Can. pag. 199. The same appeares by the testimony which Venerable Bede giues of Oswin King of Northumberland who by meanes of a famous disputation held between Colman a Scottish Abbot and Wilfrid a learned Priest of the Britans for the decision of certaine points of Religion wherein the Britans and Scots at that tyme disagreed was conuerted to the Roman Church and thereupon with the aduice of Egbert king of Kent sent Wigandus a Priest to Rome to be ordained Archbishop there to the end that returning he might ordayne Bishops throughout all Britany for sayth Bede Oswin though brought vp by the Scots (y) L. 3. hist. Angl. c. 29. had rightly vnderstood that the Roman Church is the Catholike and Apostolike Church These testimonies sufficiently proue that the most holy and learned Fathers as also the Orthodox Christians of former ages did belieue that the Roman Church was the Catholike Church and that to be deuided from the Roman Church was to be no Catholike but a Schismatike And that it may appeare how like you that deny this truth are to the Arian Heretikes it will not be amisse to shew that they knew Catholike and Roman to be all one and that because they would not grace Catholikes with the name of Catholikes they called them Romans or Romanists as at this day you call vs shewing your selues to be of the same spirit with the Arians Victor that famous African Bishop of Vrica writeth to this (z) L. 2. de persecut Vandal purpose that Iocundus an Arian speaking to king Theodoricus sayd Thou maiest make an end of Armogastus with diuers afflictions for if thou put him to death by the sword the Romanists will proclayme him a Martyr And of another Martyr he reporteth (a) Ibid. that being questioned by the Arians concerning his fayth he professed himself to be a Catholike saying Romanus sum I am a Roman (b) Apud Baron amo 471. In like manner Ermodius reporteth of the Nobility of the Ligures that proposing to Ricimer an Arian Goth a man fit to sollicite a peace they said Si Catholicus est Romanus if he be a Catholike then is he a Romanist And S. Gregory of Tours reporteth of an Arian Prince (c) De glor Mars c. 25. that thinking within himself be sayd It is the fashion of the Romans so they call men of our religion to attribute it to chance and not to the power of God And againe he reporteth this speach of one Arian to â—n (d) Ibid. c. 361 other If thou wilt but harken to my Counsell we will this day make our selues merry laughing hartily at this Romish Priest And speaking of the Arians that were in France (e) Ibid. c. 79. what thinke you sayd one of them will these Romanists now say And what thinke you now Doctor Morton what will you say Do not these testimonies conuince that in the language and beliefe of antiquity Catholike and Roman did signify the same Church the same fayth and the same Orthodoxall people Or what may we thinke of you that either are so ignorant as not to know this Or if you know it so malicious as to deny it to call it an insultation of ours and to censure it as Schismaticall hereticall temerarious impious sacrilegious Antichristian c. SECT IV. That whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church is out of the state of Saluation THis truth is euidently deduced out of the premises already proued by this syllogisticall argument Whosoeuer is out of the Catholike Church is out of the state of Saluation This maior Proposition you grant and it hath beene already proued (f) Hoc cap. sect 1. But whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church is out of the Catholike Church This also hath bene (g) Hoc cap. sect 3. and shall be throughout this whole Apology effectually proued The consequent then is euident in Barbara Ergo whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church is out of the state of Saluation But yet in further confirmation of this consequent it will not be amisse to heare the ancient Fathers themselues speake and testify the truth therof in their owne language For so teacheth that ancient and learned Bishop S. Irenaeus who liued soone after the Apostles and was Disciple to their Disciples He prescribing a certaine rule to know and distinguish the Catholike Church from the conuenticles of Heretikes sayth (h) L. 3. c. 3. that All Churches and all the faithfull from all places must necessarily agree with the Roman Church by reason of her more powerfull principality that is by reason of the soueraignety of the See Apostolike and the neuer-interrupted succession of Bishops in that See which succession sayth he is (i) Ibid. a conuincing demonstration that the same fayth which was preached by the Apostles is still conserued in that Church and therefore (k) L. 4. c. 43. that all such as withdrawe themselues from this principall succession we ought sayth he to hold them as Heretikes of a peruerse iudgement or as Schismatikes and selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes And as S. IrenÄ™us alleaged this neuer interrupted succession of twelue Bishops vntill his tyme in the Roman Church as in the head Church of the world which therfore he calleth the principall succession if I say he alleaged this against the heretikes of those primitiue tymes as a conuincing demonstration to proue that they hauing departed from the Roman Church in which that principall succession was to be found had therby departed from the Catholike Church and forsaken true fayth deliuered by the Apostles far greater reason had Tertullian (l) De praescrip Eusebius (m) L. 5. hist. c. 6. S. Epiphanius (n) Haeres 27. S. Ierome (o) Dial. cont Lucifer Optatus S. Augustine (p) Lib. 2. cont Parm. and other Fathers of after ages to all eage the same succession of longer Continuance against the Heretikes of their tymes to conuince them to be such And (q) Ep. 165. Psal contra part Donati â—f diuers of these Fathers as Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius S. Epiphanius Optatus and S. Augustine haue reckoned vp by name all the Bishops of the Roman Church against the Heretikes of their tymes we may now iustly reckon a â—ar greater number of them coÌ„tinued vntill these our dayes â—gainst Protestants to proue them to be out of the true Church in which only this neuer interrupted succession is to be found and wish them as S. Augustine (r) Psal contra part Donati did the Donatists not to lye cut of from this succession that being â—he Rock against which the proud gates of hell preuaile â—ot So teacheth S. Cyprian saying (s) L. 1. ep 8. There is one God and â—ne Christ. one chayre built vpon Peter out of which whosoeuer gathereth scattereth that is maketh a Schisme in the Church â—s the Nouatians did against whom he writeth And why did he reioyce (t) L. 4. ep â— to heare that Antonianus
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
whole body of his Church to the end that whosoeuer should be so bold as to depart from the solidity of that See might know himself to be no way partaker of the diuine mysteries And (e) Ibid. that whosoeuer goeth about to diminish the power of the Bishop of Rome endeauoreth with most impious presumption to viâ—late the most sacred strength of the Rock Peter framed by the hand of God And speaking against Hilary Bishop of Arles and all such as are refractary and disobedient to the Successors of Peter and in them to Peter himselfe he (f) Ibid. addeth To whom whosoeuer thinketh the primacy to be denied can no way diminish their authority but puffed vp with the spirit of pride plungeth himselfe headlong into hell And (g) Epist 75. that he who dare oppose the Roman Church built by the voyce of our Sauiour vpon the most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles as vpon a rock is either Antichrist or a Diuel All these sayings of so learned a Doctor and so great a Saint I wish the Protestant reader duly to consider So teacheth the holy Councell of Chalcedon (h) Act. 3. affirming Peter the Apostle to be the rock and head of the Catholike Church and foundation of the true Fayth From whence it followeth that whosoeuer buildeth not vpon the foundation of Peters See is not in the Catholike Church nor in the true fayth without which no man can be saued So teacheth S. Gregory the Great who writing to Bonifacius (i) L. 3. ep 41. sayth I admonish you that whiles you haue tyme of lyfe remayning your soule be not found diuided from the Church of blessed Peter to whome the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen were committed and the power of binding and losing giuen lest his fauour be contemned here he there exclude you from the entrance into lyfe So teacheth S. I sidore a learned Doctor and Archbishop of Seuill (k) Ep. vltima ad Eugenium Episcop Toletanum saying that albeit the Episcopall dignity and power descend from S. Peter to all Catholike Bishops yet especially and by a fingular priuiledge it remayneth for euer to the Bishop of Rome as to a Head higher then the rest of the members whosoeuer therfore sayth he yelds not obedience reuerently to him is separated from the head and makes himself guilty of the schisme of the Acephalists that is of certain heretikes who acknowledged no one particular Head And he addes that the Church belieues this as the Creed of S. Athanasius and as an article of fayth and that whosoeuer belieues it not cannot be saued So teacheth S. Maximus Martyr the greatest Diuine of his age that writ learnedly against the Monothelites pestilent Heretikes that held but one will and operation in Christ and were anathematized in the sixth generall Councell He among other Elogies of the Roman Church hath (l) Epist ad Marinum Diac. this All the bounds of the earth and whosoeuer in any place of the world do confesse Christ our Lord with a pure hart and Orthodox fayth looke vpon the most holy Roman Church and her confession and fayth attentiuely as vpon a Sunne of euerlasting light receauing from her the shining light of spirituall and holy Doctrines c. For from the first comming of the Word Incarnate all the Churches of Christians throughout the world haue had from her their beginning their only and surest foundation against which the gates of hell shall no way preuaile according to the promise of our Sauiour himself that she shold haue the Keyes of Orthodoxall fayth and Confession and open to them that religiously come to the same Roman Church seeking true reall and only piety and contrariwise shut and stop euery hereticall mouth that speaks iniquity against heauen So teacheth S. Aldelmus an ancient Bishop of the Scots whom Venerable Bede highly commendeth for his eloquence for his great knowledge of humane literature of Scripture and Ecclesiasticall rites Among other his works which Bede reckoneth he writ an excellent booke against the error of the Britans who at that tyme differed from the Roman Church in the celebration of Easter And of the same subiect he writ an epistle to Geruntius in which he sheweth the Britans by reason of that their separation from the Roman Church to be in error (m) Epist ad Gerunt If sayth he the keyes of the heauenly kingdome were by Christ giuen to Peter of whom the Poet sayth He is the Porter of heauen that opens the gate to the stars who is he that despising the principall statutes of that Church and condemning the Doctrine which she commands to be obserued can enter into the gate of heauenly paradise And if Peter by a happy lot and a peculiar priuiledge deserued to receyue the power monarchy of binding both in heauen and earth who refusing to obserue the Roman rite of Easter can thinke that he is not rather to be straitly tied with in soluble bonds then any way to be absolued And the same he further proueth out of the priuiledge of not erring granted to the Roman Church when Christ promised to build his Church vpon Peter as vpon an impregnable rock So teacheth Venerable Bede (n) Homil. in die Apost Petri Pauli saying Therfore the blessed Peter confessing Christ with true fayth and following him with true loue receaued specially the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the soueraignty of iudiciall power that all the faythfull throughout the world might vnderstand that whosoeuer do any way separate themselues from the Vnity of his fayth and society can neither be losed from the bonds of their sins nor come within the gate of the heauenly kingdome And speaking of a conference held betwene Colmannus an Abbot and Wilfridus a learned Priest concerning the celebration of Easter Colmannus defending the Iewish rite and Wilfridus the custome of the Roman Church Wilfridus said (o) Beda in histor gent. Ang. l. 3. c. 25. If you disdaine to follow the decrees of the See Apostolike yea and of the vniuersall Church they being confirmed by the holy Scriptures without all doubt you sinne for be it that your Columba was a holy man and of Christ likewise your Fathers yet is their smal number in a corner of a remote Iland to be preferred before the vniuersall Church of Christ And hauing in proofe of the Authority of the Roman Church alleaged the words of Christ promising to build his Church vpon Peter and to giue him the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen Of win king that was present at the conference demanded of the disputants whether both of them agreed in this that those words of our Sauiour were principally spoken to Peter and whether the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to him And they answering Yes the king (p) Ibid. concluded And I say to you that because Peter is that porter I will not gainsay him but so far forth as I
for if Luther had said nothing els Leo would not haue condemned him And to the same end you corrupt Philiarchus who say you will hâ—ue vs to take head of the heresies of Luther teaching that the Church hath no power to create new articles of fayth That word new is an addition of your owne to Philiarchus his text as his Latin words in your margeÌ„t conuince but what wonder since your worke is a Grand Imposture CHAP. V. That the word Roman is no deprauation but a true declaration of the article of the Catholike Church TO declare which is the catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed we say it is the holy Apostolike Roman Church Against this you (g) Pag. 8. 9. 10. obiect that the word Roman is no true exposition and declaration but a notorious alteration and deprauation of the article of the Catholike Church This you proue with eight seuerall arguments set downe in so many sections SECT I. Your first Argument YOVR first is (h) Pag. 9. that because the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed by the accordance of S. Augustine and other our Diuines comprehendeth both the triumphant and the militant Church the word Roman which caÌ„not be a declaration of the Catholike Church as she is triumphant but only as she is militant can no way be a declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed So you forgetting your selfe for heere you hold that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed comprehendeth both the triumphant Church and the militant but els where contradicting your (i) Pag. 365. selfe you define the Church properly Catholike set downe in the Symbolor Creed of the Apostles to be the Church militant videlicet the multitude of Christian belieuers whensoeuer and wheresoeuer dispersed throughout the world and the congregation of Christians assembled in a generall Synod to be the representatiue body of the Church in the Symbol properly called Catholike From whence it followeth against your selfe that the word Roman may be a true declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed which by your owne definition is the multitude of all Christian belieuers dispersed throughout the world for this definition can no way agree to the Church triumphant where the cleare vision of the diuine essence excludeth fayth but to the militant only consisting of all Christian belieuers And because true Christian beliefe is to be found only in the Roman Church it followeth that the woro Roman is a true declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed 2. Be it that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed taken in her whole latitude comprehendeth both the militant and the triumphant yet in your argument you mistake the state of the question for when we declare the Catholike Church to be the Roman Church we speake not of her taken in her whole latitude but only as she is militant And this you know right well for whiles in this Imposture you so often rayle at vs for holding the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church out of which there is no hope of saluation you sufficiently declare that you know vs to speake of the Catholike Church as she is militant only for she only is in hope of saluation the triumphant already enioyeth it I conclude therfore that your argument is grounded on a wilfull mistake of the question which as you cannot defend without contradicting your selfe so neither without wronging S. Augustine for when he sayth that the Catholike Church comprehendeth both the militant and the triumphant he speaketh of her taken in her whole latitude but that the may and euen in the Apostles Creed be taken for the militant only he expresly declareth in his explication of the same Creed where teaching the Catechumenists which is the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed he (k) De Symb. ad Catechum l. 1. c. 6. sayth We belieue the Catholike Church She is the holy Church one Church the true Church the Catholike Church fighting against all heresies she may be opposed but she caÌ„not be ouerthrowne All heresies are gone eut from her as vnprofitable branches cut of from the Vine but she remaynes in her roote in her Vine in her charity the gates of hell shall neuer ouercome her In these words S. Augustine teacheth the catechumenists to belieue that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed is the Church militant built vpon S. Peters Chayre as vpon a rock against which the gates of hell can not preuaile And the same he declareth when speaking to the Donatists he denounceth vnto them that because they were out of the Roman Church they were out of the Catholike Church and out of the state of Saluation Be yee ingrafted sayth (*) Psal cont part Donati he on the Vine It grieueth vs to see you lye so cut of Number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranke of Fathers who succeeded ech other That is the rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not That Church therfore in which there is a neuer interrupted succession of Bishops from S. Peter is in S. Augustines beliefe the Catholike Church Do not you then abuse S. Augustine producing his authority to proue that the catholike church mentioned in the Creed cannot be the Church militant since he so expresly teacheth the contrary yea and not only that she is the militant Church but in particular that she is the Roman Church built vpon S. Peter and his successors and that whosoeuer is diuided from her is an vnprofitable branch cut of from the Vine which is Christ our Lord and therfore no lesse deuoyd of spirituall life then the dead branch is of naturall SECT II. Your second argument YOur second argument (l) Pag. 10 1â—.12 is grounded on a false principle with is that the Catholike Church in her essentiall state is inuisible We know that the essentiall forme of the Church which is Fayth is inuisible to corporall eyes But the Church as you (m) Pag. 36â— confesse is the multitude of all Christian belieuers whensoeuer and whersoeuer dispersed throughout the world and that the congregation of Christians assembled in a generall Synod is the representatiue body therof Wherfore as it were ridiculous to affirme that a multitude of men ioyned in one Common-wealth or the representatiue body therof assembled in Parliament is essentially inuisible because their soules are inuisible or that Christ liuing on earth was inuisible because his Diuinity was inuisible so it is no lesse ridiculous to affirme that the Church in her essence is inuisible because fayth is inuisible for fayth is not the Church but the essentiall forme of the Church as the soule of man is not man but the essentiall forme of man Man consisteth essentially of body aswell as of soule and by reason of his body he is visible for according to the axiome of Philosophers Actiones passiones sunt
suppositorum And so likewise the Church consisteth essentially of the persons that belieue as of matter and of fayth as of forme and by reason of her matter is visible as man is by his body and Christ by his humanity Now wheras to proue that the Church in her essentiall state is inuisible you alleage the whole tenor of the Apostles Creed (n) Pag 11. affirming that the obiect of euery article of that Symbol from beliefe in God vnto beliefe of life euerlasting is vnto vs inuisible and so far as it is belieued is without compasse of sense you speake vntruly and ignorantly for was not the natiuity of Christ visible to corporall eyes did he not visibly suffer in his body when he was whipped crowned with thornes and buffeted Was he not visibly crucified Did he not visibly dye Was he not visibly buried Did he not visibly ascend into heauen the Astpoles beholding (o) Act. 1.9.10.11 him And is he not to come agayne visibly to iudge the quick the dead The example which you alleage of S. Thomas is against your selfe for not only the Diuinity of Christ is the obiect of fayth which S. Thomas belieued but also his humanity and he that belieueth not his humanity aswell as his Diuinity is an heretike To what end I pray you when the Apostles thought that Christ after his resurrection appearing to them was not a man but a Spirit did he shew them his hands and (p) Luc. 24.39.40 syde and bid them feele and see that so they might belieue him not to be a Spirit because said he a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me to haue And to what end did he (q) Ioan. 20.27 bid Thomas put his finger and hand into his wounds but that by feeling them he might belieue the bodie he touched to be the same that he had seene suffer on the Crosse Nor do you bring any thing of moment to disproue this for the definition of fayth which the Apostle giues saying (r) Heb. 11.1 Fayth is an argument of things not appearing is sufficiently verified in these obiectes It sufficeth that fayth be either of things wholly inuisible or els of things visible apprehended vnder inuifible conditions proprieties as those are vnder which we apprehend Christ when we belieue him to be both man and God and those vnder which we apprehend the Scripture when we say it is the word of God or the Church when we belieue her to be the spouse of Christ the house of fayth the temple of God the mansion of the holy Ghost the gate of heauen the treasuresse of spirituall graces And who knoweth not that the Sacrament of baptisme whether we confider the matter which is water or the forme which are words is the obiect of sense and the very essentiall definition of a Sacrament is to be A visible signe of iuuisible (s) Magist in 4. d 1. S. Tho. 3. part q. 60. a 2. 3. corp grace and yet to belieue one Baptisme in remission of sinnes is an article of the Creed expressed in the Councell of Gonstantinople And this discouereth the weaknesse of your argument taken from the predestinat to approue the inuisibility of the Church for though predestination be inuisible as fayth is yet neither the predestinat nor the faithfull are inuisible and therfore if I should grant for argument sake that the Church consisteth of the predestinate only it would not follow that she is inuisible But to proue her inuisibility you (t) Pag. 11. say Diuine Scripture in positine doctrine doth manifest thus much in that speach of Christ to S. Peter Mat 16.19 Vpon this Rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it where the word Church by the iudgment of S. Augustine and the accordance of your owne Doctors doth signify Only the number of predestinat But let vs see how you make good this your charge Our Doctors which you name are Caietan Ferus Stella and Salmeron But Stella in that place neither explicates those words of Christ nor makes any mention of them nor of S. Peter nor of the Church but speakes of particular men prouing out of other words of Christ recorded by S. Luke (u) Luc. 6.47.48.49 that they which haue fayth without good works build their house vpon loose earth which therfore wanting foundation by winds and stormes of tentations is easily ouerthowne wheras they that haue both fayth good works build vpon a firme Rock which is Christ and from thence he inferreth that your Lutheran Brethren teaching that fayth cannot be without good workes build not on Christ the Rock but vpon sand This is Stellas discourse which to be imposterously alleaged by you to proue that the Church consisteth only of predestinat or that she is inuisible no man can deny And no lesse imposterous is your obiection out of Salmeron who speaketh in the same sense that Stella doth is so far from teaching that the Church is inuisible that in the very same disputation which you (x) In 1. Timoth 3. disp 22. q. Porro to 15. obiect he proueth that the house of God which is his Church is visible and conspicuous in her Head or gouernor the Bishop of Rome in her members the faithfull in the word of God which she is commanded to heare in the profession of her fayth which she is commanded to make openly and in her Sacraments wherwith she is sanctified all these being obiects of sense And (y) Tom. 7. tract 6.12.38 â—e furthermore she weth that the church in holy writ is compared to a field that hath wheat and cockle to a floare that hath corne and chaffe to a net that contaynes good and bad fishes to a vine that hath some branches bearing fruit and some that beare none to a body of which some members are liuing and some dead to a fold in which there are both sheep kids to a great house in which there are not only vessels of gold and siluer but also of wood and earth and to the Arke of Noe in which there were liuing creatures both cleane and vncleane And from these parables as also out of other testimonies of holy Scripture he inferreth against your Confession of Augusta as also against the Pelagians the Donatists and all other sectaries that the Catholike Church in this life consisteth both of good bad of predestinate reprobate I know not therfore with what conscience you produce him as a patron of your Doctrine so contrary to his owne Caietan and Ferus I haue not seene but I feare you deale with them as you do with Stella and Salmeron Besides Ferus is a prohibited author Your second obiection is proposed in these (z) Pag. 11. sin 12. words The same may be said of the Church as it is called the flock of Christ Ioh. 10. My sheep heare my voyce where by Sheep are only meant the sanctified
before there was any Church at all in Britaine and most especially because she begot and founded the Brittish Church Wherfore with great reason K. Henry the eight confesseth (o) Lib. de 7. Sacram. contra Luther art 2. that all the Churches of the faythfull acknowledge and reuerence the most holy See of Rome for their Mother And our late Soueraigne K. Iames of famous memory in the Summe of the conference before his Maiesty affirmeth (p) Pag. 75. that the Roman Church was once the Mother Church and consequently that as well the Church of Brittaine as all others were her daughters which right she being once possessed of cold neuer lose vnlesse you will make false the words of Christ who promised that the gates of hell which are false and hereticall Doctrines shall neuer preuaile against her Lastly I will not omit to put you in minde of two other slâ—ights The one is that wheras you know all antiquity to haue belieued and left expressed in their workes that the Roman Church is The head and Mother of all Churches and that it were not difficult if needfull to set downe their testimonies in their owne words you mention no other authority for our beliefe of that truth but the late Councell of Trent The other is that you runne on in your owne mistake calling it in vs a mad point of genealogizing to conclude that Rome must be mother to those Daughters of S. Peter which were begotten 7. yeares before she was borne and which therfore you call (q) Pag. 31. 36. Mothers grand-mothers and Aunts to her If by motherhood you vnderstand antiquity of tyme though it were indeed a mad point of Genealogizing to call the Roman Church Mother in respect of any Church that was founded before her yet in this very sense of Motherhood it is false that the Roman Church is a daughter to the Brittish for the Brittish was founded after the Roman But you know that by Motherhood we vnderstand superiority and iurisdiction and therfore as it were a mad manner of arguing to inferre that Caesarea in Palestine is not Superior in iurisdiction and mother to the Church of Hierusalem after which she was founded so it is in you to inferre that the Roman Church is not superior in iurisdiction and Mother to all Churches because she was founded after some of them CHAP. VII S. Peters Primacy defended TO proue that S. Peter was not of the now Roman fayth coÌ„cerning his owne primacy you (r) Pag. 38. seqq obiect those words of our Sauiour Mat. 16. vpon this Rocke for in them say you (s) Pag. 38. the fayth of S. Peter did not conceiue any Monarchicall or supreme iurisdiction promised vnto himselfe by Christ The natiue obuious and true sense of these words of Christ deliuered by the agreeing coÌ„sent of ancient Fathers Councels and all Orthodoxe writers is that Christ spake them to Peter in reward of that admirable confession of his fayth wherby he proclamed Christ to be The Sonne of the liuing God made him an impregnable Rock and promised to build his Church vpon him as vpon a foundation so firme and immoueable that the gates of hell which are errors and heresies should neuer preuaile against it This sense you cannot disgest therfore seek to elude it by abusing and falsifying the Fathers and other expositors For the better vnderstanding hereof it is to be noted that wheras you alleage some Fathers affirming that the rock on which Christ promised to build his Church is the fayth and confession of Peter and others saying that it is Christ himselfe these their expositions are no way contrary either in themselues or to our Doctrine for as Bellarmine (t) L. 1. de Pont. c. 10. §. Nemo dubitat obserueth no man doubts but that Christ is the chiefe foundation of the Church and that so much may be gathered out of these his words for if Peter be a secondary foundation supplying the place of Christ on earth it followeth that Christ himselfe is the first and chiefe foundation or as S. Augustine (u) In Psal 86. and S. Gregory (x) L. 28 Moral c. 9. call him Fundamentum fundamentorum The foundation of foundations Agayne they are not to be vnderstood of the person of Christ abstracting from the Confession of Peter but including it as the obiect confessed nor of Peters confession abstracting from Peter himselfe but including him as the person that confesseth Wherfore the sense is that Christ promised to build his Church vpon himselfe confessed by Peter or which is all one vpon Peter confessing Christ and for the confession he made of Christ Which to speake in the Schoole language is to say that Christ built his Church causally vpon Peters confession and formally vpon his person because that excellent confession of Peter was the cause which moued Christ to chose Peters person for the foundation of his Church The confession of Peter sayth S. Hilary (y) Cau. 16. in Mathaeum hath receaued a worthy reward declaring what reward it was he addeth O in the title of a new name happy foundation of the Church and worthy stone of her edifice O blessed Porter of Heauen c. And againe (z) Lib. e. de Trim. This is he that in the silence of all the other Apostles beyond the capacity of humane infirmity acknowledging the sonne of God by the reuelation of the Father merited by the Confession of his fayth a supereminent place 2. S. Basil (a) L. 2. Cont. Eunom Because Peter excelled in fayth he receaued the building of the Church on himselfe 3. S. Ambrose (b) Serm. 47. Peter for his deuotion is called a rock and our Lord is called a Rock for his strength he rightly deserueth to be a partaker in the name that is partaker in the worke for Peter layd the foundation in the house 4. S. Hierome (c) In cap. 16. Math. Because thou Simon hast said to me Thou art Christ the Sonne of God I also say to thee not with a vayne or idle speach that hath no effect for my saying is doing therfore I say to thee Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And againe (d) Ibid. He rewardeth the Apostle for the testimony he had giuen of him Peter had said Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God His true confession receaued a reward c. 5. S. Chrysostome (e) In psal 50. Heâ—re what he sayth to Peter that Pillar that foundation and therfore called Peter as being made a Rock by fayth 6. Theophilact (f) Ad cap. 1â— Math. Our Lord rewardeth Peter bestowing on him a singular fauour which is that he built his Church vpon him By these testimonies of Fathers it appeares that to say Christ built his Church vpon the confession of Peter is not to deny that he built it on the person of Peter but to expresse the cause for
which he built it on his person Euen as when we say The valor of a Captaine got the victory we say it not to signify that his valor in abstracto got the victory without his person but to expresse the meanes wherby he got it And in like manner when S. Hierome and S. Ambrose (g) Ep. 61. Ad Pamma aduers error Ioâ—n Hierosol S. Ambros l. de fide resurrect said Not Peter but his fayth walked vpon the waters it was not to deny that his person truly and formally walked on them but to declare that the cause which made him walke on them was not the naturall vertue or actiuity of his body but the fayth he had giuen to the words of Christ And so likewise it is in our case for as these two propositions The fayth of Peter walked on the waters and Peter walked on the waters are both true but in a different sense for the fayth of Peter walked on them causally as being the cause why Peter walked and the person of Peter walked on them truly properly and formally So likewise are these two both iointly true though in a different sense The Church is built vpon the person of Peter and The Church is built on the fayth or confession of Peter because the primacy of Peters fayth confession was the cause which moued Christ to choose Peter for the fouÌ„dation of his Church rather then any of the other Apostles to that end he gaue him the name and solidity of a Rock that the gates of hell might neuer preuaile against the Church built on him In like manner when S. Augustine and other expositors teach that Christ is the Rock or foundation on which the Church is built their exposition differeth not from the former in substance but only in manner of speach for as Salmeron (h) Tom. 4. part 3. Tract 2. and Suarez (i) Defens fid l. 3. c. 11. n. 11. haue well obserued their meaning cannot be that the Rock on which Christ promiseth to build his Church for the future is his owne person formally considered as in himselfe both because on him it was already built from the tyme of his incarnation as also because he speaketh not to himselfe but to Peter saying Thou art Peter c. And therefore as when in the words immediatly preceding he called Peter by his owne name Simon the Sonne of Iohn he spake to Peter in particular so likewise he did when immediatly he added and I say to thee that thou art Peter that is a Rock and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And the same is yet made more euident by other profes which Bellarmine (k) L. 1 de Pont. c. 10. §. Primo pronomen alleageth Wherfore the sense is that Christ promiseth to build his Church on himselfe obiectiuely that is to say as confessed by Peter which exposition differeth not from the former and is expressly deliuered by S. Ambrose (l) In c. 3.1 ad Cor. in these words The true and approued sense is that the Church is built by God vpon Christ but yet as confessed by Peter and not by any other which is as if it were said vpon thee confessing Christ and vpon the confession which Peter made of Christ or vpon Christ confessed by Peter So S. Ambrose and so also S. Augustine saying (m) L. 1. Retract c. 21. Afterwards I expounded thus these words of our Lord Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church that it should be vnderstood to be built vpon him whom Peter confessed saying thou art Christ c. And that by this exposition S. Augustine intendeth not to deny the Rock meant by Christ in those words to be S. Peter is a truth that may not be denyed both because in that very place he sayth that This sense is celebrated by many in the verses of S. Ambrose saying The Cock crowing the Rock of the Church washed out his offence as also because he there affirmeth that in other places of his workes he had expounded those words not of Christ but of Peter as the rest of the Fathers do which exposition he recalleth not but leaueth to the readers discretion to choose which of the two he liketh best Let the reader chose sayth he (n) Ibid. which of these two senses is the more probable From whence it must needes follow that albeit he doubted whether of those two senses agreeth best to the words of Christ in that place yet of the truth to the thing it selfe to wit that Peter is the Rock on which Christ built his Church he neuer doubted If he had thought that to be a false sense he had done very absurdly in not recalling it but leauing to the readers choyce to follow eyther that or the other for it had bene to leaue it in his choyce to follow a true sense or a false an orthodoxe verity or an hereticall error which though you do yet none but such as you will presume S. Augustine to haue done By this it appeares that all those testimonies of Fathers Popes and other authors which you to make a florish heap vp in the foure first Sections of your fourth Chapter to proue that the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church is not Peter but the Confession of Peter or Christ for either of both will serue your turne so that Peter be excluded are impertinently alleaged for the meaning of them is that the Church is not built vpon Peter meerely as he was a weake man and abstracting from his confession of Christ but vpon him as confessing Christ and for his confession and in reward therof And so likewise it is built vpon Christ not excluding Peters confession but vpon him as confessed by Peter All which is euident out of those very Fathers and expositors which you produce for the contrary For they so fully and so vnanswerably auouch Peter to be the Rock on which Christ built his Church and you so certainly know it to be true that much against your will you are inforced vpon the rack of truth to confesse so much though you do it mincingly saying (o) Pag 42. We may not dissemble thus much that some Fathers doe expound by Rock Peter You should haue said All Fathers and all Councels which treat of that subiect and all Catholike expositors And I must intreat the reader here in prudence to consider how vnaduisedly you alleage Catholike approued authors against this truth which no vnderstanding Protestant will in his iudgment beleeue that any of them euer denyed it being a mayne and euen the greatest point of difference betweene vs and you and which being decided the rest would easily follow Wherfore it caÌ„not be but that you wrong the Catholike authors which you cite in fauor of your doctrine and the like you do to the ancient Fathers To examine euery particular were an endlesse labour for your falsifications for the most part consist
in a very few words cut off and dismembred from their contexture whereas to shew your finistrous dealing the whole context must be set downe as it lyeth Yet some of them I will present to the readers view by which he may make coniecture of the rest 1. You begin with Baronius saying (p) Pag 38. When Luther Caluin and others aduentured to expound this of Christ and of fayth in him as the Sonne of God your two grand Cardinals oppose What do they oppose The one say you speaking of Baronius opposeth his owne passion calling it impudent madnesse in Protestants to expound the Rock to signify Christ So you vntruly and sundry wayes abusing Baronius for in that very place (q) Anno 33. n. 19. seqq he expressly affirmeth Christ to be the Rock on which the Church is built and a little before (r) Anno 31. n. 24.25.26 he had professedly proued the same out of the Syriack in which our Sauiour spake and shewed by the testimonies of Fathers that as Christ is the primary Rock or foundation on which the Church is built so he communicated to Peter his owne name of a Rock and the honor of being next to himselfe the secondary and ministeriall foundation in the structure of his Church And as witnesses of this truth he alleageth Tertullian S. Basil S. Hierome S. Leo Hypolitus Opiatus expressly affirming that the name of Cephas signifieth a Rock and is the same that Petrus or Petra which he further proueth (s) Anno 33. out of the testimonies of S. Cyprian Tertullian Origen S. Epiphanius S. Hilary S. Hierome S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Cyril S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome S. Leo and of the Councell of Ephesus all of them affirming that Christ by Rock on which he was to build his Church vnderstood S. Peter And this they teach in as plaine and effectuall words as either Baronius or any Catholike liuing at this day is able to expresse And as Baronius citeth the words of these Fathers so he might of the rest for they were of the same beliefe as likewise all the generall CouÌ„cels which to auoid prolixity he omitteth but yet expresseth their doctrine in generall in these words All the Ecclesiasticall Orthodox writers that haue liued since the aforesaid Fathers alâ— the Synods that euer haue bene lawfully assembled in the hely Ghost haue no lesse constantly and ingeniously professed the same truth to wit that Peter is by Christ our Lord made the foundation of the Church By this it appeares how vntruly you say that Barenius opposeth his owne passion against the exposition of Protectants denying Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built since he confuteth it with the testimonies of all the Fathers of all generall Councels and of all Orthodox writers You by saying he opposeth his owne passion would persuade your readers that he had nothing els to say against their exposition but only to call it Impudent madnesse Whether he might not with reason haue called it so iudge your for what els can it be to deny that to be the true sense of our Sauiours words which all Fathers Councels haue professed to be the true and lawfull sense of them But you to haue a better colour of inueighing against Baronius say that he calls the exposition of Protestants Impudent madnes which is not true for he hath not the word impudent that 's your addition to his text 2. Hauing thus wronged Baronius you passe to Bellarmine saying (t) Pag. 38. that he to proue Peter to be the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church obtrudeth the consent of our owne schoole saying that by Rock it meant Peter it is the common opinion of all Catholikes He sayth so indeed but sayth he nothing els doth he not proue it out of twenty seuerall passages of the new Testament so expounded by the ancient Fathers Doth he not proue it out of the agreeing consent of the most famous Doctors aswell of the Greeke as of the Latin Church If this be to obtrude the consent of our owne schoole then your selfe being the iudge our schole consisteth not only of all the Catholikes of later ages but of Christ of his Apostles of his Euangelists and of the ancient Fathers of the Greeke and Latin Chuurch for all these Bellarmine alleageth These we acknowledge to be our schoole and from these maysters we haue learned our Doctrine And yours being contrary to this it is soon vnderstood out of what schole from what Maister you and your grand Tutors Luther and Caluin haue learned it 3. Hauing thus handled Baronius and Bellarmine you passe to Roffensis our learned Bishop of Rochester who in tyme of K. Henry the eight writ in defence of this Doctrine against Luther and sealed what he writ with his bloud Of him you say (u) Pag. 38. fin p. 39. he approueth the same exposition that Peter is the Rock on which the Church is built saying In this truth triumpheth as though it were as cleare as the Sunne which sunne-shyne we Protestants alas aur blindnesse cannot discerne but rather iudge that it hath bene and is mistaken by you for moone-shine through some defect in your faculties of sight So you taunting that learned Bishop and with him all Catholikes telling vs of his insultation but not without imposture for the insultation is not his but Luthers who though he bring nothing against this exposition as Roffensis sheweth foolishly insulteth vpon the Pope the ancient Fathers and all Catholikes for expounding Peter to be the Rock Adeste huc c. Come hither Pope sayth (x) Art 25. Luther and all you Papists melt and cast all your studies into one if perhaps yee be able to vnty this knot At least this authority stands victorious triumphant against you This insultation of Luther it is which Roffensis iustly retorteth on him Thou sayth (y) Adart 25. Luthert he to Luther vpbraydest these things to the Orthodox members of the Catholike Church and I will returne thee thine owne words Come hither Luther with all thy Lutherans cast all your studies into one and yet you shall neuer euince but that Christ foretold truth when he said he was to build his Churh vpon a Rock namely Peter This authority stands victorious against you and triumpheth and shall triumph ouer you And how true this speach of Roffensis is who knoweth not for in other Bishopricks euen in the greatest Patriarchall seates there haue bene many heretikes and not a few of them Arch-heretikes as in the See of Hierusalem Iohn the Origenist Salustius Arsenius Heraclius Hilarius In the See of Antioch Paulus Samosatenus Eulalius Euzoius Ioannes Domnus Petrus Gnapheus Macarius In the See of Alexandria Gregorius Sergius Cappadox Lucius Dioscorus Timotheus AElurus Moggus and others In the See of Constanâ—inople Macedonius Acacius Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus Petrus Aâ—astasius Anthymus Theodorus and others And who knoweth not that
the Churches founded by the other Apostles haue bene and still are ouerwhelmed with Paganisme Turcisme and heresie and that the Succession of Bishops hath fayled in them as of Iames in Hierusalem of Andrew in Achaia of Iohn in Asia of Thomas in India of Iude in Persia of Mathew in AEthiopia of Philip in Phrygia of Paul in Greece The Roman Church only is she to whom sayth S. Cyprian (z) L. 1. ep 3. misbelieue can haue no accesse she only hath euer remayned free from all spot and contagion of heresy or other infidelity and notwithstanding the outragious persecutions of Pagan Emperors the barbarous attempts of Saracens and Turkes and the furious assalts of all Heretikes she hath euer florished and still florisheth which euidently sheweth that she and none els but she with such other Churches as by vnion with her make one vniuersall Church are the true Church of Christ founded by him on S. Peter as vpon an impregnable Rock against which the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile Vpon this Rock sayth S. Hierome speaking (a) Ep. 57. of the Roman See I know the Church to be built She may be assalted she may be battered but ouercome she cannot be sor she sayth (b) Psalm contra part Donati S. Augustine is that Rock against which the gates of hell preuaile not And S. Leo the Great speaking of S. Peter and his See pronounceth (c) Epist. 89. that whosoeuer goeth about to violate the most sacred strength of the Rock Peter framed by the hand of God or to infringe the power of the Roman Church is most impiously presumptuous and that whosoeuer thinkes the Principality to be denyed to S. Peters Successor can no way diminish his dignity but puffed with the spirit of pride casts himselfe headlong into hell and (d) Ep. 74. that since the Vniuersall Church by that principall Rock Christ is made a Rock and the most blessed Peter chiefe of the Apostles hath heard from the mouth of our Lord. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church whe is he that dare oppose this inuincibletruth but either Antichrist or the Deuill I conclude therfore with Roffensis that the authority of S. Peters See grounded vpon the promise of Christ standeth deth victorious and triumphant against you and shall so remaine vntill the end of the world CHAP. VIII Abuses and Wronges offered by Doctour Morton to the ancient Fathers and other Catholike writers TO proue that Christ by the Rock on which he promised to build his Church vnderstood not S. Peter you obiect the ancient Fathers And first (e) Pag. 42. lit ◠S. Ambrose saying (f) Ad c. ◠Luc. lib. 6. Petra erat Christus Christ was the Rock There cannot be a more wilfull falsification for that Peter is the Rock on which Christ hath built his Church S. Ambrose teacheth when in his hymne mentioned by S. Augustine (*) Hym◠ad laud. Dom. speaking of S. Peters teares he sayth The Cock crowing the Rock of the Church washed out his offence The same he declareth and fully explicateth els where (g) Serm. 11. serm 47. and to shew your false dealing in that very place (h) L.e. comment in ca. 9. Lucae in which you alleage him for the contrary for he sayth that as Christ was the Rock so he communicated almost all his owne names to his Disciples He was the light of the world and he called his Disciples the light of the world c. And hauing proued the same of other names as of Bread of a Vine c. he particularly sheweth the same of the name of Rock saying Petra est Christus c. which are the words you obiect And then to shew that he gaue also this his name of Rock to S. Peter he addeth Etiam discipulo suo huius vocabuli gratiam non neganit c. And he refused not to honor his Disciple with this name that he also may be a Rock hauing from the Rock Christ the solidity of constancy and firmenesse of fayth 2. You obiect (i) Pag. 42. marg that S. Ambrose (k) Serm. 84. distinguisheth betweene the Rock and Peter as plainly as between Christ and a Christian But though S. Ambrose say that as Christianus is called à Christo so also Peter the Apostle is called Petrus à Petra yet he sayth not that Petrus is a deriuatiue of Petra as Christianus is of Christus but that Petrus and Petra is one the same name His words are because Christ is a Rock Simon is also rightly called Petrus that as he agreed in fayth with our Lord so also he might haue one and the same name with our Lord. Wherby it is euident that S. Ambrose taketh Petrus and Petra to be one and the same name And the same is euident out of the words of Christ for if he had said Tu es Petra super hanc Petram thou art a Rock and vpon this Rock I will build my Church there had bene no colour to deny that Christ promised to build his Church on Peter Ergo now there is none for Christ spake in Syriack Tues Cephas super hanc Cepham c. Wherupon S. Hierome (l) In c. 2 ep ad Gal noteth that Petrus signifies not one thing and Cephas another but the selfe same because what the Latins call Petra the Hebrewes Syrians call Cephas And the same is proued out of the Greeke for as Phauorinus aduertiseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haue one and the same signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being vsed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he confirmeth out of Euripides and not only he but Caluin and Beza (m) Ad cap. 16. Math. vers 18. confesse that Petrus and Petra are the same that Cephas and differ not in signification but only in termination And therfore as if the latin interpreter had said Tues Cephas super hanc Cepham c. the sense had bene playne against you so it is now for the Latin interpreter intended not to alter the sense of our Sauiours words but vsed Petrus rather then Petra because Petrus being the masculine gender was more fit to expresse the name of a man then Petra though both of them haue one and the same signification This you know right well and therfore cannot deny but that S. Ambrose acknowledged Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built for you say (n) Pag. 42. Among the Fathers S. Ambrose giues this reason (o) Serm. 47. why S. Peter was called Rock because he did first lay among nations the foundation of fayth but giues he no other reason Yes because he sustayneth the frame and weight of Christian building which words declare Peter to be the Rock or foundation on which the Church is built and therfore you mangle S. Ambrose sentence leauing them out 3. You obiect (p)
Pag. 42. r. out S. Hierome these words Petrus nominatur à Petra to signify that Petrus doth not signify a Rock but is a deriuatiue of Petra as Christianus of Christus But S. Hierome hath no such Doctrine but directly the contrary His words are vpon this Rock our Lord founded his Church from this Rock the Apostle Peter tooke his name to wit of a Rock And that this is the true sense of S. Hierome it is plaine out of his Comment vpon Mat. 16 where professedly declaring the words of Christ he sayth that they were not vaine and without effect but that by calling the Apostle Petrus he made him a Rock and that as Christ himselfe being the light granted to his Disciples that they shold be called the light of the world so to Simon which had belieued in Christ the Rock he gaue the name of Petrus and according to the metaphore of a Rock it is truly said to him I will build my Church vpon thee 4. You obiect (q) Pag. 42. c. S. Hilary to proue that not Peter but Christ himselfe is the Rock on which he promised to build his Church The words you bring are Vna hac fidei petra Petri ore confessa Tues Christus filius Dei viui I finde no such words in S. Hilary nor is it likely that he would vse confessa passiuely as in these words you doe But how imposterously you alleage him to proue that S. Peter is not the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church S. Hilary himselfe shall be the iudge O sayth (r) Can. 16. in Math. he in the title of a new name happy foundation of the Church and worthy stone of her Edifice O blessed Porter of Heauen to whose arbitrement are committed the keyes of the eternall kingdome whose iudgments haue authority to preiudge in heauen And els where (s) In Psal 131. he calleth Peter the first Confessor of the sonne of God the foundation of the Church And in that very place which you obiect (t) L. 6. de Trin. that after his confession subiacet he is layd vnder the building of the Church and receaues the Keyes of the heauenly kingdome 5. You obiect (u) Pag. 42.1 S. Epiphanius alleaging out of him these words (x) Haeres 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Rock of faith which shew that Peter is the firme Rock on which the Church is so strongly built that she shall neuer fayle in fayth But he that wil see your vnsincere dealing if he read S. Epiphanius his contexture shall find that in that very place which you cite for the contrary (y) Haeres 59. he affirmeth in most expresse words not once but thrice that Peter is the Rock on which Christ hath built his Church that he is the foundation of the Church and that Christ hath committed to him the charge of feeding his flock The same he teacheth in his Ancoratus (z) Propè inâ—t adding that all questions of fayth are in Peter Wherby is not only signified his supremacy which twice he there expresseth but also his authority to resolue all doubts of sayth and condemne all heresies which he expoundeth to be the gates of hell that shall neuer preuaile against the Church built vpon Peter 6. You say (a) Pag 40. Gregory surnamed the Great speaking of the foundation of the Church hath defined that whensoeuer the word Foundation is in the Scripture vsed in the singular number no other then Christ is signisied therby from whence you inferre that out of the Scripture Peter cannot be proued to be the foundation of the Church But you shall be iudged out of your owne mouth for you confesse (b) Ibid. that Petra a Rock is taken as all one with foundation you also grant (c) Pag. 42. that some of the Fathers vnderstand by Peter Rock you should haue said all for as Maldonate whom you cite (d) Pag. 39. f. marg noteth (e) In c. 16. Math. n. 16. prope fin none but heretikes euer denied it from whence it must follow that since the name of Rock which is all one with foundation is giuen him in Scripture it is all one as if the name of foundation had bene giuen him in Scripture And therfore Clemens Romanus Origen S. Hilary the Councell of Chalcedon Isidorus Pelusiota and others giue him the name of Foundation aswell as of Rock (f) Apud Iod. Cocc to 1. l. 7. art 4. 7. To S. Gregory the Great you ioyne Gregory the seauenth a most holy and learned Pope whom you traduce saying (g) Pag. 40. Hildebrand who in his owne opinion was greater then Gregory the Great and the greatest Dictator that euer possessed the Papall See Anno 1077. inuited Rodulph Duke of Sueuia to rebell against his Liege Lord and Emperor Henry the 4. and sent vnto the same Rodulph a Crowne with this inscription Petra dedit Petro Romam tibi Papa coronam Syr you haue bene formerly admonished by P. R. in his Treatise tending to mitigation against the seditious writings of Thomas Morton Minister of your tradueing and falsly slandering this holy Pope of whose admirable vertnes I may haue occasion to speake hereafter But you are still the same man and tel vs this fable which Baronius (h) Anno 1077. n. 7. apud Spond setteth downe as related by Albertus Stadenfis and Helmoldus two late writers whom he conuinceth of falshood shewing that the Princes of Germany who cold no longer endure the execrable wickednes insolency and oppressions of Henry and being greatly incensed against him for his sacrilegious practises against the See Apostolike wholly renounced him and chose in his place Rodulph Duke of Sueuia without either the aduice or knowledge of Gregory and brought him to Mentz where he was consecrated by Sigefridus Bishop of that Citty So vntrue it is that Gregory either Crowned him or sent any Crowne vnto him or any way incited him against Henry And it is to be noted that wheras you call Henry Rodulphs Liege Lord and Emperor he was neuer Crowned but only by Guibertus an Antipope set vp by himselfe to that end and consecrated by Bishops that were actually excommunicated and deposed But any thing wil serue your turne to make an argument against the Pope be it true or false 8. You obiect (i) Pag. 41. marg these words of Theophylact Confessio ipsa fundameÌ„tam But why do you mangle his words which are Our Lord rewardeth Peter bestowing a great fauour on him which is that vpon him he built the Church for because Peter confessed him to be the sonne of God he said that this Confession which he made shall be a foundation to them that belieue c. Can there be a more grosse falsification then to obiect three words of Theophilact to proue Peter not to be the foundation of the Church and leaue out the former part of the sentence in which he so expresly
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
at Hierusalem (s) Act. 15.7 seqq which as it was the first Christian Councell so was it the pattern of all others that since that tyme haue bene held in the Church of Christ For from this Councell it proceeded and euer since hath bene the custome of generall Councells that the Pope presiding by himselfe or by his legates first declareth the fayth of the Roman Church all Bishops subscribing and condemning the contrary And this is done to the imitation of this Apostolicall Synod in which Peter spake first and the rest following him confirmed his sentence Paul and Barnaby by relating the great signes and wonders God had done among the Gentils by them and Iames both by shewing the sentence giuen by Peter to accord with the words of the Prophets and by giuing this verdit of his owne (t) Act. 15.19 I iudge that they which of the Gentils are conuerted to God are not to be disquieted c. These are the wordes which you obiect (u) Pag. 64. to proue that not Peter but Iames gaue sentence in the Apostolicall Synod but without ground for the word I iudge contaynes no definitiue sentence not expresseth any authority but only signifieth It seemes to me or my verdict is the contrary were to make Iames Superiour to Peter which no man euer said Besides that the definitiue sentence was giuen by Peter the ancient Fathers expresly affirme none of them so much as insinuating that is was giuen by Iames. All the multitude sayth S. Hierome (x) Ep. 89. ad Aug. c. 2. held their peace and into his Peters sentence Iames the Apostle and all the Priests togeather did passe And long before him Tertullian (y) L. de pudicitia In that controuersy of keeping the law Peter by instinct of the holy Ghost spake of the vocation of the Gentils And hauing set downe S. Peters words he addeth This sentence both losed those things that were omitted of the law and bound those that were reserued It was therfore the authority of Peter that did bind and lose in that Councell for which cause S. Hierome (z) Ibid. calls S. Peter The Prince or author of the decree And finally the sentence of Peter was confirmed and ratified by the whole Councell and sent to Antioch by Paul and others chosen to that purpose to the end they might publish it as an Ordinance of the holy Ghost 6. Peter exercised his pastorall function by promulgating the Ghospell both to the Iewes and Gentils To the Iewes for he first of all the Apostles vpon the very day of Pentecost immediatly after the receauing of the holy Ghost preached vnto them Iesus Christ (a) Act. 2.14 seqq and exhorting them to pennance at that one Sermon conuerted about 3000. soules He spake sayth S. (b) Ad cap. 2. Act. Chrysostome as the month of all and the other eleuen stood by approuing with their testimony what he sayd Peter also was the man that first preached to the Gentils and that by speciall Commission from God as he declared in the Councell of Hierusalem saying (c) Act. 15.7 Men brethren you know that of old dayes God among vs chose that by my mouth the Gentils shold heare the word of the Ghospell and beleeue And to this end when God sent Cornelius the Centurion vnto him to be instructed he shewed vnto him that maruelous vision (d) Act. 10 1◠which is described in the Acts of the Apostles to declare that the tyme of founding the Church among the Gentils was now come And by bidding him kill and eat he declared him to be the Head of the Church for eating is an action that belongs to the head Hereupon Peter out of hand preached the Ghospell to Cornelius and other his friends and kindred and baptized them (e) Act. 10.35 seqq Againe who but Perer foūded the Churches of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithinia in which Constantinople is who founded the Patriarchall seates of Antioch where the faythfull were first called Christians but Peter Who the other seates of Alexandria and Rome the one by S. Marke his Disciple and the other by himselfe but Peter For Christ according to his promise chose him to found his Church and as S. Ambrofe sayth (f) Serm. 47. first of all to begin it both amongst the Iewes and Gentils giuing him therby the same place in his Church which the foundation hath in a materiall building and by that meanes notifying his supereminent dignity vnto vs for as S. Chrysostome wisely obserueth (g) In cap. 2. Act. One thing it is to open a gate that is shut giue begining to a worke as S. Peter did and another thing to prosecute the same worke after it is begun as the rest of the Apostles did 7. Peter of all the Apostles wrought the first miracle after the ascension of Christ in confirmation of the Ghospell which he had promulgated curing a man that was lame from the wombe of his mother (h) Act. 3.7 which S. Ambrose interpreteth to be an act of his supreme Pastorall power the healing and consolidating the lame mans feete betokening him to be the firme and solide foundation of the Church Because Peter sayth S. Ambrose (i) Serm. 68. is the Rock on which the Church is built with great reason he first healeth the feete that as he holdeth the foundation of fayth in the Church so likewise in man he may confirme the foundations of his limbes It was Peter also that raised Tabitha from death (k) Act. 9.40 working that kind of miracle first before any other of the Apostles And that aswell in working these first miracles as by performing other admirable things in the first place before the other Apostles he exercised his iurisdiction and authority S. Chrysostome expresseth in these words (l) Hom. 21. in Acta Peter walking as a Captaine in his army did consider which part was vnited and well ordered and which wanted his presence See how diligently he runnes vp and downe and is found to be the first in euery place When an Apostle is to be chosen he 's the first When the Iewes are to be certified that the Apostles are not druncke when the lame man is to be cured when the Ghospell is to be preached he is before others When the Princes and Ananias are to be proceeded against and when cures are to be made by a shadow Peter is the man and when miracles are to be wrought he steps out first where there is danger and where gouerment is necessary there Peter is but when things are in peace and tranquility they are left to all the Apostles indifferently Lastly Peter by the iudgment of our Lord was appointed to feed his flock whē he said vnto him (m) Ioan. 2◠26.27 feed my lambes feed my sheep By lambes he vnderstandeth the faythfull people by sheep which are the dammes of the lambes the Bishops and other Pastors of the
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
cleare that it is great impiety for a Christian to doubt therof S. Fulgentius sayth (s) De incarnat grat c. 11. that what the Roman Church teacheth the Christian world without hesitation belieues to iustice and doubts not to confesse to saluation S. Peter surnamed Chrysologus exhorteth Eutyches the arch-heretike thus (t) Ep. ad Eutych prafixa Act is Concil Chalced. We exhort thee reuerend brother to lend an obedient eare to the letters of the most holy Pope of the Citty of Rome for as much as the blessed Peter who liues and rules in his owne seate exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it I omit other testimonies no lesse cleare of S. Cyrill of Iohn and Maximianus Patriarkes of Constantinople of Venerable Bede S. Maximus Martyr Theodorus Studites Rabanus and others formerly alleaged (*) Chap. 1. sect 4. From this infallibility of the Roman Church it proceeded that the ancient Fathers and Councels for the decision of all doubts of fayth had euer recourse to the See of Rome and that many learned and holy Doctors haue sent their writings to the Popes of their tyme to be examined by them and approued if their Doctrine were found to be Orthodoxall or reproued if it were erroneous So did S. Augustine to Zozimus the 4. Primates of Africa to Theodorus the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to Innocentius S. Cyril to Celestine Theodoret and the Councell of Chalcedon to Leo the great S. Anselme to Vrbanus S. Bernard to Innocentius Other particulars I omit hauing dwelled long in this point already SECT II. Our second Argument AN other place of Scripture wherwith we proue the Roman Churches indefectibility in fayth are the words of Christ Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I wil build my Church the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it By the gates of hell Origen S. Epiphanius S. Hierome S. Cyril Rabanus and all other expositors vnderstand Heresies and Arch-heretikes by whom as by gates men descend into hell And contrarily by Rock they vnderstand S. Peter and his Successors in the Roman See against which heresies and whatsoeuer persecutions raised by them haue no more power to preuaile then the furious waues of raging tempests against a Rock firmely seated in the middest of the sea They may beate and breake themselues against it but destroy it they cannot And so experience teacheth for howbeit the Heathnish persecutors and other enemies of Christ haue tried their forces against it and all the other Patriarchall Sees haue fallen into heresy yet against the Roman Church God protecting it no persecutions no errors haue preuailed nor euer shall preuaile for she sayth S. Augustine (u) Psal cont part Donati is the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not Neither against the Rockon which Christ builded his Church sayth Origen (x) Tract 1. in Math. nor against the Church it selfe the gates of hell shall preuaile Vpon this Rock sayth S. Hierome (y) Ep. 57. speaking of the Roman See to Damasus I know the Church to be built he that gathereth els where scattereth Our Lord sayth S. Epiphanius (z) In Ancorato made Peter the chiefe of the Apostles a strong Rock vpon whom the Church of God is built and the gates of hell which are heresies and Arch-heretikes shall not preuaile against it for the fayth is euery way fortified in him S. Chrysostome sayth (a) Hom. 55. in Math. Our Sauiour promised to Peter power to forgiue sinnes that the Church hauing for her Pastor and Head a poore fisherman shold amongst the assalts of so many raging flouds remaine immoueable and more firmely fixed and setled then the strongest Rock S. Cyril explicating the same words of our Sauiour sayth (b) Apud S. Thom. in Catena ad c. 16. Math. According to this promise of our Lord the Apostolicall Church of Peter perseuereth in her Bishops pure and free from all seduction and circumuention aboue all Prelates and Bishops and aboue all Primates of Churches and people in the fayth and authority of Peter And wheras other Churches haue bene stayned with the errors of some she alone remaines established firmely and vnconquerably silencing and stopping the mouthes of all heretikes Possessor a famous African Bishop and banished by the Arians consulting Hormisdas Pope about the Doctrine of Faustus Rhegiensis yeldeth this reason (c) Extat Epistola apud Baron Anno 520. It is expedient to haue recourse to the head as often as the health of the members is treated of for who hath a more solicitous care of his subiects or from whom is the resolution of fayth when it is questioned to be required but from the President of that See whose first Rector heard from Christ Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it S. Leo the great (d) Serm. 2. de sua assump The solidity of that fayth which was praysed in the prince of the Apostles is perpetuall and as that remaines which Peter belieued so remaineth that also which Christ instituted in Peter Wherfore the disposition of truth remaineth and Peter perseuering in the strength of a Rock hath not left the gouerment of the Church which he once vndertooke S. Maximianus an ancient Patriarke of Constantinople higly commended by Celestine Pope (e) Ep. ad Theodosium and others (f) Apud Spond anno 431. n. 22. writeth to the Orientalls All the bounds of the earth haue sincerely acknowledged our Lord and Catholikes throughout the whole world professing the true fayth looke vpon the power of the B. of Rome as vpon the Sunne And then speaking of the reward which our Sauiour gaue to Peter for that excellent confession of his fayth he addeth For the Creator of the world amongst all men of the world chose S. Peter to whome he gaue the chayre of Doctor to be principally possessed by a perpetuall right of priuiledge to the end that whosoeuer is desirous to know any diuine and profound thing may haue recourse to the oracle and doctrine of this instruction Iustinian the Emperor maketh this profession of his fayth to Bonifacius Pope (g) Extat inter decreta Bonif. Papae The beginning of saluation is to conserue the rule of right fayth no way to swarue from the tradition of our fore-Fathers because the words of our Lord cannot faile saying Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock c. And the proofes of deeds haue made good those words because in the See Apostolike the Catholike Religion is always conserued inuiolable And the same profession was made by Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to Hormisdas Pope (h) In epist ad Hormisd abiuring the memory of all such as dye out of the Communion of the Roman Church or agree not in all things fully with her S. Gregory (i) L. 6. ep 37. Who knoweth not that the holy Church is strengthned by
the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles who with his name receaued the constancy of his minde being called Peter of a Rock to whom by the voyce of truth it is said I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen S. Maximus a famous Martyr the greatest Diuine of his age and a stout Champion of the Church against the Monothelites (k) Epist. ad Marin Diac. Apud Spond Anno 657. n. 2. All the Churches of Christians had their beginning and surest foundation from the Roman Church against which the gates of hell shall no way preuaile according to the promise of our Sauiour himselfe that she should haue the keyes of Orthodoxe fayth and confession and open to them that come to her religiously seeking true piety and contrarily shut and stop all hereticall mouthes that breath out iniquity against heauen Theodorus Studites a man very famous for his learning and constancy in defending the Catholike fayth writing togeather with other his Colleagues to Paschalis Pope (l) Ep. ad Pashal ep ad Naucrat calleth him Porter of the kingdome of Heauen and Rock of the fayth vpon whom the Catholike Churches built And the Roman See The supreme throne in which Christ hath placed the keyes of fayth against whom the gates of hell which are the mouthes of Heretikes haue neuer preuailed nor shall euer preuaile according to the promise of our Lord which cannot faile To these testimonies I adde others of Theodoret and Gelasius alleaged by Bellarmine (m) L. 4. de Pont. c. 3. which make vp more then a full Iury to pronounce you guilty of a solemne vntruth in denying (n) Pag. 55. that what was here spoken to Peter doth accordingly belong to the Pope by the right of Succession for you haue heard the Fathers teaching the contrary Their exposition I embrace and follow as the true sense of holy Scripture detest yours who haue nothing to say against it but to outface it by calling it An error to obiect against it the comment of Abulensis who say you (o) Pag. 55. teacheth that by those words Blessed art thou Simon there was granted to S. Peter an infallible certainty of his soules eternall blessednes which is an excellent priuiledge but no promise of authority made vnto him If Abulensis comment so his comment makes nothing to your purpose for he denies not the Church to be built vpon Peter nor grants that the gates of hell which are heresies shall preuaile against her Againe if he say for I haue not seene him that Christ by saying Blessed art thou Simon granted to S. Peter an infallible assurance of his eternall happines it followeth not that the same assurance passeth to his Successors as the office of Foundation Head and Gouernor of the Church doth for the assurance of eternall happinesse was for his owne peculiat good and therfore granted to him alone and not to his Successors But the office of Head and Gouernor of the Church was promised to him for the good of the whole Church and therfore to passe to his Successors according to the nature of priuiledges which is that when a prerogatiue is granted to a Gouernor for the good of the Community of which he is Gouernor as the office of Head and foundation of the Church was to S. Peter it dieth not with him but still liueth in his Successors Againe that comment of Abulensis if it be his I approue not for it is disproued out of the words themselues which being of the present tense import nothing els but a present blessednes in hauing so great a fauor bestowed on him as by the speciall reuelation of Almighty God to know the Diuinity of Christ and to be the first that made so illustrious a confession therof and as S. Basill (p) Orat. 3. de peccato in proem de iudicio Dei expoundeth to haue his confession rewarded with a promise of building the Church on him and of hauing the keyes of the kingdome of heauen committed to him which sayth he was a far greater blessednes then the other Apostles obtained And in the same sense expound S. Hierome (q) Ad c. 16. Math. and S. Augustine (r) Serm. 10. de verb. Do. serm 31. de verb. Apost But wheras out of the comment of Abulensis be it his or whose you please you charge vs (r) Pag. 56 with lack both of conscience and modesty in violating the sacred writ vnlesse to make good the iurisdiction of our Popes deriuatiuely from S. Peter we can shew that all of them by vertue of their succession from him are so blessed now in their hopes as to be infallibly persuaded that no temptation of Satan shall preuaile against their persons but that they shall be blessed euerlastingly you cannot be excused from fraud folly fraud in changing the state of the question for our assertion is that out of these words of Christ S. Peter and his Successors are secured from erring in their publike decrees and definitions of fayth But that Popes may not erre in manners to the damnation of their soules we neither deduce out of this nor any other place of holy writ nor is it true nor asserted by any Catholike nor necessary for the defence of their iurisdiction or priuiledge of not erring ex cathedra for Christ sayth S. Augustin (s) Ep. 166. hath placed in the chaire of Vnity the doctrine of Verity and secured his people that for ill Prelates they forsake not the Chayre of holsome Doctrine in which chayre euen ill men are inforced to speake good things And els where (t) Ep. 165. hauing reckoned all the Popes from S. Peter to Anastasius who then possessed his chayre he addeth If in all this tyme any traytor had come in by surreption it cold not breed any preiudice to the Church nor to innocent Christians for whom our Lord making prouision sayth of euill Prelates What they say do yee but what they doe do it not for they say and do not And as it is fraud in you to change the state of the question so is it folly to inferre that because Popes may be vicious in their liues they may erre in their publike definitions of fayth or manners to the seduction of others S. Augustine (u) Ep. 137. obserueth it to be an old tricke of Heretikes because they cannot calumniate the Scripture in which they find the Church commended to calumniate those by whom she is defended gouerned to make them odious And Tertullian long before (x) L. de Praescrip obserued the same in the heretikes of his tyme to whom he answered that what they obiected were vitia conuersationis non pradicationis faults of manners not of Doctrine and for this S. Augustine reprehendeth Petilianus the Donatist saying (y) Cont. lit Petil. l. 2. c. 51. Why dost thou call the Apostolike See the chayre of pestilence if for men whom thou thinkest to professe
Apostleship after them all yet in the dignity and function of an Apostle in preaching and in working of miracles he was not inferior to them And to shew how imposterously you bring this his testimony against S. Peters primacy he addeth that Though Andrew followed our Sauiour before Peter yet Andrew receaued not the primacy but Peter 2. You obiect (d) Pag. 60. fin S. Maximus saying Whether Paul or Peter is to be preferred is vncertaine Here againe you falsify For to insinuat that S. Maximus preferred Paul before Peter you peruert the order of his words placing Peter after Paul which S. Maximus doth not but contrarily Paul after Peter Againe he compares them not in authority but only in sanctity of life and merits Howbeit sayth he all the most blessed Apostles obtaine equall grace of sanctity in the sight of God yet I know not how Peter and Paul by a peculiar prerogatiue of fayth in our Sauiour surpasse the rest c. But which of the two is to be preferred is vncertaine for I thinke them to be equall in merits because they are equall in their death You make no mention of merits to persuade your reader that S. Maximus compares them in authority and so much the more you are to be blamed because in that very place he sayth that Paul hath the key of knowledge to preach and teach but Peter the key of power which is to say that Paul excelled in knowledge but Peter in authority And therfore els where he sayth (e) Hom. 3. in Nat. Apost Pet. Paul Peter was of so great merit in the sight of our Lord that after the rowing of a small boat the gouerment of the whole Church was committed to him and that (f) Hom. 1. de eisdem As Christ was a Rock so be made Peter a Rock and built his Church vpon him and gaue him charge of feeding his sheep and lambes which out of his mercy he had redeemed Wherfore as certaine as it is that S. Maximus held S. Paul to be a member of Christs Church and one of the sheepe which he redeemed so certaine it is that he held him subiect to S. Peter as to his Head and Pastor 3. You obiect (g) Pag. 60. fin out of S. Chrysostome Paul that I say no more was equall to Peter You still falsify S. Chrysostome sayth Paul was equall to Peter in honor to wit of an Apostle for of that he speaketh you leaue out in honor to inferre that he equaleth Paul with Peter in authority and iurisdiction which cannot be excused from imposture for one thing it is to be equall with Peter in the honor of Apostleship in which all the Apostles were equall vnto him and another to be equall to him in authority which none of the Apostles were Among the most blessed Apostles sayth S. Leo (h) Ep. 48 in the likenesse of honor there was difference of power and though the election of them all were a like yet it was granted to one that be should surpasse the rest from whence as from a patterne hath proceeded the distinction of Bishops The same is declared by S. Maximus (i) Serm. vlt. de Apost Pet. Paul yea and by S. Chrysostome himselfe in this very place which you obiect saying (k) In ep ad Gal. 1.18 Paul went to Peter as to one greater and elder then himselfe And (l) Hom. 87. Ioan. he went to see him because he was the mouth and Prince of the Apostles and head of the whole company These testimonies as they demonstrate Chrysostome to haue belieued that S. Peter surpassed Paul in authority so they conuince you of imposture in putting on him the contrary 4. You attribute (n) Pag. 60. fin to S. Hierome (o) In Psal 44. these words The titles of these two Apostles are equall they are Chiefes of the Church But S. Hierome vpon that Psalme hath no such words nor maketh any comparison between Peter and Paul nor any mention at all of them 5. You obiect (p) Pag. 61. init out of S. Basils epistles but at randome naming none in particular that S. Peter and Paul are Pillars of the Church And what of that As among many great one may be greater then another so of two Pillars one may be higher then another By those 7. Pillars mentioned in the Prouerbes (q) Prou. 9.1 some of the Expositors vnderstand the 7. Sacraments which yet are not all equall for Baptisme exceedeth the rest in necessity and the Eucharist in Excellency Others vnderstand the Doctors of the Church whom Daniel compareth to starres (r) Dan. 13.3 which yet witnesse S. Paul (s) 1. Cor. 15.42 are vnequall in their light And hereby is shewed the futility of your argument that S. Paul held Iames and Iohn to be equall in iurisdiction with Peter because speaking of them three he cals them all Pillars 6. You obiect (t) Pag. 61. init out of Casaubon that Eucherius calleth Peter and Paul Two Princes of the Christians But S. Hierome (u) In Psal 44. calleth all Bishops Princes of the Church and yet all Bishops are not equall in iurisdiction for Bishops are subiect to Archbishops Archbishops to Patriarkes Patriarkes to the Pope and so was Paul to Peter But let Eutherius speake for himselfe Christ sayth he (x) In vigil S. Pet. first committed to Peter his lambes and then his sheep because he made him not only a Pastor but Pastor of Pastors Peter therfore feedeth the Lambes 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 So Eucherius shewing how Casaubon and you abuse him and that if Paul be a sheep of Christs flock he is subiect to Peters pastotall authority A fourth text of Scripture you obiect (z) Pag. 59. which are those words of S. Paul They saw that the Ghospell of the vncircumcision was committed to me as the Ghospell of the circumcision vnto Peter Your glosse is that the ordinary ministration of these two Apostles was distinct Peter hauing for his Diocesse the Iewes and Paul the Gentiles which was of infinit extent larger But by the like argument you might inferre that S. Paul by calling Christ The minister of Circumcision (a) Rom. 15.8 and himselfe Doctor of the Gentiles (b) 1. Tim. 2.7 signified that himselfe had a distinct ordinary ministration from Christ a Dioces of farre larger extent then his Wherfore this clause implyes not any diuision of the authority of their ordinary Ministery nor yet that the Diocesse of Peter was confined to the Iewes or of Paul to the Gentiles for both of them preached to Iewes Gentiles It cōtaines nothing els but a speciall testimony of the blessing of God vpon S. Peter to persuade the Iewes and vpon S. Paul to persuade the Gentiles and yet not
teach the people out of it for as S. Hilary sayth (r) Can. 13. in Math. the Church is the ship in which the word of life is placed and preached and which they that are out of it cannot vnderstand but lye like sand barren and vnprofitable and the preaching of Gods word out of the ship of Simon in particucular signifies that Christ dwelleth in that society which keepes the fayth and communion of Peter and makes his See the pastorall chayre from whence by Peter and his successors he teacheth the doctrine of his Ghospell Our Lord sayth S. Ambrose (s) Serm. 11. goeth only into that ship of the Church of which Peter is Mayster our Lord saying Vpon this rock I will build my Church And then he addeth that the Church of Peter is the Arke of Nōe to shew that out of his Church none can be saued Which Doctrine S. Hierome likewise deliuereth comparing the Roman Church to the Arke of Nōe out of which whosoeuer is shall perish at the coming of the floud Moreouer howbeit other ships be tossed yet sayth S. Ambrose Peters ship is not tossed in her wisdome sayleth perfidiousnesse is absent (t) L. 5. in c. 5. Luc. fayth fauoureth for how cold that ship be tossed of which he is Gouernor that is the strength of the Church And S. Bernard (u) L. 2. de consider The sea is the world the ships the Churches From whence it is that Peter walking on the waters like our Lord shewed himselfe to be the only Vicar of Christ which was not to gouerne one nation but all for many waters are many people and therfore wheras each of the others hath his peculiar ship to thee he speakes to Eugenius Pope S. Peters successor is committed that one mighty great ship made of them all to wit the vniuersall Church of the whole world I conclude therfore that the ship of S. Peter is the pastorall Chayre from whence the doctrine of Christ is to be learned by all and the Arke of Nōe out of which none can be saued and that therfore betweene his ship and that in which S. Paul sayled as also betweene the priuiledges granted to the one and to the other there is as much difference as betweene the eternall saluation of all Gods elect and the corporall lyfe of a few Mariners and passengers that sayled with S. Paul Your seauenth and principall Obiection is (x) Pag. 65. If S. Peter had written of himselfe as S. Paul did of himselfe saying I haue the care of all the Churches this one wold haue seemed to you a firmer foundation then the word Rock or any other of those Scriptures wherby you labour to erect a Monarchy on S. Peter and by your consequence vpon the Pope ouer all Churches in the world Answere There are two kindes of solicitude and care one proceeding from the obligation of iustice the other merely out of the zeale of Charity The supreme care which S. Peter had both of all Churches and of their Pastours was of obligation of iustice because he had iurisdiction ouer them all as being supreme Pastor ouer the whole flock of Christ and therfore as the Pastor hath obligation of iustice to gouerne his flock and attend to the good therof so had S. Peter to attend to the good gouerment of the vniuersall Church and whatsoeuer persons therof which function was not committed to S. Paul nor did Christ promise to build his Church on him as he did on S. Peter and therfore that care he had of the vniuersall Church proceeded from his great zeale of Gods glory and feruorous charity which made him trauell so much in the conuersion of soules SECT VI. What estimation S. Paul had of the Roman Church YOu say (y) Pag. 65. S. Paul had not by farre so great estimation of the Roman Church as we would make the world belieue How proue you this because say you Dionysius Bishop of the Corinthians witnesse Eusebius (z) L. 2. c. 24. sayth that Peter and Paul both founded the Church of Corinth and that of Rome This then is your argument Dionysius Bish of Corinth sayth Peter and Paul founded the Churches of Corinth and Rome Ergo S. Paul had not by farre so great estimation of the Church of Rome as we would make the world belieue A witlesse consequence It is true that we account it a great honor and happinesse for the Church of Rome to haue bene founded by those two most glorious Princes of the Apostles and so it was also to the Church of Corinth But the Church of Rome was not only founded but moreouer ennobled by them for as Tertullian (a) L. de Praescr c. 36. obserueth they powred into her all their doctrine togeather with their bloud and enriched her with the inestimable treasure of their sacred bodies But her chiefest dignity and that which maketh her absolutely the Head and Mother of all Churches is that S. Peter the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church fixed his seate at Rome and ending his life there left the same dignity to his successors and they as occasion required ceased not to send their pastorall admonitions to the Corinthians for when not long after S. Peter and Paul had founded a Church among them they fell into errors and dissentions among themselues S. Clement Pope successor to S. Peter writ vnto them sayth S. Irenaeus (b) L. 3. c. 3. potentissimas literas most effectuall letters reducing them to peace and shewing them the Doctrine which they had newly receaued from the Apostles And to the same purpose Soter Pope not long after writ also vnto them And that the Corinthians acknowledged these epistles of the Roman Church to be sent vnto them as from their Mother Church whose doctrine they were to imbrace and receaued them as such appeareth in this that is Dionysius their Bishop and Eusebius (c) L. 4. hist. c. 22. out of him testify they held them in so great veneration that they vsed to read them publikely in the Churches for the instruction of the saythfull But this you could not see or if you did see it were willing to conceale it as not being for your purpose 2. Wheras we in commendation of the Roman fayth and Church are wont to alleage those words of S. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (d) Rom. 1.8 I giue thankes to my God through Iesus Christ for all you because your fayth is renowned throughout the whole world you say (e) Pag. 66. that we vpon this commendation of the fayth of those Romans vse in a manner to triumph as though that Encomium with the same fayth were hereditary to that Church or as if at that day Catholike and Roman had bene all one If in this testimony of S. Paul we triumph and hold the Catholike fayth and the Roman fayth to be all one and hereditary to the Church of Rome we do therin nothing more then
And therfore wheras here els where often (z) Pag. 377. 378. alibi you affirme peremptorily out of Ribera and take it as a truth granted by him and vs that Rome shall be the seate of Antichrist you passe the limites of truth for Ribera most expresly affirmeth (*) Adcap 11. Apoc. n. 20. sin 21. init that Antichrist shall haue his Court in Hierusalem reigne there and that the Iewes shall receyue and honor him as their Messias And the same is the most common and receaued opinion as well of our moderne Diuines as of the Ancient Fathers Hippolitus Martyr Lactantius S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine Sedulius S. Damascen Arethas Seuerus Sulpitius S. Gregory of Tours Venerable Bede Haymo and S. Thomas related by Suarez (a) Defens sid l. 5. c. 16. Bellarmine (b) L. 3. de Pont. c. 13. and Sanders (c) Visib Monarch l. 8. c. 26. that Antichrist shall not haue his seat at Rome but at Hierusalem And if the Rhemists say it may be that he shall haue his seat at Rome withall they rightly obserue that whosoeuer opposeth the Roman Church or belieueth otherwise then she teacheth belongs not to Christ but is an Heretike a member of Antichrist And the same was the beliefe of the most learned Doctors of Gods Church S. Hierome (d) Ep. 57. I know the See of Rome to be the Rock on which the Church is built And speaking to Damasus Pope (e) Ibid. Whosoeuer gathereth not with thee scattereth and is not of Christ but of Antichrist And before him S. Cyprian (f) L. 1. ep 8. had said He that gathereth out of the Church and chaire built vpon Peter scattereth Optatus (g) L. 2. cont Parmen that whosoeuer opposeth the Episcopall chayre of Rome built vpon Peter is a Schismatike and a sinner S. Leo (i) Ep. 75. that whosoeuer presumeth to oppose the Roman Church built by the voyce of our Sauiour vpon the most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles as vpon a Rock is either Antichrist or a Diuel S. Maximus a famous Martyr the greatest Diuine of his age (k) Epist. ad Marin Diue. that they which speake against the Church of Rome are heretikes that with vnbrideled mouths breath out iniquity against heauen S. Bernard (l) Ep. ad Hildebert Arch. Turon that they which be of God are vnited with the Pope and he that stands but against him either belongs to Antichrist or is Antichrist himselfe By these testimonies it appeares first how great reason the Rhemists Ribera and Viegas had to admonish you that this Prophecy of S. Iohn though in their opinion it point out the destruction of the City of Rome for her Idolatry vnder the Pagan Emperors and for the Apostacy from the fayth vnder other wicked kings in the end of the world when she shal returne to her ancient greatnesse yet it aymeth not at the Church of Rome or Bishop therof because that Apostacy shall be from the fayth of that Church and from the Bishop therof 2. And since you confesse (m) Pag. 75. that these Authors admonish their readers here of againe and againe thereby you conuince your selfe of folly for this your argument out of the Apocalyps against the Bishop and Church of Rome is wholy grounded on their exposition testimony which being so manifestly against you what man but your selfe would haue produced them or which is all one S. Iohn as expounded by them for witnesses against the Roman Church Or with what coÌ„science could you say here (n) Pag. 74. afterwards againe so boldly repeate (o) Pag. 377. 378. as their Doctrine that Rome shall be the seate of Antichrist since Ribera from whom Viegas dissententh not most expressly teacheth that Hierusalem shall be his seate and that he shall raigne there Is not this a most wilfull falsification 3. And from hence the reader may learne how fraudulently you remit vs to the testimonies of Ribera Viegas in their exposition of this text of S. Iohn to proue a necessity of your departure from the Church of Rome since they condemne you as an heretike and the holy Fathers pronounce you to be a member of Antichrist for it The departure which S. Iohn speaketh of is not from the Church of Rome but from the idolatry and vices which in his tyme reigned in the City of Rome and shall reigne in her againe in the end of the world And this departure is not to be made so much by locall motion as by steps of fayth that is by not communicating with her in her wickednesse And therfore notwithstanding that admonition of S. Iohn Goe out of Babylon my people the faythfull in his tyme did not leaue the Citty of Rome but still remayned there departing from her idolatry and other Vices But you aske (p) Pag. 76. 77. If the destruction of Babylon mentioned in the reuelation point only at the Citty and not at the Church or Bishop of Rome how can the Pope at that tyme still remayne Bishop of Rome when he and all Christian people are departed out of the City and the City it selfe is vtterly extinct for then to be called Bishop of Rome say you is but a man in the moone and Titulus sine re I answeare though at that time the Citty of Rome shall be consumed with fire yet the Church of Rome shall not for you (*) Pag. 76. confesse that the Church rather consisteth in the Professors then in the place and therefore whiles the faythfulll Professors of the Roman Church yea of Rome it selfe with their Bishop shall remaine which shal be till the end of the world though not in the Citty after it is destroyed the Church of Rome shall still remayne according to your owne Principle and chiefly according to the oracle of Christ That the gates of Hell shall neuer preuaile against her Suppose which God forbid Turkes and Infidels should take from you the Citty of Durham or that the same should be consumed by fire into ashes the whole multitude of your good godly Christians escaping away with your selfe liuing and being by you fed in some corner of your Diocesse in this case would you say the Church of Durham should be extinct the Bishop of Durham become Titulus sine re Should the superintendent of Durham be changed into the man in the Moone The Citty of Rome as Ribera (q) Ribera in Apocal c. 1â— n. 47. Pontificem cum multitudine Sanctorum eijcient Nam multi viri boni ex has potissimùm Ciuitate â—iecto Pontifici adhaerebunt holdes shall towardes the end of the world fall from the Christian fayth and obedience of her Bishop not that all the people of Rome shall fall away for a great multitude of good Christians and Saints shall remaine constant and adhere to the Pope and depart with him out of the Citty yea the Citty it selfe
Catholike and (g) Cont. Gand. l. 3. c. 1. Serm. 131. de temp ep 170. the interpretatioÌ„ of S. Augustine the Catholike Church be that which is vniuersally spread ouer the world the Roman Church and none els but she is the Catholike Church for Vniuersality agreeth to none but to her all Sects lurking in corners Wherfore you not only inconsideratly but against your selfe produce S. Augustine here (h) Pag. 89. and Optatus afterwards (i) Pag 341. to proue that your Protestant Church is the Catholike Church S. Augustine sayth (k) L de pastor c. 8. Not all heretikes are spread ouer the face of the earth yet there are heretikes spread ouer the whole face of the earth some heere some there yet they are wanting no where they know not one another One fact for example in Africa another heresy in the East another in Aegypt another in Mesopotamia In diuers places they are diuers One Mother Pride hath begot them all as our one Mother the Catholike Church hath brought forth all faythfull people dispersed throughout the whole world So said S. Augustine to the Donatists and so say we to you There are diuers sectcs in the world Wiclefists in Bohemia but in any other part of the world they are not There be Lutherans in Germany in Denmarke c. but in the rest of the world they be not There are ridged Caluinists in Geneua France and Scotland to whom you may ad your English Puritans but in other parts of the world they are not There are Protestants a more temperate sort of Caluinists in England but out of England they are not These therfore and all other sects of heretikes whatsoeuer are confined to a few Countries and therfore none of them can be the Catholike Church which is vniuersally spead ouer the whole world as the Roman Church is therfore she and none els but she is the Catholike Church Optatus speaking also to the Donatists sayd (l) L. 2. contra Parmen You will haue the Church to be where you are and you will haue it not to be where you are not that it may be with you you will haue it to be in a corner of Africa and that it may not be with vs you will not haue it to be in allmost innumerable Ilands Prouinces and Countries where we are and you are not So we say to Protestants you will haue the Catholike Church to be in England where you are but you will not haue it to be in so many other countries of Europe Africa Asia and America almost innumerable where we are you are not If your Church be the Catholike Church if it be vniuersally spread ouer the face of the earth as the Catholike Church must be we say to you as S. Augustine did to the Donatists (m) Ep. 163. Giue vs formed letters to men of your fayth and communion in all parts of the earth This you cannot do but we can for we are not only in Countries almost innumerable of Europe Africa Asia and America where you are not but we are also in England in France and all other Countries in which you are We therfore can giue you letters of communion to men of our Religion professing the fayth liuing in the communion of the Roman Church throughout all the world as well in places where you are as where you are not The Roman Church therfore â—â—e al one and â—onâ— but she is vniuersally spread ouer the face of the earth whersoeuer the name of Christ is knowne and therfore if Christ haue any Catholike Church on earth none but she is the Catholike Church The words which you obiect out of the Conferâ—nce of Carthage which in some copies are ioyned to Optâ—tus are neither his nor S. Augustine but of Balduinus a late Protestant writer of small credit But be they whose you please they are not pertinent to your purpose for no man doubts but that as the Church of Christ began at Hierusalem where his Ghospell was first preached by S. Peter and from thence by degrees spread ouer the world so whosoeuer is in communion of this Church vniuersally spread hath God for his Father and the Catholike Church for his Mother as S. Augustine professed himselfe to haue But withall he teacheth (n) Psal cont part Donat. and so doth all Antiquity that this Catholike Church so spread ouer the world is built vpon S. Peter and his Successors as vpon a Rock which the proud gates of Hell cannot ouercome and so doth S. Hierome saying (o) Ep. 57. to Damasus of the Roman See I know the Church to be built vpon this Rock In regard wherof he â—â—â—â—â—nceth all them that are not in the communion of the Bishop of Rome not to be of Christ but of Antichrist And for the same cause S. Augustine (p) Psal cont part Donat. grieued iâ— see the Douâ—tistâ—l ye cut of from the Roman Church and exhorted them as â—eunite themselues to her as branches to their Vine SECT II. The iudgment of S. Hierome concerning the Church Catholike WHat his iudgment was you haue partly heard 〈◊〉 â—â—eliâ—â—â—â—â— the Roman See to be the Rock on which the Catholike Church is built he was in her communion and (q) Ep. 57. â—eld you that refuse her communion to be a prophane person belonging to 〈◊〉 â—â—brist he held her to be The 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 whosâ—â—uer els shall be found at the â—â—â—â—ing 〈…〉 shall 〈◊〉 His iudgment was (r) Dial. cont Lucifer that if Christ 〈…〉 Church diffused throughout the world as the 〈◊〉 is â—hat wâ—s ordiâ—â—â— only as the sect of the Lucifâ—riâ—nâ— against whom he writeth was or only in a few Northerne parts of the world as your Protestant Congregaâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 fit iâ—â—e â—â—â—â—creding pâ—orâ— His iudgment was (s) Ibid. that 〈◊〉 â—orâ—â—ayne in that Church which being founded by the â—postles dâ—â—â—th vntill this day which is none els but the Roman 〈◊〉 in her alone there hath bene and still is a neuer interrupted Succession of Bishops from S. Peter vnto Vrban the eight who 〈◊〉 gâ—â—â—â—â—eâ—h that Church wheras there is no other Church founded by the Apostles in which Succession is not either wholly decaied or hath not bene often interrupted and broken of by heretikes or Arch-heretikes those Churches being wholly possessed by them His iudgment was that which he declarâ—â— when he said of Ruffinus (t) L. 1. Apol. aduers Ruffin Which fayth doth he call his is If that which the Roman Church holdeth then we are Catholikes And speaking to Ruffinus (u) Ibid. Know that the Roman fayth commended by the voyce of the Apostle admitteth not such delusions though an Angell should teach otherwise thâ—â—â—â—â—â—eth bene on â—â—â—â—iuered it cannot be altered being sensed 〈◊〉 Paul â—â—thority He declared his iudgment when he said to such as you are (x) Ep. 6. ad Pammach Ocean Whosoeuer thou are that auouchest noâ— Sects I pray thee haue respect to
a person of so great dignity and very aged he vndertake so long so laborious and so dangerous a iourney to declare vnto Anicetus the reasons of his persisting in the Asian custome which if Anicetus had then condemned it is not to be doubted but that Polycarpe would haue departed from it as all orthodoxe Bishops did when they saw it condemned by the Church and the defenders of it declared to be heretikes SECT II. S. Cyprian obiected by Doctor Morton TO proue that Cyprian belieued not any necessity of vnion with the Roman Church you repeate here (t) Pag. 185.188 what you had sayd before of his being excommunicated by Pope Stephen contemning the excommunication for which you bring no other proofe then the testimony of Cassander an heretike Primae classis whose workes you know to be forbidden and yet shame not to cite him as a Catholike author that you may call his lies Our confessions for that they be lies I haue already proued (u) Chap. 24. And so much the more reproueable you are because S. Cyprians testimonies which shew him to haue beleeued the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church and all that are diuided from her to be Schismatikes you shift off (x) Pag. 186. with an answeare of Goulartius that Cyprian spake them of his owne only authority against Schismatikes who troubled his iurisdiction Which to be a false and vnconscionable answeare you and your Goulartius may learne from the Centurists who reprehend S. Cyprian (y) Brerel Protest Apol. tract 1. sect 3. subdiu 10. for teaching that our Lord hath built his Church vpon Peter that one Chaire by our Lords voyce is built vpon Peter as vpon a Rock that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholike Church for calling Peters chaire the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued and for teaching that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all others the Mother and Roote of the Catholike Church To these testimonies acknowledged by the Centurists I adde that Cyprian (z) L. 4. ep 2. exhorteth Antonianus in time of Schisme to adhere to the Pope and hold fast his communion that is sayth he the communion of the Catholike Church and expressly affirmeth (a) L. de Vnit. Eccles that Who-euer resisteth the Chaire of Peter nether holdeth the fayth nor is in the Church And speaking of some certayne heretikes he obiecteth vnto them their great boldnesse in presuming to saile to the chaire of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praised by the voice of the Apostle and to whom perfidiousnesse can haue no accesse To this you answeare (b) Pag. 186. No Father of the primitiue times is more vrged by you then S. Cyprian no Epistle more insisted vpon then this no words more inculcated then these and we may adde no Father no epistle no sentence more egregiously abused and peruerted for he speaketh not of perfidiousnesse in doctrine but only in discipline by the false and perfidious reportes of schismaticall fellowes c. If this sentence of S. Cyprian be peruerted not we but you peruert it And so it will appeare to any impartiall Iudge that shall read the words not cut short as you rehearse theÌ„ that the sense may not be vnderstood but entire as I haue set theÌ„ downe The Nouatians were not only Schismatikes but heretikes as S. Cyprian in that epistle els where often calleth them And in the words alleaged when he opposeth their perfidiousnesse to the Roman fayth commended by the Apostle by perfidiousnesse he vnderstandeth error in doctrine or misbeliefe which is oposite to fayth not perfidiousnesse in discipline for that hath no opposition at all with fayth Wherefore he reprehendeth the Nouatians that hauing not only diuided themselues by schisme from the chaire of S. Peter which is the principall Church from whence sacerdotall vnity is deriued but also forsaken the Roman fayth praysed by the mouth of the Apostle they dare notwithstanding presume to saile to Rome in hope to deceaue that Church and get their doctrine approued by her not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth being praysed by the Apostle misbeliefe can haue no accesse to them Which doctrine S. Hierome seemeth to haue taken from this place of Cyprian when speaking to Ruffinus he saith (c) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. Know that the Roman fayth commended by the voice of the Apostle admitteth no delusions and that being fensed by S. Pauls authority it cannot be altered c. SECT III. S. Athanasius obiected by Doctor Morton THat S. Athanasius beleeued not the necessity of vnion and subiection to the Roman Church you proue (d) Pag. 190. for that being excommunicated by Liberius Pope he regarded not his excommunication This we deny It is peraduenture true though not altogether certaine (e) Onuphr in Not ad Plati Ruffin l. 1. histâ—c 27. Sozom l. 4. c. 14. that Liberius wearied out with two yeares banishment and other vexations by Constantius the Arian Emperor yeilded to signe the condemnation of Athanasius and entred into communion with the Arians and thereby became a Schismatike But that he excommunicated Athanasius is not reported by any writer nor is it true but a fiction of yours And were it true the excommunication had not only bene iniust as being pronounced against an innocent person and therfore no way obligatory but also inualid for as much as Liberius by forsaking the communion of Catholikes and entring into communion with heretikes was fallen from his Papacy and had no power to pronounce excommunication against Athanasius or if he had pronounced it Athanasius had not bene bound to obey To proue that Athanasius regarded not the excommunication of the B. of Rome you should haue proued that whiles Liberius was true Pope he excommunicated Athanasius and that Athanasius refused to obey which you proue not and therfore your obiection is impertinent and your assertion false For who knoweth not that Athanasius acknowledged the supreme power of the Roman Church when being cast out of his Bishoprick he appealed to Iulius Pope and Iulius by the dignity and prerogatiue of the Roman See restored him againe to his Church (f) Socrat. l. 2. c. 11. Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. And what els did he meane when he and the rest of the Aegyptian Bishops writing to Marcus Pope endorsed their letter To the holy and Venerable Lord of Apostolicall Eminency Marke Father of the holy Roman Apostolike See and of the vniuersall Church And in the letter We desire that by the authority of the Church of your holy See which is the Mother and Head of all Churches we may deserue to receaue the copies of the Nicen Canons by these our Legates for the instruction and comfort of the faythfull that being fensed by your authority c. And againe (g) Eadem Ep. We are yours and
de Pont. c. 2. it is defended by Gerson and Almain Doctors of Paris as also by Castro and Adrianus sextus and that it is tolerated by the Church Do not you then ouerlash saying that Bellarmines opinion is part of our beliefe necessary to saluation when he so expresly teacheth the contrary SECT VI. S. Hieroms iudgment concerning the necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof HE declared his iudgment (z) Ep. 77. when to assure himselfe to be in the communion of the Catholike Church he regarded not the communion of Paulinus in whose Patriarship of Antioch he liued but professed himselfe to stick fast to the communion of Damasus Pope that is to the chaire of Peter vpon which sayth he I know the Church to be built You answeare (a) Pag. 203. that by chaire he meant not the See and Bishoprick of Rome but the true Doctrine of fayth then preached at Rome euen as Christ spake of the chaire of Moyses that is sayth S. Hierome the law of Moyses This satisfieth not both because whē some Fathers expound fayth to be the Rock on which Christ built his Church they exclude not but include the person of Peter and chiefely because S. Hierome followeth not that exposition but euer vnderstāds the person of Peter his See to be the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church Christ sayth he (b) Ad cap. 16. Math. gaue to Simon that belieued in him the name of a Rock and according to the Metaphor of a Rock it is rightly said to him I will build my Church on thee And a litle after Christ did not then actually build his Church on Peter but promised to build it on him afterward saying I will build my Church on thee and I will giue to thee the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen Wherfore as he promised not to deliuer the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to Fayth but to Peter and his Successors so on him and them he promised to build his Church And the same is manifest out of the contexture of this his Epistle to Damasus for doth he not say I am ioyned in communion to your Blessednesse that is to the chaire of Peter vpon this Rock I know the Church to be built Whosoeuer shall eate the Lambe out of this house he is prophane If any one shall not be in the arke of Nöe he shall perish in the deluge These words conuince that S. Hierome by the chaire of Peter vnderstands not fayth but the Church built on him and his Successors for the house out of which no man can eat the lambe that is offer sacrifice is not fayth to which the denomination of a house cannot agree but the Church built vpon Peter which S. Ambrose (c) In 1. Timoth 3.15 calleth The house of God wherof Damasus was then Gouernor And the same is euident out of S. Hierome himselfe for fayth is not the Arke of Nöe but the Church of Peter out of which whosoeuer shall be at the comming of the deluge shall perish And I cannot but admonish you of a fraudulent reticence for being you make so great accompt of Erasmus produce him for your only author (d) Pag. 204. that S. Hierome by the chaire of Peter vnderstandeth fayth why do you conceale that vpon this very passage Erasmus sheweth S. Hierome to condemne your doctrine of falshood Here sayth he (e) Anotat in Ep. 77. S. Hieron Hierome seemeth to be wholly of opinion that all Churches ought to be subiect to the Roman See or surely not diuided from her which peculiarly glorieth in this Apostle that had the soueraignty among the Apostles and which is so Orthodoxall that of all Orthodoxall Churches she is the chiefest in dignity This you know to be the true meaning of S. Hierome but shift it of repeating often and with great variety of words that if S. Hierome pointed out the Church of Rome as the Arke of Noah yet therby he conceaued not a perpetuity therof that Virgin Hierusalem may become a harlot and that she hath no priuiledge neuer to apostatate But this euasion I haue already disproued (f) See aboue Chap. 12. sect 1. 2. by the promise of Christ made to S. Peter and his Successors that their fayth shall not faile and that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against the Church built vpon them To this I adde that S. Hierome acknowledgeth Damasus to be his Pastor (g) Ep 77. and therfore Pastor of the vniuersall Church for when he writ that Epistle he was an inhabitant of Palestine which being in the Patriarkship of Antioch Paulinus that was then Patriarke of Antioch was actually his Pastor and he actually a sheep of Paulinus therfore could not at the same time be actually a sheep of Damasus if the sheep of the Patriarkship of Antioch were not actually subiect to the pastorall authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome Yes say you (h) Pag. 202. He might be held a sheep of the B. of Rome in respect of his baptisme But this I deny for he that being baptized in one Dioces leaueth that and becometh an inhabitant of another eo ipso becometh a sheep of that Dioces which he inhabiteth and leaueth to be a sheep of the former in which he was baptized And as the Bishop vnder whom he was baptized can haue no authority ouer him after he hath left his Dioces vnlesse he be superior in power and iurisdiction to the Bishop whose Dioces he now inhabiteth so neither could Damasus be actually Pastor to S. Hierome hauing left the Dioces and Patriarkship of Rome and inhabiting that of Antioch if Damasus had not had pastorall authority ouer the sheep of the Patriarkship of Antioch Now to your obiections The first is (i) Pag. 205. S. Hierome twited and taunted Damasus saying But away enuy and let the ambition of the Roman height depart which he did not say so much in regard of Damasus his owne pride otherwise an excellent godly Pope as for the pride of the Roman top or height namely the ambition of his state This is impertinent and vntrue Impertinent for were it true as it is not that S. Hierome reprehended the pride of the Roman Church pride is not an error in fayth but a fault in manners and therfore no warrant for you to disauow the fayth or forsake the Communion of the Roman Church It is also vntrue for S. Hierome doth not only not twite Damasus but professeth himselfe to be ioyned in communion with his Blessednesse And much lesse doth he taunt his See which he acknowledgeth to be the Rock on which the Church is built And indeed who but you would haue charged S. Hierome with twiting and taunting Damasus an excellent godly Pope whom you acknowledge to be his pastor and spirituall Father that not for any fault of his owne but for faults feigned by you against
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
which there is a continued Succession of Bishops from S. Peter cannot be the Protestant 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 he grieued to see the Donatists lye cut off from her as branches from the vine Be yee ingraffed on the Vine sayth he to the (m) Psal contra part Donati Donatists It is a griefe to vs to see you so lye cut of number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranke of Fathers who succeeded whom That is the Rocke which the proud gates of hell ouercome not And as in these words S. Augustine sheweth the miserable estate of those then that are diuided from the Roman Church so on the contrary he declareth the happinesse and security of all that are in coÌ„munion which her when speaking of Cecilianus Archbishop of Carthage who had bene condemned by a numerous Councell of Donatist Bishops in Africa he sayth (n) Ep. 162. Cecilianus might haue contemned the conspiring multitude of his enemies because he knew himself to be vnited by communicatory letters both to the Church of Rome in which the Soueraygnty of the See Apostolike hath alwayes florished and to other Countreys from whence the Ghospell came first into Africa So teacheth Possidius Bishop of Calama a familiar friend to S. Augustine whose life he writ and therein reporteth (o) Cap. 18. that when Innocentius and Zozimus had condemned the Pelagians the most religious Emperor Honorius hearing of this sentence of the Catholike Church pronounced against them obeyed it condemning also by his lawes ordayned that they should be ranked among heretikes By which it appeares that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholike Church her iudgment in matters of fayth to be infallible and that the Emperors by their lawes seconded her iudgment comdemning as Heretikes those whom she had condemned So teacheth S. Cyril Patriarke of Alexandria explicating those words of our (p) Math. 16. Sauiour Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it According to this promise of our Lord sayth (q) Apud S. Thom. in Caten ad cap. 16. Math. he â—he Apostolical Church of Peter perseuereth in her Bishops pure free from all seduction circumuention aboue all Prelats bishops aboue all Primats of Churches and people most perfect in the fayth and authority of Peter And whereas other Churches haue bene stayned with the errors of some she alone remayns established firmely vnconquerably silencing and stopping the mouthes of all Heretikes we vpon necessity of saluation neither deceiued nor drunke with the wyne of pryde togeather which her confesse and preach the forme of truth and of holy Apostolicall tradition And (r) Apud S. Thom. Opusc 1. againe Let vs remayne as members in our head the Apostolicall throne of the Bishops of Rome from which it is our part to inquire what we ought to belieue and what to hold And lastly It is sayth the Angelicall (s) Ibid. Doctor proued necessary for saluation to yeild obedience to the Bishop of Rome for Cyril sayth in his booke of Treasures Therefore Brethren if we will imitate Christ let vs as his sheep heare his voyce remayning in the Church of Peter and let vs not be puffed vp with the wynd of pride least peraduenture the crooked serpent for our contention cast vs out as long since he cast Eue out of Paradyse So teacheth S. Peter for his golden eloquence surnamed Chrysologus exhorting Eutyches the Arch-heretike to leaue his heresy and learne the true fayth from the Church of (t) Epist. ad Eutych Rome We exhort thee Reuerend Brother to lend an obedient eare to the letters of the most holy Pope of the City of Rome for as much as the Blessed Peter who liues and rules in his owne seate exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it So teacheth (u) L. de promiss prodict Dei part 4. c. 5. S. Prosper The Apostles Peter and Paul founded the Church of the Gentiles in the Citty of Rome where they taught the Doctrine of Christ our Lord and deliuered it to their Successors A Christian communicating with this generall Church is a Catholike but if he be separated from it he is an heretike and Antichrist So teacheth Arnobius (x) In psal 106. explicating the necessity of remayning in the Roman Church in these few but effectuall words He that goeth out from the Church of Peter perisheth for thirst Whereupon Erasmus sayth (y) Praefat. instruct Comment in Psalterium Arnobius seemes to yeild this honor to the Roman Church that whosoeuer is out of her is out of the Catholike Church So teacheth Iohn an ancient Patriarke of Constantinople (z) In ep ad Orientales who making profession of his fayth to Hormisdas (a) In ep ad Hormisd Pope acknowledged that in the See Apostolike the Catholike Religion is alwayes conserued inuiolable and that they who consent not fully with the See Apostolike are out of the communion of the Catholike Church So likewise teacheth S. Fulgentius Bishop of Ruspa and a famous Doctor of the African Church who togeather which other Bishops his Collegues made this answer to Peter a Deacon that had bene sent out of the (b) L. de incarnat grat c. 11. East The Roman Church enlightned with the words of the two great lights Peter Paul as with radiant beames and honoured with their bodies and which is also the top of the world without hesitation belieues so to iustice and doubtes not to Confesse so to saluation So he teaching that no Christian ought to make doubt of the fayth of the Roman Church Againe a Disciple of his that writ and dedicated his life to Felicianus his Successor reporteth that when Fulgentius going to the (c) Vita S. Fulgent c 11. Extat in Biblioth Pat. Edit Colon. tom 6. wildernes of Thebais to fast arriued at Syracusa Eulalius Bishop of that City dissuaded him with these words Thou doest well in aspiring to greater perfection but thou knowest that without fayth it is impossible to please God and that a perfidious dissention hath separated those Countreyes into which thou art trauelling from the communion of blessed Peter wherfore Sonne returne home least by seeking a more perfect life thou runne hazard of loosing the true fayth By which it is euident that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholike Church and that all such as dissented from her Doctrine were out of the true fayth and incapable of Saluation So teacheth S. Leo the first Pope of that name for his admirable learning wisdome and sanctity surnamed The Great who writing to the Bishops of Vienne sayth (d) Epist. 89. Christ from the See of Peter as from a certaine Head powreth his gifts vpon the
Peter And againe those letters were not of Orthodoxe Bishops but of the Arians assembled in their false Councell at Antioch who with an hereticall pride stomaked at the Authority of the Bishop of Rome because as Sozomene there reporteth by the dignity and prerogatiue of his See he had restored to their Church Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria Paul of Constantinople and other Catholike Bishops whom they had deposed and rebuked them sharply for their vniust proceedings against them But yet their writing was more tolerable then yours for though to magnify themselues they alleaged that the Doctors of Christian Religion came first from the East to Rome yet withall they acknowledged (m) Sozom. ibid. that the Roman Church obtayned the prize of honour from them all as hauing bene from the beginning the Metropolitan of Religion A truth which you here conceale and euery where deny But you tell vs (n) Pag. 29. 30. that Bellarmine groundeth the motherhood of the Roman Church on a false principle taken out of the counterfeit epistles of Anacletus which is that all the Apostles had their Episcopall ordination of Pastorship from Peter which principle is denyed by Azor and Suarez Heere you speake vntruly and contradict your selfe for as you confesse (o) Pag. 38. Bellarmine groundeth the monarchie of S. Peter vpon those words of our Sauiour Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock will I build my Church c. And on the same passage as also vpon those other words Iohn 21. feed my lambes feed my sheepe by which Christ made him Pastor of his whole flock not only Bellarmine but all Catholikes with the ancient Fathers ground their beleefe of the Monarchy of S. Peter and of the vniuersall authority and motherhood of the Roman Church Wherfore Bellarmine here alleaged by you out of those passages of Scripture supposeth the supremacy of the Roman Church as vndoubted matter of fayth and from thence inferreth probablie as a singular priuiledge of S. Peter that all the Apostles had theyr Episcopall ordination from him and proueth the same not only out of the epistle of Anacletus which you are pleased (p) Pag. 29. 34. to call counterfeit and bastardly grounding your selfe on the testimony of Cusanus in a prohibited worke and which you know he himselfe hath retracted but out of the expresse testimonies of S. Cyprian of Innocentius the first in his epistles to the two Councels of Carthage and Mileuis of Iulius the first and Leo the Great all which you imposterously conceale This deduction of Bellarmine though it follow probably yet not so necessarily that the authority of the Roman Church any way dependeth theron And therefore other learned Diuines and in particular Azor and Suarez who no lesse firmely beleeued the Roman Church to be the mother of all Churches then Bellarmine did are herein of a different opinion from him holding that the Apostles were not ordayned Bishops by Peter but immediatly by Christ himselfe which say you (q) Pag. 29. 31. they mantayne vpon the oracles of God out of direct Scriptures accompanied with the consent of S. Augustine and many other Diuines And because you would haue vs beleeue that in their opinion none of the Apostles were ordayned by Peter you set downe in a different letter these words as theirs (r) Pag. 30. mitio Mathias had his ordination to the Bishoprick which Iudas lost not by the hands of Peter but by lot immediatly from God and S. Paul his not by S. Peter but by a voyce from Heauen euen immediatly from Christ. But your dealing is insufferable for these words are not theirs but feigned by your selfe and falsly fathered on them And as the words are not theirs so nether is the Doctrine for when they say The Apostles were ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ they speake not of Mathias and Paul but only of those twelue which Christ called and conuersed with in his life tyme as Suarez expressly declareth (s) De trip virt Theol. disp 10 sect 1. n. 7. prouing withall that both Mathias and Paul were not ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ but by the Apostles s their imposition of hands which also for as much as concerneth S. Paul he confirmeth with the testimonies of S. Chrysostome and S. Leo. Againe whereas you say they mantayne that the Apostles were ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ out of direct Scriptures accompanied with the consent of S. Augustine you cannot be excused from an vntruth for albeit Suarez in proofe of his opinion alleage the glosse vpon those words of the Apostle God placed in his Church first Apostles c. yet he neither vrgeth these words of S. Paul nor any other text of Scripture to that purpose nor any testimony of S. Augustine sauing one out of the booke of Questions of the old and new Testament which you ought not to regard because when it is alleaged against you you reiect it with contempt (t) Pag. 50. marg as hereticall contrary to S. Augustine but because you conceaue that here it makes for your purpose you will haue it to be S. Augustines So inconstant and contradictorious are you to your selfe And I must here also aduertise you of your absurd manner of arguing whiles you frame a syllogisme (u) Pag. 30. fin 31. assuming for your Maior proposition out of Bellarmine that all the other Apostles were ordayned Bishops by S. Peter and out of Suarez Azor for your Minor that all the other Apostles were not ordayned by S. Peter which being two contradictories as there is no man so senselesse that wil defend two opinions playnly contradictory so there is no man so foolish that will grant both the premises of this your syllogisme which yet he must do that will allow your argument to be good He that will defend Bellarmines opinion will deny your Minor and he that will hold with Azor and Suarez will deny your Maior and so your consequent in both the opinions is false for what els can a consequent be that is inferred out of two premises contradictory to themselues Moreouer you say (x) Pag. 34. fine 35. The nation of Brittayne by our owne accounts receaued the Ghospell Cardinall Baronius and Suarez acknowledging thus much out of most ancient records by the preaching of Ioseph of Arimathia in the 35. yeare of Christ two yeares before Peter did found the Church of Antioch where he was seated 7. yeares before he founded the Church of Rome that is to say in Brittany was planted a Church nine yeares before there was any Church in Rome and hereby so much her elder sister So you not without ignorance and falsehood for you set downe this acknowledgment in a different character as the words of Baronius and Suarez which yet are not theirs nor of any of the other authors whom you name but your owne fiction They indeed acknowledge that Ioseph of Arimathia came into Brittany but that his coming
words which you obiect to wit that Christ after his resurrection gaue equall power to all the Apostles saying As my Father sent me so I send you receaue yee the holy Ghost c. For by these words he gaue to them all equall authority to preach throughout the world to reueale matters of fayth assurance of infallibility to make canonicall Scriptures to institute the first mission of Pastors to remit sinnes to giue the holy Ghost and the like In this sense he sayth The Apostles were the same that Peter endowed with like fellowship of honor and power to wit in the exercise of these Apostolicall functions ouer the faythfull to whom he sent them But S. Cyprian sayth not that Christ made all the Apostles equall among themselues exempting them from the iurisdiction of S. Peter in the manner of exercising this power Nor is it true for he gaue it theÌ„ with subordination to him as to their Superior Peter sayth S. Leo (d) Serm. â— in Aâ—niuers suae Assumpt is preferred before all the Apostles if Christ would haue them to haue any thing common with him he gaue it them not but by him And this is declared and the reason therof yelded by Optatus S. Hierome and by S. Cyprian himselfe in that very place which you obiect for the contrary In the Episcopall chayre sayth Optatus (e) L. â— cont Parmâ—n was set the Head of all the Apostles Peter from whence he was also called Cephas to the end that in this only chayre Vnity might be preserued in all and that the other Apostles might not challenge to themselues ech one a seuerall chayre but that he might be a Schismatike and a sinner that against this only Chayre should erect another The Church sayth S. Hierome (f) L. 1. aduers louin c. 14. is built vpon Peter though els where it be also built vpon the rest yet among the twelue one is chosen to the end that a Head being made occasion of Schisme might be taken away And S. Cyprian (g) L. de vnit Eccles Christ to manifest vnity constituted one chayre and ordayned the originall of Vnity beginning from one giuing the primacy to Peter that so one Church of Christ and one chayre might be manifested And then declaring you that haue forsaken this originall of Vnity S. Peters Chayre on which the Church is built to haue lost the fayth and to be out of the Church he addoth He that keepeth not this vnity of the Church doth he belieue himselfe to hold the fayth he that resisteth the Church he that forsaketh the chaire of Peter on which the Church is built doth he thinke himselfe to be in the Church So S. Cyprian equalling you with the Nouatians for your disclayming from the Church of Peter CHAP. XII The authority of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth proued to be infallible HAVING in vayne shot your darts at S. Peter to dethrone him from the height of Authority in which Christ hath placed him you come now to try their force against the Bishop of Rome his Successor whose authority in his definitions of fayth you hold to be fallible SECT I. Our first Argument THat the authority of the Bishop of Rome in his definitions of fayth is infallible we proue out of the words of Christ spoken to S. Peter (h) Luc. 12.32 I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth faile not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren There is no man so voyd of vnderstanding sayth Leo the 9. speaking (i) Ep. ad Michael Impâ—r of this prayer that can thinke Christs prayer whose will is his power to haue bene inefficacious which the Apostle allso teacheth saying (k) Heb. 5.7 he was heard for his reuerence And for this prayer in particular Christ himselfe signifieth so much saying I haue prayed for thee for what would his prayer haue auayled Peter if he had not obtayned for him what he asked Or how cold his brethren haue any assurance of their confirmation in fayth from Peter if Peter could haue error proposing vnto them falshood for truth Againe that Christ in these words prayed not in mediatly for the whole Church nor for all the Apostles but for Peter alone appeareth in this that he expressed one singular person saying Simon Sâ—mon for in the Greeke it is twice repeated and added the pronounce of the second person I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth fayle not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren That Christ prayed not for the other Apostles you grant (l) Pag. 53. and take this for a ground to proue that he prayed for Peter only and not for Clement Vrban or any other of his Successors in the Roman See But your argument proueth nothing for Christ had formerly obtayned the personall perseuerance of Peter and the rest when he said (m) Ioan. 17.9 seqq for them I do pray c. Holy Father keep them in my name c. I pray not that thou take them out of the world but that thou preserue them from euill And therfore this prayer for Peters not fayling in fayth was not made for him in the person of a priuat man and without relation to his office of Supreme Pastor but as for a publike person that is as for the Head of the Apostles and Gouernor of the whole Church and consequently for his See and all his Successors in the same See for as that supreme dignity of Head Gouernor of the vniuersall Church was not to dye with Peter but to descend by him to his Successors so the effect of this prayer of Christ being a prerogatiue obtayned for Peter by reason of his office was to descend to Clement to Vrban and to whosoeuer hath hitherto or shall hereafter succeed him in the same office euen as whatsoeuer prerogatiue is granted to a Vice-Roy as Vice-Roy and as belonging to his office is consequently granted to all his Successors in the same office But you obiect (n) Pag. 54. that this priuiledge cannot agree to Peters Successors because Salas the Iesuit teacheth that a personall and singular priuiledge is that which is granted to an indiuiduall person with expression of his name and therfore doth not extend to any other but dyeth with the person to whom it is granted You vnderstand not Salas for he calleth a personall priuiledge that which is granted to an indiuiduall person as he is a piuat person only for his owne particular good not by reason of any publike office for the good and benefit of the community for if it be granted to him as to a publike person by reason of his office as this was to S. Peter as to the Head of the Church and for the common good of the Church though his name be neuer so much expressed in it it is not a personall but a common (o) See Bonacina Compend v. Priuileg or as Suarez (p) L. 7. de
leg c. 3. n. 23. from whom Salas learned his Doctrine de legibus call's it A reall priuiledge which he confirmeth with the example of a priuiledge that being granted to a certaine Bishop in the Canon law with expression of his name is notwithstanding supposed to passe to his Successors Now that this prayer of Christ was not made for Peter as for a priuate but as for a publike person that was supreme Head and Gouern or of the Church and consequently for the common good and benefit of the Church that therfore by vertue therof the Popes his Successors haue an infallible prerogatiue of not erring in their publike definitions of fayth to the seducing of others is the agreeing consent of the ancient Fathers in their expositions of this passage of S. Luke And 1. three holy Popes in their epistles Lucius the first to the Bishops of Spayne and France Felix the first to Benignus and Marke to S. Athanasius out of this prayer of Christ made for S. Peter gather the infallibility of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth But because Protestants hold for suspected the authority of these epistles I omit them and passe to such as by Protestants are granted to be vndoubtedly of those Popes to whom they are attributed 2. Therfore Agatho a most holy Pope and whom God graced with Miracles in his Epistle to the Emperor (q) Extat Act. 4. Apud Bin. to 3. pag. 12. Constantine Pogonat which was read in the sixt generall Councell and approued (r) Act. 8. 18. as the suggestion of the holy Ghoâ—t dictated by the mouth of the holy and most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles speaking by Agatho sayth Our Lord promised that the fayth of Peter should not faile and commanded him to strengthen his brethren which that the Popes my Apostolicall predecessors haue euer performed is a thing notorious to all This testimony sheweth that not only Agatho but all the Fathers of that Councell belieued this priuiledge of not erring in sayth and confirming others to haue bene obtained by Christ not only for S. Peter but for all his Successors and that this is a truth suggested by the holy Ghost and dictated by S. Peter speaking by Agatho 3. S. Gregory (s) L. 6. ep 37. Who is ignorant that the holy Church is strengthned by the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles who in his name receaued the constancy of his mind being called Peter of a Rock to whom by the voyce of truth it is said Confirme thy Brethren And els where (t) L. 4. ep 3. he proueth against Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople the authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer the vniuersall Church by the Commission giuen to S. Peter his predecessor It is manifest to all such as know the Ghospell that the charge of the whole Church is committed to the Apostle Peter Prince of all the Apostles for to him it is said Feed my sheepe And so him it is said I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth fayle not thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren Which testimony conuinceth thaâ— Christ prayed not for S. Peter as for a priuate person buâ— as for the Head of his Church and consequently for his Successors in him 4. S. Leo the great (u) Serm. 2. de Natali Apost Petri Pauli The danger of tentation was common to all the Apostles they all equally needed the protection of Gods help but our Lord taketh a speciall care of Peter and prayeth peculiarly for his fayth that the state of all the rest might be more secure if the mind of the Chiefe were not corquered The strength then of all is fortified in Peter God so dispensing the ayde of his grace that the assurance and strength which Christ gaue to Peter might by him redound to the Apostles And he addeth that as Peâ—er confirmed the Apostles so it is not to be doubted but that still he affordeth his help to his Successors in the Roman chayre and as a pious Pastor confirmeth them with his admonitions and ceaseth not to pray for them c. 5. Leo the ninth (x) Ep. ad Michael Imper. c. 7. The false deuises of all heretikes haue bene reproued confuted and condemned by the See of the Prince of the Apostles which it the Roman Church and the hartes of the Brethren strengthned in the fayth of Peter which hath not fayled hitherto nor shall euer fayle hereafter And the same sense of these words of Christ is deliuered by Nicolas the first (y) Ep. ad Michael Imp. and Innocentius the third (z) In Cap. Maior de Bap. If you answere that these testimonies are of Popes speaking in their owne cause I reply that they speake in the cause of God and his Church and are worthy of all credit both because they were men most eminent in learning sanctity as also because in this exposition they agree with the Fathers both of the sixth generall Councell and the rest for S. Ambrose sayth (a) Ad ca. 22. Luc. Behold what our Lord said and vnderstand it Peter is sifted he fall's into tentations but after his tentation is made Gouernor of the Church and therfore our Sauiour before hand signifieth why afterwards he chose him to be Pastor of his flock for he said vnto him And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren You see then that in S. Ambrose his iudgment Christ prayed for Peter as for the Pastor of his flock and that for Peter to confirme his brethren is to performe the office of Pastor and Gouernor of the Church which office as it was no lesse necessary afterwards then in S. Peters tyme so it descended from him to his Successors A truth which Theodorus Studites with other his brethren being pressed with the outragious persecutions of â—eretikes professe in their epistle to Paschalis Pope in these words (b) Apud Baron anno 817. Heare O Apostolicall Head made by God Pastor of his sheep porter of the kingdome of Heauen and Rock of the fayth vpon whom the Catholike Church is built for thou art Peter adorning and gouerning the See of Peter Christ our God said to thee And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren Behold now the tyme behold the place ayde vs c. Thou hast power from God because thou art Prince of all fright away the hereticall wild beasts c. And Theophilact (c) Ad cap. 22. Luc. expounding the same words The plaine sense of them is this because I hold thee as Prince of my Disciples when thou after thou hast denied me shalt weep and come to repentance confirme the rest for this becometh thee that next to me art the Rock and fortresse of the Church And we may vnderstand it not to be spoken of the Apostles only but of all the faythfull that shall be till the end of the world Which addition of Theophilact sheweth that this priuiledge giuen to Peter of not
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
THAT the seauenth and eight Generall Councells belieued the B. of Rome to be the Head and Gouernor of the Vniuersal Church is a truth not to be denied In the second Action of the seauenth Synod was read and approued the Epistle of Adrian Pope to Tharasius in which speaking of S. Peters See he sayth Whose seate obtayning the primacy shineth throughout the whole world and is the Head of all the Churches of God In the eight Synod the profession which all Schismaticall Bishops returning to the Catholike Church were to make is expressed in these words (f) Apud Bin. to 3. pag. 923. Can. l. 6. c. 6. pag. 200. The begiuning of saluation is to conserue the rule of right fayth and no way to swarue from the tradition of our Fore-fathers because the words of our Lord cannot fayle saying Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it And the proofes of deeds haue made good these words for as much as in the See Apostolike the Catholike religion is alwayes conserued inuiolable We therfore desiring not to be separated from the fayth and doctrine of this Sea and following in all things the constitutions of the Fathers and chiefly of the holy Prelates of the See Apostolike anathematize all heresies c. And a litle after Wherfore following the See Apostolike in all things and obseruing all her constitutions we hope to deserue to liue in one communion which the See Apostolike teacheth in which there is the true and entire solidity of Christian religion we promise likewise not to recite in the sacred mysteries the names of those which are separated from the communion of the Catholike Church that is to say which agree not to the See Apostolike What you thinke Doctor Morton I know not but sure I am that if you who deny the Roman Church to be the Head and gouernesse of all Churches you that liue out of her Communion you that refuse to obey her constitutions you that professe not to follow her doctrine had liued in tyme of the seauenth and eight Synods they would haue anathematized you and condemned your doctrine as hereticall And this is the reason why you conceale these many other passages of those Councells in which the same truth is deliuered and many other points of your Protestant Doctrine condemned SECT II. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the eight Generall Councell IN your eight Chapter in the title of the eight Section you say (g) Pag. 127. The beliefe of the Article Viz. The Catholike Roman Church without subiection wherunto there is no saluation damneth the eight Councell which you call generall consisting of 383. Bishops in the yeare 870. This is your title in proofe wherof you cite Binius (h) Tom. 3. p. 143. in your margent but ignorantly and falsly for the Councell which Binius there setteth downe is not the eight generall held the yeare 870. vnder Basilius the Emperor and Adrian the second Pope of that name but a particular Synod consisting of certaine Greeke Bishops assembled the yeare 692. by the industry of Calinicus Patriarke of Constantinople in the tyme of Sergius Pope Iustinian the yonger in his pallace called Trullum hath neuer bene esteemed a lawfull Councell but alwayes reproued as a false and erraticall assembly as Binius proueth (i) To. 3. pag. 154. 155. and I shall presently declare (k) Sect. seq Againe you say The eight generall Councell consisted of 383 Bishops and giue Binius for your Author But you are mistaken wrong Binius for he (l) Tom. 3. pag. 910. proueth out of Nicetas and Anastasius who was present at the eight Councell that it consisted only of 102. Bishops Nor will it serue you for an excuse that Bellarmine sayth it consisted of 383. Bishops for you bring not him for your author but Binius who affirmeth and proueth the contrary And in what sense Bellarmine speaketh you might haue learned if you had obserued what Binius noteth out of Anastasius namely that many other Bishops agreed to this Synod though they were not present at it But let vs go on What was done say you (m) Pag. 127. in this fourth Synod of Constantinople you may vnderstand from your owne men Here I must request you to call to mind that els where you say (n) Pag. 235. marg lit â— the Councell vnder Menas was the fifth Councel of Constantinople How then can the eight general Councel which you say was held the yeare 870. be the fourth Councell of Constantinople since in this other place alleaged you affirme the Councell vnder Menas held the yeare 553. to be the fifth Councell of Constantinople for therby you ignorantly make the fifth Councell of Constantinople to haue bene held aboue 300. yeare before the fourth SECT III. Whether the eight generall Councell condemned the Saturday fast allowed by the Roman Church YOu tell vs (o) Pag. 1â—7 that we may vnderstand from our Binius that these Bishops of the eight generall Councell condemned a custome of the saboth fast in lent then vsed in the Church of Rome and therupon made they a Canon inhibiting the Church of Rome from keeping that custome any longer And you adde (p) Ibid. This Canon sayth your Surius is not receaued because it reprehendeth the Church of Rome the mother-Church of all other Churches So you And your readers especially of the vulgar sort by this your expression what will they conceaue but that the Roman Church did in those tymes fast the Sundayes in Lent for as by the Saboth day Protestants especially the vulgar vnderstand no other day but Sunday so by the Saboth fast what will they vnderstand but the Sunday fast which was neuer vsed nor allowed in the Roman Church but condemned in the Councell of Gangra as an hereticall obseruation of the Eustathians (q) See Spond anno 319. n. 9. The fast which this Canon inhibiteth is the Saturday fast which as then it was so notwithstanding this Canon is still vsed by the Roman Church in Lent and not prohibited out of Lent Nor was that Canon made by the eight generall CouÌ„cell to whom you ignorantly ascribe it but by the Trullan Synod as Binius and Surius testify whom therfore you abuse in fathering on them your owne ignorant mistake of the Trullan Synod for the eight generall Councell And so much the more because both of them with all Catholike Diuines hold the Trullan Canons to be illegitimate and of no force for as much as no Legates of Sergius then Pope were present at that Synod nor was it assembled by his authority or consent but absolutely reproued and condemned by him notwithstanding the barbarous violence of Soldiers and other meanes vsed by the Empetor to extort a confirmation from him and his successors as Venerable Bede (r) L Dâ— sex aetat in iustinian iuniore who liued at that tyme
to resist all nouelties with such constancy as the authority of the See Apostolike and the seuerity of the Prelates assembled in one may not seeme to permit that the doctrine of those whom the Church hath long since condemned come to be borne againe 6. Eugenius another successor to Aurelius being pressed by the LieutenaÌ„t of Hunericus Lord of Africa to enter into a publike disputation with the Arians answeared (y) Victor Vtic. l. 2. He would not do it without writing to his fellow Bishops and chiefly to the Roman Church which is the Head of all Churches 7. S. Fulgentius sayth (z) De incarn grat c. 11. Which the Roman Church which is the head of the world holdesh and teacheth and with her the whole Christian world doth both without hesitation belieue to iustice and also doubts not to confesse to saluation And when the same Sainct was going to the wildrnesse of Thebais in Aegypt to fast (a) Author vitae S. Fulg. c. 12. to 6. Bibliothec Pat. he desisted from his intent when comming to Sicily he vnderstood from Eulalius B. of Syracusa that those Countries were separated from the communion of the Roman Church lest desiring a more perfect life he should runne hazard of loosing the true fayth And insteed of gong into Aegypt he went in pilgrimage to Rome to visit the Sepulchers of the holy Apostles Peter Paul 8. The African Bishops consulted S. Leo the great in their doubts of fayth and S. Leo writ to them a famous decretall Epistle (b) Leo ep 87. 9. Almost all the African Bishops 220. in number being banished into Sardinia by Thrasimundus the Arian King Symmachus Pope relieued maintained them at his owne charges (c) Paul Diac. l. 17. rerum Roman which he would not haue done if they had bene separated from his communion 10. Possessor a famous African Bishop writ to Hormisdas Pope (d) Ep. ad Hormisd It is fit and expedient that we haue recourse to the Heard as often as the health of the members is treated of for who hath greater solicitude of his subiects or from whom is more to be required the stability of fayth that is wauering then from the President of that seate whose first Gouernor heard from Christ. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church 11. Victor Bishop of Vtica reporteth (e) L. 1. de persequut Vandal that the Arians in Africa did call the Catholikes Romans as you now call vs Romanists which they did vpon no other ground then because the African Catholikes were of the Roman Communion 12. And that the possession which the Bishop of Rome were in of appeales out of Africa was not interrupted by the sixt Conncell of Carthage is prouâ—d out of Ferrandus a Deacon of that Church (f) Breuiar Can. art 59. 60. which liued soone after that tyme hath registred in his collection of Canons this as the fifth sixth Canon of the Councell of Sardica That a condemned Bishop may if he will appeale to the See Apostolike and that during the appeale no other can be ordained in his place By these and many other euidences which may be produced it is manifest that by this Controuersy of Appeales the Africans were not separated from the communion of the Roman Church and that therfore to affirme as you do that they remained in the state of separation for the space of 100. yeares vntill the tyme of Boniface the second is a notorious vntruth for all the examples here alleaged are of African Bishops that liued within the compass of 100. yeares after the sixth Councell of Carthage Against this truth confirmed by so many euident and vndeniable proofes that the African Church was not in the dayes of Aurelius Primate of Africa and S. Augustine seuered by Schisme from the Roman Church you vrge the Epistle of Boniface the second wherein he testifieth that the African Church was in his dayes reconciled vnto them Roman In the Body of your Councells say (g) Pag. 148. you there is (h) Apud Suriumtom 2. Concil pag. 384. So you quote him falsly for it is Tom. 1. Concil pag. 1057. extant the Epistle of Boniface the second wherein about the yeare 606. the same Pope complaineth that Aurelius with his fellow-Bishops of Africa with whome S. Augustine did consent had by the instigation of Satan for so the Epistle speaketh been separated from the Church of Rome vntill now after an hundred yeares space Eulalius Bishop of Carthage acknowledging his offence seeketh and desireth to be reconciled to the Church of Rome Thus farre the Epistle of your Pope Do you belicue this Epistle concerning the Excommunication of the Churches of Africk Then had you best stand aside a while for scare of knocks For behold there are at hand children of the Tribe of Dan angry fellowes that lay about them 1. Bellarmine (i) Bellar. lib. 2. de Pont. Rom. c. 25. I greatly suspect sayth he that this Epistle is counterfait 2. It is full of fraud sayth (k) Binius Tom. 1. Conc. in hanc Epistolam Binius 3. Which sayth Baronius some wicked Impostor hath fayned c. Do not you belieue this Epistle of Boniface to be true Then harken to your (l) Lindan Panopl l. 4. c. 89. Lindan This Epistle sayth he is not supposititious but true c. Thus you And then finding in Baronius that during those huÌ„dred yeares there were whole troopes and armias of African Martyrs and holy Confessors you triumph and bid vs take (m) Pag. 150. this your Syllogisme to ruminate vpon No true Christian Martyrs dye out of the state of Saluation Diuers true Christian Martyrs dye out of Obedience to the Roman Church Ergo Diuers dying out of Obedience to the Roman Church dye not out of the state of Saluation Thus you dispute in your fancy victoriously as hauing by this your discourse and Syllogisme knock't the Roman Church on the heal I shall first discouer the weakenesse and vanity of your Syllogisme then shew the multiplicity of your falsities and fraudes supposed and cunningly contriued into your relation of the Story lastly lay open the reasons why that Epistle may be suspected yea reiected as being Counterfait In your Sollogisme I grant the Maior Proposition That no true Martyr dyeth out of the state of Saluation In your Minor or Assumption Diuers true Christian Martyrs dye out of obedience to the Roman Church I distinguish sundry Kinds of Disobediences First there is disobedience Heretical which resists the doctrines decrees of Fayth deliuered by the Catholike Roman Church yea denieth the prime article of Christian vnity the headship and supreme authority of her Bishop In the state of this Disobedience there can be no true Martyrdome no hope of Saluation Secondly there is Disobedience Schismatical which belieuing firmely the Doctrine of the Roman Church and acknowledging the Supreme authority of her Bishop excepts against the present
Her fayth is built vpon the word of Christ promising (t) Math. 16.18 that the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile against her and (u) Luc. 22.32 that the fayth of Peters See shall neuer faile Wherfore as it is impossible that Christ should faile in the performance of his promise so is it impossible that the necessity of vnion with the Roman Church should not be perpetuall Lastly you bring examples of antiquity (x) Pag. 125. requiring vnion with other Churches as well as with the Roman This Argument you haue prosecuted before (y) Pag 100.101 out of your owne obseruations of antiquity with many examples some of which you repeate here adding others vnto them (z) Pag. 229.230 The answere you haue receaued (a) Chap. 15. sect 9. to which I add that your Argument is as if you persuading rebells to ioyne not only with their Soueraigne but also with other his loyall subiects I shold lay to your charge that you hold loyall subiects to be of equall authority with their Soueraigne It is true that while subiects stand loyall to their Prince he that ioynes in loyalty with them is a loyall subiect But the reason why he is a loyall subiect is not because he ioyneth with them but because both he and they ioyne in obedience and subiection to their Soueraigne In like manner it is true that whatsoeuer Churches are in Communion with other Orthodoxall Churches that agree with the Roman in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike hath alwaies florished (b) Aug. ep 162. they are to be accompted Orthodoxall and Catholike Churches but the reason why they are to be accompted Catholike is not for their agreement among themselues but because they all agree with the Church of Rome the Head and originall Source of Catholike communion for which cause S. Cyprian explicating what a Catholike is makes no mention of other Apostolicall Churches which were extant in his dayes but absolutely defineth (c) L. 4. Ep. 2. 8. that to be a Catholike is to communicate with the B. of Rome And S. Ambrose (d) Orat. de obitu Satyri that to agree with Catholike Bishops is to agree with the Roman Church from which sayth he (e) L. 1. ep 4. ad Imperat. the rights of Venerable Communion do flow vnto all other Churches she being the source and they streames deriued from her as from their natiue fountaine (f) Innocent apud Aug. ap 91. And S. Irenaeus (g) L. 3. c. 3. pronounceth it necessary for all Churches not excepting the Apostolicall to agree with the Church of Rome by reason of her more mighty principality that is because her sayth cannot faile she being the Rock on which the Catholike Church is built (h) Hieron Ep. 57. ad Damas and against which the gates of hell cannot preuaile (i) Aug in Psal cont partem Donati as they haue done against all the other Apostolicall Churches SECT IX S. Hilary B. of Arles acknowledged himselfe subiect to the B. of Rome THe last witnesse you bring (k) Pag. 225. to proue the no-necessity of vnion and subiection to the Pope Church of Rome is S. Hilary B. of Arles in France who though he deserued great commendation for his labors against the Pelagian heresy and defence of S. Augustines workes yet for a tyme he stayned his glory when exceeding the limits of due moderation and insisting in the steps of Patroclus an inuasor of that See he presumed to vsurpe to himselfe the rights of the Metropolitans of Vienna and Narbona ordaining deposing Bishops in their districts a thing which no way belonged to him and had bene forbidden by the Councell of Turin (l) C. 13. This being complained of against Patroclus first to Boniface and then to Celestine Popes lastly to the blessed Pope Leo against Hilary that he had presumed to depose Celidonius a Bishop of the Prouince of Vienna and he being still liuing to ordaine Proiectus in his place he was so far from persisting in this crime to the end of his life that he went himselfe in person to Rome in a most submissiue and penitent manner to make satisfaction for his offence He vndertooke sayth the author of his life (m) Apud Cuiac obseruat l. 5. c. 38. a iourney to Rome on foote and entred into the City without any horse or beast of cariage and presented himselfe to Pope Leo reuerently offering him obedience and humbly intreating that he might ordaine the state of the Churches after the accustomed manner c. but if it were not his will he would not importune And againe (n) Ibid. He applied himselfe wholly to appease the spirit of Leo with a prostrate humility Hauing pleaded his cause being found guilty he departed from Rome without staying his sentence and returned presently to Arles neuer laying any further claime to the iurisdiction which formerly he had vsurped as appeareth out of the Epistle which Leo writ against him to the Bishops of the Prouince of Vienna (o) Leo Ep. 89. wherin hauing fully declared and proued the supreme authority of the See Apostolike to be instituted by Christ himselfe he annulled what had bene iniustly presumed by Hilary and prescribed a rule to be obserued in the creation of Bishops And lest Hilary shold raise tumults seeking to support his cause by force of armes as formerly he had done Leo required of Valentinian the third that if any such attempt were made he would cause it to be suppressed by Aetius commander of the soldiers in France This the Emperor performed writing to Aetius that famous Rescript which afterwards Theodosius the yonger inserted in his new Constitutions intituling it The Law of Theodosius and Valentinian in which he relateth the whole story of Hilary and professeth his great veneration of the See Apostolike and of the Popes supreme authority ouer all Churches Bishops and particularly his right to conuent them before him and prescribe Lawes vnto them ordaining withall that if any Bishop being summoned by him shall refuse to appeare the Gouernor of the Prouince shall enforce him to obey to the end sayth he that in all things that Reuerence be obserued which our Parents bare to the Roman Church This is the history of Hilary truly related out of the author of his life out of the Epistle of Leo out of the Rescript of Valentinian Is it not then vnshamefastnesse in you to say (p) Pag. 225. that we without any proofe would make you belieue that at length Hilary yeilded to the Pope making no further apology for the defence of his cause What Is the relation made by the Author of his life no proofe Is the epistle of that renowned Pope S. Leo the great no profe Is the Rescript of Valentinian inserted into the ciuill law by Theodosius neuer doubted of by any man of learning or iudgment no proofe But you tell vs that Iacobus
S. Peter Head of the Apostles to the end that all being subiect to one occasion of schisme among them might be taken away This passage you alleaged out of S. Hierome in your laâ—e Sermon preached at Durham before his Maiesty (s) Pag. 42. to proue the necessity of Bishops against the Scots A Bishop then is necessary to appease the contentions that may happen among your Ministers But contentions and strifes may also arise among Bishops An Archbishop therfore is necessary to quiet them But they may likewise arise betweene Archbishops as they did betweene Theophilus Chrysostome Flauianus and Dioscorus Cyril and Nestorius who shall end them If you say a generall Councell who shall summon that Councell Not a temporall Prince for no one hath power ouer all nations from whence the Bishops are to be called besides that temporall Princes are often at variance among themselues And when a generall Councell is called what if the Bishops agree not or decline from the truth as in the Councel of Ariminum the second of Ephesus they did Who shall compose their differences and iudge their causes vnlesse some one Head of the whole Church be appointed by Christ whose iudgement is infallible and to whose censure all are bound to submit Wherfore the Puritans argument propounded by M. Cartwright (t) Second Reply part 1. pag. 58â— concludeth euidently against you that This point of keeping peace in the Church is one of those which requireth aswell a Pope ouer all Archbishops as one Archbishop ouer all Bishops in a Realme From this vnity of the Head the Church of Christ vniuersally spread ouer the earth takes her vnity Euen as there are sayth S. Cyprian (u) De vnit Eccles many beames of the sunne and one light many bowes of one tree and yet one strength founded in one roote and many brookes flowing from one fountaine a vnity therof conserued in the spring euen so the Church of our Lord casting forth her light displaieth her beames euery where throughout the world and yet her light is one she extends her bowes ouer the whole earth and spreads her flowing riuers farre and neere and yet there is one Head one beginning and one fruitfull and plentifull Mother And lest you might answeare that this one Head of the whole Church mentioned by S. Cyprian is none other but Christ he declareth himselfe saying (x) Ibid. Our Lord to manifest vnity hath constituted one chaire ordained by his authority that vnity should haue beginning from one And explicating who this one is he sayth (y) Ibid. Vpon Peter being one he buildeth his Church and to him commendeth his sheepe to be fed c. The primacy is giuen to Peter that the Church may be shewed to be one And therefore he cals the Chaire of Peter (z) Ep. 55. The principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity proceedeth S. Augustine (a) L. de pastor c. 13. Our Lord committed his sheepe to Peter to commend vnity in him There were many Apostles and to one it is sayd feede my sheepe S. Leo (b) Serm. 3. de assump sua Peter being one is chosen out of the whole world to be constitated ouer the vocation of all nations ouer all the Apostles and all the Fathers of the Church to the end that although there be many Priests and many Pastors in the people of God yet Peter may peculiarly gouerne them all whom Christ also principally ruleth And S. Bernard speaking to Eugenius Pope (c) L. 2. de consider Thou being one art Pastor not only of the sheepe but of all Pastors c. Christ committed all his sheep to one to commend vnity in one flock and in one shepheard Where there is vnity there is perfection If therfore Christ committed his whole flock to Peter being one if one Head among twelue Apostles were necessary to take away occasions of Schisme among them their number being but small how much more necessary was it that for the same cause the whole Church which by reason of the multitude of Bishops and people is more liable to schisme should be gouerned by one Head Who although he be a weake man Christ praying for him (d) Luc. 22.32 hath secured vs that his fayth shall not faile and to the end he may confirme all his brethren hath placed him (e) Aug. ep 166. in the chaire of Vnity in which euen ill men are enforced to speake good things And though he be but one yet he is assisted by other Bishops as his Coadiutors and they by inferion Pastors that so the Bishops watching ouer the inferior Pastors and the supreme Pastor ouer the Bishops the gouerment of the Church labor therof might be diuided among many and yet chiefly committed to one to whom the rest were to haue recourse as the Apostles had to Peter Among the most Blessed Apostles sayth S. Leo (f) Ep. 84. there was in the likenesse of honor a difference of power And although the election of them all was alike yet it was granted to one that he should be aboue the rest in authority from which modell the distinction of Bishops hath proceeded with great prouidence it hath bene ordained that all should not claime all things to themselues but that in seuerall Prouinces there should be seuerall Bishops whose sentence should hold the first ranck among their brethren and againe that others constituted in the greater cities should haue a more ample charge and that by them the gouerment of the vniuersall Church might flow to the seat of Peter and that none might euer dissent from their Head This was the doctrine of that renowned Father and the same hath bene the beliefe of all Orthodoxe Christians And you that oppose it by telling vs a tale of a wrens head placed vpon the sholders of a man shew your selfe not to vnderstand the things of God (g) Math. 16.13 but to measure them by your shallow capacity not considering that according to his promise the supreme Pastor to whom he hath committed the charge of his flock is gouerned by the holy Ghost in his consultations of fayth and that as without his assistance no multitude of Prelates is able to gouerne the whole Church so with his helpe one may performe it as experience teacheth But you obiect (h) Pag 350. 1. That we cannot haue certitude of any B. of Rome because his ordination dependeth vpon the intention of the Ordainer then which what can be more vncertaine This you had obiected before and haue receaued your answere (i) Chap. 5. sect 7. And S. Cyprian (k) L. 4. ep 9. hath told you that to raise such doubts is to doubt of the prouidence of God and to rebell against his ordination 2. You obiect (l) Pag. 350. Iohn the twelth wanting yeares and other conditions necessary for that dignity tooke possession of the Roman Church by intrusion and that therfore in his time the
and of such speaches as are hardly thought to passe from the furious Diuell himselfe No meruaile theÌ„ if Oecolampadius in his answeare to Luthers Confession of fayth passe this verdict on him He began his former booke with the Diuell now he endeth this with the Diuell No wonder if Conradus Regius (r) Lib. cont Ioan. Hess de coena Dom. testify of him that God for his great pride did take from him the spirit of truth as he did from the Prophets mentioned in the third booke of Kings Chap. 22. and in place of that his spirit gaue him an angry proud and liyng spirit And to omit other testimonies Ioannes Campanus a famous Zuinglian (s) In Colloq Lat. Luth. to 2. fol. 351. passeth this censure on him Quam certum est Deumesse Deum tam certus Diabolicus mendax est Lutherus As certaine as it is that God is God so certaine it is that Luther is a lyer and belongs to the Diuell And therfore in the end he tooke him as one that belonged to him for hauing one euening eaten drunken very liberally he was the next morning found dead in a most horrible manner (t) Cochl in vita Luth. alij passim so vgly and deformed that it was not hard to ghesse at the author of his death which was such as he himselfe expected when he sayd (u) Ep. ad Spalat to 2. Epist Latin not long before I daily wait for death and for the deserued punishment of an heretike I conclude therefore with Origen (x) Hom. 3. in Exod. ante med Orandum nobis est c. We are to pray that our Lord vouchsafe to open our mouth that we may be able to conuince theÌ„ that contradict and stop that mouth which the Diuell opened SECT VI. Whether the Roman Church be as subiect to errors as any other Church YOur Thesis is affirmatiue (y) Pag. 374. your Proofes repetitions of arguments already answeared One only you adde heere repeate afterwards againe (z) Pag. 397. 400. which is The Church of Rome hath erred in matter of fayth Ergo she may possibly erre I deny your Antecedent You proue it The administration of the Eucharist vnto infants vpon necessity of saluation was taught continued in the Church of Rome for the space of 600. yeares together but you confesse there is now no such necessity Ergo in those former times the Church of Rome erred It is a knowne principle in Scholes that he argueth absurdly who proposeth an argument that makes as much against himselfe as 〈◊〉 his aduersary to which therefore himselfe in 〈…〉 is bound to answere Such iâ— this of yoâ—â—◠〈…〉 of Rome erreth not now in 〈…〉 the Eucharist to 〈…〉 â—â—testants herei◠〈…〉 no such necessâ—â—â— professe tha◠〈…〉 error in fayâ—h fo◠〈…〉 (a) Pag. 276. 178. hold now the 〈…〉 leeued the doctriâ—◠〈…〉 charist to infants vpon 〈…〉 ding to your principles â—â—red 〈…〉 you can make I know not Sure 〈…〉 denying that the reall administration 〈…〉 â—â—fants is necessary for their saluation can gâ—â—◠〈…〉 solution to this difficulty which yet in the princâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 Catholike doctrine is easily answeared Wee haue learned two sacred principles from the mouth our Sauiour The former is (b) Ioan. 3.5 If one be not borne againe water and the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of Goâ—â— If therfore we will enter into the kingdome of God we muâ—â— receaue the SacrameÌ„t of baptisme really or at least i◠〈◊〉 Whosoeuer is growne to perfect age when he ca◠〈…〉 ceaue it really it is sufficient for saluation to 〈…〉 intentionally in desire by fayth and other good Actâ— of which infants are not capable and therefore the reâ—â—â—â—eceauing of the Sacrament of baptisme is necessary for them to saluation If thou wilt be a Christian Catholike sayth S. Augustin (c) De anima eius orgi l. 3. c. 9. neyther belieue nor say not teach that infants dying without baptisme can be saued And the contrary doctrine he reporteth (d) L. de haeres ad Quodvuls haer 88. as an Article of the Pelagian heresy The other principle is (e) Ioan. 6.34 Vnlesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you It is therfore necessary to saluation for all as well infants as others to receaue the holy Eucharist either really or at least in vow And this vow may eyther be explicit that is a desire of receauing it when it cannot really be had or els 〈◊〉 as in the Sacrament of baptisme for that in bapâ—◠〈…〉 vow of the holy Euâ—◠〈…〉 the first (f) Rescrip ad Concil Mileuit Ep. 25. S. Auguâ—◠〈…〉 â—â—omas of Aquine as 〈…〉 proued by the great 〈…〉 â—â—e two most Eminent 〈…〉 â—â—n (i) Repliq. l. 2. troiseme Obseru Chap. 11. (g) To. 3. in 3. part disp 40. sect 2. §. Hinc 4. The words of 〈…〉 â—â—s purpose It is in no 〈…〉 him (l) Tom. 6. in c. 10.1 ad Corinth Ven. (h) Tom. 3. Contr. l. 1. de Euchar c 7. Bade 〈…〉 partakerof the body 〈…〉 â—â—er of Christ in baptisme 〈…〉 of that bread of that 〈…〉 â—â—d and drinke of that cup 〈…〉 â—â—d in the vnity of the body 〈…〉 â—â—pation and benefit of that 〈…〉 which the Sacrament sigâ—◠〈…〉 â—â—ius and S. Augustine 〈…〉 â—â—essity of baptizing inâ—◠〈…〉 for them to receaue 〈…〉 â—â—ceaued before the be 〈…〉 â—â—aptisme which is the 〈◊〉 all the â—â—â—â—â—aments â—â—righâ—â—y followeth against the â—â—lagians thaâ— Baptisme is absolutely necessary for infants to the end thâ—t therby they may receaue the Eucharist at least in vow without which they cannot be saued In this sense and in no other these Fathers and the Church of Rome with them haue taught a necessity of administing the Eucharist to infants to wit so farre forth as it is contained implicitly and virtually in Vow in the Sacrament of baptismer for that a reall administration of the Eucharist vnto them was necessary for saluation she neuer taught which you and other Protestants not vnderstanding impute the contrary doctrine to her assuming it as an argument that she hath erred in varying from that doctrine which once she taught To this Thesis you adde an other (l) Pag. 375. that The Roman Church is more subiect to error then any other Church Christian which to be a shamefull vntruth appeareth out of the promise of our Sauiour made to S. Peter and his successors that the gates of hell which are errors in fayth shall not preuaile against the Church built on them and out of his prayer made for them that their fayth shall not faile for that this promise of Christ and this prayer were not made to S Peter nor for him as he was a priuat man but as he was Head of the Church and therfore extend to all his successors in the Roman See to secure them
know and am able I desire to obey his ordinances in all things least peraduenture if I coming to the gates of the kingdome of heauen there be none to open vnto me he being offended with me that is knowne to keep the keyes So teacheth Aponius in his learned Commentary vpon the Canticles (q) In Cant. lib. 2. saying It is manifest to all the earth where the pasture of holsome doctrine was reuealed to Peter to wit when Christ asking he answered Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God c. These pastures the Iew sees not nor the Gentill nor yet any heretike whatsoeuer for they follow not that Pastor whom Christ the Prince of Pastors hath left as his Vicar in the world So teacheth Theodorus Studites a holy Abbot and very famous for his learning and constancy in maintayning the Catholike fayth against heretikes who with diuers Regulars his Collegues writing to Paschalis Pope among other titles calls him The (r) Ep ad Paschalem Papam chief Priest of Priests Pastor of the sheep of Christ Porter of the kingdome of heauen and Rock of the fayth vpon whom the Catholike Church is built And the Roman Church he (s) Ibid. calles The supreme throne in which Christ hath placed the keyes of fayth against whom the gates of hell which are the nouthes of heretikes haue neuer preuailed nor shall euer preuaile the fountaine of Orthodoxall truth the quiet hauen of the Vniuersall Church against all hereticall stormes the chosen Citty of refuge for saluation And els where speaking of the Heretikes of his tyme he (t) Ep. ad Naucrat sayth I protest here before God and man they are diuided from the body of Christ and the supreme See in which Christ hath deposited the keyes of fayth against which the gates of hell that is to say the vnbrideled mouths of heretikes haue neuer preuailed nor shall preuaile euen to the end of the world according to the promise of our Lord which cannot fayle And (u) In opere de cultu imag againe So great is the fayth of the Romans that there is seene to be the impregnable rock of fayth founded according to the promise of our Lord. These two later testimonies are set downe and highly commended by that learned Patriarke of Constantinople Gennadius Scholarius who addeth to them this verdict of his (x) In defens Concil Florent c. 5. sect 17. owne If that diuine See belieue not aright Christ lyes when he sayth Heauen and earth shall passe but my words shall not passe for in these words he promised his Church to be with her and that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her So teacheth Rabanus that learned Bishop of Mentz (y) Apud S. Thom. in Catena ad c. 16. Matth. Therfore Peter specially receaued the keyes of the kingdom of heauen and the Soueraignty of iudiciall power that all the faythfull throughout the world might vnderstand that whosoeuer in any sorte separate themselues from the vnity of his fayth and society can neither be absolued from the bonds of their sins nor enter into the gate of the kingdome of heauen And the same power of the Roman Church to shut the gates of heauen against all those that diuide themselues from her communion he expresseth againe in a Poeme which he writ in prayse of the holy Crosse to Gregory the fourth of that name The same teacheth Petrus (z) Baron anno 105◠Damiani a Bishop of excellent learning and of a most holy and austere lyfe that liued six hundred yeares since and was sent by Nicolas the second together with S. Anselme Bishop of Luca to Milan to extinguish the heresies of the Simonians and Nicolaits wherwith diuers clergy men of that Citty being infected to the end they might auoyd the correction and censure of the Roman Church pretended that the Church of Ambrose was free and not subiect to the lawes of the Pope of Rome for the cōfutation of which error Petrus Damiani made a learned oration in which he prooued effectually the supreme authority granted by Christ to the Roman Church aboue all Churches and that whosoeuer denies her authority is an heretike And this his Oration tooke so good effect that those licentious Clergymen abandoning their heresy submitted themselues to the Roman Church with promise neuer to depart againe from her Communion So teacheth S. Bernard who (a) In ep ad Innocent 2. writing against Schismatikes giueth this rule to distinguish between them and Catholiks Those that are of God are vnited willingly to Innocentius the true Pope And he that stands out against him either belongs to Antichrist or is Antichrist himself To omit the like testimonies of many other holy and learned Doctors so writeth our famous Arch-bishop of Canterbury (b) De Eucharist conc Boreng Lanfrancus that liued almost six hundred yeares since deliuering his owne and their Verdicts in these words worthy to be noted The Blessed Doctors if not in the same words yet in the same sense haue vnanimously taught in many places that euery man which dissenteth from the Roman and vniuersall Church in Doctrine of fayth is an heretike If therfore the Blessed Doctors those I say whom Protestants with vs acknowledge to haue liued and died in the true sayth and to haue bene members of the Catholike Church and lights of the world haue all agreed in this and these be their expresse Tenents faithfully deliuered in their owne words that whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church is to beheld as an Heretike of peruerse iudgment or as a Schismatike and self-liking presumptuous man That he which standeth out against the See of Rome neither is in the Church nor holds the true fayth That vpon necessity of saluation we ought to remayne as members in our Head the Apostolicall throne of the Bishop of Rome That if we imitate Christ we are as his sheepe to heare his voyce remayning in the Church of Peter That he who opposeth the Chayre of Peter is a Schismatike and a sinner That he agrees not with the Catholike Church That he is a prophane person That he gathereth not but scattereth That he is not of Christ but of Antichrist That he shall perish at the comming of the floud That he perisheth for thirst That a perfidious dissension hath separated him from the Communion of S. Peter That he is an Heretike and Antichrist That he can no way be partaker of the diuine mysteries That he is either Antichrist or a Diuell That in the next world he shall haue the entrance of lyfe shut vnto him That he is guilty of the heresy of the Acephalists That he gainsayth S. Peter the Porter of Heauen That he cannot be admitted into the gate of heauenly paradise That he is an Heretike speaking iniquity against Heauen That he cannot be loosed from the bonds of his sinnes That he either belongs to Antichrist or is Antichrist himself These be the very Tenents of
Eusebius Nebrissensis proueth the like by examples of other natioÌ„s And to what he sayth I adde the reason which Blessed Augustinus Triumphus a holy and ancient wryter that liued 400. yeares since yieldeth (l) De Potest Ecclesiact c. 7. art â— why S. Paul in the Popes buls is somtimes placed on the right hand of S. Peter S. Paul sayth he was lesse then Peter greater then Peter and equall to Peter He was equall to Peter in the office of preaching lesse then Peter in Ecclesiasticall power for Peter alone was Cephas that is Head of the whole Church but he was greater then Peter in the prerogatiue of his election to the Apostleship for he was chosen by Christ after his resurrection glorification for this cause Paul in the Popes bulls is placed on the right hand Peter on the left So he Hauing now answered the arguments which hitherto you haue brought out of S. Pauls epistles and shewed that by alleaging them you conuince your owne Doctrine of falshood and proue ours I must craue pardon if I aske you a question concerning his Epistle to the Romans which Optatus asked the Donatists concerning some other of his epistles and S. Augustine concerning them all How dare you sayth Optatus (m) L. â— cont Parmen read S. Pauls epistle to the Romans in whose communion you are not You sayth S. Augustine (n) L. 2. de Baptism c. 6. that haue it and read it and say that you liue according to it why doe you not communicate with the Church to which it was sent Answere why haue you separated your selues c Choose which you will If then that is when Donatus when Luther when Caluin began the Roman Church was polluted with errors it was perished for a Church that holds false pernicious schismaticall hereticall blasphemous and Antichristian Doctrine with which you often charge the Roman Church cannot be a true Church of Christ but a Synagogue of Satan from whence then had Donatus Luther or Caluin his begining where was he Cathechized where baptized where ordayned I conclude therfore as Optatus did against the Donatists Know that you are cut of from the holy Church And I say to you as S. Augustine did to them (p) L. de vnit Eccles c. 12. You haue the epistle to the Romans but we read it and beleeue it and haue the Roman Church in our communion from which we grieue with him (p) Psal cont part Donati to see you lye cut of she being that Rock which the prowd gates of hell ouercome not CHAP. XIII Whether S. Iohn the Euangelist conceaued himselfe subiect to the Roman Church YOVR Tenet is (r) Pag. 73. that S. Iohns fayth did not conceaue the Article of subiection to the Roman Church In proofe therof you assume that in his booke of Reuelation he reuealeth the City of Rome to be Babylon that Autichrist shall haue his seate there which though it were granted yet I see not which way it followeth that Iohn did not acknowledg himselfe subiect to S. Peter or â—o his Successors in the Church of Rome But let vs examine the particulers of your Doctrine and proofes SECT I. Whether Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist THat the City of Rome is Babylon mentioned in the Reuelation say you (s) Ibid. is the gener all consent of our owne Iesuits and other Diuines But in proose hereof you can find no other Iesuits nor Diuines to alleage but Ribera Viegas and the Rhemists whom you abuse and falsify to make them serue your turne as I shall now declare The Rhemists say you (t) Pag. 74. do thus farre grant as to say The great Antichrist shall haue his seat at Rome as it may well be though others thinke that Hierusalem rather shall be his principall soat But your Iesuits Ribera and Viegas both of them Spanish Doctors and publike professors do confidently auerre the contrary and the one is so bold as to hold him to be a most notable foole that shall deny it But good Sir by your leaue this is a most notable vntruth That which Ribera sayth is that towards the end of the world Rome shall be burned not only for her former sinnes of Idolatry and persecuting of Christ vnder the Pagan Emperors but also for other sinnes that in the end of the world she shall commit vnder Pagan Kings and that this is so certaine out of the Apocalypse that no man though neuer so foolish can deny it This Ribera sayth and it may well be said that he who out of these words of Ribera inferreth as you do that the City of Rome is to be the seat of Antichrist or that Ribera sayth so is I will not say a notable foole but whether he deserue not that name I leaue to the readers censure The Doctrine of Ribera Viegas the Rhemists is that when S. Iohn calleth Rome Babylon he neither speaketh of the Church or Pope of Rome nor yet of the Citty of Rome as she is vnder the gouerment of Christian Emperors or in obedience of the See Apostolike for in that estate the hath sayth S. Hierome (u) L 2. cont louin wiped out the blasphemies written in her forehead by the confession of Christ. In that estate (x) Ep. 17. ad Marcell there is in Rome the holy Church there are the triumphant Monuments of Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the fayth praysed by the Apostle and gentility troden vnder foote the name of Christ daily aduancing it selfe on high Wherfore when S. Iohn calleth Rome Babylon Ribera Viegas and the Rhemists with the ancient Fathers expound him to giue her that name as she was the head of Paganisme the mother of superstition and Idolatry and persecuted the Church and Popes of Rome being drunke with the bloud of the Saints Martyrs of Christ Iesus (*) Apoc. 17.6 as she did vnder Nero and Domitian in S. Iohns tyme afterwards vnder other Pagan Emperors when she put to death thirty Popes successiuely one after another and as she shall do againe in the end of the world for both Ribera and Viegas hold that the Citty of Rome shall then fall from the obedience of the See Apostolike and from the fayth of Christ and that as well for her enormous sinnes anciently committed vnder the heathen Emperors as also for other like which in the end of the world she shall commit vnder heathenish Kings she shall be burn's and consumed with fyre But that Rome euen then vnder pagans Emperors was or hereafter vnder Heathenish Kings shall be the seate of Antichrist neither Ribera nor Viegas affirme nor any way insinuate as it may appeare out of their words which you here set downe in Latin (y) Pag. 74. marg for those words Roma sedes Antichristi which you attribute to Ribera are not his but foysted in by your selfe to Father on him your owne fiction
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.
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
Councell of Hierusalem and reported in that of Constantinople vnder Menas (a) Act. 4. to iustify their sentence of deposition against Anthymus B. of Trebizond And Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria (b) Ep. ad Epiphan apud S. Hieron Ep. 67. a familiar friend to S. Hierome as their mutuall Epistles declare out of the same text proueth the power of condemning heresies giuen by Christ to his Church which sayth he we see now performed for the Church of Christ with the Euangelicall sword hath cut off the heads of Origens serpents And finally this text is alleaged to the same purpose by Petrus Cluniacensis (c) L. 6. ep 14. Alexander of Hales (d) Part. 3. q. 40. memb 2. the Irrefragable Doctor and Maister to S. Thomas of Aquine All which sheweth that either the Fathers and Councells vnderstood not the words of the Prophet or els that you deny the true sense misinterpreting them in fauor of your false Doctrine But returning to S. Bernard That which most of all discouereth your ignorance if not rather fraud is that you say Boniface the eight prophaneth the word of God notoriously for patronizing of rebellions and murders making from pretence of Scripture a Decree to dispossesse Emperors Christian and heathen of their kingdomes depriue them of their lines It is to be noted that this decree of Boniface on which you are pleased to inflict so seuere a censure are the very words of S. Bernard taken out of his fourth booke of Consideration to Eugenius Wherfore you must confesse that S. Bernard prophaned the word of God notoriously for patronizing rebellions and murders and dispossessing Kings of their kingdomes and liues or els you must acknowledge that you wrong and slander Pope Boniface who sayth nothing but what S. Bernard said before him and in S. Bernards owne words I cannot but vehemeÌ„tly suspect that a man of your reading could not but know that the words were S. Bernards but because you durst not for shame of the world impute such horrible wickednesse to so glorious a Sainct and whom Caluin himselfe (e) L. 4. de Consid c. 11. §. 11. acknowledgeth to speake in those his bookes of Consideration as if Truth herselfe did speake you lay it on Boniface Pope that so you may haue some colour to raile freely at him in his name to charge S. Bernard with that impiety of which neither of them both was guilty The second Father whom you alleage is S. Gregory who as he is frequent in Moralls so he explicateth these words of Hieremy in a morall sense of pulling vp Vices and planting vertues by preaching in the soules of the hearers But that they may haue another more litterall sense the Fathers and Councells haue informed you Nor was S. Gregory so ignorant as to thinke he had no other way to reforme the disorders of Bishops and others vnder his charge but by preaching only for his writings his practise and your owne confessions beare witnesse to the contrary (f) See aboue Chap. 15. sect 3. Your third profe is out of Lyra to whose words you adde gratis the aduerbe Tantùm to inferre that Bishops haue no other meanes to represse vices and remedy disorders in their subiects but only by preaching which if it were true how could the Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon haue deposed Nestorius and Dioscorus not to mention a thousand such exaÌ„ples of which Ecclesiasticall histories are full Yea the word denuntiare which Lyra vseth doth not obscurely import so much for not only preachers but ecclesiasticall Prelates denounce punishment to offenders to deterre them from sinne And so do secular Iudges when they threaten them with corporall chastisements SECT III. Your third Argument out of the examples of Popes examined SOme Popes say you (g) Pag. 171. haue not bene idle but haue put their positions in practise by deposing Kings and Emperors sporting themselues with tossing the crownes from their heads not for any note of heresy but only for not subiecting themselues to the Popes dignity and dominion Why do you not tell vs that when 200. Bishops in the Councell of Ephesus and 630. in the Councell of Chalcedon deposed Nestorius and Dioscorus they did it to sport themselues with tossing the myters of Patriarkes from their heads If any Popes haue deposed Kings or Emperors my assumpt is not either to defend or dispute by what right they did it The first Pope whom you accuse (h) Pag. 171. 174. is Zacharias who being chosen by diuine ordination (i) See Anestasius Platiâ—a Yllescas in his life performed heroical acts for the publike good of the Church He bare singular loue to the clergy and people of Rome and generally to all Christians being ready to spend his life for them He built repaired and adorned with rich furniture many Churches within without Rome He reduced to peace all Italy which he found in combustion of warrs going himselfe in person to effect it He established confirmed Bishopricks and setled the affaires of Christian religion in Germany He was of a most sweet and malde disposition adorned with all vertue and goodnesse slow to anger most ready to mercy and compassion rendring to no man euill for euill but to the imitation of Christ ouercoming euill with good in so much that being made Pope he aduanced to honors those who formerly had bene his enimies and bestowed rewards on them And finally for his singular vertues he is reuerenced as a Saint and his feast yearely celebrated by the whole Church of God (k) Martyrol Roman 15. Martij The second Pope you traduce is Gregory the seauenth who say (l) Pag. 171. 174. you deposed Henry the third Now this Gregory whom you so often and so intemperatly reuile (n) Pag. 40. 171. 174. 179. was one of the most admirable Prelates that hath possessed the chaire of S. Peter A man sayth Nauclerus (o) Chronol genral 37. religious fearfull of God a louer of iustice and equity constant in aduersity and that for God feared not to enterprise whatsoeuer was iust A man sayth Schafnaburgensis (p) Hist. rerum German an 1977. of great constancy and inuincible courage against auarice The signes and wonders which God did worke by the prayers of Gregory and his most feruent zeale for God and the lawes of the Church did sufficiently defend him against the poysoned tongues of his detractors He was sayth Otho Frisingensis (q) L. 6. hist c. 32.34.36 alwayes most constant in Ecclesiasticall rigor a paterne to his flock shewing by his example that which in words he taught a valiant champion that feared not to oppose himselfe as a wall for the house of God and whose death bred no small griefe to the Church because she saw herselfe depriued of so worthy a Pastor who among all Priests and Bishops of Rome was of most especiall zeale and authority A man in whose defence S. Anselme that
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.
4. c. 7. and S. Hierome (x) Ad cap. 52. Isai haue set downe certaine fragmēts of the same epistle to the end that what was not lost of it might come to the knowledge of posterity And for the authority of the Epistles of Popes in generall we haue the third Councell of Toledo vnder Ricaredus King of Spaine newly conuerted from Arianisme which for the clensing of that kingdome from heresy and restoring it to the purity of the Catholike fayth among other decrees ordayned (*) Capit. 1. that the Synodical Epistles of the Bishops of Rome remaine in their force And how great a crime it hath euer bene held to contemne them the Councell of Tours vnder Landramus Archbishop of that city declared (y) Inter Ep. Lupi Ferrar. ep 84. condemning and threatning excommunication to Nomenoius Prior of Britaine for not obeying the Popes Epistle SECT I. Of the Epistles of Popes liuing within the first 300. yeares after Christ. BEllarmine (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 14. in proofe of the Roman Primacy alleageth the Epistles of 14. holy Popes that liued within the first 300. yeares after Christ which though he dare not affirme to be vndoubtedly certaine yet he proueth to be most vndoubtedly ancient and conuinceth the Centuriss of a lye in saying That no Author worthy of credit cited thē before the time of Charles the Great For he proueth that an ancient Councell in the time of Leo the first 350. yeares before Charles which was not long after the first 300. yeares cited the epistles of S. Clement as now they are He proueth that Ruffinus 60. yeares before that tyme cited other of those Epistles And that Isidore 200. yeares before the same Charles out of a Councell of 80. Bishops cited the epistles of Clement Anacletus Euaristus and the rest of those Popes Againe you know that Turrianus hath written an especiall volume in defence of the Epistles of ancient Popes and learnedly dissolued the cauils of heretikes against them Of all this you take no notice but to disproue the Epistles of ancient Popes liuing within the first 300. yeares after Christ obiect (a) Pag. 279. Cusanus his Concordia which you know he hath retracted and Robert Cooke a Protestant Minister who say you proueth the obiected Epistles to be vndoubtedly bastard and adulterate partly by the errors that are apparent in them no lesse absurde then to turne Cephas into Caput A stone into a Head This he proueth or you for him by the testimony of Bellarmine out of the third epistle of Anacletus the first of Clement and the first of Anicetus But his and your dealing is vndoubtedly fraudulent for Bellarmine in that place (b) L. 2. de Monachis c. 40. makes no mention at all of Anacletus nor of Clement and much lesse of turning Cephas into a Head Wherfore you and your Cooke falsify Bellarmine and with him those holy Popes for Anicetus in his first epistle makes no mention of Cephas Clement sayth Peter by the merit of true fayth was appointed to be the foundation of the Church and for that cause by the diuine mouth of our Lord surnamed Peter but of turning a stone into a Head or of Cephas there is no mention at all Anacletus sayth A Domino concessum est Petro vt reliquis omnibus praeesset Apostolis Cephas 1. caput ac principium teneret Apostolatus It was granted by our Lord to Peter to be the chiefe of the Apostles that is to say that he should haue the Head and principality of the Apostolate If this be to turne Cephas into Caput why do you not for that fault if a fault it be blame Optatus that most learned and holy Bishop highly esteemed by S. Augustine Doth he not say (c) L. 1. cont Parmen c. 2. l 2. de doctri Christi c. 40. Thou knowest that the Episcopal chaire was first set vp in Rome for Peter in which first sate the Head of all the Apostles Peter from whence he hath bene called Cephas Optatus alluding to the Greoke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Head and resembles the Hebrew word Cephas that signifies a Rock declared that because Peter was Head of the Apostles and foundation of the Church our Sauiour called him Caphas that is a Rock for in buildings the foundation is the same that the Head is in the body And in this explication other learned and ancient writers agree with Optatus Philo Carpathius time-fellow with him fayth (m) Ad cap. 5 Cant. vers 11. Petrus qui Cephas caput Ecclesiae futurus erà t Peter who is also Cephas was to be Head of the Church And Vigilius Pope (n) Ep. 2. apud Bin. to 2. pag. 481. The election of all the Apostles was a like but it was granted to Peter that he should be aboue therest from whence he is called Cephas for as much as he is the Head and chiefe of all the Apostles And an ancient manuscript of the Bauarian Library (o) Tract cont error Graecor distinct 4. pag. 530. set forth by Petrus Steuartius Vice chancellor of the Vniuersity of Ingolstade Our Lord sayd in the Ghospell to Peter Thou shalt be called Cephas which is in Latin a Head that by the very imposition of his name he might shew him to be Head of the Church Wherfore as it were a vaine cauill to except against the writings of these ancient and learned Authors for explicating Cephas applied to S. Peter to import the same that Head so it is in Cooke and your selfe to reiect the epistle of Anacletus as apocriphall vpon the same ground 2. Anicetus commandeth Priests crownes to to be shauen from whence you inferre (p) Pag. 282. the epistle not to be his because Bellarmine proueth out of all antiquity that not Rasura but Tonsura not shauing but poling was the cut of Priests in those daies You might haue solued your owne argument together with Bellarmines doubt if you had pleased to obserue that in the very same sentence the author of that epistle vseth the words rasura and tonsura indifferently taking thē both for the same And therfore when he commandeth that Priestes haue their heads shauen his command it not that it be done by a rasor precisely but only that they weare not long haire but keep it short by shauing or poling His words are (q) Anicet ep 1. Clergy men who ought to be a paterne of vertue honesty chastity and grauity to lay people command them with the Apostle not to weare long hatre but to shaue the crownes of their heads in forme of a sphere because as they ought to be discreet in their conuersation so likewise to shew themselues discreet in tonsura in omni habitu in their poling and in their whole habit Whereby it is euident that by shauing he meaneth nothing els but keeping the haire short either by rasure or tōsure And this sheweth your exception
n. 1555.1556 by Coccius (l) To. â— l. 7. art 6. and by the Protestant edition of the Acts of the Councell of Trent in which it is acknowledged that this profession of Abdisus was made in presence of two Cardinalls and subscribed by them All which notwithstanding you (m) Pag. 338.339 reiect this wholy story as a tale of Robin Hood and merely fabulous which argueth in you much vnshamefastnesse For who is so litle versed in the histories of these tymes as not to know that albeit the Christians of the East Indies liuing so many yeares vnder Heathenish or Mahumetan Princes were debarred from entercouse with the Church of Rome and runne into diuers errors yet they thought themselues still to retaine entirely that fayth which the Apostle S. Thomas had preached vnto them And when they came to be vnder the King of Portugal being instructed by Preachers sent out of Europe they reformed their errors and yielded due subiection to the Church of Rome and in particular those very places which Abdisus in his Profession nameth to wit Cuscho Cananor Goa Calicut and Carangol and many more are named by Iacobus Payua and Radius (n) L. de orig Soc. Iesu who testifieth that euen in those beginnings in his time to the number of 80000. of those Indians were reduced to the Roman Church Who likewise knoweth not that Ormus and other places vnder the Persian which both Abdisus Andradius nominate are of the Roman fayth and Communion and that the King of Persia hath giuen licence to preach the fayth of Christ and for Religious men which goe thither to that end to erect houses build Churches in his Dominions by which meanes many are conuerted and liue in the Communion and obedience of the Roman Church All which notwithstanding you boldly pronounce that these Christians acknowledge no subiection to the Church of Rome stand in Christian vnion with Protestants which to be a grand Imposture no man can deny SECT IX Of the Antiochians YOur seauenth example (o) Pag. 330. is of the Antiochians whom with their Patriarke you vntruly deny to communicate with the Church of Rome or to acknowledge any subiection to the Pope for the Patriarke of the Maronites (p) Peron Repliq. Chap. 22. which is one of the branches of the Patriarkship of Antioch with all the Bishops of his iurisdiction hath yet to this day alwayes liued and perseuered in the communion of the Roman Church wherof your Historian M. Grimston speaking (q) Descript of Countreys pag. 1053. sayth The Maronites haue for these 400. yeares made profession of following the Roman Church And the same is acknowledged by their Patriarke in his Epistle to Leo the tenth (r) Cocci to 1. l. 7. art 6. Moreouer as Genebrard recordeth (s) Chron. an 1555. Moyses Mardenns being sent out of Mesopotamia by the Patriarke of Antioch and comming to Vienna in Austria after he had procured the new Testament to be set forth in the Syriack tongue and character at the charges of the Emperor Ferdinand went to Rome and as well in his owne name as in the name of his Patriarke of Antioch made a publike and solemne profession of the Catholike fayth and Obedience to the See of Rome which Andreas Masius hath translated out of the Syriack originall into Latin and both Coccius (t) Cocc to 1. l. 7. art 6. Sanders (x) Mon. vis l 7. n. 1494. haue inserted into their workes Moreouer the Nestorians of Seleucia who belong to that Patriarkship hauing abiured their heresy by perswasion of Iulius Pope the yeare 1553. writ an Epistle to him professing their beliefe of the Catholike fayth and their subiection to the B. of Rome and sent it by three chiefe men of their nation and with them Sind a Monke whom they beseeched Iulius to ordaine and send back vnto them consecrated as their Patriarke (y) Cocc Sand. loc cit SECT X. Of the Africans YOur eight example (z) Pag. 341. 406. 407. 409. is of the Africans among whom the kingdome of Congo is of the Roman fayth and Communion (a) Peron Repliq Chap. 21. Geneb Chron. an 1503. And an Embassador that came from thence a few yeares since and died in Rome made publike profession therof from before Luthers tyme. And it is notorius that all the Christians which liue in the borders of Africa vnder the conquest of the Kings of Spaine Portugal are of the Roman fayth and Communion SECT XI Of the Asians YOur ninth example (b) Pag. 341. 406. 407. 409. is of the Asians as vntrue as the rest for the Antiochians Armenians and Maronites whome with their Patriarkes we haue already proued to be of the Roman fayth and Communion are Asians And who knoweth not that in Asia since the expulsion of Godfrey King of Palestine and of Boemond Prince of Antioch the guard of the holy Sepulcher of Hierusalem hath alwaies remained to the Christians of the Roman Communion CHAP. XLI That in the aforenamed Countries there are no Christians that agree in fayth communion with Protestants HAVING proued that in all the Churches of remote nations which you haue nominated there to be many Catholikes of the Roman fayth and Communion it resteth that your deniall of so certaine a truth either proceedeth from grosse ignorance or is a grand imposture And no lesse is your affirming the same Churches to be of your Protestant Communion for the Christians of those nations which are not Roman Catholikes are damnable heretikes and haue no communion at all with Protestants as the following sections will demonstrate SECT I. The Grecians which are not of the Roman Communion are absolute heretikes and Doctor Morton falsifieth Catholike Authors to excuse them THat the Grecians dissenting from the Roman Church whom therfore you challenge as accordant in communion with Protestants are absolute Heretikes erring fundamentally in their doctrine of the Blessed Tinity by denying the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Sonne is a thing most certaine out of the Councell of Florence where the chiefe dispute betweene the Greekes and the Latines was of this subiect and the Greekes being conuinced acknowledged their error as the Letters of Vnion extant in the end of the Councell record The same is testified not only by the Latin writers but also by Laonicus Chalcondylas a Greeke Historian The Greekes sayth he (c) De reb Turcicis l. 6. in the Councell of Florence first defend that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone but afterwards being conuinced with the arguments of the Latins they confesse him to proceed also from the Sonne yet after their returne inte Greece they obstinatly defend their former opinion And when Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople sent a profession of his fayth to the Lutherans of Germany in the first Article therof which is concerning the blessed Trinity he affirmed and labored to proue that the holy Ghost
addressed to that Citty which was then Head of the whole world and because the Roman Church still vntill this day hath the soueraignty of all Churches And in his commentary of the eight verse of the first Chapter Here againe sayth he it is manifest that the â—pistle to the Romans ought to be placed first because the Romans among all the faythfull are the chiefest because the Roman Church hath the soueraignty among all Churches SECT VII Why S. Paul did not intitle his Epistles Catholike Epistles THat S. Paul in his epistle to the Romans hath giuen sufficient testimony of the preeminency of the Roman Church aboue all others is a thing manifest if not you but the ancient Fathers may be the iudges Them you must giue vs leaue to follow and forsake you fighting against S. Paul and them Against this truth you frame yet two Arguments more The first is (l) Pag. â—â— that whereas the epistles of S. Iames Peter Iude and Iohn are intituled Catholike epistleâ— if S. Paul had bene possessed with the spirit of the now Bishop of Rome he would haue intituled the Church of Rome the Catholike Church and at least inscribed his epistle Catholike The second is (m) Ibid. that he giueth not to the Roman Church so much as the title of a Church which yet in his prefaces to the Corinthians Galathiâ—ns and Thessalonians he giues to those Churches To the first I answere that the Apostles themselues did not giue to any of their epistles the name of Catholike epistles That title is prefixed to the epistles of Iames Peter Iohn Iude by the Church for diuers reasons which you may reade in Salmeron (n) Disp 1. in Ep. S. Iacobi and chiefly because as S. Augustine (o) De fide oper c. 14. witnesseth they were written against the heresy of Simon Magus defending Iustification by only fayth wherin Protestants are his heires And for that cause their epistles insist so much on good workes and the keeping of Gods Commandements and shew that fayth without charity is dead and fruitlesse And for the same cause S. Iohn (p) Ep. 1. vers 24. 27. admonisheth the faythfull to abide in that Doctrine which they haue heard from the beginning because many seducers are gone out into the world And S. Iude (q) Vers 4.8 seqq exhorteth them to stand to their old fayth shewing them by examples that it is damnable not to be constant in it To your second Argument I might answere with 8. Chrysostome that they which were but a small number newly conuerted and weake S. Paul salutes them by the name of a Church to comfort them but not those that were more in number and of longer standing as the Romans were when he writ vnto them For this reason I say that as S. Paul did not salute the Ephesians Philippians Colossians by the name of a Church in expresse words so neither did he the Romans but only virtually and implicitly saying (r) Rom. 1.7 To all that are at Rome the beloued of God called Saints which title cannot agree to any congregation but to a true Church of Christ as (s) Tom. 13. disp 7. in ep ad Rom. Salmeron learnedly proueth and you contradicting your selfe acknowledge saying (t) Pag. 7â— sin S. Paul to shew that the Church rather doth consist in the professors then in the place omitteth the name of a Church and mentioneth only the persons saying To the Saints at Colosse To them at Rome beloued of God called Saints But because you mention Salmerons solution I will giue the reader notice how fouly you abuse and fallify him He giues three solutions to this Argument The first he most approueth and this you wholly pretermit to persuade your reader that he giues not three but only the two later and therfore wheras he begins the second thus Posset secundò commode dici you leaue out fecundo that this may seeme not to be his second solution but his first and to the same end you say allata alia solutione ad hunc redit that hauing brought another solution he returnes to this saying but the first solution in my iudgment is more soâ—de which words containe a most notorious falsification for he returnes not to this which you make the first by leauing out secundò but to the first of the three which you neuer mention And wheras he sayth that the first solution is in his iudgment the more solide you by falsifying apply this his saying to the second against which because you can make a shift to cauill you would haue your reader thinke it is Salmerons first solution and that he thought it to be the most solide of all the three But of what import to your cause is this iugling Marry that because in the second solution Salmeron mentioneth the factions that were then in Rome betweene the Iewes and Gentiles you may inferre that S. Paul did thinke Rome to be as other Churches subiect to the alteration of Schismes and factions and in proofe therof you say (u) Pag. 69. that not only our Professors among themselues but also Popes and Antipopes were distracted into diuers Schismes and factions c. One of our deuout Doctors reckoning the number of these Schismes to haue ben twenty an other accounting the continuance of one of them to haue endured fifty yeares Our Deuout Doctor whom you mention to proue that there hath ben twenty schismes in the Roman Church is Stapleton The place in which you cite him is his thirteenth booke De princip Doctrin Cap. 15. wheras in that worke he hath but twelue bookes in all But be it that there haue ben twenty Schismes in the Roman Church Schisme is not a sinne against fayth but against Charity If then Antipopes or other professors of the Roman Church haue broken the bond of charity was it therfore lawfull for you to renounce the fayth of the Roman Church If Schismes be a lawfull cause of departure who can stay in your Protestant congregation diuided subdiuided into Lutherans Caluinists Zwinglians Brownists and a thousand other Sects vnder these new ones daily arising among you as Separatists and Socinians all which are diuided not only in poynt of charity but in the very substance of fayth And surely you are ill aduised to obiect the Schismes of the Roman Church in iustification of your departure from her for since as our Authors haue aduertised nether the persecutions of heathen Emperors nor the Gothes and Vandals nor the Turke nor any sacks or massacres by Alaricus Gensericus Attila Borbon and others nor the emulation of secular Princes were they Kings or Emperors nor the many Schismes and diuisions betweene the lawfull Popes and Antipopes nor the manifold difficulties dangers in their elections nor the great vices which haue bene noted in some of their persons nor any scandall haue had power to ouerthrow the Roman Church as they haue done the Churches
of the East and many of the West it is a manifest signe so much the more euident the greater the persecutions and the more and longer the schismes haue bene that she is the impregnable Rock which the proud gates of hell cannot ouerthrow SECT VIII Other Arguments out of S. Paul and other Catholike Authors answered S. Paul writing to the Romans sayth (x) Rom. 1.13 I haue often purposed to come vnto you that I may haue some fruite in you as also in the other Gentils Tolet (y) in eum loc Annot. 22. vpon these words obserueth that the Ghospell is indifferent to all and that howbeit the Romans were more eminent then other nations and had the primacy yet in preaching of the Ghospell and busines belonging to saluation the Apostle equalleth others with them These words of Tolet you obiect (z) Pag 70. but to what end I know not for Tolet declareth the reasoÌ„ why S. Paul equalleth other nations with the Romans in preaching to them the doctrine of Christ and procuring their saluation to be because as Christ found all sinners and dyed for all so he calleth all and receaueth them from whence soeuer they come If you had set downe these words of Tolet you had discouered that to inferre either from his or S. Pauls words the equality of other Churches with the Roman in matter of iurisdiction is a senselesse illation for by the same consequence you may inferre that all Diocesans in spiritual iurisdiction are equall with their Bishops and all subiects in temporall power with their Princes because Christ hauing shed his bloud equally for all the soules of all are equally deare to him and their saluation ought with all indifferency to be procured by preaching the Ghospell to all aswell to the least as to the greatest to the poorest as to the richest 2. No lesse impertinently you obiect other words of the same Apostle (a) Rom. 11.19 in which as you confesse he exhorteth not the Romans in particular but all the conuerted Gentils in generall not to be ouer-wise but to feare lest they also be broken off by infidelity as the Iewes were For these words shew that no man hath certainty of fayth that he shall be saued as Protestants vaynly presume themselues to haue but that all ought to liue in feare lest they fall into infidelity or other sinnes which feare the Bishop of Rome and the Romans ought to haue as well as other nations But to inferre from thence that the Bishop of Rome may teach hereticall Doctrine ex Cathedra or that the whole Roman Church may fall from the fayth which is the poynt in controuersy nether is it S. Pauls meaning nor any Interpreter euer expounded so 3. As little to your purpose it is that S. Paul sayth (b) Rom. 1.11 to the Romans I desire to see you that I may impart vnto you some spirituall grace to confirme you for therby as S. Hierome or whosoeuer is the author of those Commentaries Theodoret S. Chrysostome and S. Thomas expound (c) In eum locum he sheweth that they had receaued the fayth already from S. Peter Because sayth Theodoret the great Peter had already declared to them the Euangelicall Doctrine therfore S. Paul necessarily addes To confirme you And S. Hierome Paul sayth he will confirme the Romans already belleeuing not that they had not receaued the fayth by the preaching of Peter but that their fayth might be strengthned by the witnesse and doctrine of two Apostles Wherfore S. Paul desired to see them to confirme them that is as he himselfe declareth to the end both he they might receaue mutuall comfort from each other they by his fayth and he by theyrs What makes this against the primacy of S. Peter or of the Roman Church 4. You obiect (d) Pag. 72 Bellarmine confessing that S. Peter Paul were Co-sounders of the Roman Church He doth so it is true but yet so that S. Peter first planted that Church S. Paul came not to Rome till many yeares after to assist him for which cause the conuersion of the Romans and the planting of Christian religion there is absolutely attributed to S. Peter Our will is say the godly Emperors Theodosius and Gratian (e) Cod. tit 1. l. 1. that all the people ruled by the Empire of our clemency shall liue in the same religion which the diuine Apostle Peter gaue to the Romans as the religion insinuated by him vntill this present witnesseth and which it is manifest that the high Priest Damasus followeth Wherfore when Bellarmine sayth that S. Peter and Paul were Co-founders of the Roman Church he sayth it not to equall them in the foundation and much lesse in authority for in that very place (f) L. 1. de Pout c. 27. he learnedly proueth that in authority S. Peter farre exceeded S. Paul 5. You obiect (g) Pag. 72. out of Lorinus that S. Epiphanius calleth both Peter and Paul Bishops of Rome True but S. Pauls Episcopall authority was only transient he had no Episcopall Chayre at Rome as S. Peter had and therfore Lorinus sayth that S. Epiphanius called S. Paul Bishop of Rome in no other sense then because he exercised the Episcopall functions there as he might doe in any other place of the world This explication contents you not and therfore you say (h) Pag. 72. marg it is confuted in the next testimony and in the Challenge following but you breake promise for there you nether confute it nor mentioÌ„ it And as for the thing it selfe it is manifest for no man euer sayd that S. Paul had an Episcopall Chayre at Rome as S. Peter had no do S. Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius Optatus S. Augustine S. Epiphanius whome you obiect making catalogues of all the Roman Bishops from S. Peter till their tyme nor any other writers reckon S. Paul as one of them 6. You obiect (i) Pag. 72. that the authority of both is cited in the Popes Breues for confirmation of Papall ordinances that both haue their images ingrauen in the Popes bulls and that in such sort that Paul somtime hath the right hand of Peter as well as other while Peter of Paul You often borrow arguments out of Catholike authors and conceale their answeres This you borrowed out of Bellarmine (k) L. 1. de Poâ—t c. 27. who largely and learnedly answereth giuing three different solutions vnto it To him I remit the Reader Only I will tell you that the wordes which you set down in a different character as of Peterius are not his but your owne for thogh he proue out of Scripture out of a place of Virgil that apud homines among men the right hand is the better and more honorable yet he sayth not that it is so among all people sauing the Persians as you by adding to his words this particle All make him to say for he acknowledgeth and Bellarmine out of