such are these out of the Councils of Basil and Florence For as to the Council of Basil I have examined it over and can finde no such Apology as he speaks of published by the Greeks in that Council And for what he saith of the Council of Florence there is not onely not one word of it true but the direct contrary passed in that Council In the very first meeting at Ferrara the Latines proposed the Catholique Doctrine in writing thus There is a Purgatory that is the Souls of such as dye in Venial sin are purged in the world present meaning temporally after death and afore the future world after the day of judgement by fire the Church also helping by the Priests prayers and moreover those Souls are delivered from pains by Sacrifices and Alms. ... To which the Greeks by their Prolocutor the Bishop of Ephesus instantly answered thus Whatsoever you have said and the testimonies of holy men that you have recited the Greek Church receives and reads and there is little difficulty betwixt us in this point meaning onely about those words by fire but we shall give our answer in writing c. And ten dayes after they gave it in these words The Italians or Romans confess or believe a fire both in the present world and Purgatory by it and in the world to come but not Purgatory but eternal ... But the Greeks hold a fire in the world to come onely and a temporary punishment of Souls that is that they go into a place dark and of grief but that they are purged that is delivered from that dark place and affliction by Priests Prayers and Sacrifices and by Alms but not by fire About a fortnight after the Italians brought their Proofs for their Doctrine touching the purgation by fire to which the Greeks delayed to answer After the Council was removed to Florence and the point of the procession of the Holy Ghost had been there long debated and brought to an issue the Pope called to the Greeks to debate the other points which remained touching Consecrating the unleavened Bread Purgatory the Supremacy of the Pope the Addition of Filioque to the Nicene Creed and the Consecrating of the Eucharist by words deprecative The Greeks answered For leavened or unleavened Bread let them be indifferent Touching Purgatory meaning the fire we neither divided for that nor is it necessary let there therefore be an Union and we will treat of that afterward Afterward the Greeks proposed to treat about Consecrating in unleavened Bread the Popes Supremacy and the additament of Filioque But for Purgatory and Consecration by Prayer nothing should be said The Latines answered there could be no Union unless those two controversies were added The Greek Emperor not yeilding to it the Latines proposed that in the definition should be only mention of Purgatory touching the Consecration it might be transacted viva voce The Pope said we are united in that for which the division was made meaning the procession of the Holy Ghost and is this which hath no harm in it an impediment to us Was not the point of Purgatory often examined at Ferrara ought it not to be put in the definition as a Doctrine of our Church But because the Greek Emperor said he was willing to hear touching the Primacy of the Romane Church and consecrating in unleavened Bread those points were debated Afterward say the Greek Bishops we met at the Emperors and examined the Proposals of the Latines and found them five all equal and right 1. Of the Procession 2. Of unleavened Bread 3. Of the Popes Primacy 4. Of the Additament 5. Of Purgatory And we urged mightily the Emperor saying we receive all let an end be determined to the business What controversie have we touching Purgatory We doubted of this because they said the Saints see God without any medium and that the Souls of penitent sinners are purged by prayers This thing therefore delayed us but we embracing these things also piously pressed the Emperor to bring the work of Union to an end But he would not Afterward the Emperor calling together all the Greek Bishops the rest of the Bishops endeavoured to draw the Bishop of Ephesus who was the onely stickler against the Union to agree with them The Bishop of Ephesus argued against the procession from the Son and that the Creed needed neither addition nor application and many other things until it was evening But I finde not that he argued against Purgatory Afterward there was a Congregation appointed of the Greek and Latine Prelates to draw up the Instrument of the Definition which being shown to the Emperor he objected against the Title of it because in the name of the Pope alone and the form of the Article touching the Popes Supremacy Secundum dicta Sanctorum These being amended the Instrument was agreed on Thus far the Records of the Council By all which appears how notoriously false was all that as the Doctor here alledged touching the Greek Church denying Purgatory 37. As a clear testimony of Antiquity expresly destroying the new Doctrine of Purgatory he quotes S. Cyprian When we are gone from hence there is no place left for repentance and no effect of satisfaction where he fraudulently translates S. Cyprian When we are gone from hence as if he had spoken it absolutely or of Christians and Catholiques in general when he spake it of impenitent Pagans onely and so the words relate not at all to Purgatory or Souls dying in Venial sin but onely to the Hell of the damned and Souls dying out of Christs faith such as Demetrian was to whom he then wrote Hortamur c. We exhort you whilst the opportunity is present to satisfie God and come out of the deep and dark night of Superstition into the bright light of true Religion When you shall be departed this life there is no place more for repentance 38. To the same purpose and in the same fraudulent manner he quotes Greg. Nazianzen for he affirms not that after this life there is no purgation meaning for any one as he quotes him but onely that there is none for those that dye in mortal sin or that are in the Hell of the damned as would have appeared by the words afore and after had he set them down I know the concussion and excussion the ebullition and confraction of heart and dissolution of the knees and such like punishments with which the sins of wicked men are plagued I omit to speak of the tribunals of the future life to which the indulgence and impunity of this life delivers them over so that it is better now to be chastised and purged then to be transmitted to that torment when it will be now the time of punishment not of purgation 39. To the same purpose he quotes another Oration of the same Saint but there is nothing in it to that purpose 40. To the same purpose he quotes an
which could not mean the second Nicene and Blondus saith it abrogated the seventh Synod and the Felician Heresie for taking away of Images 83 84 85. He saith it appears in the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen that in those times they would not allow the making of Images when Tertullian saith no such thing and neither of the other two speaks of the Images of Christ or his Saints but of Jupiter and the other Heathen gods Sect. 9. 86 87 88 89 90 91 92. Against picturing those forms wherein God hath appeared which is all that some of ours do allow and practise he quotes Tertullian Eusebius Athanasius S. Hierom Theodoret Damascen Nicephorus and others when divers of these as namely Tertullian Eusebius and Jerom have nothing to this purpose and the rest spake onely against representing God as in his own essence shape or form as appears by their words which it would be too long to set down But to instance in one or two Theodoret Ye saw no likeness c. He saith this instructing them that they should not make any Idol nor at any time attempt to counterfeit the Divine Image when they never saw the species of the archetype c. Nicephorus They made Images of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is most absurd for Images are of bodies that may be seen and circumscribed not of those who are invisible and incomprehensible by our understanding Sect. 10. 93. To prove that Christ left his Apostles without any Eminency in one above the rest he saith S. Paul gave the Bishops congregated at Miletum caution to take care of the whole flock of God when the Text hath no such thing but rather the contrary The flock over which the H. Ghost hath made you Bishops 94. To the same purpose he quotes S. Cyprian The other Apostles are the same that S. Peter was c. wresting them against that which S. Cyprian did in that very place expresly assert to wit an Eminency in S. Peter above the rest of the Apostles though not in the species of the power yet in the manner and degree of it viz. that Christ gave it first to S. Peters person as the origen of unity as would have appeared had he set down the words immediately before and after which most plainly and solidly maintain S. Peters Primacy notwithstanding that parity Our Lord said to Peter Upon this Rock I will build my Church and again Do thou feed my sheep Upon him one person he builds his Church and to him he commends his Sheep to be fed And although after his Resurrection he gave to all his Apostles equal power and say As my Father sent me so I send you yet that he might manifest unity that the Church was to be one by the unity of the Governour he constituted one Chair in S. Peters person and by his authority disposed the origen of unity beginning from one person S. Peter Then follow the words quoted by the Doctor The other Apostles are the same that S. Peter was c. After which these But the beginning comes from unity the Primacy is given to Peter that one Church of Christ and one Chair may be monstrated That is they were all equal in power and honour but Peter had it with this Eminency above the rest that it was settled first in his single person 95 96 usque 113. To prove that all Antiquity does consent and teach that all the ordinary power of the Apostles descended to the Bishops as their successors though it be a truth and maintained by us yet of his twenty Quotations brought for it no less then eighteen are false or wrested viz. 1. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 43. saith onely We ought to obey the Presbyters that are in the Church that have succession from the Apostles who with succession of Episcopacy have received the certain Charisma of truth 2. Id. ib. c. 44. Hath not a word to this purpose 3. S. Cypr. l. 1. Ep. 6. Hath not a word to this purpose 4. Id. l. 2. Ep. 10. He saith onely this The unity delivered by our Lord and through the Apostles to us successors 5. Id. l. 4. Ep. 9. Saith nothing of Bishops but what is as true of Presbyters Christ said to his Apostles and by this to all that are praepositi who by Vicarious Ordination succeed to the Apostles He that despiseth you despiseth me 6. S. Ambrose de dign Sacred c. 1. Saith nothing but what rather makes against the Doctor viz. That all Bishops received the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven in the B. Apostle Peter 7. S. Aug. de Bap. co Donat. l. 7. c. 43. onely sets down the Sentence of one of the African Bishops Clarus a Muscula for the rebaptizing of Hereticks 8. Id. de verb. Dom. Serm. 24. saith nothing but what pertains to Priests as much as Bishops He that despises you despises me If he had said this to the Apostles alone despise us But if his word have come unto us and called us and placed us in their room see that ye despise not us 9. Conc. Rom. sub Sylv. saith nothing but that men should not detract from the Disciples of our Lord that is the successors of the Apostles 10. Anacletus P. Ep. 2. saith nothing but that the Pillars of the Holy Church which the Apostles and their successors are not unrightly called should not be easily shaken or accused 11. S. Clem. P. Ep. 1. saith nothing but that the Bishops supply the place of the Apostles as Priests do of the 72. Disciples whose successors properly they are not 12. S. Hieron Ep. 13. hath not a word to this sense 13. Id. Ep. 54. saith no more but that Bishops with us Catholiques hold the place of the Apostles whereas the Montanists put them down to the third place 14. Euthym. in Ps. 44. hath nothing to this purpose 15. S. Greg. in Evang. Hom. 26. saith no more but that Bishops hold now in the Church the place of them to whom Christ said Whose sins ye forgive c. 16. S. Jerom whom I suppose the Doctor meant for S. Gregory hath no such Epistle Ep. 1. ad Heliodor speaks not of Bishops properly but of Priests God forbid I should speak any sinister thing of them who succeeding to the Apostolique degree with their sacred mouth make Christs Body 17. S. Damasc. de Imag. Or. 2. onely useth the words of the Apostle God hath set in the Church first Apostles then Prophets c. 18. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. de Laud. Athanas. not as he quotes it Basilii hath not a word to this purpose 114 115. He saith Bishops are in express terms called by S. Ambrose Vicars of Christ and quotes two places for it in neither of which S. Ambrose speaks of Bishops but onely of the Apostles We are the helpers of God This pertains to the person of the
Apostles who it is manifest are Gods helpers because they are the Vicars of Christ. Therefore they the Apostles received from God the Father by Christ our Lord this power that in our Lords stead they should make the Doctrine of our Lord acceptable 116. He saith The Pope calls himself the Universal Bishop and the Vicarial Head of the Church the Churches Monarch he from whom all Ecclesiastical authority is derived to whose Sentence in things Divine every Christian under pain of damnation is bound to be subject And quotes for this the Canon Unam Sanctam when in that Canon there is not any one of these Sentences but onely that he is the Vicarial Head of the Church Of one onely Church there is one onely Head to wit Christ and his Vicar Peter and his successors we define it to be altogether necessary to every humane creature to salvation to be subject to the Roman Bishop 117. He saith S. Ambrose saith the Bishop holdeth the place of Christ and is his substitute and quotes for it S. Ambrose ubi supra and we have seen afore that S. Ambrose in none of those places saith any such thing 118. To prove that the Bishops of Rome had no superiority by the Laws of Christ over any Bishop and that his Bishoprick gave no more power to him then Christ gave to the Bishop of the smallest Diocess he quotes Pope Symmachus As it is in the Holy Trinity whose power is one and undivided or to use the expression in the Athanasian Creed none is before or after other none is greater or less then another so there is one Bishoprick amongst divers Bishops and therefore why should the Canons of the ancient Bishops be violated by their successors When 1. there is no such saying of Symmachus in the place quoted 2. The Epistle which he meant and is to be found in the Tomes of the Councils is not a little altered and mangled by him in the very words 1. Symmachus saith not as he quotes him As it is in the Holy Trinity c. So there is one Bishoprick c. And therefore why should c. But thus For whilst there is like unto the Trinity whose power is one and individual one Bishoprick c. how agrees it or is it becoming c. 2. Symmachus saith not there is one Bishoprick inter multos amongst many Bishops as he renders it as if equalling all Bishops then living one to another but there is one per multos through many that is through the line of Bishops succeeding to one another in the same See and so it onely equals the successor to his predecessor 3. Where Symmachus saith priorum of former Bishops or predecessors in that See he translates it of the ancient Bishops 4. Finding that these words would make nothing to his purpose he wrests them to it with a Gloss None is before or after other none is greater or less then another and then inferres that these words do fully declare that the Roman Bishoprick gave no more power to the Pope then Christ gave to the Bishop of the smallest Diocess when he could but know that his gloss and inference had not onely no foundation in Symmachus's words but were directly contrary to the whole substance and drift of the Epistle it being an answer to a Letter of Complaint of the Archbishop of Arles to the Pope against the Archbishop of Vienna for invading the rights of the Church of Arles for ordaining some neighbour Bishops upon pretence of some Breve or Rescript of Pope Anastasius Symmachus his predecessor wherein he had contraried the Grants of former Popes to the Church of Arles and desiring from the Pope redress in it and he promises to redress it and gives for his reason the words quoted by the Doctor because it was not well done of Anastasius to contrary the Acts of his predecessors all which proves that the Roman Bishop was superior to those Archbishops of Arles and Vienna and had jurisdiction over them and that Symmachus himself thought so We have received your Letters by which appears there is a controversie betwixt the Churches of Arles and Vienna concerning ordaining of Bishops in neighbouring Cities caused by this that our predecessor of happy memory Anastasius had commanded some things to be observed contrary to the ancient custome transgressing the Ordinance of his predecessors which he ought not to have done for any necessity whatsoever For seeing there is but one Bishoprick through divers Bishops like the Trinity whose power is one and individual how is it becoming the Statutes of former Popes to be violated by them that follow c. 119. To the same purpose he quotes S. Dionysius As the whole Hierarchy ends in Jesus so does every particular one in its own Bishop As if he had meant that every Bishop was supreme Governour next under Christ in his own Diocess when he meant onely that the order of Bishops was the supreme Hierarchical order in compare to Priests Deacons c. The Divine order therefore of Bishops is the first of those Orders which see God and he is also the highest and the last For in him is finished and compleated all the distinction of our Hierarchy For as we see all our Hierarchy to end in Jesus c. 120 121 122 123. To the same purpose he quotes Origen Gelasius S. Jerom and Fulgentius as teaching That the Bishops have the supreme place in the Church But 1. for Origen he quotes no book nor hath Origen any saying to that sense to exclude the Primacy of the Roman See 2 For Fulgentius he quotes him in Concil Paris l. 1. c. 3. but tells not what Council of Paris he means nor what Fulgentius nor in what Collection the book is to be found I can finde no such in Fulgentius his Works nor in the Tomes of Councils nor in the Councils of France set out by Syrmondus 3. For Gelasius he teaches no such thing for all he saith is this There are two things by which this World is principally governed the sacred Authority of Bishops and Regal power Betwixt which the burthen of Bishops is so much the heavier by how much they are in the divine examen to give an account even for Kings themselves c. 4. For S. Jerom he quotes two places one is in Hom. 7. in Jerem. when he hath no such work of Homilies upon Jeremy and if he meant his Commentary upon the seventh Chapter of Jeremy there is not a tittle in it to any such purpose The other is in his Book adversus Lucifer in which likewise I can finde nothing to this purpose 124. He saith that when Bellarmin is in this question about the Pope's Supremacy press'd out of the Book of Nilus by the authority of the Fathers standing against him he answers the Pope acknowledges no Fathers in the Church for they are all his Sons As if Bellarmin had
answer'd this in contempt of the authority of the Fathers urged by Nilus against the Pope's Supremacy when there was no such thing For the objection of Nilus there urged was not from Fathers but from Reason and it was onely to prove that the Pope ought to be subject to the Canons of holy Fathers because he had his Dignity from the Fathers and Popes themselves had made divers Canons and he were unworthy to be honoured as a Father if he contemn'd the Fathers To which reasons Bellarmin answer'd That the Pope had not his Dignity from the Fathers and that if he made Canons he could not binde himself and that if he be honoured as a Father by all he hath no Fathers in the Church but all Children and therefore he cannot be subject to them and that he contemns not the Fathers c. 125. He saith this speech of S. Cyprian in the Council of Carthage None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops or by tyramical power drives his Colleagues to a necessity of obediance c. was spoken and intended against Pope Stephen to reprehend him for his Lording it over God's Heritage and excommunicating his brethren and this his chastising of Pope Stephen for this usurpation was also approved in him by S. Augustin when S. Augustin in the place quoted saith no such thing nor understood it as spoken against Pope Stephen but as spoken modestly and humbly to encourage the Bishops to deliver their Sentence without fear of excommunication and he interprets the words not to mean as if the Bishops were exempted absolutely from being judged by their Superiors but onely in such cases as that which were undetermined by the Church None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops c. What more meek what more humble Certes no authority should deterre us from inquiring what is true Since every Bishop c. I suppose he means in those questions which have not yet been discussed by the most eliquate perspection For he knew how great a profundity of Sacrament then the whole Church did by various disputation discuss and he made free the choice of enquiring that by examination the truth might be manifested For he did not lye or desire to catch his more simple Colleagues in their words that when they had discovered themselves to hold contrary to him he should censure them to be excommunicate This was it he approved in S. Cyprians speech and this was all he approved 126. Against S. Peters Primacy he quotes S. Chrysostom He did all things with the common consent nothing by special authority or principality when in that very place he most strongly asserted S. Peters Primacy as would have appear'd had the Doctor set down the words before and after Peter arising up in the midst of the Disciples said c. How fervent is he How doth he acknowledge the flock committed to him by Christ How is he Prince in the Chair and ever first begins to speak Now consider that also how he doth act all things by the common vote of the Disciples nothing by his own authority nor did he simply say we set up this man in the place of Judas And although he had a right equal to all of constituting him yet out of vertue or modesty congruently he did it not But deservedly doth he first exercise authority in the business as who had them all in his hand for to him Christ said Confirm thy Brethren 127. He saith Canus confesses That there is in Scripture no revelation that the Bishop of Rome should succeed S. Peter in his special authority But Canus saith not all out so but that it is not indeed per se there revealed And in the next words he saith That it is had out of the Gospel that the Pastor substituted by Christ in the Church after Peter hath all the ordinary power of Peter and all other priviledges granted to Peter for the Churches sake 128 129 130 131. He saith it is confessed by Cusanus Soto Driedo and Canus that this succession of Peter's Chair was not addicted to any particular Church nor can be proved that the Bishop of Rome is Prince of the Church which last is not confessed by any out of them and for the first Driedo saith to the contrary in the very place quoted Not rashly therefore but with pious faith we believe with the Fathers our predecessors that the Faith and Primacy of the Church and the Chair of Peter are inseparable from the Roman Diocess Sect. 11. 132 133 134 135. He quotes four Canons as shewing that private Mass is against the Doctrine and practice of the ancient Church of Rome and the Tradition of the Apostles and is also forbidden under pain of Excommunication when not one of them hath any such thing nor forbids the Priest to celebrate without Communicants but onely enjoyns the Deacons or people at due times to communicate with the Priest So C. Peracta When Consecration is done that is when the Priest hath consummated let all Communicate that will not be excluded from the Church for so the Apostles have appointed and so holds the holy Roman Church Which Canon yet meant not of the Lay-people who as appears by another Canon made within twenty years after were obliged to Communicate onely three times a year Christmas Easter and Whitsuntide when yet the Priests said Mass every day but onely of the Deacons who assisted at Mass. For so declares the Title of it Let the Minister who after Consecration contemns to Communicate be excluded from entring into the Church And so the Gloss Let all Communicate that is all who minister the body and blood So C. in coena Upon Maundy Thursday the receiving of the Eucharist is by some neglected which that it is to be received on that day by all the faithful except those to whom for great crimes it is prohibited the use of the Church demonstrates seeing even Penitents are on that day reconciled to receive the Sacraments of our Lords body and blood So C. Si quis If any one come into the Church and hears the sacred Scriptures and out of wantonness averts himself from receiving the Sacrament and in observing the Mysteries declines from the constituted rule of Discipline we decree such a one to be cast out of the Church So C. omnes fideles All the faithful who come to the Church in the sacred Solemnities of Easter Christmas c. let them hear the Scriptures of the Apostles and the Gospels but they that persevere not in Prayer whilst Mass is finished nor receive the holy Communion it is fit they be deprived of Communion as raising disturbances of the Church Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 136. He saith It is taught by Navar that though the Church calls upon sinners to repent on Holy-Dayes and at Easter yet by the Law of God they are not tyed to so much but onely to repent in the Article or danger of