthage and Mileuis acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome pag. 411. CHAP. XXVII Appeales to Rome proued out of the African Councell which was the sixth of Carthage p. 419. The state of the question Sect. 1. ibid. That the Nicen Canons were more then twenty in number And that the Canons concerning appeales to Rome were true Canons of the Nicen Councell Sect. 2. pag. 421. Whether if there had bene no Canon for appeales to Rome in the Councell of Nice it had bene forgery in Pope Zosimus to alleage a Canon of the Sardican Councell for a Canon of Nice Sect. 3. pag. 426. Vntruthes and falsifications of D. Morton discouered and his obiections answeared Sect. 4. pag. 429. Whether this Controuersy of appeales wrought in the Africans any separation of Communion from the Roman Church Sect. 5. pag. 437. CHAP. XXVIII Whether the Britans and Scots not celebrating Easter after the manner of the Roman Church were for that cause separated from her communion p. 450. CHAP. XXIX Of the great reuerence of ancient Christian Emperors and Kings to the Pope pag. 454. CHAP. XXX Whether Christian Emperors haue inuested themselues in Ecclesiasticall affaires pag. 461. Constantine the Great inuested not himselfe in Ecclesiastical causes Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons second Example of Theodosius examined Sect. 2. pag. 469. Doctor Mortons third instance of Theodosius the yonger and Honorius examined Sect. 3. pag. 471. Doctor Mortons fourth instance of Theodosius and Valentinian examined Sect. 4. pag. 473. Doctor Mortons fifth instance of Iustinian examined Sect. 5. pag. 475. CHAP. XXXI Of the authority and place of Emperors in Councells pag. 480. CHAP. XXXII Whether Popes haue challenged ciuill subiection from Emperors and Kings Christian and Heathen pag. 483. Doctor Mortons first Argument out of Innocent the third examined Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons second Argument out of Hieremy the Prophet examined Sect. 2. pag. 486. Doctor Mortons third Argument out of the examples of diuers Popes examined Sect. 3. pag. 490. Doctor Morton contradicteth himselfe Sect. 4. pag. 494. CHAP. XXXIII
not to remoue it from thence or whether without any commandment from Christ he chose Rome for his See out of his owne free election as he might haue chosen Milan or any other city That he had such a command from Christ is affirmed learnedly proued by (u) De triplici virt Theol. d. 10. sect 3. n. 10. Suarez (x) L. 2. de Pont. c. 12. Bellarmine (y) Institut mor. part 2. l. 4. c. 21. §. Secunda sent Azor and by the greatest part of Catholike Diuines with many forcible testimonies of antiquity According to this opinion which is the more probable pious learnedly proued by Suarez it followeth that the Roman Church euen as Roman is by Diuine institution the See of S. Peter and his Successors and that therfore it is not left free for them to remoue their See from Rome to any other place But to giue you your greatest aduantage be it that S. Peter receaued no such commandment from Christ but that it was free for him to chose for his See either Rome or any other Citty and that his successors may also freely transferre their See from Rome Yet this affoards no help to your cause for though according to this opinion it be no matter of fayth that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman be the Catholike Church yet specificatiuè and absolutely it is for albeit S. Peter might haue placed his See els where yet it is matter of fayth that de facto he placed his See at Rome and that whiles his Successor continueth his See there the Roman Church is de facto the Head Mistresse of all Churches and that whosoeuer is not a member vnited to this Head is out of the Catholike Church This you should haue disproued but wilfully mistake the state of the question and because it is not matter of fayth but of opinion that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman is the Catholike Church you inferre that specificatiuè and absolutely it is not matter of fayth but only of opinion that she is the Catholike Church which is as good a consequence as that an Aethiopian absolutely is not a man because formally as black he is not a man With such arguments you delude ignorant Readers that want learning to discerne your sleights SECT V. Your fifth Argument YOur fifth argument to proue that the Roman Church is not the Catholike Church (z) Pag. 18.19.20 is because there was a Catholike Church which had Apostles Martyrs and Confessors blessed Saints of God before the Roman Church was founded yea and before the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed or the Apostolicall Creed it selfe composed All this though it be granted as true is yet of no force against our Doctrine which is that S. Peter was ordained by Christ Pastor of his whole flocke and therefore Gouernor of the vniuersall Church from whence it followeth that whatsoeuer Apostles Martyrs Confessors or other faythfull liued in the Church of Christ after S. Peter was made Head thereof were members of the vniuersall or Catholike Church subiect to Peter though for a tyme there were no one particular Church which was head of al Churches because S. Peter as yet had not made choyce of any particular seate as afterwards he did at Antioch and therfore the Church of Antioch whiles he sate there was the Head and Mother Church to whom all other Churches were bound to professe vnion and obedience In regard wherof that Holy Pope Innocentius the first greatly commended by S. Augustine (a) Epist. 18. Alexand. Episc Antioch sayth that the See of Antioch had not giuen place to the See of Rome but because what Antioch obtayned only by the way Rome obtayned absolutely and finally To which I adde that if the Successor of S. Peter should now remoue his See from Rome to Milan as S. Peter did from Antioch to Rome not the Church of Rome but that of Milan should be the Catholike Church as the Head and Mother Church of the world But because by the prouidence of God S. Peter fixed his seat left it to his Successors at Rome whiles they continue it there the Roman Church by reason of his See is the Head Mother Church of the world to which sayth (b) L. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus all Churches and all the faythfull from euery place are of necessity to agree by reason of this her more powerfull principality I conclude therfore that you ignorantly or wittingly mistake the state of the question for the Roman Churches being or not being the Catholike Church as the Head and Mother Church of the world no way dependeth on her being founded before or after the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed but vpon being the See in which S. Peter Prince of the Apostles liued and dyed and which he left to his Successors for the Bishop of that See being S. Peters Successor succeedeth him in his supreme authority and that authority maketh the Roman Church the Head of the world which dignity it hath euer enioyed since S. Peter sate there and shall enioy whiles his Successor continueth there which shal be to the end of the world To haue spoken to the purpose you shold haue proued that the Saints which departed this life before the Roman Church was founded were separated from the communion of S. Peter and from the Church of which he was Head which if they had bene they had no more bene Saints then you now are SECT VI. Your sixth Argument YOur sixth Argument is a mere sophisme Al Catholike Diuines accord as in a matter of fayth that the Catholike or vniuersall Church (c) Pag. 20.21.22 mentioned in the Apostles Creed hath a prerogatiue of continuing in the true fayth vntill the end of the world according to Christs promise made to S. Peter Secondly and that the Roman Church whiles the Successors of S. Peter continue their seate at Rome cannot fayle in fayth But that S. Peter fixed his seat at Rome by the commandement of Christ there to remaine to the end of his life and in his Successors to the end of the world although it be a most pious and probable opinion held by the greatest and best part of Diuines yet it is not expresse matter of Fayth because no such precept of Christ appeareth in Scripture or tradition and therfore some Diuines stick not to grant that the fixing of S. Peters See at Rome was a thing proceeding merely from his owne free will and election consequently that it is in the power of his Successors to transport it from Rome to Antioch or any other City In which case as Rome shold not then be the See of S. Peter but Antioch so neither should the Bishop of Rome be the supreme Gouernor of the whole Church nor the Church of Rome the Catholike Church as the Head and mistresse of all others as now
this purpose where withall he sheweth that Caluin to auoyd the force of the former corrupteth the facred text The like is also gathered out of the other words of the same Prophet (n) Cap. 60.14 speaking of the great power and maiesty of the kingdome of Christ on earth which is his Church where he mentioneth this promise made vnto it The Children of them that humbled thee shall come crouching to thee and all that detracted from thee shall adore the steps of thy feet in which words is plainly foretold the adoration of the Church and of her visible head on earth an honor which Caluin vpon this very place confesseth not to exceed that which is due to the Church because it is giuen to Christ who is adored in the Church and Leo de Castro vpon the same text out of a very ancient record of the order of S. Benedict concerning the customes of the Catholike Church reporteth that Kings in ancient tymes going to the Synods of Bishops did prostrate themselues before them and kisse the ground not rising vntill the Bishops descending from their seats did take them vp in their armes and place them in thrones answerable to their Princely dignity To this purpose also make the testimonies of S. Hierome (o) Ep. ad Pammach aduers error Ioan. Hieroso who speaking of S. Epiphanius sayth A great number of all ages and sexes did flock vnto him offering their little ones and kissing his feet and of S. Chrysostome (p) Hom. 14. in priorem ad Timoth exhorting the people to prostrate themselues at the feet of the monkes kisse them Draw neare touch their holy feet for it is a far greater honor to touch their feet then to touch the heads of other men It was therfore in the puter tymes of the Church no disparagement to the greatest Princes to prostrate themselues either to the Pope or to Bishops or to other holy seruants of Christ and to kisse the hemms of their garments and their feet because as Alexander the great (q) Apud Ioseph do antiq l. â—1 〈◊〉 vlt. adoring Iaddus the high Priest of the Iewes knew and testified that he did in him exhibite that honor to God whose Priest he was so Christian Emperors and Kings when they adore the Pope kissing his feete do it to honor Christ in him to whome that honor redoundeth euen as the honor done to an Embassador redounds to the king his Mayster And as Princes by exhibiting this honor to the Vicar of Christ no way disparage their royall greatnesse so neither is the acceptance therof any note of pride in the Pope for he accepts it not for his owne sanctity or for any other personall quality as he is a priuat man but only for the publike authority and spirituall power which he receaueth from Christ and which properly and principally is of Christ who is honored and adored in his Vicar as Tertullian noteth saying (r) Vbi sup cap. 10. When thou castest thy selfe downe at the feet of thy brethren thou touchest Christ thou adorest Christ And therfore the Pope hath on his shooe a Crosse which the faythfull kisse to signify that they exhibite not that honor to him but in him to Christ whose person he representeth And finally wheras you obiect (s) Pag. 46 that S. Peter abhorred this pride when Cornelius prostrated himselfe vnto him I answere with S. Hierome (t) L. Aduers Vigilant that Cornelius conceaued Peter to be some God as the Lycaonians thought of Paul Barnaby and therfore prostrated himselfe to honor him with the supreme adoration of Latria due to God alone as it appeareth out of S. Peters answer to him (u) Act. 10.26 Arise for I also am a man This kind of adoration if any man should offer to the Pope he would admonish and forbid him as S. Peter did Cornelius But yet if it be granted that as some Fathers expound Cornelius adored not S. Peter as a God but as a man yet S. Peter with great reason forbid him for he adored him not in respect of Christ whose Vicar he was but in respect of himselfe and in like case the Pope would also forbid any man to adore him but he knoweth and so do you that the cause why Catholikes exhibit that honor to him is the excellent power giuen him by Christ or rather Christ himselfe gouerning his Church in his Vicar which adoration is good and pleasing to God both as it is exhibited by the faythfull and as it is admitted by the Pope Your fourth Obiection is (x) Pag. 46. that S. Peter had no Canon to direct the Apostles Syr the Apostles being guided by the holy Ghost needed no humane Canons nor constitutions for their owne direction But for the direction of all ecclefiasticall Pastors they made Ecclesiasticall Canons which S. Peter as their Head confirmed and deliuered by word of mouth to S. Clement his Disciple and Successor in the Roman See he committing them to writing left them to posterity as Canons of the Apostles I know that your Magdeburgian Centurists cauil against them as false suppositious but withall I know that diuers of those Canons are alleaged by many ancient Fathers by many Councells and confirmed by later Canons of the Church and inserted word by word into them as Franciscus Turrianus hath learnedly demonstrated x (y) L. 1. pro Canon Apostol vindicated them from the Magdeburgian calumnies Your fifth and sixth Arguments are (z) Pag. 46. that S. Peter made no clayme nor yet admittance of any appeale from the other Apostles no reseruation of any great case as by speciall prerogatiue due to himselfe to wit of admitting any out of the Dioces of another absoluing those that are excommunicated by another of Canonizing Saints of confirming Synods of granting plenary Indulgences c. Who seeth not the futility of these obiections For first the Apostles being confirmed in grace neither did nor could wrong their subiects in which case only Appeales are lawfull 2. I haue already shewed (a) Chap. â— that the resolution of that great case concerning the obseruation of the law of Moyses was reserued to S. Peter and that he resolued the same in the Synod of Hierusalem presiding in it and when the Pope personally presideth in a Councell there needeth no other confirmation 3. When Christ made Peter Head of his whole Church he gaue him power to bind lose throughout the whole world and therby power to excommunicate delinquents in whatsoeuer Dioces of other Bishops and likewise to absolue them from the guilt of sinne in the Sacrament of pennance as also to binde by excommunication and absolue from the same and finally to release the penalty due to sinnes by Indulgences out of the Sacrament for the power of binding and losing which he gaue to Peter he limited not to the Sacrament of Penance only But whether Peter exercised this power of excommunicating and pardoning by
and againe (o) In c. 1. ad Gal. he went to him as to one greater then himselfe and that not in a vulgar manner but as he obserueth out of the Greeke Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to behold and admire him as a personage of great excellency and maiesty as men goe to behold and admire great and famous Cities for which cause and to satisfy himselfe with a perfect view of his person and behauiour notwithstanding his great employments he stayed 15. dayes with him If therfore the generall accord of sacred expositors be of weight this 1. place of S. Paul which you produce to disproue his subiection to S. Peter is so farre from disprouing it that it strongly proueth it and his owne acknowledgment therof Againe 14. yeares after this time sayth S. Paul I went vp to Hierusalem according to reuelation to conferre with them the Ghospell which I preach among the Gentils From this place you argue (q) Pag. 5â— that S. Paul held himselfe equall in authority with S. Peter for S. Hierome whom you alleage out of Salmeron sayth it is one thing to conferre an other thing to learne for among them that conferre there is equality What equality of iurisdiction and power No for a subiect may conferre with his Superiour a Collegiall with his Rector but of Doctrine and learning only as S. Hierome there declareth adding that betweene him that teacheth and him that learneth he that learneth is the lesser to wit in knowledge And therfore I grant that S. Paul went not to learne of S. Peter he had learned his Ghospell by reuelation immediatly from Iesus Christ the same Maister that taught S. Peter Nor did he receaue from S. Peter or the other Apostles power or authority to preach for that likewise he had immediatly from Christ in this sense he sayth (*) Gal. 2.6 The Apostles added nothing to me Neuerthelesse because he had not conuersed with Christ in mortall flesh nor learned his Doctrine from the other Apostles which had bene instructed by him before his death lest the Gentils to whom he preached being incensed against him by false Apostles might haue any doubt of the truth of his Doctrine or of his Commission to preach for their satisfaction and that his preaching might not be in vaine and without profit to the hearers he went to Hierusalem and conferred his Ghospell with the chiefe Apostles to the end that the Gentils might be certified of the truth of his Doctrine knowing it to haue their approbation and to be the same that they preached But you that borow your argument from Salmeron (r) In Ep. ad Gal. Disput â—2 why do you conceale what followeth in his Comment If sayth he it was needfull for so great an Apostle of Christ to conferre his Ghospell with the Apostles and Peter how much more necessary was it that Luther and Caluin should haue brought theirs to be conferred with the See Apostolike With what pillars of the Church did they conferre it as Paul did or with what Miracle did they proue it they that could neuer persuade themselues so much as to come to the See Apostolike and Roman Church the mother of all Churches to conferre nor to the Oecumenicall Councell of Trent that was gathered for their soules health sake that was free and open to them that did courteously intreat them and with a safe conduct inuite them to come So Salmeron whose words you thought best not to mention both because they shew your Doctrine to be destitute of lawfull authority and also because they refute the fabulous report which you (s) Pag. 404. make out of Thuanus your historian that diuers Protestants came to the Councell and desired of the Popes Legates liberty to dispute but could not be admitted for Samleron was present at the Councell as one of the Popes Diuines who therfore knew what passed in the Councell better then Thuanus And to Salmerons testimony I adde your owne confessions in the late Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of Scotland against the pretended Generall assembly holden at Glascow (t) Pag. 13. and in your Apology of the Church of England which also expresseth the reasons why you refused to come set downe in your owne words and refelled by Doctor Harding in his Confutation of the same Apology (u) Part. ad Chap. 7. fol. 293. seqq How far therfore you are from the Doctrine example of S. Paul in this point not only Salmeron but Venerable Bede and S. Anselme (x) In cap. 2. ad Gal. haue declared out of S. Augustine whose words both they and Salmeron set downe to this purpose If the Apostle Paul himselfe sayth S. Augustine (y) L. 28. contra Paust c. 4. being called from Heauen after the Ascension of our Lord had not found the Apostles liuing that by communicating and conferring his Ghospell with thew he might shew himselfe to be of the same society the Church would giue no credit at all vnto him But when they knew that he preached the same Doctrine which they did that he liued in communion and vnity with them and did worke Miracles as they did our Lord therby commending him he deserued so great authority that his words at this day are heard in the Church euen as if Christ were heard to speake in him as he most truly said With these Fathers accordeth S. Hierome (z) Epist 89. quae est 10. inter epist. August defining that Paul had not had security of preaching the Ghospell if it had not bene approued by Peters sentence and the rest that were with him So S. Hierome whose testimony with the rest shew how beggarly a cause you haue since those very Scriptures which you produce in defence therof are so many verdicts against you A third text of S. Paul (*) 2. Cor. 12.11 you set downe thus I am nothing inferior vnto the Chiefe of the Apostles But I cannot commend your translation for none but Peter is Chiefe of the Apostles to whom therfore S. Paul compares not himselfe in the singular number as you here and els where falsifiing his words make him to say but to the Chiefe Apostles in the plurall number and yet not that in authority and iurisdiction of which he speaketh not but in the dignity of an Apostle in his great labors in his Miracles in his reuelations in his dangers and iourneys vndertaken for the preaching of Christ as the Context before and after sheweth S. Ambrose Theodoret S. Anselme S. Thomas Aquinas and other expositors declare (a) In eum locum But you vrge the testimonies of Fathers (b) Pag. 60. fin vpon this text of S. Paul And first that S. Ambrose saith (c) In 1. Cor. c. 12. Paul was no lesse in dignity then Peter You falsity S. Ambrose there compares not Paul with Peter in particular but speaking of him and the rest in generall sayth that albeit he were called to the
roundly without any answere at all therfore your said Antagonist told you as with reason he might that he greatly marueyled with what conscience or if not conscience with what forehead at least you could at that tyme write and print things that you did know or might haue knowne to be merely false and forged Is not this sayth he a signe of obstinate wilfulnesse that neither God nor truth is sought for by you but only to maintaine a part or faction with what slight or falshood soeuer Hauing giuen you this admonition though he remit you or rather the reader to the Warnword for a larger satisfaction yet he also briefly answereth (k) Ibid. num 55.56.57.58 shewing 1. Your grosse ignorance in ascribing that Canon to Pope Boniface wheras it is gathered by Gratian out of the sayings of S. Boniface an Englishman that was Archbishop of Ments in Germany and a holy Martyr 2. Your fraud in setting downe the words of the Canon corruptly both in Latin and English as by leauing out the beginning which sheweth the drift of the Canon and the end which containeth a reason of all that is said and cutting of other words in the middest to couer the pious meaning of S. Boniface 3. Your falshood in leauing out and altering some words and corruptly translating others with a heape of falsities as he rightly calleth them (l) Ibid. num 57. marg Wherefore if he had iust cause to marueile with what conscience or forehead you could then repeate an obiection so fully answered before farre greater cause haue I to maruayle now that after he hath againe giuen you this second answere and so fully discouered your fraud you are not ashamed yet againe to reiterate the same obiection without taking any notice of those errors wilfull falsities which that answerer laid to your charge To him and to the Warnword I remit the reader But because the glosse affirmeth the Pope to haue plenitude of power in disposing of Prebends and that none ought therin to say vnto him why do you so You call this the height of all desperate presumption in the Popes to make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes A bold censure Kings haue fullnesse of power to dispose of the temporall offices of their kingdomes and none ought to say vnto them Why do you so Will you therfore tell them that this their authority is the height of all desperate presumption to make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes No why then do you giue it that name and censure in the Popes You might haue done well to aske S. Bernards opinion He would haue told you (m) Ep. 131. that the plenitude of power is by a singular prerogatiue giuen to the See Apostolike That he which resisteth this power resisteth the ordination of God that he hath power if he iudge it profitable to erect new Bishoprickes where formerly they were not and of those that are in being to put downe some and set vp others as reason shall dictate vnto him so that he may lawfully of Bishops make Archbishops and contrariwise if it shall seeme necessary He can summon from the furthest partes of the earth whatsoeuer Ecclesiasticall persons of neuer so high degree and compell them to appeare before him and this not once or twice but as often as he shall find it expedient This is the power which the glosse speaketh of you call it the Height of all desperate presumption wherby the Popes make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes S. Bernard holds it to be a power giuen him by Christ and that whosoeuer refisteth it as you doe resists the ordinance of God Whether is it fit that Christian men should belieue S. Bernard or you especially since you acknowledg him to be a Saint which he cold not be if he had erred in fayth nor will any wise man thinke that in this point he was of any other beliefe then all the holy Fathers of Gods Church were whose doctrine he knew and vnderstood better then you do But not contenting your selfe with censuring condemning Popes you carpe at the holy Martyr S. Boniface whom all Germany reuerenceth as their Apostle for teaching that albeit the Pope shold by his scandalous life draw innumerable multitudes with him into hell yet no man may presume to correct him to wit iuridically by punishing or deposing him for that is the sense in which S. Boniface speaketh vnlesse he also depart from the fayth But you consider not the wrong which by thus carping at the Pope you offer to all Christian Princes for dare you say that if an Emperor a King or any other absolute Prince be of so scandalous a life that by his example he lead thousands with him into Hell he may therefore be deposed Wherfore since you will hold it to be good doctrine that albeit a temporall Prince yea or many Princes liuing at the same tyme shold by their vicious liues draw thousands with them into hell none of them may therefore be corrected iuridically why do you carpe at vs for defending the same of the Pope who is but one at once Your fifth obiection is (n) Pag. 64. sin 65. S. Paul alone writ to the Romans not S. Peter True for when S. Peter writ his Epistles he was at Rome and had conuerted many of the Romans to Christ and planted the Church among them before S. Paul came theither or writ his epistle to them Againe S. Peter writ his epistles to all the faythfull and in regard therof you intitle them Generall Epistles and we Catholike Epistles a title which is not giuen to those of S. Paul Your sixth Obiection is (o) Pag. 65. It was not sayd of Peters ship as it was of that wherein S. Paul was God hath giuen vnto thee all them that sayle with thee and except those to wit the Mariners remaine in the Ship you cannot be saued Among 28. famous priuiledges which Bellarmine (p) Lib. 1. de Pont. c. 17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24 sheweth to haue bene granted to S. Peter and not to S. Paul nor to any other of the Apostles you are content to conceale them all without making any mention of them vnlesse it be of two or three to carpe at them as here you doe at his ship postposing it to that in which S. Paul sailed because in a dangerous tempest God preserued the liues of all that were in the ship for his sake But in this your dealing is no better then in the rest for the holy Doctors take the ship of Peter to be a type of the Catholike Church out of which none can be saued eternally which they say not of the ship in which Paul sayled When Christ saw two ships standing by the lake of Genezareth going into the one ship (q) Luc. 5.3 that was Simons and sitting he taught the multitude out of the ship it was not without mystery that of those two ships Christ made choyce of Peters only to
Eusebius Nebrissensis proueth the like by examples of other natioÌ„s And to what he sayth I adde the reason which Blessed Augustinus Triumphus a holy and ancient wryter that liued 400. yeares since yieldeth (l) De Potest Ecclesiact c. 7. art â— why S. Paul in the Popes buls is somtimes placed on the right hand of S. Peter S. Paul sayth he was lesse then Peter greater then Peter and equall to Peter He was equall to Peter in the office of preaching lesse then Peter in Ecclesiasticall power for Peter alone was Cephas that is Head of the whole Church but he was greater then Peter in the prerogatiue of his election to the Apostleship for he was chosen by Christ after his resurrection glorification for this cause Paul in the Popes bulls is placed on the right hand Peter on the left So he Hauing now answered the arguments which hitherto you haue brought out of S. Pauls epistles and shewed that by alleaging them you conuince your owne Doctrine of falshood and proue ours I must craue pardon if I aske you a question concerning his Epistle to the Romans which Optatus asked the Donatists concerning some other of his epistles and S. Augustine concerning them all How dare you sayth Optatus (m) L. â— cont Parmen read S. Pauls epistle to the Romans in whose communion you are not You sayth S. Augustine (n) L. 2. de Baptism c. 6. that haue it and read it and say that you liue according to it why doe you not communicate with the Church to which it was sent Answere why haue you separated your selues c Choose which you will If then that is when Donatus when Luther when Caluin began the Roman Church was polluted with errors it was perished for a Church that holds false pernicious schismaticall hereticall blasphemous and Antichristian Doctrine with which you often charge the Roman Church cannot be a true Church of Christ but a Synagogue of Satan from whence then had Donatus Luther or Caluin his begining where was he Cathechized where baptized where ordayned I conclude therfore as Optatus did against the Donatists Know that you are cut of from the holy Church And I say to you as S. Augustine did to them (p) L. de vnit Eccles c. 12. You haue the epistle to the Romans but we read it and beleeue it and haue the Roman Church in our communion from which we grieue with him (p) Psal cont part Donati to see you lye cut of she being that Rock which the prowd gates of hell ouercome not CHAP. XIII Whether S. Iohn the Euangelist conceaued himselfe subiect to the Roman Church YOVR Tenet is (r) Pag. 73. that S. Iohns fayth did not conceaue the Article of subiection to the Roman Church In proofe therof you assume that in his booke of Reuelation he reuealeth the City of Rome to be Babylon that Autichrist shall haue his seate there which though it were granted yet I see not which way it followeth that Iohn did not acknowledg himselfe subiect to S. Peter or â—o his Successors in the Church of Rome But let vs examine the particulers of your Doctrine and proofes SECT I. Whether Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist THat the City of Rome is Babylon mentioned in the Reuelation say you (s) Ibid. is the gener all consent of our owne Iesuits and other Diuines But in proose hereof you can find no other Iesuits nor Diuines to alleage but Ribera Viegas and the Rhemists whom you abuse and falsify to make them serue your turne as I shall now declare The Rhemists say you (t) Pag. 74. do thus farre grant as to say The great Antichrist shall haue his seat at Rome as it may well be though others thinke that Hierusalem rather shall be his principall soat But your Iesuits Ribera and Viegas both of them Spanish Doctors and publike professors do confidently auerre the contrary and the one is so bold as to hold him to be a most notable foole that shall deny it But good Sir by your leaue this is a most notable vntruth That which Ribera sayth is that towards the end of the world Rome shall be burned not only for her former sinnes of Idolatry and persecuting of Christ vnder the Pagan Emperors but also for other sinnes that in the end of the world she shall commit vnder Pagan Kings and that this is so certaine out of the Apocalypse that no man though neuer so foolish can deny it This Ribera sayth and it may well be said that he who out of these words of Ribera inferreth as you do that the City of Rome is to be the seat of Antichrist or that Ribera sayth so is I will not say a notable foole but whether he deserue not that name I leaue to the readers censure The Doctrine of Ribera Viegas the Rhemists is that when S. Iohn calleth Rome Babylon he neither speaketh of the Church or Pope of Rome nor yet of the Citty of Rome as she is vnder the gouerment of Christian Emperors or in obedience of the See Apostolike for in that estate the hath sayth S. Hierome (u) L 2. cont louin wiped out the blasphemies written in her forehead by the confession of Christ. In that estate (x) Ep. 17. ad Marcell there is in Rome the holy Church there are the triumphant Monuments of Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the fayth praysed by the Apostle and gentility troden vnder foote the name of Christ daily aduancing it selfe on high Wherfore when S. Iohn calleth Rome Babylon Ribera Viegas and the Rhemists with the ancient Fathers expound him to giue her that name as she was the head of Paganisme the mother of superstition and Idolatry and persecuted the Church and Popes of Rome being drunke with the bloud of the Saints Martyrs of Christ Iesus (*) Apoc. 17.6 as she did vnder Nero and Domitian in S. Iohns tyme afterwards vnder other Pagan Emperors when she put to death thirty Popes successiuely one after another and as she shall do againe in the end of the world for both Ribera and Viegas hold that the Citty of Rome shall then fall from the obedience of the See Apostolike and from the fayth of Christ and that as well for her enormous sinnes anciently committed vnder the heathen Emperors as also for other like which in the end of the world she shall commit vnder heathenish Kings she shall be burn's and consumed with fyre But that Rome euen then vnder pagans Emperors was or hereafter vnder Heathenish Kings shall be the seate of Antichrist neither Ribera nor Viegas affirme nor any way insinuate as it may appeare out of their words which you here set downe in Latin (y) Pag. 74. marg for those words Roma sedes Antichristi which you attribute to Ribera are not his but foysted in by your selfe to Father on him your owne fiction
them by Christian Kings and Emperors And shewing that they haue no reason to complaine therof he saith (q) Tract 11. in Ioan. They the Donatists will do such things and yet will not suffer such punishments See what they do and what they suffer They kill soules and are punished in their bodies They cause euerlasting deathes and complaine that they suffer temporall deathes And againe (r) Cont. ep Parmē l. 1. c. 8. What do not these men iustly suffer seing they suffer deseruedly for their offences by lawfull power and by the iudgement of God gouerning from aboue and admonishing them by such punishments to beware of euerlasting fyre Let them first proue themselues not to be Heretikes or Schismatikes and then let them complaine that they suffer iniustly And els where he sayth (s) Conc. 2. in Psal 34. The Physician is somtymes inforced to cut and lance and desisteth not though the Patient curse and rayle They that are in a letargy are wakened and they that are in a phrensy are bound yet both of them are loued Let no man therfore say I suffer persecution let him not proclayme his punishment but let him proue his cause lest if he proue not his cause he be reckoned among the wicked And answering the arguments of the Donatists who desiring to be freed from the punishment due to their Heresy argued out of Terence that it is better to refraine men frō euill by shame and freedome then by feare of punishment he answereth (t) Ep. 50. that albeit those which are drawne with loue be better yet more come by feare which he proueth 1. out of the same Poet saying Thou knowest not how to do well vnlesse thou be enforced with punishment 2. with a Prouerbe of Salomon that A stif-necked seruant will not be amended with words for though he vnderstand he will not obey 3. by experience for saith he it is superfluous to proue this with words seing it is manifest by many examples that not these or those men but that many Cities of Heretikes are now become Catholike for feare of the Imperiall lawes from Constantine to the present lawes These are the lawes M. Doctor which you storme at for the Inquisitors nether pronounce sentence of death against any nor execute it If any man be accused they examine his cause as with iustice so with great meekenesse If he be found guilty of heresy they vse all meanes both by themselues and by other learned men to reclayme him If he acknowledge his error he is deliuered vp to religious persōs to be instructed and with charitable vsage gayned to God But if they find him to stand out obstinatly against all persuasions they deliuer him vp with his whole processe to the secular Magistrates beseeching them to deale mercifully with him And if the Magistrates iudge him worthy of death punish him according to the Imperiall lawes I know no reason you haue to blame them for as S. Augustine saith with the Apostle (u) Ep. 164. l. 1. cont ep Parmen c. 8. l 2. cont Petil. c. 83. they beare not the sword without cause for they are Gods Ministers reuengers vnto wrath to them that do euill Nor do I see what you haue in all this to quarrell at vnlesse you thinke that theeues and murderers of mens bodies ought to be punished with death and that murderers of mens soules ought to be spared And so much the more inconsiderate you are in this your cauill because your selues vse the same proceeding against heretikes for haue you not burnt Dauid George in Holland Hacket Coppinger and others in England But you complaine (x) Pag. 85. 86. that not only heretikes are punished but also Beleeuers Receauers Defenders and Fauorers of heretikes namely such as commend their learning wit Zeale constancy or simplicity which any Christian may do in a Pagan Sir I know not how to excuse you either from imposture or impiety for as Suarez (y) De trip virt Theol. disp 24. n. 2. and Azor (z) Part. 1. l. 8. c. 15. the very authors whom you obiect haue declared Beleeuers are they that giue credit to the Doctrine of heretickes and make profession therof or prayse the same as no way dissonant to the Catholike fayth May a Christian do this to a Pagan Defenders are not they that praise the learning wit or eloquence of heretikes but that commend or maintaine their doctrine or praise their pertinacy which you call zeale in defending their errors Say now were it not impiety to do this to a Pagan And so it is in you to say that any Christian may lawfully do it to an heretike Fauorers or receauers are not they that receaue heretikes into their howses or shew loue or fauor vnto them as to their freinds or kinsfolkes this any man may do to a Pagan but that receaue cōceale or assist them that they may perseuer in their heresy and teach it to others also officers that ought to concurre to the apprehension of heretikes and do it not but ayd them to escape the hands of the lawfull iudges that so they may not be punished but remaine free to peruert others This is the Doctrine of Suarez and Azor whom you obiect no Catholike Diuines speake otherwise against him that hauing abiured his heresy before a Iudge relapseth into the same for if he talke with an heretike or visit him as his neighbour or reuerence him as his Superior or reward him for any fauor receaued or commend him for his wit or other talents of nature or learning he is not therfore thought to haue relapsed into heresy But if he visit reuerence reward or commend him because he is an heretike and for his hereticall Doctrine he is then by the law of Frederike the Emperor to be deliuered to the secular Magistrate as a relaps to be executed as one that by reason of his inconstancy is held morally incorrigible that by his example and Doctrine may infect others But yet if he repent the Church like a pious mother receaues him into her bosome allowing him the Sacrament of Alsolution and Eucharist and affords him all instruction and helpe for the good of his soule that so he may dye in state of saluation Against this your choler riseth saying (a) Pag. 87. Bubalus was neuer so stupid as to iudge them morally incorrigible which do repent so as to make themselues capable of Absolution but Syr Bubalus was neuer so stupid as not to vnderstand that a relapsed heretike being condemned to death may by the helpe of Gods grace open his eyes to see and acknowledge his error and thereby make himselfe capable of the Sacraments and yet that neuerthelesse the Church may iustly feare that as he became a relaps after he had once solemnly abuired his heresy so if he be permitted to liue he may fall the third and fourth tyme againe which is to be morally incorrigible And wheras you
Catholike and (g) Cont. Gand. l. 3. c. 1. Serm. 131. de temp ep 170. the interpretatioÌ„ of S. Augustine the Catholike Church be that which is vniuersally spread ouer the world the Roman Church and none els but she is the Catholike Church for Vniuersality agreeth to none but to her all Sects lurking in corners Wherfore you not only inconsideratly but against your selfe produce S. Augustine here (h) Pag. 89. and Optatus afterwards (i) Pag 341. to proue that your Protestant Church is the Catholike Church S. Augustine sayth (k) L de pastor c. 8. Not all heretikes are spread ouer the face of the earth yet there are heretikes spread ouer the whole face of the earth some heere some there yet they are wanting no where they know not one another One fact for example in Africa another heresy in the East another in Aegypt another in Mesopotamia In diuers places they are diuers One Mother Pride hath begot them all as our one Mother the Catholike Church hath brought forth all faythfull people dispersed throughout the whole world So said S. Augustine to the Donatists and so say we to you There are diuers sectcs in the world Wiclefists in Bohemia but in any other part of the world they are not There be Lutherans in Germany in Denmarke c. but in the rest of the world they be not There are ridged Caluinists in Geneua France and Scotland to whom you may ad your English Puritans but in other parts of the world they are not There are Protestants a more temperate sort of Caluinists in England but out of England they are not These therfore and all other sects of heretikes whatsoeuer are confined to a few Countries and therfore none of them can be the Catholike Church which is vniuersally spead ouer the whole world as the Roman Church is therfore she and none els but she is the Catholike Church Optatus speaking also to the Donatists sayd (l) L. 2. contra Parmen You will haue the Church to be where you are and you will haue it not to be where you are not that it may be with you you will haue it to be in a corner of Africa and that it may not be with vs you will not haue it to be in allmost innumerable Ilands Prouinces and Countries where we are and you are not So we say to Protestants you will haue the Catholike Church to be in England where you are but you will not haue it to be in so many other countries of Europe Africa Asia and America almost innumerable where we are you are not If your Church be the Catholike Church if it be vniuersally spread ouer the face of the earth as the Catholike Church must be we say to you as S. Augustine did to the Donatists (m) Ep. 163. Giue vs formed letters to men of your fayth and communion in all parts of the earth This you cannot do but we can for we are not only in Countries almost innumerable of Europe Africa Asia and America where you are not but we are also in England in France and all other Countries in which you are We therfore can giue you letters of communion to men of our Religion professing the fayth liuing in the communion of the Roman Church throughout all the world as well in places where you are as where you are not The Roman Church therfore â—â—e al one and â—onâ— but she is vniuersally spread ouer the face of the earth whersoeuer the name of Christ is knowne and therfore if Christ haue any Catholike Church on earth none but she is the Catholike Church The words which you obiect out of the Conferâ—nce of Carthage which in some copies are ioyned to Optâ—tus are neither his nor S. Augustine but of Balduinus a late Protestant writer of small credit But be they whose you please they are not pertinent to your purpose for no man doubts but that as the Church of Christ began at Hierusalem where his Ghospell was first preached by S. Peter and from thence by degrees spread ouer the world so whosoeuer is in communion of this Church vniuersally spread hath God for his Father and the Catholike Church for his Mother as S. Augustine professed himselfe to haue But withall he teacheth (n) Psal cont part Donat. and so doth all Antiquity that this Catholike Church so spread ouer the world is built vpon S. Peter and his Successors as vpon a Rock which the proud gates of Hell cannot ouercome and so doth S. Hierome saying (o) Ep. 57. to Damasus of the Roman See I know the Church to be built vpon this Rock In regard wherof he â—â—â—â—â—nceth all them that are not in the communion of the Bishop of Rome not to be of Christ but of Antichrist And for the same cause S. Augustine (p) Psal cont part Donat. grieued iâ— see the Douâ—tistâ—l ye cut of from the Roman Church and exhorted them as â—eunite themselues to her as branches to their Vine SECT II. The iudgment of S. Hierome concerning the Church Catholike WHat his iudgment was you haue partly heard 〈◊〉 â—â—eliâ—â—â—â—â— the Roman See to be the Rock on which the Catholike Church is built he was in her communion and (q) Ep. 57. â—eld you that refuse her communion to be a prophane person belonging to 〈◊〉 â—â—brist he held her to be The 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 whosâ—â—uer els shall be found at the â—â—â—â—ing 〈…〉 shall 〈◊〉 His iudgment was (r) Dial. cont Lucifer that if Christ 〈…〉 Church diffused throughout the world as the 〈◊〉 is â—hat wâ—s ordiâ—â—â— only as the sect of the Lucifâ—riâ—nâ— against whom he writeth was or only in a few Northerne parts of the world as your Protestant Congregaâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 fit iâ—â—e â—â—â—â—creding pâ—orâ— His iudgment was (s) Ibid. that 〈◊〉 â—orâ—â—ayne in that Church which being founded by the â—postles dâ—â—â—th vntill this day which is none els but the Roman 〈◊〉 in her alone there hath bene and still is a neuer interrupted Succession of Bishops from S. Peter vnto Vrban the eight who 〈◊〉 gâ—â—â—â—â—eâ—h that Church wheras there is no other Church founded by the Apostles in which Succession is not either wholly decaied or hath not bene often interrupted and broken of by heretikes or Arch-heretikes those Churches being wholly possessed by them His iudgment was that which he declarâ—â— when he said of Ruffinus (t) L. 1. Apol. aduers Ruffin Which fayth doth he call his is If that which the Roman Church holdeth then we are Catholikes And speaking to Ruffinus (u) Ibid. Know that the Roman fayth commended by the voyce of the Apostle admitteth not such delusions though an Angell should teach otherwise thâ—â—â—â—â—â—eth bene on â—â—â—â—iuered it cannot be altered being sensed 〈◊〉 Paul â—â—thority He declared his iudgment when he said to such as you are (x) Ep. 6. ad Pammach Ocean Whosoeuer thou are that auouchest noâ— Sects I pray thee haue respect to
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
to place his See at Rome rather then in any other Citty was the dignity of Rome To the end sayth S. Leo (c) Serm. 1. de Apost Pet. Paul that the light of truth which was reuealed for the saluation of all nations might from the Head of the world be communicated more effectually to the whole body Of this cause the Fatherâ— of Chalcedon speake when they say (d) Act. 15. Rome got the Primacy because it was the chiefe seate of the Empire And both these causes are comprehended by the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian in their Law made a litle before the Councell of Chalcedon in these words (e) Nouel Theodos tit 24. Three things haue established the primacy of the See Apostolike the merit of S. Peter who is Prince of the Episcopall society the dignity of the City and the Synodicall authority 3. You obiect (f) Pag. 118. The Fathers of Chalcedon gaue priuiledges to the Patriarkes of Constantinople equall to the Church of Rome This we deny for in the Councell of Chalcedon there was no mention made of equal priuiledges this clause was afterwards added by Anatolius or by the Clerkes of Constantinople (g) See this proued aboue in this Chap. sect 4. and to this S. Gregory seemeth to relate when he sayth (h) L. 5. ep 14. The Councell of Chalcedon in one place hath bene falsified by the Grecians And the Fathes of Chalcedon neuer intended by this Canon to giue the Patriarkes of Constantinople any priuiledge of exemption from their obedience and subiection to the Pope but only to grant them precedency before the other Patriarkes of the East as hath bene proued (i) In this Chap. sect 4. And the same is manifest out of the writings of Leo Pope who though in his epistle to the Fathers of Chalcedon and in diuers others which he writ to the Emperor Martian to Pulcheria the Empresse to Anatolius himselfe and to diuers other Bishops of this subiect he speake against Anatolius for his ambitious attempt yet in none of them doth he say or insinuate that those Fathers gaue to Anatolius or that Anatolius himselfe euer aspired to equality of priuiledges with the B. of Rome but only reprehended him for wronging the Patriarkes of Alexandria and Antioch in procuring himselfe to be preserred before them The same is yet further proued because when Rome was fallen into the hands of the Gothes and Wandals the Patriarkes of Constantinople making vse of the tyme and setting this Canon on foote againe procured the Emperor Zeno to establish by a law that the Patriarke of CoÌ„stantinople shold haue the precedency before the other Patriarkes And the like they obtayned from Iustinian after the recouery of Rome when he ordayned (k) Nouel 131. that the Archbishop of Constantinople shold haue the second place after the holy See Apostolike and be preferred before all the other See Lastly the same is proued by the subiection which the Patriarkes of Constantinople acknowledged to the Pope after the Councell of Chalcedon and by the authority which he exercised ouer them for not long after that tyme when Acacius B. of Constantinople an enemy to the Councell of Chalcedon had fallen into the faction of heretikes the Churches of the Patriarkeship of Constantinople had recourse to Symmachus Pope as to their Pastor as Superior to their Patriarke Seeing your Children perish sayd they (l) Ep. Eccles Orient ad Symach in volum Orthodox impress Bafil in the preuarication of our Father Acacius delay not or rather to speake with the Prophet stumber not but make hast to deliuer vs. And when the same Acacius for his adhering to Peter Moggus an hereticall inuasor of the See of Alexandria was deposed by Felix Pope though he stood out as long as he liued contemning the Popes sentence sent vnto him to Constantinople yet the Emperor Iustine that succeeded Anastasius caused Felix his sentence to be executed on him after his death making his name to be razed out of the Records of the Church and from the recitall in the sacred mysteries Wee haue giuen order sayth Iustine to Hormisdas Pope (m) Epist. ad Hormisd that the Reuerend Church of Constantinople and many others accomplish your desire in razing out the names of those whom you haue commanded to be taken away from the sacred records And in conformity to this Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople writing to the same Hormisdas said (n) Epist ad Hormisd I anathematize Acacius somtime Bishop of this City and promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred mysteries the names of them that are excluded from the communion of the Catholike Church that is to say that agree not in all things with the See Apostolike And Theodorus Anagnostes reporteth (o) Ad calc hist. Eccles Theodor. ex edit Robert Stopha that when Anastasius the Emperor vrged Macedonius Patriarke of Constantinople to abrogate the Councell of Chalcedon he answeared he could not do it without a generall Councell in which the B. of Rome must be president And when Anthymus B. of Trebizond inuaded the See of Constantinople Agapetus Pope being arriued thither deposed him euen in the City of Constantinople it selfe and in the sight of Iustinian the Emperor and excommunicated the Empresse Theodora that protected him and with his owne hands ordained Menas in his place the truth of all which is auerred by Iustinian himselfe (p) Nouel 42 by Marcellinus Comes (q) In Chron. by Liberatus (r) Breuiar c. 12. and Victor of Tunes (s) In Chron. edit per Ioseph Scâ—lig And did not Menas Patriarke of Constantinople make open profession of obeying the See Apostolike in all thinges (t) In Conc. Constan sub Meâ— Act. 4. And when Iohn the first Pope of that name was arriued at Constantinople Iustine the Emperor inuiting him to sit in a seat by Epiphanius Patriarke of that City that they might seeme both to be of equall dignity Iohn refused to sit vntill according to the prerogatiue of his See a throne was prepared for him aboue Epiphanius (u) Nicoph l. 17. c. 9. which passing in the City of Constantinople it selfe and in Epiphanius his owne Church and that many yeares after this decree of the Councell of Chalcedon was made euidently sheweth that it neuer tooke effect since neither Epiphanius nor any of the other Patriarkes here named liuing after the Councell of Chalcedon claymed any right of Equall Priuiledges therby but all of them remained subiect to the Pope as before the Councell they had bene And that which purreth this out of al doubt is that albeit the Patriarkes of Constantinople at length obtained that precedency before the other Patriarkes of the East which in the Councells of Constantinople and Chalcedon they labored for yet neuerthelesse euen then they still acknowledged themselues subiect to the Pope witnesse S. Gregory who writing to Iohn B. of Syracusa sayth (x) L. 7. ep â—4 Who doubts but
the Canons of the holy Fathers to be violated by any rashnesse and that if any trusting in the power of their City shold offer to vsurpe any thing contrary to the dignity of his person they should represse them as iustice requireth Which in like manner Leo himselfe testified to Maximus Patriarke of Antioch (s) Ep. 62. If they say that the brethren which I send in my steed to the Synod haue done any thing more then what concernes fayth that shall be of no force because they were sent by the See Apostolike only to root out heresies and defend the fayth CHAP. XX. The fifth Councell Generall beliued the supreme Authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome SECT I. Doctor Mortons ignorance and contradictions concerning this Councell IN your discourse of the fifth Generall Councell contradictions ignorance vntruthes march by troopes for 1. (t) Pag. 122. here you suppose the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas Archbishop of that Citty to be the fifth generall and afterwards you directly affirme the same (u) Pag. 289. marg lit 0. when speaking of the Councell vnder Menas and alleaging the Synodicall relation made out of the Epistle of Pope Agapetus extant in the first action therof you call it Concilium secundum Constantinopolitanum quod erat quintum generale The second Councell of Constantinople which was the fifth generall And againe twice more (x) Pag. 347. lin 14. pa. 348. lin 11. you repeate that this Councell vnder Menas was a generall Councell And yet in another place contradicting your selfe you say no lesse expresly (y) Pag. 238. lin 11. that it was not a generall Councell It was then a generall Councell and it was not a generall Councell Reconcile these two eris mihi magnus Apollo 2. You acknowledge (z) Pag. 238. 347. that this Councell vnder Menas was held in the inter-regnum or vacancy between the death of Pope Agapetus and the election of his successor the yeare 536. and yet not without contradiction you proue out of Baronius and Binius (a) Pag. â—â—2 in t is sect 6. pag. 123. lit m. that the fifth generall Councell was held the yeare 553. which was neither in the vacancy after Agapetus his death nor in the tyme of Siluerius his successor but in the 14. yeare of Vigilius full 17. yeares after the other vnder Menas And as these two Councells differed in tyme so they did in matter for in that vnder Menas was handled the execution of the second sentence which Agapetus Pope before his death pronounced against Anthymus but in the fifth generall was discussed the cause of the Three Chapters Is it not then great ignorance in you to confound these two Councells the one being particular consisting of 50. Bishops only the other generall of more then 165. the one held vnder Menas the yeare 536 and the other vnder Vigilius Pope the yeare 553 and to frame Arguments out of them both as out of one and the same Councell 3. You say (b) Pag. 189. marg lit o. that the Councell vnder Menas was the second Councell of Constantinople and yet you had said before (c) Pag. 235. marg lit s. that it was the fifth Councell of Constantinople neither the one nor the other being true for betweene this and the first generall Councell of Constantinople there were held eleuen or twelue other Councells vnder diuers Patriarkes of that City as you may read in Baronius (d) Apud Spond Ind. verb. Constantinop Concil 4. To proue this Councell vnder Menas to be a generall Councell you alleage (e) Pag. 347. Binius who sayth directly the contrary to wit that it consisted of such Bishops only as were neere to Constantinople and some others then resident in the City all of them being but 50. in number whose names are expressed in the beginning of the first action And the same is testified by Baronius (f) Anno 536. and Bellarmine (g) L. 1. de Conc. c. 5. l. 2. de Pont. c. 13. by Zonaras (h) In vita Iustinian and Nicephorus (i) Lib. 17. c. 9. SECT II. Doctor Mortons ignorance further discouered and his falsifying of Binius COming to the relation of what passed in the fifth Generall Councell you say (*) Pag. 122. Anthimij causa ab Agapeto Papa condemnata Binius Tom. 2. p. 416. post in Synodo Constantinopol ventilata Idem Binius in Not. Conc. Constant. sub Menna This is an egregious falsification for Binius hath no such words and therfore your setting them downe englished in a different character as his is another false sleight that by fathering them on him you might ground on his authority the Argument which out of them immediatly you frame against the authority of the Pope saying (k) Ibid. This argueth the no-dominion of the Pope ouer that Councell which will take vpon them to examine that cause which the Pope before had condemned But these your words besides falshood containe excessiue ignorance for Agapetus pronounced two sentences of condemnation against Anthymus By the one he deposed him from the See of Constantinople by the other from the See of Trebizond In the former sentence the Councell had no hand for it was definitiue and absolutely perfected and put in execution Menas being ordeined in Anthymus his place by Agapetus his owne hands before his death But because Anthymus was not only an vsurper of the See of Constantinople but also guilty of heresy Agapetus being solicited by the Eastern Bishops ordained that wheras vpon the sentence of his deposition from the See of Constantinople his owne See of Trebizond had bene reserued vnto him if he did not cleare himselfe from the crime of heresy he should also be deposed from that See and withall excommunicated and depriued of all Sacerdotall title and of the very name of a Catholike But because Agapetus dyed before the tyme which he gaue Anthymus to purpe himselfe from the imputation of heresy Menas the Patriarke after his death assembled a Councell not to re-examine mine and ventilate the sentence of deposition which Agapetus pronounced against Anthymus as you ignorantly mistake but to put in execution the second sentence which he had begun but preuented by death could not finish All this is cleare out of the petition of the Regulars of Syria reported in the Councell it selfe when speaking of the first sentence of Agapetus they say (l) In Conc. sub Mena. Act. 1. God sent into this Citty Agapet truly Agapet that is truly beloued of God and man Pope of old Rome for the deposition of Anthymus and of the aforesayd heretikes as heretofore he sent great Peter to the Romans for the destruction of Simâ—n the Magician This reuerend person then knowing by the requests of many of ours the things iniustly attempted vpon the Churches and knowing them by sight would not so much as admit into his presence Anthymus transgressor
meanes like a prudent and solicitous Pastor to worke both partes to an accord and establish peace in the Church But finding the Emperor and the Easterne Bishops violent in the prosecution of their decree and that the Bishops of Venice and the regions adioyning as also those of Ireland following his opinion relying on his authority had condemned this Councell of Constantinople and that the Church therby was in danger to be rent in sunder with Schisme and on the other syde considering that the subiect of that Contention was no matter of fayth and neither the one part nor the other any way repugnant to the Councell of Chalcedon as S. Gregory hath noted (y) L. 3. ep 37. but a thing of it selfe indifferent he altered his opinion and yelded to confirme this decree purchasing to himselfe that commendation which S. Augustine (z) Ep. 162. giues to the most famous Gouernors of Gods people both in the old new Testament which is that They tolerate for the good of vnity that which they hate for the loue of equity and imitating the example of S. Leo the great who testifies of himselfe (a) Ep. 14. that for the loue of peace he yelded to confirme the ordination of Maximus B. of Antioch which Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople without any example against the Canons had presumptuously vsurped to himselfe Nor can Vigilius herein be argued of leuity for if he altered his mind he did it vpon iust causes for the auoyding of Schisme and following the example of S. Paul who hauing first giuen his voyce for the abolishing of circumcision (b) Act. 15.11 afterwards vpon iust cause circumcised Timothy (c) Act. 16.3 and yet againe reprehended Peter that by his dissimulation he induced the Gentiles to circumcision and other Iewish ceremonies (d) Gal. 2.11 14. You to proue the no-necessity of subiection to the Pope obiect the standing out of the Easterne Bishops against Vigilius (e) Pag 123. 124. But you might by the like Argument proue that subiects are not bound to obey their Prince because some of them stand out in rebellion against him And as litle to the purpose is your telling vs (f) Pag 123. fin that those Bishops condemned all them that defended the Three Chapters for contrarily we tell you that the Bishops of the West in their Councell at Aquileia condemned all those Bishops and their Councell at Constantinople and had more right to do it then the Easterne Bishops to condemne them for they did it in defence of the Popes authority whose opinion they followed Your vrging (g) Pag. 123. the persecution which Iustinian raised against Vigilius to bring him to confirme the decree of the Easterne Bishops maketh wholly against you for why did both he and the Bishops themselues vrge Vigilius so â—uch to confirme their decree but because they knew that no decree of any Councell can be of force vnlesse it be approued by the See Apostolike (h) See this proued aboue Chap. 17. sect 6. Finally the Popes authority 〈◊〉 effectually proued out of this Councell for as much as by vertue of Vigilius his confirmation it hath obtained the force of a lawfull Councell and deserued the title of the fifth generall wheras without his confirmation it would not haue bene receaued by the Church more then that of Ariminum or the second of Ephesus which the See Apostolike hath reiected And the same is confirmed by Eutichius Patriarke of Constantinople who though he prefided in this Councell yet acknowledged the right of presiding not to belong to himselfe but to Vigilius when inuiting him to the Councell he sayd (i) Ep. ad Vigil in quinta Syn. Collat. 1. Our desire is to haue the Three Chapters examined your Blessednesse presiding ouer vs. SECT IV. Doctor Mortons glosse vpon the Word Obedience TO conclude your discourse of the fifth generall Councell as vntruly ignorantly as you began you say (k) Pag. 124. Idle and vaine is your obiection out of that Synod from one word Obedience which they professed to the Catholike See by not discerning betwene a logicall and a morall obedience for they promised obedience to that See in all her orthodoxe and reasonable perswasions but not to her peremptory commands and conclusions for you may obey S. Augustine by subscribing to his iudgment without submitting to his iurisdiction So you where first you ignorantly make this profession of obedience to the Roman Church to be of the fiâ—â—h generall Councell and alleage Bellarmine for your author who expresly sayth that they are words of the Synod held vnder Menas before the fifth generall Councell 2. Your glosse vpon the word Obedience is idle and false for you wrest it to an improper signification I deny not but that the words of Obedience and Command may be taken improperly as if when your equall or inferior requests you to do a fauor for him or perswades you to your owne good you answeare I will obey your commands vnderstanding by his Commands his requests and persuasions But that the B. of Rome as being gouernor of the vniuersall Church hath true power and authority to Command according to the most first and proper signification of the word and that the greatest Bishops Councels haue acknowledged in themselues obligation to obey in the same sense hath bene already proued (d) Chap. 18. sect 1. False therfore is you glosse that this Councell acknowledged not in themselues obligation to obey the B. of Rome nor in him authority to command but only to persuade You defend an ill cause which vpon no other ground but only to excuse your disobedience to the See Apostolike inforceth you to wrest the words of the Councell to an improper signification And as your glosse vpon the word Obedience is false so is it repugnant euen to common sense for let a generall Councell be called of all the Orthodox Bishops in the world let them condemne an Arius an Eutyches or a Pelagius if your glosse may be allowed any of these heretikes or any other neuer so impious may refuse to submit himselfe and obey their decrees saying He will obey them in all their Orthodoxe and reasonable persuasions but not in their peremptory commands and conclusions and so obey them in nothing at all For what heretike will not say that the decrees of a generall Councell against his heresy are not Orthodoxe and reasonable persuasions but peremptory commands and conclusions Cold this euasion iustify Arius his disobedience or excuse him from heresy No and so neither can your glosse iustify your cause or satisfy any man of iudgment And as your glosse is false so is your dealing imposterous for the words of the Councell truly alleaged by Bellarmine out of whom you cite them are Apostolicam Sedem sequimur obedimus ipsius communicatores communicatores habemus condemnatos ab ipsa nos condemnamus We follow and obey the See Apostolike
apud Author cit that he with them all might reioyce in the peace restored to the Church by his meanes And in another to Xistus his successor (g) Apud Euseb l. 5. hist c. 4. he declareth the Popes authority ouer all those Bishops beseeching him to pardon their offence restore them to his communion I writ to Stephen sayth he an Epistle for all those Bishops To conclude you adde another falshood saying (h) Pag. 135. that we grant Stephen Pope to haue excommunicated not only Firmilianus with other Eastern Bishops but also S. Cyprian and you proue it by the testimony of Cassander and hereticall and prohibited Author whome you contrary to your owne knowledge cite as a Catholike writer that so you may haue some colour to call his lies our Confessions as here you doe And indeed what man of common sense can persuade himselfe that the Roman Church would honor S. Cyprian as a glorious Saint and Martyr as she doth if he had died out of her communion and especially if he had contemned her excommunication Lastly I must aduertise you of another absurdity whiles you tell vs (i) Pag. 138. that we should aduise in this case rather with Firmilianus a Bishop liuing in the dayes of S. Cyprian then with S. Augustine who came 150. yeares after for this is to tell vs that we must rather belieue Firmilianus a party and for a tyme guilty both of the heresy of the Quarta decimans of Rebaptization then S. Augustine an Orthodox Doctor and an impartiall witnesse But yet if we aduise with Firmilianus he will condemne you 1. Because he retracted his errors before his death returning to the communion of the Roman Church and witnesse S. Basil (k) De Spir. S. ad Amphil. c. 29. was admitted among the Catholike Bishops in the Councell of Antioch held against Paulus Samosatenus And 2. because in his Epistle to Cyprian he acknowledgeth Stephen to be successor of S. Peter on whom the foundations of the Church were layd And the reason which he yeldeth for his not obeying Stephen is that he must rather obey God then man (l) Extat apud Pamel pag. 198. which is a reason not to be giuen but by one that knowes himselfe bound to obey him that commands if his command be not contrary to the commandment of God as he thought Stephens to be though erroneously as you haue heard CHAP. XXV Other Arguments of Doctor Morton our of S. Cyprian answeared FRom this your mayne Argument of the opposition of Firmilianus and S. Cyprian you passe to other obiections shewing as you say (m) Pag. 134. in tit sect 4. the full opposition of S. Cyprian and other Bishops against Stephen B. of Rome But seeing you acknowledge (n) Pag. 291. alibi the Roman Church to haue bene pure and free from error for the space of 600. yeares and the Popes that liued in S. Cyprians time to be glorious Saints and Martyrs of Christ (o) Pag 172.178.181.287 with what conscience do you make S. Cyprian fully opposite to them and to differ in masters of fayth from them for what els is that but to make S. Cyprian an heretike that so he may seeme to be like to your selfe Now to your obiections of the full opposition of S. Cyprian to Pope Stephen The first is (p) Pag. 134. that S. Cyprian impugned the Popes pretended power of appeales to Rome in proofe wherof you produce ignorantly the examples of Fortunatus and Felicissimus for they appealed not to Pope Stephen but to Cornelius betwene whom and Stephen sate Lucius another Pope Againe the obiection is impertinent for the definitions of Councells confirmed by the Popes and the decrees of the Popes themselues ordeyne that maior causes that is to say of fayth and of Bishops be referred to the See Apostolike but that minor causes that is of the liues manners of Priests and inferior clerkes be finally sentenced ended in their owne prouinces by their Bishops and Metropolitans or by the Councells of their Prouince This is declared by S. Augustine who speaking of Cecilianus B. of Carthage that had bene condemned in Africa by a Councell of 70. Bishops sayth (q) Ep. 162 There was no question then of Priests or Deacons or other Clerkes of the inferior order but of the Colleagues that is so say of Bishops who might reserue their causes intire to the iudgment of the other Colleagues and principally of the Churches Apostolike and therfore that Cecilian might haue contemned the multitude of his enemies conspiring against him for as much as he saw himselfe vnited by communicatory letters with the Roman Church in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike had alwayes florished This sheweth the futility of your obiection For Fortunatus and Felicissimus were not Bishops but simple Priests who hauing bene iudged by their owne Bishops ought not to haue appealed to Rome and therfore Cornelius reiected their appeale and excommunicated them as S. Cyprian declares in that very Epistle which you obiect and returned Felicissimus back into Africa with other his associates sent by Fortunatus for Fortunatus himselfe went not in person to Rome as you mistake but sent Felicissimus with other Schismatikes like himselfe And that S. Cyprian by complaining to Pope Cornelius of these rebellious sugitiâ—â—s did not deny his power of appeales not the subiection of the African Churches to the See of Rome his words in that very Epistle (r) Ep. 55. three lines before to goe no further plainly declare when speaking of these Schismatikes he sayth They presume to saile to the Chaire of Peter and the principall Church from whence sacerdotall Vnity is deriued and to carry betters from schismaticall and prophane persons not hauing in mind that the Romans are they whose fayth was praised by the mouth of the Apostle and to whome vnfaithfulnes can haue no accesse Your second obiection is (s) Pag. 134. that the Councell of Carthage did deny to any whomsoeuer the title of Bishop of Bishops This is an vntruth for the words are not of the Councell but of S. Cyprian who speaketh only of his fellow Bishops of Africa assembled with him in that Councell and to them only he directs his speach wishing them to deliuer their opinion freely without regard to the authority which he as their Primate had ouer them But in what sense soeuer you take the words they are of no force as being vttered in an erroneous Councell which the Church hath condemned which S. Augustine (t) L. 6. de Baptism per tot hath confuted from which S. Cyprian himselfe afterwards disclaymed retracting his error Your third is (u) Pag. 134. that S. Cyprian would not acknowledge the name of Pope per antonomasiam to be proper to the B. of Rome as we teach because at the tyme of his Martyrdome being demanded of the Proconsull Art thou he whom the Christians call their Pope He answeared
be directed to the holy and Venerable Pope Innocentius And we likewise had written from the Councell of Mileuis in Numidia to the same Apostolike See And what did they write We hope sayth the Councell (k) Aug. ep 92. these men which hold so peruerse pernicious opinions will sooner yeld to the authority of your Holinesse drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures by help of the mercy of our Lord Iesus-Christ who vouchsafeth to gouerne you consulting with him and to heare you praying vnto him To this Epistle of the Councell Innocentius answeared (l) Aug. ep 93. You prouide diligently and worthily for the Apostolike honor c. following in the consultation of difficult things the forme of the ancient rule which you know as well as I to haue bene alwayes obserued by the whole world But I omit this for I thinke it is not vnknowne to your wisdome for why els did you confirme this by your deeds but because you know that answeres do alwayes flow from the Apostolicall fountaine throughout all Countries to those that aske them And especially as often as matter of fayth is in question I conceiue that all our brethren and fellow-Bishops ought not to referre what may be profitable in common to all Churches to any but to Peter that is to the author of their name and dignity as your Dilection hath done If you answeare that Innocentius writ this but spake vntruly in his owne cause S. Augustine will satisfy you who highly prayseth both these answeares of his Vpon this affaire sayth S. Augustine (m) Ep. 106. relations were sent from the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the Apostolicall See c. And besides the relations of the Councells we writ also priuate letters to Pope Innocentius of blessed memory in which we discoursed more largely of the same subiect And he answeared vs to euery point as it was conuenient and fitting the Prelate of the Apostolike See should answeare And againe (n) Ep. 157. Pelagius and Celestius hauing bene the authors or most violent promotors of this new Heresy they also by meanes of the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councells with the help of God who vndertakes the protection of his Church haue bene condemned in the extent of the whole world by two reuerend Prelates of the Apostolike See Pope Innocentius and Pope Zozimus vnlesse they reforme themselues and do pennance Out of this it is euident 1. That it was the ancient tradition and custome that Councels should send their decrees to the Pope to be confirmed by his authority 2. And that it is so ordeyned not by humane but by diuine sentence 3. That all other Churches of the world compared to the Roman are as streames that flow from their mother source and are to imbrace as pure whatsoeuer doctrine she deliuereth and reiect whatsoeuer she condemneth 4. That the Fathers of both these Councels did acknowledg the Pope to be their Pastor 5. And that they did belieue his authority to be takē out of the holy Scriptures 6. That Christ guideth him in his consultations and decrees of fayth 7. That the custome ancient rule beareth that in doubts especially of fayth the See Apostolike is to be consulted and nothing determined vntill answeare had from thence Now to your obiection (o) Pag. 141. seqq that the Councell of Mileuis denied any right of Appeales from Africa to the Church of Rome which in your eyes is so forcible that you repeat it afterwards againe (p) Pag. 321.322 seqq and descant on it at large against Bellarmine who sheweth (q) L. 2. de Pont. c. 24. it to be wholly impertinent and from the matter for the question of appeales to the B. of Rome is not of Priests and inferior Clerkes of whom only the Councell of Mileuis speaketh but of Bishops for the Councell of Sardica which hath declared (r) Can. 4. 7. that Bishops may appeale to the Pope hath withall decreed (s) Can. 27. that Priests and inferior Clerkes are to be iudged by their owne Bishops that if they conceiue themselues to be wronged by them they appeale to other Bishops of the same prouince And the same had bene ordeyned not long before by the Councell of Nice (t) Iulius ep 1.2.3 apud Bin. to 1. pag. 399. seqq and afterwards by S. Leo (u) Ep. 84. ad Anastas Thessal S. Gregory (x) L. 2. indict 11. ep 6. ordeyning that maior causes be iudged in the first instance by a Councell of Bishops of the same prouince by way of appeale by the See Apostolike And to goe no further the same was answeared by the holy Pope Innocentius to whom the Councell of Mileuis sent their decrees to be confirmed (y) Aug. ep 92. For when Victricius B. of Rhoan desiring to order the gouerment of his Church according to the Roman discipline required instructions from him he (z) Ep. 2. addressed vnto him diuers rules to be obserued of which the third is that If dissentions arise betweene Priests or other Clerkes of the inferior order they are to be iudged ended by the Bishops of the same Prouince as the Councell of Nice hath determined And for the causes of Bishops he addeth (a) Ibid. If they be maior causes that are in question let them after the Episcopall iudgment be referred to the See Apostolike as the Synod of Nice and the ancient customes ordeyne This Epistle of Innocentius was cited by the Bishops of France in the second Councell of Tours 700. yeares since And his very words concerning the appeales of Bishops to the See Apostolike are inserted in forme of a Law into the Capitulary of Charlemaine And Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes in his epistle to Nicolas Pope (b) Erodoard histor Eccles Rhem. lib. 3. repeating the same decree of Innocentius sayth We Metropolitans trauilling in our prouinciall Councels haue care after iudgment to referre the maior causes that is of fayth and of maior persons that is of Bishops to the determination of the soueraigne See And speaking of Priests and inferior Clerkes Let it not please God that we thould depise the priuiledge of the first and supreme See of the holy Roman Church as to weary your soueraigne Authority with all the controuersies and quarrels of the Clergy as well of the superior as of the inferior order which the canons of the Nicen Councell and the decrees of Innocentius and other Popes of the holy See of Rome command to be determined in their owne Prouinces From hence it followeth that the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis which you obiect against appeales to Rome makes nothing at all for your purpose your peremptory conclusion is (c) Pag. 141. that the Councell of Mileuis denieth any right of appeales from Africk to the Church of Rome To make this good you should haue shewed that the Councell of Mileuis forbids the appeales of Bishops
Fathers in the end descended to a flat and peremptory resolution in opposition of the Papall claime of appeales This is a flat and peremptory vntruth for the Africans neuer contested with the Pope about appeales in matters of fayth but acknowledged that they ought to referre them to him as appeareth out of the practise of the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis which sent their decrees of fayth to Innocentius Pope to be confirmed by his authority (o) See aboue Chap. 26. Their contestation was about Appeales of the inferior Clergy in ciuill and criminall causes Of them they writ to Zozimus Pope but he being dead before the ariuall of their letters they writ againe to Boniface his Successor acknowledging that they had receaued from him Mandata literas Commandments and letters which what was it else but to professe him to be their Superior And withall they represented to Boniface the great troubles which the late appeales out of Africa to Rome had brought vpon them that therfore great caution ought to be vsed lest other such or worse should happen And because they had not found in their copies of the Nicen Councell those Canons concerning appeales which Zozimus had sent in the instruction of his Legates they required tyme to send into the East for authenticall copies of the Nicen Canons but in the meane tyme they obserued the commandment of Zozimus restoring Apiarius to the communion to his Priesthood Apiarius say they to Boniface (p) Ep ad Bonifac. crauing pardon hath bene restored to the communion And againe (q) Ibid. It hath pleased vs that Apiarius should retire from the Church of Sicca retayning the honor of his degree And in their Epistle to Celestine Apiarius had bene formerly restored to his Priesthood Nor did they shew their obedience only in restoring Apiarus but moreouer in attending the comming of the Easterne Copies of the Nicen Councell they promised with great humility and with all respect protested to obserue from point to point all that was contained in the instruction of the Popes Legates For Daniel Notary of the Councell hauing read the first article which was that Bishops may appeale to the Pope Alipius said (r) Conc. Afric c. 4. We protest to obserue these things vntill the coming of the perfect copies And the second article being read which was That the causes of Priests and inferior Clerkes were to be finally determined by the Bishop of their owne Prouince S. Augustine said (s) Ibid. c. 7. We protest also to obserue this article sauing a more diligent inquiry of the Councell of Nice And the whole Councell speaking of both these articles to Boniface Pope said (t) Cap. 101. in Ep. ad Bonif. These thinges which in the fore-said instruction haue bene alleaged vnto vs of the appeales of Bishops to the Priest of the Roman Church and of the causes of Clerkes to be ended by the Bishops of their owne Prouinces We protest to obserue vntill the proofe of the Nicen Councell And we trust in the will of God that your Holinesse also will helpe vs in it By this it appeares that the Canons of Appeales to Rome sent by Zozimus were admitted and the practise of them in Africa allowed by the whole Councell vntill the comming of the Nicen copies out of the East which sheweth that their contestation was not about the Popes right of appeales els they would haue forbidden them absolutely euen in that interim but about the expediency of them and the manner of prosecuting them by Legates and executors sent from Rome Which is yet further confirmed by these their words to Pope Celestine (u) Ep. ad Celest. Wherfore premising the office of due salutation we beseech you affectionatly that hereafter you will not so easily admit to your eares those that come from these partes nor vestore to the communion such as haue bene excommunicated by vs. And a litle after To the end that they who in their owne Prouince haue bene depriued of the communion may not seeme to be hastily and otherwise then is fit restored to the communion by your Holynesse These words are another remonstrance of their acknowledgment of the Popes power ouer them and of their subiection to him for they say not to Celestine that he had not authority to restore the Communion to those that had bene excommunicated by them but humbly beseech him not to do it easily and without mature deliberation but rather that he will send them back into Africa to be iudged vpon the place where their causes might be discussed more exactly and the truth more certainely knowne by the attestation of witnesses which could not without much difficulty and charges passe to Rome And wheras the Councell of Sardica (x) Can. 7. hath decreed that if a Bishop appeale to Rome and the Pope esteeme is iust that the examination of his cause be renowed it shal be in the Popes power if he please to send Legates from Rome to ioyne with the Bishops of the same prouince from whom the appeale is made that by them the cause may be tried and iudged a new the Africans denied not this power of the B. of Rome nor any way excepted against the sending back of the Appellāts into Africa to haue their causes tried againe by the Bishops of their owne prouince but only beseeched him that he would be pleased not to send Legates who by prosecuting the causes of Appellants too violently did somtimes giue occasion of complaint Wherfore beseeching Pope Celestine they say (y) Conc. Afric c. 107 That you wil not send your Clerkes executors to all that demand them nor permit that we may seeme to introduce the smoaky pride of the world into the Church of Christ which propounds the light of simplicity and the day of humility to them that desire to see God The motiue which the Africans had to make this petition was the insolent cariage of Antony B. of Fussala in Numidia who as S. Augustine reporteth (z) Ep. 261. for his enormous crimes being depriued of his Bishoprick by procurement of the inhabitants of Fussala and left with the bare title of Bishop fraudulently got testimoniall letters of his innocency from the Primate of Numidia at the very time of this sixth Councell of Carthage and appealed to Boniface Pope who answeared with great caution that he should be restored si nulla in eius narratione surreptio intercessisset if there were no surreption in the relation of his cause Boniface dying and Celestine succeeding they of Fussala prosecuted their suite earnestly against him And he contrarily threatned that Celestine would send Clerkes executors and if need were souldiers to restore him to his Bishoprick He threatned them sayth S. Augustine (a) Ibid. with secular power as if they were to come to execute the iudgments of the See Apostolike so that the miserable inhabitants being Christians and Catholikes feared more grieuous vsage from a
Authentica which out of the Glosse you obiect We ordaine sayth he (i) Authen de eccles tit c. 2. according to the definitions of the holy Councells that the most holy Pope of the elder Rome is to be the first of all Prelates and that the most blessed Archbishop of Constantinople new Rome shall haue the second place after the holy See Apostelike of old Rome and shall be preferred before all the other Sees But you vrge the Glosse alleageth the Emperor saying that the B. of Constantinople hath the same right ouer those in subiection vnder him which the Pope hath ouer his True but the same Glosse declareth which you conceale that this similitude of rights between them is not in all respects but in quibusdam in some which the Glosse nominateth Yf you compare them precisely as Bishops of their peculiar Dioceses of Rome and Constantinople or as Patriarkes he of Constantinople hath the same rightes in his Dioces and Patriarkeship of Constantinople that the Pope considered precisely as Bishop and Patriarke hath ouer his Dioces of Rome Patriarkeship of the West But besides these two dignities the Pope is Chief of all Prelates and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church to which titles the B. of Constantinople hath no right but in regard of them is inferior to the Pope and subiect to him And so much you might haue vnderstood if from the Glosse you had turned your eyes to the texts of that and the precedent Chapter which declare that the Pope is aboue the B. of Constantinople and hath power to depose him when there is cause And you might also haue called to minde that many Patriarkes of Constantinople haue bene deposed by diuers Popes among them Anthymus by Agapet in the very City of Constantinople in the presence of Iustinian which neither he nor Theodora the Empresse that protected Anthymus would haue permitted if they had not acknowledged the subiection of the Patriarke of Constantinople to the B. of Rome SECT IV. Doctor Mortons fourth instance of Theodosius and Valentinian examined THe Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian say you (k) Pag. 162. in their letters to Cyrill require all Bishops without exception to be present at the Councell of Ephesus as they meane to auoid the sentence of condemnation vpon themselues Wherupon Pope Leo is glad to returne an answeare excusing his not coming by the exigence of time and his other instant occasions within his owne Dioces which would not permit him to be absent from his See and therefore hopeth his owne words to obtaine so much pardon and fauor that his Legates may be accepted of in his stead These your words are full of ignorance and falshood for first the letters of Theodosius and Valentinian to Cyrill were to call him and other Bishops to the first Councell of Ephesus which was held finished in the tyme Celestine Pope nine yeares before Leo was created B. of Rome Is it not then palpable ignorance to say that Leo is glad to returne an answeare excusing his not comming by the exigence of time and his other instant occasions within his owne Dioces when as the letters were written nine yeares before he had any Dioces at all and were neither directed to him nor any way concerned him 2. If Theodosius and Valentinian called the Bishops to the first Councell of Ephesus it was not by their owne authority but by the authority of Celestine Pope (l) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 2. Bar. anno 430. 3. Howbeit Theodosius in the yeare 449. which was 19. yeares after the writing of that letter to Cyrill by his owne authority assembled the Piratioall Synod of Ephesus in fauor of the Eutychian heresy yet knowing that no Councell can be valide which is not celebrated by the consent and authority of the B. of Rome he writ to Leo then Pope inuiting him to it And this letter it is which you ignorantly confound with the other written to Cyrill who was dead siue yeares before the writing of this to Leo. But Leo knowing the error of Eutyches to haue bene condemned already in a Councell at Constantinople and to be in it selfe so manifestly impious that as he writ to the holy Patriarke Flauianus (m) Ep. 1◠another Councell might no way seeme necessary for the condemnation of it and withall fore-seeing the great mischiefes that were like to ensue out of the Councell intended by Theodosius endeauored to diuert him wholly from that purpose or at least to perswade him that if a Councell were called it might be held in Italy But seeing he could draw the Emperor to neither of these conditions least on his part any thing should be wanting which might seeme auaileable for the destruction of Heresy and peace of the Church he sent Legates in his steed to preside in the Councell at which himselfe could not be present for the reasons expressed in diuers of his epistles (n) Ep. 12.17.18 in which also he declareth that he sent them armed with his authority either to restore Euches to the Catholike communion if he would renounce his errors and aske pardon of them as by libell presented to the See Apostolike he had promised to do or els to pronounce the last sentence of condemnation against him But wheras you to make good that the calling of Councells belongs to Emperors say (o) Pag. 162. Leo's owne words are that he hopeth to obtaine so much pardon and fauor that his Legates might be accepted of in his steed you speake not truly for his words are Because you know that my presence at Rome importeth for the common good so that saluâ Clementiae Vestrae veniâ by the good leaue of your Clemency I might not deny my selfe to the loue and requests of the Citizens thinke me to be present in these my brethren whom I haue sent in my steed and giuen them full instructions what ought to be obserued And it is to be noted that these words are not spoken by Leo to the Emperors as out of your discourse it may seeme to our English reader but to Pulcheria a woman who witnesse the Apostle (p) 1. Cor. 14.34 may not speake in the Church much lesse assemble Councells or moderate Ecclesiasticall causes Nor do they import any subiection to her in ecclesiasticall affaires but are merely words of ciuill respect and vrbanity fit to be vsed to the person of so great a Lady And your illation out of them that Emperors haue power to moderate Ecclesiasticall causes and assemble Councells is a consequence that suiteth not well with your iudgment and learning SECT V. Doctor Mortons fifth instance of Iustinian examined THe last Emperor you obiect is Iustinian Who say you (q) Pag. 162. will hardly please vs because he authorized vnder his owne hand the Code or bookes of Constitutions and Pandects for the regulating of the Clergy as well as of the Laity That this will hardly please vs you proue out
famous Bishops of Luca renowned for his learning and sanctity and illustrious for miracles in his life and after his death writ against Guibertus the Antipope set vp by the wicked Emperor Henry the fourth and among other praises giueth him the same that S. Cyprian in like occasion gaue to the holy Pope Cornelius I may affirme sayth he of Gregory our Father that which Blessed Cyprian writ of Cornelius He was made Bishop by the iudgment of God and of his Christ by the testimony of almost all nay to speake more truly of all the Clergy without exception by the verdict of the people that were present by the Colledge of ancient Priests and good men none other being created before him when the place of Alexander that is when the place of Peter and the degree of the Sacerdotall chayre was vacant And how true this testimony of S. Anselme is appeareth by the formall words of his election set downe by Platina (r) In vita Gregorij 7. wherin Cardinalls Bishops Abbots Priests all degrees of Ecclesiasticall men and laicks made choyce of him as of a man modest sober chast of singular learning of great piety wisdome iustice constancy and religion How thinke you Doctor Morton was this man likely to sport himselfe with tossing the crownes of Kings and Emperors from their heads You plead (s) Pag. 174. that his proceeding against Henry was not for any note of heresy but only for not subiecting himselfe to the Popes dignity and dominion Read the testimonies of graue writers almost 40. in number (t) Apud Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. c. 13. cont Barcla 〈◊〉 9. Genebrard in Chronico an 1087. many of which liued in his tyme and you shall find that Henry is censured as an Arch-pirate an Arch-heretike an Apostata a persecutor of soules more then bodies and for his behauiour and manners that he contemned the Princes of the Empire oppressed the Nobles exalted base fellowes and married to them the daughters of Noble men at his pleasure that not contenting himselfe with ordinary sinnes be inuented and committed others neuer heard of before in the world and to many men altogether incredible And with these authors Caluin agreeth saying (u) L. 4. Instit c. 11. sect 13. that he was light temerarious of no iudgment of great boldnesse of dissolute life and that he had all the Bishoprickes he might haue added and all the Archbishoprickes and Abbacies of Germany in his Court partly exposed to sale partly to prey and rapine Finally so abhominable was his lust so execrable his simony so great his oppression of Germany his life in all respects so flagitious and his person for that cause so hatefull that as Vrspergensis reporteth (x) Chron. an 1106. when he died there was not any one found in the whole Christian world that sorowed for his death nay that did not exceedingly reioyce therat euen as Israel reioyced at the drowing of Pharao in the red sea or as the people of Rome exulted in the triumphs of their Emperors Much more in this kind is reported by the afore-cited Authors to which Marianus Scotus an historian of that tyme addeth (y) Chron. an 1075. that the Catholikes which liued then in the Church seeing and hearing the horrible and vnheard-of crimes of Henry inflamed with the zeale of God for the house of Israel in imitation of the Prophet Helias sent messengers to Alexander then gouerning the See Apostolike and complained expressing their griefe with sighs and lamentations both by letters and words Wherupon sayth William B. of (z) L. 1. debello sacro c. 13. Tyre Gregory his successor before he proceeded against him sent thrice vnto him and with the loue and affection of a Father admonished him seeking to reclaime him winne him to his owne good but preuailed not I appeale to the iudgement of any impartiall Reader whether you haue not slandered and wronged Gregory in the highest degree saying that he sported himselfe with tossing the Emperors crowne from his head and this not far any note of heresy but only for not subiecting himselfe to his dignity and dominion Beware in tyme lest you which possesse the place of a Bishop be not punished by God as William B. of Maestricht was who sayth Lambertus Scafnaburgensis (a) Hist. râ—rum Germ. being suddainly surprised with a most grieuous sicknesse cried outwith miserable shrikes before all that by the iust iudgement of God he had lost both this present and eternall life for hauing taken part with the Emperor in his sacrilegious enterprises and in hope of gaining his fauor wittingly reproached the most holy B. of Rome a man of Apostolicall vertue and innocency Not vnlike to this was the miraculous punishment of Imbrico B. of Ausburg for the same fault related by Bartholdus (b) In Chron. an Historian of the same time And finaliy our holy Archbishop of Canterbuty S. Anselme if he were liuing would say to you as he did to Wâ—lramus that he would refraine from saluting you for taking part with Henry the Emperor against Gregory that being no lesse a crime then to take part with the successor of Nero and Iulian the Apostata against the successor and Vicar of Peter the Apostle I haue dwelled a while in this history of Gregory because of all the fower Popes against whom you here except you raile most intemperatly against him for therby the reader may vnderstand that as you slander him so you do also the rest for how excellent and godly a Prelate Zacharias was you haue heard and of the other two Historians report no lesse Of Innocentius they write that he was one of the most excellent Popes for good life and rate learning in many kindes that for many hundreds of yeares held the See of Rome to which his many workes full of singular erudition piety and contempt of the world giue witnesse By his meanes Liuonia receaued the fayth of Christ He built repaired adorned many Churches with rich gifts He sounded and endowed with great reuenewes that famous Hospitall of Sancti Spiritus in Saxia in which so many diseased and sicke persons euen to this day are cured and so many poore children and orphans bred vp and mantained He confirmed the religious orders of S. Dominick of S. Francis of the Heremits of S. Augustine of the Carmelites of the Croched Friers for the redemption of Captiues and others which haue yeilded innumerable men that with their sanctity and learning haue bene a most singular ornament to the Church of Christ and to whom the whole world is in debted for their great labors vndertaken for the glory of God for the conuersion of Infidels reduction of heretikes reformation of manners among Catholikes and for the excellent monuments of their workes in all faculties of learning Finally so great was the fame of Innocentius his sanctity and excellent gouerment that among other authors Blondus writeth (c) Dâ—cad 2. l. 7.
holy Fathers of Gods Church be true if the most religious Christian Emperors haue belieued aright the Episcopall and Sacerdotall dignity and especially the Papall excelleth the Imperiall and the Pope is in the number of higher Powers to whom obedience in spirituall things is due euen from the greatest Kings and Emperors as their practise witnesseth and the Apostle hath commanded saying (r) Heb. 13.17 Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them SECT II. Ancient Popes obiected and falsified by Doctor Morton YOur ancient Antagonist (s) P. Persons Treatise tend to mitig Chap. 6. 〈◊〉 34. and Cardinall Bellarmine (t) L. 1. de Conc. c. 13. haue told you long since that howbeit the B. of Rome was euer Head in spirituall matters ouer all euen the Emperors themselues yet in temporall affaires he did anciētly subiect himselfe vnto them as hauing at that time no temporall estate of his owne and therfore did then acknowledge them to be his temporall Lords and make supplication vnto them as for other things so particularly for the assembling of Synods in their Cities which could not be done without their authority and licence And in this respect the Popes of those tymes yielded due reuerence to the Emperors and had recourse to them as to their temporall Lords but that any Pope euer acknowledged subiection to Emperors in Ecclesiasticall affaires is a false Tenet which to make good you misconstrue mangle and corrupt the testimonies of ancient Popes First you say (u) Impost pag. 178. Liberius professed patience in suffering indignities from the Emperor and intreated for mercy And Vigilius being banished sued for peace and fauor What then A Christian suffering indignities from the great Turke may sue for mercy and fauor Doth he therfore acknowledge in the Turke right to persecute him or to offer indignities vnto him for his fayth as Constantius the Arian Emperor did to Liberius and Theodora the Eutychian Empresse to Vigilius 2. You obiect (x) Impost pag. 178. Sermon pag. 5. Simplicius professing continuall reuerence to all Christian Princes True but did he therfore professe that euery Christian Prince was his Soueraigne or that any Prince had right to command him in Ecclesiasticall affaires Reuerence is due from euery Christian man to all Princes and yet euery Christian man is not subiect to all Princes euen in temporall affaires much lesse in Spirituall But why do you conceale that Simplicius writeth that Epistle to the Emperor Zeno as to his spirituall child and professeth that by reason of his Apostolicall Chaire and gouerment he was bound to instruct him and declare the causes of fayth vnto him 3. The testimony of Leo (y) Impost pag. 178. Sermon pag. 5. making supplication to the Emperor to command a Synod to be celebrated in Italy hath bene already proued to make wholly against your selfe (z) See aboue Chap. 30. sect 4. 4. You produce Gelasius (a) Impost pag. 178. saying to the Emperor Anastasius that euen Bishops obey his lawes Bishops I grant obey the Lawes of secular Princes for the course of tempotall gouerment but withall Gelasius declareth to the Emperor that Albeit he be chiefe President in temporall affaires he knoweth and acknowledgeth himselfe in spirituall affaires subiect to Priests and especially to the B. of Rome and that from them he is to receaue the decisions of fayth and the heauenly Sacraments Why did you not in your Sermon giue notice of this to his Maiesty and the rest of your hearers 5. Hormisdas say you (b) Impost pag. 178. taketh notice of the Emperors command for gathering of a Councell as a motion from God and further acknowledged that he had receaued warning and that he ought to be present therat In proofe of this you set downe in your margent these words as of Hormisdas in his fifth Epistle to Anastasius the Emperor Futuram Synodum indicari mandas cui nos interesse debere ijsdem literis Deo vt credimus tibi imperanti commonuisti Ad liter as vestras respondi In this briefe passage there are diuers vntruthes and falsifications For 1. those words Futuram Synodum indicari mandas which you set downe as the words of Hormisdas are not his but forged by your selfe there is no mention of any command from the Emperor to him 2. And those words Ad literas vestras respondi are also feigned by your selfe and shew your ignorance in grammer for if Hormisdas had spoken to the Emperor in the singular number saying mandas and tibi imperanti commonuisti which you cite as his words he would not haue added in the plurall number ad literas vestras 3. When you say Hormisdas taketh notice of the Emperors command for gathering a Councell acknowledging that he had receaued warning that he ought to be present therat it is a plaine Imposture for in that very Epistle he protesteth to the Emperor that wheras he had warned him to be present at a Councell there is not in former ages any example or precedent of such a fact extant in bookes or in the memories of men but yet that at his inuitation he is willing to impose on himselfe that burthen without any precedent therof receaued from his predecessors alwaies prouided that the Emperor would performe those necessary conditions which both in that Epistle and in the instruction giuen to his Legates he proposed vnto him for the peace of the Church which were to abiure the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches to receaue the Councell of Chalcedon with the witings of S. Leo Pope and to blot out of the sacred records the names of Dioscorus Acacius and other heretikes The Emperor feigned himselfe willing to performe the conditions hoping therby to compasse his intent but neuer performed them and therfore Hormisdas wold not assent to the gathering of a Councell Wherupon Anastasius growing into a great fury writ threatning letters to him and raised a great persecution against Catholikes for which as also for his obstinacy in heresy and disobedience to the See Apostolike he ended his life in a most horrible manner being strucken dead with a thunder-bolt from Heauen This is the doctrine you ought to haue deliuered to your readers and not to haue deceaued them with falsities imposed on Hormisdas to iustify yours 6. You obiect (c) Impost pag. 178. Serm. pag. 5. Pelagius the first saying Holy Scripture commandeth vs to be subiects to Kings That Epistle of Pelagius is written to Childebert King of France as to his Sonne for so he stileth him and declareth to him that the holy Scripture commandeth subiectes to obey their Princes which all Catholikes belieue and teach as a doctrine of fayth But where doth the Scripture command Popes to yield subiection to Princes in Ecclesiasticall affaires Or where doth it command them fince they haue staies of their owne to yield temporall subiection to other Princes Your Argument therfore is impertinent 7. You alleage (d) Impost pag. 179. Ser. pag.
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
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
themselues were absent These testimonies of your owne Brethren are so many sharpe wedges in the hart of your cause and shew in you either ignorance or lack of cōscience in denying so manifest a truth Nor do your Writers testify this of those Popes in generall but in particular euen of those very twelue whose testimonies you heere seeke to elude Of Iulius whom you (n) Pag. 2841 call the first man of the inquest they say (o) Brerel ibid. n. 60.61 that wheras the Ecclesiasticall canon decreed that no Councell should be celebrated without the sentence of the B. of Rome Iulius made challenge therby for which Danaeus reproueth him and other Bishops of Rome M. Cartwright and the Centurists say of him (p) Ibid n. 63. that in the Councell of Antioch he ouer-reached in claiming the hearing of causes that apperteyned not to him and M. Symonds (q) Ibid. n. 64. that he decreed that whosoeuer suspected his Iudge might appeale to the See of Rome And wheras in his Epistle to the Easterne Bishops extant in the second Apology of S. Athanasius he expresseth the authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome ouer all others in these words An ignoratis c. Are you ignorant that the custome is we should be first written vnto and that from hence the iust decision of things should proceed And that if any suspicion were conceaued against your Bishops there you should haue written to this Church for the things which I signify to you we haue receaued from the blessed Peter You answeare (r) Pag. 184. Iulius plainly speaketh of document and instruction receaued from Peter not of dominton or iurisdiction which may be an answere to many of the rest But this answeare is refuted not only by the ancient historians as afterwards you shall heare but also by the Centurists who set downe these very words of Iulius (t) Cent. 4. col 746. and (u) Col. 529. reprehend him for them and out of that his Epistle shew that with the authority of a Iudge he summoned the Easterne Bishops commanding them to come to Rome assigned them a day of appearance before him to be iudged and hauing heard the whole cause gaue sentence rebuking the Eusebians and by the preregatiue of his See restored the Catholike Bishops to theirs The same Epistle is alleaged by D. Philippus Nicolai (x) De reg Christ. l. 2. pag. 149. a learned Protestant who out of Socrates Sozomen and the Epistle it selfe witnesseth that Iulius doth more then once declare himselfe alone by especiall priuiledge to be Bishop of the primary See and that by diuine ordinance the right of calling Councells and of iudging the causes of Bishops and other weighty affaires of that nature belonged to him alone I conclude therfore that Iulius speaketh not of document and instruction receaued from Peter but of authority and iurisdiction Not vnlike to this answere is your affirming (y) Pag. 284. fin 285. that the Bishops of the East challenged Iulius for writing to them alone by his owne authority for there is no such challenge in their Epistle (z) Extat Ep. apud Bin. to 2. pag. 401. Yea as Sozomen (a) L. 3. c. 7. testifieth and the beginning of the Epistle it selfe sheweth in it they professe the primacy of the Roman Church though otherwise falsly obiecting to Iulius the breach of the Canons a thing not to be wondred at for they that wrot were Arians in hatred of him because he had annulled their Councell of Antioch and restored Athanasius And as the Epistle was written by Arians so it is also reported by Socrates and Sozomen from Sabinus a Macedonian Heretike who tooke part with the Councel of Antioch against the Pope and against the Councell of Nice to which as also to Athanasius and to the Blessed Trinity it selfe he was a professed enemy In regard wherof their Epistle is of no more weight then if Lutherans or Caluinists should now write the like And hereby it appeareth how vntruly you say (b) Pag. 185. that Some of the testimonies of ancient holy Popes expressing the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Roman See may be confuted and indeed confounded by as ancient opposisions of the Orientalls against Pope Iulius c. for those Orientalls were heretikes Hauing thus shifted off the testimony of Iulius whom you call the first man of the inquest you passe immediatly to S. Gregory the last of the twelue which Bellarmine alleageth omitting all the rest And wheras he out of the works of this holy Pope produceth diuers testimonies clearely conuincing the subiection of all Churches to the Roman you omitting the rest as being vnanswearable find meanes to except against one (d) Pag. 284. which is Who doubts but that the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the See Apostolike which the most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother Eusebius Bishop of the same City continually protest This testimony of S. Gregory you reject vpon pretence that the Epistle is supposititious and counterfeit Some of the Popes alleaged by Bellarmine say you speake not but their counterfeites as the last Iurist Pope Gregoryin an Epistle wherin Eusebius B. of Constantinople is said to haue bene subiect vnto him when as as our Doctor Reynolds hath proued there was no Eusebius B. of Constantinople in the dayes of S. Gregory But to Doctor Reynolds I oppose the most eminent Cardinall Peron a man of greater renowne learning authority who answeareth (e) Replip l. 1. Chap. 34. 1. That Cyriacus which was then Bishop of Constantinople might haue two names and be called Eusebius Cyriacus as S. Hierome was called Eusebius Hieronymus 2. That Eusebius might be there taken adiectiuely and signify pious or religious as when Arius (f) A pud Theod. l. 1. hist c. 5. writ to Eusebius B. of Nicomedia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Farewell Eusebius truly Eusebius that is truly religious And 3. that it is an error of the Exemplarist who of eiusdem ill written and blotted made Eusebius for the ancient copies of this Epistle current for the space of 200. yeares after S. Gregory make no mention of Eusebius but read simply and our brother B. of the same City as it appeares out of the relation of Amalarius Fortunatus who liued 800. yeares since and setteth downe this whole Epistle of S. Gregory word by word (f) De dini offic l. 4. c. 2. in Biblioth Pat edit Colon to 9. part 1. and his testimony alone liuing 800. yeares nerer S. Gregories tyme then Doctor Reynolds or your selfe is a sufficient proofe of the authority of this Epistle against you both But what Though you except against this Epistle yet in the next which no man hath doubted of S Gregory in like manner sayth (g) L. 7. ep 64. For wheras he the B. of Constantinople being accused of a certaine crime profefieth himselfe subiect to the See Apostolike if any fault be found in
being wronged by the false Councell of Ephesus had presented a libell of appeale to his Legates he would command a generall Councell to be held within Italy for the Nicen Canons require this necessarily to be done after the putting in of an Appeale To these I adde Theodoret testifying in expresse words that he appealed to Leo Pope These witnesses shew that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations was not very vncouth but very familiar in the dayes of Theodoret and in former ages and that the right of appealing to the Roman See was acknowledged and testified by holy Popes of the primitiue times by generall Councells by Emperors by Bishops and by all ancient writers And the same might be proued by other examples if these were not sufficient to shew your ignorance in denying if not rather your boldnesse in out-facing so knowne a truth SECT V. That S. Athanasius appealed to Iulius Pope and Theodoret to Leo as absolute Iudges and that by their authority both of them were restored to their Churches THat S. Athanasius appealed to Iulius Pope and by his authority was restored to his seat hath bene effectually proued (r) Chap. 38. sect 6. And to what there was said I adde here the testimony of Liberatus who speaking of Iohn Patriarke of Alexandria deposed by the Emperor Zeno sayth (s) In Breuia c. 18. He appealed to the B. of Rome as also Blessed Athanasius did And that Theodoret appealed to Leo as to an absolute Iudge that had power to command him and sentence his cause he himselfe witnesseth as you haue heard (t) Sect. praeced init Neuerthelesse you taking vpon you to know what passed in Theodorets cause better then Theodoret himselfe say (u) Pag. 304. He addressed his requests to the B. of Rome not as to a peremptory Iudge but as to a Patron and arbitrary dais-man one vpon whose authority he depending acknowledgeth in expresse words his reason to wit the integrity of the fayth of the Pope and promising to abide his award with the assistance of others And before you had said (x) Pag. 255. marg lit m. The euent sheweth that there was in this busines no iuridicall proceeding at all Only Theodoret vpon his confession of his Orthodoxe fayth was receaued into communion with Leo as Leo might haue ben with Iohn of Constantinople in like case These are your words to proue that Theodoret appealed not to the Pope as to an absolute Iudge that had authority to annull the sentence of the Councell that deposed him and restore him to his See but only as to an Arbitrator by reason of the integrity of his fayth when as he contrarily in expresse words beseecheth Renatus (y) Ep ad Renat to perswade the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of Rome to vse his Apostolicall authority and command him to appeare before his Councell that is his Consistory because that holy See hath the guidance and gouerment of all the Churches of the world And writing to Pope Leo he sayth (z) In Ep. ad Leon. I attend the sentence of your Apostolike throne and beseech your Holinesse to succour me appealing to your right and iust iudgment and to command that I be brought before you c. And I promise to stand to your iudgment contenting my selfe with that which you shall determine what euer it be And I beseech you that I may be iudged according to my writings If Theodoret had studied to expresse the Popes iudiciall authority to sentence his cause could he haue done it in more cleare and effectuall words then these It is true that as he acknowledgeth the Roman Church to be priuiledged aboue others for many causes so especially for that she hath remained free from all blemish of heresy none hauing euer possessed that See which hath held any thing contrary to truth or which hath not kept the Apostolicall grace entyre and without blemish The reason why he mentioneth the purity of fayth alwayes preserued in the Roman Church is because he had bene accused and deposed as guilty of heresy in his writings And therfore he appealeth confidently to the Pope as to one whose iudgment in matters of fayth is is infallible and to whom the decision of all such Controuersies belongeth acknowledging withall as you haue heard the Roman Church to be the Head of all Churches and the Pope to be his absolute Superior and Iudge with authority to command him and sentence his cause And Leo Pope accordingly vsing the authority of a Iudge declared him free from heresy and restored him to his See wherupon the Senators that assisted at the Councell of Chalcedon said with the approbation of the whole Councell (a) Act. 1. Let the most Reuerend Bishop Theodoret come in because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his See Who then seeth not the insufficiency of your answeare that Theodoret appealed not to the Pope as to an absolute Iudge but made his requests vnto him as to an arbitrary Dais-man for appeales are not made to Arbitrators but to absolute Iudges An Arbitator is he to whom the determination of a controuersy is remitted by agreement of both parties which in Theodorets cause can haue no place for his aduersaries neuer agreed to haue his cause remitted to the Pope If therfore the Pope had not bene an absolute Iudge Theodorets appealing to him had bene in vaine nor could he haue recouered his seat by the Popes sentence for a sentence pronounced without authority is of no effect And though after the Councell of Chalcedon had admitted Theodoret vpon the Popes restitution to take his place amongst the Bishops some of them doubting of his fayth because he had written against Cyrill of Alexandria in fauor of Nestorius and therfore fearing the Pope might haue restored him vpon misinformation vrged him to anathematize Nestorius againe yet that no way helpeth your cause nor derogateth from the Popes authority for when Theodoret had anathematized Nestorius the Councell proceeded not to a new sentence of restitution but subscribing to that of Leo cried out all with one voyce (b) Act. 2. Long liue Archbishop Leo Leo hath iudged the iudgment of God SECT VI. That S. Chrysostome appealed to Innocentius Pope as to an absolute Iudge and by his authority was restored to his Church of Constantinople S. Chrysostome being deposed from his Patriarchall See at the procurement of Eudoxia the Empresse wife to Arcadius Emperor of the East by a Councell of Bishops vnder Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria had recourse by letters of appeale to Innocentius Pope This you deny saying (b) Pag. 307. n. that wheras Bellarmine and Baronius referre you to the story it selfe you can finde nothing lesse in it then the matter of Appeale for say you Chrysostome made his requests not to the Pope alone but to the other Reuerend Bishops within the Roman Prouince together with him But this is a mistake proceeding
Pope is the schismatike and not the Councell But I wonder not that you take part with Schismatiks Belike you are of opinion that some obstinate Puritans in Parliament standing out against his Maiesty he and not they are the rebells for the case is alike sauing only that this is a temporall cause and that a spirituall But you demand (h) Pag. 360. with Nilus and Erasmus to what end generall Councells should be called with so much cost trouble and labour if the Pope haue infallibility of iudgment I answere to the same end that S. Peter the first Pope of Rome notwithstanding he had infallibility of iudgment called a Councell at Antioch (i) Act. 15.6.7 If you desire more reasons you haue them in Bellarmine (k) L. 4. de Pont. c. 7. who hath answeared this Argument but you were wise inough to take no notice therof SECT IX Doctor Mortons instances of France and England to proue the no-necessity of Vnion with the Church of Rome THere hath bene published by some of your Nouellists a pamphlet intituled Fasciculus rerum expetendarum fugiendarum stuffed with so many lies that the Author was ashamed to haue his name knowne It is prohibited (l) Indic libro prohib and therfore what you report out of it not to be regarded But your addition (m) Pag. 361. that the Councell of Trent is not admitted within the Kingdome of France and that therfore the French are yet at liberty to belieue as much therof as they list is a famous vntruth for although that Kingdome haue not admitted generally all the decrees made by that Councell for the reformation of Ecclesiasticall discipline yet who knoweth not that as the Catholikes of the world haue so hath that most Christian kingdome with them admitted and imbraced all the decrees of fayth made in the Councell of Trent and that the most Christian King with all his Catholike subiects belieueth them no lesse stedfastly then the decrees of fayth made in the foure first generall Councells which you admit Not vnlike to this is your addition (n) Pag. 361. fin 361. out of B. Gardiners Oration of true obedience that in the time of King Henry the eight all sortes of people in England were agreed vpon this point with most stedfast consent learned and vnlearned both men and women that no manner of persons bred or brought vp in England had ought to do with Rome for albeit some persons infected with Lutheranisme some flatterers for their owne ends soothed King Henry in his opposition to the See of Rome yet who knoweth not that the face of the kingdome was then generally Catholike as for the space of almost 1000. yeares before it had bene And who can be ignorant that in defence of the authority of the See of Rome B. Fisher Syr Thomas More writ most learned bookes which are yet and will euer be most highly esteemed throughout the Christian world and that what they writ with their pens they sealed with their bloud And who knoweth not that Cardinall Pole a man of so great worth that he wanted but two voyces for the Popedome not only writ most learnedly in the same kind but suffered and his friends for his sake great vexations and persecutions at the hands of King Henry for the same cause And that many persons of worth suffered imprisonment and death for the same cause among which were all the Charter-house Monkes of London with their Prior It is therfore a famous vntruth to say It was then the fayth of the Church of England that no person bred or brought vp in England had ought to do with Rome Moreouer you know this Oration of B. Gardiner to be prohibited by the Church (o) In indic lib. prohib and that he ashamed of it retracted it which yet you are not ashamed to obiect CHAP. XLIV Whether Luther and his followers had any iust cause to separate themselues from the Roman Church WE are come to the last Chapter of your Grand Imposture in which to free your selfe from the note of Schisme heresy you brand the Roman Church with both labor to proue that Luther had iust cause to separate himselfe from her Communion and that you continuing in the same separation are more iustifiable then Luther was in his departure from her and may more iustly plead soules saluation then any of them that remaine in Vnion with her Your Chapter you diuide into foure parts and these parts into Theses which I shall examine the more briefly because many of your proofes are repetitions of your former Arguments already answeared SECT I. Whether any Protestants haue held that the Catholike Church before Luthers fall was wholly extinguished YOur first Thesis is (p) Pag. 364. Many Papists in their aduersnesse to Protestant whom they seeke to traduce do impute vnto them this faythlesse Paradoxe as to say that the Catholike Church is sometimes extinguished A false doctrine say you which Protestants neuer taught If Protestants neuer taught this faithlesse doctrine why did Luther when he began to erect your new Church say (q) Praef. in 1. tom cont Reg. Angl. fo 497. He had none to assist him but was left alone and alone stood in the battaile forsaken of all Why did Caluin say (s) Ep. 141. It is absurd that since we haue bene enforced to diuide our selues from all the world we shold now in our very beginnings disagree among our selues Why did he say (t) Respons ad Sadolet It is publike and notorious to all learned and vnlearned that when the Principality of the B. of Rome was erected the kingdome of Christ was prostrated his glory extinguished Religion abolished the Church destroyed and hope of saluation vtterly ouerthrowne Why did Milius say (x) August Confess explic art 7. de Eccl. pag. 137. If there had byn right belieuers before Luther there had bene no need of a Lutheran reformation Why Morgensterne (y) Tract de Eccles p. 141. It is ridiculous to thinke that in the time before Luther any had the purity of Doctrine and that Luther should receaue it from them and not they from Luther It being manifest to the whole Christian world that before Luthert time all Churches were ouerwhelmed with Cymerian darknesse and that Luther was diuinely raised vp to discouer the same and to restore the light of true doctrine And in regard therof Luther boasted saying (z) Ep. ad Argentin anno 1525. Christum à nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari Why did Camierus say (a) Ep. Iesuit part altera Geneu 1601. That error did not only possesse a part of the Church as in time of the Arians but that the whole body of the Church by Apostacy was fallen from Christ Why did Simon de Voyon a Geneuian Minister in his Catalogue of Doctors (b) Praefat. ad Lect. say That in the yeare 605. falshood preuailed and then was the whole
therfore to be contemned as being admitted but of late which is not only a false translation but a manifest peruerting of the sense for Castro speaketh not of the doctrine or lawfulnesse of granting indulgences but de earum vsu of the vse of them which therfore in your english you cunningly omit that ouâ— of him you may proue the doctrine of them to be new Yea and concerning the very vse of them he proueth it to be most ancient by the same arguments Roffensis before him had done concluding that you and all others which contemne a thing practised so many hundreds of yeares by the Catholike Church and established by generall Councels are iustly accounted heretikes So farre is Castro from fauoring Luthers cause The third Author is Bellarmine out of whom you cite these words (n) Pag. 385. Thesaurus Ecclesiae spiritualis est fundamentum indulgentiarum Which words you english Thus The ground of indulgences is the spirituall treasury of workes consisting in the satisfactory and meritorious workes of supererogation done by the faithfull Which treasury to haue bene anciently wanting you proue also out of Bellarmine setting downe these words as his Hoc caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Louanienses This your Doctors of Louaine and some Scholemen as you know affirme was anciently wanting in the Church So you and then you tell vs (o) Ibid. out of Suarez who those Schole men were namely Mayzo and Durandus In this short passage of yours there are almost as many vntruthes and falsifications as words For first the Latin words are not Bellarmines but your owne fathered on him And so also are the English which neuerthelesse you set downe in a different character as his not only disagree from the Latin but containe false doctrine repugnant to all Catholike Diuines and in particular to Bellarmine who in that very place (p) L. 1. de Indulg c. 2. proposit 2. teacheth that meritorious workes as such cannot be applied to others nor belong to the treasure of the Church but only as satisfactory 3. You falsify making Bellarmine to limit the spirituall treasure of the Church to workes of supererogation only which is ignorantly spoken and not taught by Bellarmine nor any Catholike Diuine 4. You father on him falsly those last words Hoc thesauro caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Louanienses for they are not his nor doth he attribute any such doctrine to the Deuines of Louain nor so much as once name them in all that Chapter Is it not then great perfidiousnesse so to abuse and falsify both him and them Nor is your dealing better with Suarez for to omit that in the place you cite he treateth of no such matter nether he nor Bellarmine euer say that Duraud denied this treasure of the Church but only that he held it to consist of the satisfactions of Christ and not of the Saints Which yet he speaketh by way of doubt Theologicall dispute rather then affirmatiuely for coming to deliuer his owne opinion he sayth plainly and resolutely (q) 4. Dist 20. q. 3. Est in Ecclesia c. There is in the Church a spirituall treasure of the passion of Christ and his Saints who suffered farre greater torments then their sinnes deserued And therfore the Church out of this treasure may communicate to one or more so much as may suffice to make satisfaction for their sinnes either in part or in whole according as the Church shall please to communicate this treasure more or lesse which is nothing els but the sufferings of Christ and his Saints communicated to vs to satisfy for our sinnes Wherfore indulgences auaile by way of payment for so much as by Christ his Saints the paine to which we are lyable is paied But if he had held that the spirituall treasure of the Church consisteth of the satisfactions of Christ only that would auaile you nothing for he defendeth Indulgences which you deny and if he erred in any thing he errred not with obstinacy as you do but submitted all his workes to the correction of the holy Catholike Roman Church as you haue read in Bellarmine but conceale it I conclude therfore that the great cloud of witnesses which you haue brought to iustify Luthers doctrin against indulgences is either of Heretikes or of Catholikes in workes prohibited by the Church or if not prohibited abused and falsified by you SECT X. The causes giuen by Doctor Morton in excuse of Luthers departure from the Roman Church THe causes you haue deuised to iustify Luthers departure from the Roman Church are partly impious partly false and imposterous Impious as your excepting against the Masse (r) Pag. 387. to which Luther was persuaded by the Diuell calling it Idolatry as you do And not vnlike to this is your example of Firmilianus (s) Pag. 388. who being for the time an obstinate mantainer of Rebaptization was excommunicated by Stephen a holy Pope and notwithstanding that Stephens sentence was imbraced by all the Catholikes of the world and the doctrine of Firmilianus condemned by the holy Councell of Nice and euer since esteemed hereticall not only by Catholikes but also by Protestants you shame not to iustify Firmilianus (t) Ibid. and all the rest that followed the same heresy with him to condemne Pope Stephen as a Schismatike for excommunicating him Such examples I confesse you may find to defend Luthers departure from the Roman Church The rest of the causes which you alleage (u) Pag. 387. are false and imposterous as that the Roman Church mantaineth new articles of fayth and Satanicall doctrines that she blasphemeth the truth and tyrannically forceth men to subscribe which as they are false and slanderous accusations so you vtter them gratis and without any proofe at all and say nothing to iustify Luther but what a Donatist an Arian or any other heretike neuer so blasphemous will say for himselfe may with as good ground as Luther or you for him But you alleage (x) Pag. 389. Cassander whom you call our Cassander notwithstanding that heretofore you haue had a double admonition (y) See aboue Chap. 2. that he was a wicked heretike Prima classis whose workes being condemned and prohibited by the Church are of no more authority with vs then your Grand Imposture And not vnlike to this is your other example of Stephen Gardiner B. of Winchester as already hath bene shewed (z) Ibid. And as little to your purpose is another example which here you adde (a) Pag. 392. of an Epistle of Robert Grosthead B. of Lincolne taken out of the history of Mathew Paris which was set forth corruptedly by English Protestants and then by the Tigurine Lutherans who haue added many things both in their marginall notes and in the text in selfe against the authority of the Roman Church (b) See Bellar. l. de Scriptor Out of this Epistle of Grosthead to Innocentius the fourth you obiect a long
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