it was exalted by consent to be a patriarchall Sea and not euery such neither but the second in order and setting that aside equall to Rome in all respects Else neither should this Canon haue suffered such opposition you may bee sure at the Bishop of Romes hands nor needed the Fathers to name this so distastfull equalitie with Rome in the bodie of the Canon if nothing but the ordaining of Bishops had been assigned him which other Patriarches exercise in their diocesse as well as the Bishop of Rome without his repining And yet lastly you may remember that the Canon of Nice describing the preheminence of the Bishop of Rome as a patterne of Patriarchship vtters it in those words of Ruffinus translation quòd Ecclesiarum suburbicariarum curam habeat that he hath care of the Churches that are abutting vpon the citie to which Canon of Nice spreading so the iurisdiction of the Church of Rome this Canon of Chalcedon may seeme to allude mentioning so many Churches as you here recite and all of them subiect to the Sea of Constantinople § 8. As for that you thrust in here vpon verie small occasion of Athanasius of Alexandria appealing to Iulius Bishoppe of Rome to shewe that Alexandria was subiect to Rome if you meane the subiection of order and ranke it is nothing to the matter and yet it followeth not by your leaue out of your example The subiection of authoritie is that which we contend about and yet that much lesse may be gathered from hence For neither did Athanasius flee to Iulius alone but with his companie of Bishops as his letters shew that he brought in his behalfe Omnibus vbique Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopis i. To all the Bishops of the Catholicke Church and againe Hac quidem ad omnes ad Iulium scripsere i. This they wrote to Iulius and to all And the Church that enioies more flourishing fortunes or whose arme God hath strengthened with temporall prosperitie may bee sought vnto of the distressed though not subiect to it by any dutie of obedience as one King sayes the Orator easily rescues and succors another though not referring to him by subiection no more then Mithridates did to Tigranes as also I doubt not but if Iulius had suffered wrong and Athanasius could haue holpe him neither would Iulius haue disdained to craue his assistance nor Athanasius haue refused him no more then the aforesaid Bishop of Patara did to sue for Syluerius and to sheild him all he could against the rage of Iustinian as euen now you told vs and yet he of Patara much inferiour to the other without question § 9. But to deale more liberally with the Bishop in this point put case say you that the Councell of Chalcedon did meane to giue to the Church of Constantinople that equality with the Sea of Rome which he affirmeth yet he should nothing gaine by it but rather it confirmes the primacie of Pope Leo whose onely authority was able to quash it How is that prooued First because the Canon tooke not place presently Which is no more then happens for the most part to any lawe to haue slower execution then it hath making But does it follow from hence that either the Bishop alleages a counterfeit Canon for by this reason you may cauill any Canon in the booke or that Leo's authority was of force to disanull it Let vs breifly looke into it as not much to our purpose For in truth what ende may we looke for of dispute if so pregnant allegations be reckoned for counterfeit By a few heads we may iudge of all the rest You obserue 4. things out of Gelasius his Epistle to the Bishops of Dardania to disprooue the Canon § 10. One that Martian praysed Leo for not suffering the old Canons to be violated in that point and yet himselfe zealous for the aduancement of Constantinople The answer is most easie He might take Leo's excuse in good part as grounded vpon pretence of conscience not to crosse the Canons though it was so farre from beeing sound that both Leo might haue altered them as your selfe confesse positiue Canons and afterward it was altered euen by a generall Councell if that of Lateran at least was general as you acknowledge And I hope Sir I may praise Constancy euen in mine aduersary and in a wrong matter though I could wish his constancy were better imployed So might Martian with Leo and somewhat the rather to induce him by addoulcings for direct thwarting alienates rather Is this a good reason now why the Canon should be no Canon or this also scored among the Bishops forgeries § 11. You say secondly that Anatolius in fauour of whom the Canon was made beeing rebuked by Leo for his forwardnes to preferre it deriued the fault vpon the Clergy of Constantinople and said it was positum in ipsius potestate Leo might chuse whether he would grant it or no. Answer That the Clergie of Constantinople concurred to the making of it I hope good Sir derogates not from the Canon but rather fortifies it as likewise the consent of so many other Bishops and if Leo's shake bestriding his praye that is the honour of his seate the singularity rather affrighted Anatolius and startled lentum illum Heli as he calls him that timorous old man what is that to the antiquating of the Decree of a Synode and so populous a Synode as this was For I hope the Canon was not so in fauour of Anatolius whatsoeuer you prattle but that much rather of his Sea then of his person as both the reason shewes which the Canon contaynes drawne as you may remember from the Imperiall city and Martians loue was to the city not to the man Yea it rather tooke place you say after his death What then doe you tell vs of Anatolius § 12. Your third obseruation that Pope Simplicius was as loath to yeild to Leo the Emperour for the aduancement of Constantinople as Leo the Pope had beene to the Emperour Martian in the same cause prooues nothing against the Canon vnlesse it be graunted that the Pope hath a negatiue voice in the making of them which is the thing in question betweene you and vs therefore to be prooued not to be presumed But if you meane that it took not place so soone you haue your answer before it brake out at last like fire in the bones and that 's enough § 13. With like facility to your Quartum Notabile that Acacius obtained the censures of Pope Felix and executed them vpon the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch What then As if one Bishop may not craue aide of another to represse abuses when he cannot doe it himselfe euen as they in Peters boate beckened to the next to come and helpe them for your primacie is that Moses taken out of the waters by your owne description so here Acacius becken to Peter that is to the Pope himselfe as you dreame Neither
like of the deposition of diuers Bishops of Constantinople by the Popes as you say and namely that Agapetus deposed Anthimus with many more Shall I tell you what wise men are wont to say in this case Agapetus did depose Anthimus but was Anthimus deposed as much to say They did their best but de bene esse onely and valeat vt valere potest for authoritie they had none And therefore all this while the Canon is not impeached but remains good § 18. What should I tell you of Euagrius l. 2. hist c. 4. that this Canon was enacted in that Councell by the Fathers not forged by the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you may read the rest in the very end of the chapter that Constātinople had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely short of Rome and short but in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as hath beene said in order or in number as the Logicians are wont to discerne things of the same species I might adde Iustinian Balsamon Zonaras the Councell quinisextum at Constantinople in Trullo c. 36. which both deduces it from the first generall Councell in Constantinop c. 3. which you quarrell and recites the words that offend you most in this of Chalcedon about aequalia priuilegia and Magnificari sicut illam equall priuiledges or equal prerogatiues and to be aduanced like as the other But I goe forward Indeed nothing is more absurd or rather can be then your descanting vpon intercedere in a double sense that you bring to shew you haue some smacke of the Latin yet at least when your masters and monitors helpe you Because the Bishop had said Leone frustrà intercedente per literas suas apud Augustum Augustam Anatolium that the Canon tooke place for all that Leo could doe by his letters to the Emperour to the Empresse and to Anatolius you dreame of intercession like that to the Saints which you build out of places as well construed as this And because in other places the Bishop happily so vseth the word following your owne tearmes for your better capacitie therefore you conclude he vses it so here but especially because else Leo should haue beene so potent as to resist the Emperour As if intercedere per literas did not a little mollifie the matter which is to hinder and to disswade but by his writing onely and how humble that Or to shew that Leo did all he could yet to no purpose which frustrà giues you to vnderstand added by the Bishop in the same sentence non frustrà But if you will needes make Leo so sawcie a Prelate you may doe as you please your iudgement is free concerning the Popes whom you pretend to honour we find his letters to be of another straine very humble supplicatorie towards the great ones especially and had rather construe more gently of him Sciens gloriosam Clementiam vestram Ecclesiasticae studere concordiae c. precor sedulâ suggestione vos obsecro Epist 54. ad Martianum Augustum That is Knowing your royall grace to be zealous of Church vnitie I pray and beseech you by diligent suggestion c. Neither any command shall you finde giuen by him to the Emperour nor resistance of authoritie though he professe much zeale to maintaine the Canons thinking he might not breake them as was said before Wherein neuerthelesse you dissent from him and say he might So as if you had beene his counsellor not onely this had bin a Canon but euen a Canon by Leo's owne consent which you so much oppose vnder colour of his name at this day § 19. But are the Iesuits so idle or so adle rather as to thinke that they may put such tricks I will not say vpon the Bishop cui nulla ciconia pinsit but vpon the yongest scholler in our Vniuersities as because intercedere hath a double sense either to withstand or to entreat they may pin which they list of the twaine vpon vs Was not the word rather chose by the Bishop of purpose to shew what a withstanding Leo vsed namely ioyned with entreatie as if all his resistance could not goe beyond praiers which another that had waighed the double meaning of the word and with single eye lookt into the matter would rather haue beleeued to be the Bishops very drift and especiall aime But how should then the Adioynder haue blurred so much paper to shew that Leo did make no suit Sure those words before alleadged out of his Epistle to Marcian put it out of doubt that he did make suit whatsoeuer this iangler mumble to the contrarie Et precor sedulâ suggestione vos obsecro I both pray and beseech you dutifully aduising or informing What can be plainer As for that he saies non frustrà not in vaine because the Emperour praised Leo for his constancie we haue refuted it before and the very euent proclaimes as much that it was frustrà or in vaine the Canon hauing gotten the credit which they in vaine maligne § 20. Now for that which he cites out of his Epistle to Pulcheria the 55. in number Consensiones Episcoporum repugnantes regulis apud Niceam conditis in irritū mittimus if it had beene onely so it might haue shewed Leoes resolution against the Canon and his stoutnes to deny it for his part not but all this while he was suppliant to the Emperesse But when he addes moreouer vnitâ nobiscum vestrae fidei pietate and per authoritatem B. Petri Apostols what a vantage does this giue euen to Pulcheria her selfe to interpose in determination of Church-businesses and as it seemes a kind of fellowship in S. Peters authority Yet this is our lay-Iesuites dish aboue Commons which before he called liberall dealing § 21. Concerning Anatolius his receauing to fauour and I know not what submission that he would faine bring him to as it were to aske Leo pardon I must tell him as before that Anatolius his cause and the Canon are two If either weakenes or dissimulation made him to shrink yet the Canon prospered and thriued daily neither did the Bishop say frustrà contra ingenium personae but contra Canonē only in that Leo made head in vaine against the Canon not against Anatolius his disposition which is nothing to our matter § 22. Neither are his reasons sound which he brings why Leo should be against the Canon though as I sayd neither this touches at all the Bishop as beeing no refutation of any part of his booke neither is it ought worthy our consideration since we hold the Canon might be good without Leo. Indeede they hold that Leoes consent was requisite to the enacting of it but that they prooue not His reasons for Leo are these 4. First because it sprang from Anatolius proud humour to aduance himselfe inordinately But this is a flat slaunder of Anatolius not a iustification of Leo or though it were true of Anatolius priuate part that he had
the worthy name which is called vpon you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as our late English excellently well hath it by which you are called And Esay 4. Seuen women shall say to one man let thy name be called vpon vs in the very same sense that is let vs be reckoned and accounted thine Salomon a little otherwise in the dedication of his temple desires that Gods name may be called vpon it yet not as if the temple should pray to God c. But the rather did the Patriarch here desire this concerning Ephraim and Manasseh least the disparity of their birth hauing an Egyptian to their mother might quaile their confidence in Gods promises to their Fathers and that they might know they had as good interest in them as the rest of their kindred § 6. As for S. Austens place Locutinoum de Genesi num 200. Hee determines not whether the Patriarks were inuocated by their children as F. T. would beare vs in hand or vpon them rather as we say but onely biddes vs note that the word inuocation is sometime veryfied vpon men aswell as vpon God and so exaudition likewise What of that § 7. Numb 7. Let him prooue and not say or not say till he prooue that intercession to Saints by our seeking to them and intercession of Saints to God for vs is all one Negamus pernegamus In all Chrysostomes Liturgy I meane that which beares his name where there is mention of the intercession of Saints for vs so many and so sundry times there is not the least praying on the faithfulls part so much as once to the greatest Saint § 8. To the. 9. Numb It will neuer be disprooued what the Bishop answers to S. Basils authority that aliud est faceré aliud statuere and Legibus non exemplis viuen dum est Gregory Nazianz. saying is as I remember Priuilegia paucorum non faciunt legem Ecclesiae Seneca himselfe Permittit sibi quaedam contra bonum morem magna pietas And what though S. Basil should draw an argument from thence which he doth not Does not S. Paul so from a corrupt fashion of baptising ouer the dead in some Writers opinions 1. Cor. 15. See Bellar. de Purgat lib. 1. cap. 6. confessing as much Likewise Chrysostome giues folke leaue to sweare by themselues that the name of God might be lesse dishonoured by them in their daily mention Is it lawful therefore to sweare by ones selfe Himselfe denyes it in the same place § 9. Numb 25. He saies there is no ordinance or no decree but in Councells Let him bring them hardly then let him cite the Councells Are not they Fathers and multiplyed Fathers Will his MAIESTIE refuse the Councells wherein so many speake as one man that is content to be ordered by the Fathers in singular if the authority be pregnant and the antiquity sufficient But how shamefully does he belye the Councell of Gangra Neither is any such thing in the Proeme there nor yet in the Canons Onely a corruption is crept into the Proeme which is nothing materiall neither though it were graunted See the Greeke at Paris of Tilius his edition see other Greeke copies And is to meet at Churches or not to shun assemblyes in Basilicis martyrum all one with the inuocation of Saints now become Why rather should we not thinke their priuate masse condemned vnder a Priest and his boy in the 6. Canon of that Councell contra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against them that assemble without a lawful assembly as likewise their Gossip-baptizers taxed in that which followes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is against the performers of Churchbusinesses without Priestly assistance c. On the other side how mainely are the Popish practises in that Preface confuted About the honour of the married life the indifferency of celebrating with Priests married or vnmarried against women leauing their proper husbands to obserue the profession of I know not what continencie but like theirs certainly Against affectation of apparell as in the Nuns and Fryars now of all colours Yea for the authority of Masters ouer their seruants the very case of Supremacy this day in question though the one be Christian the other an infidell of which point Epiphanius most sweetly in a certaine place Nauis ecclesiae non recipit fugitivum neque qui à proprijs Dominis discedit The ship of God or of his Church admits no run-away nor for saker of his owne masters Against departing with riches vnder hope of more holynes which is their vow of pouerty so magnifyed at this day I might adde out of comparison of the 19. Canon with the second in that Councell that although fastings such as the Church appoints are to be kept which we deny not yet without preferring of fish before flesh as the more holy which is their error And doe they tell vs of the Councell of Gangra In which there is not one syllable neither in preface nor bulke of praying to Saints Yea in the 20. Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beeing distinctly so mentioned and attributed to the Martyrs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are put absolutely as onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Gods onely Yet we haue Councells against them euen auncient Councells prayer to Angells beeing condemned in the Laodicean Councell and called a close Idolatry of which hereafter Now if to Angels how much more to Saints as Epiphanius his argument is Ne Angeli quidem nedum silia Annae No not the Angels much lesse the daughter of Anna which is their highest Saint See the Councell of Nice Can. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prayers to God and to God onely as S. Paul in the Acts. 26. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 2. Cor. 13. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not Pauls speach more then vox ipsius naturae the voice of Nature Men praying still to God and to God onely by the instinct of nature As Tertullian obserues somewhat not vnlike in his Apologet O testimonium animae naturaliter Christianae Nature her selfe teacheth men this point of relligion But passe wee to more § 10. S. Hierome against Vigilantius neuer patronizes in one word praying to Saints Yet F. T. is not ashamed to confound the questions still of their praying for vs with ours to them Whereas if they pray for vs they pray to God and all our question tends onely to the end that God be not intermedled with in his right to heare prayers For so in the Psalm 64. I ween Thou that hearest the prayer and To thee shall all flesh come Well may they goe together The hearer of the prayer is the receiuer of all to him But no particular Saint receiues all flesh to him Ergò Againe Psal 5. v. 1 2 3 4 5. many reasons are giuen of his praying to God vnto thee doe I
partly he cauills with him about the quoting of it In which respect I haue thought good first of all to set it downe as it lies in our bookes In all points following the Decrees of the holy Fathers and admitting the Canon lately read of the 150 most blessed Bishops assembled together vnder the great Emperour Theodosius of pious memorie in the Imperiall Constantinople new Rome we also decree and determine the same things concerning the priuiledges of the most holy Church of Constantinople afore-said the new Rome For iustly did the Fathers giue priuiledges to the throne of old Rome because that Citie was then regent And the 150 most blessed Bishops mooued with the same consideration gaue equall priuiledges to the most holy throne of new Rome wisely iudging it meete and reasonable that the Citie which enioyed both Empire and Senate and was endued with the like priuiledges or equall priuiledges that old Rome was should in matters Ecclesiasticall be aduanced and magnified euen as shee or no lesse then shee beeing second after her not subiect to her but second after her yet F. T. saies the Bishop left out those words of set purpose Rather indeede because nothing to the purpose And that c. Euen as if I breake off now and English not the rest no wise man nor learned that hath but read the Canon will deeme I breake off fraudulently or for aduantage but onely because that which followes is not materiall Now see what exceptions the gentleman takes to the Bishops allegation As first that he should say that the Canon makes the two Seas the one of Rome the other of Constantinople equall in all things What is here amisse Equall saies the text sicut illam euen as the other and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equall priuiledges But where is that in all things saies the wrangler The words perhaps not but the sense so cleere that without that the Canon were no Canon and the rest of the words to no purpose at all Haue you not heard that indefinites are equiualent to vniuersalls especially where one exception beeing made it is plaine that all others are thereby cut off according to the rule Exceptio figit regulam in non exceptis And therefore the ranke or the prioritie in order beeing onely reserued to Rome in that place as it followes about Constantinople that shee should secunda post illā existere be second in rew as the new Rome to the old Rome the old beeing first and the new second is it not cleere that there is equalitie in all things else graunted to Constantinople and the magnifying or aduancing of her in Ecclesiasticall matters sicut illa as shee or no lesse then shee generally to be extended as farre as Romes Sozomene saies expressely for ciuill matters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shee was equalled in all things Constantinople with Rome lib. 7. cap. 9. and the ground of the Canon is the equalitie of the two cities in ciuill affaires Therefore either the Fathers conclude not well out of their owne premisses or els the equalitie of the two Seas euen in Ecclesiasticall matters is to be vnderstood secundum omnia in euery respect For as in the one so in the others let it be say the Fathers To omit that as Error is subiect to Inconstancie you answer this afterward another way your selfe that there might be equalitie seruatâ proportione and onely in comparison with inferiour Seas where you will not denie but per omnia may be borne in that sense in the alleadging of the Canon though the text hath it not The Bishop therefore might adde it without iniurie to the Text though it be not in the letter Yea in your 47 numb of this present Chap. you giue the Cardinall leaue to adde Totius where there is none in the Text but vineae only without totius saying he doth it for explication sake And may not we then vpon so good grounds as you haue not for Totius out of all that Epistle but we haue for per omnia out of the circumstances of the Canon as hath beene shewed I suppose if two Consulls should striue for preheminence or two States of Venice to vse your owne comparison in another place of this brooke and the Iudge should so order it that they should both haue equall allowance of honour the paria priuilegia that you are so stumbled at for so I construe them and I thinke the righter one to be aduanced in matters of gouernment as well as the other onely that one should hold the second place and the other the first were it not euident that they were equalled in all points though the word all were not by him expressed saue onely in paritie of ranke and order So the case was here The Bishop of Rome was to sit afore the other in assemblies and meetings to be mentioned before him in the praiers of the Church to deliuer his opinion and iudgement first and yet for matter of authoritie or iurisdiction one Sea to be magnified sicut altera euen as much as the other and that per omnia in all respects whatsoeuer F. T. grinne to the contrarie § 4. And by this we answer to his other wise obiection that if preheminence of order bee reserued to Rome how then does the Canon make them equall in all things In all things else this onely excepted which the Canon excepts and nothing else to shew that as for other things they are to be equalled in all § 5. Yet you cauill the Bishop for leauing out that clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second after the other namely Constantinople after Rome as if the Bishop had left it out because making against himselfe which was nothing to the purpose to haue inserted because it concernes not the primacy of authoritie but of order onely about which wee striue not § 6. As for the printing of those words in all things in a different letter which according to the measure of your accustomed franknes you call corrupt and fraudulent dealing how often shal we tell you that the Bishop followed the differēce of the letter as diuerse others haue done and daily doe to specifie the thing it selfe intended by the Canon and to imprint it the deeper in the Readers mind not as alleadging the letter of it and so counterfeiting as you please to call it From which in truth he was so farre that you make it his fault in this very Chapter num 3. not to offer to lay it down or the words of it but onely to argue and to drawe consequences therefrom as his occasion serued § 7. Now whereas you would explicate the Canons meaning by the words following about the ordaining of certaine Bishops by the Patriarch of Constantinople as Pontus Asia Thracia c. and by exempting that Sea from standing subiect any longer to the Bishopricke of Heraclea of which it was once but a parcell it is true that from thence euen from so low estate
a touch of the Luciferian spirit to exalt his nest and climbe higher which is not so likely yet the concurrers with Anatolius in his desire for Constantinople were led as is apparant with farre diuerse respects In their Epistle to Leo the Fathers of that Councell mention these 1. To gratifie the Emperours who reioyced in it 2. to shew their zeale to the Senate 3. their honour to the citie of Constantinople it selfe and 4. lastly not onely from the good liking of persons but à naturâ rei to establish order and to abandon confusion out of the Church of God You see all was not for Anatolius his sake whom you so much talke of § 23. Secondly because it was made you say in the absence of his Legates and by surreption Answer That it was made in their absence it was their owne default who would not stay but that it was made by surreption it is your vntruth for they all gaue consent to it againe the next day and protested strongly against this imputation You shall heare the Councell it selfe for the first of these Act. 16. so wee read Paschasinus Lucentius vicegerents to the Sea Apostolick said If it please your highnes we haue somewhat to say to you The most glorious Iudges answered Say what you will Paschasinus and Lucentius said Yesterday after your Highnes were risen and we followed your steps there were certaine things decreed as we heare which we thinke were done besides the order and Canons of the Church We beseech you therefore that your excellencies would command the same to be read againe that the whole company may see whether it were rightly or disorderly done The most glorious Iudge answered If any thing were decreed after our departures let it be read againe And before the reading Aetius Archdeacon of Constantinople after a few other words premised said thus We had somewhat to doe for the Church of Constantinople We prayed the Bishops that came from Rome that they would stay and communicate with vs. They refused saying we may not we are otherwise charged We acquainted your Honours with it and you willed that this holy Councell should consider of it Your highnes then departing the Bishops that are here conferring of a common cause required this to be done And here they are It was not done in secret nor by stealth but orderly and lawfully This for the First § 24. Heare also for the second what we read in the same Action Lucentius reuerend Bishop and Vicegerent of the Sea Apostolick said First let your Highnes consider how guilefully the Bishops were dealt with and how hastily the matter was handled that they should be constrained to subscribe contrary to the holy Canons And Beronicianus most relligious Secretarie of the sacred Consistorie interpreting the former saying the Reuerend Bishops cryed out None of vs was constrained And after many things between againe we read The most glorious Iudges said These the most holy Bishops of Asia and Pontus that subscribed to the book as it was read vnto them let them say whether they subscribed of their owne accord and with full consent or compelled by some necessitie laid vpon them And the aforesaid Bishops of Asia and Pontus that had subscribed comming foorth into the midst Diogenes reuerend Bishop Cyzici said Before God I subscribed willingly Florentius reuerend Bishop Sardeorū Lydiae said No necessitie was laid vpon me but I subscribed of mine own accord Romanus reuerend Bishop Myrorum said I was not constrained It seemes iust to me and I subscribed willingly Calogerus reuerend Bishop Claudiopolis Honoriadis said I subscribed with my will not constrained and according to the determination of the hundred and fiftie holy Fathers in the first Councell of Constantinople Seleucus Bishop of Amasia said I did it by mine owne will desirous to be vnder this Sea of Constantinople because to me it seemes good wisedome Eleutherius Bishop of Chalcedon said I subscribed by my will knowing that both by the Canons and by custome aforegoing the Sea of Constantinople hath these priuiledges Where by the way you may see how fond the obiection is that Lucentius then made and some since him that the Canon of Constantinople was neuer put in vse whereas the Bishop of the place here where the Councell was held alleadges both Canon and Custome for it Nunechius reuerend Bishop of Laodicea of Phrygia I subscribed of mine owne accord Marinianus Pergamius Critonianus Eusebius Antiochus with diuerse more too long to be reckoned professed in the same sort Sponte subscripsimus we subscribed willingly on of our owne accord What can the Adioyndrer reply to this And yet afterward more effectually if it may be When the glorious Iudges had so pronounced Oportere sanctissimum Archiepiscopum regiae Constantinopolis nouae Romae oisdem primatibus honoris ipsum dignum esse c. that the most holy Archbishop of the royall citie of Constantinople which is new Rome must be allowed the same primacies or preheminences of honour that the Archbishop of olde Rome is and when they desired the holy and vniuersall Councell to declare what they thought for so are their words in the said Action Reuerendi Episcopi dixerunt Haec iusta sententia haec omnes dicimus haec omnibus placent c. The Reuerend Bishops said This is a iust sentence we all say so these things like vs all we all say so once againe the decree is iust and much more to that purpose which I omit § 25. His third reason is because the other Canon of Constantinople vpon which this was grounded was neuer put in practise till that time But how happily haue we refuted that euen now out of the mouth of one of the Bishops that subscribed Eleutherius Bishop of Chalcedon Besides Baronius confutes him that acknowledges Chrysostome talem patrem as he saies such a Father i. so reuerend to haue practised this Canon in deposing no lesse then 13. Bishops of Asia as you may reade in Sozom. l. 8. c. 16. Likewise the Clergie of Constantinople that in this verie Councell Act. 11. relying on this Canon challenged to themselues the ordination of the Bishop of Ephesus metropolitane of Asia minor and called it Custome as well as right So that belike they had knowne it practised by others Lastly why did Anatolius subscribe his name in this Councell the Councel of Chalcedon before Maximus and Iuuenalis one Bishop of Antioch the other Bishop of Hierusalem but onely because the Canon that was made at Constantinople in fauour of that Sea was and might be practised And when you quote Leo Ep. 53. that the Canon of Constantinople lacked authoritie because it was neuer sent to the Bishop of Rome neither does Leo say any such thing that I can finde in all that Epistle nor shall you prooue that the Popes consent is necessarie to enact Canons though most childishly you presume it and lastly he rather yeeldeth in the said Epistle as I conceiue him quandam
Whereas Dioscorus fault is amplified by the Fathers to haue wronged Leo after Flauianus and Eusebius with a post haec omnia as if therfore Leo were aboue them all though we deny not but in order of place he was aboue theÌ„ and specially then when he was President of the Councell of which neuertheles we may say with S. Chrysostome vpon the Acts homil 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a matter of presidence rather then of precedence yet he might as well argue that to imprison Peter was a greater fault in Herod then to slay Iames and indeede that 's the reckening that the Papists make of these names now a daies I meane Kings and Popes the one in Iames the other in Peter yea though they flay the one and but emprison the other because the scripture saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he added moreouer or he proceeded also to attach Peter Though F. T. perhaps drunken with Iesuitisme would argue from hence for Peters primacie as catching at euery thing and surely as wisely as Turrian his fellow Iesuite from the 4. quaternions of souldiers that were set to guard him in the same Chapter an vniuersall man no doubt and spreading into the foure corners of the world Another time quia vas pertigit ad Petrum the vessell came iust as farre as Peter that is the Church and the Pope are coextending § 31. But his greatest stick is at the Bishops answer about the charge of the vineyard committed to Leo that ad curam omnium ex aquo pertinet the care of the vineyard belongs to all alike not to Leo onely And here he plunges into a discourse ouer head and eares that all are not equally obliged in conscience to take care for the Church As if the Bishop had said aequaliter pertinet or aequè pertinet that all are bound in like degree who onely saies ad omnes pertinet ex aequo that is that all are bound and none exempt to take care for the Church ex aequo pointing there to the indifferency of the care the generality of the parties not to the degrees of caring § 32. Yet he argues from hence that you may know the man and what his humour his that if this be true then coblers and tinkers shall haue as good right of suffrage in generall Councels as any Bishop of them all Yea nothing but confusion and Chaos will ouerflow the difference of vocations beeing extinguished in the Church c. As if first the Bishop meant this of the Laity such as coblers and tinkers and not of Bishops only and other Clergie-men which afterwards himselfe is faine to acknowledge num 86. with shame enough hauing beaten the aire so long before to no purpose Or if the Bishop should extend it to the Laity and all for disputation sake and to chafe this snarling mastiffe a little yet it were not easie to put off all that he brings by this distinctioÌ„ that howsoeuer the care as exiens in actum breaking forth into this or some other duty is not common to all as the nurse onely cares so for the childe as to suckle it yet the care in fonte or in radice the originall sollicitude and indistinct care is common to all as they say in the Psalmes Wee haue wished you good lucke you that be of the house of the Lord euen as they may wish wel to the childe that are not particularly put in trust to battle it and to giue it suck but custodâ—â—o ordine maternorum membrorum as S. Austen saies in the like ease or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euery man in his owne order 1. Cor. 15. § 34. At last the Bishop is set to schoole euen in plaine tearmes Whereto I answer saith he he must learne to distinguish c. Betweene what thinke you Betweene the primacy of Peter and the priuiledges of the Sea of Rome So he And what of this Therefore the Fathers might giue the priuiledges indeed as the Canon speakes but still the primacie is of Christ What primacie Sir what primacie I pray you but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be aduanced and magnified in Church-matters to be Ladie-regent and gouernresse in that quarter What primacie did our Sauiour els giue to your Church when he gaue most as you feigne in Peter Vnlesse you speake of the Temporall which neuerthelesse you make a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the other an vndiuided consequent and so both as it were but one Neuerthelesse this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called here priuiledges by the Fathers of this Councell and it is saide the Fathers gaue it afore to Rome and now to Constantinople by the tenour of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnlesse you will teach the Fathers how to speake Which deuise of yours when I thinke of it is as good as that before numb 59. that the Fathers gaue not all priuiledges to Rome but some onely and therefore the Bishop offended in his si qua that is all in generall or whatsoeuer Which you correct thus The Canon speakes only of priuiledges giuen to the Church of Rome in respect of the Imperiall seat So that whereas the Fathers of Calchedon bring this for an argument why their fathers and predecessors gaue priuiledges to Rome namely because Rome was the Imperiall seat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the construction must be thus by your grand Logick The Fathers gaue not all priuiledges to Rome for the seat Imperiall but the priuiledges giuen thereto in respect of the Imperiall seat were giuen thereto in respect of the Imperiall seat and none others Is not this sweete art now and worthie of a Iesuit § 35. The reasons that you bring why the Councell should not mention the prerogatiue of Peter because it would hinder Anatolius his cause and the preferment of Constantinople which was then intended doe they not shew that either the Fathers were damnably partiall to obscure the true cause of Romes aduancement or else that Peter was no cause thereof at all For say not it helped not to the cause in hand The Fathers were not so blind as not to see it much lesse so grosse as seeing to smother it or for desire to winne their cause to translate it cleane another way And suppose they would haue done so why did no bodie contradict them as you said a little before about the titles of Supplications When there were negatiues in the Councell qui non subscripserunt as we read in the 16. Action why did no bodie lay forth the lamenesse of their reason and drawe Peter from vnder the stuffe Once againe me thinkes an Angel should haue smote him on the side and bid him stand vp now if euer For the Fathers had buried his prerogatiue cleane and entitled the dignitie of Rome to the Empire as if the Empire authorised the Church not the Church the Empire No reply was made none found fault with the reason Therefore wee take you at your word num 67. That the mention of
Peters primacie does not onely not helpe but euen crosse this Canon If the Canon then be good Peters primacie is none § 36. That Leo excommunicated Dioscorus by the Synode restraines his power of excommunicating Patriarchs rather then establishes it You know it was a question whether the Pope might inflict censures promiscue without a Synod yea or no. Of which more Gelasius in his Epistle before cited ad Episcopos Dardaniae And yet Leo does nothing here but by the Synod re stylo directly mentioning it his Legates I meane for him fetching assistance from it And Peter is put in the last place after Leo and the Synode as whose authoritie the Synode as well as hee participated Might not this therefore haue beene better left out § 37. You omit not so much as that Leo is said to be ordained to be the interpretour of the voice of blessed Peter to all men I wonder what you would say if what Nazianzen ascribes to Athanasius had beene said of your Leo in that Councel One time that he was the fanne that cleansed the floare suppose you the fanne in our Lords hand to separate as it were betweene the wheat and the chaffe so betweene true opinions or erroneous in the faith yea you would say iudging betweene the nations of the world and diuiding the good from the bad by sentence Behold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Alexandria euen before Cyrill Another time that as our Lord ridde the asse so Athanasius managed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people of the Gentiles as farre spread as they were throughout the world Another time that he was the two tables of Moses and his verdict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very law of veritie another time the tuft of Sampsons head which as we know appropriated the holy Ghost to him Yet Leo was the rather praised because President of the assembly and to his face also enioying the grace that accompanieth Councells Athanasius in his particular and after death and not onely at one time but continuedly And I pray you what saies the same Coūcell of the Emperours Leo by name but not your Leo Leo Imperator inexpugnabilis palma honor fidei accepit a Deo super omnes homines sine prohibitione aliquâ potestatem What is this to beeing the interpretour of Peters voice whereas S. Peter would haue euery bodie to be to God as they that you speak of make Leo to be to Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the oracles of God so let-euery man speak 1. Pet. 4. 11. But there is more in that authoritie for which cause I must english it Leo our Emperor the impregnable garlād honour of the faith hath receiued of him that is of God power ouer all men without any controule We see here for matters of faith and of relligion what the Emperour might challenge beeing called the garland of it and impregnable or inuincible 2. He hath command ouer all men Clerks and all 3. from God 4. without any checke or controule which would haue made great titles in the Popes style Againe Nerui arma virtus Ecclesiarum vos est is Christianissimi Imperatores c. You most Christian Emperours are the sinewes the weapons and the puissance of the Churches c. This out of the Councell that your selfe quote And of the difference of the testimonies giuen to the two Leo's let the Reader iudge § 38. The last thing that I will note in your second chapter shall be this remembring my promise to obserue breuity from which I am but too easily blowne awry with the storme of your fopperies You make it an argument of Leos supremacie you call it Monarchie very roundly a little after and are not ashamed at it chap. 4. num 3. that first Leo was admitted President of the Councell held in Greece then that Leo beeing absent Anatolius kept not his place but Legates of his owne sending whereof one was a Priest The answer is most easie Leo beeing denied one part of his will to haue the Councell in Italy it was a poore recompence I meane for his monarchie and in regard to that to be employed to be their President as a wise man a learned man and a stout man likewise also in order surmounting them all as hath beene acknowledged whereas diuerse Presidents had beene in Councels that were inferiour to Leo in these points and therefore much more remooued from the stately Monarchy that you from hence gather § 39. But Why not Anatolius say you Was not hee fit to be President whome the Councell thought fit to be so aduanced in their Canon as to haue the like stroke in Ecclesiasticall affaires that the verie first of the ranke had Once againe I must tell you belike that the Canon aduances not Anatolius but Constantinople And it was the parting of stakes betweene Leo and him that though the Councell were in Greece yet Leo should be the President As for his Legates it was no matter after once they had concurred vpon Leo to bee the man whome he sent in his place so long as they were sufficient since himselfe could not be there And I hope they brought instructions From Leo as themselues say often and might haue reference to him if any doubt should arise Also it was the fitter that Italian Bishops should be Presidents and not Grecian that the Canon might be the authenticaller which was enacted for Constantinople as farther from partialitie of the lawmakers To which purpose they say in their Epistle to Leo the Fathers of that Councell that the Emperours affecting the exaltation of Constantinople Volebant celebrari ab vniuersali Concilio for more authoritie sake no doubt and so likewise by forraine Bishops as Leo and his Legates But if you thinke his Legates had any such stroke that Anatolius should enuy them for their greatnesse you may remember how boldly the Councell dissented from them and the Canon was confirmed notwithstanding their demurres § 40. Neither despise you Priests to come into Councells gentle friend This shewes how vaine your discourse was before num 52. that Concilium Episcoporum est the Councell consists of Bishops onely Doe you not knowe the difference betweene suffrages some decisiue some deliberatiue definitine or consultiue Hath Ego definiens subscripsi so often repeated in this Councell no better setled into you Or wil the Iesuites be content to refraine from Councels as many as are not Bishops Perhaps because they are loath to bee called away from Princes Courts But that you may know Priests haue their interest in Councels at least Sir by conniuence of Bishops as in diuerse other things as we read in the Canons Athanasius a Deacon stood the church in good stead in the Nicen Councel yea an idiot a man wholly illiterate confuted a Philosopher one of the Princes of the world as S. Paul calls them In Conc. Moguntino three turmae were set apart
generall and so of no force to bind all in all places and if it had so beene yet you may remember how many Sanctions euen of the Nicene Councell are out of vse with you cancel'd abrogate as the Bishop shewes in one part of that booke of his which you now fumble about the refuting of To omit that the constitution runnes but thus though it were neuer so authenticall euen by Placet vobis May you please to allow and rather for Iulius his vertue then the seats priuiledge and so to last no longer then men endued with the like integritie that Iulius was should occupie the roome but no way descending of such originall right as you pretend Else what neede the Canon either the Fathers consent or the scrutiner to begin with placet vobis As for Petri memoriam that they would vouchsafe to honour Peters memorie euen that shewes it was arbitrarie and rather not to be denied to his blessed memorie then due to his successor by right of inheritance Though Optatus leads vs to more memories then one as there were more Apostles and Saints then one of whome he construes that euen in the Sardican sense memorijs Sanctorū cōmunicantes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 2. contra Parmenianum and againe memorijs Apostolorum lib. 4. § 16. Now to backe your fancie that appeales were not forbid by the Mileuitan Canon in S. Austens time you descend to Leos time short of S. Austens so as you refute not the Bishop nor say nothing to the purpose but that you long to be vntrussing your pedlerly fardles As if Leo were not like enough to encroach vpon the Canon to gaine aduantage to his Sea a sea indeed which eares out the earth though neuer so well fenced and the distressed estate of the Churches of Africa encreasing with the times might driue them to admit of more then was reason but that they were glad to make their peace at any hand though with hard conditions Concerning Gregories times you fall a great deale lower though you are clean besides the cushion there too For whereas you granted before that the Canon forbad the appeales of Deacons though not of Bishops now you bring vs an instance of two Deacons appealing so as the Canon is trampled downe by your owne confession and yet the Bishops allegation was of the Canon onely Shall law or practise be our Iudge And yet when Gregory refers the plaintiue Deacons ouer to a Synode hee does but as the Canons had enacted before in that behalfe namely Nicen. can 3. Antioch can 9. Constantinop can 2. What proofe then is this of Gregories authoritie to heare appeals which rather he commits to the triall of Synods as equitie would § 17. And the same fault is in your next example Certaine Priests of Africa complained against Paulinus Donadeus a Deacon against Victor his Bishop Yet you graunted euen now that Priests and Deacons were barred Appeales by the Canon most euidently What is this then to the matter but that you want worke and are faine to sucke occasion out of your fingers ends that you may be doing And in one word when Gregorie so orders the matter vpon these fellowes complaints that he refers the hearing to an assembly of Bishops with the primate of the Prouince as you alleadge either Victor or Columbus or whome you will he shewes no authority but onely does as the Canons had appointed to be done whether he would or no. Indeed Gregorie professes his respect to the Canons in diuerse places and herein he keepes it § 18. It followes of certaine Popes who exercised he saith vniuersall authoritie in S. Austens dayes Though I shewed that this neede not because no way thwarting the Bishops words yet briefly to his obiections that he seeme not ouer wise in his owne conceit S. Austen saies of Zozim Ep. 157. ad Opt. Iniuncta nobis à venerabili Papâ Zozimo Apostolicae sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas nos Caesaream traxerat The necessarie occasions of the Church imposed vpon me by Pope Zozimus drew me to Caesarea And out of Possidius Literae sedis Apostolicae compulerunt This may prooue violence as well as authority because of trahere and compellere Which surely Zozimus vsed not to S. Austen He lackt a learned man and cald for S. Austen vsing his best interest to perswade him What is this to the Popedome How many such compellers could I shew you out of S. Austen Marcellinus for one a temporall Earle but an exceeding good man and afterward Martyr as we are told by S. Hierome Sic me compulit vel ipsa charitas tui Marcelline Comes sic inquam me compulit sic duxit traxit c. De peccat meritis remiss l. 1. c. 1. Iust as the Apostle acknowledges of himselfe and all Christians Charitas Christi cogit nos the loue of Christ constraines vs. So here the necessities of the Church did S. Austen recōmended to him by Pope Zozimus yet with no more iurisdiction perhaps then Marcellinus had ouer him which I thinke was but small The examples of this kind of phrase are rife euery where We read in the booke of Samuel that the witch constrained king Saul to eate meate 1. Sam. 28. And Luk. 24. coegerunt eum the two Disciples that went into Emaus constrained our Sauiour to tarry with them Howbeit doubtlesse not superiour to him specially after his resurrection Abraham and Lot constrained their guests as we may read in Genesis yet not giuing lawes I suppose to strangers which is condemned in another place of that booke Peregrinus est vult dare leges but to teach vs to enforce our liberalities and our courtesies where modesty reiects them though neede craue them And these guests were Angels Which it were fine if you could bring vnder the Popes compulsion as some of your men haue seriously laboured to make the Pope paramount to the Angels themselues once Abraham and Lot though no spirituall men here constrained them for certaine What speake I of Scriptures Euen Tully de Amicitiâ Cogitis certè quid enim refert quâ ratione cogatis You constraine me quoth Lelius no matter how And againe S. Austen Praef. librorum ad Simplicianum Quaestiunculas quas mihi enodandas iubere dignatus es He sayes Simplician commaunded him to dissolue questions And yet I take it Simplician had no such regular power ouer S. Austen as to command him This iubere would haue troubled Pope Nicholas wonderfully I neuer reade his Epistle ad Michaelem Imperatorem but I pitty his passions to see him so stormed with a poore iubere of the Emperour Whereas the Emperour writing in all likelihood in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be construed wishing or exhorting if either he or his interpretour had not been afraid of a blew spider a dread where none was But againe S. Austen in the forenamed place
little by this new purgation For first this is generall and encloseth all Non potest aliquis omnia in praesenti vitâ operari Then necessary not subiect to be diminished or released by the prayers of the liuing Vpon which foundation neuerthelesse your market-house is erected And lastly not torments but tentations remaine for vs and fresh combates if these say true Your pots may freeze then for all this Purgatorie But at least it followes from prayers for the dead which you bid vs marke here As if in the auncient Liturgies the Virgin Mary were not prayed for whom you so quit from Purgatorie that you excuse from death in other some the Martyrs who goe not thither by your doctrine but are glorified immediately yea all soules and all departed are prayed for by others Yet not onely S. Bernards soule flow immediately to heauen as your Authors informe vs. but euen Father Hozius the Iesuite and I know not who of that crew their soules were seene fleeting thither as fast by some of their owne consederacy forsooth that we may beleeue it the rather S. Cyrill in his Catechis quotes the words of the Greeke seruice thus Offerimus pro omnibus quiâ—… saculo tibi placuerunt Sanctis We offer for all Saints and righteous persons that haue beene pleasing to thee O Lord from the beginning of the world And more peremptorily afterward to shew that euen profit accrueth here of the soules departed but what profit you may thinke sith he makes it common to the soules of the most righteous iust themselues euen all of theÌ„ Magnam vtilitatem credentes accessuram eorum animabus pro quibus offertur which puzles your Pamelius who quotes that to prooue the cleane contrarie of it which it importeth Gregorie Nazianz Orat. in Caesarium sratrem though hee had laid downe his ground that Caesariâ—… was saued and his soule enriched with competent honours dignum fructificaret honorem yet he prayes thus to God in the sequele for him Nunc O Domine Caesarium suscipe Tuis eum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Receiue him Lord we giue thee him whome thou hast alreadie taken Of which manner of prayer I shall speake a little after S. Ambrose is not slack to pray for Valentinian S. Austen for his mother Monica though they assure themselues of their exemption froÌ„ all manner of paine Et credo iamfeceris quod te rogo saith S. Austen sed tamen voluntaria or is mei approba Domine And I beleeue Lord thou hast alreadie done this but yet Lord accept the free-will offerings of my mouth But let Gregorie de Valentia cast it hardly Tom. 4. Com. Theolog. Disput 6. Quaest 6. Punct 1. De forma Eucharistiae thus hee sayes Facit saepe magnitudo affectûs in Sanctis vt illud tanquam in excasi quadam petant à Deo quodtamen iam factum est The Saints in transportation many times pray for things alreadie graunted The same saith S. Chrysostome of S. Paul Hom. 10. in 4. ad Coloss 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He begs for what he hath alreadie Holy Iob also concurring cap. 9. Cùm vocantem me exaudierit non tamen credo quòd audier it vocem meam When he heares me calling vpon him yet I scarce beleeue that he hath heard my voice and therefore importune him with fresh suite for the same thing Yea Maldonate the Iesuite giues as much out of the Author Imperfecti commenting vpon Matt. 6. 11. Vocari volunt panem nostrum illum etiam ipsum quem iam habemus quem nihilominùs à Deo petere iubemur Quod verum quidem pium est c. So as not onely in extasie and transportation as Valentia would but in the daily forme of prayer prescribed by our Sauiour to the whole Church the Saints are to pray for things alreadie had But returne we where we left § 35. The last is of Florentius apoore old man of Hippo who hauing lost his cloake S. Austen saies he praied at the monuments of certaine Martyrs but not to them The young men scoft him say you for praying to the Martyrs It seemes then it was no such vse to doe so For they were not Pagan young men but more likely Christian And though they mocked him eo ipso nomine for praying to the Martyrs yet it followes not that he did so for euen our Sauiour was mockt as praying to Elias when he praied to his Father onely So it might be that neither Florentius praied to any but to God and the young men mocking him as praying to the Martyrs declared the iudgement of those times and those parts which was that Martyrs were not to be prayed to You say they mockt him not for praying to the Martyrs but for requesting of them quinquagenos folles so many pieces of money towardes his cloake Which is not likely he would capitulate so precisely with Saints for the buying of a new cloake but if he did you may weigh his wisdom and thinke how fit a man to square the faith of Gods Church by his actions Cartosus the cooke might say Ecce quomodò Martyres te vestierunt behold how the Martyrs haue clothed thee though neither Florentius praied to them nor Cartosus allowed such praier to be lawfull but onely comforting him against the taunts of the young men who had impured that to him to pray to Martyrs S. Austens epiphonema Cui nisi huic fidei attestantur ista miracula to what faith doe these miracles beare witnes c. hurts not vs who denie not miracles though they that call for them vntimely driue our Sauiour to groanes againe Mark 8. 12. nor wish ill to Martyrs and least of all to Faith but say that faith in Saints and prayer to the dead are both of them repugnant to the right faith of our Lord Iesus Christ. To the eight Chapter The Bishops arguments against Praying to Saints are maintained which the Adioynder saith may be expected in all likelihood that he should satisfie and therefore addresseth himselfe thereunto in this chapter The Canon of the Church of England about the Crosse in Baptisme neither guiltie of imposture nor any otherwaies to blame Wrangling iuggling trifling and the rest of his braue Rhetorique wherewith he fronts the Bishop returned vpon himselfe rather in proofe then words § 1. YOV call it the Bishops abusing of Theoderet to quote as much of the text onely as was most pregnant to the matter in hand besides that you know his accustomed breuity And yet professing to lay downe Theodonets place you dare not your selfe lay it downe at large I will adde what you left out The question betweene vs arises of the 35. Canon of the Councell of Laodicea Of that Theodoret in his Comment vpon the 2. to the Coloss thus They which defended the law did prouoke them also to the worship of Angels saying that the law was giuen by them Now this fault remained in Phrygia
ductu which was Austens triumph to confound them with the Church after he had conquered them with the Scriptures Nay in his second booke against Cresconius c. 31. he allowes such a supremacie to holy Scriptures that by direction of them do caeteris literis fidelium not onely infidelium liberè iudicemus We may freely iudge of ought other writings of faithfull men therefore of Fathers themselues by collation of Scriptures And de vnit Eccl. c. 16. Non dicimus nos nobis ideo credi oportere quòd in Ecclesiâ Christi sumus We say not we must be credited because we are in the Church § 29. As for that other place of his out of the 4. de baptism cont Denatist cap. 24. What neither Councells haue determined nor Scripture defined c. one part is for you that no Councells haue decreed your prayers to Saints no Scriptures ordained them but in the other ye are farre short Quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia whereas you shew nothing afore the fourth age And God wot how weake Martyr pro nobis oret Let the Martyr pray for vs § 30. Numb 33. Are Godfathers and Godmothers of the substance of baptisme And yet suppose they were I hope there is a print of this very thing in Scripture See Esa 8. v. 2. I tooke vnto me faithfull witnesses Vriah the Priest and Zachariah the sonne of Ieberechiah This was at the naming of the sonne of the Prophetesse Maher-shalal-hash-baz But you answer your selfe by the words of the Canon in the same number that these rules are rules of doctrine concerning indifferent things And is our strife with you about such § 31. Mr. Rogers might well say that we are not commanded by expresse tearmes to baptize infants Yet warranted as I haue shewed you yea cōmanded but not in expresse termes which you would smother Your fopperies are neither expressely nor implicitely Scripturall § 32. To your 34. Numb where you professe to lay open a notable piece of trumpery of the Bishops of England for with such reuerence you speake when you speake of them all I pray you see how notable First the Canon neuer saies expressely nor by consequence that the Papists hold that the signe of the Crosse is of the substance of the Sacrament And yet herein you would faine obserue a contradiction betweene his ROYALL MATESTIES gratious censure of you acquiting you from that error and the words of the Canon as they may seeme to glaunce at you for so holding Such encouragement you giue his MOST EXCELLENT MAIESTIE to make the best of your errors to which his princely nature easily enclineth him and more easily might for the great benefit of Gods Church and the compounding of discords if you had the grace not to deprane him But as I was saying The Canon onely affirmes that the signe of the Crosse hath euer been accompanied of late times in the Church of England with sufficient cautions and exceptions against all popish superstition and error and againe That since the abolishing of Popery the Church of England hath euer held and taught that the signe of the Crosse is no part of the substance of that Sacrament and that the infant baptized is by vertue of baptisme receiued into the Congregation of Christs flocke as a perfect member thereof euen before it be signed with the signe of the Crosse Whereas all this while there may be other errors about the signe of the Crosse then holding it to be a part of the substance of Baptisme And from them we haue purged it Bellarmine I am sure de effectu sacram lib. 2. cap. 31. ascribes spirituall vertue to this ceremony and quotes to that ende a number of authors but wrested as his manner is Yea hee would haue it to worke wholesome effects ex opere operato What thinke you of that And how if Bellarmine either straggle and wander now from your Church herein or conuince you to be vnworthy of his MAIESTIES milde censure in attributing grace and power to this signe Lastly though your Church neuer held any such thing that is your congregatio Aquilarum as Pighius calls it your quickesighted clarkes and in that respect the Prelates might truely enforme his MAIESTIE that you your selues were neuer so grosse as to impute vertue or efficacie thereunto yet diuers simple soules lurking in the promiscuous body of popery might be tainted with this infection and in that respect it might be called a popish error though still I must tell you that the Canon doth not call it so there are errors enough besides that which the Canon might refer vnto Yea the fond perswasion of lay-Papists calling for it as violently and as importunely as for the water in baptisme which hath been knowne in this land I will not say where nor how lately because it is an error springing from Popery fostered in your bosomes though not proclaimed by your Church might well be accounted among the Popish errors from which we haue refined the signe of the Crosse by neither ascribing vertue to it holines grace nor yet necessary obseruation but onely by way of obedience where the Canon appoints and conueniencie withstandeth not for some aduertisements sake Can you doubt that there are errors and errors in Popery about the signe of the Crosse besides making it to be a part of the Sacramēt of baptisme that alleadge Nauarrus here your grand Casuist affirming that if baptisme be administred without the Crosse wee ought to supply it afterwards whereas either baptisme must then be renewed and readministred to the party which cannot be without horrible sacriledge Heb. 6. and Ephes 4. or the signing with the Crosse there is not the Crosse in baptisme if it come so long after But we treat of the Crosse in Baptisme and that is it which hath ministred all the offence Finally you say if the midwife baptize then the child must be crossed afterward So that the midwife may baptize belike not crosse A high point in your low Diuinity vnles you will haue the midwife to baptize the vnborne another worthy practise no doubt and yet then they might crosse too one as well as the other in aerem both as the Apostle speakes 1. Cor. 14. But we goe forward § 33. Numb 41. The Bishop cannot answer you say in defence of himselfe that in things indifferent it is lawfull to adde besides the written word though not otherwise for his saying is id tantùm audemus facere Wee dare onely doe that c. But be you answered That facere with the Bishop as with Moses before concerneth the maine action not the ceremonie appertaining and vesting such as praier to Saints cannot be reputed but is a seruice of it selfe and of a proper erection Though if it were a ceremonie ceremonies are like your glosses which if they deface the text they are accursed so these when they destroy the substance § 34. Num. 43. Beyond the degree of ridiculous The
How is the Pope himselfe head of hereticall and Apostaticall Priests and yet not combined with them in their heresie or Apostasie How of the Iewes in his Dominions of whome he is Head at least as Temporall Prince as you conceiue Are there not diuers Superintendents of whole Vniuersities and Scholasticall congregations throughout the world which neuer were trained in the schollership or learning of those places And yet they may proceede against the Diuines that are therein in matters of Christianitie as for omitting of Sermons of Theologicall Disputations also false doctrine in them c. though they themselues be no Priests and the others are Yea why may not KINGS beare authoritie ouer Priests and Spirituall persons though themselues be none as well as there be diuers Rectors and Gouernours of particular Colledges throughout the Realme and that also perhaps according to the auncient Statutes who beeing no Priests nor Spirituall men themselues haue authoritie neuertheles ouer the whole companie and among the rest ouer the Priests too So as first the King by vertue of his place may exercise power ouer them that are Spirituall or Priestly persons though himselfe be none and yet the sounder Antiquitie hath seemed to descrie some such thing in Kings but then the law of God ordaining him moreouer a Nursing-father to his Church that is a defender and prouider in all points for the blessed and happie estate therof as the Reuerend Bishop here most godlily argueth and most stoutly auerreth though the Adioynder thinke him cold in the cause he is not onely a Head but a kind and louing Head one that knowes Ioseph And practising this Almightie God will reward him accordingly if otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him thank himselfe as the Canons speake For God will not hold him guiltlesse in iudgement though the impatience of men may not wreake their quarrell The Adioynder saies the Catholikes meaning the Papists will not deny this but that they affirme and teach that Kings are for the nourishment and defence of the Church as much as either the Prophet Esay or the Bishop of Ely himselfe c. Which if it be so I see not but the question euen by that which hath been said may be alreadie at an ende § 71. But so is not our labour thanke the Adioynder for it who mingling his Parlaments here together with his Paralogismes thus goes forward It is further yet enacted saies he by our Parlaments that King Henry the eight might not only visit all Ecclesiasticall persons and reforme all kind of errors heresies and abuses in the Church of England but also assigne 32. persons to examine all manner of Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Prouinciall and Synodicall And further to set in order and establish all such Laws Ecclesiasticall as should be thought by him and them conuenient to be vsed and set forth within his Realmes and Dominions in all spirituall Courts and Conuentions and that such Lawes and Ordinances Ecclesiasticall as should be deuised and made by the Kings Maiestie and these 32. persons and declared by his Maiesties Proclamation vnder his great Seale should be onely taken reputed and vsed as the Kings Laws Ecclesiasticall c. § 72. Then Numb 51. Furthermore King Henrie made the Lord Cromwell his Vicar generall for the exercise of his Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction by vertue whereof the said Lord Cromwell ordained Ecclesiasticall Lawes and Iniunctions and published them vnder the Seale of his Vicariate directing them to all Archbishops Abbots and the rest of the Clergie And albeit Queene Elizabeth did not vse in her style c. Thus he § 73. And what of this Or how does this shew that King Henry the eight assumed vnto himselfe any Ecclesiasticall authoritie or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall which is the summe of the Question betweene you and vs For as for the assigning of persons to examine Canons and Constitutions Prouinciall or Synodicall and to set in order and establesh all such Lawes Ecclesiasticall as should be thought meete c. I redemaund in one word What if those persons were Ecclesiasticall men What inconuenience was in that Sure nothing to the contrarie appeares by your writing and much lesse by the Act of Parlament here quoted Nam quibus non licet cognoscere per se licet tamen cognitores dare saith the Law It might be so here then Though suppose it were otherwise Did you neuer heare of Constantine threatning the Bishops in his own persō that about their courses in Eclesiasticall affaires What he did by himselfe why might not others from him by his appointing direct Iniunctions to the Archbishops Abbots the rest of the Clergie which you take in so ill part here at my Lord Cromwells hands that he should presume to doe though King Henrie deputed him and the Act of Parlament which you quote allowed him Did not Emperours ordinarily commaund Bishops Remember Mauritius to your great S. Gregorie remember Marcian and diuerse more You heard but euen now what Cyrill saies to Theodosius that he commanded the Priests and in an Ecclesiasticall matter to purge the Church from impieties and blasphemies and till that was done he would not enter And if they by themselues thus why not by others such as they please to appoint for them Neither was that the meaning of the Act of Parlament that no Canons should be Canons without the Kings authoritie as yo would faine wrest it to augment your cauills but that Canons should not bee forcible in the nature of Lawes without the Kings consent as reason is and practise hath euer beene and the words themselues import as they are quoted by you viz. that such Laws and Ordinances Ecclesiasticall should only be reputed as the KINGS LAVVS which himselfe or they for him had ratified and approoued c. What more equall § 74. And what maruell now if Queene Elizabeth claimed as much as her father King Henrie did before her and the Parlament was not nice to assent to her in that behalfe For of all the graunts that were made to that Queene there is nothing vnnaturall nothing vnciuill nothing that wee should blush for at this day Yes power say you to reform correct c. That is in foro externo or power coactiue vindicatiue power which is onely the Princes not the Spirituall mans For so it followes Any authoritie that hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or vsed for the Visitation of the Ecclesiasticall state for ORDER reformation correction c. Here is nothing but the obiect Ecclesiasticall persons that you should bee so scandalized with in this period for that same any is any compulsiue Power which is propriagladij witnesse Bonauenture and not clauium in 4. Dist 18. qu. 3. Resp ad penult whom neuerthelesse we haue prooued and are readie to prooue that they are censurable by Princes and their subordinate officers though the beast gnaw her tongue
the Apocalyps cap. 8. v. 3. after their Popish sense There were giuen vnto him many incenses that he should offer of the prayers of ALL Saints p. 304 91. Substantiall seruice of God there must bee none besides his word though decent ceremonies be left to discretion Caetera disponam The Adioynders instats to the contrary are answered à pag. 305. ad 309 92. The inditers of holy writ had commaundement for their doing p. 309. 310. vide Irenaeum lib. 3. c. 1. Per Dei voluntatem Euangelium nobis in Scripturis tradiderunt primò qui illud ipsum praeconiauerunt c. Sed Aug. de consensu Euangelist l. 2. c. extremo Deus ipse scripsit quae Apostoli Euangelistae scripserunt Quia scribenda illis tanquam SVIS MANIBVS imperauit Certè autem manus si consultò agunt nihil admodum agunt sine imperio animae Ergò 93. Baptisme of young children hath sufficient grounds in Scripture p. 310. 311 94. How the Churches determination stoppes heretikes mouthes though the Scriptures are silent p. 311. 312 95. The Canon of the Church of England about the Crosse in Baptisme no way guilty of the Adioynders malepert slaunder p. 312. 313. 314. 96. A viuis ad Diuos non sequitur consequentia And what the reason is p. 315 97. Onely Christ is mediator as well of intercession as of redemption p. 316. 317 98. The absurd blasphemy of the Iesuites as if God the Father commended vs to Christ his sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 317 99. The booke of Daniel makes not for praying to Saints or putting confidence in them Origen against it What is done for the Saints sake is not done for their merits sake nor to bee drawne to Inuocation p. 318. 319. 320 100. Bigge words of the Adioynder that the graunting of our prayers is to be ascribed to the authority that the Saints haue not onely to their suite Aptissima muscipula ad idololatriam p. 320. 101. The Papists faile in their probations by the Fathers touching prayer to Saints for all their iolly crakes More good Latine of the Adioynders p. 321 102. The Adioynders water will seeth no beefe He should haue testimonies enough he saies for praying to Saints out of the Fathers writings but that in such and such ages very few Fathers wrote at all p. 322 103. The signe of the Crosse hath antiquitie to commend it besides authoritie to commaund it Praying to Saints hath neither the one to be respected nor the other to be obeyed p. 323 104. Bishops may erre Chrys 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Episcopi vexant ecclesiam sicut Iobum vxor amici sui The safest relying when all is done is vpon Scripture Erunt stabula fidelium illic à pag. 323. ad 326 105. Fathers scattered misse of the validitie that they haue in Synods Vide Bell. de auct Concil l. 2. c. 2. Episcopos SEORSVM existentes spiritus sanctus non docet omnem veritatem ibid. in fine Sine dubio SINGVLI Episcopi errare possunt c. Vide eundem c. 6. Alia ratio est Pastorum in Concilio congregatorum alia vero dispersorum c. p. 326 106. Malum ex sanctuario Sal fatuum The Church-men broach error p. 327 107. The Scripture winnes the field though the Fathers come in at triumph And so meant S. Austen when he charges vpon Iulian with the authoritie of sixe Bishops as sufficient to conuict him Els we know sixe Bishops are nothing to weigh with the world of faithfull besides Originall sinne plaine by Scripture though the Adioynder stone-blind cannot see it p. 328. 329. 108. Once againe the Adioynders stale trumperies from Benefits and Miracles to conclude for Inuocation of Saints in blisse But Ter si resurgat c. p. 330 109. Two witnesses not to be heard against Christ or his word nor yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peters priuie nippe in Galat. 2. as Remigius conceiues of it But the Popes for certaine or whosoeuer is the prime ibid. 110. Corruption easily creepes into the Church p. 331 111. Origens wauering about Saints praying for vs Audivi quendam ità dicentem c. But peremptorie that we must not pray to Saints or heauenly Angells but to God onely through Iesus Christ à pag. 332. ad 339. latè 112. The Bishops testimonies against praying to Saints which he produces out of the Fathers are farre more pregnant then ab authoritate negativè as the Adioynder slaunders him p. 340. 341. 113. The Bishops quotation of Athanasius most vpright and most authenticall though it please Mr. Adioynder either of blindnes or boldnes to denie that there is any such text in the booke By occasion of search not onely that but seuen more places of Athanasius are alleadged all of them neere hand and to the same effect viz. that God onely is to be adored and prayed vnto not Creatures p. 342. 343 CHAP. 9. 114. THe Bishop changes wordes without changing the question giuing more light to it He is not tied to tearmes as the Adioynder and they that haue no great store of Latine beforehand Earthly Monarchie disctaimed in shew but challenged in substance by the Adioynder and his copes-mates p. 345 115. Supererogation The Bishop swarueth not from the state of the question p. 346. 347. 348 116. The Sacrament not at all Christ euery where to be adored p. 348. 349. 350 117. Adoration of relliques The Bishop constant to the question though they cauill him for the cōtrarie Yea so constant that they carpe him for his very constancie to the Kings Apologie with the same breath p. 350. 351 118. S. Iohn was at a fault worshipping the Angell p. 351 119. The Adioynder turnes all into courting and complement betweene the Angell and S. Iohn p. 352 120. The very Popish authors will not permit vs to worship Angells since the Incarnation of Christ So as the Adioynder pleading for it shewes who is the Iew and the digger vp of ceremonies like Sara vnder the Oke as he reniles the Bishop but most senselesly euery where p. 353 121. No third kind of adoration Therefore no relligious to creatures ibid. p. 354 122. Iosephs rodde how worshipped by Iacob p. 355. 356. 357. 123. The worshipping of the footestoole Nabuchodonosors adoring of Daniel Subiection to Infidells is no disparagement to true vertue p. 357. 358 124. Awodden reason and a wicked yeelded by the Adioynder why it is called relligious worship viz. because done to relligious persons But by that reason God himselfe should haue no part in it who beares relligion to none The Saints so let in as God himselfe is shut out by our deuout Iesuits p. 359. 360 125. No adoration and yet a ciuill adoration makes no contradiction in the sense ibid. 126. Gregorie de Valentia flatly denying relligious worship to Creatures p. 360 127. The Bishop not to blame for expounding S. Hierome by S.