for if Luther had said nothing els Leo would not haue condemned him And to the same end you corrupt Philiarchus who say you will hâ—ue vs to take head of the heresies of Luther teaching that the Church hath no power to create new articles of fayth That word new is an addition of your owne to Philiarchus his text as his Latin words in your margeÌ„t conuince but what wonder since your worke is a Grand Imposture CHAP. V. That the word Roman is no deprauation but a true declaration of the article of the Catholike Church TO declare which is the catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed we say it is the holy Apostolike Roman Church Against this you (g) Pag. 8. 9. 10. obiect that the word Roman is no true exposition and declaration but a notorious alteration and deprauation of the article of the Catholike Church This you proue with eight seuerall arguments set downe in so many sections SECT I. Your first Argument YOVR first is (h) Pag. 9. that because the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed by the accordance of S. Augustine and other our Diuines comprehendeth both the triumphant and the militant Church the word Roman which caÌ„not be a declaration of the Catholike Church as she is triumphant but only as she is militant can no way be a declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed So you forgetting your selfe for heere you hold that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed comprehendeth both the triumphant Church and the militant but els where contradicting your (i) Pag. 365. selfe you define the Church properly Catholike set downe in the Symbolor Creed of the Apostles to be the Church militant videlicet the multitude of Christian belieuers whensoeuer and wheresoeuer dispersed throughout the world and the congregation of Christians assembled in a generall Synod to be the representatiue body of the Church in the Symbol properly called Catholike From whence it followeth against your selfe that the word Roman may be a true declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed which by your owne definition is the multitude of all Christian belieuers dispersed throughout the world for this definition can no way agree to the Church triumphant where the cleare vision of the diuine essence excludeth fayth but to the militant only consisting of all Christian belieuers And because true Christian beliefe is to be found only in the Roman Church it followeth that the woro Roman is a true declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed 2. Be it that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed taken in her whole latitude comprehendeth both the militant and the triumphant yet in your argument you mistake the state of the question for when we declare the Catholike Church to be the Roman Church we speake not of her taken in her whole latitude but only as she is militant And this you know right well for whiles in this Imposture you so often rayle at vs for holding the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church out of which there is no hope of saluation you sufficiently declare that you know vs to speake of the Catholike Church as she is militant only for she only is in hope of saluation the triumphant already enioyeth it I conclude therfore that your argument is grounded on a wilfull mistake of the question which as you cannot defend without contradicting your selfe so neither without wronging S. Augustine for when he sayth that the Catholike Church comprehendeth both the militant and the triumphant he speaketh of her taken in her whole latitude but that the may and euen in the Apostles Creed be taken for the militant only he expresly declareth in his explication of the same Creed where teaching the Catechumenists which is the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed he (k) De Symb. ad Catechum l. 1. c. 6. sayth We belieue the Catholike Church She is the holy Church one Church the true Church the Catholike Church fighting against all heresies she may be opposed but she caÌ„not be ouerthrowne All heresies are gone eut from her as vnprofitable branches cut of from the Vine but she remaynes in her roote in her Vine in her charity the gates of hell shall neuer ouercome her In these words S. Augustine teacheth the catechumenists to belieue that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed is the Church militant built vpon S. Peters Chayre as vpon a rock against which the gates of hell can not preuaile And the same he declareth when speaking to the Donatists he denounceth vnto them that because they were out of the Roman Church they were out of the Catholike Church and out of the state of Saluation Be yee ingrafted sayth (*) Psal cont part Donati he on the Vine It grieueth vs to see you lye so cut of Number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranke of Fathers who succeeded ech other That is the rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not That Church therfore in which there is a neuer interrupted succession of Bishops from S. Peter is in S. Augustines beliefe the Catholike Church Do not you then abuse S. Augustine producing his authority to proue that the catholike church mentioned in the Creed cannot be the Church militant since he so expresly teacheth the contrary yea and not only that she is the militant Church but in particular that she is the Roman Church built vpon S. Peter and his successors and that whosoeuer is diuided from her is an vnprofitable branch cut of from the Vine which is Christ our Lord and therfore no lesse deuoyd of spirituall life then the dead branch is of naturall SECT II. Your second argument YOur second argument (l) Pag. 10 1â—.12 is grounded on a false principle with is that the Catholike Church in her essentiall state is inuisible We know that the essentiall forme of the Church which is Fayth is inuisible to corporall eyes But the Church as you (m) Pag. 36â— confesse is the multitude of all Christian belieuers whensoeuer and whersoeuer dispersed throughout the world and that the congregation of Christians assembled in a generall Synod is the representatiue body therof Wherfore as it were ridiculous to affirme that a multitude of men ioyned in one Common-wealth or the representatiue body therof assembled in Parliament is essentially inuisible because their soules are inuisible or that Christ liuing on earth was inuisible because his Diuinity was inuisible so it is no lesse ridiculous to affirme that the Church in her essence is inuisible because fayth is inuisible for fayth is not the Church but the essentiall forme of the Church as the soule of man is not man but the essentiall forme of man Man consisteth essentially of body aswell as of soule and by reason of his body he is visible for according to the axiome of Philosophers Actiones passiones sunt
was the 35. yeare of Christ before S. Peter founded either the Church of Rome or of Antioch is your addition falsly imposed on them For though according to the computation of Baronius Lazarus with his sisters Mary and Martha were driuen out of Hierusalem in the 35. yeare of Christ and together with Ioseph of Arimathia by the prouidence of God came to Marsils in France yet nether Baronius nor Suarez nor any one of the authors ancient or moderne which you obiect sayth that Ioseph planted that yeare a Church in Brittaine You name Gildas but he neither mentioneth Ioseph of Arimathia nor saith that Christian religion was planted in Brittaine in the tyme of Tiberius Caesar as you by misplacing his words make him say but speaketh of the great calamities and desolation of that Iland caused by the warres which the Romans made vpon the Brittans not in the tyme of Tiberius nor of Caius for in their tymes the Romans had no warres with the Brittans but of Claudius in the third yeare of whose Empire those warres began and continued 40. yeares togeather vntill the tyme of Domitian Interea c. In the meane tyme sayth (y) In epist de excidia Britan c. 6. Gildas that is during those warres there appeared and imparted it selfe to this cold Iland more remote from the visible sunne then other Nations that true and inuisible sunne which in the tyme of Tiberius Caesar had manifested himselfe by the fame of his preaching and miracles to the whole world I meane Christ vouchsafed to impart his precepts Gildas then is wholly against you for although he say that in the tyme of Tiberius Caesar Christ manifested himselfe and imparted his precepts to the world yet he discribeth the first planting of Christian Religion in Brittaine not in the tyme of Tiberius but of the Roman warres in tyme of Claudius by occasion wherof there was continuall going and comming from Rome to Brittaine and as Christian Religion was then planted did daily increase in Rome so from thence it was also kindled in Brittaine especially there being many Brittains at that tyme inhabiting in Rome some for their pleasure some to flye the warres and vnquiet state of their owne Countrey and some taken by force and caried thither for hostages as Caractacus King of the Silures and much Nobility with him as Cornelius Tacitus reporteth (z) Annal. l. 12. And from hence it is that Holin shead (a) In descrip Britan. to 1. c. 9. and Cambden (b) In sua Britan. p. 162. Protestant historians affirme that one Claudia Ruffina a noble Brittish Lady wyfe to Pudens the Senator and the first hostesse of S. Peter in Rome sent from thence diuers bookes and messages to her frendes in Brittaine and was therby a great helpe to their conuersion To which I add that S. Peter being come to Rome in the second yeare of Claudius to teach and conuert the Western parts of the world when all the Iewes were by publike proclamation banished from Rome he tooke that occasion to goe into France and preached the Ghospell to the French and from thence passing into Brittaine as Metaphrastes (c) Apud Sur. die 23. Iun. pag. 862. out of Greeke antiquities recordeth preached founded Churches and ordained Priests Deacons there which is also testified by that famous holy Pope Innocentius the first saying (d) In epist. ad Decen The first Churches of Italy France Spayne Affrica Sicily and the bordering Ilands were founded by S. Peter or by his Schollers or successors Which caused Guilielmus Eysengrenius (e) Cent. 1 p. 7. d. 8. to affime that the first Christian Churches of England were founded by S. Peter And finally S. Peter himselfe appearing to a holy man in the tyme of King Edward the Confessor shewed him how he had preached in England and the care he had of that Church and Nation as Alredus Rhieuallis (f) Apud Sur. 5. Ianuar. pag. 131. left written 500. yeares since And from that care it proceeded that as Dorotheus (g) In Synopsi Mirmanus (h) In theâ—â—ro de conuers gent. pag. 4â— and Baronius (i) Martyrol 15. Martij out of the Greeke Martyrologe affirme Aristobulus his disciple and a knowne Christian in Rome was sent by him into Brittaine and there made Bishop By all which it appeares that the Brittish Church was not first founded by Ioseph of Arimathia the 35. yeare of Christ in the raigne of Tiberius but by S. Peter in the time of Claudius after he had founded the Church of Rome placed his seat there and consequently that the Church of Rome is most truly and properly Mother of the Church of Brittaine not only by reason of the second conuersion of our nation by Fugatius and Damianus sent by Eleutherius the 13. Pope after S. Peter and also of the third conuersion by S. Augustine and his companions sent by S. Gregory the Great whom therfore Bede calleth the Apostle of England but also in respect of the first preaching and founding of a Christian Church in this Iland it hauing bene wrought by S. Peter his disciples other Roman Christians cooperating therto And so much the more if it be true that S. Paul assisted S. Peter therin going from Rome into Brittaine to preach as Theodoret (k) In psal 106. l. 5. de curandis Graec. affect Sophronius (l) Serm. de Natali Apost Venantius Fortunatus (m) In carm and others affirme As for Ioseph of Arimathia his comming into England I grant it to be true though it be not affirmed by any ancient writer but only by Capgrauius Polydore Virgil other late historians Tradition is sufficient to confirme me in the beliefe therof Yet withall it is certain that he came not the yeare of Christ 35. as you without any proofe at all suppose but hauing come out of Iury into France with S. Mary Magdalen and her company after he had liued there sometime and seene her great austerity of contemplatiue and solitary life and rigor of pennance which she vsed went ouer into Brittaine either sent by S. Peter or by his owne free election And though it be likely that by preaching the Ghospell he increased the number of Christians in the Brittish Church yet the chiefe intention of his comming was to begin that kind of solitary and heremiticall life which he had seene practised by S. Magdalene in France as Cambden (n) In descrip Brit. pa. 162. obserueth Ioseph sayth he and his companie did take vpon them a solitary life that with more tranquillity they might attend to holy learning and with a seuere kind of conuersation exercise themselues to the bearing of Christs Crosse From hence it followeth that the Roman Church is Mother to that of Brittaine not only by reason of the supereminent authority and power which she hath ouer her aswell as ouer all other Churches of the world but also in antiquity she being planted
his owne name of Shepheard and togeather which the name that power which he alone had to to wit of being Pastor of his whole flock what els S. Cyril saying (m) In l. thesau apud S. Thom. Opuse 1. that as Christ receaued of his Father the scepter of the Church ouer all Princedome and most full power ouer all that all be subiect vnto him so also he committed the same power to Peter and his Successors and that what was his he fully committed to Pâ—ter and to none els but to him alone what S. Leo affirming (n) Serâ—â— 3. dâ— Assamp sua that albeit in Gods people there be many Priests and many Pastors yet Peter gouerneth them all as Christ also doth principally rule them what Euthymius and Theophilact (o) In c. 21. Ioan. that Christ committed to Peter the charge and gouerment of his flock throughout the whole world what Oecumenius (p) Adc. 1. Act. that the gouerment of the Disciples was committed to Peter what S. Bernard (q) L. 2. de confiderat that euery one of the other Apostles receaued their seuerall ships but that Peter receaued the gouerment of the whole world and that to him was committed grandissima nauis that maruelous great ship to wit the vniuersall Church spread ouer the whole world and that to him the pastorall charge of the whole Church was committed Finally and what S. Eucherius that ancient Bishop of Lyons saying (r) In vigil S. Pet. Extat in Bibliothee Pat. edit Colon to 5. par 1 pag. 712. that Christ first committed to Peter his lambes and then his sheep because he made him not only a Pastor but Pastor of Pastors Peter therfore sayth he feedeth the lambes and the sheep he feedeth the yong ones and the dammes he gouerneth the subiects and the Prelates and is therfore Pastor of all for besyde lambes and sheep there is nothing in the Church What thinke you Doctor Morton do these Fathers acknowledge in Peter no other primacy but of order Can there be any thing more cleare then that they belieue him to haue authority power and iurisdiction ouer the whole Church as President and Gouernor therof were these men of your beliefe But you obiect (s) Pag. 51. Iames and Iohn whom S. Paulcalleth chiefe Apostles S. Chrysostome interpreteth Princes Oecumenius Heads Ergo they were also Gouernors ouer the other Apostles and Monarkes ouer the whole Church or els Peter was not How followeth this In the Empyre there are many Princes Ferdinand the Emperor and many others Ergo they are all equall to Ferdinand and all Emperors or els Ferdinand is no Emperor In the kingdome of Naples there are many Heads the Viceroy and the Gouernors of diuers Prouinces and Cities ergo these Heads are all equall in authority haue power ouer the whole kingdome or els the Viceroy hath not These consequences are absurd and yours is no lesse It is true that ech of the Apostles are Princes ouer the whole earth by reason of their Apostolicall power but as Bishops they are only Heads of their seuerall flocks and therfore in iurisdiction not equall to Peter Paul Andrew and Iohn sayth S. Gregory (t) L. 4. epist. 38. what are they but Heads of seuerall flocks but Peter is the chiefe member of the holy and vniuersall Church And S. Bernard (u) L. 2. de considerat Iames contented with the Bishopricke of Hierusalem yeldes the vniuersality to Peter And againe speaking to Eugenius Pope of his authority receaued from S. Peter (x) Ibid. Thou alone art Pastor of all Pastors Dost thou aske how I proue this By the words of our Lord for to which I will not say of the Bishops but euen of the Apostles were all the sheep so absolutely and without exception committed If thou louest me Peter feed my sheep what sheep the people of this or that City or countrey or kingdome he sayth My sheep who seeth not manifestly that he designed not some but assigned all Nothing is excepted where no distinction is made And so likewise the other title Prince of all the Apostles is an attribute which agreeth not to Iames nor to Iohn nor to any other of the Apostles for though Iames Iohn be chiefe Apostles and Princes in respect of that transcendent authority which as Apostles they had from Christ to preach and ordaine Bishops throughout the whole world yet neither the one nor the other is nor euer is called seuerally by himselfe Prince of all the Apostles as Peter is And so likewise when Peter and Paul togeather are called Principes Apostolorum Princes of the Apostles it is not in respect of any authority and iurisdiction common to them both ouer all the other Apostles but in respect of their great labors in preaching and propagating the fayth of Christ for when there is speach of the extent of their authority and iurisdiction Paul seuerally by himselfe is neuer called Prince of the Apostles as Peter is All the Apostles being silent sayth (y) Cathâ—c 11. S. Cyril of Hierusalem Peter Prince of the Apostles sayth c. And S. Ephrem (z) Serm. de Transfigu Dom. As Moyses by the commandment of God was Prince of the congregation of the Hebrewes so is Peter of the Church of the Christians And as Moyses was Prince of the old testament so is Peter of the new And Cassianus (a) L. 3. de Incarnat c. 12. Let vs aske that chiefe Disciple amongst the Disciples and Mayster amongst Maysters which gouerning the Roman Church as he had the Princedome of fayth so likewise of Priesthood Speake therfore and tell vs O Peter Prince of the Apostles c. In which words Peter is called Prince of the Apostles because he was the chiefe among them and had the soueraignty of Episcopall and Sacerdotall dignity aboue the rest But by the way I must aduertise you of your abusing S. Ambrose and S. Cyprian In your Margen (b) Pag. 10 you obiect certaine words of S. Ambrose in Latine and comming to english them in your text you set downe in lieu of them others of your owne in a different character as of S. Ambrose which neither are his nor of the same sense with his as the iudicious reader will perceaue if he compare S. Ambrose his Latin with your English With S. Cyprian you deale in the same manner for you make him say that Christ before his resurrection did build his Church vpon Peter An ignorance of which S. Cyprian was not guilty He sayth that Christ speaking to Peter said vpon this Rock I will build my Church which words he spake before his resurrection and they containe no more but a promise of building his Church vpon Peter for the future which promise he fulfilled not vntill after his resurrection when he gaue to Peter the actuall charge of feeding his lambes and his sheep (c) Ioan. 21.16.17 Nor doth S. Cyprian contradict this in the
the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles who with his name receaued the constancy of his minde being called Peter of a Rock to whom by the voyce of truth it is said I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen S. Maximus a famous Martyr the greatest Diuine of his age and a stout Champion of the Church against the Monothelites (k) Epist. ad Marin Diac. Apud Spond Anno 657. n. 2. All the Churches of Christians had their beginning and surest foundation from the Roman Church against which the gates of hell shall no way preuaile according to the promise of our Sauiour himselfe that she should haue the keyes of Orthodoxe fayth and confession and open to them that come to her religiously seeking true piety and contrarily shut and stop all hereticall mouthes that breath out iniquity against heauen Theodorus Studites a man very famous for his learning and constancy in defending the Catholike fayth writing togeather with other his Colleagues to Paschalis Pope (l) Ep. ad Pashal ep ad Naucrat calleth him Porter of the kingdome of Heauen and Rock of the fayth vpon whom the Catholike Churches built And the Roman See The supreme throne in which Christ hath placed the keyes of fayth against whom the gates of hell which are the mouthes of Heretikes haue neuer preuailed nor shall euer preuaile according to the promise of our Lord which cannot faile To these testimonies I adde others of Theodoret and Gelasius alleaged by Bellarmine (m) L. 4. de Pont. c. 3. which make vp more then a full Iury to pronounce you guilty of a solemne vntruth in denying (n) Pag. 55. that what was here spoken to Peter doth accordingly belong to the Pope by the right of Succession for you haue heard the Fathers teaching the contrary Their exposition I embrace and follow as the true sense of holy Scripture detest yours who haue nothing to say against it but to outface it by calling it An error to obiect against it the comment of Abulensis who say you (o) Pag. 55. teacheth that by those words Blessed art thou Simon there was granted to S. Peter an infallible certainty of his soules eternall blessednes which is an excellent priuiledge but no promise of authority made vnto him If Abulensis comment so his comment makes nothing to your purpose for he denies not the Church to be built vpon Peter nor grants that the gates of hell which are heresies shall preuaile against her Againe if he say for I haue not seene him that Christ by saying Blessed art thou Simon granted to S. Peter an infallible assurance of his eternall happines it followeth not that the same assurance passeth to his Successors as the office of Foundation Head and Gouernor of the Church doth for the assurance of eternall happinesse was for his owne peculiat good and therfore granted to him alone and not to his Successors But the office of Head and Gouernor of the Church was promised to him for the good of the whole Church and therfore to passe to his Successors according to the nature of priuiledges which is that when a prerogatiue is granted to a Gouernor for the good of the Community of which he is Gouernor as the office of Head and foundation of the Church was to S. Peter it dieth not with him but still liueth in his Successors Againe that comment of Abulensis if it be his I approue not for it is disproued out of the words themselues which being of the present tense import nothing els but a present blessednes in hauing so great a fauor bestowed on him as by the speciall reuelation of Almighty God to know the Diuinity of Christ and to be the first that made so illustrious a confession therof and as S. Basill (p) Orat. 3. de peccato in proem de iudicio Dei expoundeth to haue his confession rewarded with a promise of building the Church on him and of hauing the keyes of the kingdome of heauen committed to him which sayth he was a far greater blessednes then the other Apostles obtained And in the same sense expound S. Hierome (q) Ad c. 16. Math. and S. Augustine (r) Serm. 10. de verb. Do. serm 31. de verb. Apost But wheras out of the comment of Abulensis be it his or whose you please you charge vs (r) Pag. 56 with lack both of conscience and modesty in violating the sacred writ vnlesse to make good the iurisdiction of our Popes deriuatiuely from S. Peter we can shew that all of them by vertue of their succession from him are so blessed now in their hopes as to be infallibly persuaded that no temptation of Satan shall preuaile against their persons but that they shall be blessed euerlastingly you cannot be excused from fraud folly fraud in changing the state of the question for our assertion is that out of these words of Christ S. Peter and his Successors are secured from erring in their publike decrees and definitions of fayth But that Popes may not erre in manners to the damnation of their soules we neither deduce out of this nor any other place of holy writ nor is it true nor asserted by any Catholike nor necessary for the defence of their iurisdiction or priuiledge of not erring ex cathedra for Christ sayth S. Augustin (s) Ep. 166. hath placed in the chaire of Vnity the doctrine of Verity and secured his people that for ill Prelates they forsake not the Chayre of holsome Doctrine in which chayre euen ill men are inforced to speake good things And els where (t) Ep. 165. hauing reckoned all the Popes from S. Peter to Anastasius who then possessed his chayre he addeth If in all this tyme any traytor had come in by surreption it cold not breed any preiudice to the Church nor to innocent Christians for whom our Lord making prouision sayth of euill Prelates What they say do yee but what they doe do it not for they say and do not And as it is fraud in you to change the state of the question so is it folly to inferre that because Popes may be vicious in their liues they may erre in their publike definitions of fayth or manners to the seduction of others S. Augustine (u) Ep. 137. obserueth it to be an old tricke of Heretikes because they cannot calumniate the Scripture in which they find the Church commended to calumniate those by whom she is defended gouerned to make them odious And Tertullian long before (x) L. de Praescrip obserued the same in the heretikes of his tyme to whom he answered that what they obiected were vitia conuersationis non pradicationis faults of manners not of Doctrine and for this S. Augustine reprehendeth Petilianus the Donatist saying (y) Cont. lit Petil. l. 2. c. 51. Why dost thou call the Apostolike See the chayre of pestilence if for men whom thou thinkest to professe
what the most holy and learned Doctors of Gods Church from tyme to tyme haue done And as out of this passage of S. Paul we shew you that the fayth of the Roman Church was pure in the Apostles tyme so we require of you as S. Augustine (f) L. de vnto Eccles c. 12. 13. did of the Donatists to shew vs out of Scripture that after 600. yeares she was to fall from the true fayth as you pretend her to haue done Let them sayth S. Augustine reade vs this in the Scripture and we yeild but if they reade not this in the Scripture but seeke to persuade it by their contentions wrangling I belieue those things which are read in the holy Scriptures but I belieue not those which are affirmed by vaine heretikes And in requiring this at your hands we require no other prose for the truth of your Protestant Church fayth but what we are able to shew for ours for that the Roman Church cannot erre in sayth I haue already proued (g) Hoc cap. sect 1. 2. out of Scriptures and Fathers which therfore conuince her to be the true Catholike Church in which the spirit of truth dwelleth for euer (h) Ioan. 14.16 And that the Catholike Church the Roman Church are termes conuertible denoting one and the same thing hath also bene proued (i) Aboue Chap. 1. sect 3. But because you seeme to thinke that out of this text of S. Paul it cannot be proued that the fayth which S. Peter deliuered to the Romans is hereditary to the Church of Rome or that the Catholike fayth and the Romen fayth are all one it will not be amisse to let you heare what the ancient Fathers the best interpreters of Scripture haue belieued in this point That holy and renowned Martyr S. Cyprian (k) L. 1. ep 3. out of this text proueth that the Roman Church cannot fall from that fayth which she once receaued They to wit the Nouatian heretikes hauing set vp a false Bishop presume to carry letters from Schismatikes and heretikes to the chayre of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praysed by the mouth of the Apostle and to whom vnfaithfulnes can haue no accesse If vnfaithfulnes can haue no accesse to the RomaÌ„ Church it followeth that she retaineth still the same fayth which was commended by S. Paul and that whosoeuer belieueth at this day as she belieues is free from all error in fayth The same is confirmed by an other testimony of the same Father who writing to Cornelius Pope and diuers of the Romans suffering banishment in the persecution of Decius and praysing their constancy and fayth sayth (l) Ep. 57. It was fore-seene in spirit and prophetically foretold by the Apostle My dearest brethren whiles you are of one hart and one voyce it is the confession of all the Roman Church that fayth hath shined in you which the Apostle praysed He did euen then foresee in spirit this prayse of your vertue and strength of your constancy and by prediction of future things gaue testimony of your desertes and commâ—nding the parents incouraged their Children With S. Cyprian accordeth S. Hierome When sayth he to Demetrias (m) Ep. 8. thou wast litle and the Bishop Anastasius of happy and holy memory gouerned the Roman Church a cruell tempest of heretikes risen out of the Easterne parts attempted to pollute and corrupt the sincerity of that fayth which had bene commended by the mouth of the Apostle but this personage Pope Anastasius rich in a most plentifull pouerty and in an Apostolicall care brake the pestilent head and stopped the hissing mouth of that Hydra And because I feare yea haue heard say that the buds of this most renemous plant do still liuâ— and spring vp in some I thought it my duety to admonish thee in a deuout zeale of Charity that thou keepe fast the fayth of S. Innocentius his sonne and successor in the Apostolicall chayre And writing to Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria (n) Ep. 68. Know that we haue nothing in greater recommendation then to conserue the statutes of Christ and not to transgresse the bounds of our Fathers and alwayes to haue in mynde the Roman fayth praysed by the mouth of the Apostle wherof the Church of Alexandria glories to partake And impugning Ruffinus his errors as being contrary to the Catholike fayth (o) Lib. 1. Apol aduers Ruffin Know thou that the Roman fayth commended by the Apostle receaues not such delusions though an Angell should denounce otherwise then it hath hene once preached it cannot be altered being fensed by Pauls authority If therfore S. Hierome be to be credited the Roman fayth in his tyme was conserued pure as it was preached and cannot be altered as you pretend it to haue bene since that tyme. And therfore as it were speaking to you (p) Ep. 6. ad Pammach Ocean he further sayth Who-euer thou art that auouchest new sects I pray thee haue respect to the Roman eares spare the fayth which was commended by the voyce of the Apostle And to Paula and Eustochium (q) Proem lib Comment in ep ad Galat. Will you know how the Apostle hath noted euery prouince with their proprieties the fayth of the people of Rome is praysed where is so great concourse to Churches and to Martyrs sepulchers c. Not that the Romans haue any other fayth then the rest of the christian Churches but that in them there is more deuotion and simplicity of fayth To which place of S. Hierome the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas alluding sayth (r) In vers 8. cap. 1. ad Rom. The Romans are commended for their fayth because they receaued it easily and perseuered in it constantly from whence it is that to this day are shewed very many signes of their fayth in the visitation of holy places as S. Hierome sayth vpon the Epistle to the Galathians And a litle after The Apostle reioyceth and giueth thankes to God for their fayth not only for their sake but for the profit that followed therof because they being Lords of nations other countreys were moued to belieue by their example for as the Glosse sayth The inferior doth readily what he sees done by his Superior which last words are also of S. Ambrose And S. Augustine speaking of Pelagius the Arch-heretike (s) L. 2. de peccat orig cont Pelag. c. 8. sayth He deceaued the Palestine Councell and therfore seemeth to haue bene absolued there But he was not able to deceaue the Roman Church though be endeauored to do is because the most blessed Pope Zozimus called to minde what opinion Innocentius his predecessor worthy to be imitated had of his proceeding and be considered likewise what iudgment the fayth of the Romans worthy of prayse in our Lord did make of him for he perceaued them with vnited endeauors to
the See Apostolike is made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world Why did the Bishops of the East say to Pope Symmachus (t) In volum Orthodoxograph impres Basileae You are taught dayly by Peter your sacred Doctor to feed the flock of Christ which is committed to you throughout the whole world Why did Amator an African Bishop write to Siluerius Pope in banishment (u) Ep. ad Siluer What do you thinke becomes of vs when such things are done to the chiefe Pastor Why did that Emperor Leo surnamed the wise say (x) Serm. de S Petro. that Christ made Peter Prince of Pastors and required of him the care of feeding his flock as a returne of his loue Why did the Emperor Constantine Pogonate and the sixth Councel generall call Agatho the vniuersall Arch-pastor (y) Ep. ad synod Apost in ◠synodo Act. 18. You say they to the Councell of the West and the vniuersall Arch-pastor by your procurators haue bene present at our Councell Why did the second generall Councell of Lions (z) Sext. decret C. Vbi peric call Gregory the tenth Gouernor of the vniuersall Church and guyde of our Lords flock And finally why did S. Bernard (a) L. 2. de considerat say to Eugenius Pope To you are committed the sheep not of one City or countrey but all the sheep of Christ without exception What thinke you M. Doctor These Fathers and Councels found the Pope among the Pastors reckoned by S. Paul and beleeued him to be the Arch-pastor and Pastor of all Pastors vnder Christ but you that shut your eyes against the light cold not discerne him The same I say of the name and title of Doctor which all antiquity hath acknowledged to be due to S. Peter and in him to his Successors S. Hypolitus Martyr sayth (b) Orat de consummat mundi Peter the Prince the Rock of fayth he the Doctor of the Church the chiefe of the Disciples S. Chrysostome calleth him (c) Orat. Encom in Pet. ac Paul Doctor of the Apostles and Mayster of the world And the Councell of Florence (d) In lit vnion with the accord both of the Latin and Greeke Church defineth the Bishop of Rome to be The Successor of blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles the true Vicar of Christ the Head of the whole Church the Father and Doctor of all Christians Nor doth this title agree to him as it doth to others but in a far more noble and excellent manner for S. Augustine speaking of his Chayre sayth (e) Ep. 160. The heauenly Mayster hath placed in the Chayre of Vnity the Doctrine of verity To you sayth S. Basil to Damasus Pope (f) Ep. 69. per Sabin Diac it is giuen by our Sauiour to discerne betweene what is counterfiete and what is pure and without any diminution to teach the fayth of our Ancestors And S. Hierome (g) L. 1. Apol. aduers Ruffin That though an Angell should preach otherwise then the Roman Church teacheth he were not to be beleeued Wherof Maximianus Patriarke of Constantinople yeldeth the reason saying (h) Ep. ad Oriental The Creator of the world among all the men of the world selected S. Peter to whom he granted the Chayre of Doctor to be principally possessed by a perpetuall right of priuiledge that whosoeuer is desirous to know any profound and diuine thing may haue recourse to the oracle and Doctrine of this instruction Nor is there any man that can deny this truth if he credit the auncient Fathers teaching that the priuiledge giuen to S. Peter of confirming his Brethren did not dye with him but was in him grāted to his Successors In regard wherof the Councels haue sent their decrees to the Pope to be cōfirmed by him S. Hierome S. Augustine Theodoret S. Cyril Venerable Bede S. Anselme S. Bernard and many other of the most learned Doctors of Gods Church haue submitted their writings to the seuerall Popes of their tymes to be examined approued or reproued according to their iudgment SECT IV. Doctor Mortons rayling against the Inquisition YOu obiect (i) Pag. 83. 84 that S. Peter as an Elder exhorteth the Elders or Bishops feede the flock of God not dominiering ouer Gods heritage What may be inferred from hence say you we may vnderstand in your second Challenge But you must giue vs leaue not to learne the sense of this Scripture from your Challenge but from the Ancient Doctors of Gods Church who out of it shew that S. Peter had practised the authority of Supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church But because S. Peter writing to Bishops commanded them not to dominiere in the Clergy (k) See aboue Chap. 9. fin you take occasion to raile against the Romish Inquisition first by making a relation of your owne (l) Pag. 85. no lesse false then spitefull of imprisonment famishment torment and ropes to strangle prisoners and all in tenebris workes of darknesse employed against all beleeuers receyuers defenders and fauorers of heretikes And to this your relation you add another like of Cornelius Agrippa (m) Ibid. whom you know to be a Magician an heretike and a forbidden author and yet you are not ashamed to call his lyes Our Confession And to the same purpose you bring Thuanus (n) Ibid. whom we owne not but bequeath him to you as one who by praysing the Huguenots and theyr Doctrine and by speaking against the Pope and Church of Rome sufficiently declareth what he is Now as for the thing it selfe who seeth not the absurdity of your argument which reduced to a few words is The inquisition is seuere in punishing heretikes especially such as hauing abiured their heresy before a Iudge relapse into the same againe and are in danger to infect others Ergo saluation may behad out of the Roman Church or Ergo it is lawfull to depart from her fayth communion or Ergo the Roman Church is not the Head of all Churches for these are the poynts in proofe wherof your grand Imposture wholly insisteth That you know all these illations to be absurd t' is not to be doubted but you are contented that men of learning and iudgment should know you to be absurd so that therby you may make the Roman Church hatefull to simple soules that want learning and iudgment to discerne your Impostures That Iews Mahumetans and Heretikes hate the Inquisition t' is no wonder Malefactors hate their Iudges theeues the gallowes How sayth S. Augustine (o) Ep. 166. can he that hath an ill suite prayse the Iudges by whom he hath bene conuicted And els where (p) Tract 11. in Ioan. ep 48. 50. he declareth that as they which blasphemed the God of Sidrach Misach and Abdenago were iustly punished by the Edict of Nabuchodonosor so heretikes because they draw men from Christ are in like manner iustly punished according to the lawes made against
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
confirmed by the B. of Rome (b) Ibid. l. 3. c. 5.8 30. that all former Councells haue required their doctrines to be confirmed and authorized by him Why do you then produce him as a witnesse for the contrary Gerson and Canus are both falsified by you for Gerson in the place you cite hath no such doctrine but the contrary which els where he expresseth (c) To. 1. in Consider de paâ—â— Consid 1. saying Constat quod in materijs fidei terminandis error non cadit in Concilio generali c. It is manifest that in deciding controuersies of fayth a generall Councell cannot erre And the Doctors yeild the reason because of the speciall assistence of the holy Ghost and of Christ gouerning the Church and not permitting it to erre in those things which it cannot attaine by humane industry Canus sayth that generall Councells lawfully gathered may erre in fayth as the second of Ephesus did This is his second conclusion which you lay hold of concealing that in his third conclusion which he presently addeth he sayth That a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope cannot erre and condemneth your doctrine as absolutely hereticall Is it not then extreme perfidiousnesse to Father on him the contrary and to make Catholike Doctors Patrons of your Errors But to declare what is necessary that a generall Councell may not erre you adde (d) Pag. â—66 fin 367. The difference betweene the Roman Church and the Church of the Protestants is no more but this that the Romanists say that all generall Councells may erre except they be confirmed and authorized by the Pope but Protestants say that all generall Councells may erre except they be directed by the spirit of Gods word This indeed you say and yet leaue the question vnansweared for we likewise say that euery Councell which is not directed by the spirit of Gods word may erre The question is how it may be knowne when a Councell defineth according to Gods word and when not for Gods word may be misinterpreted Wherof Tertullian speaking truly said (e) L. de praescrip An adulterate glosse doth as much outrage to the truth as a false pen. And S. Hilary (f) L. 2 de Triâ— init There haue bene many who haue interpreted the heauenly words otherwayâ—â— then the truth did require according to the sense of their own will not for the establishing of truth for heresy is not in the writing but in the vnderstanding the fault is not in the word but in the sense And doth not S. Hierome likewise say (g) In Ep. ad Gal. c. 1. The Ghospell is not in the words but in the sense And doth not S. Augustine cry out (i) In Ioan. tract 13. Heresies and peruerse doctrine which entangle soules cast them headlong into hell haue their birth nowhere but from good Scriptures ill vndeestood And againe (k) De Gen. ad lit l. 7. c. 9. Heretikes were not heretikes but that misunderstanding the Scripture they defend obstinatly their owne false opinions against the truth therof And in another place (l) Ep. 2â—â— All heretikes which receaue the Scriptures thinke they follow them when they follow their owne Errors Of the same subiect Lyrinensis discourseth largely and learnedly (m) Chap. 1â— 30.37 shewing that the Diuel alleaged Scriptures against Christ that all Heretikes alleage them against the Church in defence of their errors which made S. Hierome say (n) In Ep. ad Gal. c. 1. that there is great daÌ„ger in speaking in the Church for feare lest by a wrong interpretation the Ghospell of Christ be made the Ghospell of man or which is worse the Ghospell of the Diuell And speaking of the Luciferians (o) Aduers Lucifer versus fin who boasted of the Scriptures as Protestants doe Let them not statter themselues to much because they seeme to haue Scripture for what they affirme for euen the Diuell hath alleaged Scriptures which consist not in reading but in vnderstanding Wherfore it is not sufficient to alleage Scriptures We alleage them and you alleage them but we disagree concerning the true sense and meaning of them from whom shall we learne it If Luther may as your fore-man speake for you all you and none but you and that by your priuate spirit must deliuer the true sense of them We sayth Luther (p) L. de serâ—â— arbit receaue nothing but the Scriptures and them so also that we our selues only haue certaine authority to expound them As we vnderstand them so was the meaning of the Holy Ghost what others bring be they neuer so great neuer so many preceedeth from the spirit of Sathan and from a mad and alimated mind So Luther And as he challenged to himselfe this priuiledge of deliuering the true sense of Scripture so his disciples haue challenged the same to themselues This spirit it is which hath hatched so many viperous sects no lesse disagreeing among themselues then all of them straying from the truth And yet you all boast of Scripture and all proclaime that you follow the word of God And no maruaile for the Diuell sayth Lyrinensis (q) Cap. 37 3â— knoweth right well that when wicked errors are to be broached the readiest way to deceaue is to alleage stifly the authority of diuine Scripture What then shall Catholike men Children of our Mother the Church do Let them interpret the diuine Canon according to the tradition of the vniuersall Church The truth of Scripture sayth S. Augustine (r) Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 33. is held by vs when we do that which pleaseth the vniuersall Church whom the authority of the same Scriptures recommendeth And againe (s) Ibid. c. 31. Whosoeuer feareth to be deceaued through the obscurity of this question let him consult with that Church which the holy Scripture hath designed without any ambiguity This Church it is of which God pronounced by the mouth of Isay (t) Isa 54.17 Thou shalt iudge euery tongue that resisteth thee in iudgment Of this Christ hath promised (u) Math. 16.18 that the gates of hell which are Errors shall not preuâ—ile against her Of this he hath said (x) Math. 18.17 that whosoeuer heares her not is to be held as a Heathen a Publican In this he hath placed (y) Ad Ephes 4.11 17. Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastors and Doctors c. that we may not be litle Children wauering and carried away with euery blast of doctrine This Church these Pastors these Doctors all Christians must heare and imbrace their exposition of Scripture as the true meaning of the holy Ghost Christ himselfe hauing said (z) Luc. 10.6 that who heareth them heareth him and S. Iohn (a) â— Ioan. 4.6 by this marke distinguisheth Orthodoxe people from Heretikes that the Orthodoxe heare and obey the Pastors and Doctors of Gods Church which heretikes refuse to do We are sayth he of God he that knoweth God heareth vs He
Elect of God as the testimonies of your owne Iesuites the iudgment of S. Augustine and S. Chrysostome do confirme This then is your argument Suarez Tolet and Bellarmine for those are the Iesuites you name S. Chrysostome S. Augustine by sheep in the words of Christ obiected vnderstand only the sanctified Elect of God Ergo the Church consisteth only of predestinat An absurd consequence and falsly fathered on these authors who teach that the name of sheep in holy writ is taken sometimes for the elect and sometymes for the reprobate In this text of S. Iohn which you obiect it is taken for the elect for Christ speakes of those sheep to whom he will giue euerlasting life and which therfore no man shall pluck out of his (a) Ioan. 10.28 hand as Suarez rightly (b) L. 3. de auxil grat c. 16. â—â— 18 obserueth but other sheep there are which the infernall wolfe shall deuour such was Iudas and such are all reprobate Christians And if it were true that by sheep in Scripture were vnderstood the elect only yet your consequence is false and the Doctrine contained in it hereticall and such it is held to be by those very authors which you alleage to patronize it Suarez sheweth (*) De tripl virt Theol. part 1. disp 9. 〈◊〉 6. seqq that the Church is a fold contayning both sheep and kids that is both predestinate and reprobate as Christ himselfe hath (c) Math. 25.33 declared And treating there of the sense of this very place of S. Iohn he prooueth that some wolues are in the Church and some sheep out of the Church this I say he proueth out of the words of S. Augustine whom you alleage for the contrary saying (d) Tract 45. in Ioan. According to prescience and predestination how many sheep are without and how many wolues within how many liue wantonly now that will become Christians how many blaspheme Christ who shall belieue in Christ c. And how many prayse God within who will blaspheme him are chast and will become wantons stand now and will fall And he concludeth that these later notwithstanding they be actually in the Church are reprobat and the former though they be actually out of the Church are predestinate All this and much more to the same effect is alleaged by Bellarmine (e) L. 3. de Eocles c. 7. 9. out of Scriptures and Fathers And the same is deliuered by Tolet in that very place which you cite for the (f) Ad c. 10. Ioan. Aunotat 16. contrary for he sayth that as some who did not as yet belieue were sheep and elect so contrarily some that did actually belieue and were sheep were notwithstanding reprobats as Iudas And lastly S. Chrysostome is so far from holding with you that the Church containes only the sanctified Elect of God that he writeth (g) In Psal 39. thus The whole Church consisteth not of perfect men but hath also those that giue themselues to idlenesse and slouth that lead easy and dissolute liues and willingly serue their pleasures And that in the net of the Apostles which is the Church are contayned good and bad (h) Hom. 45. in cap. 12. Math. fishes Which Doctrine he like wise deliuereth in other places of his workes I conclude therfore that you haue wronged Suarez Tolet Bellarmine S. Augustine and Chrysostome fathering your false Doctrine on them But you proceed (i) Pag. 12. saying A third Scripture we find Rom. 1.9 where the Apostle sayth He that hath not the spirit of Christ the same is not his which sheweth that none is truly a Christian but as he is regenerated by the spirit of Christ. But we find this Scripture to make nothing at all for you for you for who euer is regenerated in the Sacrament of Baptisme receiueth some gifts of the holy Ghost which is the Spirit of Christ And as he is truly a man that is borne of Adam by naturall propagation so is he truly a Christian that is borne of Christ in Baptisme by spirituall regeneration for as therby he receaueth fayth so he is inrolled in the number of Christians and made a member of the mysticall body of Christ which is his Church True it is that all members of the Church are not alike those that with fayth haue sanctifiing grace which is the life of our soules are liuing members they that haue fayth without grace are according to diuers opinions tearmed diuersly some say they are dead members some that because they are dead they are not members properly but improperly or equiuocally and therfore rather to be called partes of the Church then members Others say that they are neither members nor partes but as superfluous or corrupt humors in the body of man These opinions though they differ in words yet they agree in this that fayth being the essentiall forme of the Church all the faythfull be they Saints or sinners predestinat or reprobat are contained in the precincts therof euen as all whether members parts or humors of man are contained in the body of man And as for this different manner of speach Turrecremata Canus and others cited by them and here alleaged by you out of Bellarmine for out of him you tooke them call sinners partes of the Church and not members but only equiuocally because as Suarez rightly (*) De trip virtute Theol. p. 1. d. 9. n. 12. obserueth by members they vnderstand only such partes as liue wheras the name of partes may also agree to those that liue not Wherfore they differ only in the names vnderstanding by partes the very same that the holy Councell of Trent and other Diuines do by members And doubtlesse this manner of speach vsed by the Councell is more proper because sinners hauing fayth hope are not voyd of all motion of spirituall life for as fayth is the beginning of iustification so it vniteth the belieuer in some sort vnto Christ Nor doth Costerus whom here you obiect differ from this opinion for that he denyes not sinners to be dead partes or members of the Church he declareth (k) Enchir iâ— contro 6.2 prope fin when speaking of the Bishops of Sardis and Laodicea that were reprehended the one that he was dead in Spirit the other that he was nether cold nor boat but luke-warme wretched miserable poore blind and naked he affirmeth that notwithstanding this they were both still acknowledged to be Bishops and heads of their Churches And a litle after where he sayth (l) Solut. ad obiect Haerâ—t that sinners are in the Church as humors in the body he sayth withall that they are as wythered bowes on the tree Wherfore vnlesse you will haue the Head to be no member of the body and the wythered bowes no partes of the tree you must consesse that your obiecting of Costerus to proue that sinners and reprobates are no partes of the Church is a grand Imposture And
and how great seuerity and zeale of iustice towards those that offend giues this fact of Peter as an example (s) L. 1. ep 24. From whence it is sayth he that Peter by authority from God hauing the Principality of the holy Church refused to be ouermuch reuerenced by Cornelius that did well but when he found the fault of Ananias and Saphyra he presently shewed how farre he was growne in power aboue the rest for he tooke away their liues with a word and shewed himselfe to be the chiefest in the Church against sinne And he addeth that Peters zeale in punishing declared the force of his power The same is deliuered by S. Bernard (t) Epist â—â—8 who speaking to Eugenius Pope of his power ouer the whole Church and in particular to depose Bishops when they deserue it sayth He that holds the place of Peter can with one blow kill Ananias and Simon Magus with another and to speake more plainly it belongs only to the Bishop of Rome to pronounce a peremptory sentence for the deposing of Bishops because though others be called to a part of solicitude yet he only hath the fulnesse of power c. How thinke you Doctor Morton whether is it fit that we belieue these renowned Doctors of Gods Church teaching vs that the sentence of death pronounced by S. Peter against Ananias and Saphyra was an act of his ordinary power and iurisdiction or you denying it 3. He exercised his authority vpon Simon Magus who witnes (u) L. 1. c. 2. l. 3. initio S. Irenaeus was the Prince and father of all heretikes The holy Apostle detected his wickednesse first at Samaria and excommunicated him (x) Act. 8.18 seqq and afterwards as S. Hierome (y) In catal script in Simone Petro. and Theodoret (z) Haeret. Fabul l 1. report went to Rome to oppose him and there condemned his Doctrine The Doctrine of Simons sorcery seruing the Angels sayth Tertullian (a) L. de Praescrip was reckoned among Idolatries and condemned by Peter the Apostle in Simon himselfe And S. Augustine (b) L. de haeres haer 1. At Rome the blessed Apostle Peter killed Simon the Magician by the true power of almighty God And Marianus with all the Regulars of Syria in their petition presented to the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas (c) Act. 1. God sent Agapete Pope of old Rome to Constantinople for the deposition of Anthymus and the fore-named heretikes as hereofore he sent great Peter to the Romans for the destruction of the sorcery of Simon And S. Bernard (d) Serm. 1. in die Potri Pauli What more powerfull then Peter who with the breath of his mouth ouertoke Simon Magus in the ayre and receaued the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen in so singular a manner that his sentence goes before the sentence of heauen And to declare that the power of Peter still liueth in his Successors he sayth (e) Epist. 138. He that holds the place of Peter can at one blow kill Simon Magus Nor was it voyd of mystery that the first Arch-heretike with his heresy shold be condemned at Rome by Peter where all the heretikes and heresies of ensuing ages were to be condemned by S. Peters Successors 4. He shewed himselfe to be Head and Prince of the Apostles in asking and answearing often-times in the name of them all When Christ exhorted the Apostles to perfection Peter answered for all (f) Math. 19.27 Behold we haue left all things and followed thee what therefore shall we haue And when some of the Disciples forsaking Christ he asked the rest will you also be gone Peter as representing the person of them all answered (g) Ioan. 6.58 O Lord to whom shall wee goe thou hast the words of eternall life Vpon which passage S. Cyrill writeth (h) L. 4. in Ioan. c. 28. It was not fitting they should answeare confusedly and therfore giuing example of wisdome and modesty to future ages they answere by one that was gouernor and greater then the rest And to another question of our Sauiour Peter answered sayth S. Cyrill (i) L. 12. in Ioan. c. 64. as Prince and Head of the rest The same is testified by S. Cyprian by S. Cyrill of Hierusalem and S. Augustine (k) See aboue nu 23. Now that Peters answering for all was an act declaratiue of his iurisdiction is proued by the example of Christ our Lord for as oftentimes the Deane because he is Head and Superior of the Chapter answereth for all the Canons and in name of them all so Christ because he was Head Mayster of all the Apostles in diuers occasioÌ„s answered for them The Pharisees demanded of them (l) Math. 9.11.12 Why doth your Mayster eat with Publicans and sinners Christ answered for them They that are in health need not a Physitian but they that are ill at ease And when the same Pharisees saw the Apostles plucking eares of corne on the sabboth day and asked them (m) Luc. 6.2 why they did so Christ answered for them defending their fact by the example of Dauid Wherfore as Christs answering for all the Apostles shewed him to be their Head and Mayster so Peters answering for the other Apostles declared him to be Mayster and Rector of the Apostolicall Colledge 5. Among the Christians newly conuerted at Antioch there arose a dispute whether the law of Moyses were to be obserued or no for decision of this doubt Paul Barnaby and some others went vp to Hierusalem to the Apostles and Priests and chiefly to S. Peter to whom as to the Head of the Church and supreme Iudge of Controuersies the resolution of that doubt chiefly belonged Wherupon S. Paul himselfe speaking of this his iorney sayth (n) Gal. 2.2 I went vp to Hierusalem c. And Theodoret (o) Epist ad Leon. Paul the preacher of truth and the trumpet of the holy Ghost ranne to great Peter to bring from him a resolution of such doubts as arising about the obseruation of the Law did minister occasion of strife to them that were at Antioch How much more need then haue we that are weake and contemptible to runne to your Apostolicall seat to fetch salues for the sores of the Church And S. Chrysostome (p) Hom. 87. in Ioan. sayth Paul went to Peter prae alijs aboue others and that by reason of his authority as S. Hierome expresseth (q) Ep. 11. ad Augustinum And S. Ambrose (r) In cap. 1. ad Gal. because our Sauiour had committed to him the charge of the Churches Nor did S. Pauls going to Peter and the other Apostles and Priests togeather with him any way derogate from this supreme authority as the bringing of a suite to the Parliament derogateth not from the supreme Authority of the King who is Head of the Parliament Wherfore Peter as Head of the Church for the determination of that doubt assembled a Synod
S. Augustins but of an hereticall Author Bellarmine I grant confesseth the booke not to be S. Augustines and therfore he citeth it not as of S. Augustine he granteth also that the author erred in some particulars which he expresseth but because in this matter of S. Peters Supremacy he was neuer taxed of error but agreeth with the rest of the Fathers his testimony was not to be contemned especially being so forcible as you (z) Pag. 52. confesse it to be But be it whose you will with what face can you reiect it For do you not produce against vs two other testimonies of the same booke affirming (a) Pag. 30. 286. S. Augustine himselfe to be the author of them This Dilemma wil discouer your dealing either the book is S. Augustins or it is not If it be not S. Augustines why do you in other places vrge it against vs as of S. Augustine If it be S. Augustines why do you here deny it to be his and reiect it as hereticall when we vrge it against you Is not this shufling Shall it be S. Augustines and of force when you vrge it against vs shall it not only not be S. Augustines but hereticall when we vrge it against you but such dealing suiteth best with a Grand Imposture The third testimony which Bellarmine alleageth of S. Augustine is out of his second booke of Baptisme against the Donatists where hauing said that the primacy of the Apostles doth singularly excell in Peter he addeth I thinke that Cyprian Bishop without any affront is compared to Peter the Apostle for as much as concernes the glory of Martyrdome but I rather ought to feare lest I be contumelious to Peter for who knoweth not that that Princedome of Apostleship is to be preferred before whatsoeuer Bishoprick To this you answere (b) Pag. 49. marg fin That Primatus Apostolorum signifieth nothing els but Munus Apostolicum the Apostolicall function and that is most illustrious in Peter But your answere is deficient for to say that the primacy of the Apostleship singularly excelled in Peter is not only to say that Peter was an Apostle but that he was Primate and Prince of the Apostles and that his primacy contained a singular preeminence of dignity belonging to him which was not in any of the other Apostles and this dignity it was that made him more illustrious then the rest Againe wheras S. Augustine said he had cause to feare lest he might affront S. Peter in comparing Cyprian the Martyr vnto him because that Princedome of Apostleship which was in Peter exceeded all Bishopricks you answere (c) Pag. 50. marg that in these words there is only a comparison betweene Peters Apostleship and Cyprians Bishoprick and that no Protestant will deny that the Apostleship though of Barnabas was more excellent then the Bishoprick although of Linus This answere is not to the purpose for S. Augustine compares not the Apostleship in generall with Cyprians Bishoprick but in particular illum Apostolatus principatum that Princedome or Soueraignty of the Apostleship which was peculiar to Peter as to Head and Prince of all the Apostles Nor is it true that S. Augustine only compareth Peters Apostleship with Cyprians Bishoprick he compares Peters Bishoprick with Cyprians Bishopprick Peters Chayre with Cyprians Chayre which you cunningly leaue out both in your english and Latin acknowledgeth that distal cathâ—drarum gratia etsi vna sit Martyrum gloria that albeit the glory of Martyrdome be alike in them both yet there is distance betwene the Dignity of their chayres and by reason of this distance S. Augustine sayth he hath cause to feare lest he wrong Peter in making any comparison betwene Cyprians chayre and his chayre for though Cyprian were Primate of all Africa yet Peter was Bishop and Gouernor of the Vniuersall Church a dignity no way belonging to Cyprian or any other Bishop or Apostle whatsoeuer With shifts not vnlike to these you elude the testimonies of S. Cyprian S. Hierome and other Fathers who as you confesse (d) Pag. 50. iâ—it call Peter sometymes Prince Head and Captayne of all the Apostles somtymes Chiefe Priest of the Christians Captayne of Gods hoast Pastor and foundation of the whole Church and One to whom the guydance and presidence of the vniuersall Church is committed To these their testimonies you answere (e) Pag. 50. med that they argue not any primacy of authority and iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles or ouer the whole Church but of Order only This distinction you often vse to shift of the authorities of Fathers when you are pressed with them By Primacy of Order you vnderstand priority of place and of voyce as afterwards (*) Pag. 110. you declare But whatsoeuer you vnderstand sure I am that ancient Fathers by the primacy of Peter vnderstand not only priority of place and of voyce but true power and iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church and so it is apparent by the very names which they vse to expresse his primacy as of Prince Head and Captayne of all the Apostles Pastor and President of the vniuersall Church for hath not the Prince in his territories authority and iurisdiction hath he not power to commaÌ„d his subiects to make lawes to punish offendors In a City hath not the Head which is the Magistrate power and authority ouer the Citizens Hath not a Captayne the command of his soldiers and the Pastor power to rule his flock wherfore since with the Fathers you confesse that Peter is Prince Head and Captayne of all the Apostles Pastor and foundation of the whole Church and that the guydance and presidence of the vniuersall Church is committed to him either you vnderstand not what you say or els you grant that Peter hath not only primacy of Order but of authority power coÌ„mand ouer the Apostles ouer the whole Church as a Prince hath ouer his subiects a Captaine ouer his souldiers a Maior ouer the Citizens and a shepheard ouer his flock And what els is it that S. Chrysostome teacheth saying (f) Hom. in B. Ignat. that Peter was the Superintendent of the whole world that to him Christ consigned the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen and committed the disposition of all things And (h) Orat. 5. aduers Iud. that Peter was made chiefe of the Apostles and had the whole world in subiection and (i) Hom. 80. ad pop Autioch that Christ deliuered to him the gouerment of the Church throughout the whole world What els did S. Maximus meane when he said (k) Hom. 3. in Natali Apost Pet. Pauli Peter was of so great merit in the sight of Christ that after the rowing of a small boat the gouerment of the whole Church was put into his hands What Arnobius (l) Ad Psal 138. pronouncing that Peter is Bishop of Bishops and that Christ gaue to him and to no other of the Apostles
pag. 297. Suauissimus erat in Gallijs famae odor grauitatis saenctitatis ac rerum gestarum eius Pontificis The fame and sweet odor of this Popes grauity holinesse of life and greatnesse of his actions was most fragrant through out all France And as Blondus reporteth that he writ libros doctrina plenos so others witnesse (d) Geneb in Chronico anno 1198. Cicarollus Platina in vita Innocent 3. that he writ more then almost all the Popes before his time put togeather And finally Clement the fixth as you may reade in Plation Yllescas and others (e) In vita Clementis 6. was a man of great learning and eloquence liberall to all of most courteous and sweet conuersation and adorned with many excellent vertues From whence euery man of iudgement will easily vnderstand how vntruly you charge him with tossing the Emperors crowne from his head to sport himselfe c. SECT IV. Doctor Morton contradicteth himselfe TO shew your splene yet more against Gregory the seauenth of whom beside what hath bene said Martinus Polonus writeth (f) Apud Gened an 1087. that by his prayers he wrought great miracles and Lambertus Schafnaburgensis (g) A pud Geneb ibid. that he was endowed with the gift of prophesy you say (h) Pag. 174. sin 175. It is confessed that no Pope in all the succession of S. Peter did depose any Emperor before Gregory the seauenth that is vntill a thousand and sixty yeares after Christ You bring for your author Otho Frisingensis who though otherwise a learned and pious Bishop yet being grand-child to Henry the Fourth whom Gregory deposed writeth partially in his fauor and contradicteth himselfe for he confesseth (i) L. 5. c â—3 l. 4. c. 34.35.36 that Zacharias Pope who liued 300. yeares before Gregory the seauenth deposed Childericus King of France And the same you likewise contradicting your selfe acknowledge (k) Pag. 171.174 producing the same example of Zacharias which Otho doth Nor could you be ignorant of others more ancient alleaged by Bellarmine in that place (l) L. 5. dâ— Pent. c. 8. from whence you toke this of Gregory the seauenth but you mention not them that you may haue the better colour to inueigh against him CHAP. XXXIII Doctor Mortons late Sermon preached in the Cathedrall Church of Durham answeared AS the maine drift of your writings is to make Catholike religion odious and to exasperate the mindes of Protestants against all the professors therof so there is nothing more frequent with you then to slander Catholikes in generall with seditious Tenets which are not theirs but the knowne Principles of your brerhren Luther Caluin Beza Buchanam Knox Goodman Gilby and others (m) See M. Patison Monarchomacbia per toi and Brereley Prot. Apol. Preface to the Reader The answeare giuen you by your ancient friend (n) P. Persons in his Treatise tending to mitigation against the seditious writings of Thomas Morton Minister might haue seemed sufficient to make you ashamed of opening your mouth againe in that kind But I find that in your later writings you are as bitter as euer and to that end haue lately preached a Sermon before the Kings most Excellent Maiesty in the Cathedrall Church of Durham which is nothing but a peece of your Grand Imposture printed long since now againe newly preached and reprinted vnder the name of a Sermon which I suppose some of your Auditors that had read your booke could not but marke and thinke it a thing vnworthy of so great a Rabbin to present his Maiesty with a peece of an old Imposture insteed of a new Sermon Because I haue vndertaken the confutation of your Grand Imposture I will in like manner answere the particulars of your Sermon noting withall the places of your Grand Imposture out of which you haue borrowed them SECT I. The sense of S. Pauls words which Doctor Morton tooke for his text declared THe text of your Sermon are these words of the Apostle which you call A sacred and diuine Canon Omnis anima c. Let euery soule be subiect to higher Powers c. In these words the Apostle speaketh not of all soules and all Powers vniuersally els he should command all higher Powers for they also are soules to be subiect to other higher Powers v. g. the King of France to the King of Spaine the King of Spaine to the King of England and the Emperor to the great Turke Wherfore by higher powers be vnderstandeth Superiors and by euery soule all subiects But since there be Superiors of seuerall kindes the next question will be what Superiors he meaneth by higher powers and what subiects by euery soule You by higher powers vnderstand (o) Serm. pag. 4. the Temper all Magistrate that carieth the sword I deny not but that diuers learned expositors seeme to be of opinion that the Apostle speaketh wholly or chiefly of temporall Princes and other secular Powers subordinate to them But then it is euident against you that as S. Paul speaketh to the Christians of Rome and in them to all others so he doth not command them to obey secular Princes in matters of Religion but in temporall affaires only for the Roman Emperors to whom the Christians of Rome were then subiect being Heathens enemies to Christ and Persecutors of his Church to bid the Christians obey them in matters of religion had bene to bid them disobey Christ and renounce their sayth And this you must confesse to be true for you say (p) Serm. pag. 7. Imposture pag. 175. 176. 276. 278. that Popes and other Christians for the space of 600. yeares performed this Obedience commanded by S. Paul and yet they neuer yielded to Nero vnder whom S. Paul writ his Epistle to the Romans or to any other Heathen Prince Obedience in Religion but in temporall affaires only And of this Obedience the Greeke Fathers Chrysostome Oecumenius Euthymius Theodoret and Theophilact speake when they say that S. Paul excepteth not from this Obedience Apostles Euangelists or Prophets for all Christians Ecclesiastiks and Laicks are bound to obey the Lawes of temporall Princes in whose dominions they liue And this Obedience was performed by the Popes of Rome whiles they were not temporall Princes themselues But now being and hauing bene for many yeares temporall Monarkes as absolute in their estates as other Princes in theirs it can no more be inferred out of your text that Popes are subiect to Kings then that the King of Spaine is subiect to the King of France There is not say you out of Tully (q) Pag. 289. a greater degree of futility then for any man to obiect that to which when it shall be retorted vpon himselfe he shall not tell what to say If when you came downe from the pulpit some prudent man that had heard you inferre from this text that the Pope is subiect to temporall Princes had desired to learne of you to what temporall Prince
the Pope is now subiect he being an absolute Prince himselfe what could you haue answeared You must haue confessed that you had ouer shot your marke and out of a desire to be speaking against the Pope misinterpreted the words of your text wrested them to a false sense contrary to the true meaning of the Apostle S. Bernard a man endowed with the spirit of God commended by Caluin (r) L. 4. Instit. c. 7. §. 22. cap. 11. §. 11. and Melancthon (s) Art 5. 27. and estemed by your selfe as a Saint was so far from thinking that these words of the Apostle import any subiection of Popes to temporall Princes that contrarily out of them as out of a sacred Canon he teacheth the Emperor Conradus to yield obedience to the Pope as to his Pastor and spirituall Father Legi c. I haue read sayth he (t) Ep. 2â—3 to the Emperor Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers and he that resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God Which sentence I wish and admonish you to obserue in exhibiting reuerence to the chiefe and Apostolike See and to the Vicar of blessed Peter as you will haue it yielded to you by the whole Empire And in other places he reckoneth vp the chiefe Kings of the Christian world professing obedience to Innocentius the second Pope of that name as to the Pastor and Bishop of their soules (u) Ep. 124. 126. prope fin as children to their Father and members to their Head (x) Ep. 125. To S. Bernard I adde other ancient holy and learned Expositors who by Higher Powers vnderstand not the Temporall Magistrat only but also the spirituall and proue that S. Paul in these words commandeth obedience of subiects to all Superiors as well spirituall as temporall So Primasius S. Remigius S. Anselme Lyra and Carthusianus (y) In eum locuin And in confirmation of this sense Primasius by the sword giuen to higher powers vnderstandeth not only the materiall but also gladium spiritus the spirituall sword giuen to S. Peter wherwith he punished Ananias and Saphira The same sense is followed by S. Basil (z) Constit Monast c. 23. who confirmeth the same out of another passage of the Apostle (a) Heb. 2â— 17 where speaking to all Christians without exempting any temporall Power neuer so high he sayth Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them for they watch as bring to render account of your soules Which inference is also made by that holy learned Pope Gregory the seauenth who explicating your text sayth (b) L. 1. regist Ep. 22. Seeing therfore the Apostle commands obedience to worldly powers how much more to spirituall and those that haue the place of Christ among Christians And if these Expositors be not of credit with you Iohn Caluins doctrine is (c) L. 4. instit c. 10. §. 5. that if obedience must be exhibited to secular Princes for conscience sake it must also be yielded to Ecclesiasticall Superiors Wherfore the more probable Exposition is that the Apostle by Higher Powers vnderstandeth not the temporall Magistrate only but speaketh generally of all Powers as well spirituall as temporall and requireth obedience vnto them both in their degrees Which being true you can no more inferre out of his words that the Pope is subiect to temporall Princes then the contrary especially he being not noly a temporall Prince but also a spirituall so great that as the B. of Patara admonished Iustinian the Emperor (d) Liberat in Breu. c. 22. Albeit there be many Kings in the world yet none of them as the Pope who is ouer the Church of the whole world More proofes in this kind are not needfull You haue heard (e) Aboue Chap. 29. the Councell of Nice declaring the dignity of the B. of Rome as being the Vicar of Christ and gouernor of the vniuersall Church to surpasse the dignity of Kings You haue heard (f) Ibid. the most religious Emperors Kings professing obedience vnto him as children to their Father and sheepe to their Pastor And if S. Pauls words be true (g) Heb. 7.7 that without all contradiction the lesse is blessed by the greater the dignity of an Emperor who is blessed consecrated and crowned by the Pope must be lesser then the dignity of the Pope that blesseth and crowneth him This you will better vnderstand if you call to minde that the holy Martyr S. Ignatius teacheth Christians next after God to honor the Bishop (h) Ep ad Smyrnen And that all people who euer they be Soldiers Princes yea the Emperor himselfe must obey the Bishop to the end that vnity and order may be obserued in all (i) Ep. ad Philadelph And why els do the learned Fathers S. Martin S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose and S. Gregory the great preferre the Episcopall and Sacerdotall dignity before the regall and Imperiall (k) See aboue Chap. 29. Why did S. Nazanzen (l) Orat. ad ciues timore perculsos Princ. irasc call the Emperor A sheepe of his sacred flock and say vnto him The law of Christ hath made you subiect to my power and to my Tribunall for we Bishops haue an Empire also and that more perfect then yours vnlesse you will say that the spirit is inferior to the flesh and heauenly things to earthly And what els do the greatest Monarkes of the world but make profession of this when the Priest sitting and couered they kneele downe with all humility at his feet and confesse their finnes vnto him Is not this to acknowledge that they come as persons guilty to accuse themselues and that the Priest in that court of conscience is their lawfull Superior and Iudge This S. Chrysostome expressed saying (m) L. 3. de Sacerd. that Priests as if they were already transported into heauen and exalted aboue humane nature haue a Princedome which giueth them power to bind soules in comparison wherof the power of Kings is as far inferior as earth to heauen and the body to the soule This S. Ambrose when he said (n) L. de dignit Sacerd. c. 2. You see the heads of Kings and Princes humbled to the knees of Priests and that kissing their hands they belieue themselues to be protected by their prayers This Basilius the Emperor (o) Orat. in fine Conc. Gen. 8. when alluding to the words of Christ spoken to his Apostles (p) Ioan. 20.23 Whose sinnes you forgiue they are forgiuen he professed that Bishops and Pastors haue the power of binding and losing in the Church and that all lay men are to be sanctified to be bound and lesed from their bonds by them And finally this professed Constantine the great when he said (q) Ruffin l. 1. c. 1. S. Greg. l. â— ep 72. that Bishops were constituted by God as Gods among men and therfore had power to iudge of Emperors I conclude therfore that if the doctrine of the