deinde neque hoc habet Papa propter ordinem charitatis sed propter subiectionem subordinationem ad deponendos Reges disponendum de regnis which you set downe (l) Pag margi as Bellarmines is not his but patched vp of diners words taken out of seuerall places of his and knit into one sentence to make him dance after your pipe speake as best fitteth your designe Yea Bellarmine out of that very Epistle and out of those very words of Innocent which you obiect proueth els where (m) L Pont that the Pope hath no temporall dominion ouer Christian Princes whome therfore you slander falsly fathering on him the contrary to make him all Catholikes as much as in you lieth hatefull to Christian Princes The third author which is Carerius I haue not seene but how vnsincerely you haue heretofore cited him in this very matter F. Persons in his Treatise tending to Mitigation against the seditious writings of Thomas Morion Minister hath shewed long since (n) Ch 162.17 And because he truly obserueth that you hardly cite any Author without some sleight or other I suspect that here you deale no otherwise with Carerius SECT II. Your second Argument out of Hieremy the Prophet examined SEcondly you say (o) Pag. 170. Popes exact of Emperors be they Christians or Ethnickes subiection and subordination when they meane to dispossesse them of their kingdomes or depriue them of their liues from pretence of Scripture alleaging in their Bulls for their warrant that saying of the Prophet Behold I haue constituted thee aboue nations and kingdomes to plant and roote on t to build and destroy Ierem. 1. So they Wherunto also accordeth the decree of Boniface the eight Good God that the world should be so bewitched by them as to account them Pastors of the Church who feed their people with thornes swords daggers and pistolls For what els meane these grosses wherby the word of God is so notoriously prophaned for patronizing of rebellions and murders All these are your words false I am sure and slanderous and whether not also rayling virulent let the Reader iudge My intention heere is not to dispute what authority the Pope hath ouer Kings and Emperors in temporall matters I write against you and my intention only is to shew that as in other matters so also in this you wrong the Popes and falsify the Fathers with other Catholike authors And to begin with S. Bernard you say (p) Pag. 170. He writing to Pope Eugenius (q) L. 2. de Considerat condemneth the Papall Glosse to his face teaching that in this text vnder the figuratiue speach of rurall sweat is expressed the spirituall labour c shewing therby that your Popes might haue proued for their aduantage out of that text rather a right to become gardeners and carpenters for roting out weeds and destroying of buildings then Generalls of Hoasts for conquest and subiection of kingdomes That S. Bernard out of this text gathereth no power of Popes to depose Kings or other secular Princes or people I grant He only admonisheth Eugenius that being placed in a seat of eminēcy from whence as from a watch-tower he beholdeth all he neither giue himselfe to idlenesse his function being an office of spirituall labor nor be puffed vp with pride but gouerne in humility which he calleth The chiefest gemme among all the ornaments of the high Priest and to that end representeth vnto him the admonition which S. Peter gaue to all Prelats (r) 1. Pet. 5.2 not no dominier in the Clergy but to become paternes of the flock from the hart and the example of Christ who was in the middest of his Disciples as one that wayted (s) Luc. 22.27 But yet to shew against you that Eugenius had spirituall iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church he sayth to him (t) L. 2. de Consid What person bearest thou in the Church of God Who art thou A great Priest the chiefe Bishop Thou art the Prince of Bishops thou the heyre of the Apostles thou art Abel in primacy Nōe in gouerment in Patriarkship Abraham in order Melchisedech in dignity Aaron in authority Moyses in iudicature Samuel in power Peter and by Vnction Christ. Thou art he to whom the keyes were giuen to whom the sheepe committed There are other porters of Heauen and Pastors of flocks but thou as in a different so in a far more glorious manner hast inherited both those names They haue their seuerall flockes assigned vnto them to thee all are committed one flock to one shepheard Thou art not only Pastor of the sheep but Pastor of all Pastors Dost thou aske how I proue it Out of the word of our Lord for to which I will not say of the Bishops but euen of the Apostles were the sheepe committed so absolutely and without exception If thou louest me Peter feed my sheepe What sheep Of this or that City or Countrey or Kingdome My sheep sayth he To whom is it not manifest that he designed not any but assigned all where no distinction is put no exception is made c. The power of others is confined within certaine limits Thy power extendeth euen to them that haue receaued power ouer others If there because canst not thou shut vp Heauen to a Bishop Canst not thou depose him from his Bishoprick and deliuer him to Satan All these words are S. Bernards which I haue transcribed that the reader may see he belieued the Pope to be Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church and acknowledged in him absolute power to depose Bishops which you could not be ignorant of but conceale it because it toucheth your copie-hold and mention only deposing of Princes of which S. Bernard speaketh not one word Yea more ouer he doth not only acknowledge that the Pope hath power to depose Bishops but withall sheweth how falsly you alleage him to proue that in the text of Hieremy nothing is expressed but spirituall labor vnder the figuratiue speach of rurall sweat for writing to the same Pope Eugenius (u) Ep. 237. he requesteth him to depose the Bishops of Winchester Yorke as intruders and wicked men that opposed the Archbishop of Canterbury a religious Prelate and of good fame and out of this very text of Hieremy proueth his authority to do it for to that end sayth he (x) Ibid. thou art placed ouer nations and kingdomes to pull vp and destroy to build and to plant which power he declareth againe in another Epistle (y) Ep. 239. out of the same text of Hieremy speaking to Eugenius of deposing a wicked Bishop of the Ruthenians Nor is it S. Bernard only that interpreteth Hieremy in this sense for 630. Bishops assembled in the Councell of Chalcedon (z) In relat ad Leo. alleage the same text to iustify their deposing of Dioscorus and require Leo Pope to confirme the same The like interpretation is made by 32. Bishops in the
them Sect. 3. pag. 182. Doctor Mortons rayling against the Inquisition Sect. 4. pag. 187. CHAP. XV. Of the signification of the word Catholike the iudgment of diuers Fathers obiected by Doctor Morton against the Roman Church pag. 195. That the word Catholike proues the Roman Church to be the true Church Sect. 1. ibid. The iudgment of S. Hierome concerning the Church Catholike Sect. 2. pag. 198. The iudgment of S. Gregory concerning the Supremacy of the B. of Rome and his title of vniuersall Bishop Sect. 3. pag. 201. S. Dionyse his iudgment concerning the supremacy of the Roman Church Sect. 4. pag. 302. S. Ignatius his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 5. p. 303. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 6. p. 304. Tertullian his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 7. pag. 308. Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 8. pag. 311. Other obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared Sect. 9. pag. 312. CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the B. and Church of Rome pag. 313. Doctor Mortons obiections against the precedent doctrine answeared Sect. 1. pag. 318. CHAP. XVII The second generall Councell held at Constantinople belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome pag. 324. By what authority this Councell was called Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Primacy of the Pope be Primacy of Authority and Iurisdiction or of Order only Sect. 2. pag. 328. Whether the names of Brother Collegue and Fellow-Minister which the Pope giueth to other Bishops and they to him argue them to be of equall Authority and Iurisdiction with him Sect. 3. pag. 330. A friuolous cauill of Doctor Morton against Bellarmine answeared Sect. 4. pag. 335. Of the Decree of this second Councell generall made in fauor of the Archbishop of Constantinople Sect. 5. pag. 336. That no Canon of any Councell can be of force vntill it be confirmed by the See Apostolike Sect. 6. pag. 338. That the Bishops of Constantinople knew this Canon to be of no force Sect. 7. pag. 340. CHAP. XVIII The third Councell generall being the first of Ephesus belieued the supreme authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome ouer all Bishops pag. 343. Of the deposition and condemnation of Nestorius by the command of Pope Celestine and whether the style of ancient Popes were to command Sect. 1. ibid. The Councell of Ephesus acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the cause of Iohn Patriarke of Antioch Sect. 2. pag. 351. Of the Ordination of the Bishops of Cyprus treated in the Councell of Ephesus Sect. 3. pag. 352. Whether it may be gathered out of the Councell of Ephesus that the authority of the Pope is aboue a generall Councell Sect. 4. pag. 353. CHAP. XIX The Councell of Chalcedon belieued the supreme authority of the B. of Rome pag. 355. That Leo Pope called the Councell of Chalcedon by his authority and presided in it by his Legates Sect. 1. ibid. That the Councell of Chalcedon by the authority of Leo Pope deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus restored Theodoret Sect. 2. pag. 356. Whether the title of Vniuersall Bishop which the Councell of Chalcedon gaue to the Pope argue in him no more but a generall care of the good of the Church such as belongs to euery Bishop and to euery Christian Sect. 3. pag. 360. Whether the Couneell of Chalcedon did giue to the B. of Constantinople priuiledges equall with the B. of Rome Sect. 4. pag. 362. Falsifications and vntruths of Doctor Morton discouered his Arguments answeared Sect. 5. pag. 367. CHAP. XX. The fifth Councell generall belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop Church of Rome p. 375. Doctor Mortons ignorance and contradictions concerning this Councell Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons ignorance further discouered and his falsifying of Binius Sect. 2. pag. 377. Of the matter treated in the fifth generall Councell Sect. 3. pag. 381. Doctor Mortons glosse vpon the word Obedience Sect. 4. pag. 383. CHAP. XXI Of the sixth generall Councell pag. 385. That it acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the fixth Councell condemned Honoriu Pope as an Heretike Sect. 2. pag. 387. CHAP. XXII Of the seauenth and eight generall Councells pag. 391. That these two Councells acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the eight generall Councell Sect. 2. pag. 392. Whether the eight generall Councell condemned the Saturday-fast allowed by the Roman Church Sect. 3. pag. 394. CHAP. XXIII Doctor Morton defendeth the hereticall custome of the Asian Bishops pag. 397. CHAP. XXIV Doctor Morton in opposition to the Roman Church defendeth the hereticall Doctrine of Rebaptization pag. 402. CHAP. XXV. Other Arguments of Doctor Morton out of S. Cyprian answeared pag. 408. CHAP. XXVI The Councells of Carthage and Mileuis acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome pag. 411. CHAP. XXVII Appeales to Rome proued out of the African Councell which was the sixth of Carthage p. 419. The state of the question Sect. 1. ibid. That the Nicen Canons were more then twenty in number And that the Canons concerning appeales to Rome were true Canons of the Nicen Councell Sect. 2. pag. 421. Whether if there had bene no Canon for appeales to Rome in the Councell of Nice it had bene forgery in Pope Zosimus to alleage a Canon of the Sardican Councell for a Canon of Nice Sect. 3. pag. 426. Vntruthes and falsifications of D. Morton discouered and his obiections answeared Sect. 4. pag. 429. Whether this Controuersy of appeales wrought in the Africans any separation of Communion from the Roman Church Sect. 5. pag. 437. CHAP. XXVIII Whether the Britans and Scots not celebrating Easter after the manner of the Roman Church were for that cause separated from her communion p. 450. CHAP. XXIX Of the great reuerence of ancient Christian Emperors and Kings to the Pope pag. 454. CHAP. XXX Whether Christian Emperors haue inuested themselues in Ecclesiasticall affaires pag. 461. Constantine the Great inuested not himselfe in Ecclesiastical causes Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons second Example of Theodosius examined Sect. 2. pag. 469. Doctor Mortons third instance of Theodosius the yonger and Honorius examined Sect. 3. pag. 471. Doctor Mortons fourth instance of Theodosius and Valentinian examined Sect. 4. pag. 473. Doctor Mortons fifth instance of Iustinian examined Sect. 5. pag. 475. CHAP. XXXI Of the authority and place of Emperors in Councells pag. 480. CHAP. XXXII Whether Popes haue challenged ciuill subiection from Emperors and Kings Christian and Heathen pag. 483. Doctor Mortons first Argument out of Innocent the third examined Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons second Argument out of Hieremy the Prophet examined Sect. 2. pag. 486. Doctor Mortons third Argument out of the examples of diuers Popes examined Sect. 3. pag. 490. Doctor Morton contradicteth himselfe Sect. 4. pag. 494. CHAP. XXXIII
communicated with Cornelius Pope but because as there he expresseth to be in his Communion was to be in the communion of the Catholike Church And writing to Cornelius himselfe he calles the Chayre of S. Peter (u) L. 4. ep 8. the roote and Mother of the Catholike Church and (x) L. 1. ep 3. the principall chayre from whence sacerdotall Vnity is deriued from whence he inferreth that whosoeuer departeth from that (y) L. de vnit Ecclesiae See holds not the fayth nor is in the Church So teacheth ancient Pacianus (z) Ep. 2. for Nouatian as S. Cyprian affirmeth hauing made himselfe an adulterous and contrary Head to Cornelius the lawfull Pope and thereby separated himself from the Roman Church Pacianus for that very cause pronounceth him to haue dyed out of the state of saluation Although sayth be Nouatian hath bene put to death yet he hath not bone crowned And why not because he was out of the peace of the Church out of concord out of that Mother wherof whosoeuer will be a Martyr must be a portion So teacheth Optatus that learned Bishop of Mileuis in Africa when writing against Parmenianus the Donatist he (a) L. 2. cont part Parmen sayth Thou canst not deny out that thou knowest the Episcopall chayre to haue bene first set vp in Rome for Peter in which seat was placed the Head of all the Apostles Peter from whence he hath bene also called Cephas to the end that in this only chayre Vnity might be preserued to all least the other Apostles might attribute to themselues each one his particular Chayre and that he should be a Schismatike and a sinner that would against the only chayre set vp another And againe shewing the Donatists to be Schismatikes and out of the state of saluation because they opposed the Roman Church he (b) Ibid. sayth From whence is it that you attempt to vsurpe to your selues the Keyes of the kingdome you that fight against the chayre of Peter by your bold and sacrilegious presumption Thus writ Optatus 1200. yeares since and by his argument we may now proue Protestants to be Schismatikes no lesse then he did the Donatists So teacheth S. Ambrose (c) De obitu Satyri professing that to communicate with Catholike Bishops and to communicate with the Roman Church is all one And writing to Siricius Pope and acknowledging all those to be Heretikes whom the Roman Church condemneth as such he sayth (d) L. 10. ep 81. Whom your Holines hath condemned knowe that we also hold them condemned according to your iudgment So teacheth S. Hierome who writing against Lucifer the Schismaticall Bishop of Calaris in Sardinia and the Luciferians his followers that boasted themselues to be the true Church sayth to Lucifer (e) Epist. 8. I could dry vp all the riuers of thy arguments with the only sun-shine of the Church but because we haue now reasoned longe I will in few words declare plainly vnto thee my iudgment which is that we are to remayne in that Church which being founded by the Apostles dureth vntill this day And else where declaring what Church he meaneth he aduiseth Demetrias that if she will auoyd the snares of Heretikes she hold fast the fayth of Innocentius Pope sonne and successor in the Apostolicall chayre to Anastasius who had broken the pestilent head and stopped the hissing mouthes of that Hydra which attempted to pollute and corrupt the simplicity of the Roman fayth commended by the voyce of the Apostle And againe writing to Dâ—masus Pope he sayth (f) Ep. 57. I am ioyned in communion with your Blessednes that is to say with Peters Chayre I know the Church is built vpon that Rocke whosoeuer is not in the Arke shall perish at the comming of the floud he that eates the lambe out of this house is prophane whosoeuer gathers not with you scatters that is to say whosoeuer is not of Christ is of Antichrist So teacheth S. Basill In very deed sayth he in a letter to the (g) Ep. 69. per Sabin Diac. Pope that which was giuen by our Lord to thy piety is worthy of that most excellent voyce which proclaymed thee blessed to wit that thou maiest discerne betwixt that which is counterfeyt that which is lawfull and pure and that without any diminution thou maist preach the fayth of our Ancestors It is then certaine in S. Basils beliefe that the assurance which Christ gaue to S. Peter that the gates of hell which are errors and Heresies should neuer preuaile against the Roman Church was not made to S. Peter in his owne person only nor only for his tyme but in him to all his Successors and to them in him is granted that admirable priuiledge of preaching the fayth of Christ pure and without any diminution So teacheth S. Maximus alià s (h) In ep ad Orientales apud S. Tho. in Opuse 1. prope fin Maximianus All the bounds of the earth that haue receaued our Lord sincerely and all Catholikes throughout the whole earth that confesse the true fayth looke vpon the Church of the Romans as vpon a Sunne and shall receaue from her the light of the Catholike and Apostolike fayth and not without cause for Peter is the first that is read to haue made a perfect confession of the fayth our Lord reuealing it vnto him Math. 16. When he said Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God whereupon our Lord said vnto him I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth fayle not And (i) Ibid. againe We professe the Vniuersall Church to be framed and founded vpon the rock of Peters confession according to the sentence of our Sauiour in which Church it is necessary to remayne for the saluation of our Soules and to yield obedience to her keeping her fayth and confession So teacheth S. Augustine who among the Arguments which held him in the Catholike Church reckoneth the succession of Bishops in the Roman See euen from S. Peter vntill his tyme I am kept sayth (k) L. eont epist. Funda c. 4. he in the Church by the succession of Priests from the very See of Peter the Apostle to whom our Sauiour after his resurrectien committed his sheepe to be fed euen to the present Bishop And exhorting the Donatists which bragged that they also had Bishops he (l) Epist. 165. sayth If the order Succession of Bishops be to be obserued how much more assuredly safely indeed do we begin our accompt from S. Peter himselfe vnto whom as he represents the whole Church our Lord said Math. 16. vpon this Rock I will build my Church for Linus succeeded to Peter Cletus to Linus and hauing reckoned vp all the Popes vnto Anastasius who then sate in S. Peters chayre he coÌ„cludeth against the Donatists In this order of succession there is not any one Donatist to be found to which we may adde no nor yet any Protestant Since therefore the Church in
an other French Lawier whom you call Our noble Historian whereas the whole course of his history sheweth him to haue bene a Huguenot or litle better Nor are you contented with citing him as a Catholike author but to helpe out the matter you falsify him most notoriously as hereafter (s) Chap. 44. sect 9. shall be proued A third sleight is to vrge as Catholike authors some that are of suspected fayth as 1. Erasmus (t) Pag 208. who albeit in the end he abandoned Luther * 303. u. 306. a 381. g 380. f. g. and dyed Catholike as out of his owne confession and Osianders testimony Brierley (u) Aduertism before his Protest Apol. hath proued yet for some tyme he fauoured Luther in regard therof is challenged by Doctor Humfroy and Doctor Reynolds for a man of your religion and by Iohn Foxe Canonized for a Protestant Saint (x) Acts and Mon. pa. 402. Kalend. 22. Decemb. His rash and vnaduised writings gaue occasion to Lutherans and Zuinglians to Father on him diuers of their hereticall Tenents and therfore are generally reproued by Catholikes (y) Ind. lib. prohib condemned by the Church which you cold not be ignorant of therfore your persisting still to alleage him against vs as an approued Catholike author is inexcusable 2. To this classe may be reduced others who though Catholikes yet fell into some errors as Beatus Rhenanus Claudius Espencaus Papyrius Massonius Ioannes Ferus and Gulielmus Barklaius of which the foure first are prohibited by the Church nor were you ignorant therof for speaking of Rhenanus you say (z) Pag. 101. Rhenanus writ so whiles he had the vse of his tongue but since you haue gagged him by your Index expurgatorius By what authority then do you vngagge him whom the Roman Church which he acknowledged to be his Mother hath so iustly gagged And though William Barkley be not registred in the Index as a condemned author his booke being set forth since the Index was made yet Bellarmine (a) Tract de potest Papae aduers Barclaium in praesat hath produced against his doctrine the agreeing consent of the most learned Diuines of Italy France Spayne England and Scotland as also the decrees of ancient Popes and generall Councels and therfore with great reason hath censured him for that being no Diuine but a Lawier he presumed to write a booke De potestate Papa in temporalibus which contayning diuers errors being left imperfect at his death was afterwards published without name of author printer or place of impression for although some copies say it was printed at Mussipont yet Bellarmine conuinceth that to be an (b) Ibid. vntruth Iohn Barkeley sonne to William hath confessed the same (c) In praef Parenesis giuing notice to all men that it was published in England by Protestants and hath withall acknowledged his Father to haue erred in that booke and retracted his owne defence therof All this might haue moued you to forbeare the alleaging of Barkeleys booke against vs. And so much the vrge in this your Grand imposture the very same passage of his which your ancient Antagonist (d) F. Persons Treatise to mitigations Chap. 6. pag. 202. here tofore shewed you to haue obiected in an other treatise of yours corruptly against our common beliefe and practise falsifying and sophisticating both his and our meaning And the like abuse he sheweth you to haue offred to (e) Ibid. Tolosanus whose testimony you yet againe impertinently produce here against (f) Pag. 172. vs. 3. And to this classe may be reduced Polydore Virgill (g) Grand Impost pag. 46.97 e. 164. p. 382. â— 386 c. who being a Catholike author his Booke De inuentoribus rerum hath bene enlarged and corrupted by heretikes and is for that cause prohibited 4. Your fourth sleight is to alleadge and insist much on some writings of Aenae as Siluius Cardinall Cusanus and Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester which they set forth in their youth but afterwards repented and publikely retracted Aenaeas Siluius that was afterwards Pope Pius the second being in his yonger yeares present at the Councell of Basil and Secretary therof writ a booke exalting the authority of a Councell and depressing the authority of the Pope which booke is not only forbiden by the Church but he himselfe also being more mature in yeares more ripe in iudgment and more solidly learned repenred the writing therof when he came to be Pope set forth a speciall bull to retract it (h) Extat hac Bulla apud Binium to 4. pag. 512. seqq in which among other words he sayth In minoribus agentes c. Whiles I was in minority not yet entred into any holy orders being present at Basil among those who made themselues a generall Councell said they represented the vniuersall Church I writ a small booke of Dialogues c. in which ignorantly as Paul did I persecuted the Roman and chief See Wherfore I admonish in our Lord that you giue no credit to such former writings of mine as do in any sorte extenuate the Soueraigne authority of the See Apostolike And then hauing declared that he made not this change by his comming to the Popedome but before he was either Pope or Bishop and set downe the causes that moued him therto he addeth Hauing considered all these things I submitted my selfe to Pope Eugenius saying with Hierome I am ioyned in communion with the chayreof Peter vpon which I know the Church to be built and I had at that tyme no other orders but of Priesthood only when I returned to the obedience of Eugenius By this it appeares that when Bellarmine sayth (*) Lib. de Scriptor in Aenea Siluio he retracted his error in his old age and being Pope he speaketh only of the setting forth of the said Bull to make his retractation publikely knowne to the whole world but the error it selfe he recalled before he was either Pope or Bishop as you haue heard And this discouereth your want of sincerity who in diuers places of your Grand Imposture alleaging testimonies of Aeneas to shew his iudgment concerning the Roman Church conceale all those in which his doctrine and beliefe is truly deliuered and set downe (i) Pag. 91. d. 210. * .249 d. only such as you could pick out of his former workes written in his youth forbidden by the Church and retracted by himself which dealing is no lesse impostetous then if you should deliuer as S. Augustins doctrine that which in his Retractations he hath recalled But you seeke to lessen this Imposture by adding an other to it for lest peraduenture your Reader might haue notice of this retractation of Aeneas and therby discouer your bad dealing you couer it by insinuating that he made no such recantation till he was Pope for hauing cited a passage of his you say (k) Pag. 210. So Aeneas out of Hierome whilest
from the Church which is true for before the end of their life they shall become members of Gods Church and perseuere in her vntill death But how proues this that none but predestinate are in the Church Nor doth it import that he giues to the predestinate the name of Church for that name sometimes doth not signify the vniuersall Church but a particular company of the faythfull as when we say The Church of the Corinthians or of the Ephesians and when S. Paul (f) Rom. 16.3 sayth Salute Prisca and Aquila and their domesticall Church And (g) 1. Cor. 16.19 againe Aquila and Prisca with their domesticall Church salute you In the same sense the name of Church is taken by Clemens Alexandrinus S. Gregory and S. Bernard whom heere you (h) Pag. 12. obiect for they all giue that name to the iust and predestinate by reason they are the principall partes of the Church SECT III. Your third Argument YOv (i) Pag. 16. say Though all agree in this as your selues confesse that without the Catholike Church there is no saluation yet haue you confessed two sorts of Christian professors namely Excommunicates and Catechumenists to be actually saued albeit no members of your Roman Church So you inferring that the Roman Church is not the Catholike Church Syr you know that Bellarmine whom here you cite expresly (k) L. 3 de Eccles milit c. 6. declareth that when we say none can be saued out of the Church we speake only of such as neither are in the Church really nor intentionally by desire but that if they be in the Catholike Church either really or at least by desire as Catechumenists and some Excommunicats are they may be saued Which Doctrine both he other Catholike Diuines approue And it is so certaine that you know not how to disproue it but by (l) Pag. 16. that as for being saued only by desire or vow of being in the Church is but a wild and extrauagant peece of learning in the iudgment of your owne Iesuit Suarez Pardon me Syr. This is not Suarez his censure but an vntruth of yours for Suarez speaking of excommunicats (m) De trio virt d. 9. sect 1. n. 14. sayth that those Diuines which hold them not to be in the Church really but only by desire differ not from him in the substance of their Doctrine but only in manner of speech Now he defends that both excommunicats Catechumenists are in the Church actually and really which also Valentia holdeth of (n) Tom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. punct 7. §. 14. 15. excommunicats on whom therfore you (o) Pag. 15. marg lit d. saying that the Church Catholike is compared by S. Peter to the Arke of Noah from whence you inferre that as in the tyme of the deluge all which were within the arke were saued and all without it were drowned although they desired neuer so much to be admitted into the arke so whosoeuer are essentiall members of the Catholike Church cannot possibly perish and contrarily whosoeuer is not a reall and vitall member therin cannot but perish So you reason the matter misvnderstanding S. Peter for he compares not the Arke of Noe to the Church but to the Sacrament of Baptisme wherin your argument holdeth not for though in the deluge none were saued but only they which actually were in the arke yet it is certaine that in the law of grace some are saued which neuer receaued the Sacrament of Baptisme as diuers Martyrs that were baptized in their owne bloud you acknowledge the same of Valentinian the Emperor who dyed vnbaptized But admitting the arke of Noe to be a type of the Catholike Church for so it is often taken by the ancient Fathers yet your argument proues nothing for similitudes hold not in all things Wherfore I answere with S. Augustine (q) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 28. that albeit none that were in the arke perished in the deluge and all perished that were out of the arke yet it falleth out otherwise in the Catholike Church represented by the arke for ill Catholikes notwithstanding they be in the Church not only by desire but corporally and really perish because they make bad vse of their baptisme and contrarily others that belieue aright and liue accordingly though they be not in the Church really but only in hart and desire as being yet vnbaptized are saued From whence S. Augustine concludeth that what is said of being in or without the arke in order to saluation is to be vnderstood of being in or without the Church corde non corpore that is to say not corporally and really but in hart and desire Which Doctrine as it is all Catholike Diuines so it is contrary to yours and sheweth your simplicity in calling it a wild and extrauagant peece of learning The things in which the Church is like to the arke witnes S. (r) Aduers Lucifer Hierome are that as the arke was visible so is the Church as in the arke there were Creatures cleane and vncleane so in the Church there are good and bad and as in the arke there were predestinate and also Cham a reprobate so in the Church there are both predestinate and reprobate Wherfore this comparison which you haue brought of the arke destroyes your owne doctrine SECT IV. Your fourth Argument YOur fourth Argument to proue the Roman Church not to be the Catholike Church is (t) Pag. 17. because say you our Diuines that speake more ingeniously freely graunt that the Pontificall dignity Roman as it is Roman is not from Diuine authority because only from the fact of Peter And they that are more affectionate to the Roman See although they attribute it to the institution of Christ yet dare they not say that this is to be belieued vpon certainty of fayth but only as a matter probable and coniecturall If you should argue thus An Aethyopian as he is black is not a man Ergo an Aethyopian is not a man your argument were a sophisme and so is that which heere you make against the Roman Church for as an Aethyopian though he be not a man reduplicatiue and formaliter as he is black yet he is a man as he is a rationall creature so like wise though it be no matter of fayth that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman is the Catholike Church yet it is matter of fayth that S. Peter by diuine institution was created supreme Pastor and Gouernor the whole Church that the same power descendeth from him to his Successors And it is also matter of fayth that S. Peter fixed his See at Rome and died there and that the Bishop of Rome succedeth him in his See and supreme authority of Prince and Gouernor of the whole Church of Christ nor was this euer questioned by any but heretikes That which some Catholike writers dispute is whether S. Peter had any command from Christ to place his See at Rome and
affirmeth that Christ to reward his fayth built his Church vpon him 9. And no lesse deceiptfully you alleage (k) Pag. 39. g. the RomaÌ„ glosse (l) Gloss Decret part 1. d. 10. in Cap. Dominus no fler to proue that not Peter but his confession without any relation to his person is the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church for the glosse sayth Christ would haue his owne name of Petra a Rocke giuen to Peter c. therfore called him Petrus And the Chapter on which this glosse is made is taken out of an Epistle of S. Leo in which he not only affirme (m) Ep. 83. Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built but addeth that whosoeuer denyeth this truth is impiously presumptuous and plungeth himselfe into Hell To these and otherlike obiections out of the Fathers and other Catholike authors you ad some confirmations of your owne The first is None say you (n) Pag. 41. will deny but that there was meant in Peters Confession that matter which he confessed but Peter confessed not himselfe but Christ saying Then art the Sonne of the lyuing God Ergo his confession had relation to Christ and not to himselfe A false and senslesse consequence for euery confession hath relation not only to the matter as to the obiect or thing confessed but also to him that coÌ„fesseth as to the agent from which it proceedeth and therfore to inferre that when Christ answering Peter and rewarding his confession sayd vnto him Thou art Peter c. he meant not Peter but himselfe to be the Rock is as senslesse an inference as to say that when Thomas cryed out vnto Christ (o) Ioan. 20.28 My Lord my God and Christ in reward of his confession sayd (p) Ibid. vers 29. Blessed art thou Thomas he pronounced not Thomas blessed but himselfe which was the matter Thomas beleeued 2. You obiect (q) Pag. 42. fin 43. All the Apostles and Prophets are called foundations wherby is not meant their persons or dominions but their doctrines I grant that Christ S. Peter the rest of the Apostles and Prophets are foundations on which the Church is built Christ is the chiefe and primary foundation by his owne power and strength Of him the Apostle sayth (r) 1. Cor. 3.11 Other foundation no man can lay besyde that which is layd which is Christ Iesus whome therfore S. Augustine (s) In Psal 86. and S. Gregory (t) L. 28. Moral c. 9. call Fundamentum fundamentorum The foundation of foundations Besydes Christ the Apostles and Prophets are also secondary foundations of the Church for the Prophets by fore-telling Christ and the Apostles by preaching his sayth and doctrine vphold the body of the Church to wit the faythfull who therfore are called (u) Ephes 2.20 Domostikes of God built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner-stone and for this cause the wall of the Citty of the Church is sayd (x) Apoc. 1.24 to haue 12. foundations and in them the 12. names of the 12. Apostles Among these secondary foundations Peter hath the first and chiefest place The rest of the faythfull in respect of him are ordinary stones he an impregnable Rock as being built immediatly vpon Christ and the rest by meanes of him in regard wherof it was sayd to him alone and to no other of the faythfull or Apostles Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And therfore S. Augustine sayth (y) Serm. 15. de Sanct. Our Lord called Peter the foundation of the Church for which cause the Church with reason worshippeth this foundation vpon which the height of the ecclesiafticall edifice is raysed 3. You say (z) Pag. 42. that when the Fathers expound by Rock Peter they meane ether a primacy of order or honor or els a priority of Confession in Peter not of Authority and Dominion and the same you repeate afterwards saying (a) Pag. 110. The similitude of head and members hath no colour of superiority but of priority of place or of voyce And this reason you alleage (b) Pag. 41. why though the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake yet he alone answered as being the mouth of the rest I grant that Peter spake in the name of the rest but to inferre that therfore Christ when he answered Peter saying Thou art Peter made him not a Rock or promised not to make him the foundation of his Church is a Non sequitur I grant also that the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake that he answered as the mouth of the rest not because he had any Commission from them but because out of his great feruor he preuented the rest and spake for them as their head and Superiour as Christ somtimes did for all his Apostles (c) Math. 9.11 Luc. 6.2 and as the Rector is wont to answere in the name of the whole Colledge So sayth S. Cyrill of Alexandria (d) L. 4. in Ioan. c. 18. They all answere by one that was their Superiour And againe (e) Ibid. l. 12. cap. 64. when our Sauiour asked his Disciples whom doe you say that I am Peter as being Prince and head of therest first cryed out Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God So S. Cyrill of Hierusalem (f) Catech. â—â— All the Apostles being silent for this doctrine was aboue their strength Peter Prince of the Apostles and the chiefe preacher of the Church sayth vnto him Thou art Christ c. And in the same sense S. Cyprian (g) L. 1. ep 3. sayth Peter on whom our Lord built his Church speaketh for all in the voyce of the Church And S. Augustine (h) Serm. 31. de verb. Apost c. 1. Peter bearing the figure of the Church most feruent in the loue of Christ chiefe in the order of Apostles and holding the Princedome of the Apostleship often answers one for all And againe (i) Tract 124. in Ioan. That in his answere he bare the person of the Church for the primacy of his Apostleship and for the primacy which he had among the Disciples And whereas you to elude this exposition of the Fathers say (k) Pag. 42. 110. that when they expound by Rock Peter or pronounce him to be the head and Captaine of the rest they meane not primacy of authority and iurisdiction but of order or honor is a distinction that caries with it its owne confutation and shall be effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 1. hereafter CHAP. IX S. Peter exercised his Authority and Iurisdiction of supreme Pastor and Gouernor ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church TO disproue S. Peters authority ouer the other Apostles you obiect first (a) Pag. 45.46 that S. Gregory vpon those words of the Apostle (b) Rom. 9.12 I will magnify my office in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentils
this purpose where withall he sheweth that Caluin to auoyd the force of the former corrupteth the facred text The like is also gathered out of the other words of the same Prophet (n) Cap. 60.14 speaking of the great power and maiesty of the kingdome of Christ on earth which is his Church where he mentioneth this promise made vnto it The Children of them that humbled thee shall come crouching to thee and all that detracted from thee shall adore the steps of thy feet in which words is plainly foretold the adoration of the Church and of her visible head on earth an honor which Caluin vpon this very place confesseth not to exceed that which is due to the Church because it is giuen to Christ who is adored in the Church and Leo de Castro vpon the same text out of a very ancient record of the order of S. Benedict concerning the customes of the Catholike Church reporteth that Kings in ancient tymes going to the Synods of Bishops did prostrate themselues before them and kisse the ground not rising vntill the Bishops descending from their seats did take them vp in their armes and place them in thrones answerable to their Princely dignity To this purpose also make the testimonies of S. Hierome (o) Ep. ad Pammach aduers error Ioan. Hieroso who speaking of S. Epiphanius sayth A great number of all ages and sexes did flock vnto him offering their little ones and kissing his feet and of S. Chrysostome (p) Hom. 14. in priorem ad Timoth exhorting the people to prostrate themselues at the feet of the monkes kisse them Draw neare touch their holy feet for it is a far greater honor to touch their feet then to touch the heads of other men It was therfore in the puter tymes of the Church no disparagement to the greatest Princes to prostrate themselues either to the Pope or to Bishops or to other holy seruants of Christ and to kisse the hemms of their garments and their feet because as Alexander the great (q) Apud Ioseph do antiq l. â—1 〈◊〉 vlt. adoring Iaddus the high Priest of the Iewes knew and testified that he did in him exhibite that honor to God whose Priest he was so Christian Emperors and Kings when they adore the Pope kissing his feete do it to honor Christ in him to whome that honor redoundeth euen as the honor done to an Embassador redounds to the king his Mayster And as Princes by exhibiting this honor to the Vicar of Christ no way disparage their royall greatnesse so neither is the acceptance therof any note of pride in the Pope for he accepts it not for his owne sanctity or for any other personall quality as he is a priuat man but only for the publike authority and spirituall power which he receaueth from Christ and which properly and principally is of Christ who is honored and adored in his Vicar as Tertullian noteth saying (r) Vbi sup cap. 10. When thou castest thy selfe downe at the feet of thy brethren thou touchest Christ thou adorest Christ And therfore the Pope hath on his shooe a Crosse which the faythfull kisse to signify that they exhibite not that honor to him but in him to Christ whose person he representeth And finally wheras you obiect (s) Pag. 46 that S. Peter abhorred this pride when Cornelius prostrated himselfe vnto him I answere with S. Hierome (t) L. Aduers Vigilant that Cornelius conceaued Peter to be some God as the Lycaonians thought of Paul Barnaby and therfore prostrated himselfe to honor him with the supreme adoration of Latria due to God alone as it appeareth out of S. Peters answer to him (u) Act. 10.26 Arise for I also am a man This kind of adoration if any man should offer to the Pope he would admonish and forbid him as S. Peter did Cornelius But yet if it be granted that as some Fathers expound Cornelius adored not S. Peter as a God but as a man yet S. Peter with great reason forbid him for he adored him not in respect of Christ whose Vicar he was but in respect of himselfe and in like case the Pope would also forbid any man to adore him but he knoweth and so do you that the cause why Catholikes exhibit that honor to him is the excellent power giuen him by Christ or rather Christ himselfe gouerning his Church in his Vicar which adoration is good and pleasing to God both as it is exhibited by the faythfull and as it is admitted by the Pope Your fourth Obiection is (x) Pag. 46. that S. Peter had no Canon to direct the Apostles Syr the Apostles being guided by the holy Ghost needed no humane Canons nor constitutions for their owne direction But for the direction of all ecclefiasticall Pastors they made Ecclesiasticall Canons which S. Peter as their Head confirmed and deliuered by word of mouth to S. Clement his Disciple and Successor in the Roman See he committing them to writing left them to posterity as Canons of the Apostles I know that your Magdeburgian Centurists cauil against them as false suppositious but withall I know that diuers of those Canons are alleaged by many ancient Fathers by many Councells and confirmed by later Canons of the Church and inserted word by word into them as Franciscus Turrianus hath learnedly demonstrated x (y) L. 1. pro Canon Apostol vindicated them from the Magdeburgian calumnies Your fifth and sixth Arguments are (z) Pag. 46. that S. Peter made no clayme nor yet admittance of any appeale from the other Apostles no reseruation of any great case as by speciall prerogatiue due to himselfe to wit of admitting any out of the Dioces of another absoluing those that are excommunicated by another of Canonizing Saints of confirming Synods of granting plenary Indulgences c. Who seeth not the futility of these obiections For first the Apostles being confirmed in grace neither did nor could wrong their subiects in which case only Appeales are lawfull 2. I haue already shewed (a) Chap. â— that the resolution of that great case concerning the obseruation of the law of Moyses was reserued to S. Peter and that he resolued the same in the Synod of Hierusalem presiding in it and when the Pope personally presideth in a Councell there needeth no other confirmation 3. When Christ made Peter Head of his whole Church he gaue him power to bind lose throughout the whole world and therby power to excommunicate delinquents in whatsoeuer Dioces of other Bishops and likewise to absolue them from the guilt of sinne in the Sacrament of pennance as also to binde by excommunication and absolue from the same and finally to release the penalty due to sinnes by Indulgences out of the Sacrament for the power of binding and losing which he gaue to Peter he limited not to the Sacrament of Penance only But whether Peter exercised this power of excommunicating and pardoning by
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
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
Successor and so much the holy Councels haue declared He that hath the See of Rome sayth the Councell of Nice (b) Can. 39. ex Graecis Arab. is Head and Prince of all Patriarkes for as Peter was so he is the chiefe to whom power is giuen ouer all Christian Princes and all their people as one that is the Vicar of Christour Lord ouer all people and ouer the whole Christian Church And the generall Councell of Lions (c) In Sâ—xt Decret Cap. Vbi periculum calleth the Pope the Vicar of Iesus Christ the Successor of Peter the Gouernor of the Vniuersall Church the guyde of our Lords slock And in the same sense S. Bernard (d) L. 2. de Confid said Peter walking vpon the water like our Lord shewed himselfe to be the only Vicar of Christ that was to gouerne not one nation but all for many waters are many people By this you see that when we call the Pope The Vicar of Christ we take the name of Vicar antonomastice for him that beareth the person and holdeth the place of Christ as vniuersall Pastor and Gouernor of the whole Church In which sense neither Tertullian attributed that name to S. Paul as Genebrard obserueth in that very place in which you cite him for the contrary (e) Chrou l. 3. pag. 479. â—80 nor doth it in that sense agree to any other Bishop but only to S. Peter and his Successors in the See of Rome which Genebrard also testifieth against you in these words Christ hath no Successors because he still liueth but he hath Vicars and Ministers on earth among which Peter and the Bishops of Rome his Successors haue the Soueraignty as all antiquity without exception hath belieued and therfore with great reason we reckon their Succession which is to continue till the worlds end as one of the markes that hold vs in the lap of the Catholike Church S. Ignatius and Eusebius Pope you likewise abuse for although Deacons be in their degree Ministers and Vicars of Christ yet S. Ignatius sayth it not but only commandeth the Trallians to whom he writeth to reuerence them as our Lord Iesus Christ and as guardians of that place and so much his owne words set downe by you (f) Pag. 242. n. 15. in Greeke declare The testimony of Eusebius you falsify He sayth Caput Ecclesiae Christus est Christ is Head of the Church You corruptly translate There is one Head of the Church Christ to signify that there is no one Head thereof vnder Christ as his chiefe Lieutenant and Vicar on earth which is contrary to the Doctrine of Eusebius in the same Epistle both before and after the words which you obiect And to this you add an other corruption for where Eusebius sayth Priests are Vicars of Christ you in your English leaue out the word Priests for the good will you beare to that name and function Whose Vicar may he be thought to be that deales so imposterously But you obiect (h) Pag. 82. S. Paul to auoyd Schismes among the people will not haue them adhere to any one man no more to Cephas that is Peter then to Paul or Apollos wheras your Roman Cephas would haue taught S. Paul a contrary lesson saying that they who adhere vnto Cephas cannot be called Schismatikes as those who hold of Apollos because Cephas was the Rock whereupon the Church was built Answere That Cephas was the ministeriall Rock on which Christ built his Church is a truth asserted by Christ and by all the Orthodoxall writers that haue liued in the Church therfore with great reason they haue pronounced him that separates himselfe from the communion of the Bishop and Church of Rome to be a sinner a Schismatike an Heretike and not to be of Christ but of Antichrist Their words I need not repeate you haue heard them already (i) Chap. 1. sect 4. And tell vs now did those Fathers teach S. Paul a lesson contrary to our Doctrine So you say but misunderstand S. Paul for S. Augustine and S. Gregory expound him to speake these words against them that contemning Christ did not build their fayth vpon him but vpon men as vpon Heads not subordinate to him (k) L. 4. ep 38 or to vse S. Gregories words extra Christum out of Christ. Paul the Apostle sayth S. Augustine (l) Serm. 13. de verb. Dom. knowing himselfe to be chosen and Christ to be contemned said What is Christ diuided was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of Paul In like manner expound S. Anselme and S. Thomas (m) In eum loc saying that the Apostle speaketh against those that made many Christs and many Authors of grace What force then hath this Scripture against vs who hold S. Peter and his Successors to be Vicars of Christ and reuerence and obey them because they are his Vicars so farre we are from contemning him or setting vp another Head different from him as the false Apostles and some of the Corinthians seduced by them did for which the Apostle reprehendeth them You might with more truth haue proued out of these words with S. Chrysostome (n) In hunc locum that Paul acknowledged S. Peter to be his Superiour because he spake ascending by gradation that so he might place Peter aboue himselfe and next to Christ SECT III. Whether S. Paul reckoning the Ecclesiasticall Orders gaue the Pope any place among them IF S. Paul say you (o) Pag. 82. had bene of our sayth to belieue that the Pope of Rome as Successor of S. Peter is the visible Head of the Church whereas he alleageth the Ecclesiasticall orders twice first Apostles then Prophets after Doctors and againe Some Apostles and some Prophets and some Euangelists he should haue alleaged Peter among them and the vnion with the Bishop of Rome as a true note of the Church Syr you may be pleased to take for an answer the fearfull example which Doctor Sanders (p) Vifib Monarch l. 7. pag. 690. related of one Wright a Doctor of law and Archdeacon of Oxford who after the change of Religion in England being loath to loose his place falling one day in a Sermon on these words of S. Paul said Here you find not one word of the Pope Which when he had vttered being presently strucken with a vehement disease as it were suddainly become dumbe he was carried from the pulpit not to dinner as he had intended but to bed where the eight day after he ended his life I feare that this answer howbeit it is from God will not please you S. Damascen will giue you another For with him I desire to know of you who to flatter Secular Princes grant them the chiefest place of gouerment in the Church making them Heads therof where among the Ecclesiasticall Orders reckoned by S. Paul you with all your wisdome can sind any place for secular Princes or Magistrates or any mention
a bloudy Tyrant So you who by calling Phocas a bloudy Tyrant would diminish the dignity of the Roman See as though that See had not had for her protectors and deuoted Children the most godly and religious Emperours of the Christian world (u) Of this see Coccius to 1. l. 7. art 8. Yea by how much more pious they haue bene so much the more deuoted haue they bene to the Chayre of S. Peter And although Phocas his cruelty be not excusable yet he was not so vngodly but that as he preserued the right of Roman Church so he performed other workes of Christian piety Such were his clensing Rome from all filth of Idolatry and his causing that famous Temple of Pantheon which was built in honor of all the heathenish Gods to be dedicated to Christ in honor of his blessed Mother and all the Martyrs 3. You cauill at Bellarmine (y) Pag. 96. without cause for saying that the Bishop of Constantinople by clayming the title of Vniuersall Bishop sought to make himselfe sole Bishop and the rest only his Vicars for Bellarmine sayth nothing but out of the expresse words of Saint Gregory himselfe (z) L. 4. ep 34. 36. â—â— 7. ep 70. Nor is it against this that diuers Bishops of the East which still held and exercised their ancient iurisdiction gaue to the Patriarke of Constantinople the Name of Vniuersall for they did giue him the sole name without yelding to him any part of their Episcopall iurisdiction which therfore they still exercised as freely and fully as before he laid clayme to that title 4. Without and contrary to all truth you obiect S. Leo against the title of Vniuersall Bishop for he was not only so called by the Councell of Chalcedon as you haue heard but he himselfe also vsed that title (a) Ep. 54. as appeareth out of the Latin Volume of his Epistles and out of the Greeke Copy of the same annexed to the Councell of Chalcedon (b) So noteth Spondanus anno 451. n. 34. To which I adde that speaking of such as you are he sayth (c) Ep. 89. Whosoeuer denieth the Supreme Authority of the Roman Chayre cannot diminish the power therof but puffed vp with the spirit of pride plungeth himselfe headlong into hell 5. I must not omit to aduertise you that you abuse Binius (d) Pag. 9â— fathering on him certaine words in his Annotation vpon the third Action of the Councell of Chalcedon as taken out of Baronius which words Binius hath not nor doth he in that Annotation so much as once mention Baronius but sheweth out of S. Gregory that the name of Vniuersall Bishop was giuen to the Popes his predecessors in that Councell and by other Fathers after wards as also that Syxtus and Zephyrinus vsed the same title long before that tyme and finally that S. Leo writing to Martian the Emperor (e) Ep. 54. stiled himselfe Episcopus Romanae vniuersalis Ecclesia Wherfore when S. Gregory sayth that his predecessors vsed not that title he only denieth that they vsed it in a solemne manner alwayes and in all their inscriptions as Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople did who witnes S. Gregory almost in euery lyne intitled himselfe Vniuersall Bishop SECT IV. S. Dionyse his iudgment concerning the Supremacy of the Roman Church CAsaubon say you (f) Pag. 100. spurs vs a necessary Question Why S. Dionyse the Areopagite professedly wryting of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy and gouerment was so vtterly silent in not mentioning the Vniuersall Visible Head of the Church reigning at Rome if at that tyme there had bene any such Monarchicall Head there Before I answer I must spur you a more necessary question why S. Dionyse professedly wryting of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy did not reckon secular Princes at least in generall whom you not only place in the Hierarchy of the Church but make Heads therof Now to Casaubons question I answeare that S. Dionise treateth not of any Church in particular nor of the Bishop of any particular See but of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy and orders in generall which he defineth thus (g) De Recles hierarch c. 1. Qui Hierarchiam dixit omnium simul sacrorum ordinum dispositionem dixit He that names a Hierarchy names the disposition or due ranking of all sacred orders And among the sacred orders he giues the first and chiefest place to Bishops The diuine order of Bishops sayth he (h) Ibid. c. 8. is the first and chiefest of those orders that see God From this number he excludeth not but includeth the Bishop of Rome as being the Head and Chiefe of all Bishops for as S. Thomas the Maister of Diuines defining a Hierarchy (i) 1. p. q. 108. art 1. corp sayth A Hierarchy is a holy Principality by which name of Principality two things are vnderstood namely the Prince himselfe and a multitude ordered vnder the Prince Who is this Prince in the Hierarchy of the Church but the Prince of the Apostles whom Christ made Pastor Gouernor of his flock and whom S. Dionyse did acknowledg for such (k) De diuin nomin c. 3. post med when speaking of the Apostles and Bishops vnder the name of Diuines he sayth Peter was present the most ancient and supreme top or Head of Diuines These passages of S. Dionyse Casaubon and you either out of ignorance could not find or if you could and did why do you conceale them SECT V. S. Ignatius his iudgment of the Roman Church CAsaubon and you with him obiect (l) Pag. 100. out of the Epistles of S. Ignatius that ancient Bishop of Antioch that he being frequent in setting forth the order Ecclesiasticall and dignity of Bishops forbeareth all mention of S. Peter or any Roman Pope What Ignatius his iudgment was of the great dignity of the Bishop and Church of Rome he himselfe declared when writing to the Romans he addressed his Epistle To the Church sanctified and illuminated in the will of God which hath done all things according to fayth and the loue of Iesus-Christ our God and Sauiour and which gouerneth in the region of the Romans worthy of God worthy of eminency worthy of memory worthy of blessednesse worthy of prayse founded in the loue and fayth of Christ hauing the name of Father c. Although this holy Martyr writ to the Trallians Magnesians Philippians Antiochians Ephesians Philadelphians and to those of Tharsis Smyrna and gaue great prayses vnto them yet he attributeth to the Roman Church as her peculiar prerogatiues that she is illuminated in the will of God that she is founded in the loue and fayth of Christ that she is of eminent dignity that she hath by reason of her Bishop the name of a Father which is to say that the rest as children are subiect to her and that she gouerneth in the region of the Romans the sense of which words cannot be that she gouerneth the Roman Dioces for no Church gouerneth
of these testimonies of S. Irenaeus and therfore lest you might seeme to passe them ouer without answere you say (b) Pag. 100. marg fine As for the words Propter Principalitatem they are answered hereafter How are they answered first you bid vs (c) Pag. 253. marg remember that Irenaeus was he which consented with the Asian Bishops that were excommunicated by Pope Victor But wee know this to be an vntruth and wish you to remember that you acknowledge so much contradict your selfe saying (d) Pag. 131. Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops These then are your propositions Irenaus consented with the Asian Bishops Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops Reconcile them 2. Wheras S. Iraeneus sayth (e) L. 3. c. 3. It is necessary that all Churches haue recourse to the Roman Church by reason of her more mighty principality you answere (f) Pag. 253. This might haue bene spoken of the Imperiall power of that City to which the subiects of the Roman Empire were bound to resort for paying of tributes and the Gouernors of Prouinces to yield an account of their offices But the very words of S. Irenaeus shew the falshood of this answeare for he mentioneth not the City but the Church of Rome Ad hanc Ecclesiam c. To this Church sayth he all Churches must of necessity resort Againe they which were to resort to the City of Rome for the discharge of their offices and paymēt of tributes were the subiects of the Roman Empire only But S. Irenaeus tels you that omnes vndique fideles that is All the faythfull and all the Churches not only of the Roman Empire but of all the world are necessarily to repaire to the Church of Rome shewing therby that her authority and command is of larger extent then that of the Roman Empire for as Prosper truly sayd (g) De ingrat c 2. de vocat gent. l. 2. c. 6. Rome the See of Peter is greater by the fortresse of Religion then by the throne of temporall power and being made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world possesseth by religion what she doth not by force of armes 3. You answeare (h) Pag. 253.254 Be it Ecclesiasticall power yet was not the necessity of recourse vnto it absolute and perpetuall but occasionall for that tyme. This is as vntrue as the rest for the necessity of resorting to the Roman Church sayth S. Irenaeus (i) L. 3. c. 3. is by reason of her more mighty principality or which is all one by reason of the great dignity of the See Apostolike which sayth S. Augustine (k) Ep. 162. hath alwaies florished in her and which maketh her the Mother Church of the world And therfore so long as she shall be S. Peters See which shall be till the end of the world so long the necessity of all other Churches resorting to her and agreeing in fayth and communion with her shall still continue SECT VII Tertullian his Iudgment of the Roman Church TErtullian agreeth with S. Irenaeus in pressing against all heretikes the same argument of the neuer interrupted succession of Bishops in the Roman See (l) L. 3. Carm. cont Marcio c. vltimo recknoning all the Popes by name vntill his tyme against Marcion and all heretikes to proue thē to be such It is manifest saith he (m) Praescrip c. 21. that all Doctrine which agreeth with those Mother and originall Churches founded by the Apostles is true and to be held as certayne being that the Churches receaued it from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God and that whatsoeuer is contrary to this is to be accounted false and erroneous And speaking of heretikes (n) Ibid. c. 32. If there be any of them that darevent their Doctrine for Apostolicall let them shew the originall of their Churches let them vnfold the order of their Bishops in such sorte that by a Succession deriued from the beginning they proue their first Bishop to haue bene some one of the Apostoles or of the Apostolicall men that perseuered with the Apostles vnto the end This Tertullian sayth the Smyrnaeans in his dayes could do shewing that Polycarpe their Bishop was placed there by S. Iohn and that the Roman Church could do the like shewing Clement ordeyned by S. Peter And the same she can do at this day shewing that all her Bishops vnto Vrbā the eight which now possesseth that Chayre had S. Peter the Apostle for their predecessor and first Bishop in that See and that from him they can lineally deriue their pedigree wheras no heretikes could euer shew any such descent as Protestants at this day cannot And therefore Tertullian bringeth in the Catholike Church vpbrayding them and all heretikes in this manner (o) Ibid. c. 37. Who in Gods name are you When and from whence came you hither What do you among myne being none of myne By what right O Marcion dost thou cut downe my woods What leaue hast thou O Valantine to turne my streames and fountaynes another way By what authority doest thou remooue my bounds O Apelles O Luther O Caluin O Zuinglius The possession is mine I haue it of old I enioyed it before you I can deriue my pedigree from the very first Authors to whom the thing did properly belong I am the right beyre to the Apostles According to their will and testament according to their trust and charge giuen my Tenure standeth As for you they alwayes disinherited you and reiected you as aliens yea and as enemies In this very manner may Catholikes with great reason vpbrayd you who as you cannot shew any Succession of your Bishops continued from the Apostles so you are therby conuinced not to be their heires but strangers and enemies to them and to the Churches founded by them Againe Tertullian prescribing a rule for you to finde out the true fayth doctrine deliuered by the Apostles saith (p) Ibid. c. 36. Goe to If thou wilt be curiously exact in the affaire of thy saluation repaire to the Apostolicall Churches c. If thou be a neighbour to Italy thou hast Rome from whence we also haue authority O happy Church into which the Apostles powred all their Doctrine togeather with their bloud where Peter is equalled to our Sauiours passion where Paul is crowned with Iohn Baptists lot where Iohn the Apostle being plunged into boyling oyle and yet not hurt therwith was banished into an iland Let vs obserue what this Church hath learned what she hath taught Tertullian was an African a Priest of the Church of Carthage and yet speaking of the Roman Church sayth From whence we that is as Macerus expoundeth all the African Churches or all Catholikes haue authority at hand for our defence Wherfore out of this place of Tertullian Quintinus rightly inferreth that the Roman Church euen from her first foundation had great authority aboue all Churches of the world and
certainly allowed and decreed by it 5. The same is confirmed out of the Councell of Sardica which being held soone after that of Nice made three decrees concerning Appeales The first (i) Cap. 3. that if in the cause of a Bishop who conceaues himselfe to be wronged a new iudgement be required the Bishop of Rome is to giue the Iudges The second (k) Cap. 4. that if a Bishop deposed by the next Bishops say his cause ought to be iudged againe none is to be installed in his See vntill the Bishop of Rome haue pronounced vpon it The third (l) Cap. 5. that a Bishop accused may haue recourse to Rome by way of appeale These Canons of Sardica sufficiently declare the beleefe of the Nicen councell touching the authority of the Bishop of Rome for as Harmen opulus writeth (m) In Epit. Can. By the aduice of the Emperor and of the Bishop of Rome the Synod if Sardica was assembled consisting of 341. Fathers which confirmed the fayth of the Councell of Nice and published the Canons Wherfore these canons touching appeales extant in the Councell of Sardica are either the very Nicen canons inserted into that of Sardica or declarations of them for the Sardican Councell consisting for the most part of the same Bishops that the Nicen did it is a senselesse thing to say that when those Bishops in their Councell at Sardica so expresly and so effectually declare the Bishop of Rome to be the supreme iudge of all Bishops they professe a new doctrine contrary to that which a litle before they had professed in the Councell of Nice 6. The authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer the whole Church is yet further declared in the Nicen Councell decreeing thus (n) Can. 39. ex 80. Graec. Arab. A Patriarke is so ouer all those that are vnder his power as he that hath the See of Rome is Head and Prince of all Patriarkes for he is the chiefest as Peter was to whom power was giuen ouer all Christian Princes and all their subiectes as being the Vicar of our Lord ouer all people and ouer the vniuer sall Church 7. The same is proued by the order of subscribing in the Councell for Victor and Vincentius being not Bishops but simple Priests because they were Legates to the Pope presided in the Councell togeather with Osius B. of Corduba and subscribed in the first place before all the Bishops and Patriarkes which they could not haue done but only in regard they represented his person who was Superior to all Bishops and Patriarkes 8. Though Constantine the Emperor was a great cause of the Bishops meeting in the Councell of Nice both because he persuaded that meanes of Concord as also because he defrayed their charges and by his letters called them together yet he called them not by his owne authority but as Ruffinus sayth (o) L. 1. c. 1. fin apud Spond Anno 325. n. 5. ex Sacerdotum sententia by the determination or decree of the Priests as in like manner he called an other Councell of 275 Bishops at Rome at the same time in which it is said Siluester gathered the whole Councell with the aduice of the Emperor The same is testified by Damasus in Syluesters life and by the sixt generall Councell saying (p) Act. 18. Constantine and Syluester worthy of prayse called the famous Councell of Nice And how can it be thought that it was called by any other authority then of the Pope seeing S. Athanasius and the Bishops of Aegypt in their Councell at Alexandria witnesse (q) Ep. Synod ad Felic that the Nicen Councell made a decree that no generall Councells should be held without the allowance of the B. of Rome and this decree it is which Iulius Pope the next but one to Syluester alleaged against the Arians (r) Ep. ad Orientales rebuking thē sharply that they had infringed it by calling their Councell at Antioch without his allowance which is also testified by Socrates Sozomen and Theodoret as you haue heard 9. And as this Councell was called by Syluester Pope so that it required confirmation from him we are certified by the Roman Councell vnder Felix the third (s) In ep Synod Felic c. 3. and by the Councell of Nice it selfe saying (t) In summ Conc. Nice Placuit c. It hath seemed good that all these Acts and decrees be sent to Syluester B. of Rome And in their letter to Syluester (u) Apud Baron An. 325. ex collect Crescon Whatsoeuer is determined in the Nicen Councell we beseech you that it may be seconded with the confirmation of your mouth And that Syluester accordingly confirmed their decrees we may learne from a Councell of the Bishops of Italy held at Rome in which he presiding sayd (x) Apud Bar. An. 325. Bin. to 1. pag. 382. Whatsoeuer is determined by the 318. holy Priests at Nice in Bithinia for the strength of the holy Catholike and Apostolike Church we with our mouth accordingly confirme and all those that shall dare to dissolue the definition of the holy and great Councell assembled at Nice in the presence of the most religious and venerable Prince Constantine the Emperor we anathematize them And all answeared So be it SECT I. Doctor Mortons Obiections against the precedent Doctrine answeared THough you either could not or would not find any thing of all that which hath bene alleaged out of the Councell of Nice in proofe of the Popes authority yet you cold find two argumēts to obiect against it The first is (y) Pag. 105. seqq The Councell of Nice decreeth that the ancient custome goe on to wit that the Patriarke of Alexandria haue power ouer Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis because the B. of Rome hath so accustomed To this argument Bellarmine hath answeared (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. that the Canon speakes of the Patriarke of Alexandria with restriction assigning to him the Prouinces of Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis and of the Pope without restriction not prescribing any lymits to his iurisdiction nor ordeyning any thing concerning the authority of the Roman Church but making her a rule and patterne for the gouerment of other Churches commanding that the B. of Alexandria haue power ouer those three prouinces because the B. of Rome hath accustomed so to allow or permit And this canon is so explicated by Nicolas the first (a) Ep. ad Michael Imper that liued almost 800. yeares since and for his learning and sanctity hath deserued the surname of Great And the same explication is confirmed by the practise both of the Roman and of the Alexandrian Church For if according to your construction the Roman Church by this canon be proued to haue no superiority of iurisdiction ouer the Church of Alexandria or other Easterne Churches but only ouer those which are within the Patriarkeship of the west how comes it to passe that S. Athanasius Patriarke
the collecting of Councells So you but falsly as hath bene already proued (l) Chap. 1â— â— 8. And to go no further for examples That very sixth generall Councell which you mention beareth witnesse for Bellarmine against you saying As soone as Arius arose the Emperor Constantine and Syluester worthy of prayse assembled the great and famous Councell at Nice And that Constantine did not call that Councell by his authority hath bene proued (m) Ibid. and is confirmed out of the sixth Councell it selfe which was called by the authority of the Pope as it appeareth out of the Epistle of Constantine the Emperor to Donus (n) Inter praeambul 6. Synod apud Bin. to 3. pag. 6. in which he earnestly intreateth him to send Legates in his name with sufficient instructions and authority for the celebration of a Councell to represse heretikes and restore peace to the Church promising withall to see them securely conueighed to Constantinople to receaue them with due honor and the Councell being ended to returne them home with safety Donus being dead before this letter came to Rome it was receaued by Agatho his Successor who yielding to so pious a desire of the Emperor caused diuers Synods to be held in the West to examine the Monothelites Doctrine Which being done he called a Synod at Rome to establish more firmely the Catholike fayth against those Heretikes and then sent his Legates to Constantinople vpon whose ariuall the Emperor as knowing that without the authority of the See Apostolike no Councell could be valid signified by letters (o) Extat apud Bin. to 3. pag. 7. to the Patriarkes of Constantinople and Hierusalem that the Pope hauing yelded to his desire of calling a Councell had sent his legates representing his owne person and with them order and instructions how to proceed therin and therfore wished them with their Metropolitans and Bishops to resort to Constantinople All which sheweth how vntruely you say that Emperors are the supreme and first compulsarie causes for the collecting of Councells for indeed how can that authority belong to them who haue no more then the sixth Councell sheweth Which being ended the Popes Legates though none of them were Bishops but two of them Priestes and the third a Deacon as they had presided in the Councell so they subscribed in the first place before all the Bishops and Patriarkes and the Emperor in the last place after all and in these words Legimus consensimus (p) Apud Bin. to 3. pag. â—7 shewing therby that he had no authority of a Iudge in the Councell but that his duety was as it is also of other Emperors to agree vnto what the Bishops by their authority as Iudges had determined 2. To proue that the Emperor was the supreme and first comâ—ulsaty cause of collecting the second generall Councell at Constantinople you produce Theodoret as a witnesse (q) Pag. 109. 110. that not Damasus but he was the absolute Commander If Theodoret say that the Emperor commanded he sayth it not to shew that he commanded by his owne authority but by the power he had receaued from Damasus so that his command and conuocation was only executory of Damasus his authority for why els doe not those Bishops say that the Emperor called them and why do they say to Damasus You called vs as your owne members by letters sent to the Emperor but because Damasus was he that chiefely called them and the Emperor no otherwise then by vertue of Damasus his letters sent vnto him to that effect Euen as Basilius the Emperor in like manner called the eight generall Councell by the Mandate of Pope Adrians letters (r) Apud Bin. to 3. pag. 881. Volumus c. Wee will sayth Adrian to the Emperor that a full Councell be held at Constantinople by the industry of your Piety in which our Legates presiding c. And this would haue bene no lesse cleare concerning the calling of the second generall Councell at CoÌ„stantinople if what you set downe in your Latin and Greeke marginals you had syncerely rendred in your English text which most imported your readers for the vnderstandding of the truth And the same is yet further proued out of two very antient Manuscripts the one of the Vatican and the other of S. Maria Maior in which it is said (s) Apud Baron anno 381. Damasus confirmed the sentence of condemnation pronounced against Macedonius and Eunomius in the second Synod which by his command and authority was held at Constantinople And lastly whether Damasus did belieue that the authority of calling Councells belonged to the Emperor or to himselfe may be gathered out of another Epistle of his written in answere to one Stephen an Archbishoppe of Mauritania and three African Councells (t) Damas Ep. 4. apub Bin. to 1. pag. 499. in which hauing declared that he had the Episcopall charge or ministery ouer the house of God which is the vniuersall Catholike Church and that the See Apostoleke is constituted by God ouer all Priests and Bishops he addeth for as you know it is not Catholike that a Synod be held without the authority of the holy See Apostolike nor a Bishop condemned but in a lawfull Synod assembled by the same authority nor are any Councells read to be valid but only such as haue their strength from the Apostolicall authority And hereby you are conuinced of an vntruth in saying (u) Pag. 110. that Damasus his letters were not mandatory to the Orientals but letters of request to the Emperor Theodosius for obteyning liberty to collect and assemble a Synod For albeit Damasus requested Theodosius to assist him therin as the duty of a Christian Emperor was to do yet witnes Theodoret (x) L. 5. c. 8. he with his Roman Synod without whose aduice he dispatcheth no busines of moment sent letters to the Easterne Bishops themselues to call them to a Councell at Rome which letters they hauing receaued by the Emperor returne an answere to Damasus not taxing him for want of authority to call them but excusing their not obeying his command by reason of the shortnes of tyme the great inconueniences their long absence would haue bred to their Churches newly freed from the persecutions and troubles of Heretikes Which excuse sufficiently sheweth that they acknowledged in him authority to call them SECT II. Whether the Primacy of the Pope be Primacy of Authority and Iurisdiction or of Order only BEllarmine (y) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. proueth the Popes authority ouer the Orientals by their acknowledging him to be their Head and themselues to be his members You answere (*) Pag. 110. that the similitude of Head and members implieth no superiority of iurisdiction but only of Order that is of priority of place of voyce and the like But this euasion is coÌ„futed by the very comparison it selfe for the Head hath not only priority of place aboue the members but gouerneth and
to place his See at Rome rather then in any other Citty was the dignity of Rome To the end sayth S. Leo (c) Serm. 1. de Apost Pet. Paul that the light of truth which was reuealed for the saluation of all nations might from the Head of the world be communicated more effectually to the whole body Of this cause the Fatherâ— of Chalcedon speake when they say (d) Act. 15. Rome got the Primacy because it was the chiefe seate of the Empire And both these causes are comprehended by the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian in their Law made a litle before the Councell of Chalcedon in these words (e) Nouel Theodos tit 24. Three things haue established the primacy of the See Apostolike the merit of S. Peter who is Prince of the Episcopall society the dignity of the City and the Synodicall authority 3. You obiect (f) Pag. 118. The Fathers of Chalcedon gaue priuiledges to the Patriarkes of Constantinople equall to the Church of Rome This we deny for in the Councell of Chalcedon there was no mention made of equal priuiledges this clause was afterwards added by Anatolius or by the Clerkes of Constantinople (g) See this proued aboue in this Chap. sect 4. and to this S. Gregory seemeth to relate when he sayth (h) L. 5. ep 14. The Councell of Chalcedon in one place hath bene falsified by the Grecians And the Fathes of Chalcedon neuer intended by this Canon to giue the Patriarkes of Constantinople any priuiledge of exemption from their obedience and subiection to the Pope but only to grant them precedency before the other Patriarkes of the East as hath bene proued (i) In this Chap. sect 4. And the same is manifest out of the writings of Leo Pope who though in his epistle to the Fathers of Chalcedon and in diuers others which he writ to the Emperor Martian to Pulcheria the Empresse to Anatolius himselfe and to diuers other Bishops of this subiect he speake against Anatolius for his ambitious attempt yet in none of them doth he say or insinuate that those Fathers gaue to Anatolius or that Anatolius himselfe euer aspired to equality of priuiledges with the B. of Rome but only reprehended him for wronging the Patriarkes of Alexandria and Antioch in procuring himselfe to be preserred before them The same is yet further proued because when Rome was fallen into the hands of the Gothes and Wandals the Patriarkes of Constantinople making vse of the tyme and setting this Canon on foote againe procured the Emperor Zeno to establish by a law that the Patriarke of CoÌ„stantinople shold haue the precedency before the other Patriarkes And the like they obtayned from Iustinian after the recouery of Rome when he ordayned (k) Nouel 131. that the Archbishop of Constantinople shold haue the second place after the holy See Apostolike and be preferred before all the other See Lastly the same is proued by the subiection which the Patriarkes of Constantinople acknowledged to the Pope after the Councell of Chalcedon and by the authority which he exercised ouer them for not long after that tyme when Acacius B. of Constantinople an enemy to the Councell of Chalcedon had fallen into the faction of heretikes the Churches of the Patriarkeship of Constantinople had recourse to Symmachus Pope as to their Pastor as Superior to their Patriarke Seeing your Children perish sayd they (l) Ep. Eccles Orient ad Symach in volum Orthodox impress Bafil in the preuarication of our Father Acacius delay not or rather to speake with the Prophet stumber not but make hast to deliuer vs. And when the same Acacius for his adhering to Peter Moggus an hereticall inuasor of the See of Alexandria was deposed by Felix Pope though he stood out as long as he liued contemning the Popes sentence sent vnto him to Constantinople yet the Emperor Iustine that succeeded Anastasius caused Felix his sentence to be executed on him after his death making his name to be razed out of the Records of the Church and from the recitall in the sacred mysteries Wee haue giuen order sayth Iustine to Hormisdas Pope (m) Epist. ad Hormisd that the Reuerend Church of Constantinople and many others accomplish your desire in razing out the names of those whom you haue commanded to be taken away from the sacred records And in conformity to this Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople writing to the same Hormisdas said (n) Epist ad Hormisd I anathematize Acacius somtime Bishop of this City and promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred mysteries the names of them that are excluded from the communion of the Catholike Church that is to say that agree not in all things with the See Apostolike And Theodorus Anagnostes reporteth (o) Ad calc hist. Eccles Theodor. ex edit Robert Stopha that when Anastasius the Emperor vrged Macedonius Patriarke of Constantinople to abrogate the Councell of Chalcedon he answeared he could not do it without a generall Councell in which the B. of Rome must be president And when Anthymus B. of Trebizond inuaded the See of Constantinople Agapetus Pope being arriued thither deposed him euen in the City of Constantinople it selfe and in the sight of Iustinian the Emperor and excommunicated the Empresse Theodora that protected him and with his owne hands ordained Menas in his place the truth of all which is auerred by Iustinian himselfe (p) Nouel 42 by Marcellinus Comes (q) In Chron. by Liberatus (r) Breuiar c. 12. and Victor of Tunes (s) In Chron. edit per Ioseph Scâ—lig And did not Menas Patriarke of Constantinople make open profession of obeying the See Apostolike in all thinges (t) In Conc. Constan sub Meâ— Act. 4. And when Iohn the first Pope of that name was arriued at Constantinople Iustine the Emperor inuiting him to sit in a seat by Epiphanius Patriarke of that City that they might seeme both to be of equall dignity Iohn refused to sit vntill according to the prerogatiue of his See a throne was prepared for him aboue Epiphanius (u) Nicoph l. 17. c. 9. which passing in the City of Constantinople it selfe and in Epiphanius his owne Church and that many yeares after this decree of the Councell of Chalcedon was made euidently sheweth that it neuer tooke effect since neither Epiphanius nor any of the other Patriarkes here named liuing after the Councell of Chalcedon claymed any right of Equall Priuiledges therby but all of them remained subiect to the Pope as before the Councell they had bene And that which purreth this out of al doubt is that albeit the Patriarkes of Constantinople at length obtained that precedency before the other Patriarkes of the East which in the Councells of Constantinople and Chalcedon they labored for yet neuerthelesse euen then they still acknowledged themselues subiect to the Pope witnesse S. Gregory who writing to Iohn B. of Syracusa sayth (x) L. 7. ep â—4 Who doubts but
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 Africa to Rome for of them only the question is But insteed of prouing this you produce a Canon in which euen as it is reported by your selfe no mention is made of Bishops but only a command giuen that Priests Deacons or other inferior Clerkes appeale not from the Bishops of their owne prouince eyther to Rome or to any other transmarine Church which no more impeacheth the soueraigne power of the Pope or disproueth his right of appeales out of Africa then it would impeach the authority of the King of France if to preuent the multitude of vnnecessary suites and keepe his people in awe of their immediate Superiors his Maiesty and his Courts of Parliament with his assent should prouide by a speciall law that in minor causes no appeales be made froÌ„ them to himselfe To this I adde that Innocentius confirmed this Councell of Mileuis (d) Aug. ep 93. which he would not haue done if it had prohibited the appeales of Bishops to his See which he himselfe in his epistle to Victricius claymeth and proueth out of the Councell of Nice to be lawfull And the same is confirmed out of S. Augustine who was present at the Councell of Mileuis and speaking of Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage that had bene iniustly condemned by the Donatists in a Councell of 70. Bishops fayth (e) Ep. 162. Cecilian might haue contemned the multitude of his enemies conspiring against him for as much as he knew himselfe to be in the Communion of the Roman Church in which had alwaies florish't the principality of the See Apostolike that he might haue reserued his cause entire to be iudged a new there because it was not a cause of Priests or Deacons or other Clerkes of the inferior order but of a Colleague that is to say of a Bishop This discourse of S. Augustine conuinceth that Bishops may appeale to Rome though Priests and other inferior Clerkes may not How comes it then to passe that you say (f) Pag. 323. Bellarmine when he sayth that S. Augustine in the place alleaged doth iustify appeales of Bishops beyond the sea to Rome speakes so still as though be were scarse able to report a truth Bellarmine may indeed with truth tell you that when you sayd (g) Ibid. The case of Cecilian which S. Augustine speaketh of was not a case of appeale but of delegation by the authority of the Emperor to the Pope and to other Bishops you speake as one that is scarce able to report any thing out of him without an vntruth for he speaketh not of what passed de facto in the case of Cecilian but of the right that Cecilian had to appeale to the Pope which right S. Augustine could not haue alleaged vnlesse he had belieued that Bishops in their wrongs might lawfully appeale to him And that the case of Cecilian was not a case of appeale to the Pope but a delegation from the Emperor is an vntruth that shall be confuted hereafter (i) Chap. 30. sect â— From hence Bellarmine collecteth that albeit the Councell of Mileuis prohibited the appeales of Priests and inferior Clerkes to Rome yet they nether did nor could prohibite the Pope to admit of such appeales if they were made Against this you reply (k) Pag. 322. that where there lyeth a prohibition against appealing to a Iudge that Iudge is not held a superior Iudge False if it be taken vniuersally without limitation for a prohibition may be iniust as being made without sufficient authority such is the prohibition of Protestants forbidding all Appeales to Rome Againe a prohibition may be made with dependance on the will and confirmation of a Superior to whom the right of appeales belongeth Such was the prohibition made in the Councell of Mileuis which therfore without the Popes confirmation was inualid and is not valid further then he confirmed it Wherfore though by confirming it he did authorize the AfricaÌ„ Bishops to impose on their Priests other Clerkes a command of not appealing to Rome yet by granâ—ing them that authority he cannot be thought to renounce his owne right so farre as that if a Priest appeale vnto him he may not admit his appeale when he shall finde it expedient as it may be in case the Priest or Clerke can make euidence of his innocency prouing by sufficient witnesses that he hath bene iniustly condemned by the Bishops of his owne prouince out of misinformation or other motiues CHAP. XXVII Appeales to Rome proued out of the African Councell which was the sixth of Carthage SECT I. The state of the Question APIARIVS an African Priest of the Citty of Sicca being of a lewd scandalous life was excommunicated by Vrbanus B. of the same City He trauelled twice to Rome and making his complaints to Zozimus Pope appealed to his iudgmeÌ„t Zozimus sent him back into Africa wishing the African Bishops to examine his cause diligently And for as much as not only Apiarius but as it appeareth out of two Epistle of the African Bishops to Boniface and Celestine successors to Zozimus some Bishops also had appealed vnto him out of Africa and the African Bishops complained therof he sent vnto theÌ„ three Legates Faustinus B. of Potentia Philip and Asellus Priests and with them the Canons made in the Councell of Nice concerning appeales to Rome The Africans not finding those Canons in their copies of the Nicen Councell sent Deputies into the East to procure authenticall copies from Cyril Patriarke of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople But when they came their copies were found to containe no more then 20. which is the nuÌ„ber exstant in our Latin editions and in which there is no mention of appeales to Rome This obiection hath bene often vrged by Protestants and as often answeared by vs and particularly by the most eminent Cardinals Baronius (l) Anno 419. Bellarmine (m) L. 2. de Pontif. c. 25. and Peron (n) Repliq. l. 1. Chap. 49. In them you may read the solution It will be sufficient for me to giue the Reader out of them and other Authors a touch of your vnsyncere dealing wherby he may also come to vnderstand what the issue of this controuersy was First therfore Bellarmine Peron (o) Loc. cit and Brereley (p) Prot. Apol tract 1. sect 7. Subdiu 2. n. 3. shew that the ancient Fathers and Councels and in particular the Africans themselues whom this matter most concerned highly commend those three Popes Zozimus Boniface and Celestine with whom this controuersy was and grace them with titles of great reuerence honor calling Zozimus The most blessed Pope Zozimus Zozimus of venerable memory that they call Boniface The venerable Bishop of the Roman Church The most blessed Bishop of the City of Rome The holy and blessed Pope The Reuerend Pope Boniface Boniface of holy memory The most blessed and our honorable brother Boniface and that S. Augustine dedicated to him one of his principall workes And
Bishop and Pastor as not being true Pope and cleaueth to one opposite vnto him men dying in the state of this Disobedience cannot possibly be true Martyrs nor be saued Thirdly there is Disobedience moral in matter of good life manners against precepts enacted by the Church for the better auoyding punishing of ill behauiour Now in the state of this kind of Disobedience men may be saued for the disobeying of these kind of orders and commands may proceed either from contumacy and contempt or from errour and ignorance If out of contempt then is it damnable so that none dying therin can be Martyrs or goe to heauen But with Disobedience of the second kind caused by ignorance Saluation and Martyrdome may stand for their ignorance may be inuincible or else probable and grounded vpon good seeming reasons Or if it be vincible and faulty yet may it be abolished by their contrition for all their sinnes or falce Martyrij by the sickle of Martyrdome done away This supposed I say the Disobedience of the African Bishops was not Heretical because in all matters of sayth they were conforme to the Church of Rome and by manifold practise shewed that about doubts and controuersies of this kind they held it necessary to haue recourse to (n) Ep. Concil Mileuit 92. inter Epist August the Pastorall Chayre and care of Peter to the (o) Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 10. l. 4. ep 8. Roote and matrice of the Catholike Church to the Rocke which the (p) August Psal cont part Donat. proud gates of Hell do neuer ouercome to the maine indeficient fountaine which with the streames of wholesome doctrine watereth all Christians ouer the whole world The ancient rules say they the foure Primates of Afrike (q) Ep. ad Theodor. Papam Extat in Concil Lateran 1. consult 2. Bin. to 2. p. 1075. haue ordayned that whatsoeuer is treated in Prouinces distant and farre of should not be deemed to be ended vntill first it were come to the knowledge of the See Apostolike to the en that the sentente which should be found iust might be confirmed by the authority of the same See and that from thence all other Churches as streames flowing from their mother source might take the beginning of their preaching and the Sacraments of Saluation Their Disobedience then could not be Heretical nor was it Schismatical because they acknowledged the Pope euen that Pope with whome they did disagree to be their Pastor and Superior whose (r) August Epist. 157. Iniuncta nobis à Venerabili Papa Zozimo Ecclesiastica necessitas lawfull Commaunds they were bound to obey that all Maior causes all matters controuersies aboue Iurisdiction of greater moment to wit such as concerne sayth and the life and gouernment of Bishops are to be referred vnto him and to be finally and infallibly decided by him Neither thirdly was their Disobedience ioyned with contumacy and contempt because though they refused to deferre vnto the Appeales which Priest infertour Clergymen might make to the Pope yet they do it with great humility and respect and by way of submissiue intreaty in their (s) Ep. ad Caelestin apud Sur. Tom. l. Coucil pag. 520. letter to Pope Celeftine Praefato debitae Salutationis officio impendio deprecamur vt deinceps ad aures vestrashinc venientes non facilius admittatis The behoofe of due Salutation or Reuerence being premised we humbly beseech you that those which come from hence with their Appeales you will not admit them vnto audience ouer-easily Therefore their disobedience was out of ignorance for they did not doubt but the Pope had power to command the Bishops of Africa to yield vnto the Appeales that were made vnto him but they esteemed the practise of that power not to be in those circumstances for the good of the Church of Africa They saw by appealing to Rome that dissolute and vnruly Clergymen would cause much vexation vnto the Bishops their lawfull Iudges prolonge the cause differre the sentence and many times escape deserued punishment which impunity might easily grow into liberty and audacity and extreme disorder Wherefore the power giuen of Christ to his Church and Vicar on earth being giuen (t) â— Cor. 1â— 10 for edifying not for destroying they were persuaded that the Pope could not prudently command them to deferre vnto such Appeales and if he did that they should not be bound to obey therein You demand (u) Pag. 150â— whether the Pope of Rome whom we entitle Monarch of the Church Catholike and Bishop of Bishops would accept it as a matter of subiection for Protestants with S. Augustine and those other African Bishops to deny that any ought to be called Bishop of Bishop and not to yield to his demands in point of Iurisdiction vpon any pretence of Diuine Law but to exact of him proofe by a Canon of an ancient Councell I answere The African Bishops deny the title of Prince of Bishops to any Arch-bishop or Primate within Africke but not to the Roman Bishop yea they entitle him in expresse termes (x) Aruob in Psal 138. Tertullian lib. de pudicit c. 1. Stephanus Mauritaniae in Africa Episcopus Epist. ad Damasum Bishop of Bishops the Holy Father of Fathers the soueraigne Bishop of all Bishops and Pastors they call his Authority the Princedome of the Apostolike Chayre euer vigent in the Roman Church they acknowledge that they are bound to obey all his iust commandes that all Christians may and must Appeale to him about Controuersies of Religion and the Catholike Fayth August ep 1â—2 A postolitae Cathedrae principatum Item the foure Primates of Afrike in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Theodor in Conc. Lateran 1. Consul 2. Bintom 2 pag. 1078. Patri Patrum summo omnium Praesulum Pontifici Theodoro By which is answered what you alleage pag. 46. out of the 26. Canon of the Councell of Carthage yea Bishops also in criminal causes from the condeÌ„nation giuen against them by their fellow-Bishops But that the Pope should admit the Appeales so easely of euery African Priest and Clergyman hereof they doubt whether it be expedient for the African Church Now Bishops may be sometimes excused if they do not obey the Pope in matters that are extremely burthensome and hard specially when they haue probable reasons that it is not prudently commanded nor will proue for the good of soules But Protestants you are disobedient vnto the See of Peter and the Soueraigne Bishop of all Bishops in points of Iurisdiction allowed vnto him by ancient Councells Your disobedience is ioyned with Contumacy contempt contumely and base language You deny Appeales vnto him in matters and doubts about Christian Fayth Wherefore you want that dutifull subiection to Peters chayre without which none can be of the number of Christ his sheepe nor consequently be saued yea you are guilty of that damnable disobedience whereof S. Leo sayth (y) Epist 93. c.
famous Bishops of Luca renowned for his learning and sanctity and illustrious for miracles in his life and after his death writ against Guibertus the Antipope set vp by the wicked Emperor Henry the fourth and among other praises giueth him the same that S. Cyprian in like occasion gaue to the holy Pope Cornelius I may affirme sayth he of Gregory our Father that which Blessed Cyprian writ of Cornelius He was made Bishop by the iudgment of God and of his Christ by the testimony of almost all nay to speake more truly of all the Clergy without exception by the verdict of the people that were present by the Colledge of ancient Priests and good men none other being created before him when the place of Alexander that is when the place of Peter and the degree of the Sacerdotall chayre was vacant And how true this testimony of S. Anselme is appeareth by the formall words of his election set downe by Platina (r) In vita Gregorij 7. wherin Cardinalls Bishops Abbots Priests all degrees of Ecclesiasticall men and laicks made choyce of him as of a man modest sober chast of singular learning of great piety wisdome iustice constancy and religion How thinke you Doctor Morton was this man likely to sport himselfe with tossing the crownes of Kings and Emperors from their heads You plead (s) Pag. 174. that his proceeding against Henry was not for any note of heresy but only for not subiecting himselfe to the Popes dignity and dominion Read the testimonies of graue writers almost 40. in number (t) Apud Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. c. 13. cont Barcla 〈◊〉 9. Genebrard in Chronico an 1087. many of which liued in his tyme and you shall find that Henry is censured as an Arch-pirate an Arch-heretike an Apostata a persecutor of soules more then bodies and for his behauiour and manners that he contemned the Princes of the Empire oppressed the Nobles exalted base fellowes and married to them the daughters of Noble men at his pleasure that not contenting himselfe with ordinary sinnes be inuented and committed others neuer heard of before in the world and to many men altogether incredible And with these authors Caluin agreeth saying (u) L. 4. Instit c. 11. sect 13. that he was light temerarious of no iudgment of great boldnesse of dissolute life and that he had all the Bishoprickes he might haue added and all the Archbishoprickes and Abbacies of Germany in his Court partly exposed to sale partly to prey and rapine Finally so abhominable was his lust so execrable his simony so great his oppression of Germany his life in all respects so flagitious and his person for that cause so hatefull that as Vrspergensis reporteth (x) Chron. an 1106. when he died there was not any one found in the whole Christian world that sorowed for his death nay that did not exceedingly reioyce therat euen as Israel reioyced at the drowing of Pharao in the red sea or as the people of Rome exulted in the triumphs of their Emperors Much more in this kind is reported by the afore-cited Authors to which Marianus Scotus an historian of that tyme addeth (y) Chron. an 1075. that the Catholikes which liued then in the Church seeing and hearing the horrible and vnheard-of crimes of Henry inflamed with the zeale of God for the house of Israel in imitation of the Prophet Helias sent messengers to Alexander then gouerning the See Apostolike and complained expressing their griefe with sighs and lamentations both by letters and words Wherupon sayth William B. of (z) L. 1. debello sacro c. 13. Tyre Gregory his successor before he proceeded against him sent thrice vnto him and with the loue and affection of a Father admonished him seeking to reclaime him winne him to his owne good but preuailed not I appeale to the iudgement of any impartiall Reader whether you haue not slandered and wronged Gregory in the highest degree saying that he sported himselfe with tossing the Emperors crowne from his head and this not far any note of heresy but only for not subiecting himselfe to his dignity and dominion Beware in tyme lest you which possesse the place of a Bishop be not punished by God as William B. of Maestricht was who sayth Lambertus Scafnaburgensis (a) Hist. râ—rum Germ. being suddainly surprised with a most grieuous sicknesse cried outwith miserable shrikes before all that by the iust iudgement of God he had lost both this present and eternall life for hauing taken part with the Emperor in his sacrilegious enterprises and in hope of gaining his fauor wittingly reproached the most holy B. of Rome a man of Apostolicall vertue and innocency Not vnlike to this was the miraculous punishment of Imbrico B. of Ausburg for the same fault related by Bartholdus (b) In Chron. an Historian of the same time And finaliy our holy Archbishop of Canterbuty S. Anselme if he were liuing would say to you as he did to Wâ—lramus that he would refraine from saluting you for taking part with Henry the Emperor against Gregory that being no lesse a crime then to take part with the successor of Nero and Iulian the Apostata against the successor and Vicar of Peter the Apostle I haue dwelled a while in this history of Gregory because of all the fower Popes against whom you here except you raile most intemperatly against him for therby the reader may vnderstand that as you slander him so you do also the rest for how excellent and godly a Prelate Zacharias was you haue heard and of the other two Historians report no lesse Of Innocentius they write that he was one of the most excellent Popes for good life and rate learning in many kindes that for many hundreds of yeares held the See of Rome to which his many workes full of singular erudition piety and contempt of the world giue witnesse By his meanes Liuonia receaued the fayth of Christ He built repaired adorned many Churches with rich gifts He sounded and endowed with great reuenewes that famous Hospitall of Sancti Spiritus in Saxia in which so many diseased and sicke persons euen to this day are cured and so many poore children and orphans bred vp and mantained He confirmed the religious orders of S. Dominick of S. Francis of the Heremits of S. Augustine of the Carmelites of the Croched Friers for the redemption of Captiues and others which haue yeilded innumerable men that with their sanctity and learning haue bene a most singular ornament to the Church of Christ and to whom the whole world is in debted for their great labors vndertaken for the glory of God for the conuersion of Infidels reduction of heretikes reformation of manners among Catholikes and for the excellent monuments of their workes in all faculties of learning Finally so great was the fame of Innocentius his sanctity and excellent gouerment that among other authors Blondus writeth (c) Dâ—cad 2. l. 7.
in any thing he had erred and acknowledgeth in the Pope authority of a Iudge We are ready sayth he to be iudged by you prouided that they which slander vs may appeare face to face with vs before your Reuerence Doth all this import nothing but a request of louing and brotherly visitation or consideration Could S. Basil in more effectuall words expresse the Popes power and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church then by requesting him to send his Legates with authority to annull the Acts of a generall Councell as that of Arimin was No they are testimonies so forcible that with no glosse can be eluded But you reply (u) Pag. 194. against Bellarmine that he will needes haue S. Basil to desire the Popes Decree wheras Baronius readeth Counsell or Aduice Here againe you cauill for the Greeke word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by interpretation of Budaeus signifieth voluntatem sententiam iudicium Why then was it not lawfull for Bellarmine to say S. Basil desired the Popes decree for to desire him to giue his sentence and iudgement what was it els but to acknowledge in him the authority of a Iudge with power to sentence to iudge to decree Ecclesiasticall causes in the East Which power he also declareth in other places of his workes for do not both he (x) Ep. 73. al. 74. and S. Gregory Nazianzen (y) Epist ad Clede testify that Eustathius B. of Sebaste by vertue of Liberius his letters presented to the Easterne Bishops in the Councell of Tyana and by vertue of his command intimated in them was receaued into the communion of the whole Easterne Church and restored to his See Eustathius sayth S. Basil to the Bishops of the West hauing bene cast out of his Bishoprick because he was deposed in the Synod of Melitine aduised himselfe to find meanes to be restored trauailing to you Of the things that were proposed to him by the most Blessed Bishop Liberius and what submission be made we know not Only he brought a letter that restored him which being shewed to the Councell of Tyana he was reestablished in his Bishops seat Againe doth not S. Basil (z) Ep. 77. compare the Church to a body wherof the Westerne part by reason of the Roman See is the Head and the Eastern the Feet And doth he not from this very Metaphor denominate the B. of Rome Head of the vniuersall Church and all other Bishops fellow-members of the same body (a) Ep. 70. ad Episc transmar edit Paris an 1603. Againe doth he not beseech Pope Damasus (c) Ibid. to send Legates with order to examine the accusations laid to his charge and to appoint a place for him to meet them that his cause might be iudged by them and he punished if he were found guilty And doth he not require the same Pope (d) Ep. 74. to giue order by his letters to all the Easterne Churches that they admit into their communion all such as hauing departed from the Catholike truth shall disclaime from their Errors and to renounce the Communion of them that shall persist obstinatly in their nouelties And lastly declaring the Popes authority in determining all doubts and controuersies of fayth he sayth In very deed that which was giuen by our Lord to your Piety is worthy of that most excellent voyce which proclamed you blessed to wit that you may discerne betweene that which is counterfeit and that which is lawfull and pure and without any diminution may preach the fayth of our Ancestors I conclude therfore that if S. Basil beleeued aright the Pope hath authority to restore Bishops deposed to their Sees to send Legates with power to dissolue the Acts of generall Councels to condemne hereticall doctrines to iudge the causes of Bishops to punish delinquents And is this nothing els but charitable aduice but perswasion but counsell Is it not to vse authority to exercise iurisdiction But you obiect (f) Pag. 1â—6 that S. Basil in his owne name and in the name of his fellow Bishops in the East hauing written often to Pope Damasus and other Westerne Bishops and sent to Rome foure seuerall legations requiring helpe and comfort from them in their afflictions could not receaue any answeare in so much that S. Basil taxeth them with supercilious pride haughtinesse and that they did neither know the truth nor would learne it This you obiect out of Baronius from whom you might haue taken the solution which is that S. Basil was oppressed and as it were ouerwhelmed with waues of sorow and affliction not only for the common calamity of the Orientall Church but also for his owne particular for as much as by Eustathius B. of Sebaste and others who hiding the venime of their heresy feigned themselues to be Catholikes he was accused and defamed of heresy in the East and brought into suspition euen with his owne Monkes and his dearely beloued Neocaesarians And this made him likewise not to be well thought of in the West in so much that Damasus Pope for a time desisted from that familiar communication by letters which Basil expected and differred the sending of Legates to examine his cause and cleare the truth which he had required greatly desired Yet as you (g) Pag. 198. confesse was he then a member of the Catholike Church and held communion with the Church of Rome both in fayth and charity Nor was Damasus so wholly wanting to his comfort but that euen then when he was suspected of heresy vpon his letters he called a Councell at Rome in which he condemned Apollinarius Vitalis and Timotheus (h) Baron anno 373. Sozo l. 6. c. 25. called Vitalis to Rome and excommunicated Timotheus as he testifieth in his Epistle to the Easterne Bishops (i) Apud Theodo l. 5. histor c. 11. expressing withall the profession which they had made to him of their beliefe of the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Now if S. Basil in these afflictions and grieuing at the intermission of such communicatory letters from the Westerne Bishops and chiefly from Damasus as he expected let fall from his mouth some hasty words as other holy men whom Baronius (k) An. 373. nameth in like occasions haue done is that by you to be reproached vnto him or is it any argument of his deniall of the Supremacy of the B. of Rome which he hath taught so clearely so constantly so effectually in so many places of his workes Yea albeit S. Basil gaue a litle way to the motions of nature yet by vertue he soone recalled himselfe retracting what he had said as his letters full of humility written soone after to Damasus the other Westerne Bishops expresse You sayth (l) Ep. 1. in addiâ— he are praised by all mortall men that you remaine pure and without blemish in fayth keeping entire the doctrine taught you by the Apostles It is not so with vs among whom there are some
citation and application of these attributes you deale not vprightly as is to be seene in Canisius from whom you tooke them (b) Catechisinit in Encorn Pat. But leauing that to the readers examination your owne answeare destroyeth it selfe for those ascriptions you confesse import no authority But doth the title of Rector or Gouernor import no authority As the power authority of the Head of a Colledge or Gouernor of a cōmonwealth cannot be better or more effectually expressed then by saying He is Rector of the Colledge or Gouernor of the Common-wealth so if S. Ambrose had studied to confute your answeare and expresse the Popes Monarchicall power authority ouer the whole Church he could not haue done it more effectually then by stiling him Rector or Gouernor of the house of God which is his Church for that title neuer was nor can euer be giuen to any other but to the Pope of Rome whom Christ hath made Pastor Gouernor of his whole flock (c) Ioan. 21.15 seqq And to this S. Ambrose alludeth (d) L. 10. ep 81. when writing to Siricius Pope he calls him A watchfull and pouident Pastor that with pious solicitude defends the flock of Christ from wolues that is from heretikes 3. What S. Ambrose his iudgment was concerning the infallibility of the Bishop and Church of Rome he declareth when writing to Siricius Pope of certaine heretikes whom he had condemned he sayth (e) Ibid. Whom your Holinesse hath condemned know that we also hold them condemned according to your iudgment S. Ambrose was fare more learned then Siricius and yet by reason of the infallibility of the Roman Church in determining causes of fayth and condemning heresies he submitteth to the iudgment of Siricius Impertinently therfore do you obiect (f) Pag. 214. to proue S. Ambrose his no-subiection to the Church of Rome that the Pope asked his iudgment concerning the day of Easter for a Counsellor may be more learned then a King the King may aske his iudgment and yet the authority of determining the cause is not in the Counsellor but in the King And the Counsell or though he be more learned is subiect and bound to obey the King as S. Ambrose was and acknowledged himselfe bound to obey Siricius Nor do you find vs to hold that the Pope in his determinations ought not to proceed prudently asking the aduice of learned men 4. To proue that S. Ambrose acknowledged no subiection to the Church of Rome you report (g) Pag. 214. out of Baronius that certaine Clergy-men of Milan 670. yeares after the death of S. Ambrose called the Bishoprick of Milan S. Ambrose his Church and withstood Petrus Damianus the Popes Legate alleaging that the Church of Ambrose had bene alwaies free in it selfe and neuer subiect to the lawes of the Pope of Rome But why do you conceale the truth of this history The ancient splendor and beauty of the Church of Milan being defaced and greatly decayed partly by the impurity of Clergy-men that being infected with the heresy of the Nicolaites liued incontinently and obstinatly defended the same to be lawfull and partly by Simoniacall Priests the people of Milan sent Legates to the Pope beseeching him to commiserate the lamentable state and cure the desperate diseases of that famous Church The Pope not Leo the Ninth as you mistake but Nicolas the second between whom and Leo there were other two Popes Victor and Stephen condescending to so iust a request sent two holy and learned men Petrus Damiani Cardinall of Ostia Anselme B. of Luca as his Legates to visit that Church and armed them with his owne authority to correct the offenders and ordayne whatsoeuer should be thought expedient for the reformation of so great disorders The Legates being ariued at Milan had no sooner intimated their Commission but the people stirred vp by those lewd and factious Clergy-men began to oppose them alleaging that the Church of Ambrose had bene alwais free in it selfe and neuer subiect to the Lawes of the Pope of Rome These are the only words which you cull out of Baronius whole narration leauing out what precedeth and making no mention of what followeth which is that Petrus Damiani stepping vp into the Pulpit after he had quieted the people proued effectually the soueraigne authority granted by Christ to the Roman Church ouer all Churches that whosoeuer denies that authority is an heretike The people giuing eare to his words were appeased and with one accord promised to do whatsoeuer he should ordayne There was present a great number of Clergy-men and scarce any of them that had not bene promoted to orders by Simony For the remedy of so great a mischiefe the Legats required from Guido the Archbishop an inuiolable caution and promise not to admit any from thence forward to holy orders for money and also to roote out the heresy of the Nicolaites Wherunto he willingly yeilded with imprecation of Gods wrath and reuenge on himselfe if he performed it not He gaue this caution in writing the Priests and Clerkes subscribed vnto it Which being done he prostrated himselfe on the ground asking pennance of the Legates for his offence And in like manner the Clergy-men admitting pennance were reconciled in tyme of Masse and receaued new ornaments from the Bishops hand hauing first made a profession of their fayth in which they anathematized all Heresies extolling themselues against the holy Catholike and Apostolike Church particularly those of the Nicolaites and Symonians This is the story and what greater folly can there be then to argue that S. Ambrose a most holy and learned Doctor opposed the authority of the Roman Church because a few lewd hereticall Clergy-men of Milan 670. yeares after his death disclaimed from the obedience of the B. of Rome to the end they might hold on their damnable courses and escape that punishment which their offences so iustly deserued And can there be a greater Imposture then to alleage a few rash words vttered by the people at the instigation of those heretikes to conceale that they togeather with the people Archbishop being admonished by the Popes Legats acknowledged their error with harty sorrow and promise of amendment and obedience to the See Apostolike By this a iudicious reader will perceaue that you neither regard what you alleage true or false nor stick to patronize vice and heresy in them that with you will oppose the Bishop and Church of Rome But you that follow them in their disobedience why do you not also follow them in their repentance When Theodosius in excuse of the great slaughter he had made at Thessalonica alleaged to S. Ambrose that King Dauid also had offended committing adultery and murther S. Ambrose answeared (h) Paulinus in vita Ambros Sequutus es errantem sequere poenitentem As you haue followed Dauid in his finne so follow him in his repentance And if he were now liuing he would
in like manner answere you that as you haue followed some wicked Clergy-men of his Church in their disobedience to the See Apostolike so follow them in their repentance and both he and they would condemne you of great perfidiousnesse in proclaiming their sinne and concealing their amendment 5. You obiect (i) Pag. 214.215 that S. Ambrose refused to follow the Church of Rome in the custome of washing the feet of infants is baptized which say you the Church of Rome iudged to be superfluous but contrariwise Ambrose and the Church of Milan held to be necessary Your custome is to borrow Arguments from Catholike writers and suppresse their solutions This you borow from Bellarmine (k) L. 2. de Pont. c. 16. as you do many others In him read the answere It shall suffife me to tell you that the Roman Church obligeth not other Churches to vse or omit all the rites and ceremonies which she vseth or omitteth in administration of the Sacraments or other Ecclesiasticall offices In such as are of themselues indifferent she commandeth nothing as you haue heard (l) ChaÌ„p 2â— sect 3. but leaueth freedome to other Churches to follow their owne customes Such was the ceremony of washing the feet of infantes baptized which though she practized not she condemned not and therfore it was free for the Church of Milan to vse it without any disobedience at all to the Church of Rome If you had not bene minded to trifle you should haue proued that S. Ambrose disobeyed the Roman Church in matter of fayth as you do This you cannot proue both because S. Augustine hath testified (m) Cont. Iulia Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. that in the workes of Blessed Ambrose the Roman fayth greatly shineth also because he himselfe defineth a Catholike Bishop to be one that a greeth with the Roman Church (n) Orat. de obitu Satyri and protesteth to Siricius (o) L. 10. ep 81. that whom the Roman Church condemneth he following her iudgment holdeth in like manner condemned of which number you are one SECT VIII S. Augustines iudgment concerning the necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof S. Augustines iudgment was that the Roman Church is the Head of all Churches which he professed saying (p) Ep. 162. In her hath alwaies florished the Princedome of the See Apostolike Princedome I say not only Principality of Order as you comment but of true power and authority ouer all the Churches of the world as hath bene effectually proued (q) Chap. 17. sect 2. and the ensuing testimonies of S. Augustine shall further confirme For heerein he declared his iudgment when together with all the Fathers of the Mileuitan Councell to which he was Secretary he writ to Innocentius Pope (r) Ep. â—2 For as much as God by the gift of his principall grace hath placed you in the Apostolike See and granted you to be such in our dayes as we ought rather to feare that it should be imputed to vs for a crime of negligence if we should conceale from your Reuerence those things which for the Church ought to be represented to you then to imagine that you can receaue them disdainefully or negligently we beseech you to apply your Pastorall diligence to the great perills of the weake members of Christ. You deny not but that S. Augustine with the whole Councell in these words requireth the Popes Pastorall diligence for the repressing of the Pelagian heresy in Palestine and Africk but your answere is (s) Pag. 218. that Iohn the first writing to an Arch-bishop granteth that the charge of the Church for the helpe of all in repressing of heresies was committed to him as well as to himselfe that euery Patriarke hath a Principality and height of a Pastorall watch-tower aboue all Metropolitans and Bishops and yet haue they not ouer all Bishops power of iurisdiction But these euasions I haue already proued to be vaine and not without Imposture (t) See aboue Chap. 19. sect 3. That euery Bishop ought to concurre to the help of all in repressing of heresy we deny not but we deny that euery Bishop hath a watch-tower of pastorall authority to iudge and condemne heretikes whersoeuer out of his owne Dioces as S. Augustine and the Mileuitan Fathers acknowledge the Pope to haue out of his Dioces and Patriarkship of Rome requiring him to condemne by his pastorall authority the Pelagians in Africk Palestine And that the Popes power herein exceedeth the iurisdiction of all other Bishops S. Augustine professeth writing to Boniface Pope (u) Cont. duas Epist. Palag l. 1. c. 1. Thou disdainest not to be afrend of the humble though thou be placed in a higher gouerment And againe (x) Ibid. The pastorall watch is common to vs all that haue the office of Bishops but thou art supereminent in a higher degree And yet further he declareth this supereminent power and iurisdiction of the Pope to extend it selfe ouer all the world writing to Optatus (y) Ep. 157. Pelagius and Celestius by the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councels with the helpe of God who vndertakes the protection of his Church haue bene condemned in the extent of the whole world by two reuerend Prelats of the Apostolike See Pope Innocentius and Pope Sozimus If then S. Augustine belieued aright the Pope hath Pastorall power to represse and condemne heretikes throughout the whole world which other Bishops haue not their pastorall power being confined to the limits of their owne Diocesses Your obiections against this are 1. (z) Pag. 219.210 That S. Augustine speaking of Stephen B. of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage calleth theÌ„ Two Bishops of most eminent Churches Ergo the B. of Rome hath not iurisdiction ouer the B. of Carthage for there cannot be Two most Eminents Your consequence is vntrue and such you must confesse it to be for the B. of Rome being Patriarke of all the West the B. of Carthage is subiect vnto him as you forgetting your selfe afterwards acknowledge (a) Pag. 2â—9 Wherefore S. Augustine calling Stephen and Cyprian two Bishops of two most eminent Churches intended not to deny the subordination of Cyprian to StepheÌ„ nor of the Church of Carthage to that of Rome but only to signify that as the Roman Church is most eminent by reason of her Patriarchall power ouer the West and her Primacy ouer the whole world so the Church of Carthage is also most eminent though in an inferior degree by reason of her Primacy ouer all Africa And in this sense both those Churches â—â—e most-Eminent the one ouer all Africa and the other ouer all the world Your second obiection of the Saturday-fast (b) Pag. 220. your third of the deniall of Appeales out of Africa to Rome (c) Pag. 221. your fourth concerning the cause of Cecilian (d) Ibid. your fifth of the Epistle to the Hebrues whether in S. Augustines
dayes the Roman Church held it canonicall (e) Pag. 222. are all repetitions of your former Arguments which in their due places haue bene answeared (f) Chap. 22. sect 3. Chap. 25.26 tot Chap. 30. sect 1. Chap. 34. sect 6. But to them you adde here a Consideration of your iudicious Casaubon (g) Pag. 223. requiring vs who accompt the only note of Schisme to be diuided from the Roman Church and Pope thereof to answeare Why S. Augustine who in seauen Bookes besides many other places confuted the Schismaticall Donatists yet neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope or of the infallibility of his iudgement whereby to reduce them to the vnity of the Church and truth Your iudicious Casaubon shewed great lack of iudgment in making this Argument and that he had not read S. Augustine or if he had that he did not vnderstand him or if he had read did vnderstand him then you know what he sheweth in concealing the truth For throughout all those seauen Bookes against the Donatists there is nothing which S. Augustine so often obiecteth nor so much vrgeth against them as their separation from the Roman Church repeating the same not once or twice but almost in euery Chapter of some of those bookes For when the Donatists did striue to defend their heresy of rebaptization by the authority of S. Cyprian S. Augustine answeared (h) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18.19 l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9 Contra Crescon l. ◠c. 32. l. 2. c. 3. alibi saepè that Cyprians patronage could not auaile them because they were out of the Communion of the Roman Church in which S. Cyprian liued died And doth he not in other his writings against the Donatists often vrge the succession of Bishops in the Roman Church If sayth (i) Ep. 165. he the order and succession of Bishops be to be obserued how much more assuredly and safely indeed do we begin our accompt from S. Peter himselfe to whom as he represented the whole Church our Lord sayd (k) Math. 16.18 Vpon this Rock I will build my Church For Linus succeoded to Peter Cletus to Linus c. And so reckoning all the Popes vnto Anastasius who then sate in the chaire of S. Peter he concludeth against the Donatists In this order of succession there is not one Donatist to be found to which I adde no nor yet one Protestant And reckoning the motiues that held him in the Church among them he setteth downe the succession of Bishops in the See of Rome There are sayth he (l) Cont Ep. Fundam c. 4. many thinges which with greatest reason hold me in this Catholike Church 1. The vniforme consent of people and nations which is not to be found in the Protestant Church confined to a few Northern countreyes in a corner of the world 2. A certaine authority begun by miracles which Protestants confesse themselues not to haue 3. The succession of Priests euen from S. Peter vntill this present Bishop Wherfore since that Church in which there is a continued succession of Bishops from S. Peter cannot be the Protestan Church which hath no such succession but the Roman it followeth that S. Augustine held the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church And therefore expressing to the Donatists how much he grieued to see them ly cut of from this Church he said (m) Psal cont part Donati It greeueth vs to see you ly so cut of Number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranck of Fathers who succeeded whom That 's the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not Here againe S. Augustine sheweth the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church built vpon Peter and his successors as vpon a rock against which heresies schismes which are the proud gates of hell shall neuer preuaile and all that are out of her communion to be as branches out of from the Vine and deuoid of all spirituall life And as he held all that are out of the Roman Church to be in miserable state so contrarily he held all that liue in her Communion to be most hapy and secure from error in fayth for so he deemed Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage to be notwithstanding all the plots and conspiracies of the Donatists against him He might sayth S. Augustine (n) Ep. 162. contemne the conspiring multitude of his enemies because he knew himselfe to be vnited by communicatory letters both to the Church of Rome in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike hath alwaies florished and to other Countries from whence the Ghospell came first into Africa These few passages among many others shew that your iudicious Casaubon failed much in iudgment and truth when he aduentured to say that S. Augustine in his workes against the Donatists neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope nor of the infallibility of his iudgment wherby to reduce them to the vnity of the Church and truth And as he vrged the authority of the See Apostolike against the Donatists so hath he testified that by the same authority taken from the authority of holy Scriptures (o) Aug. Ep. 91. the Pelagians were condemned who therfore seeing themselues esteemed as Heretikes throughout all the Westerne Church in which they liued sought to the Churches of the East hoping to be admitted into their Communion as the Protestants of Germany writing to Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople did (p) See Iustus Caluinus Apol. pro Eccl. Rom. pag. 10. whom therfore we may check with S. Augustines words written against Iulian a chiese mantainer of the Pelagian heresy I thinke sayth he (q) Cont. Iulia l. 1. c. 4. that part of the world ought to suffice thee in which our Lord would haue the chiefe of the Apostles to be crowned with a most glorious Martyrdome To the Gouernor of which Church Blessed Innocentius if thou woldst haue giuen care thou hadst ere this freed thy dangerous youth from the Pelagian snares for what answeare could that holy man giue to the African Councells but that which from ancient times the Roman Church with all others perseuerantly holdeth And els where he noteth (r) L. 2. de grat Christi pecc orig c. 8. that albeit Pelagius had drawne others into error he could neuer deceaue the Roman Church for the most Blessed Pope Sozimus considered what opinion his predecessor worthy to be imitated had of his proceedings and what iudgment the fayth of the Romans to be commended in our Lord had made of him But you obiect (s) Pag. 225. It is mere sophistry to inferre a necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome to be professed of all Christians at all times because the Fathers required it in their times By this Argument a Pelagian a Donatist an Eutychian or any other Heretike may iustify his departure from the Roman Church pretending as you do that the necessity of vnion with her was not for all times
confiderat when he called Eugenius Pope The God of Pharao as God called Moyses Did Ladislaus that famous King of Hungary blaspheme when he called Nicolas the fifth A God vpon earth (d) Orat. ad Nicol. 5. Acknowledge then that this your obiection is an imposterous cauill against the Bishop and Church of Rome or rather a calumny inuented to mantaine a bad cause which with other Arguments you cannot vphold CHAP. XXXVI The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of ancient Fathers discouered SECT I. Some of his Answeares examined WHAT hath bene produced hitherto out of antiquity conuincingly proueth the vniuersall Authority and Iurisdiction of the B. of Rome to haue bene acknowledged from the beginning by all the Catholikes of the world Here you vndertake to answeare the testimonies of ancient Fathers alleaged by Bellarmine but performe it not Some of them you passe ouer not only without answeare but without any mention of them as of Valentinian the Emperor Venerable Bede S. Anselme Hugo de S. Victore and S. Bernard whom yet Caluin (e) L. 4. instit c. 7. §. 22. cites for himselfe acknowledgeth to be a Saint 2. To the testimonies of S. Ignatius and Irenaeus you answeare but satisfy not as hath bene proued (f) Chap. 15. sect 5. 6. And the like hath bene shewed of your answeares to the testimonies of S. Basil (g) Chap. 34. sect 4. and Iustinian (h) Chap. 30. sect 5. the Emperor 3. Of S. Prosper you say (i) Pag. 270. fin 271. init His meaning might haue bene better knowne if he had written in prose and not assumed vnto him the liberty of a Poet. But who seeth not this to be a mere shift void of truth for as in verse he sayd (k) L. De ingrat c. 2. Now Rome the great Apostle Peters seat Head of Pastorall Honour here below Hath by fayths Empire made her selfe more great then she by all her armed powers could grow So likewise he said in prose (l) De vocat gentium c. 16. The soueraignty of the Apostolicall Priesthood hath made Rome greater by the Tribunall of religion then by the Throne of Power Bellarmine alleageth both the one and the other as well in prose as in verse But because both of them are vnanswerable you vnder colour that the one is in verse reiect S. Prosper as fabulous in both for the liberty which Poets assume vnto them is to report fables insteed of truthes This is the reuerence you beare to that holy and renowned Father and such the solutions wherwith you shift off the testimonies of antiquity and yet beare your Readers in hand that you belieue as they belieued 4. The B. of Patara in Licia (m) Liberat. in Breu. c. 22. vpon the banishment of Pope Siluerius represented to the Emperor Iustinian the iudgment of God vpon the expulsion of the Bishop of so great a Seate saying There are many Kings in the world but not one of them as the Pope who is Head ouer the Church of the whole world You answeare (n) Pag. 156. Liberatus who reported this history was an author deceaued by heretikes belieued not himselfe what he reported for the Pope Giue vs any one author that excepted against this relation of Liberatus before your selfe or that sayd he himselfe beliued not what he reported for the Pope If it shall be lawfull for you to reiect testimonies of antiquity vpon no other ground but because they are against your selfe what authority may not with such answeares be eluded You know this not to satisfy and therfore haue inuented another that this Greeke Author must be taken in the Greeke sense of Primacy of order This satisfieth as litle as the former for the B. of Patara compares the spirituall authority of the Pope with the temporall of Kings protesting that no King hath temporall power ouer all the Kingdoms of the earth as the Pope hath spirituall ouer the Church of the wholeworld Againe that the Popes Primacy in the Greeke sense is not Primacy of iurisdiction but of Order only is said gratis and vntruly The Greeke Fathers in the Councell of Chalcedon spake in the Greeke sense yet they acknowledged (o) In relat ad Leon. the Pope to be their Head and to rule ouer them at the Head doth ouer the members Theodoret spake in the Greeke sense when he said (p) In Ep. â—â— Renat The See of Rome hath the sterne of gouernment ouer all the Churches of the world Theodosius spake in the Greeke sense (q) Const. â— Nouel The 24. when he called the Pope Rector of the vniuersality of Churches This therefore is the Greeke sense and in this sense the B. of Patara spake to Iustinian 5. S. Epiphanius (r) Haeres 58. reporteth that Vrsacius Valens Bishops chiefe sticklers of the Arians touched with remorse for their treachery against Athanasius went vp to Rome and presenting libels of pennance to Iulius Pope craued pardon for their offence and promised to stand to his iudgment which sheweth that they acknowledged him to be the Head and Iudge of Bishops This testimony though set downe in your Latine margent curtalled (s) Pag. 254. yet in your English you make no mention of it but pretending to answeare by a similitude tell vs a tale of a tubbe of A. R. in the County of Suffolke crauing pardon of the Sheriffe of Middelsex for a notorius offence done vnto him But to omit that hereby the English reader can haue no notice at all of the force of this testimony your answeare is nether similitude nor solution but petitio principij a false supposition that Vrsacius and Valens asked pardon of Iulius for a notorious offence done vnto him Their offence was not against Iulius but against Athanasius and yet of this offence they asked pardon of Iulius because they knew that to him as to the Head of the Church it belonged to remedy the disorders of the Church and that as he had power to punish them for their offence so he had also to pardon them vpon their submission and promise of amendment which to that end they made 6. No lesse impertinent is the other flimflam which you adde (t) Pag. 254. as an answeare to the testimony of Dionysius Alexandrinus of two Gentlemen the one being a Iustice of peace agreeing to haue their difference to be ordered by another Iustice of peace for when Dionysius Patriarke of Alexandria was fallen into suspicion of heresy (u) Athanas de sent Dion Et de Sin Arim Seleuc the Catholikes of Alexandria went vp to Rome to accuse him before the Pope The Pope admonished him to cleare himselfe and he obeying presently sent vp a booke of defence and apology which sheweth that both the people Patriarke of Alexandria acknowledged that the cause of Bishops and of fayth were to be tried at the Popes tribunall and that the Pope knew himselfe to haue
free election and therfore that if the Successors of S. Peter should remoue their See from Rome the Roman Church in that case might erre This opinion sayth Bellarmine (e) L. 4. de Pont. c. 4. is not hereticall nor manifestly erroneous but he holdeth and proueth the contrary namely that the See of S. Peter was fixed at Rome by especiall command from Christ and cannot be remoued from thence and therfore that when the Fathers say The Roman Church cannot erre the word cannot is to be taken simply and absolutely without the caution which you falsly ascribe to him You adde (f) Pag. 273. Bellarmine should haue said with you that the Roman Church cannot erre so long as the ancient and sincere fayth is preserued at Rome which is to say that she cannot erre as long as she erres not Bellarmine was of more iudgment then to proue idem per idem But you say (g) Pag. 276. The list of all the Fathers which Bellarmine in the strength of his learning and iudgment hath produced to guard defend the Monarchy of the Church and B. of Rome is of the Greeke Fathers but thirteene of the Latin not aboue eleuen within the space of the first 600. yeares This is notoriously vntrue for in the two Chapters immediatly preceding he produceth the testimonies of aboue 1340. Fathers in the foure first Generall Councells and that vnder Menas and of 26. Popes the greater part of them glorious Martyrs and the rest holy Confessors as S. Iulius S. Damasus S. Siricius S. Zozimus S. Innocentius S. Leo S. Gelasius S. Gregory Were not all these Fathers that liued within the first 600. yeares which you call the primitiue times But what if Bellarmine had produced no more but thirteene Greeke eleauen Latin Fathers Doth not Cardinal Baronius throughout his learned Annals Doth not Iodocus Coccius (h) To. 1. thesau l. 7. art 4.5.6.7.8 Do not Doctor Sanders (i) Visic Monar tot Clau. Dauid tot and other Catholike writers produce testimonies of Popes Councells and of the most religious Emperors and Kinges that haue liued since Christ in great numbers all of them professing their beliefe of the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope and necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome Why do not you subscribe to so great a cloud of witnesses rather then to Martin Luther and a few Sectaries broaching Nouellisme opposing all Orthodoxe antiquity Lastly to close vp your answeres to the Fathers you produce Tertullian (k) Pag. 277. after his defection into Montanisme calling the Pope The blessed Pope and the chiefe Bishop of Bishops but that he did it by Irony and scorne So indeed sayth Massonius a forbidden author But be it true that he spake it by Irony yet that very manner of speach sheweth it was then the custome of the faythfull to giue those titles to the Pope If Tertullian called him so by Irorny and scorne it was because he was an heretike And so you imitating him cauill at vs for instiling the Pope Your Holinesse which title say you (l) Ibid. being first giuen to Pope Leo for his Holinesse sake and sanctity of life is continued to Popes who haue bene most wicked and retayned only in respect of their functions The case is this Benedict the cleauenth (m) Extrau l. 5. C. Dudum calleth Boniface the eight his Predecessor bona memoria of good memory The glosse sayth If a Pope haue defiled the Church with exactions simonies and filthy speaches he is not therfore to be instiled mal◠memoriae not of euill but of good memory according to the ciuill Law determining that regard is not to be had to what he did but to what it was fit for him to do that is sayth the glosse not to his person but to his dignity for although his person haue offended his dignity hath not and his personall offence is not to redound to the domage of the Church And howsoeuer Prelates haue offended they are Presidents and Fathers of the whole community and therfore to be honored as the Philosopher teacheth also the Ciuill Law calling them Gods for the Excellency of their Order and dignity of their office And for the same cause Kings albeit wicked in their liues are instiled Clara memoria vel Inclyta memoria of famous or renowned memory and Emperors Dina memoria of soueraigne or diuine memory To which I adde (n) Act. 24.25 that S. Paul called Festus President of Iury Optime Fest◠Most excellent Festus and this nor for his Vertue or Honesty for he was a wicked man but for his Office the custome being that all Presidents of Prouinces were so instiled (o) Baron Anno 58. n. 33. All this I suppose you will allow for hauing read most of it in the Glosse you except not against it or if you do your exception is without ground Other Prelates therfore although they be of vicious liues may be instiled Bonae memoriae Kings Clarae vel Inclytae memoriae Emperors Diuae memoriae Temporall gouernors may haue the title of Optimi yea and be called Gods for so you call Kings (p) Serm before his Ma. at Durham pag. 14. The Pope only forsoth who is the Vicar of Christ on earth because it displeaseth you must not be saluted by the title of Your Holinesse whiles he liues nor be said to be Bonae memoriae after he is dead Other gouernors must be honored by reason of their dignities and offices The Pope only must be excepted and Doctor Morton to helpe out the matter must falsify the Glosse making it say that an ill Pope after his death is to be intituled Of blessed Memory which words howsoeuer you (q) Pag. 277. set them downe as of the glosse and in great letters to make your falsification more remarkable are not of the glosse but feigned by you And finally whether an ill Pope after his death be or be not to be intituled Bonae or Malae memoriae what makes it to your intent which is to proue that Saluation may be had out of the Roman Church But if your volume had not bene stuffed with such impertinencies it cold not haue risen to so Grand an Imposture CHAP. XXXVII Of the authority of the Epistles of ancient Popes AS the Arians and other Heretikes haue contemned the Epistles of the Bishops of Rome so all orthodoxe Christians haue euer held them in great veneratiō Eusebius Caesariensis (r) L. 3. hist c. 12. writeth that the epistle of Clement Pope to the Corinthians was so highly esteemed that the custome was to reade it publikely in the Churches which also he reporteth (s) L. 4. hist. c. 22. of the Epistle of Soter Pope And how greatly these Epistles were reuerenced may appeare out of S. Irenaeus who highly commending the Epistle of Clement (t) L. 3. c. 3. setteth downe a summary therof And in like manner Clemens Alexandrinus (u) Serm. l.
for euen Bellarmine (i) L. 2. de Pont. c. 18. against whom you write and in that very place which you cite for the contrary proueth that all Archbishops Metropolitans and Patriarkes were instituted or confirmed by the Pope and that by sending them the Pal he conferred on them the plenitude of Pastorall power which being an act of supreme authority a conuincing argument of his vniuersall iurisdiction and performed by him alone proueth vnanswerably that he instituted Bishops by his owne authority alone without the helpe of a Councell And to proue the same by particular examples When Agapetus Pope came to Constantinople he deposed Anthinus in the Imperiall city in the presence of Iustinian the Emperor and this alone without the helpe of any CouÌ„cell yea and without any support at all (k) See this proued aboue Chap. 20. sect 2. And Honorius the first Pope of that name as appeareth out of his epistles to Edwin King of England and Honorius B. of Douer (l) Extant Epistola apud Bin. to 2. pag. 994.995 according to the petition made to him by Honorius sent to him and Paulinus two Palls (m) Beda hist Anglor l. 2. c. 17. with Apostolicall authority that the Superuiuer of the two might ordaine an Archbishop in place of him that first departed this life And S. Gregory a litle before that tyme sent the Pal to Augustine Archbishop of Canterbury (n) Bed l. 1. hist. Angl c. 29. who conuerted vs to Christ giuing him therby full authority to ordaine Bishops subiect to him and to erect a new Archbishoprick at Yorke And doth not Socrates report (o) L. 7. c. 35. that Perigenes being ordained B. of Patras in Achaia and the Citizens not receauing him the B. of Rome commanded that he should be Bishop of the Metropolitan Church of Corinth the Bishop of that place being dead and that he gouerned in that Church all the dayes of his life And when in the false Councell of Ephesus Anatolius had bene ordained Patriarke of Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch by what meanes was their Ordination legitimated and they confirmed in those Sees but by the authority of Leo Pope alone You wish vs (p) Pag. 296. in good fayth to tell you whether we can belieue that Maximus of Antioch was iuridically instituted or confirmed by Pope Leo because his owne Legates said so We tell you in good fayth that you are quite mistaken for not only the Legates of Pope Leo said so but also Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople with approbation of the whole Councell of Chalcedon (q) Conc. Chale Act. 10. My voyce is sayth he that none of the things ordayned by the pretended Councell of Ephesus remaine firme but only that which was done for Maximus B. of great Antioch for as much as the most holy Archbishop of Rome Leo receauing him into his Communion hath iudged that he rule the Church of Antioch And because you aske vs in good fayth we must needes say that you are no lesse mistaken concerning Anatolius for when Theodosius the Emperor requested Leo Pope to confirme him in the See of Constantinople Leo answearing (r) Ep. 33. beeseeched the Emperor not to take it in ill part if he did not confirme him vntill he had performed the things which he ordained And when Anatolius had performed them Pulcheria the Empresse giuing notice therof to Leo (s) Ep. ad Leo. inter Ep. pream bul Conc. Chalced. he confirmed him verifying that by his assent Anatolius obtained the Bishoprick of so great a City But what if there were no other proofe extant but the bare affirmation of Leo Was not Leo a most holy Prelate worthy of all credit And when he said that Anatolius by his assent obtained the Bishoprick of so great a City did he not speake it to Martian the Emperor who knew the truth of that businesse But what need we to dwell in the rehearsall of more particulars Did not S. Leo alone (t) Ep. 84. without any CouÌ„cell make Anastasius B. of Thessalonica his Vicar in the East with full power to confirme the ordinations of Bishops lawfully made in the Orientall Churches to annull those that were made against order And did not S. Gregory (u) L. 4. ep 7. write to the Bishops of Illyria following the desires of your demand wee confirme by the consent of our authority our Brother Iohn in the Bishoprick of the first Iustinianca And this power it is which S. Bernard expressed saying (x) Ep. 131. The Roman Church â—ath power is â—rect new Bishopricks where hitherto noâ—â— haue bene Of those that are in being the way depresse some aduance others as reaso is shall â—â—ctare vnto her so that of Bishops she hath power to make Archbishops and contrarity if is seeme conâ—â—â—ient SECT IV The Popes power of deposing Bishops without a Councell proued by Examples IF the Pope haue not authority to depose Bishops alone without the helpe of a Councell why did S. Cyptian (f) L. 2. ep 13. ad Stephâ— write to Stephen Pope that by his letters addressed into the prouince to the people of Arles Marcian Bishop of that city might be deposed and another substituted in his place And S. Cyprian did so title doubt of Stephens authority in this kinde that he beseecheth him to let him vnderstand who was instituted in Marcians place at Arles to the end he might know to whom to direct his brethren and letters Wherfore you are much mistaken when you say (g) Pag. 295. text marg Stephens letters were but admonitory signifying that Marcianus ought to be deposed If you will not beleeue S. Cyprian belieue Danaeus your Protestant Brother who speaking of this very example (h) Respons ad Bellarm. part 1. pag. 317. findeth it so conuincing that he is enforced to confesse that the Bishops of Rome did anciently depose other Bishops which sayth he they had no right to do but only tyranny and vsurpation So he confuting you and confessing against you himselfe that Cyprian speaketh absolutely of deposing Marcian not of admonishing that he ought to be deposed This power was likewise acknowledged when the Fathers of the first Councell of Constantinople beseeched Damasus Pope to depose Timothy an hereticall Patriarke of Alexandria and Damasus answearing them said (i) Apud Theodoret. l. 5. hist. c. 10. Wheras your charity my deare children yeildeth due reuerence to the Apostolike See it shall turne you to great honour c. But what need was there to require from me the deposition of Timothy seing he was long since deposed were with his Maister Apostimarius by the iudgment of the See Apostolike And againe (k) Ibid. paulo superiùs Know yea brethren that we haue long since deposed that prophane Timothy disciple to Apollinarius the heretike And Theodoret reporting the same (l) Ibid. Damasus a man most worthy of all praise as soone as he vnderstood
cause of Gods wrath against them to be their obstinacy in defending their error against the holy Ghost he ordained by his prouidence that vpon the very day of Pentecost their Citty of Constantinople should be taken by the Turke their Emperor slaine and their Empire wholly extinguished A thing which S. Brigit foretold (o) Reuel l. 7. c. 19. almost 100. yeares before it happened denouncing to them that their Empire and dominions should not stand firme vnlesse with true humility they did submit themselues to the Roman Church and fayth All this you were ignorant of or if you were not dissemble it and quarrell at vs for reporting that the Greekes in the Councell of Florence renounced their errors and submitted themselues to the Church of Rome and Bishop therof Some say you (p) Pag. 338. would scrape acquaintance with the Greeke Church in the yeare 1549. (*) You should say 1439. at the Councell of Florence as though all then had bene subiects to the Pope So you but with what conscience you know and so do we for not only Catholike writers but your Protestant brethren M. Marbeck (q) Common plac pag. 258. and Osiander (r) Epit. Centu. 15. pag. 477. testify that in the Councell of Florence the Grecians Armenians and Indians were vnited to the Church of Rome And the same is apparent out of the Councell it selfe (s) In lit vnionis in which after the Grecians had abiured their two chiefe errors the one concerning the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father alone and the other of Purgatory they made open profession of their obedience and subiection to the B. of Rome in these words (t) In lit vnionis Mareouer we define that the holy Apostolike See and B. of Rome hath the primacy throughout the whole world and that the same B. of Rome is the successor of Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and the true Vicar of Christ and Head of the whole Church and that he is the Father and Doctor of all Christian and that to him was giuen by our Lord Iesus Christ full power of feeding and gouerning the vniuersall Church as it is also declared in the Acts of the Oecumenicall Councells and in the sacred Canon Benewing moreouer the order set downe in the Canons concerning the other Venerable Patriarkes that the Patriarke of Constantinople be the second after the B. of Rome And the like profession of their beliefe they had made before in a priuat Session of their owne in the Emperors Pallace none of the Latins being present (u) Conc. Flor. sess vlt. apud Bin. to 4 pag. 474. fin 475. init To this profession subscribed the Emperor of the Grecians all their Bishops assembled in that Councell he of Ephesus only excepted and not only they that were then liuing but also Ioseph their Patriarke who before the end of the Councell finding himselfe strucken with deathes dart set downe in writing this profession of his fayth which after his death was found in his closet (x) Ibid apud Bin pa. 474. I Ioseph by the mercy of God Archbishop and Oecumenicall Patriarke of Constantinople new Rome because I am come to the end of my life by the mercies of God according to my duety I publish by this writing my verdict to my beloued Children For I professe that I hold and belieue and giue full assent to all those thinges which the Catholike and Apostolike Church of our Lord Iesus Christ of old Rome shall iudge and ordaine And I refuse not to grant that the most Blessed Father of Fathers the chiefe Bishop Pope of old Rome is the Vicar of our Lord Iesus Christ and that there is a Purgatory for soules Would you thinke gentle Reader that any Christian man could put on so brazen a face as to deny that the Grecians in the Councell of Florence were vnited to the Church of Rome or that they acknowledged themselues subiect to the Pope as to one whom the sacred Councells declare to haue the primacy throughout the whole world to be the successor of S. Peter the true Vicar of Christ the Head of the whole Church the Father and Doctor of all Christians and that to him was giuen by Christ full power of feeding and gouerning the vniuersall Church Are not these their very words And yet you Doctor Morton deny all this saying (y) Pag. 331. Vpon due examination you your selues find the Grecians there to haue bene so farre from subiection to the Pope that they would not permit him to constitute a Patriarke among them professing that they could do nothing without the consent of their owne Church So you with your wonted fidelity both for that you set downe the first part of these words in a different character as the Grecians answeare to the Pope when as they are not their but your words and contrary to truth for that the Grecians vnited themselues to the Latines and acknowledged their subiection to the Pope and Church of Rome is there testified by a publike declaration (z) In lit vnio apud Bin. to 4 pa. 476.476 in the Letters of Vnion subscribed by Ioannes Palaeologus the Emperor and by all the Prelates Greekes and Latines that were present in the Councell And after this perfect accord was made the Pope calling vnto him the Grecian Bishops not by way of command as not willing to irritate them but of perswasion to that which was most decent and conuenient exhorted them before their departure to choose a new Patriarke in place of him that was deceased that they might not returne home without a Head They answeared that the custome of the Grecians was to choose and consecrate their Patriarke at Constantinople and that the Emperor who was not ignorant of their ceremonies and customes would not permit them to doe otherwise Wherupon the Pope vrged no further but with all courtesy dismissed them How can you inferre from this that the Greeke Bishops denied subiection to the Pope It mattereth not where their Patriarke was chosen since as you haue heard they acknowledged both themselues him as being members of the vniuersall Church to be subiect to the Pope as to their Head and to be gouerned by him as sheepe by their Shepheard and as children by their Father But you say (a) Pag. 331. They were farre from subiecting themselues in doctrine for when some few points were propounded they answeared the Pope that they had no licence to treat of such matters This is an other euasion as vntrue as the former For the next day after that the Greekes being conuinced had yeilded to the Latines in that mayne controuersy concerning the Procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne for the decision wherof that Councell was chiefly called the Pope desired to haue some of their Bishops sent vnto him They sent foure to whom the Pope said (b) Tom. 4 pag. 474. We by the grace
so wholly destitute of an vniuersall gouernor on earth that the elergy of Rome may not in many things supply his place as you may learne from S. Cyprian who in sundry occasions aduised with the Clergy of Rome witnesse his epistles to them (d) L. 3. ep 5. 21. l. 5. ep 4. 5. and theirs to him (e) L. 2. ep 7. l. 5. ep 13. But here (f) Pag. 346. you take occasion to calummitate Bellarmine for saying that by the Keyes which Christ gaue to S. Peter and in him to his Successors in vnderstood the principality of Ecclesiasticall power ouer all the Church that when the Pope dieth this power remaineth not formally in the Church excepting only so farre forth as it is communicated to the inferior Ministers but immediatly in the hands of Christ. And when a new Pope is chosen the Keyes are nether brought by him nor giuen to him by the Church but by Christ and this not by a new donation but by the ancient institution for when he gaue them to Peter he gaue them to all his Successors These are Bellarmines words which you cut from the example he addeth for the explanation of his doctrine that you may haue occasion to exclame against him and scoffe saying (g) Ibid. O depth of delusion Will you see a Iugler Yes we see him but too perfectly in Doctor Thomas Morton for doth not Bellarmine say It happeneth in this case as if a King when he makes a Vice-Roy of any Countrey should declare his pleasure to be that the Vice-Roy being dead they should nominate another and that he granteth vnto him now the same power he gaue to his Predecessor What depth of delusion or what iuggling do you find in this case And is not the other wholly like to this And doth not Bellarmine declare it with this very example Wherfore your question (h) Ibid. Whether the keyes of S. Peter do indeed fly into heauen at the death of euery Pope though you make it forsooth to shew your selfe acute and witty is God wot a silly conceipt to which that renowned Doctor Theodorus Studites hath answeared (i) Ep. de imagin saying that when we speake of keeping Peters Keyes at Rome it is not to be vnderstood that Christ gaue any materiall Keyes to him but only that by his mouth he gaue him power to bind and loose And as it is a poore conceipt so it is a cauill to which your selfe must answere in the other example of temporall power for tell vs Do then indeed the Vice-Royes keyes when he dieth fly to the Kings Court But you goe on asking (k) Pag. 346. What power then is it which remaineth formally in the inferior Ministers of the Church at the death of the Pope If it be the Keyes of Principality then is euery inferior Priest a Pope If it be the Keyes only of Order and absolution then shall it not be lawfull for any Bishop to exercise any power of iurisdiction by precept or punishing by excommunication during all the time of the Vacancy So you either not vnderstanding or wittingly concealing Bellarmines doctrine for doth he acknowledge no Ecclesiasticall power but only of principality ouer the whole Church which is proper to the Pope or els of Order and Absolution which is common to euery Priest Doth he not with all Catholike Diuines hold that euery Bishop besides his power to absolue in the inward Court of Conscience hath also power of externall iurisdiction to gouerne and command his Diocesans and inflict punishment vpon them by excommunication and other Ecclesiasticall censures according to the measure of their offences And doth he not sufficiently expresse this power when speaking of the Popes authority ouer the Church he sayth that the Pope being dead it still remaineth in the Church so farre forth as it is committed to inferior Ministers which are the Bishops and other Pastors vnder the Pope And by this it appeares how vntruly you adde (l) Pag. 347. that Bellarmine is driuen forsooth by this your subtle Argument into a most vncouth and extreme corner where neuer any ancient Father before him set so much as the least print of his shoo This you proue (m) Ibid. out of Binius whom you make to say that in the Inter-regnum or vacancy betweene the death of Pope Agapetus and his Successor there was called a generall Councell at Constantinople which is an Act proper to the Papall primacy But as in the rest so in this you want fidelity for Binius sayth not that this Councell was generall but directly the contrary to wit that it consisted of such Bishops only as were neare to Constantinople and some others which at that time were resident in the city Wherfore it was no generall but a particular Councell in which Menas presided not as Vicar of the See Apostolike as Binius mistaketh but only as Patriarke of Constantinople And much lesse did any Legates of the Pope preside with him for albeit the Italian Bishops which had bene Legates to Pope Agapetus assisted at the Councell yet they assisted not as his Deputies for their legation was finished and their commission expired before that time by the arriuall and especially by the death of Agapetus at Constantinople but for honors sake and as Exlegates and not as Legates It is not therfore Bellarmine but you that are driuen into such an vncouth and extreme corner that you haue no way to get out but by fathering on Binius your owne fiction of a generall Councell which Binius neuer dreamed of and which is yet worse by contradicting your selfe for before (n) Pag. 238. lin 11. you had said that this was not a generall Councell These then are your words The Councell vnder Menas was a generall Councell The Councell vnder Menas was not a generall Councell Agree them It resteth therfore that according to Bellarmines Tenet a generall Councell which hath authority to decide controuersies of fayth cannot be called without the Popes authority you hauing not bene able to produce any one example or proofe to the contrary but only your ignorant mistake of a particular Councell for a generall SECT IV. Whether the Roman Church haue at any time a false Head YOur assertion is affirmatiue for proofe you remit vs to your former argumēt already answeared to which you adde heere (o) Pag. 349. init that God neuer ordained a Head no bigger then of a wren to stand vpon the sholders of a man and so litle in respect is one Bishop of one City of Rome to be set ouer the Church vniuersally dispersed throughout the whole world But you confider not that the Church of Christ being the most perfect of all common wealthes ought to haue the most perfect gouerment which is Monarchicall S. Cyptian (p) De vnit Eccl. Optatius (q) L. 2. cont Parmen and S. Hierome (r) L. 1. cont Iouin haue taught that our Sauiour made
Peter Cardinal Albert B. of Mentz and the Marquis of Brandeburg to whom the publishing of the Indulgences and collecting the almes was committed for the publishing of the indulgences made choyce of Tetzelius a famous preacher of the Order of S. Dominick Wherat the Friers of S. Augustines Order and especially Staupitius the Vicar generall and Martin Luther being offended opposed themselues hoping by fauor of Frederick Duke of Saxony to get the place for themselues But missing of that they began to reprehend the abuses committed as they pretended in the promulgation of those indulgences But Luther being of a fiery nature and of a contentions spirit rested not here but published in print 95. propositions about the nature institution end and effect of indulgences diuers of which were censured by Tetzelius as hereticall and Luther thervpon complained of to the Pope and cited to appeare at Rome But by mediation of friends which he procured the hearing of his cause being remitted to Cardinall Caietan who was then the Popes Legate in Germany Luther appeared before him and gaue vp a protestation of his submission promising to follow the holy Roman Church in all her sayings and doings present past and to come But neuerthelesse being gotten from the Cardinall he went forward in his former contentions and beside a publike disputation which he held with Eckius at Lipsia against indulgences he diuulged many other scoffing pamplets treatises to call in doubt and bring in contempt diuers other points of religion from whence hath followed all the calamity that in these parts of the world hath ensued since that time in the Church of God This was the occasion these the beginnings of Luthers reuolt proceeding merely from his couetousnesse pride enuy and grudging that the promulgation of those indulgences was not committed to him and his Order for he protested afterwards at that time he neither intended nor dreamed of any change but fell into those contentions casually and against his will not well knowing then what Indulgences meant (c) See Brerel Luthers life Chap. 1. sect 1. Now you come in to act your part (d) Pag. 381. fin 382. init and promise to proue by a cloud of witnesses the falshood and impiety of the Popes doctrine concerning indulgences and the iniquity of his practise heaping vp riches by them And first you except against the Pope (e) Pag 383. for condemning this proposition of Luther It is not in the power of the Church to make new articles of fayth This hath bene alleady answeared (f) See aboue Chap. 4. and declared what power the Church hath or hath not herein 2. To prone that the doctrine of Indulgences is a new article of fayth you produce many Authors (g) Pag. 382. 383. 384. 385. 386. 389. which may be reduced to three classes The first is of heretikes as Cornelius Agrippa a Magicians Paul a Venetian Fryer condemned a few yeares since for heresy Fasciculus rerum expetendarum Acta Concilij Tridentini Controuersiae memorabiles all of them being Treatises of Protestants set forth without names of their authors and prohibited To these you adde Thuanus (h) Pag. 385. whom you call our noble Historian but we bequeath him to you as one whose writings shew him to be yours Nor are you contented to cite him as a Catholike author but falsify him He raileth against Pope Leo for ordaining that when a Bishoprick or Abbacy in France is vacant for the auoiding of simony and other inconueniencet a person fit for those dignities be presented by the King ordained by the Pope His words in Latin as you cite them are Peccatum in sacris muneribus dispensandis Leo mox grauiore cumulauit c. In which words he makes no mention of indulgences but only of conferring sacred or Ecclesiasticall dignities and offices But you to make them serue your turne against indulgences corrupt them translating in sacris muneribus dispensandis thus of ill dispersing indulgences Leo say you to his sinne of ill dispersing indulgences added a farre greater Is not this a great imposture And the like you commit againe (i) Pag. 389. when speaking of Luthers separation from the Roman Church you say Luther was a passiue therin as appeareth out of the proceedings of Pope Leo against him Els why is it that your owne Thuanus speaking of this separation sayd That some in those dayes laid the fault vpon Pope Leo. This is a greater imposture then the former for Thuanus speaketh not those words of Luthers separation from the Church of Rome but against altering the custome formerly obserued in the election of Ecclesiasticall Prelates in France which he attributeth to Antonius Pratensis Chancellor of that kingdome though out of his owne splene against the Pope he adde that there were not then wanting some that laid the fault vpon Pope Leo. What connexion hath this with Luthers reuolt from the Church of Rome or with the doctrine of indulgences You cannot excuse it from a Grand Imposture To the second classe may be reduced Massonius Polydore Virgill and Erasmus who speake not aggainst the doctrine of Indulgences but against the abuse of them And for as much as in many other things and particularly in that very point they speake temeraiously and ouerlash those their workes you know are forbidden by the Church Why do you alleage them as of authority against vs The third classe is of approued Catholike Authors of whom you first produce (k) Pag. 384. fin Roffensis saying There was no vse of indulgences in the beginning of the Church Christian But you change the state of the question passing from the vse of indulgences of which Roffensis speaketh to the doctrine of indulgences and inferre that because Roffensis found not the vse or practise of them in the begining of the Church he denieth the doctrine and lawfulnesse of them which in that very article he effectually proueth out of the power of binding and losing giuen by Christ in the Ghospell to S. Peter and his Successors 2. He yeildeth the reason why there was not so much necessity of vsing thē in those beginings as afterwards 3. He sheweth that Catholike Deuines proue the vse of them to be most ancient out of the stations so much frequented in Rome and that S. Gregory the great granted some in his time 4. His owne opinion is that it is not certainly knowne when they began first to be vsed in the Church from whence it must follow by the rule of S. Augustine (l) L 4. de Baptism c. 24. that the practise of them is from the Apostolicall time The second author you produce (m) Pag. 135. is Alphonsus de Castro who sayth Neque tamen hac occasione sunt contemnendae indulgentiae quod earum vsus in Ecclesia videatur sero receptus which words you peruert changing videatur into fit but most of all by translating them falsly for you render them thus Indulgences are not
their Bishop with the multitude of Saints being departed out of it shall be consumed with fire before the reigne of Antichrist or in the very beginning therof as (r) Riber a cap. 17 n. 20. in vers 16. Ex hoc quod nunc ait Apostolus intelligitur Roman euertendam antequam Antichristus regnare incipiat vel certè ipso initio regni eius Ribera and (s) Viegas in cap 17. n. 5. Viegas reach In this supposition why may not the Pope with that multitude of holy Christian Romans be truly and verily the Bishop and Church of Rome Why should that multitude of Roman Christian and Saints be titulus sine re and not a very glorious and venerable Church Why should the Pope then cease to be Bishop more then the Bishop of Canterbury should in case Canterbury should be destroyed into ashes Will you say vpon this contingent that the Bishop of Canterbury shall be the man in the moone the sheepheard of Vtopia to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You might haue learned from Cusanus (t) Epist 2. ad Bohemos whome you cite often and highly commend that if by any accident the Citty of Rome should fayle the truth of the Church shall remaine there where the Principality and seat of Peter shal be Nor is your example of the Emperor of Rome (u) Pag. 77. any helpe to your Argument For albeit the Roman Empyre be now in part decayed or weakned in respect of that power and greatnesse which anciently it had yet it still remayneth so that the name succession of the Roman Emperors at this day is famous in the world els why did our late Soueraigne King Iames inscribe his Monitory Prefation Sacratissimo atque inuictissimo Principi ac Domino Rodulpho secundo Romanorum Imperatori semper Augusto c. And why els doth the Church of Rome in her Office (x) In die Parasceues Sabbatho Sancto pray for the Roman Emperor Nor the Authors which you alledge for the contrary do say ought els though you falsify Salmeron to make his words found otherwise for wheras he speaking of the Roman Empire as it anciently was sayth Imperium illud Romanum iamdiu euersum est that Empire of Rome to wit with that ancient splendor maiesty and power which once it had is long since destroyed you leaue out illud and make him say absolutely The Roman Empire is long since destroyed wheras in the words next following he expresly affirmeth that there is still a Roman Emperor and that he is so called although what now be possesseth be but a very small shadow of the ancient Empire Lastly I will not omit to put you in minde of your weake manner of arguing throughout all this Section for how doth it follow that because Ribera and Viegas hold that Babylon out of which the faythfull are commanded to depart is the City of Rome as she shall be idolatrous in the end of the world you may now lawfully reuolt from the Church of Rome Againe who obligeth me to allow of their exposition I might retort your Argument vpon your selfe and tell you that Babylon signifies not Rome but Geneua and proue it by the testimony of Castalio a prime brother of yours who liued there and was a speciall friend of Beza They sayth he speaking of the Geneuian brethren (y) Apud Rescium pag. 54. are proud puft vp with glory and reuenge We may with lesse danger offend Princes then exasperate these fiery Caluinists their life is infamous and villanous they are Maisters of art in reproches lyes cruelty treachery and insufferable arrogancy They name their Geneua The holy City and their assembly Hierusalem but in very truth we should call it O Babylon Babylon O infamous Sodome and children of Gomorrha If you like not this exposition yet I know no reason why if you will belieue Ribera and Viegas expounding Babylon in the Apocalyps to be Rome you may not as well belieue your brethren Vdalricus Velenus (z) Lib. de hac r◠and Henricus Buntingus (a) It iner de it iner Petri. denying it and so much the more because S. Augustine Tyconius Bede Arethas Primasius Ansbertus Haymo S. Anselme and S. Thomas (b) Apud Riber in vers 8. cap. 14. Apoc by Babylon vnderstand not Rome but the society of all the wicked in generall from whose vices the faithfull are commanded to depart (c) S. August Breuic Collat. collat 3. Others vnderstand Paganisme which because it adoreth a confused multitude of Gods is rightly named Babylon that signifies Confusion others Mahometisme the mother of fornication and all filthinesse Others Constantinople the Metropolitan of Turcisme And others the chiefe City of the Chaldaeans which is properly called Babylon These expositions with their Authors and reasons you may read in Cornelius à Lapide (d) Ade 17. Apoc. Suarez (e) Defens fid l. 5. c. 7. and Peron (f) Replic Chapit 15. But the truth is that all these senses as likewise that of Ribera being purely allegoricall afford no solid foundation to build matter of fayth vpon but are merely coniecturall And therfore if S. August say (g) Ep. 48. Who dares with an vnbridled licence produce for himselfe that which is couched in an allegory vnlesse he haue places more cleare by whose light to illustrate that which is obscure we may with iust reason reproue you for grounding your departure from the Roman Church vpon the allegoricall sense of those words of the Apocalyps Get forth of Babylon my people and so much the more because the Authors whose exposition you take for your ground admonish you that by Babylon is not vnderstood the Church of Rome but the City that not as it is Christian but as it was idolatrous in S. Iohns tyme and shal be againe in the end of the world But any thing will serue your turne be it true or false if by sleights you can wrest it against the Pope and Church of Rome SECT II. Whether S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter were subiect to the Bishop of Rome S. Peters Successor SVarez treating of the authority of S. Peter and his Successors moueth this question (h) De trip virtute disp 10. sect 1. Whether the Apostles that suruiued S. Peter were subiect to S. Peters successor in the See of Rome His answeare is I remember not that I haue read any thing of this point in Authors but it seemes to me to follow out of what hath bene said that they were inferior in iurisdiction and consequently subiect therin to the Bishop of Rome although in other excellencies and prerogatiues they were superior to him For the same power and iurisdiction that was in S. Peter descended to his Successours who therfore in three things surpassed the Apostles there liuing 1. In the obiect of their power for the charge and gouerment of the whole Church belongeth primarily to the Successor of S. Peter which as I haue
said belonged not to the other Apostles 2. That power did extend to all Bishops because the reason of order and Ecclesiasticall vnity so required 3. The power of the Bishop of Rome was alwaies ordinary and to continue perpetually in the Church not so in the other Apostles This is Suarez his Doctrine which I haue set downe in his owne words that the reader perusing yours and comparing them with his may see how you falsify for both in your Latin margent English text you leaue out (i) Pag. 79. the reason wherwith he proues his assertion and set downe for his only ground that he cannot remember to haue read in any author any thing of this point wheras he proues it out of what he had formerly said And doth he not here againe proue it out of the power and iurisdiction which was in S. Peter ouer the whole Church descended from him to his Successors And doth he not from thence inferr three prerogatiues which his Successors had ouer the other Apostles two of which you conceale And though you set downe the third yet it is in your Latin Margent only and so dismembred from Suarez his context that the reader will not easily vnderstand the force therof Againe who is so blind that sees not your absurd manner of arguing which is this (*) Pag. 78. 79. Suarez opinion is that S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter was subiect to Linus his Successor ergo S. Iohns fayth did not conceaue the Pope to haue iurisdiction ouer all other Bishops and Pastors in the Catholike Church You might as well haue inferred that because Yorke hath a Minster London hath a Bridge for this is as good a consequence as yours But hereby the Reader may see with what silly Sophistry you delude or to vse your owne words against your selfe with what vntempered morter you daube vp the consciences of your followers Now as for Suarez his assertion that the iurisdiction of S. Peters Successor was greater then the ordinary Episcopall iurisdiction of the other Apostles a iudicious Reader wil easily conceaue to be no such improbable Doctrine if he reflect that the Successor to euery Bishop is inuested in all the Episcopall authority of his predecessors and therfore Linus being Successor to S. Peter it must follow that 8. Peter being in Episcopall authority and iurisdiction superior to all the other Apostles Linus had the same authority and iurisdiction ouer those that suruiued S. Peter And this S. Chrysostome seemeth to haue expressed (k) L. 2. de Sacerd 1â— when he said Christ committed to Peter and to Peters Successors the charge of those sheep for the regayning of which he shed his bloud from which number I trust you will not excluded S. Iohn or any other of the Apostles that suruiued S. Peter And what els did S. Cyril meane when he said (l) Apud S. Thom. Opusc cont error Graec. c. 32. As Christ receaued from his Father most ample power so he gaue the same most fully to Peter and his Successors And what Paschasinus when in the presence and with the approbation of the Councell of Chalcedon (m) Act. 1. he affirmed the Pope to be inuested in the dignity of Peter the Apostle And what meant S. Bernard (n) L. 2. de considerat when he said to Eugenius Pope Thou art Peter in power and by vnction Christ the sheep of Christ were not so without exception committed to any Bishop nor to any of the Apostles as to thee thou art Pastor not only of the sheep but Pastor of all Pastors And what meant S. Leo (o) Serm. 2. â— Anniuers suae assump when he said The ordinance of truth standeth and S. Peter continuing in the receaued solidity of a Rock hath not left the gouerment of the Church for truly he perseuereth and liueth still in his Successors And againe (p) Ibid. In the person of my humility he is vnderstood he honored in whom the solicitude of all Pastors with the sheep commended to him perseuereth and whose dignity in an vnworthy heyre fayleth not And what S. Peter surnamed Chrysologus (q) Ep. ad Eutychet when he exhorted Eutyches to heare obediently the most blessed Pope of Rome because S. Peter who liueth in his owne See and is stil president in the same exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it And what the Legates of Celestine Pope in the Councell of Ephesus (r) P. 2. Act. 2. No man doubtes for it hath bene notorious to all ages that the holy and most blessed Peter Prince and Head of the Apostles piller of the fayth foundation of the Catholike Church liues and decides causes yet vnto this day and for all eternity by his Successors And what Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria writing to S. Gregory (s) Apud Greg. l. 6. ep 37. that Peter Prince of the Apostles sitteth still in his owne Chayre in his Successors And what S. Gregory himselfe reporting (t) Dial. l. 3. c. â— that Agapet Pope comming to Constantinople the friends of a man that was lame and dumbe beseeching him to cure that man by the authority of Peter the Apostle Agapet by the same authority cured him And what the Fathers of the sixt Councell generall when commending the Epistle of Agatho Pope they said (u) Act. 18. The paper and inke appeared but it was Peter that did speake by Agatho And finally what Constantine Pogonate when writing to the Roman Synod (x) Apud 6. Syn. Act. 18. he admired the relation of Agatho at the voyce of the diuine Peter himselfe It followeth then that if Linus was inuested in the Episcopall dignity and power of Peter if S. Peter still liue and rule in his owne See and decide causes in his Successors if he speake by them and their voyce be to heard as his voyce to be subiect to Linus was no other thing then to be subiect to S. Peter and to disobey Linus was to disobey S. Peter who did speake by Linus and gouerne in his owne See by him Wherfore as the Apostles owed subiection to S. Peter whiles he liued so those that suruiâ—â—â— him did to Linus hauing the place of Peter for 〈◊〉 â—â—â—rian â—alles the Roman See L. 4. â—p 2. CHAP. XIV Your fifth Chapter with diuers Arguments answered SECT I. Of the Name Catholike AFTER a discourse made from an Argument ab authoritate negatiuè which euery Logician knowes to be of no force you say (a) Pag. 81. We begin at the word Catholike and desire to vnderstand why the epistles of Iames and Iohn and Iude were called Catholike or vniuersall as well as the two Epistles of Peter if the word Catholike were so proper to the Roman Chayre seing that the Epistles of Iames Iohn and Iude were not sent to or from Rome nor had any relation to Peter there Before I answere I desire you to remember that the name Catholike by the ancient Fathers is giuen
doctrine I answeare for both and that most deseruedly If we looke into his manners he was a sacrilegious Apostata that fled out of his Monastery he cast off his religious habit and burning with flames of raging lust to satisfy his fleshly desires married a vowed Nunne a crime so hainous that according to the ancient Imperiall lawes he was to be punished with death (u) Sozom. l. 6. c. 3. Cod. L de Episc Cler. His pride was such that he preferred himselfe before all the Doctors of Gods Church contemning a thousand Cyprians a thousand Augustines a thousand K. Henry Churches so farre as that he scorned to be iudged by any man but would himselfe be Iudge of men and Angells His railing was most intemperate base and scurrill traducing and reuiling euen the greatest Princes One exaÌ„ple of K. Henry the eight may suffice against whom he ragingly acted the part of Hâ—â—cules fâ—rens tearming him an enuious mad foole babling with much spight in his mouth a damnable rotten worme a basiliske and progeny of an adder a lying Sycophant couered with the title of a King a clownish wit a doltish head most wicked foolish impudent Henry saying yet further He doth not only lyelike a most vaine scurre but equalleth if not exceedeth a most wicked knaue thou liest in thy throat foolish and sacrilegious King These and many other like speeches against K. Henry are his some of them being so base and beastly that modesty forbiddeth to english them If from Princes we come to other his aduersaries he called them insathanized supersathanized and persathanized and that the Diuell was infused perfused and transfused into their mouths in so much that your Tigurines sticked not to say of him that he was full of Diuells and vsed such speeches as could hardly be thought to proceed from the furious Diuell himselfe He was voyd of all conscience being obstinatly resolued to condemne whatsoeuer a Councell should determine though neuer so Orthodoxe and holy to allow and defend whatsoeuer a Councell should condemne though neuer so wicked and hereticall To which I adde that to spight Carolstadius he retained in the Church of Wittemberg the eleuation of the Sacrament which he thought to be idolatrous He was inconstant in his doctrine teaching one day one thing another the contrary in so much that Iodocus Coccius (x) To. 1. l. 8. art 6. pag. 1038. seqq hath faythfully taken out of his workes and set downe 80. Articles in which he had contradicted himselfe gainsaying what before he had taught and shewing himselfe to be guided by the spirit of contradiction and lying Of which as also of his contentious and wrangling spirit his life affordeth you good examples (y) Brereley Luthers life Chap. 3. sect 2. Finally to shew that Luther was no very great Saint his familiar conuersation with the Diuell is a sufficient euidence I insist not in the proofe of these particulars hauing spoken of some of them already and especially because Brereley in Luthers life hath proued them all out of Luthers owne workes and by the testimony of other Protestants Nor can I find that you with all your study haue bene able to produce any thing to the contrary but only these few words (z) Pag. 381. out of Erasmus Si Luthero fauerem vt viro bono quod fatentur hostes which how truly they are cited I know not for I know that Erasmus said (a) In sâ—oâ—â—iâ— ad 〈…〉 ton Christum agnosco Lutherum non agnosco But howsoeuer Erasmus is a partiall witnesse of whom it was said Erasmus laid the eggs and Luther hatcht the Scorpions and whom Doctor Humfrey and Doctor Reynolds challenge as a man of your religion and Foxe hath placed in your Kalendar of Saints And finally if by Luthers enemies you vnderstand Catholikes you cannot nominate any one that hath euer esteemed other wise of him then as of a most wicked and sacrilegious Apostata If you could you would haue bene ready inough to do it without any prouocation from vs. If leauing his wicked life we come to his doctrine we shall find it answearable to his manners First he taught that Gouernors of Churches and Pastors haue power to teach but that the sheep must be Iudges of their doctrine and that the Bishops and Councells ought to giue place and subscribe to the censure and iudgment of the sheep 2. He taught to the great danger of Christendome that to warre against the Turkes is to resist God visiting our sinnes by them 3. He cut of from the Canon of holy Scriptures the booke of Ecclesiastes saying there is in it neuer a perfect sentence the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrewes the Epistles of S. Iames and S. Iude the second of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn with the Apocalyps 4. He held the heresy of Simon Magus that man is iustified by fayth alone and in proofe therof corrupted the text of S. Iames. adding to it this word alone and being admonished therof he raged protesting that he repented himselfe he had not translated worse 5. He taught that Good-workes are not only not necessary to saluation but hurtfull that the ten commandments belong not to Christians 6. That if the wife will not come or cannot by reason of infirmity let the maid come 7. That among Christians no man ought to be Magistrate but that each one is equally subiect to each other 8. He maketh the power of administring the Sacraments common to lay men with the Clergy 9. He taught that Christ in his passion did not only suffer in his human but also in his diuine nature 10. Concerning the Blessed Trinity he had the diuine nature to be threfold as the persons are 11. That God worketh wickednesse in the wicked and that it is not in the power of man to auoid it which what is it els but to make God the Author of sinne 12. He maketh Virginity inferior to mariage 13. To preuent praying to Saints and Purgatory he affirmeth the soule to sleepe with the body 14. He denieth that there is any locall hell before the day of iudgment All these doctrines are proued to be his out of his owne workes out of the Confessions of many other Protestants exactly and faythfully related in his life by M. Brereley (b) Chap. 2. per tot From whence I conclude that if euer any man was or may be iustly excommunicated for wickednesse of life or for hereticall and blasphemous doctrines Martin Luther by both these titles hath bene most iustly excommunicated cast out of the Church SECT IX Of the first occasion of Luthers reuolt from the Church and that Doctor Morton to defend his doctrine against Indulgences falsifieth sundry Authors POpe Leo the tenth hauing giuen out certaine Indulgences for the people of Germany that would contribute any almes to the building of that sumptuous Church which Iulius his predecessor had begun in honor of S.