betake your selfe as to your last refuge when you are pressed with vnanswearable arguments is a mere shift inuented to delude ignorant readers with empty words voyd of truth And by this canon it is in like manner euident that the primacy was not then first giuen to the Church of Rome but preserued vnto it according to the canons Your second Argument (z) Pag. 107. to proue that the later Roman Councells are bastardly and illegitimate and that we haue little regard to the Councell of Nice is taken out of Theodoret writing that Constantine the Great required in that Synod that because the bookes of the Apostles do plainly instruct vs in diuine matters therfore we ought to make our determinations vpon questions from words which are diuinely inspired And then you tell vs that Bellarmine answeareth thus Coâ—stantine was a great Emperor indeed but no great Doctor of the Church who was yet vnbaptized and therfore vnderstood not the mysteries of religion Thus say you doth this your Cardinall twite and taunt the iudgment of that godly Emperor and as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth from his reader that which followeth in Theodoret namely that the greater part of that Councell of Nice obeyed the voyce of Constantine So you as you are wonâ— for first you falsify Bellarmine who sayth not that Constantine was yet vnbaptized but that that is the opinion of you Protestants and the old Arians from whence he argueth ad hominem against you that this testimony of Constantine is not of so great weight as Caluin and Kemnitius make it for if he were vnbaptized he could then be no great Doctor of the Church as being a Neophyte and therfore not so well skilled in the mysteries of Christian Religion What twiting or taunting of that godly Emperor your find in this answere of Bellarmine I know not but I know that you in holding Constantine to be then vnbaptized both seeke to disgrace that godly Emperor and withall to vphold the authority and credit of the Arian heretikes who to make him a Patron of their heresy gaue out that he was not baptized vntill a litle before his death and that then he receaued his baptisme from Eusebius B. of Nicomedia the chiefe ringleader of the Arian faction But that your dealing may the better appeare it is to be noted that Bellarmine is so farre from twiting or taunting that godly Emperor that he admitteth of his testimony Admitting sayth he (a) L. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. §. Admissâ— the authority of Constantine I say that in all those doctrines which concerne the nature of God there are extant testimomes in Scripture out of which if they be rightly vnderstood we may be fully and plainly instructed but the true sense of the Scriptures dependeth on the vnwritten tradition of the Church Wherfore the same Theodoret that reporteth this speach of Constantine declareth in the next Chapter that in the Councell of Nice Scriptures were produced on both sydes but the Arians were not conuinced with them because they expounded them otherwise then the Catholikes and therfore were condemned by the vnwritten tradition of the Church piously vnderstood to which condemnation no man euer doubted but that Constantine assented So Bellarmine And hereby it appeares that when you say Bellarmine citeth Theodoret yet as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth that which followeth in him namely that the greater part of the Councell obeyed the voyce of Constantine you wrong Bellarmine and a buse Theodoret who in those words relateth not to the determining of controuersies by Scriptures but to Constantines exhortation made to the Bishops of peace and concord among themselues which sayth Theodoret the greatest part of the Councell obeyed imbracing mutuall concord and true doctrine though diuers Arians disagreed some of whose names he there expresseth This you iniustly conceale like the ill Steward in the Ghospell that you may pick a quarrell with Bellarmine In confirmation of this I might adde that as S. Augustine (b) L. 5. de Baptism c. 23. and Vincentius Lyrinensis (c) Cont. haer c. 9. 10. haue testified the heresy of Rebaptization could not be disproued by Scripture but was condemned by Tradition And finally I might aske you why you like the bad Steward conceale what Theodoret writeth in that very place namely that what Constantine said he spake not to the Bishops as their Head but as a sonne that loued peace offered vp his words to the Priests as to his Fathers and that he would not enter into the Councell but after them all nor sit downe but with their leaue and in a low chayre Did he trow you belieue himselfe to be Head of the Church CHAP. XVII The second Generall Councell held at Constantinople belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome SECT I. By what authority this Councell was called BELLARMINE in proofe of the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction alleageth that the Fathers of the first generall Councell of Constantinople which was the second generall of the whole Church in their Epistle to Pope Damasus say They were gathered by his Mandate and confesse that the Church of Rome is the Head and they the members This say you (d) Pag. 109. is all that is obiected but vpon a mistake What then is the mistake Because Bellarmine in the Recognition of his workes afterwards obserued that it was not the Epistle of the second generall Synod but of the Bishops which had bene present at the Synod and met againe the next yeare after at Constantinople But if this Epistle were not of the Synod why do you speaking of it not without contradiction say (e) Pag. 10â— The generall Councell of Constantinople do endite an Epistle (f) Pag. 110. margin and inscribe it thus And why do you mentioning the inscription of the same Epistle call it Synodicae Epistolae inscriptio The inscription of the Synodicall Epistle And why doth Theodoret (h) L. 5. hist. c. 9. stile it Libellus Synodicus à Concilio Constantinopolitano missus A Synodicall writ sent by the Councell of Constantinople c But howsoeuer you alleaging that Bellarmine acknowledgeth his owne mistake is a mere cauill nothing auailing your cause for be it that those Bishops writ not their Epistle whiles they were assembled in Councell but when they met the next yeare after at Constantinople yet you must acknowledge the truth of what Bellarmine alleageth out of their Epistle vnlesse you will make them all lyers But let vs goe on Bellarmine sayth (i) Recogn pag. 46. in hoc Concil it is sufficiently proued out of the sixth generall Councell that this of Constantinople was called by the commaund of Pope Damasus you answeare (k) Pag. 109. that in proofe therof he referreth himselfe to another Councell against the vniuersall current of histories which with generall consent set downe the Mandates of Emperors as the supreme and first compulsary causes for
the 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
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
from your ignorance for as the Syrians to expresse Mayster or Lord vse the word Rabbi which hath a plurall signification because a person of quality containes in himselfe the authority of many so when we write to an Honorable person it is vsuall to speake vnto him in the plurall number to signify that he hath in himselfe the dignity and authority of many So writ Eusebius B. of Milan to Pope Leo alone (c) Extat inter Ep. Leo. post ep 52. God hath placed yee Prelates of the Apostolike See worthy Protectors of his worship So writ Theodoret to the same Pope alone (d) Ep. ad Leon. Vos enim per â—mnia conuenit esse primos So writ the Bishops of Syria to Iustinian the Emperor (e) Conc. Constant sub Mena. Act. 1. Our Lord preserue yee deuout and zealous guardians of the fayth So writ the Councell of Mopsuestia to Vigilius Pope (f) In Conc. 5. Act. 5. It is conuenient O most Holies that since you hold the chiefe dignity of Priesthood c. And so did Chrysostome write in the plurall number to Innocentius Pope alone as it is manifest both out of the inscription of his Epistle which is singular and directed to Innocentius alone as also out of Paladius (g) In vita Chrysost who cites it as addressed to him alone 2. You say (h) Pag. 307. Chrysostome made his requests to the Pope not to cite the parties complained against but only to write vnto them and this not by any peremptory charge but only by reproofe of their vmust dealing and of admonition c. Heere I accuse you of somthing more then ignorance for the words of Chrysostome to Innocentius are (i) Ep. 1. ad Innocent Vouchsafe to write and ordaine by your authority that these things so wickedly done I being absent and not refusing iudgment may be inualid as of their owne nature they are and that they who haue proceeded so iniustly may be submitted to the punishment of the Ecclesiasticall Lawes And command that I who am innocent and not conuicted of any crime be restored to my Church And againe (k) Ep. â— ad Innocent One thing I beseech your vigilant Soule that albeit they which haue filled all with tumulies be sick of an impenitent and incurable disease if yet they will remedy those things that then they may not be punished nor excommunicated What more expresse forme of appeale or what more euident acknowledgment of the Popes authority iudiciall power then this Doth not Chrysostome beseech Innocentius to disannull by his letters authority the Acts of the Councell which had deposed him To abrogate their sentence pronounced against him to replace him in his Bishoprick and to punish his aduersaries according to the Lawes of the Church but yet to spare them if they would repent Is not this to acknowledge in him the power of an absolute Iudge And is not this extant to be read in Chrysostomes Epistles and in his life written by Palladius You to keep this from your readers set not downe any of Chrysostoms words in the text of your discourse And though in your margent you set downe some of them in Latin in a small letter yet euen that you do not without imposture for you mangle them leauing out those in which he besecheth the Pope to vse his authority in punishing his aduersaries according to the Ecclesiasticall Canons and in restoring him to his Church Againe you are guilty of vntruth in saying (l) Pag. 307. that Chrysostome made not any requests to the Pope to cite the parties complained against For doth he not say (m) Ep. ad Innoc apud Pallad in vita ipsius But yet if the authors of wickednesse will declare for what crimes they haue iniustly deposed me let their euidences be giuen in Let processes be produced let my accusers come let a true and incorrupt iudgment sit I refuse it not I decline it not yea I earnestly desire it let vs be iudged Iâ— his to request the Pope to write to his aduersaries not by any peremptory charge but only by way of reproofe and admonition for their vniust dealing Doth he not beseech him that his aduerlaries may appeare and bring in their euidences against him and that his cause may be tried a new by him as by a iust and in corrupt Iudge But you say (n) Pag. 30â— When all the Pope cold do is performed what the last refuge was he did signify in his letters to the Orientalls saying The only remedy of curing these euills is the calling of a Councell and vntill then the matter is to be committed to the will and pleasure of God Here you are accusable of an iniust reticence of what Innocentius did and how he shewed himselfe alone and without a Councell to be an absolute Iudge for doth not Palladius say (o) In vit Chrys Innocentius decreed that the iudgment of Theophilus should be abrogated and annulled Doth not Sozomen in that very place which you alleage (p) L. 8. c 26. testify that Innocentius condemned those things which were done against Iohn And by this single sentence of Innocentius alone without any Synod Iohn was absolued as Gelasius an Author of the same age reporteth saying (q) Ep. ad Episcop Dardan A Synod of Catholike Bishops hauing condemned Iohn of Constantinople of holy memory the See Apostolike alone because it consented not therunto absolued him Nor did he shew the authority of a Iudge only in absoluing Iohn and condemning his aduersaries but especially in that hearing of his death he excommunicated the Emperor Arcadius the Empresse Eudoxia his wife who had bene the chiefe causes of his condemnation and banishment for as Nicephorus (r) L. 13. c. 33. and Georgius Patriarke of Alexandria (s) In vita Chrys an Author of 1000. yeares antiquity cited by S. Damascens and Photius (u) In Georg. Alex. and followed by Cedrenus (x) In Arcad. Glycas (y) In Annal. in Arcad. other Greeke Authors testify (t) L. 1. de Imaginibus Innocentius hauing seuerely reprehended them both for the enormity of their offence pronounced Excommunication against them in these words And therfore I the meanest and a sinner as Depositary of the Throne of the great Apostle Peter cut off thee her from the participation of the immaculate Mysteries of Christ our God and ordaine that whatsoeuer Bishop or Clerke of the holy Church of God which shall presume to administer them to you after he hath read this my Censure shal be deposed All this is to be read in the history of Chrysostome to which you say Baronius and Bellarmine referre you Had it not then bene honesty to take notice of these particulars but that was not for your purpose This also conuinceth you to speake vntruly when you say (z) Pag. 308. The Pope confesseth insufficiency in himselfe and that the only remedy is in
the iudgment of a Councell for in case of an appeale two things are necessary the first is to iudge whether the cause be lawfull if it be to admit of the appeale to annull the sentence pronounced against the Appellant and restore the cause to the same state in which it was before his condemnation This Innocentius performed in the cause of Chrysostome He admitted his appeale he absolued him he annulled the Councell that condemned him he excommunicated the Emperor and the Empresse by whose procurement he had bene condemned and vpon their repentance absolued them All this he did without a Councell shewing that he acknowledged not insufficiency in himselfe nor thought the only remedy to be in a Councell The second thing required in case of an Appeale is to proceed to a new iudgment naming Iudges either of Bishops of the adioyning Prouinces or els by sending Legates from Rome with authority to iudge the cause together with the Bishops of the Prouinces adioining or if the weight of the cause require it to call a general Councell in which it may be determined with satisfaction of the whole Church as the Councell of Nice hath prescribed (a) Leo Ep. 25. This also was exactly performed by Innocentius Pope in the appeale of Chrysostome Innocent sayth Palladius (b) In vit Chrysost hauing receaued both parties into his Communion determined that the iudgment of Theophilus should be abrogated and annulled saying They should hold another Synod irreprouable of the Prelates of the West and East This was Innocentius his desire which as Sozomen reporteth he proposed by fiue Bishops (c) L. 8. c. 28. and two Priests of the Roman Church to Honorius and Arcadius wishing them to appoint a time and place for the Councell but could not effect it not for want of Ecclesiasticall authority to call the Bishops as you misinterpret but because as Sozomen declareth (d) Ibid. the enemies of Chrysostome opposed it being supported by the temporall power of Arcadius and Eudoxia without whose consent a Councell could not be held the cities in which it should be held being subiect to them and at their command Wherfore Innocentius did not acknowledge any Ecclesiasticall authority in the Emperor to call a Councell as you comment but only requested him as being Lord of the Empire to appoint a time and place when and where in some City of his the Councell might be held which he by his spirituall power intended to call It resteth therfore that whatsoeuer you haue obiected out of this history of Chrysostome against the Popes authority is nothing but vntruthes and ignorant mistakes among which I will score vp one other which is that in this matter of Appeales to Rome you say (e) Pag. 307. m. both your Cardinalls Baronius and Bellarmine giue for instance the example of Chrysostome B. of Antioch Those Cardinalls were not so ignorant as to call Chrysostome B. of Antioch that 's your mistake fathered on them He was a Priest of the Church of Antioch and after the death of Nectarius Patriarke of Constantinople by a Councell of Bishops chosen Patriarke of that Imperiall City and by meanes of the Emperor Arcadius brought from Antioch thither and there consecrated Bishop SECT VII That Flauianus appealed to Leo Pope as to an absolute Iudge AN other example of appealing to Rome is of Flauianus to which you answere two things shewing ignorance in the one and falshood in the other Ignorance in saying (f) Pag. 308. fin 309. iuit that of this same Flauianus you haue said inough already You haue indeed already spoken of Flauianus inough to the discredit of your cause (g) Pag. 296.297 but not of this same Flauianus for Flauianus of which there you spake was B. of Antioch and liued in tyme of Damasus Pope But Flauianus of which now you speake was B. of Constantinople and liued in time of Leo the Great 70. yeares after the other Is it not then too great a mistake in a man that professeth so much learning to shift of what we alleage in proofe of Appeales from the example of the one by what you haue said of the other especially their cases being farre different To ignorance you adde falshood saying (h) Pag. 308. fin It will be a hard matter for you out of the example of Flauianus to collect a right of appeale to the Pope from his appeale to a Synod To proue that Flauianus appealed not to the Pope but to a Synod you rehearse in your margen a Latin sentence of Leo writing to Theodosius the Empetor which you English not because Leo sayth not that Flauianus appealed to a Synod that 's your false comment but expresly affirmeth that he put vp a petition of Appeale to his Legates which was not to appeale to them but to him whose person the Legates represented Yea the very words of Leo which you recite directly testify that he which required a Councell was not Flauianus but Leo himselfe yielding for his reason the Nicen Canons which command that after the putting in of appeale in causes of such weight the calling of a generall Councell is necessary Moreouer that Flauianus appealed and not to a Synod but to the Pope is a truth declared not only by the words of Leo but testified also by other writers Flauianus sayth Liberatus (i) Cap. 1â— appealed to the Apostolick See by petition presented to his Legates And the Emperor Valentinian the third writing to Theodosius the second Emperor of the East (k) In eppraeambul Concil Châ—lced We ought in our dayes to preserue to the Blessed Apostle Peter the dignity of reuerence proper to him inuiolate that the Blessed Bishop of the City of Rome to whom antiquity hath yeilded the Priestood ouer all may haue way to iudge of Bishops and of fayth for therfore Flauianus B. of Constantinople following the custome of Councells hath appealed to him by petition in the contention moued concerning fayth And if you belieue not these witnesses belieue the Centurists who testify against you (l) Cent. 5. col 778. that somtimes Bishops condemned in Synods appealed to the See of Rome as did Flauianus in the Councell of Ephesus What testimonies more expresse then these Is it not manifest out of Liberatus out of Valentinian out of the Centurists yea and out of the very words of Leo which you produce for the contrary that Flauianus appealed not to a Synod but to him Who but Doctor Morton could deny so inuincible a truth And no lesse apparent it is that antiquity acknowledged in the Pope authority to iudge of Bishops and of fayth and that appeales vnto him were ordained by the ancient Councells for why els did Valentinian say to Theodosius his Father-in-Law that Flanianus appealed to the See Apostolike according to the custome of Councells SECT VIII Of Nilus equalling the B. of Constantinople with the Pope in his right of Appeales NIlus an hereticall Bishops of Thessalonica
and a professed enemy to the Roman Church as all heretikes are against Appeales to Rome obiecteth the Councell of Chalcedon in which sayth he it was decreed that if a Clerke haue a cause against a Clerke it is to be iudged by the Bishop if against a Bishop by the Archbishop if against an Archbishop by the Primate or of the Bishop of Constantinople To this obiection the holy and learned Pope Nicolas the first answeared neere 800. yeares since (m) In Ep. ad Michael Imper. that by Primate which is there in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifies a Prince is meant the B. of Rome This explication Turrianus (n) Pro Ep. Rom. Pont. l. 3. c. 4. Bellarmine (o) L. 2. de Pont. c. 2◠and Binius (p) Tom. 2. pag. 129. confirme both because the title of Prince more fitly agreeth to him then to any other Primate as also because it cannot be shewed that in time of the Councell of Chalcedon there were especially in the East any Primates distinct from the Archbishops and Patriarkes Wherfore the sense is that if a Bishop haue a cause with his Metropolitan it is to be iudged by the Pope or by the B. of Constantinople if the parties be neerer to him and willing to stand to his iudgment This say you (q) Pag. 309. it false for the Canon vseth a Climax or gradation from Clerke to Bishop from Bishop to Archbishop from Archbishop to Primate or the B. of Constantinople from whence you inferre that if our exposition be true the B. of Constantinople is aboue the Pope as a Generall is aboue a Coronell because in gradation of Appeales the last is alwaies the highest and most excellent A thing not only contrary to the Councell of Chalcedon which acknowledgeth the Pope to be supreme Head of the whole Church (r) In relat ad Leon. but neuer so much as dreamed of by any of the Greekes nor by the Bishops of Constantinople themselues who by their claime of equal priuiledges neuer challenged authority aboue the Pope nor equall with him ouer the whole Church but only that as he by the institution of Christ is supreme Iudge of all causes ecclesiasticall throughout the world so they in the second place vnder him and by his permission might haue authority to iudge throughout the East the causes of all that should be willing to accept of their iudgement which authority the Pope though intreated by the Councell of Calcedon refused to grant vnto them as being a wrong to the other Patriarkes And therefore Bellarmine (s) L. 2. de Pont. c. 22. out of Leo and Liberatus rightly obserueth that this Canon obiected by Nilus was neuer receaued in the Church as being vnlawfully made in absence of the Popes Legates who presided in the Councell This is the substance of this controuersy in the prosecution wherof you falsify the Councell of Calcedon and are guilty of some other errors of which I shall briefly aduertise you 1. Therfore Bellarmine truly sayth that custome the best interpreter of lawes plainly sheweth it was neuer lawfull to appeale to the B. of Constantinople but only from places within his owne Patriarkship and that no example can be giuen of an Appeale made to the Easterne Church out of the West South or North. You to crosse Bellarmine say (t) Pag. 310. that the Councell of Calcedon speaketh generally of euery Church and in proofe therof falsify the Councell adding to the beginning of the Canon these words In quacunque Ecclesia In euery Church putting them downe in a different character as the words of the Canon and citing both it and them out of Binius who hath this Canon (u) Tom. 2. pag. 129. of three different versions and yet no such words in any of them 2. You haue hitherto pretended afterwards repeate againe that no one man can be Head of the whole Church on earth Yet now vpon condition that the Pope may not haue that dignity you are contented to allow it the B. of Constantinople For you say (x) Pag. 302. fin We confesse that the supreme right of appeales is proper to a Monarke it being as essentiall a part of his Monarchy to haue the right of appeales as it is for him to be a Monarke from whence it will follow that you here granting to the B. of Constantinople a supreme right of appeales from all the Churches of the world make him a Monarke ouer all the Churches of the world 3. Out of the gradation which the Councell maketh from Clerke to Bishop from Bishop to Archbishop from Archbishop to the Pope or the B. of Constantinople you inferre the Bishop of Constantinople to be aboue the Pope which is a senselesse paradoxe collected from a false groūd for if because an Archbishop is to be iudged by the Pope or by the B. of Constantinople you may inferre the B. of Constantinople to be equall with the Pope or aboue him you may by like consequēce inferre that in an army a Coronell is equall to the Generall or aboue him because a cōmon soldier is to be iudged by his Captaine the Captaine by his Generall or by his Coronell for in this gradation the Coronell is the last and therfore by your rule the highest and most excellent With such sophistry you answeare our arguments and frame your owne 4. Bellarmine sayth The Councell is to be vnderstood of the first iudgement But this say you (y) Pag. 311. euidently crosseth the Popes exposition False for the Pope alloweth to the B. of Constantinople permissiuely the first iudgement of Easterne causes if the parties be willing to accept of his iudgment but not the second by way of appeale out of his owne Patriarkeship 5. Why do you conceale what Bellarmine and Binius adde namely that if we should grant to you your inference out of this Canon it would not follow that the B. of Constantinople is of equal authority with the Pope for the Popes power extendeth not only to right them which are wronged by their Metropolitans but also to iudge the Metropolitans and Patriarkes themselues and to right thē euen when they are wronged by whole Councels of Bishops as the examples of Athanasius Chrysostome Flauianus Theodoret and others conuince SECT IX The rest of Docter Mortons Arguments against Appeales to Rome THe rest of your instances against appeales as of Fortunatus and Felicissimus (z) Pag. 311. taken from S. Cyprian of the Councell of Mileuis (a) Pag. 321. of the cause of Cecilian (b) Pag. 324.325 from S. Augustine haue ben already (c) Chap. 25.26 30. sect 2. answered One only remaineth taken from an Epistle as you say (d) Pag 318. of Damasus Pope It is not among the epistles of Damasus but of S. Ambrose and yet his it cannot be for in it mention is made of him as of a third person Wherfore whos 's the epistle is is a
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