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
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
hereafter nor to write nor send to vs any writings concerning these things for you treat the Diuines which were lights of the Church otherwise then is fit you honor and extoll them in words but with your deeds reiect them seeking to wrest out of our hands their holy and diuine words with we might vse to confute you Wherfore for as much as concernes vs you haue freed vs from care and therfore going on in your owne wayes write no more to vs of your Doctrine but only for friendships sake if you please All these are the words of Iustus Caluinus related out of the Censure or Epistle of Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople by Chytraeus and Crusius two chiefe Protestants of Germany where Iustus Caluinus liued writ Chytraeus and Crusius being then liuing who might and would haue taxed him of falshood if he had misalleaged them Wherfore I cannot sufficiently admire your boldnesse who to proue that the Grecians accord in doctrine with Protestants and dissent from the Church of Rome dare aduenture to alleage this Censure of the Patriarke out of which it is so manifest not only by the Catholike editions but euen by that of Wittemberg and by the relations of Chyrtraeus and Crusius that the Greekes in very few points of those which are in Controuersy between Protestants and vs dissent from the Roman Church and that they condemne the contrary doctrines of Protestants as hereticall auoid them as heretikes for so you haue heard the Patriarke call them But yet as Iustus Caluinus (y) Pag. 1â— fin rightly obserueth the accordance of the Greekes with the Roman Church in so many chiefe Heads of doctrine is not sufficient to excuse them from schisme and heresy for if they were not guilty of other errors their obstinate denying the holy Ghost to proceed from the Sonne is alone sufficient to make theÌ„ absolute schismatikes and heretikes incapable of saluation as S. Athanasius hath expresly declared in his Creed You therfore haue told a most solemne vntruth in saying (z) Pag. 330. that the Greekes which dissent from the Roman Church haue not ruinated any fundamentall Article of sauing truth SECT III. A particular instance of Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople produced by Doctor Morton to proue that he dissented from the Roman Church examined FOr the corroboration of your former Arguments you produce (a) Pag. 387. Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople as an especiall patterne of disobedience to the Roman Church The case is this The people of Bulgaria hauing sent for preachers to Rome and being instructed by them in the fayth of Christ submitted themselues voluntarily to the Pope and in spirituall things were gouerned immediatly by him as part of his Roman Diocesse (b) Spond anno 869. n. 13. Neuerthelesse because the Grecians challenged the temporall state of that Prouince to belong to the Emperor of the East Ignatius supposing the spiritualty of it to belong in right to his Diocesse vsurped it to himselfe and consecrating a Bishop by his owne authority sent him thither with other Priests for which he was checked by Adrian Pope (c) Spond anno 871. n. 1. and afterwards excommunicated by Iohn the eight if within thirty dayes after notification of the sentence vnto him he did not desist from that vsurpation He died before the arriuall of the sentence at ConstaÌ„tinople (d) Spond anno 878. n. 1. 8. which if he had receaued before his death it is not to be doubted but that he would haue surceased from that claime which he made not out of any desire or intention of opposing the See Apostolike whose authority ouer the Church of Constantinople he acknowledged both in appealing to it against Photius who had intruded himselfe into his Church and also in his epistle to Nicolas Pope (e) Extat Ep. in Syn. 8. Act. 3. And finally that he alwaies liued died in communion of the RomaÌ„ Church appeareth by diuers letters of Iohn the eight written after his death (f) Spond anno 878 n. 8. His example therfore can be no help to your cause SECT IV. The Aegyptians Aethiopians Armenians Russians Melchites Africans and Asians which call themselues Christians and be not of the Roman Communion are absolute Heretikes THe Aegyptians and Aethiopians that are not of the Roman fayth and communion imbrace the Heresy of Eutyches which holdeth but one nature one will and operation in Christ and was for that cause anathematized and cast out of the Church by the holy Councell of Chalcedon twelue hundred yeares since And they which are not of the Roman communion still persist in the same error in so much that when of late yeares Goâ—saluus Rodericius of the Society of Iesus was sent into Aethiopia (g) Pran Sachin Hist Soc. Iesu l. 1. n. 49. to prepare the way for Ioannes Nunnez whom the See Apostolike had sent thither honored with the title and dignity of Patriarke Claudius then King of Aethiopia answeared that he had no need of a Patriarke from Rome hauing in his owne kingdome men that were able to gouerne the Patriarkship of Rome it selfe Moreouer that he would by no meanes approue the Councell of Chalcedon nor allow of Leo Pope and that Dioscorus had done well in excommunicating him Finally the obstinacy of the Aethiopians and Aegyptians in this particular error of Eutyches is the sole cause of their continuance in schisme and separation from the Roman Church for as Cardinall Peron (h) Repliq. Chap. 63. answered our late Soueraigne K. Iames they haue often offered and are all ready at this day to acknowledge the Pope whom they confesse to be the Successor of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles if they might be receaued into his communion without obliging themselues to anathematize Eutyches and Dioscorus The Armenians which are not of the Roman fayth communion are guilty of many heresies They acknowledge but one Nature in Christ with the Eutychians They deny his diuinity with the Arians They affirme the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father alone with the Grecians They rebaptize them that haue bene baptized in the Roman Church with the Donatists And finally they hold many other grosse and damnable heresies related by Prateolus (i) L. 1 tit 67. out of Guido Carmelita and Nicephorus Calixtus who therfore rightly tearmeth them A sinke of all heresies The Russians agree with the Grecians in deniing the holy Ghost to proceed from the Sonne So hath confessed your Minister Thomas Rogers (k) Art 3. propos 3. pag. 25. Moreouer they defend other hereticall Tenets to the number of 40. related by Ioannes Sacranius (l) Elucid error rit Rhuten and Prateolus (m) L. 6. tit 4. Wherunto I adde that Stanislaus Socolouius in the attendance of the King of Polonia whose Diuine he was visiting those Northerne countries and coming to Leopolis the Metropolitan city of Russia reporteth of it (n) Praefat. Censura Orient that although it hath
indiuiduall person v. g. Vrban the eight is true Pope and true Head of the Church Sect. 2. pag. 692. Whether the Church of Rome be at any time a body headlesse Sect. 3. pag. 693. Whether the Roman Church haue at any time a false Head Sect. 4. pag. 696. Whether the Roman Church at any time be diuided into many Heades Sect. 5. pag. 700. Whether the Roman Church be doubtfully headed Sect. 6. pag. 702. Of the Councell of Constance defining a Councell to be aboue the Pope Sect. 7. pag. 704. The same matter prosecuted out of the Councell of Basil Sect. 8. pag. 706. Doctor Mortons instances of France and England to proue the no-necessity of Vnion with the Church of Rome Sect. 9. pag. 709. CHAP. XXXXIV Whether Luther his followers had any iust cause to separate themselues from the Roman Church pag. 711. Whether any Protestants haue held that the Catholike Church before Luthers fall was wholly extinguished Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Catholike Church assembled in a generall Councell may erre in her definitions of fayth Sect. 2. p. 714. Whether Protestants hold the Church of Christ to be inuisible Sect. 3. pag. 720. What causes may suffice to depart from the communion of a particular Church Sect. 4. pag. 725. Of Luthers excommunication and his conference with the Diuell Sect. 5. pag. 731. Whether the Roman Church be as subiect to Errors as any other Church Sect. 6. pag. 735. Whether there be in the Scripture any Prophesy that the Church of Rome shall fall from the fayth Sect. 7. pag. 740. Whether Luther were iustly excommunicated Sect. 8. p. 741. Of the first occasion of Luthers reuolt from the Church And that Doctor Morton to defend his doctrine against Indulgences falsifieth sundry Authors Sect. 9. pag. 744. The causes giuen by Doctor Morton in excuse of Luthers departure from the Roman Church Sect. 10. pag. 749. Whether Protestants had any professors of their fayth before Luther Sect. 11. pag. 751. That all changes of fayth haue bene noted in the persons times and places of their beginnings Sect. 12. pag. 757. The lineall succession of Bishops in the See of Rome is a true and certaine marke of the Catholike Church Sect. 13. pag. 760. Of the conformity of Protestants and Donatists in their separation from the Catholike Church Sect. 14. pag. 763. That the fayth of the now Roman Church is acknowledged by Protestants to be sufficient for saluation Sect. 15. pag. 765. CHAP. I. GENERALL PRINCIPLES PREMISED for the better vnderstanding of the ensuing Apology SECT I. The importance of the Subiect THOVGH there be many questions in Religion controuerted betweene Protestants and vs yet none more important or more necessary to be knowne then that of the Church Protestants agree with vs so far as to belieue that there is shall be to the end of the world extant on earth One Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church which is the (a) 1. Tim. 3.15 Pillar and touchstone of truth which all men that will not be as Heathens and Publicanes must heare and (b) Math. 18.17 obey which is the second Eue framed out of the side of our second Adam Christ whome whosoeuer will not acknowledge to be his Mother cannot haue him to be his (c) S. Aug. de Symb. l. 4. c. 10. Father She is the mysticall body of our (d) Ephes 5.23 Lord out of which sayth S. Augustine (e) Ep. 50. ad 〈◊〉 the holy Ghost imparteth life to no man She is the Vineyard (f) Math. 20.1 seqq in which he that laboureth not shall not receiue the wages of euerlasting life She the Arke of Noe (g) S. Hiero. ep 57 S. Gaudent tract 2. de lect Euang in which whosoeuer is not or out of which whosoeuer departeth shall perish She is the wellspring of truth (h) Lactant. 4 diuin iustit â— vlt. Orig. hom 15. in Math. Theod in c. 2.2 ad Thessal the House of fayth the Temple of God in which mens prayers are heard and their sacrifices accepted all other congregations being Synagogues of Sathan denns of Diuels She is the garden of God (i) Cant. 4.12.13.15 in which whosoeuer groweth not is not a flower planted by the hand of Christ but a weed to be plucked vp and cast into hell fire Finally she is the kingdome of Christ (k) 2. Reg 7.12 1 Paralip 17.11 Psal 44.7 Luc. 1.33 Colosâ— 1.13 in which whosoeuer is not is none of Christs people Whosoeuer sayth (l) Eb. 152. ad popul fact Donas cont ep Parmen l. 2. c. 3. S Augustine is diuided from the Catholike Church although he thinke himselfe to liuâ— neuer so laudably for this only crime that he is diuided from the vnity of Christ the wrath of God abideth on him And speaking of Emeritus an hereticall (m) Serm. super gestis cum Emerito post med Bishop He cannot haue saluation but in the Catholike Church Out of the Church he may haue all things but saluation he may haue honour he may haue Sacraments he may sing Alleluia he may answere Amen he may haue the Ghospell he may haue and preach beliefe in the name of the Father and the Sonne the holy Ghost but saluation he can find no where but in the Catholike Church Wherefore since the saluation of our soules cannot be had out of the Catholike Church it is most necessary for euery man to inquire and learne which and where is that Temple of God that kingdome of Christ that store-house of truth and that second Eue our spirituall Mother that knowing her resorting to her he may be cherished in her lap and nourished at her brests with the milke of her holsome Doctrine The beliefe of all Catholikes is that these foresaid aâ—tributs agree to the Roman Church and to no other congregation in the world and that therfore she alone is the Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church in which whosoeuer is may in which whosoeuer is not cannot be saued Vpon this our Doctrine you passe a censure suitable to your modesty Videlicet that it is False Imposterous Scandalous Schismaticall Hereticall Blasphemous euery way Damnable (n) Pag. 5.182.419 Presumgtuous (o) Pag. 336. Impious (p) Pag 95. Execrable (q) Pag 127. Damnably hereticall (r) Pag 91. Pernicious Antichristian (s) Pag 99. Sacrilegious (t) Pag. 336. Sathanicall Idolaâ—rous (u) Pag. 387. This is your censure and to make it good you write a large volume which you intitle The Grand Imposture of the now Roman Church but mistake your selfe in the name for the booke is ought to haue been intituled The Grand imposture of Doctor Thomas Morton against the Roman Church of this and all former ages for vpon due examination such he will find it to be that shall please to passe his Eye ouer the ensuing Apology and I doubt not but after the perusall thereof he will rest conuinced that
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
These Syr are not Eusebius his words but yours He sayth that they did earnestly exhort Victor to peace to a diligent care of charity towards his neighbours and bitterly reproued him as prouiding vnprofitably for the good of the Church So indeed Eusebius sayth according to the translation of Ruffinus And both of them being Heretikes shew their malice against the See Apostolike in saying that other Bishops did bitterly reproue Victor for comming to giue an example of this bitternesse they bring for their paterne the wordes of S. Irenaeus in all which there is not one bitter word but a gentle remonstrance full of submission to the person of Victor and to the authority of his See for he sayth not that Victor could not but that he should not haue cut off from the body of the Church so many prouinces for so small a cause which is not to argue him of want of power but for vsing his power indiscreetly Irenaeus sayth Eusebius (r) L. 5. hist c. 24. did fitly exhort Pope Victor that he would not vtterly cut off so many Churches from the body of the vniuersall Church of Christ. And wheras you (s) Pag. 132. traduce Christopherson our learned Bishop of Chichester for this translation of Eusebius it is a cauill sprung out of your ignorance for the Greeke verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Eusebius vseth fignifieth to cut off from the whole masse or body and so it is proued out of Ruffinus who translateth thus Irenaus reproued Victor for not doing well in cutting off from the vnity of the body so many and so great Churches And so likewise translateth your learned Protestant-brother Ioannes Iacobus Grynaeus in his Basilean edition of Eusebius And in the same manner translateth Nicephorus (t) L. 4. c. 38. all of them as well skilled in Greeke as your selfe to say no more And indeed how could Irenaeus reproue Victor for exceeding the limits of his power he that crieth out (u) L. 3. c. 3. To the Roman Church all Churches and all the faythfull from all places must necessarily haue recourse by reason of her more powerfull principality Wherfore it was not want of Power that Irenaeus reproued in Victor but indiscreet vsing of his power But that euen in this he was instaken and that Victor failed not euen in point of prudence nor vsed ouer-much rigor appeareth in this that hereby he repressed the Heresy of Blastus by which many were seduced as also because the famous Councell of Nice first many others afterwards confirmed his sentence and condemned the doctrine and practise of Blastus the Asians in this point in so much that all which since that tyme haue persisted in the contrary custome haue bene accounted Heretikes and vnder the name of Quartadecimani registred for such by the Fathers that haue made catalogues of heretikes That the Nicen Councell had iust cause to condemne this Quartadeciman error you dare not deny but you deny the same of Pope Victor yeld a disparity in these words (x) Pag. 132. Be it knowne vnto you that the decree of the Nicen Councell which ordayned that Easter should be kept vpon the Lords day maketh nothing for the Act of Victor his excommunicating the Asian Bishops because as that Councell was celebrated 200. yeares after so had it far more iust and necessary cause to make such a decree by reason of the heresy of Blastus who at that tyme defended an indispensable necessity of obseruing the Iewish ceremonial law The cause then for which you approue the decree of the Nicen CouÌ„cell and condemne that of Victor in the same cause is by reason of the heresy of Blastus who say you at that tyme of the Nicen Councell defended an indispensable necessity of obseruing the Iewish ceremoniall law which wordes present vnto vs an excellent testimony of your ignorance in ecclesiasticall history for Blastus liued not at the tyme of the Nicen Councell as you affirme but 130. yeares before in the very tyme of Victor Pope and of S. Irenaeus who writ against him as S. Hierome testifieth (y) L. de Scriptor And so likewise did Tertullian at the same tyme saying (z) De praescrip c. 53. Blastus seeketh couertly to bring in Iudaisine for he teacheth that Easter is not to be kept otherwise then according to the law of Moyses And with them agreeth Eusebius reporting (a) L. 5. bist c. 14. that Blastus begun to preach and diuulge his heresy in the tyme of Victor Pope Wherfore you saying that Blastus liued not in the time of Victor but of the Nicen Councell which was more then 100. yeares after present vs ignorantly with falshood insteed of truth in lieu of impugning the fact of Victor against your will confirme the same And by the way I will not omit to aduertise the reader of three things The first is that wheras you say (b) Pag. 132. The Nicen Councell was 200. yeares after Pope Victor excommunicated the Asians you cannot be excused from another ignorant mistake for it was not much aboue 120. yeares after that tyme the sentence of Victor being in the yeare 198. and the Councell of Nice the yeare 325. The second is that the sentence of Victor being ratified and confirmed and contrarily the Iewish custome of the Asians anathematized by the three first generall Councels of Nice Constantinople (c) Ca. 7. and Ephesus (d) P. â— act 6 as also by the second of Antioch (e) Ca. 1. the first of Arles (f) Ca. 1. and that Laodicea (g) Ca. 7. and they that obeyed not the sentence of Victor registred for heretikes by Philastrius (h) In catal Haer. S. Epiphanius (i) Haer. 50. S. Augustine (k) L. de Haeres haer 29. Theodoret (l) Haeret. fab l. 3. cap. 5. S. Damascen (m) Haeres 50. and Nicephorus (n) L. 4. c. 36.37.38 you neuerthelesse blush not to approue that hereticall custome and to say (o) Pag. 157. that the Britans and Scots in obseruing it some hundreds of yeares after it was thus condemned did much more orthodoxally then the Roman Church which sheweth that any custome so it be contrary to the practise of the Roman Church is to you Orthodoxall though in it selfe it be damnable and anathematized as hereticall by neuer so many Councells and Fathers as this Asian custome obserued by the Brittans and Scots was 3. And from the same spirit proceedeth your saying (p) Pag. 131. that Pope Victor was the Schismatâ—ke that troubled the peace of the Church and not the Asian Bishops since they for their obstinacy in defending the Iewish custome haue bene by all orthodox Fathers and Councels condemned as heretikes and contrarily Pope Victor euen as M. Whit gift your brother acknowledgeth (q) In his Defence pag. 5â—0 was a godly Bishop and Martyr and the Church at that tyme in great purity as not being long after the
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
that presume to bring in nouelties wherby the Churches are fallen into heresy Wherfore O beloued brethren you as Phisitians cure our soules c. So S. Basil freeing the Westerne Churches especially the Roman to which he chiefly writ both from pride and error Wherfore when you obiect (m) Pag. 197. that S. Basil expressing his griefe said The Westerne Bishops neither knew the truth themselues nor would learne it he taxeth them not of error or ignorance in the true fayth as you falsly interpret but that being ignorant of the Asian affaires they were not carefull to vnderstand them from him and other Catholike Bishops that might rightly informe them but gaue to much credit to the lying reportes of heretikes who slandered him falsly as you haue heard SECT V. Whether S. Hilary excommunicated the Pope TO persuade that S. Hilary B. of Poictou so you write him he being not Bishop of Poictou which is a Prouince of France but of Poictiers the chiefe Citty of that prouince held it not necessary to be in the communion of the B. of Rome you say (n) Pag. 199. S. Hilary no sooner vnderstood that Pope Liberius as your Cardinall hath confessed had subscribed to haue communion with the Arian heretikes but he made bold to excommunicate the Pope out of his communion and fellowship saying I anathematize thee O Liberius and thy fellowes And you adde that Hilary had iust cause to do this (o) Pag. 199. sin 200. because it was alwaies lawfull for any Catholike Bishop to excommunicate any hereticall Bishop that is to abandon his fellowship and communion Here you shew great ignorance in the ordinary principles of Diuinity for to excommunicate a Bishop or any other person is not only to abandon his fellowship and communion els euery man yea euery woman may excommunicate her Bishop or any other person whatsoeuer for she may abandon his fellowship and communion denouncing Anathema vnto him There are two kindes of Anathema the one iudiciary that is to say an Ecclesiasticall Censure pronounced by an Ecclesiasticall Superior against them ouer whom he hath lawfull power and iurisdiction wherby he abandoneth their fellowship and communion and commandeth all others to do the like and withall depriueth them of the benefite of the Sacraments and seruice of the Church This Anathema is an Excommunication And this is so certaine that howbeit euery Protestant Minister may at his pleasure abandon the fellowship and communion of any other man and in that sense denounce Anathema vnto him yet neuer any was so absurdly ignorant as to thinke he could excommunicate any one ouer whom he had not Ecclesiasticall power and iurisdiction And who knoweth not that when you excommunicate Catholikes or others you do not only deny them your owne fellowship and communion but by vertue therof forbid all others to haue commerce and communication with them In this sense the Councell of Nice pronounced Anathema against the Arians in these words (p) Socrat. l. â— hist. c. 5. They that say there was a time when the Sonne was not the Catholike Church anathematizeth them that is depriueth them of the vse of the Sacraments and commandeth all men to renounce their fellowship and communion In this sense S. Hilary neither did nor was so ignorant as to thinke he could denounce Anathema to Liberius being not his Superior and therfore neither did nor could excommunicate him Another kind of Anathema there is which is not iudiciary but only executory wherby euery particular person ecclesiastick or laick man or woman protesteth and declareth to hold for Anathema such as are excommunicated by the Church In this sense S. Hilary pronounced Anathema to Liberius for hauing subscribed to the banishment of Athanasius and therby entred into Communion with the Arians The iudiciary Anathema that is the sentence of excommunication had bene pronounced before by the Councells of Nice and Sardica against the Arians in generall into whose communion Liberius was entred There was no need of pronouncing a new sentence of Anathema against him but of applying the sentence of the Councells vnto him by abiuring and abhorring him as one fallen into the sentence which the Councels had pronounced against the Arians And therfore S. Hilary addes to his Anathema these words For my part saying For my part Anathema to thee O Liberius to shew that he spake not with a iudiciary but with an abiuratory Anathema In this sense Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople (q) Ep. â—ad Hormisd anathematized Timothy the parricide surnamed Aelurus whom Felix Pope excommunicated And In the same sense Iustine the Emperor (r) Euagr. l. 5. c. 4. denounced Anathema to all heretikes condemned by the Church who yet being a secular Prince had not power to excommunicate any I conclude therfore that you confound these two Anathema's and because S. Hilary pronounced an abiuratory Anathema against Liberius inferre ignorantly that he excommunicated him But if for arguments sake I should grant that the Anathema pronounced by S. Hilary was indiciary and that he excommunicated Liberius it would make nothing for you against the Pope for when Hilary pronounced this Anathema Liberius was not Pope but fallen from his Papacy and Felix substituted Pope in his place This I haue said not questioning but supposing Liberius his subscription to the condemnation of Athanasius which yet some haue denied (s) See Bellar. l. 4. de Pontif c 9. But be it true it followeth not that he was therfore a formall heretike in his iudgement belieuing the blasphemous doctrine of the Arians but only interpretatiuè for so much as signing with them the condemnation of Athanasius and out wardly communicating with them he gaue to some that iudged of him by his outward actions occasion to thinke he belieued their doctrine And in this sense only it is in which some Catholike writers condemne him of heresy and in no other For the very Arians themselues neuer pretended that Athanasius agreed in fayth with them but condemned him only for other crimes which they had maliciously composed against him wherin though Liberius for a tyme yeilded outwardly to them yet he was euer most constant in the Catholike fayth as you may see testified by antiquity (t) Apud Iodoc Cocci to 1. l. 7. art 11. Lastly I must aduertise you that wheras you often repeate as an article of our fayth that out of the Roman Church there is no saluarion here (u) Pag. 199. and afterwards (x) Pag. 345. againe you say part of that our article is to belieue that in matters of fayth the iudgment of the Pope is infallible This you proue by imposing on Bellarmine your owne fictions His opinion is that the Popes iudgment in matters of fayth is infallible and that the contrary is erroneous and neere to heresy but he is so farre from affirming this his opinion to be anarticle of fayth or the contrary to be hereticall that he directly sayth (y) L. 4.
Communion (s) Ruffin l. 2. c. o. Socrat. l. 4. c. 〈◊〉 Sozo l. o. c. 38. who though banished by the Arians had not therby lost their iurisdiction and therfore might ordaine Moyses without entrenching on the liberties of other Bishops or passing the limits of their owne And what they did was confirmed by Damasus Pope who saith Socrates (t) L 4. c. 30. by his letters approued the fayth of Moyses and confirmed the creation of Peter that is to say of that renowned Patriarke successor to S. Athanasius who being expelled by Lucius appealed to Damasus Pope and by him was restored to his Church of Alexandria Wherfore this example sheweth the Roman Church to be the Head of Catholike communion and that if Moyses had bene brought to to you to be consecrated Bishop he would haue shunned you as he shunned Lucius Your fift example (u) Pag. 300. is of Athanasius B. of Alexandria deposing Bishops without AEgypt This you report out of Socrates (x) L. 3. c. 20. who hath no such words nor treateth of any such subiect Your last example (y) Pag. 300. is of Cyrill of Hierusalem who was cast out of his Bishoprick by Acacius B. of Casarea This maketh against your selfe for the B. of Hierusalem was Suffragan to the B. of CÄ™sarea who therfore might depose him without exceeding the limits of his iurisdiction It is true that the Metropolitan cannot without iust cause depose his Suffragan and therfore because Acacius being an Arian deposed Cyril merely out of hatred to the Catholike faith and for certaine crimes which himselfe had feigned against him the deposition was iniust and iudged to be such by the Councell of Seleucia (z) Theod. l. 2. c. 27. Sozo l. 4. c. 24. So crat l. 2. c. 35. Niceph. l. 9. c. 19. where Acacius durst not appeare to haue the cause of Cyrill examined and therfore both he and his complices for the wrong done to Cyrill and for other their hereticall machinations were themselues deposed and Cyrill restored to his seat at Hierusalem These are your sixe examples which vpon examination proue all against your selfe and therfore your horned argument framed out of them doth nothing els but goare your owne bowels CHAP. XXXIX Of Appeales to Rome decreed in the Councell of Sardica SECT I. Whether the Councell of Sardica were a generall Councel IN the Councell of Sardica it was decreed * Cap. 3.4.5 1. That if in the cause of a Bishop who thinkes himselfe to be wronged a new iudgment be required the B. of Rome is to giue the Iudges 2. That if a Bishop deposed by the next Bishops say his cause ought to be iudged againe none is to be placed in his See vntill the B. of Rome haue pronounced vpon it 3. That a Bishop accused may haue recourse to Rome by way of Appeale Against the authority of the Councell of Sardica you obiect (a) Pag. 301. 1. That Bellarmine produceth in this place this Councell as a sound argument which elswhere heranketh among those Councels that are to be partly allowed and partly reiected as if coyne partly mixed and counterfeit ought to be taken for good payment This argument is an imposture for to the Councell of Sardica came 376. Bishops of which 300. were Catholikes the other 76. Arians (b) Socrat. l. 2. c. 16. These 76. refused to enter into the Councell at Sardica vnlesse Athanasius and Paul were expelled which condition the Catholike Bishops admitted not but answeared (c) Sozom. l. 31. c. 10. They neuer had nor would now abstaine from the communion of Paul and Athanasius especially because Iulius B. of Rome hauing examined their cause had not condemned them Hereupon those 76. Arian Bishops separating themselues from the body of the Councell held an Antisynod of their owne at Philippopolis a City not far from Sardica which is reproued as being a Conuenticle of Arians Of this Bellarmine speaketh when he sayth The Councell of Sardica is partly reproued But the decrees for appealing to Rome were not made in this mock-Councell yea this reproued Athanafius for appealing and Iulius Pope for admitting his appeale but by the true Councell held at Sardica which hath euer bene approued by the Church in no part reproued This Councell of 300. Bishops it is which Bellarmine alleageth in proofe of Appeales How then can you be excused in saying that he produceth this Councell in this place as a sound Argument which elswhere he ranketh among those Councells that are to be partly allowed and partly reiected for he neuer sayth that this Councell of 300. Bishops is in any part to be reiected 2. You obiect (e) Pag. 302. that this Councell is not a generall Councell for say you though in respect of the calling of it by Constantius we may not vnworthily say that it was generall yet if we obserue that it was afterwards distracted and diuided into two places we may rather esteeme it particular This vrgeth not for the distraction consisting in so small a number of Bishops and they Arians their absence could not take from the true Councell of Sardica which represented all the Catholike Bishops in the world the name of a generall Councell which had bene imposed on it at the first calling no more then the Anti-Synod held at Ephesus in fauour of Nestorius by the Bishops of the Patriarkship of Antioch hindred the true Councell of Ephesus from being perfectly and absolutely generall And in conformity to this you els where suppose and confesse (f) Pag. 144. sin 145. the Sardican Councell to be a generall Councell according to the testimonies of S. Athanafius Socrates Seuerus Sulpitius Iustinian Baronius Binius To which number you might haue added Vigilius that ancieÌ„t B. of Trent (g) Cout Eucych l. 5. Theodoret (h) L. 2. c. 8. Hincmarus (i) Opuse â—â— c. 20. Nor did Constantius alone call this Councell but also his brother Constans and that not by their authority but by the authority of Iulius Pope who as it is plaine out of Socrates (k) L. 2. c. 16. called the Bishops and appointed a day for them to meote at Sardica to begin the Councell SECT II. Other obiections of Doctor Morton against Appeales to Rome answeared YOu third obiection (l) Pag 302. that the right which the Pope can claime for Appeales dependeth altogeather vpon humane constitutions hath bene already answeared (m) Aboue Chap. 27. sect 4. 4. You except (n) Pag. 304. against some of the examples which Bellarmine produceth of Appeales made to the Pope as being of such as were within his owne Patriarkship and therefore rather subiect to him then to others from whence to inferre that appeales out of other Patriarkships may be made vnto him is say you (o) Ibid. as if a Proctor should say My Client had tith in his owne parish therfore do the next Parishes adioyning owe their tithes vnto him But
thing vncertaine Many thinke it to be of Damasus and his you will haue it to be But the contrary is manifest for the epistle speaketh of Bonosus an Arch-heretike who had bene condemned by Iudges appointed in thē Councell of Capua which was not held in time of Damasus but of Siricius successor to Damasus It is therefore euident that the request of Bouosus which you obiect out of this epistle to haue his cause heard againe could not be to Damasus his first condemnation being not vntill after Damasus his death When you can shew this epistle to be of Damasus you shall receaue an answeare which it were easy to giue you now if I listed to spend time in refuting your tedious discourse of racking the verbe Competit to a strict sense and which not one but many wayes is deficient as all your arguments for the most part are Your addition (e) Pag. 318. marg l. that if the epistle be not of Damasus it is certainly of some Pope and that all hold it so is affirmed by you gratis and as easely denied by me CHAP. XL. Whether the Easterne Churches be at this day accordant in Communion with Protestants SECT I. The state of the Question THE nine first Sections of your fourtenth Chapter you spend in prouing that the Grecians Aegyptians Aethiopians Assyrians Armenians Russians Melchites and other remote nations at this day dissent from the Roman Church and are accordant in Communion with Protestants The foundation of your whole discourse you lay in these words (f) Pag. 330. Whatsoeuer Christians haue not ruinated any fundamental article of sauing fayth set downe in our ancient Creeds and are vnited vnto the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus our Lord by a liuing fayth all Protestants esteeme them as true members of the Catholike Church and notwithstanding diuers their more tolerable errors and superstitions to be in state of saluation albeit no way subiect or subordinate to the Roman Church These are your words which containe in themselues open implication namely that one may be vnited to the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus by a liuing fayth and be in state of saluation and yet be out of the Catholike Church which to be none els but the Roman and that out of her there is no saluation hath bene already proued (g) Chap. 1. sect 2.3.4 From this false principle you deduce that the Grecians Asians Aegyptians Assyrians Aethiopians Africans Melchites Russians and Armenians notwithstanding their separation from the Roman Church are at this day truly professed Christian Churches (h) Pag. 379. partes of the Catholike Church (i) Pag. 406. fin 407. init faythfull Christians professing the fayth of the ancient Fathers (k) Pag. 417. in state of saluation and raile bitterly at the Church of Rome for denying the same But how great ignorance and impiety you shew and how many most shamefull vntruthes you vtter in the prosecution of this Argument it is easy to declare Some of them I shall present to the Readers view And to proceed methodically I will reduce what I am to say to two heades 1. I will proue that as the Christians of these remote nations anciently were so many of them at this day are accordant in beliefe and communion with the Roman Church yeild obedience to the Pope as to the Vicar of Christ on earth and as to the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church 2. That the inhabitants of these nations which are not Roman Catholikes are not of one beliefe or Communion with Protestants but wholly dissent from them holding most blasphemous and damnable heresies acknowledged for such by Protestants themselues From whence it will follow that you affirming them to be faythfull Christians of the same beliefe with the ancient Fathers charge the ancient Fathers with blasphemous heresies and make them incapable of saluation SECT II. Whether the Grecians of the primitiue and successiue times agreed in fayth and Communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome and particularly at the Councell of Florence THat the Greekes in the first Councell of Constantinople and afterwards in that of Calcedon endeauored to giue to their Patriarke of Constantinople the second place of dignity in the Church next after the Pope and before the other Patriarkes we acknowledge But that they sought therby to exempt themselues from their obedience and subiection to the Pope hath bene effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 5. Chap. 19. sect 4. I speake not this to deny that anciently there were of the Grecians many Heretikes which opposed the Roman Church and by her authority were condemned and that eight Patriarkes of Constantinople in particular as also Eutyches an Arch-heretike of the same City were anathematized and east out of the Church for heresy And wheras the Westerne Church by the example and diligence of the Bishops of Rome was preserued from heresy the Churches of the East new heresies daily springing vp were so pitifully torne and ten in peeces that S. Hierome complaining therof to Pope Damasus said (m) Ep. 57. Because the East striking against it selfe by the ancient fury of the people teares in litle morsells the vndeuided coate of our Lord wouen on high and that the foxes destroy the vine of Christ in such sorte that it is difficult among the drie pits that haue no water to discerne where the sealed fountaine and the inclosed garden is I haue therfore thought that I ought to consult with the Chaire of Peter and the fayth praised by the mouth of the Apostle This was the miserable state of the Easterne Churches in those dayes being gouerned somtimes by Catholike Bishops that acknowledged subiection to the Church of Rome and somtimes by Heretikes that opposed her authority vntill at length Photius hauing iniustly driuen Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople from his See and intruded himselfe into his place and being for that cause often excommunicated by Nicolas the first and Iohn the eight Popes of Rome to mantaine his iniust title withdrew himselfe from their obedience and to the end he might haue some colour to perseuer in that separation cauilled at the doctrine of the Roman Church which teacheth that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Sonne and writ against it And the Greekes following him in this error separated themselues from the Communion of the Roman man Church Yet not so but that they haue often eleauen times sayth S. Antoninus (n) Hist. par 2. tit 22. c. 23. acknowledged their error and reconciled themselues to her and especially thrice in most solemne manner in three seuerall Councells of Barium in Apulia of Lions in France and of Florence in Tuscany but still returning to their error against the holy Ghost and disobedience to the Church of Rome as dogs to their vomit Almighty God punished them with a heauy hand deliuering them vp to a miserable captiuity seruitude vnder the Turke And that they might know the