your Protestant Churches are free from Vice you say (x) Pag. 342. The greatest Vice you can impute vnto Protestants is that they impugne the Popes indulgences the nourseries of all Vices Your denying and impugning the Popes indulgences we reckon not among your Vices but among your Errors against fayth Of your Vices I forbeare to speake your owne men both abroad as Luther Caluin Melancthon Brentius Bucer Eberus Wigandus and diuers others and at home M. Geffrey M. Stubs both of them great Preachers and the Puritans in their Milde defence haue done it for me Reade them and they will informe you that vnder the Papacy men were religious and giuen to the practise of good workes but that the professors of your Ghospell relying on their iustification by only fayth are become carelesse of good workes dissolute proud enuious malicious disdainefull couetous ambitious that your eyes ought to gush out with teares to behold the misery of your supposed Church the great ignorance the superficiall worship of God the fearfull blasphemies and swearing in howses and streets the dishonor of Superiors the pride cruelty fornications adulteries drunkennesse couetousnesse Vsuries and other like abhominations that youth among you becomes daily lesse tractable and more bold to commit those vices which in former times men of yeares knew not that instead of fasting you haue brought in bibbing and banketing and insteed of praying swearing And finally that you equall the Iewes in hypocrisy the Turkes in impiety and the Tartars in iniquity All this and much more to the same effect is the free confession of your Brethren faithfully set downe in their owne words in a late Treatise of the Protestant priuat spirit (y) Chap. 9. sect 8. subdiuis 4. And it is so strong an Argument against your pretended reformation that your learned brother Eberus sticketh not to say (z) Praefat. Comment Philip. in Ep. ad Cor. that in regard of the enormous wickednesse of your Ministry and Church any man may iustly doubt whether you be the true Church And yet you blush not to say that the greatest vice we can impute vnto Protestants is that they impugne the Popes indulgences which you falsly call the noursery of all Vices for by this it appeares that not the Popes indulgences but your new Protestant Ghospell is the noursery of all Vices and that in lieu of a reformation which you pretend calling your selues The reformed Churches you haue made a deformation of the Church of Christ SECT IV. That Protestants by Schisme haue diuided themselues from the Catholike Church TO proue that we censure your Protestant Church of Schisme iniustly you say (a) Pag. 341. The greatest schisme you can impute to the Churches of Protestants is that they wil be diuided from the Church of Rome which proudly and impiously diuideth herselfe from all other Churches of the world And a litle before (b) Pag. 340. you had taxed Bellarmine for holding that if those of the East were but only Schismatikes by denying subiection to the Church of Rome yet that alone without any suspicion of heresy might be sufficient to conclude them in the state of damnation Two things may here be disputed the one whether schisme alone without heresy exclude men from saluation the other whether Protestants be Schismatikes Concerning the first that Schismatikes though no way guilty of heresy for the very fault of schisme alone are incapable of saluation is a thing so certaine that no man that vnderstandeth euen the ordinary principles of Diuinity or is versed in the writings of the ancient Fathers can be ignorant therof for schisme being of it selfe a diuision or separation from the Catholike Church as it is impossible that he who is out of the Catholike Church be saued so it is that a schismatike dying in schisme be saued God sayth S. Irenaeus (c) L. 4. c. 62. shall iudge those that make schismes in the Church ambitious men not hauing the honor of God before their eyes but rather imbracing their owne interest then the vnity of the Church and for little and light causes diuiding the great and glorious body of Christ c. For in the end they cannot make any reformation so important as the euill of the schisme is pernicious S. Cyprian (d) L de Vnitate Eccles Do they that assemble themselues without the Church thinke Christ to be with them in their assembly Although they should be dragged to death for the confession of the name of Christ yet this spot is not wash't away from them with their bloud the inexpiable and inexcusable crime of discord is not purged with death it selfe he cannot be a Martyr that is not in the Church S. Chrysostome (e) In Ep. ad Ephes Hom. 11. Nothing doth so much stirre vp the wrath of God as the diuision of the Church Although we should do innumerable good workes if we diuide the Vnity and fulnesse of the Church we shall be punished no lesse seuerely then they who tore his naturall body S. Augustine (f) Ep. 152. ad popul factio Donat. Whosoeuer is diuided from the Catholike Church although he thinke himselfe to liue neuer so laudably yet for this only crime that he is diuided from the vnity of Christ the wrath of God abideth on him And speaking of Emeritus an hereticall Bishop (g) Serm super gest cum Emer He cannot haue saluation but in the Catholike Church Out of the Church he may haue honor he may haue Sacraments he may haue the Ghospell he may haue and preach beliefe in the name of the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost but saluation he can find no where but in the Catholike Church And againe (h) Ep. 204. Being out of the Church and diuided from the heap of Vnity though thou sholdest he burned aliue for the name of Christ yet thou sholdest be punished with eternall death S. Fulgentius (i) Dofide ad Pet. c. 39. Belieue this as most certaine and vndoubted that no heretike nor schismatike though baptized in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost though he giue neuer so great almes yea though he shed his bloud for the name of Christ can possibly be saued It being now certaine that a Schismatike dying in schisme cannot be saued the question is whether Protestants be schismatikes And certainly if S. Augustine (k) Ep. 170. cont Gauden l. 3. c. 1. cont lit Peti l. 1. c. 104. rightly concluded the Donatists to be schismatikes because they had separated themselues from that Church which was spread ouer the whole earth his Argument hath the same force against Protestants for if as he hath taught the Catholike Church is vniuersally spread ouer the whole earth and therby as by an vndoubted marke is knowne and distinguished from all other congregations it followeth by ineuitable consequence that the Roman Church and none els but she being vniuersally spread
Peter Cardinal Albert B. of Mentz and the Marquis of Brandeburg to whom the publishing of the Indulgences and collecting the almes was committed for the publishing of the indulgences made choyce of Tetzelius a famous preacher of the Order of S. Dominick Wherat the Friers of S. Augustines Order and especially Staupitius the Vicar generall and Martin Luther being offended opposed themselues hoping by fauor of Frederick Duke of Saxony to get the place for themselues But missing of that they began to reprehend the abuses committed as they pretended in the promulgation of those indulgences But Luther being of a fiery nature and of a contentions spirit rested not here but published in print 95. propositions about the nature institution end and effect of indulgences diuers of which were censured by Tetzelius as hereticall and Luther thervpon complained of to the Pope and cited to appeare at Rome But by mediation of friends which he procured the hearing of his cause being remitted to Cardinall Caietan who was then the Popes Legate in Germany Luther appeared before him and gaue vp a protestation of his submission promising to follow the holy Roman Church in all her sayings and doings present past and to come But neuerthelesse being gotten from the Cardinall he went forward in his former contentions and beside a publike disputation which he held with Eckius at Lipsia against indulgences he diuulged many other scoffing pamplets treatises to call in doubt and bring in contempt diuers other points of religion from whence hath followed all the calamity that in these parts of the world hath ensued since that time in the Church of God This was the occasion these the beginnings of Luthers reuolt proceeding merely from his couetousnesse pride enuy and grudging that the promulgation of those indulgences was not committed to him and his Order for he protested afterwards at that time he neither intended nor dreamed of any change but fell into those contentions casually and against his will not well knowing then what Indulgences meant (c) See Brerel Luthers life Chap. 1. sect 1. Now you come in to act your part (d) Pag. 381. fin 382. init and promise to proue by a cloud of witnesses the falshood and impiety of the Popes doctrine concerning indulgences and the iniquity of his practise heaping vp riches by them And first you except against the Pope (e) Pag 383. for condemning this proposition of Luther It is not in the power of the Church to make new articles of fayth This hath bene alleady answeared (f) See aboue Chap. 4. and declared what power the Church hath or hath not herein 2. To prone that the doctrine of Indulgences is a new article of fayth you produce many Authors (g) Pag. 382. 383. 384. 385. 386. 389. which may be reduced to three classes The first is of heretikes as Cornelius Agrippa a Magicians Paul a Venetian Fryer condemned a few yeares since for heresy Fasciculus rerum expetendarum Acta Concilij Tridentini Controuersiae memorabiles all of them being Treatises of Protestants set forth without names of their authors and prohibited To these you adde Thuanus (h) Pag. 385. whom you call our noble Historian but we bequeath him to you as one whose writings shew him to be yours Nor are you contented to cite him as a Catholike author but falsify him He raileth against Pope Leo for ordaining that when a Bishoprick or Abbacy in France is vacant for the auoiding of simony and other inconueniencet a person fit for those dignities be presented by the King ordained by the Pope His words in Latin as you cite them are Peccatum in sacris muneribus dispensandis Leo mox grauiore cumulauit c. In which words he makes no mention of indulgences but only of conferring sacred or Ecclesiasticall dignities and offices But you to make them serue your turne against indulgences corrupt them translating in sacris muneribus dispensandis thus of ill dispersing indulgences Leo say you to his sinne of ill dispersing indulgences added a farre greater Is not this a great imposture And the like you commit againe (i) Pag. 389. when speaking of Luthers separation from the Roman Church you say Luther was a passiue therin as appeareth out of the proceedings of Pope Leo against him Els why is it that your owne Thuanus speaking of this separation sayd That some in those dayes laid the fault vpon Pope Leo. This is a greater imposture then the former for Thuanus speaketh not those words of Luthers separation from the Church of Rome but against altering the custome formerly obserued in the election of Ecclesiasticall Prelates in France which he attributeth to Antonius Pratensis Chancellor of that kingdome though out of his owne splene against the Pope he adde that there were not then wanting some that laid the fault vpon Pope Leo. What connexion hath this with Luthers reuolt from the Church of Rome or with the doctrine of indulgences You cannot excuse it from a Grand Imposture To the second classe may be reduced Massonius Polydore Virgill and Erasmus who speake not aggainst the doctrine of Indulgences but against the abuse of them And for as much as in many other things and particularly in that very point they speake temeraiously and ouerlash those their workes you know are forbidden by the Church Why do you alleage them as of authority against vs The third classe is of approued Catholike Authors of whom you first produce (k) Pag. 384. fin Roffensis saying There was no vse of indulgences in the beginning of the Church Christian But you change the state of the question passing from the vse of indulgences of which Roffensis speaketh to the doctrine of indulgences and inferre that because Roffensis found not the vse or practise of them in the begining of the Church he denieth the doctrine and lawfulnesse of them which in that very article he effectually proueth out of the power of binding and losing giuen by Christ in the Ghospell to S. Peter and his Successors 2. He yeildeth the reason why there was not so much necessity of vsing thē in those beginings as afterwards 3. He sheweth that Catholike Deuines proue the vse of them to be most ancient out of the stations so much frequented in Rome and that S. Gregory the great granted some in his time 4. His owne opinion is that it is not certainly knowne when they began first to be vsed in the Church from whence it must follow by the rule of S. Augustine (l) L 4. de Baptism c. 24. that the practise of them is from the Apostolicall time The second author you produce (m) Pag. 135. is Alphonsus de Castro who sayth Neque tamen hac occasione sunt contemnendae indulgentiae quod earum vsus in Ecclesia videatur sero receptus which words you peruert changing videatur into fit but most of all by translating them falsly for you render them thus Indulgences are not
ANTI-MORTONVS OR AN APOLOGY In defence of the Church of Rome AGAINST The Grand Imposture of Doctor Thomas Morton Bishop of Durham Whereto is added in the Chapter XXXIII An Answere to his late Sermon printed and preached before his Maiesty in the Cathedrall Church of the same Citty Narrauerunt mihi iniqui fabulationes sed non vt lex tua Psal 118. vers 85. Dubit abimus nos cius Ecclesiae condere gremio quae ab Apostolica Sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus culmen Authoritatis obtinnit Cui nolle Primas dare vel summae profecto impietatis est vel praecipitis arrogantiae S. August de vtil cred cap. 17. Permissu Superiorum M.DC.XL S. Bernardus serm 64. in Cantica in id Cant. 2.15 Capite nobis vulpes paruulas quae demoliuntur vineas SI iuxta allegoriam Ecclesias Vineas Vulpes Haereses vel potius Haereticos ipsos intelligamus planus est sensus vt Haeretici capiantur c. Capiantur dico non Armis sed Argumentis quibus refellantur Errores eorum ipsi verò fi fieri potest reconcilientur Catholicae reuocentur ad veram Fidem Haec est enim voluntas eius qui vult omnes saluos fieri ad agnitionem Veritatis venire c. Quod si reuerti noluerint non propterea se nihil egisse putet qui Haereticum vicit conuicit Haereses confutauit Verisimilia à Vero clarè aperteque distinxit praua dogmata planâ irrefragabili ratione praua esse monstrauit c. Cepit qui talia operatus est Vulpem etsi non ad salutem illi cepit eam Sponso Sponsae quamuis aliter Nam etsi Haereticus non surrexit de faece Ecclesia tamen confirmatur in Fide quidem de profectibus Sponsae Sponsus sine dubio gratulatur TO DOCTOR MORTON BISHOP OF DVRHAM My Lord WITHOVT endangering the least suspition of Complement I belieue I may craue your pardon for this Dedication And as others vse in modesty of necessity I must suspect my Boldnes But Truth which I here vindicate from Imposture disdaines to shadow it selfe in Ceremony most resplendent in its naked lustre And forced by that I addresse this Worke to you who haue hitherto with so much art endeauored to clowd it I know the pride of human iudgment slights all the threatnings of hereafter punishment when confession of mistake is required And often by the opiniated Obstinacy in error is esteemed Resolution which makes me in some degree despaire that fruite these labors otherwise might haue hereafter gathered Moreouer your Lo. ◠is so glorious in your Challenge and your Grand Imposture proclaimes it selfe so inuincible that iealous of my owne inhability I feared I might repent my courage if I entertained the Combat But from my Weaknes I drew Confidence and called to memory how small an arme confounded the proud boast of the huge Philistian and by how childish a weapon he was hurled downe to what he built on earth and forc't to acknowledge himselfe dust and vanity Take not therfore your owne height by the Eminency of that Title you beare or Reputation of your much learning which is your Guilt not Ornament Nor measure me by my humble Vocation for I haue vowed to be ambitious of no higher or by the obscurity of my Name since I can easily forgiue the present Age if it know me not and Posterity if it forget I was Neither had I now entred into this publike Quarrell had not your bold defiance to all of my profession prouoked me to disconer how little integrity there is where it is most vaunted At first a pious Curiosity laboured only my owne Satisfaction That it now appeares abroad is the Charity I owe my Countrey And that it swells to this Volume is the fault of your many and I feare too wilfull mistakes Consider my Lord how many soules are imbarked with yours for whose wrack at the last day you must stand accomptant And though a pleasing gale hath blowne gently on you yet no wind but driues you on towards Iudgment There the sincerity of action not the fallacy of language shal preuaile there no enforced Argument false Citation or cunning Distinction shal be able to iustify Vntruth There heresy shall stand confounded and they who maintained it rackt by their owne Consciences cry out Behold where the Saints are enthroned in glory raised thither by Humility Obedience to the authority of that Church which if Truth it selfe speake truth is Infallible by resignation of theirs to the diuine will and cooperating to the merits of the great Mediator But we mad men made a mockery of their wisdome to take the blemish from our loose behauiour discredited the value of good works We presumptuous in the vanity of Wit opposed the diuine Truth and to destroy the Monarchy of S. Peter his Successors proclaimed liberty to euery Rebellious Doctrine We listened to the suggestions of a priuat Spirit and seduced by that contemned a long receaued and vniuersall Verity and therfore iustly now is our portion darknesse and our inheritance eternal fire I doubt not but the holy Spirit often whispers these thoughts into your soule but Pride keeps the gate of the hart fast shut Moreouer if we looke not streight on heauen without squinting on temporall respects considering your fat reuenue and your Lordship I may well be thought to inuite you to your losse But who that hath regard to Safety despiseth not the flatteries of Wealth and Honour when he meditates on the Treasures of the Eternall And why shold I vtterly despaire though you haue erred willfully that the Almighty Mercy may reclaime you if ignorantly that when you heere find how much your iudgment hath betraied you you will penitently submit and make much satisfaction by your great example S. Augustine thought it no dishonour to his Iudgment to be ouercome by Truth and rather then loose a Soule forsooke an Heresy which as all others had an age to florish in Nor is his Humility a scandall to his Learning or was his Change Inconstancy whose Volumes carry that reputation that euen Sectaries who want his vertue for Obedience endeauour to wrest his doctrine for Defence Here may your Lo learne instruction whom to accompany in an humble Conuersion will be more safety and glory then to perseuer obstinate in a proud mistake If the cunning and art of your many Writings enamour you throw away the vnhappy dotage though in them Hope flatters you that your memory may hereafter liue Safer far to haue no Name with the succeeding Age then to preserue it in the infamy of a spurious Issue And belieue it when the Soule wilfully imbraceth Errour it commits the worst Adultery what-euer is ingendred by such conceptions being both illegitimate and monstruous Looke vpon the opinions of them who liue seuered if they can be said to liue who are dead to grace from the Vnity of
them Sect. 3. pag. 182. Doctor Mortons rayling against the Inquisition Sect. 4. pag. 187. CHAP. XV. Of the signification of the word Catholike the iudgment of diuers Fathers obiected by Doctor Morton against the Roman Church pag. 195. That the word Catholike proues the Roman Church to be the true Church Sect. 1. ibid. The iudgment of S. Hierome concerning the Church Catholike Sect. 2. pag. 198. The iudgment of S. Gregory concerning the Supremacy of the B. of Rome and his title of vniuersall Bishop Sect. 3. pag. 201. S. Dionyse his iudgment concerning the supremacy of the Roman Church Sect. 4. pag. 302. S. Ignatius his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 5. p. 303. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 6. p. 304. Tertullian his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 7. pag. 308. Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 8. pag. 311. Other obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared Sect. 9. pag. 312. CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the B. and Church of Rome pag. 313. Doctor Mortons obiections against the precedent doctrine answeared Sect. 1. pag. 318. CHAP. XVII The second generall Councell held at Constantinople belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome pag. 324. By what authority this Councell was called Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Primacy of the Pope be Primacy of Authority and Iurisdiction or of Order only Sect. 2. pag. 328. Whether the names of Brother Collegue and Fellow-Minister which the Pope giueth to other Bishops and they to him argue them to be of equall Authority and Iurisdiction with him Sect. 3. pag. 330. A friuolous cauill of Doctor Morton against Bellarmine answeared Sect. 4. pag. 335. Of the Decree of this second Councell generall made in fauor of the Archbishop of Constantinople Sect. 5. pag. 336. That no Canon of any Councell can be of force vntill it be confirmed by the See Apostolike Sect. 6. pag. 338. That the Bishops of Constantinople knew this Canon to be of no force Sect. 7. pag. 340. CHAP. XVIII The third Councell generall being the first of Ephesus belieued the supreme authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome ouer all Bishops pag. 343. Of the deposition and condemnation of Nestorius by the command of Pope Celestine and whether the style of ancient Popes were to command Sect. 1. ibid. The Councell of Ephesus acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the cause of Iohn Patriarke of Antioch Sect. 2. pag. 351. Of the Ordination of the Bishops of Cyprus treated in the Councell of Ephesus Sect. 3. pag. 352. Whether it may be gathered out of the Councell of Ephesus that the authority of the Pope is aboue a generall Councell Sect. 4. pag. 353. CHAP. XIX The Councell of Chalcedon belieued the supreme authority of the B. of Rome pag. 355. That Leo Pope called the Councell of Chalcedon by his authority and presided in it by his Legates Sect. 1. ibid. That the Councell of Chalcedon by the authority of Leo Pope deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus restored Theodoret Sect. 2. pag. 356. Whether the title of Vniuersall Bishop which the Councell of Chalcedon gaue to the Pope argue in him no more but a generall care of the good of the Church such as belongs to euery Bishop and to euery Christian Sect. 3. pag. 360. Whether the Couneell of Chalcedon did giue to the B. of Constantinople priuiledges equall with the B. of Rome Sect. 4. pag. 362. Falsifications and vntruths of Doctor Morton discouered his Arguments answeared Sect. 5. pag. 367. CHAP. XX. The fifth Councell generall belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop Church of Rome p. 375. Doctor Mortons ignorance and contradictions concerning this Councell Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons ignorance further discouered and his falsifying of Binius Sect. 2. pag. 377. Of the matter treated in the fifth generall Councell Sect. 3. pag. 381. Doctor Mortons glosse vpon the word Obedience Sect. 4. pag. 383. CHAP. XXI Of the sixth generall Councell pag. 385. That it acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the fixth Councell condemned Honoriu Pope as an Heretike Sect. 2. pag. 387. CHAP. XXII Of the seauenth and eight generall Councells pag. 391. That these two Councells acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the eight generall Councell Sect. 2. pag. 392. Whether the eight generall Councell condemned the Saturday-fast allowed by the Roman Church Sect. 3. pag. 394. CHAP. XXIII Doctor Morton defendeth the hereticall custome of the Asian Bishops pag. 397. CHAP. XXIV Doctor Morton in opposition to the Roman Church defendeth the hereticall Doctrine of Rebaptization pag. 402. CHAP. XXV. Other Arguments of Doctor Morton out of S. Cyprian answeared pag. 408. CHAP. XXVI The Councells of Carthage and Mileuis acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome pag. 411. CHAP. XXVII Appeales to Rome proued out of the African Councell which was the sixth of Carthage p. 419. The state of the question Sect. 1. ibid. That the Nicen Canons were more then twenty in number And that the Canons concerning appeales to Rome were true Canons of the Nicen Councell Sect. 2. pag. 421. Whether if there had bene no Canon for appeales to Rome in the Councell of Nice it had bene forgery in Pope Zosimus to alleage a Canon of the Sardican Councell for a Canon of Nice Sect. 3. pag. 426. Vntruthes and falsifications of D. Morton discouered and his obiections answeared Sect. 4. pag. 429. Whether this Controuersy of appeales wrought in the Africans any separation of Communion from the Roman Church Sect. 5. pag. 437. CHAP. XXVIII Whether the Britans and Scots not celebrating Easter after the manner of the Roman Church were for that cause separated from her communion p. 450. CHAP. XXIX Of the great reuerence of ancient Christian Emperors and Kings to the Pope pag. 454. CHAP. XXX Whether Christian Emperors haue inuested themselues in Ecclesiasticall affaires pag. 461. Constantine the Great inuested not himselfe in Ecclesiastical causes Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons second Example of Theodosius examined Sect. 2. pag. 469. Doctor Mortons third instance of Theodosius the yonger and Honorius examined Sect. 3. pag. 471. Doctor Mortons fourth instance of Theodosius and Valentinian examined Sect. 4. pag. 473. Doctor Mortons fifth instance of Iustinian examined Sect. 5. pag. 475. CHAP. XXXI Of the authority and place of Emperors in Councells pag. 480. CHAP. XXXII Whether Popes haue challenged ciuill subiection from Emperors and Kings Christian and Heathen pag. 483. Doctor Mortons first Argument out of Innocent the third examined Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons second Argument out of Hieremy the Prophet examined Sect. 2. pag. 486. Doctor Mortons third Argument out of the examples of diuers Popes examined Sect. 3. pag. 490. Doctor Morton contradicteth himselfe Sect. 4. pag. 494. CHAP. XXXIII
those monstrous Titles wherewith you slaunder our Doctrine most fitly agree to your owne deliuered in your Grand Imposture But before I come to ioyne issue with you concerning the particulers it will not be amisse to examine briefly in generall whether the ancient Fathers and Doctors of Gods Church whom you acknowledge to haue liued vpon earth in the true fayth and now to be most glorious Saints in heauen were of your beliefe concerning the Roman Church or of ours for they being lights of the world (x) Math. 5.15 whom God hath raised in all ages and placed on the candlesticke of his Church to enlighten our wayes and deliuer vnto vs the true sense and meaning of his holy word that we may not be like children wauering and caried away with euery blast of heretical (y) Ephef 4.14 Doctrine I suppose that as there is no wiseman who will not desire to be rancked among them in the next world and to stand with them at the later day so there is none that will not desire to be in this world a member of the same Church and a professor of the same fayth which brought them to that happines especially knowing as we doe that there is bur one Church in which and one fayth by which meÌ„ may be saued for to thinke that so many men so eminently learned and that vsed so great meanes both of study and prayer to attaine to the knowledge of truth and of the right way to heauen haue all erred not liuing in the true Church which leades to saluation but in an erring Synagogue that leades to euerlasting ruine and damnation is a conceipt that I thinke no Christian and I am sure no prudent man can harbour in his brest which yet he must doe that will credit your Doctrine as the ensuing proofes will declare SECT II. Whether the Roman Church be truly called the Catholike Church and in what sense ALthough the Name of Catholike Church whether we regard the etimology or the most proper and vsuall acception of the word Catholike signify not any particuler Church but the Vniuersall spread ouer the whole world yet with-all it is true that euery particuler Church may in some sense be called Catholike for as euery particuler Orthodoxe man hath the denomination of a Catholike man because he professeth the Catholike fayth and is a member of the Vniuersall Church so for the same reason and in the same sense both the particuler Church of Rome and all others orthodoxall may be called Catholike Churches In this sense the Christians of Smyrna writing to the Churches of Pontus (z) Euseb l. 4. histor c. 14. addresse their Epistle To the Church of God at Philomelium and to all other the holy Catholike Churches throughout the world In the same sense Constantine (a) In Apolog 2. Athaâ—asij the Emperour calleth the Church of Athanasius The Catholike Church of Alexandria by reason of the Catholike fayth which it preserued entire whiles many other Churches of Aegypt were infected with Arianisme And so likewise (b) Cont. ep Fund c 4. S. Augustine with whom agree (c) Epist. 1. Pacianus and Cyrill of Hierusalem (d) Cateches 18. sayth that if a stranger come into a Citty infected with Heresy and enquire for the Catholike Church euen the Heretiks themselues will not direct him to any Church of theirs but to a Church in which Catholikes meete to serue God In this sense as other particuler Churches so also the Roman euen as she is a particuler Church limited to the Dioces of Rome may haue the name of A Catholike Church But when we say No man can be saued that is not a member of the Roman Church we speake not of the Roman Church in this sense for Catholikes of other Dioceses may be saued aswell as of the Roman but by the Roman Church we vnderstand the Vniuersall Church comprehending both that of the Roman Dioces and all other particuler Churches that professe subiection to her follow her Doctrine and imbrace her communion for all these by adherence to her and vnion with her make one mysticall body of Christ and one holy Catholike or vniuersall Church of which she is the Head and the rest members For the better vnderstanding of this we are to consider seuerall dignities vnited in the person of the Bishop of Rome He is Bishop Arch-bishop Patriarke and Pope As he is Bishop his iurisdiction is confined to the Citty of Rome and other townes within her territories of which the Roman Dioces consisteth As he is Archbishop he hath subiect vnto him some few others the chiefest of which is the Bishop of Ostia As he is Patriarke the extent of his authority is ouer all the Westerne or Latin Church And finally as he is Pope that is to say the Successor of S. Peter and the chiefe Vicar or Lieutenant of Christ vpon earth he is the supreme Pastor Gouernor of the whole Church of God which is vniuersally spread ouer the face of the earth wheresoeuer the name of Christ is known which therfore is absolutely and without limitation called the Catholike Church In regard of this transcendent authority of the Bishop of Rome he is rightly stiled Bishop of the Vniuersall or Catholike Church to whom therefore all the members of the Church aswell Pastors as people by the institution of Christ owe subiection and obedience And as he is the head and Father of all Bishops so the particular Church of the Roman Dioces is the head and Mother of all Churches Now that not only the particuler Church of the Roman Dioces but also the whole body of the Catholike or vniuersall Church consisting of the Roman as head and the rest as members is likewise rightly and in a true and proper sense stiled the Roman Church I proue out of S. Augustine saying (e) De percato orig l. 2. c. 17. that against the Pelagians not only the Councels of Bishops and the See Apostolike but also vniuersam Romanam Ecclesiam the whole Roman Church and the Roman Empire were most iustly incensed where by the Roman Church he vnderstands the vniuersall or Catholike Church spread ouer the world as by the Roman Empire he vnderstands the Empire of the Romans spread ouer the world And the same I proue by examples For when we speake of the Iewish people or the Iewish Church we vnderstand not the tribe of Iuda only but all the rest of the tribes that were ioyned therwith S. Iohn Baptist was of the tribe of Leui S. Paul of the tribe of Beniamin and that holy widow Anna mentioned by S. Luke (d) Cap. 2.36 of the tribe of Aser and yet they all are rightly called Iewes parts of the Iewish people and members of the Iewish Church by reason of their adherence to and communion with the principall tribe which was that of Iuda Likewise vnder the name of the Greeke Church are not comprehended the naturall Greeks only for
the Muscouits and Russians though they be of a different nation and haue their seruice in a different tongue are yet esteemed and said to be of the Greeke Church because they imbrace her Doctrine and communion And what more vsual to Protestants themselues then to call Catholikes in what parte of the world soeuer they liue Romanists And lastly to coÌ„firme this manner of speach with secular aswell as with Ecclesiasticall examples who knoweth not that according to the phrase of all writers by the name of the Roman Empire is not vnderstood the Citty and territories of Rome only but also whatsoeuer other Prouinces subiect to the Roman Emperors though neuer so distant from Rome And so in like manner when we say that out of the Roman Church there is no hope of saluation by the Roman Church we vnderstand not the particuler Dioces of Rome but all the Churches of the world which make one Catholike or vniuersall Church of which the Roman is head and the rest members subiect to her And because the Bishop of Rome is head of all Bishops the particuler Church of the Roman Dioces is the mother and mistresse of all Churches In regard whereof she may in a sense not improper be called the Catholike Church as in a fleete of Galleys the chief Galley which hath commaund ouer the rest though it be a particuler Galley is called the Generall and in an army of men though the chiefe commaunder be a particuler man and as a Captaine haue a particuler company of his owne yet he is rightly called the Generall And as none can be a Souldier of that fleete of Galleys vnlesse he be in the chief Galley or in some of the rest subordinate to her nor a souldier of that Army vnlesse he be of the Generalls particuler company or of some of the rest subiect to him so none can be a membâ—r of the Catholike Church vnlesse he be of the particuler Church of Rome or of some other subiect to her And from hence it is that albeit euery Orthodoxe Church may be called a Catholike Church and euery Orthodoxe man a Catholike man yet this denomination agreeth to the Bishop and Church of Rome causally and originally and to other men and Câ—urches participatiuely In regard whereof S. Cyprim (*) L. 4. ep 8. â—alleth the Roman Church The roote and Mother of the Catholâ—ke Church and the originall of Sacerdotall vnity from whence also it followeth that as euery particuler person that is in communion with the Church of Rome is rightly styled Catholike so all others that are not of her communion are Schismatiks or Heretikes SECT III. That in the language of Antiquity The Catholike Church and the Roman Church were two names signifying one and the same thing IT hath euer beene the constant beliefe of all Orthodoxe Fathers and people aswell of the primitiue as of the successiue ages since Christ that the Roman Church is the Catholike Church as hath beene declared and that out of her there is no hope of saluation The whole scope of your Grand Imposture is to impugne this truth and the whole drift and subiect of this Apology shall be to maintayne defend the same truth And that the reader may haue some little taste or prelibatioÌ„ of what shal be more largely proued in the ensuing Chapters I haue thought good to set downe in the frontispice of this worke the beliefe of some of the most famous and renowned Fathers of Gods Church not in myne but in their owne cleare expresse and vnanswerable words First therefore Tertullian speaking of Marcion who had presented a great summe of money to the Church of Rome sayth (*) Cont. Marcio l. 4. c. 4. Marcion gaue his money to the Catholike Church which reiected both it and him when he fell into heresy The same appeareth by that ancient learned Bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa S. Cyprian (a) L. 4. ep 2. who expresseth to Antonianus how great ioy he conceaued to vnderstand that forsaking the Nouatians he wholly agreed with the Catholike Church adhering to Cornelius Pope And againe (b) Ibid. You writ sayth he to Antonianus that I would send a copie of your letters to Cornelius to the end he might vnderstand that you communicate with him that is to say with the Catholike Church And speaking to Cornelius himself (c) L. 4. ep 8. and calling the Roman Church The roote and originall of the Catholike Church he sayth It seemed good to vs that letters should be sent to all our Colleagues at Rome that they should firmely imbrace your communion that is to say the vnity and charity of the Catholike Church Hereby it appeares that in S. Cyprians language and beliefe to communicate with the Roman Church and to communicate with the Catholike Church was one and the selfe same thing And the same appeareth by those Africans whome Nouatus had seduced to forsake Cornelius the true Pâ—pe and adhere to Nouatian the Anti-pope for perceauing that by falling from Cornelius they were fallen from the Catholike Church and become Schismatiks they acknowledged their error and made their recantation in these words reported and commended by S. Cyprian (d) Ep. 46. We acknowledge Cornelius to be Bishop of the most holy Catholike Church chosen by Almighty God and our Lord Iesus Christ We confesse our error we haue beene seduced we haue beene circumuented by perfidiousnes captious loquacity for although we did seeme to haue communication with a man Nouatian the Anti-pope that was a Schismatike and an heretike yet our mind was alwayes sincere in the Church for we are not ignorant that there is one God and one Lord Christ whom we haue confessed and one holy Ghost and that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholike Church In these words S. Cyprian as you see together with those his Africans calleth the Bishop of the Roman Church the Bishop of the Catholike Church and pâ—ofesseth that to be diuided from him is to be diuided from the Catholique Church The same appeares by Cornelius himselfe who speaking of Nouatus that had set vp Nouatian an Anti-pope in opposition to him sayth (e) Apud Euseb l. 6. hist c. 35. Nouatus forsooth would haue vs to think that he had forgotten there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholike Church where by the Catholike Church he vnderstands the Roman Church as the head and Mother of all others The same appeares by S. Ambrose (f) De obitu fratris Satyri who reporting how his holy Brother Satyrus in his returne out of Africa being cast by shipwrack on the Island of Sardinia which he knew to be infected with the Schisme of the Luciferians and desiring to communicate with none but Catholikes called for the Bishop of that place and enquired of him whether he agreed with the Catholike Bishops that is sayth S. Ambrose with the Roman Church And S. Augustine hauing alleaged a sentence of S.
Ambrose to confute Iulian the Pelagian heretike sayth (g) L. 1. cont Iulia. Pelag. c. 2. Here is Ambrose of Milan whom thy Mayster Pelagius so highly commended as to say that in his bookes chiefly the Roman fayth doth shyne so that his very enemy durst not reprehend his fayth and most pure interpretation of Scripture Who seeth not that S. Augustine here by the Roman fayth vnderstands the Catholike fayth And therefore speaking againe of the great constancy of the same Saint of his labours and dangers for the Catholike fayth he sayth (h) Cont. Iulian Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. The Roman world doubteth not to magnify them with him wher againe by the Roman world he vnderstandeth all the Catholikes of the world The same was the beliefe of S. Hierome (i) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. What fayth sayth he doth Ruffinus call his fayth That which the Roman Church holds or that which is cōtayned in Origens books if he answere that which the Roman Church holds then are we Catholikes The same appeares by the Epistle of Theodosius the Emperor to Acatius Bishop of Berōe and other his Collegues to whom he sayth (k) In Synod Ephes to 5. c. 10. It becometh your Holinesse to aske these things of God earnestly and by manifest tokens to shew your selues approued Priests of the Roman Religion The same appeares by Palladius (l) In vita Chrysostomi who writeth of Theodorus Tyanaeus that he fortified his Bishoprick with a wall of piety by perseuering till the end of his life in the communion of the faithfull Romans of whom Paul giueth testimony saying your fayth is renowned throughout the whole world The same appeares by what Victor of Tunes reporteth of Vitalianus a Scythian (m) In Anastas namely that he tooke armes against Anastasius the Emperor and would neuer promise peace vnto him but vpon condition that he should vnite all the Churches of the East to the Roman which plainely sheweth that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholike Church as the Head and center of Catholike Communion and Mother of all Churches The same appeares by Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople who abiuring the memory of Acatius said to Hormisdas Pope (n) Epist ad Hormisd We hope to be in one communion with you declared by the See Apostolike in which there is the integrity of Christian Religion and perfect solidity and we promise not to recite hereafter in the sacred mysteries the names of those that haue separated themselues from the communion of the Catholike Church that is to say that agree not in all things with the See Apostolike And not vnlike to this is the profession of fayth which Iustinian the Emperor sent to Agapetus Pope The same appeares by (o) Ep. ad Agapet apud Bin. to 2. pag. 417.420 S. Augustine testifying (p) Ep. 157. that the Heresy of Pelagius and Celestius by meanes of the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councels hath beene condemned in the extent of the whole world by the Reuerend Prelates of the Apostolike See yea euen by two of them Pope Innocentius and Pope Zozimus And that S. Augustine by the See Apostolike vnderstands the Catholike Church Possidius speaking of the same subiect declareth (q) In vita Aug. c. 18. calling the sentence pronounced by these Popes Ecclesiae Catholicae iudicium The iudgment of the Catholike Church Innocentius sayth he and Zozimus in their seuerall tymes censuring the Pelagians and cutting them of from the members of the Church by their letters addressed to the African Churches of the East and West commaunded them to be anathematized and auoyded by all Catholikes and the most religious Emperour Honorius hearing of this sentence of the Catholike Church pronounced against them condemned them also by his lawes ordayning that they should be ranked among Heretikes The same appeares by Gelasius (r) In decret de Scriptor apocryph an African borne and it is thought a Disciple of S. Augustine testifying that the holy Roman Catholike and Apostolike Church hath not bene preferred before other Churches by any Synodicall constitutions but hath obteyned the primacy by the voyce of our Lord and Sauiour in the Ghospell saying Thou art Peter c. The same appeares by S. Prosper S. Augustines second soule saying (s) L. de promiss praedict Dei part 4. c. 5 The Apostles Peter and Paul founded the Church of the Gentils in the Citty of Rome where they taught the doctrine of Christ our Lord they deliuered it to their Successors peaceable and free from diuision the Christian that communicates with this generall Church is a Catholike but if he be separated from it he is an Heretike and Antichrist The same appeares by the testimony of those two famous Doctors of the African Church S. Fulgentius and Primasius with other their fellow-Bishops 220. in number who being banished by the Arian King Trasamundus out of Africa into Sardinia writ from thence a Synodicall Epistle to the Catholikes of Africa in which they exhort them for the auoyding of Pelagianisme to read the books of S. Augustine of which say they (t) Extat in Bibliotheca Patr. edit Colon. to 6. part 1. pag. 152. Hormisdas of blessed memory a glorious Bishop of the Apostolike See made mention with great commendation of Catholike prayse in the Epistle which he writ in answer to the Consultation of Possessor our holy brother and fellow-Bishop His words are these What the Roman Church that is the Catholike Church holds and obserues concerning freewill and the grace of God may be fully knowne out of diuers books of blessed Augustine chiefly those which he writ to Prosper Hilary These their words conuince that not only in the beliefe of that ancient and holy Pope Hormisdas but also of all the Catholike Bishops of Africa the Roman Church and the Catholike Church the Roman fayth and the Catholike fayth were Synonima's betokening one and the same thing The same appeares by S. Gregory the Great who setteth downe the forme of abiuration which all Bishops returning from Schisme to the Vnity of the Catholike Church were to make expressing it in these words (u) L. 1. epist 30. I Bishop of N. hauing discerned the trappe of diuision wherein I was caught am returned by Gods grace with my pure and free will to the Vnity of the See Apostolike and I vow and promise that I will neuer returne to Schisme but alwayes remayne in the Vnity of the Catholike Church and in the communion of the Bishop of Rome This profession sheweth that as now it is so then it was held to be no lesse then open Schisme to be diuided from the Roman Church And the like profession made by Nicolas the first of that name was afterwards sent by Adrian the second to the eight Councell generall and being read in the first Action was approued and praysed by all the Fathers therof (x) Act. 1. apud Bin. to 3.881.913
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
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
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
he was Aeneas and not as yet Pope of Rome himself whereas it is a certaine truth and well knowne to your selfe that Aeneas retracted those his writings euen whilst he was Aeneas and long before he was Pope of Rome himselfe Hauing done this wrong to Aenaeas you offer the like to Nocolaus Cusanus (l) Pag. 22 y. 29 f. 40. nu 44. a. 93. l.c. 7. d. 107. d 12 i. 163. m. 200. f. 179 i. 283. d. 287. l. 289. q. 301 f. 302. l. 366. d. who in his youth before he was Cardinall being also present at the Councell of Basil writ a boke which he intituled Concordantia Catholica seeking therein to exalte the authority of a Councell aboue the Pope but soone after perceiuing the Councell to grow into open schisme against Eugenius then lawfull Pope he withdrew himselfe and detesting their proceedings writ most graue and learned Epistles against them and employed his best indeautors to extinguish that Schisme as it is to be seene in his epistle to Rodericus where he fully expesseth his iudgment concerning the supreme authority of the Pope Church of Rome as also in many other places of his workes and especially in his Epistle to the Bohemians where he prescribeth to them and to all others an infallible rule to know whether they be in the true church which is to examine whether they be vnited to the Chayre of the Bishop of Rome by continuall succession deriued from S. Peter If your meaning had bene good you would haue alleaged this as the Doctrine of Cusanus and not the contrary which he himselfe acknowledged to be false and recanted but your intention was to deceaue and no meruaile for such sleights are the firtest proofes for such Doctrine No lesse want of syncerity is that which you shew in setting downe and descanting vpon a passage of Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester (m) Pag. 362. c. 390. q. who in the beginning of King Henries defection from the Church of Rome being carried away with the streame of the tyme and desiring to purchase the kings fauour writ a litle boke De vera obedientia and in it en deauored to proue the Kings supremacy in spirituall things and to iustify his diuorce from Q. Catherine and his mariage with Anne Bolen which boke is forbidden by the Church he himselfe afterwards in the dayes of Queene Mary who for his great wisdome and learning made him Lord Chancelor of England condemned his owne doing in a famous Sermon preached at Paules Chrosse which is mentioned by Iohn Stow in his (*) Anno 2. Mariae Cronicle At this Sermon were present the King and Queene Cardinall Pole the Popes legat the Embassadors of the Emperor of the french King other Princes besydes a marueylous great learned and noble auditory as perhaps was euer at any sermon in England either before or since that tyme. He tooke for his text those words of the Apostle (n) Rom 13.11 Hora estiam nos de somno surgere It is high tyme now for vs to awake from sleepe His discourse was to shew that since King Henry left the old trodden path of his Ancestots breaking from the vnion of the Roman Church they had runne astray not without great strife and diuision among themselues and that therefore it was now time to awake In this sermon he likewise made a most hūble harty accusation of himselfe for his fall consenting to king Henries wil in that booke De vera obedientia which he vttered with so great vehemency of spirit and such abundance of teares that he could not goe forward but was inforced diuers tymes to make pauses And how harty those teares were the euent declared for afterwards falling sick and drawing neare his end he caused the passion of Christ to be read vnto him commyng to the denyall of S. Peter and how Christ hauing looked backe vpon him he went out and wept bitterly the Bishop cryed out bidding them stay there and see whether his sweet Sauiour wold vouchsafe also to looke vpon him and giue him some part of Peters teares For said he Negaui cum Petro exiui cum Petro sed nondum fleui amarè cum Petro. I haue deuyed with Peter I haue gone out with Peter but I haue not yet wept bitterly with Peter And by often repetition of those words and as king God forgiuenesse with sighes and cryes he entertayned himselfe vntill flouds of teares streaming from his eyes he gaue vp the ghost This answere was giuen to Syr Francis Hastings (o) In the Wardword Encounter 4. pag. 41. seqq who obiected against vs Bishop Gardiners booke De vera obedientia as you now doe nor do I thinke that you were ignorāt thereof But howsoeuer you knew that before his death he repented himselfe of his fall recalled that booke for the passage which in this your Imposture you obiect out of it you professe to take out of the English translation (p) Pag. 390. q. the author whereof being a Protestant and of your strayne in writing both in his preface and in his marginall notes throughout the booke rayleth most imtēperatly against Bishop Gardiner for recalling that Booke tearming him Doctor double-face a weathercock that turneth ersy-uersy as the wind bloweth an Antichristian Angell of Satan a seducer a hell-hound of a false trayterous hart a filthy traytour a pernicious Papist a knaue a double-faced periured impudent trayterous chattering Chancelour that seekes to pull away the authority of the crowne from the Queene and her heyres for euer And finally he giues his reader this marke wherby he may know him to be a double periured trayterous Villayne because sayth he in that booke he affirmed that the Bishop of Romes authority in England was against Gods word and now be iugleth to bring it in againe All these and other worse are the words of your modest Brother whose style you seeme to approue by citing his translation of Bishop Gardiners booke against the Pope and Church of Rome but with what conscience you can best iudge sithence the translator testifies that he retracted it and the Church hath forbidden it and the Bishop himselfe before and at his death lamented the writing of it with so many and so harty teares Wherfore as it were a grand imposture to perswade men that it is lawfull for them to deny Christ because S. Peter out of humane infirmity denyed him so it is for you to persuade your readers that it is lawfull for them to deny the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome because Bishop Gardiner out of fraylty and other humane motiues once denyed it for as S. Peter bewayled his fall with many teares so did Bishop Gardiner his Finally and that which most of all sheweth your lack of Conscience in producing diuers of these authors as competent witnesses against vs is that wheras in your former wrytings you haue obiected the testimonies of Cassander
not to remoue it from thence or whether without any commandment from Christ he chose Rome for his See out of his owne free election as he might haue chosen Milan or any other city That he had such a command from Christ is affirmed learnedly proued by (u) De triplici virt Theol. d. 10. sect 3. n. 10. Suarez (x) L. 2. de Pont. c. 12. Bellarmine (y) Institut mor. part 2. l. 4. c. 21. §. Secunda sent Azor and by the greatest part of Catholike Diuines with many forcible testimonies of antiquity According to this opinion which is the more probable pious learnedly proued by Suarez it followeth that the Roman Church euen as Roman is by Diuine institution the See of S. Peter and his Successors and that therfore it is not left free for them to remoue their See from Rome to any other place But to giue you your greatest aduantage be it that S. Peter receaued no such commandment from Christ but that it was free for him to chose for his See either Rome or any other Citty and that his successors may also freely transferre their See from Rome Yet this affoards no help to your cause for though according to this opinion it be no matter of fayth that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman be the Catholike Church yet specificatiuè and absolutely it is for albeit S. Peter might haue placed his See els where yet it is matter of fayth that de facto he placed his See at Rome and that whiles his Successor continueth his See there the Roman Church is de facto the Head Mistresse of all Churches and that whosoeuer is not a member vnited to this Head is out of the Catholike Church This you should haue disproued but wilfully mistake the state of the question and because it is not matter of fayth but of opinion that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman is the Catholike Church you inferre that specificatiuè and absolutely it is not matter of fayth but only of opinion that she is the Catholike Church which is as good a consequence as that an Aethiopian absolutely is not a man because formally as black he is not a man With such arguments you delude ignorant Readers that want learning to discerne your sleights SECT V. Your fifth Argument YOur fifth argument to proue that the Roman Church is not the Catholike Church (z) Pag. 18.19.20 is because there was a Catholike Church which had Apostles Martyrs and Confessors blessed Saints of God before the Roman Church was founded yea and before the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed or the Apostolicall Creed it selfe composed All this though it be granted as true is yet of no force against our Doctrine which is that S. Peter was ordained by Christ Pastor of his whole flocke and therefore Gouernor of the vniuersall Church from whence it followeth that whatsoeuer Apostles Martyrs Confessors or other faythfull liued in the Church of Christ after S. Peter was made Head thereof were members of the vniuersall or Catholike Church subiect to Peter though for a tyme there were no one particular Church which was head of al Churches because S. Peter as yet had not made choyce of any particular seate as afterwards he did at Antioch and therfore the Church of Antioch whiles he sate there was the Head and Mother Church to whom all other Churches were bound to professe vnion and obedience In regard wherof that Holy Pope Innocentius the first greatly commended by S. Augustine (a) Epist. 18. Alexand. Episc Antioch sayth that the See of Antioch had not giuen place to the See of Rome but because what Antioch obtayned only by the way Rome obtayned absolutely and finally To which I adde that if the Successor of S. Peter should now remoue his See from Rome to Milan as S. Peter did from Antioch to Rome not the Church of Rome but that of Milan should be the Catholike Church as the Head and Mother Church of the world But because by the prouidence of God S. Peter fixed his seat left it to his Successors at Rome whiles they continue it there the Roman Church by reason of his See is the Head Mother Church of the world to which sayth (b) L. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus all Churches and all the faythfull from euery place are of necessity to agree by reason of this her more powerfull principality I conclude therfore that you ignorantly or wittingly mistake the state of the question for the Roman Churches being or not being the Catholike Church as the Head and Mother Church of the world no way dependeth on her being founded before or after the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed but vpon being the See in which S. Peter Prince of the Apostles liued and dyed and which he left to his Successors for the Bishop of that See being S. Peters Successor succeedeth him in his supreme authority and that authority maketh the Roman Church the Head of the world which dignity it hath euer enioyed since S. Peter sate there and shall enioy whiles his Successor continueth there which shal be to the end of the world To haue spoken to the purpose you shold haue proued that the Saints which departed this life before the Roman Church was founded were separated from the communion of S. Peter and from the Church of which he was Head which if they had bene they had no more bene Saints then you now are SECT VI. Your sixth Argument YOur sixth Argument is a mere sophisme Al Catholike Diuines accord as in a matter of fayth that the Catholike or vniuersall Church (c) Pag. 20.21.22 mentioned in the Apostles Creed hath a prerogatiue of continuing in the true fayth vntill the end of the world according to Christs promise made to S. Peter Secondly and that the Roman Church whiles the Successors of S. Peter continue their seate at Rome cannot fayle in fayth But that S. Peter fixed his seat at Rome by the commandement of Christ there to remaine to the end of his life and in his Successors to the end of the world although it be a most pious and probable opinion held by the greatest and best part of Diuines yet it is not expresse matter of Fayth because no such precept of Christ appeareth in Scripture or tradition and therfore some Diuines stick not to grant that the fixing of S. Peters See at Rome was a thing proceeding merely from his owne free will and election consequently that it is in the power of his Successors to transport it from Rome to Antioch or any other City In which case as Rome shold not then be the See of S. Peter but Antioch so neither should the Bishop of Rome be the supreme Gouernor of the whole Church nor the Church of Rome the Catholike Church as the Head and mistresse of all others as now
was the 35. yeare of Christ before S. Peter founded either the Church of Rome or of Antioch is your addition falsly imposed on them For though according to the computation of Baronius Lazarus with his sisters Mary and Martha were driuen out of Hierusalem in the 35. yeare of Christ and together with Ioseph of Arimathia by the prouidence of God came to Marsils in France yet nether Baronius nor Suarez nor any one of the authors ancient or moderne which you obiect sayth that Ioseph planted that yeare a Church in Brittaine You name Gildas but he neither mentioneth Ioseph of Arimathia nor saith that Christian religion was planted in Brittaine in the tyme of Tiberius Caesar as you by misplacing his words make him say but speaketh of the great calamities and desolation of that Iland caused by the warres which the Romans made vpon the Brittans not in the tyme of Tiberius nor of Caius for in their tymes the Romans had no warres with the Brittans but of Claudius in the third yeare of whose Empire those warres began and continued 40. yeares togeather vntill the tyme of Domitian Interea c. In the meane tyme sayth (y) In epist de excidia Britan c. 6. Gildas that is during those warres there appeared and imparted it selfe to this cold Iland more remote from the visible sunne then other Nations that true and inuisible sunne which in the tyme of Tiberius Caesar had manifested himselfe by the fame of his preaching and miracles to the whole world I meane Christ vouchsafed to impart his precepts Gildas then is wholly against you for although he say that in the tyme of Tiberius Caesar Christ manifested himselfe and imparted his precepts to the world yet he discribeth the first planting of Christian Religion in Brittaine not in the tyme of Tiberius but of the Roman warres in tyme of Claudius by occasion wherof there was continuall going and comming from Rome to Brittaine and as Christian Religion was then planted did daily increase in Rome so from thence it was also kindled in Brittaine especially there being many Brittains at that tyme inhabiting in Rome some for their pleasure some to flye the warres and vnquiet state of their owne Countrey and some taken by force and caried thither for hostages as Caractacus King of the Silures and much Nobility with him as Cornelius Tacitus reporteth (z) Annal. l. 12. And from hence it is that Holin shead (a) In descrip Britan. to 1. c. 9. and Cambden (b) In sua Britan. p. 162. Protestant historians affirme that one Claudia Ruffina a noble Brittish Lady wyfe to Pudens the Senator and the first hostesse of S. Peter in Rome sent from thence diuers bookes and messages to her frendes in Brittaine and was therby a great helpe to their conuersion To which I add that S. Peter being come to Rome in the second yeare of Claudius to teach and conuert the Western parts of the world when all the Iewes were by publike proclamation banished from Rome he tooke that occasion to goe into France and preached the Ghospell to the French and from thence passing into Brittaine as Metaphrastes (c) Apud Sur. die 23. Iun. pag. 862. out of Greeke antiquities recordeth preached founded Churches and ordained Priests Deacons there which is also testified by that famous holy Pope Innocentius the first saying (d) In epist. ad Decen The first Churches of Italy France Spayne Affrica Sicily and the bordering Ilands were founded by S. Peter or by his Schollers or successors Which caused Guilielmus Eysengrenius (e) Cent. 1 p. 7. d. 8. to affime that the first Christian Churches of England were founded by S. Peter And finally S. Peter himselfe appearing to a holy man in the tyme of King Edward the Confessor shewed him how he had preached in England and the care he had of that Church and Nation as Alredus Rhieuallis (f) Apud Sur. 5. Ianuar. pag. 131. left written 500. yeares since And from that care it proceeded that as Dorotheus (g) In Synopsi Mirmanus (h) In theâ—â—ro de conuers gent. pag. 4â— and Baronius (i) Martyrol 15. Martij out of the Greeke Martyrologe affirme Aristobulus his disciple and a knowne Christian in Rome was sent by him into Brittaine and there made Bishop By all which it appeares that the Brittish Church was not first founded by Ioseph of Arimathia the 35. yeare of Christ in the raigne of Tiberius but by S. Peter in the time of Claudius after he had founded the Church of Rome placed his seat there and consequently that the Church of Rome is most truly and properly Mother of the Church of Brittaine not only by reason of the second conuersion of our nation by Fugatius and Damianus sent by Eleutherius the 13. Pope after S. Peter and also of the third conuersion by S. Augustine and his companions sent by S. Gregory the Great whom therfore Bede calleth the Apostle of England but also in respect of the first preaching and founding of a Christian Church in this Iland it hauing bene wrought by S. Peter his disciples other Roman Christians cooperating therto And so much the more if it be true that S. Paul assisted S. Peter therin going from Rome into Brittaine to preach as Theodoret (k) In psal 106. l. 5. de curandis Graec. affect Sophronius (l) Serm. de Natali Apost Venantius Fortunatus (m) In carm and others affirme As for Ioseph of Arimathia his comming into England I grant it to be true though it be not affirmed by any ancient writer but only by Capgrauius Polydore Virgil other late historians Tradition is sufficient to confirme me in the beliefe therof Yet withall it is certain that he came not the yeare of Christ 35. as you without any proofe at all suppose but hauing come out of Iury into France with S. Mary Magdalen and her company after he had liued there sometime and seene her great austerity of contemplatiue and solitary life and rigor of pennance which she vsed went ouer into Brittaine either sent by S. Peter or by his owne free election And though it be likely that by preaching the Ghospell he increased the number of Christians in the Brittish Church yet the chiefe intention of his comming was to begin that kind of solitary and heremiticall life which he had seene practised by S. Magdalene in France as Cambden (n) In descrip Brit. pa. 162. obserueth Ioseph sayth he and his companie did take vpon them a solitary life that with more tranquillity they might attend to holy learning and with a seuere kind of conuersation exercise themselues to the bearing of Christs Crosse From hence it followeth that the Roman Church is Mother to that of Brittaine not only by reason of the supereminent authority and power which she hath ouer her aswell as ouer all other Churches of the world but also in antiquity she being planted
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
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
this purpose where withall he sheweth that Caluin to auoyd the force of the former corrupteth the facred text The like is also gathered out of the other words of the same Prophet (n) Cap. 60.14 speaking of the great power and maiesty of the kingdome of Christ on earth which is his Church where he mentioneth this promise made vnto it The Children of them that humbled thee shall come crouching to thee and all that detracted from thee shall adore the steps of thy feet in which words is plainly foretold the adoration of the Church and of her visible head on earth an honor which Caluin vpon this very place confesseth not to exceed that which is due to the Church because it is giuen to Christ who is adored in the Church and Leo de Castro vpon the same text out of a very ancient record of the order of S. Benedict concerning the customes of the Catholike Church reporteth that Kings in ancient tymes going to the Synods of Bishops did prostrate themselues before them and kisse the ground not rising vntill the Bishops descending from their seats did take them vp in their armes and place them in thrones answerable to their Princely dignity To this purpose also make the testimonies of S. Hierome (o) Ep. ad Pammach aduers error Ioan. Hieroso who speaking of S. Epiphanius sayth A great number of all ages and sexes did flock vnto him offering their little ones and kissing his feet and of S. Chrysostome (p) Hom. 14. in priorem ad Timoth exhorting the people to prostrate themselues at the feet of the monkes kisse them Draw neare touch their holy feet for it is a far greater honor to touch their feet then to touch the heads of other men It was therfore in the puter tymes of the Church no disparagement to the greatest Princes to prostrate themselues either to the Pope or to Bishops or to other holy seruants of Christ and to kisse the hemms of their garments and their feet because as Alexander the great (q) Apud Ioseph do antiq l. â—1 〈◊〉 vlt. adoring Iaddus the high Priest of the Iewes knew and testified that he did in him exhibite that honor to God whose Priest he was so Christian Emperors and Kings when they adore the Pope kissing his feete do it to honor Christ in him to whome that honor redoundeth euen as the honor done to an Embassador redounds to the king his Mayster And as Princes by exhibiting this honor to the Vicar of Christ no way disparage their royall greatnesse so neither is the acceptance therof any note of pride in the Pope for he accepts it not for his owne sanctity or for any other personall quality as he is a priuat man but only for the publike authority and spirituall power which he receaueth from Christ and which properly and principally is of Christ who is honored and adored in his Vicar as Tertullian noteth saying (r) Vbi sup cap. 10. When thou castest thy selfe downe at the feet of thy brethren thou touchest Christ thou adorest Christ And therfore the Pope hath on his shooe a Crosse which the faythfull kisse to signify that they exhibite not that honor to him but in him to Christ whose person he representeth And finally wheras you obiect (s) Pag. 46 that S. Peter abhorred this pride when Cornelius prostrated himselfe vnto him I answere with S. Hierome (t) L. Aduers Vigilant that Cornelius conceaued Peter to be some God as the Lycaonians thought of Paul Barnaby and therfore prostrated himselfe to honor him with the supreme adoration of Latria due to God alone as it appeareth out of S. Peters answer to him (u) Act. 10.26 Arise for I also am a man This kind of adoration if any man should offer to the Pope he would admonish and forbid him as S. Peter did Cornelius But yet if it be granted that as some Fathers expound Cornelius adored not S. Peter as a God but as a man yet S. Peter with great reason forbid him for he adored him not in respect of Christ whose Vicar he was but in respect of himselfe and in like case the Pope would also forbid any man to adore him but he knoweth and so do you that the cause why Catholikes exhibit that honor to him is the excellent power giuen him by Christ or rather Christ himselfe gouerning his Church in his Vicar which adoration is good and pleasing to God both as it is exhibited by the faythfull and as it is admitted by the Pope Your fourth Obiection is (x) Pag. 46. that S. Peter had no Canon to direct the Apostles Syr the Apostles being guided by the holy Ghost needed no humane Canons nor constitutions for their owne direction But for the direction of all ecclefiasticall Pastors they made Ecclesiasticall Canons which S. Peter as their Head confirmed and deliuered by word of mouth to S. Clement his Disciple and Successor in the Roman See he committing them to writing left them to posterity as Canons of the Apostles I know that your Magdeburgian Centurists cauil against them as false suppositious but withall I know that diuers of those Canons are alleaged by many ancient Fathers by many Councells and confirmed by later Canons of the Church and inserted word by word into them as Franciscus Turrianus hath learnedly demonstrated x (y) L. 1. pro Canon Apostol vindicated them from the Magdeburgian calumnies Your fifth and sixth Arguments are (z) Pag. 46. that S. Peter made no clayme nor yet admittance of any appeale from the other Apostles no reseruation of any great case as by speciall prerogatiue due to himselfe to wit of admitting any out of the Dioces of another absoluing those that are excommunicated by another of Canonizing Saints of confirming Synods of granting plenary Indulgences c. Who seeth not the futility of these obiections For first the Apostles being confirmed in grace neither did nor could wrong their subiects in which case only Appeales are lawfull 2. I haue already shewed (a) Chap. â— that the resolution of that great case concerning the obseruation of the law of Moyses was reserued to S. Peter and that he resolued the same in the Synod of Hierusalem presiding in it and when the Pope personally presideth in a Councell there needeth no other confirmation 3. When Christ made Peter Head of his whole Church he gaue him power to bind lose throughout the whole world and therby power to excommunicate delinquents in whatsoeuer Dioces of other Bishops and likewise to absolue them from the guilt of sinne in the Sacrament of pennance as also to binde by excommunication and absolue from the same and finally to release the penalty due to sinnes by Indulgences out of the Sacrament for the power of binding and losing which he gaue to Peter he limited not to the Sacrament of Penance only But whether Peter exercised this power of excommunicating and pardoning by
indulgences we know not for all his actions are not written We know that S. Paul did excommunicat the incestuous Corinthian (b) 1. Cor. 5.5 and afterwards when he repented at the intercession of Timothy Titus as Theodoret (c) In 1. Cor. 2.10 expoundeth granted him a pardon or Indulgence in the person of Christ that is to say by the power he had receaued from Christ to that end Nor is it to be doubted but that S. Peter who as ordinary Pastor had power ouer the whole Church did exercise the same power if the like occasion were offered 4. In those primitiue times the Canonization of Saints was not performed with so great solemnity nor with such exact inquiry into all particulars nor with the deposition of so many witnesses as in these later ages it is If then the Church did with vnanimous consent reuerence any one that had died for Christ as the Martyrs did or that liued died holily as did the Confessors he was by publike voyce and consent of the Church reuerenced as a Saint the See Apostolike either expresly or taciâ—ly approuing the same and therby canonized In this manner were Canonized S. Stephen and others that died before S. Peter without whose approbation neither S. Stephen nor any one els was then reuerenced by the whole Church as a Saint not any since that time without the approbation of his Successors 5. To make good S. Peters iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles you require vs (d) Pag. 46. fin to shew that he pardoned Simony and almost an 100. the like sinnes which is to say that vnlesse we shew that the other Apostles committed Simony and almost an 100. the like sinnes and that S. Peter pardoned them we must not belieue S. Peter to haue had power and iurisdiction ouer them That S. Peter euer pardoned Simony we read not but that he punished it we proue by the power he shewed ouer Simon Magus (e) See aboue Nu. 24. And how far the Successors of S. Peter are from pardoning or any way conniuing at Simony yea how seuere they are and euer haue bene in the punishment therof the decrees and constitutions of diuers Popes extant in the Canon Law giue abundant witnesse against such men as you are who out of their hatred to the Roman See are wont to slander S. Peter in his Successors falsly with pardoning Simony and almost an 100. the like sinnes as here you do without any proofe at all 6. With no lesse folly you require vs (f) Pag. 46. 47. to shew that S. Peter was distinguished from the other Apostles by some one note and character of Imperial eminency and authority as by his guard or coyne or habit or command or constitutions as euery temporall Monarch is distinguished from his Nobles Can there be greater simplicity then to require vs to shew that S. Peter like an Emperor had Princely robes a guard and a peculiar coyne as kings Emperors haue when he was no temporall Monarch and when not only he but as you forgetting your selfe (g) Pag. 283. confesse the holy Popes his Successors in those primitiue time were alas daily in danger of banishments imprisonments torments death Is it not then ridiculous to bid vs shew S. Peters guard and his coyne his commands we shew for Oecumenius sayth (h) In cap 1 â—ct The Apostles were committed to the gouerment of Peter and presently at his command appointed two whom they thought worthiest to be chosen in place of Iudas which Doctrine is also deliuered by S. Chrysostome (i) Hom 3. in Act. Of the Constitutions of the Apostles which were peculiarly of S. Peter as their Head and set forth by Clement his Disciple and Successor we know that albeit they are of no great reckoning among many of the Latines as hauing some things inserted into them by heretikes yet they are greatly esteemed by the Greekes and both cited and commended by S. Epiphanius (k) Hâ—â—r 45. ser 70. and other Greeke Fathers To which I add that they are learnedly defended by Turrianus (l) Proem in lib. Clem. Ro. and Genebrard (m) L. de Liturg Apostol c. 5 fol. 21.22 affirmes them to haue bene receaued by all antiquity Your last argument to proue as you call it (n) Pag. 47. the no domination of S. Peter ouer the other Apostles is that meeting together at Hierusalem they sent Peter and Iohn into Samaria which proueth Peter to haue no superiority ouer the rest by whom he was sent or if it doe it must needs imply in Iohn an equality with Peter for as Iohn was not sent as Superior to the other Apostles so neither was Peter This inference we wholly deny 1. because in a Corporation or Colledge as that of the Apostles was the Superior may out of his owne desire be sent in the name of the whole Community the Maior in name of the Citty and the Deane in name of the Chapter 2. The authority of the whole Colledge together which includeth both the head the members differeth from the Head alone to vse the phrase of Metaphysicks tanquam includens ab incluso and is at least extensiue of greater authority then the Head alone and therfore the Head alone may be sent by authority of the whole Colledge 3. And if we take a community for the inferiors not including their Superior though he cannot be sent by their command he may by their in treaty So S. Chrysostome (*) In cap 11 ep ad Gal. sayth Paul was sent to Hierusalem by the Christians of Antioch who yet were not his Superiors So the Deane is sometymes sent by the Canons and the Rector by the Collegialls So was Pope Piâ—â— the second sent by the Colledge of Cardinals about an expedition intended against the Turkes and as Bozius obserneth (o) De fig. Eccles to 2. l. 18. c. 2. §. Quocirca the Roman Emperors were often sent by the Senate Nor doth such a mission any way extenuate but rather manifest the authority of such Missionants for persons of greatest quality are fittest to be employed vpon weighty affaires especially when they import the publike good as this Mission of Peter and Iohn did for Philip the Deacon hauing conuerted the Samaritans to Christ these two great Apostles were sent to oppose the wicked practises of Simon Magus by whom the Samaritans had bene long seduced and to confirme them in their fayth giuing them the holy Ghost by imposition of hands a thing which Philip though otherwise a most perfect man and full of the holy Ghost yet being no Bishop was not able to doe that being a function proper to Bishops To this you haue no other reply to make then tell vs that a iourney vndertakeâ— by a Gouernor at the desire and request of his inferiors cannot be called a mission but a profection and going An answere that serues for nothing but to discouer your ignorance for the
same iorney is both a going and a mission a going as it is performed by him that vndertakes the iorney and a mission as it proceeds from those that sent him euen as the same lesson is both doctrina and disciplina doctrina as it is deliuered by the Maister that teacheth and disciplina as it is receaued by the Scholler that learneth and as in Philosophy the same production is called Actio as it proceeds from the Agent Passio as it is receaued in the subiect And to say that the sending of Iohn with Peter argueth Iohn to be equall in authority with Peter is a great Non sequitur as if you should argue a Chanon to be of equall authority with the Deane or a Cardinall with the Pope if they be sent togeather CHAP. XI Sleights and falsifications of Doctor Morton to shift off the testimonies of Ancient Fathers teaching S. Peters supremacy BELLARMINE to proue S. Peters primacy ouer the other Apostles produceth conuincing testimonies of many Fathers both Greeke and Latin (p) L. 1 de Pont. c. 25. These you vndertake to answer or rather to elude by diuers sleights Some of them as being so cleare that you knew not how to deuise any answer vnto them you wholly omit without any mention of them as of S. Prosper Arator and Aetherianus Others you mention as of S. Leo the great of S. Gregory of Venerable Bede and S. Bernard but put them of with deuises We pretermit say (q) Pag. 50. marg n. 20. you the testimony of Pope Leo wherof reason is giuen hereafter but wheras Bellarmine alleageth two vnanswerable testimonies of S. Leo you are so far from giuing any reason of them that for ought I can find you neuer after mention eyther of them The testimonies of Bede and S. Bernard you reiect as not truly ancient wheras Bede liued almost 1000. and S. Bernard aboue 500. yeares since But the true reason indeed why you reiect them is not want of antiquity but because they clearely conuince your Doctrine of falshood For when S. Bernard the later of these two hath any thing which by misinterpreting his meaning or falsifying you can wrest to your purpose as afterwards you do (r) Pag. 170. 182. S. Bernard is ancient inough S. Gregory you shift of promising to speake of him largely afterwards S. Gregory did disclaime from the title of Vniuersall Bishop in that sense in which Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople did arrogate the same to himselfe Of this indeed you treate at large (s) Pag. 92. seqq but his testimonie which Bellarmine vrgeth in proofe of S. Peters pastorall power ouer the whole Church you neither answere nor so much as mention afterwards 3. Bellarmine citeth out of Eusebius his Chronicon these words Petrus natione Galilaeus Christianorum Pontifex primus Peter a Galilean borne the first chiefe Bishop of Christians He sayth not Peter the first Bishop of the Romans as in the same place he sayth Iames the first of Hierusalem and Euodius the first Bishop of Antioch but Peter the first chief Bishop of Christians which differēce of expression she weth that wheras Iames and Euodius were Bishops of two particular Dioceses Peter was the Bishop of all Christians This is one of the testimonies of Eusebius alleaged by Bellarmine which you conceale without giuing any answer vnto it though you name the place out of which he alleageth it The second is out of Eusebius his history which you are contented to mention that you may pick a quarrell against Bellarmine for you say (t) Pag. 49. marg he miscites the Chapter the 14. for the 13. But by desiring to carpe you discouer your ignorance for in the different versions of Eusebius the Chapters are differently diuided and though the passage which Bellarmine citeth be in the 13. Chapter according to the version of Christophorson yet in that of Ruffinus which he followeth it is in the 14. as he cites it And wheras Eusebius there calleth Peter Reliquorum omnium Apostolorum Principem The Prince of all the other Apostles you answere That it is with this restriction omitted by Bellarmine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his singular vertues sake But what doth this omission auaile your cause or hurt ours The Fathers agree in this that when Christ promised to make Peter the foundation of his Church it was for that excellent confession of his Diuinity and in reward therof as hath bene proued (*) Aboue Nu 11. and so likewise when he actually conferred on him the dignity of supreme Pastor it was a reward of his feruent loue But doth it follow that because this supereminent dignity was promised to Peter and conferred on him for his singular vertues it was nor therfore a primacy of Magistracy and iurisdiction but of order only Is not the office of Pastor of Christs flock an office of Magistracy and iurisdiction but such are the answers which you giue to insoluble arguments yet shame not to charge Bellarmine with vnconscionable dealing in vrging this place of Eusebius against you 4. He vrgeth S. Gregory Nazianzen saying Vides c. You see how among the Disciples of Christ all truly great and high and worthy to be chosen this to wit Peter is called a Rock and hath the foundations of the Church committed to his charge And he that is Iohn is loued more and reposeth on the brest of our Lord and the other-disciples did not take it in ill part that these were preferred before them These are the words of Nazianzen and these very words Bellarmine truly and punctually setteth downe whom therfore you vniustly traduce (u) Pag. 49. marg as deprauing Nazianzen whose words as he corrupteth not so neither doth he peruert his sense for out of them it is euident that as Christ preferred Iohn by louing him more then the rest so in far higher degree he preferred Peter before them and before Iohn also For who seeth not that Nazianzen acknowledgeth a far greater dignity in Peter then in Iohn or any other of the Apostles when he sayth that Christ called Peter a Rock and committed to his charge the foundations of the Church for that is to say that he made him Head and Gouernor therof it being a knowne truth that the foundation in a building is the same that the Head in a politicall body from whence it is that the famous Councell of Chalcedon (x) Act. 3. calleth Peter The foundation of true fayth and the rock and top of the Catholike Church which is a far greater dignity then to leane on Christs brest or any other that was conferred on Iohn or any of the other Apostles 5. Bellarmine (y) L. 1. de Pont. c. 25. vrgeth 3. testimonies out of S. Augustines workes The second you passe ouer without any answer to it or mention of it The third you reiect as taken out of a booke which Bellarmine himselfe and others acknowledge not to be
S. Augustins but of an hereticall Author Bellarmine I grant confesseth the booke not to be S. Augustines and therfore he citeth it not as of S. Augustine he granteth also that the author erred in some particulars which he expresseth but because in this matter of S. Peters Supremacy he was neuer taxed of error but agreeth with the rest of the Fathers his testimony was not to be contemned especially being so forcible as you (z) Pag. 52. confesse it to be But be it whose you will with what face can you reiect it For do you not produce against vs two other testimonies of the same booke affirming (a) Pag. 30. 286. S. Augustine himselfe to be the author of them This Dilemma wil discouer your dealing either the book is S. Augustins or it is not If it be not S. Augustines why do you in other places vrge it against vs as of S. Augustine If it be S. Augustines why do you here deny it to be his and reiect it as hereticall when we vrge it against you Is not this shufling Shall it be S. Augustines and of force when you vrge it against vs shall it not only not be S. Augustines but hereticall when we vrge it against you but such dealing suiteth best with a Grand Imposture The third testimony which Bellarmine alleageth of S. Augustine is out of his second booke of Baptisme against the Donatists where hauing said that the primacy of the Apostles doth singularly excell in Peter he addeth I thinke that Cyprian Bishop without any affront is compared to Peter the Apostle for as much as concernes the glory of Martyrdome but I rather ought to feare lest I be contumelious to Peter for who knoweth not that that Princedome of Apostleship is to be preferred before whatsoeuer Bishoprick To this you answere (b) Pag. 49. marg fin That Primatus Apostolorum signifieth nothing els but Munus Apostolicum the Apostolicall function and that is most illustrious in Peter But your answere is deficient for to say that the primacy of the Apostleship singularly excelled in Peter is not only to say that Peter was an Apostle but that he was Primate and Prince of the Apostles and that his primacy contained a singular preeminence of dignity belonging to him which was not in any of the other Apostles and this dignity it was that made him more illustrious then the rest Againe wheras S. Augustine said he had cause to feare lest he might affront S. Peter in comparing Cyprian the Martyr vnto him because that Princedome of Apostleship which was in Peter exceeded all Bishopricks you answere (c) Pag. 50. marg that in these words there is only a comparison betweene Peters Apostleship and Cyprians Bishoprick and that no Protestant will deny that the Apostleship though of Barnabas was more excellent then the Bishoprick although of Linus This answere is not to the purpose for S. Augustine compares not the Apostleship in generall with Cyprians Bishoprick but in particular illum Apostolatus principatum that Princedome or Soueraignty of the Apostleship which was peculiar to Peter as to Head and Prince of all the Apostles Nor is it true that S. Augustine only compareth Peters Apostleship with Cyprians Bishoprick he compares Peters Bishoprick with Cyprians Bishopprick Peters Chayre with Cyprians Chayre which you cunningly leaue out both in your english and Latin acknowledgeth that distal cathâ—drarum gratia etsi vna sit Martyrum gloria that albeit the glory of Martyrdome be alike in them both yet there is distance betwene the Dignity of their chayres and by reason of this distance S. Augustine sayth he hath cause to feare lest he wrong Peter in making any comparison betwene Cyprians chayre and his chayre for though Cyprian were Primate of all Africa yet Peter was Bishop and Gouernor of the Vniuersall Church a dignity no way belonging to Cyprian or any other Bishop or Apostle whatsoeuer With shifts not vnlike to these you elude the testimonies of S. Cyprian S. Hierome and other Fathers who as you confesse (d) Pag. 50. iâ—it call Peter sometymes Prince Head and Captayne of all the Apostles somtymes Chiefe Priest of the Christians Captayne of Gods hoast Pastor and foundation of the whole Church and One to whom the guydance and presidence of the vniuersall Church is committed To these their testimonies you answere (e) Pag. 50. med that they argue not any primacy of authority and iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles or ouer the whole Church but of Order only This distinction you often vse to shift of the authorities of Fathers when you are pressed with them By Primacy of Order you vnderstand priority of place and of voyce as afterwards (*) Pag. 110. you declare But whatsoeuer you vnderstand sure I am that ancient Fathers by the primacy of Peter vnderstand not only priority of place and of voyce but true power and iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church and so it is apparent by the very names which they vse to expresse his primacy as of Prince Head and Captayne of all the Apostles Pastor and President of the vniuersall Church for hath not the Prince in his territories authority and iurisdiction hath he not power to commaÌ„d his subiects to make lawes to punish offendors In a City hath not the Head which is the Magistrate power and authority ouer the Citizens Hath not a Captayne the command of his soldiers and the Pastor power to rule his flock wherfore since with the Fathers you confesse that Peter is Prince Head and Captayne of all the Apostles Pastor and foundation of the whole Church and that the guydance and presidence of the vniuersall Church is committed to him either you vnderstand not what you say or els you grant that Peter hath not only primacy of Order but of authority power coÌ„mand ouer the Apostles ouer the whole Church as a Prince hath ouer his subiects a Captaine ouer his souldiers a Maior ouer the Citizens and a shepheard ouer his flock And what els is it that S. Chrysostome teacheth saying (f) Hom. in B. Ignat. that Peter was the Superintendent of the whole world that to him Christ consigned the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen and committed the disposition of all things And (h) Orat. 5. aduers Iud. that Peter was made chiefe of the Apostles and had the whole world in subiection and (i) Hom. 80. ad pop Autioch that Christ deliuered to him the gouerment of the Church throughout the whole world What els did S. Maximus meane when he said (k) Hom. 3. in Natali Apost Pet. Pauli Peter was of so great merit in the sight of Christ that after the rowing of a small boat the gouerment of the whole Church was put into his hands What Arnobius (l) Ad Psal 138. pronouncing that Peter is Bishop of Bishops and that Christ gaue to him and to no other of the Apostles
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
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
the law and not to fulfill it did our Lord Iesus Christ for the Pharisies of whom he sayth that they say and do not do any wrong to the chayre in which they did sit Did he not commend that chayre of Moyses and reprehend them preseruing the honor of the chayre Wherfore you in carping at the vices of some Popes shew your self to be like to the Donatists who sayth S. Augustine (z) Ibid. had with wicked fury separated themselues from the Roman Church And as no vices of Popes could iustify their separation so neither can it yours I denie not but that histories mention sinnes and scandals of some Popes but yet of few in comparison of the great number of most holy and learned Bishops that haue possessed that Seat for whose excellent vertues and great labors in defending and propagating the Catholike faith you ought rather to commend the Bishops of Rome then for the vices of a few to defame both them and their Seat Though all the Popes haue not bene holy like Sem and Iaphet yet as S. Gregory admonisheth (a) L. 25. Mor. c. 22. l. 3. Pastoral c. 1. it is not lawfull for you to imitate wicked Cham in laying open their faults It is no maruell if among so many good there haue bene some few bad for among the twelue Apostles there was a Iudas whose wickednesse as it was no defamation to the Apostolicall function so nether are they faults of a few bad Popes to the dignity of the Roman See But what if there had bene many Could their euill life excuse your euill fayth Shall their falling from God by frailty for a tyme iustify your departing for euer from Gods Church by contempt and obstinate rebellion If the ill liues of Prelates be a sufficient cause to forsake the Church how can you remaine in your Protestant Congregation For Luther whom your brother Klebitius in his booke against the Saxonicall Popedome tearmeth The Pope of Wittemberg was a Iewd Apostata and had conuersation with the Diuell Caluin a stigmaticall Sodomite Beza an especiall paterne of wantonnesse and lust And if you looke nearer home Cranmer and other chief Heads in your English Church haue not bene very great Saints Wherfore since you cannot but know that the ill liues of some Popes is a Non sequitur to proue that they may erre in their definitions of fayth you cannot be so simple as to alleage it to that end but only to ease your stomake of some parte of that venime wherwith it is charged against the authority of the Roman Church And yet not this without imposture for of the authors which you bringe Massonius is a fabulous Historian and forbidden by the Church (b) In indic lè prohib Costerus as in that very place he confesseth that Popes may be wicked in their liues (c) Enchir. c. 3. §. Patemur so he proueth that they cannot propose to the Church any heresy or error which is the thing you ought to disproue but cannot therfore diuert from it to rayle at the ill liues of Popes that haue bene or may be Baronius and Genebraed speake only of such Popes as were intruded partly by the tyranny of Emperors partly by the Marquis of Thuscia partly by the Nobility of Rome and Princes of Etruria This you ought to haue obserued with Baronius and with him to haue put your reader in mind of the singular care and prouidence wherwith Christ protecteth the Roman Church for notwithstanding she suffered greater calamities by the tyranny of these Christian Princes thē she had euer done vnder any heathenish persecutors yet it cannot be shewed that any of those Princes euer doubted of the infallibility of the Roman Church or that any of the aforesaid Popes albeit they came in by intrusion euer taught any thing repugnant to fayth SECT III. S. Pauls subiection to S. Peter and his acknowledgment therof TO proue that S. Paul belieued not the domination of S. Peter for so you call it (d) Pag. 57. and consequently of the Pope or the vniuersall power of the Roman Church aboue all others or yet the absolute continuance therof in the fayth of Christ you spend many arguments throughout six whole Sections from the eight to the fourteenth all which make against your selfe It is frequent with you to call the supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction of S. Peter and his successors their dominion If by dominion you vnderstand a dominiering power wherwith some temporall Princes gouerne their subiectes S. Peter forbiddeth that to all ecclesiasticall Prelates (e) 1. Pet. 5.3 commanding them not to dominiere in the Clergy But if by dominion you vnderstand a Fatherly gouerment and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church and their infallible assurance in their definitions of fayth that S. Peter and his successors haue such a power and iurisdiction hath bene already proued will be more confirmed by the answere to your arguments against S. Peters supremacy out of sundry passages of S. Paul to the Galathians (f) Pag. 58. seqq The first is Paul some tyme after the exercise of his Apostleship would not goe to Hierusalem to Peter or any of the Apostles lest he might haue seemed to haue bene authorized by them yet three yeares after that he taketh a iourney thither of see Peter doubtlesse for honor sake as one in order of Apostleship most eminent but this be did voluntarily in discretion brotherly communion not in subiection as the Context sheweth So you but the Context sheweth no such matter and the sacred Expositors teach directly the contrary S. Ambrose (g) In eum locum It was fit that Paul should desire to see Peter to whom our Sauiour had committed the charge of the Churches S. Hierome (h) Ep. 89. quae est 11. inter epist. August Peter was of so great authority that Paul writeth in his epistle Then after three yeares I came to Hierusalem to see Peter And againe (i) In c. 1. ad Gal. He went to see him to the end he might yeild honor vnto him Theodoret (k) In cap. 1. ad Gal. he went to yeild vnto Peter as to the Prince of the Apostles that honor which was fitting And shewing that S. Paul held Peter to be the supreme iudge to whom all doubts of fayth ought to be referred he sayth (l) In ep ad Leon. Paul the preacher of truth and the trumpet of the holy Ghost ranne to the great Peter for a resolution of such doubts as rising about the obseruation of the Law did minister occasion of strife to them that were at Antioch Oecumenius (m) In cap. 1. ad Gal. He went to see him as one greater then himselfe and stayed with him to honor him with his presence S. Chrysostome (n) Hom. 87. in Ioan. He went to see him aboue others because he was the mouth and Prince of the Apostles and the Head of the whole company
and againe (o) In c. 1. ad Gal. he went to him as to one greater then himselfe and that not in a vulgar manner but as he obserueth out of the Greeke Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to behold and admire him as a personage of great excellency and maiesty as men goe to behold and admire great and famous Cities for which cause and to satisfy himselfe with a perfect view of his person and behauiour notwithstanding his great employments he stayed 15. dayes with him If therfore the generall accord of sacred expositors be of weight this 1. place of S. Paul which you produce to disproue his subiection to S. Peter is so farre from disprouing it that it strongly proueth it and his owne acknowledgment therof Againe 14. yeares after this time sayth S. Paul I went vp to Hierusalem according to reuelation to conferre with them the Ghospell which I preach among the Gentils From this place you argue (q) Pag. 5â— that S. Paul held himselfe equall in authority with S. Peter for S. Hierome whom you alleage out of Salmeron sayth it is one thing to conferre an other thing to learne for among them that conferre there is equality What equality of iurisdiction and power No for a subiect may conferre with his Superiour a Collegiall with his Rector but of Doctrine and learning only as S. Hierome there declareth adding that betweene him that teacheth and him that learneth he that learneth is the lesser to wit in knowledge And therfore I grant that S. Paul went not to learne of S. Peter he had learned his Ghospell by reuelation immediatly from Iesus Christ the same Maister that taught S. Peter Nor did he receaue from S. Peter or the other Apostles power or authority to preach for that likewise he had immediatly from Christ in this sense he sayth (*) Gal. 2.6 The Apostles added nothing to me Neuerthelesse because he had not conuersed with Christ in mortall flesh nor learned his Doctrine from the other Apostles which had bene instructed by him before his death lest the Gentils to whom he preached being incensed against him by false Apostles might haue any doubt of the truth of his Doctrine or of his Commission to preach for their satisfaction and that his preaching might not be in vaine and without profit to the hearers he went to Hierusalem and conferred his Ghospell with the chiefe Apostles to the end that the Gentils might be certified of the truth of his Doctrine knowing it to haue their approbation and to be the same that they preached But you that borow your argument from Salmeron (r) In Ep. ad Gal. Disput â—2 why do you conceale what followeth in his Comment If sayth he it was needfull for so great an Apostle of Christ to conferre his Ghospell with the Apostles and Peter how much more necessary was it that Luther and Caluin should haue brought theirs to be conferred with the See Apostolike With what pillars of the Church did they conferre it as Paul did or with what Miracle did they proue it they that could neuer persuade themselues so much as to come to the See Apostolike and Roman Church the mother of all Churches to conferre nor to the Oecumenicall Councell of Trent that was gathered for their soules health sake that was free and open to them that did courteously intreat them and with a safe conduct inuite them to come So Salmeron whose words you thought best not to mention both because they shew your Doctrine to be destitute of lawfull authority and also because they refute the fabulous report which you (s) Pag. 404. make out of Thuanus your historian that diuers Protestants came to the Councell and desired of the Popes Legates liberty to dispute but could not be admitted for Samleron was present at the Councell as one of the Popes Diuines who therfore knew what passed in the Councell better then Thuanus And to Salmerons testimony I adde your owne confessions in the late Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of Scotland against the pretended Generall assembly holden at Glascow (t) Pag. 13. and in your Apology of the Church of England which also expresseth the reasons why you refused to come set downe in your owne words and refelled by Doctor Harding in his Confutation of the same Apology (u) Part. ad Chap. 7. fol. 293. seqq How far therfore you are from the Doctrine example of S. Paul in this point not only Salmeron but Venerable Bede and S. Anselme (x) In cap. 2. ad Gal. haue declared out of S. Augustine whose words both they and Salmeron set downe to this purpose If the Apostle Paul himselfe sayth S. Augustine (y) L. 28. contra Paust c. 4. being called from Heauen after the Ascension of our Lord had not found the Apostles liuing that by communicating and conferring his Ghospell with thew he might shew himselfe to be of the same society the Church would giue no credit at all vnto him But when they knew that he preached the same Doctrine which they did that he liued in communion and vnity with them and did worke Miracles as they did our Lord therby commending him he deserued so great authority that his words at this day are heard in the Church euen as if Christ were heard to speake in him as he most truly said With these Fathers accordeth S. Hierome (z) Epist 89. quae est 10. inter epist. August defining that Paul had not had security of preaching the Ghospell if it had not bene approued by Peters sentence and the rest that were with him So S. Hierome whose testimony with the rest shew how beggarly a cause you haue since those very Scriptures which you produce in defence therof are so many verdicts against you A third text of S. Paul (*) 2. Cor. 12.11 you set downe thus I am nothing inferior vnto the Chiefe of the Apostles But I cannot commend your translation for none but Peter is Chiefe of the Apostles to whom therfore S. Paul compares not himselfe in the singular number as you here and els where falsifiing his words make him to say but to the Chiefe Apostles in the plurall number and yet not that in authority and iurisdiction of which he speaketh not but in the dignity of an Apostle in his great labors in his Miracles in his reuelations in his dangers and iourneys vndertaken for the preaching of Christ as the Context before and after sheweth S. Ambrose Theodoret S. Anselme S. Thomas Aquinas and other expositors declare (a) In eum locum But you vrge the testimonies of Fathers (b) Pag. 60. fin vpon this text of S. Paul And first that S. Ambrose saith (c) In 1. Cor. c. 12. Paul was no lesse in dignity then Peter You falsity S. Ambrose there compares not Paul with Peter in particular but speaking of him and the rest in generall sayth that albeit he were called to the
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
so but that all the other Apostles had likewise authority to preach vnto them both But you oppose (c) Pag. 59. that S. Ambrose (d) In Gal. 2â— from hence cellecteth two different Primacies the one of Peter and the other of Paul S. Ambroses words are As Paul receaued a primacy of founding Churches among the Gentiles so Peter had the primacy of founding the Church a dignity farre greater then to preach and found Churches among the Gentils and that implieth the subiection of S. Paul and all other Prelates of the Church vnto him 2. You say (e) Pag. 59. Chrysostome argueth from these words of S. Paul that both he and Peter had the same dignity and Oecumenius wisheth his reader to obserue that Paul herein equalled himselfe to Peter I answeare The false Apostles excepted against S. Pauls Doctrine and authority to preach because he had not conuersed with Christ nor bin trayned vp in his schole before his passion as the other Apostles had and by that meanes seduced some of the Galathians as it appeares out of the first Chapter of his epistle to them Wherfore in the second Chapter he certifies them that he went to Hierusalem to conferre his Ghospell with the chiefe knowne Apostles and was receaued by them into their society as being an Apostle no lesse then they were and one that had learned his Doctrine by reuelation and receaued his authority to preach from the same mayster that taught and authorized them And herein only S. Chrysostome and Oecumenius say that S. Paul is equall to the rest compares himselfe to Peter the chiefest of them for sayth Oecumenius (f) In cap. 2 ad Gal. though he speake this of Peter praedicationis causa to authorize his owne Doctrine with the Galathians yet he respecteth and honoreth Peter farre aboue himselfe that is to say as Head of the Apostles for so he had called him a little before and (g) Ad c. 1. Act. As one to whom the gouerment of the Disciples was committed and that had power to command them all And how cold S. Chrysostome meane any other thing he that said (h) In c. 2. ad Gal. hom 87 in Ioan. Paul went to Peter as to one greater then himselfe as to the mouth and Prince of the Apostles and Head of the whole company that in matters belonging to authority Paul giues the primacy to Peter (i) Hom. 35. in c. 14.1 ad Cor. that Peter surpassed the rest of the Apostles in authority by many degrees (k) L. 2. de Saâ—ord that he was chiefe of the Apostles had the whole world subiect to him (l) Orat. 5. aduers Iudaeot that Christ deliuered to him the gouermeÌ„t of the Church throughout the whole world (m) Hom 80. ad Antioch the charge of feeding those sheep which he had redeemed with his bloud (n) L. 2. de Sacord 3. You obiect (o) Pag. 61. S. Gregory saying Paul was made the Head of Nations and obtayned the principality of the whole Church S. Paul I grant obtayned the principality of the whole Church as the rest of the Apostles did because they were all Princes ouer the whole Church as S. Hierome and others collect out of those words of the Psalme (p) Psal 44.17 Thou shalt make them Princes ouer all the earth And this is the principality which S. Chrysostome declared S. Paul to haue (q) Hom. 18. in epist ad Rom when he said all preaching the affayres of the world all mysteries and all dispensations were committed to him But this argueth not that the Princedome and authority of S. Paul or the other Apostles was independant and without subordination to S. Peter for as S. Hierome (r) In psal 44. obserueth The Church hath Bishops insteed of the Apostles and as their Successors in their Episcopall authority which therfore in that respect are Peers and Princes of the Church yet not without due subordination for all Bishops are subiect to the Pope and so were Paul and the other Apostles to Peter And this S. Gregory himselfe to shew your imposture in obiecting him for the contrary declareth saying (s) L. 4. ep 38. Peter the Apostle is the chiefe member of the holy and vniuersall Church Paul Andrew Iohn what are they but Heads of seuerall flocks SECT IV. Other arguments of Doctor Morton answeared IN prosecution of the same matter you obiect (m) Pag. 62.63.64 that Paul named Iames before Peter saying Iames Cephas and Iohn wherby you will haue Paul to mate and equall Iames Iohn with Peter for it had bene ill manners in him to name Iames before Peter if Peter had bene Iames his Superior as it would be thought ill manners in a Catalogue of Bishops to reckon the Bishop of Colen before the Pope You argue from an vncertaine ground for S. Chrysostome in his commentary S. Ambrose and S. Hierome both in the text and commentary read Peter Iames and Iohn and so likewise doth S. Hieromâ— in other his workes (n) Contrâ— Heliud l. de Scriptor Eccles in Paulo It is therfore credible that S. Paul in naming them obserued the same order but if he named them otherwise it is no argument to proue that he equalled Iames in authority with Peter first because as S. Chrysostome (o) In cap. 1. ep ad Gal. noteth S. Paul in that very Epistle professeth himselfe to yeld greater honor to Peter and shew more loue to him then to the rest in saying that he went vp to Hierusalem not for any of them but for his sake alone 2. because ascending by gradation he placeth Peter aboue himselfe and next vnto Christ I am Paules and I Apolloes but I of Cephas and I of Christ 3. If it be true that he named Iames before Peter he did it not to equall them in authority and much lesse to preferre Iames before Peter but in regard of the priority of the knowledge which Iames receaued of the great grace giuen to Paul for when he came the first tyme to Hierusalem to giue the Apostles notice of his calling and of the great fruit of his labors he found none of them there but Iames. Put now the like case and it will neither be ill manners nor any derogation to the Popes authority to name him after the Bishop of Colen or of Milan 4. Because it is certaine that in all other places of the new Testament in which there is a Catalogue of all the Apostles in generall or of some in particular Peter is still named in the first place and if here as you say he is named before Peter because he was Bishop of Hierusalem it is no argument to proue him Superior or equall in authority to Peter S. Bernard (q) Serm. 3. de 7. misericord fragm nameth Paul Mathew before Peter and yet in that very place expresly sayth that the Pastorall care of the whole Church was committed to
Peter And the sacred Expositors teach you the same lesson for when a new Apostle was to be chosen in place of Iudas S. Chrysostome noteth (t) Hom. 3. in Act. that albeit Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem yet he acknowledged the superiority not to belong to himselfe but to Peter that therfore not he but Peter shewed his authority in the cariage of that busines Behold sayth Chrysostome the modesty of Iames He had receaued the office of Bishop of Hierusalem and yet speakes â—ot a word but yelds the throne to Peter And Oecuâ—â—e niâ—â— (s) Ad cap. 1. Act. Iames riseth nâ—â— out Peter be being the man to whom the gouerment of the Disciples was committed And Chrysostome further declaring that the Episcopall authority which christ gaue to Peter was as farre aboue that of Iames as the Bishop of the whole world surpasseth in authority the Bishop of one particular See sayth (t) Hom. vlt. in Ioan. If any one demaund how Iames obtained the See of Hierusalem I answere he was made by Peter Maister of the whole world which difference betweene the authority of Peter and Iames Euthymius (u) Ad c. 21. Ioan. hath also expressed in the same words And no lesse S. Bernard saying (x) L. 2. de considerat c. 9. The other Apostles obtayned ech of them their peculiar stocks Iames contented with Hierusalem yelds the vniuersality to Peter I conclude therfore that if S. Paul once named Iames before Peter which is yet doubtfull it is a non sequitur to collect from thence that he held Iames superior or equall in authority to Peter You shew your selfe to be one of those men of whom S. Peter (y) 1. Pet. 3.16 sayth that reading S. Paules epistles they depraue them and the rest of the Scriptures to their owne perdition Not vnlike to this is the argument you make (z) Pag. 62. fin 63. to proue that S. Paul forsooth butteth and excopteth against Peters authority because he sayth (a) Gal. 1.18 I went to Hierusalem to see Peter and tarried with him 15. dayes but other of the Apostles I saw none saue Iames the brother of our Lord. Your inference is that Paul going vp to stop the mouths of false Apostles who obiected that he had not sufficient commission to preach as not hauing bene authorized by the other Apostles if the spirit of Popery had reigned in those dayes his Aduersaries might haue replyed that Peter being the Vicar of Christ and the Ordinary and vniuersall Pastor of his Church was alone sufficient and All in All to authorize him because the Gouernor of all others without exception So you but falsly and ignorantly for Paul went not then to Hierusalem to haue his Ghospell approued but only for honors sake to see and reuerence Peter his Superior as the expositors with one accord declare Their words you haue already heard His iourney to Hierusalem to vindicate his calling and haue his Ghospell approued by S. Peter and the other Apostles was 14. yeares after when he tooke Barnabas Titus with him as in the second Chapter to the Galathians he declareth But you are contented to confound the former iourney with this such mistakes are the engines of Arguments wherewith you But at the Popes authority SECT V. Priuiledges granted to other of the Apostles and not to S. Peter obiected by Doctor Morton TO the former obiections you adde others concerning some priuiledges granted to other Apostles and not to S. Peter which I will briefly touch The first is (c) Pag. 64. Peter gaue not sentence in the Apostolicall Synod but Iames in his presence This is an vntruth and such I haue proued it to be The second (e) Pag. 64. Peter leaned not on Christs brest as Iohn did True but Christ made Peter the foundation of his Church and Pastor of his flock a far greater dignity then to leane on his brest and which implies Iohns subiection to him The third is (f) Pag. 64. Peter solicited Iohn to aske a question of scorecy He did so but how ill aduised you are to obiect this against Peters Primacy the Fathers will informe you Cassiodorus (g) L. de amicit c. Quasi diceret benefac sint amici Surely our Lord preferred Peter before Iohn and bestowing the Princedome on Peter did not therfore withdraw his affection from the disciple whom he loued He gaue to Peter the keyes of the kingdome of heauen that he might open and shut heauen to Iohn he gaue a facility of opening vnto vs the secrets of his brest To Peter he gaue the charge and gouerment of his Church to Iohn the care and custody of his Mother Peter durst not aske of our Lord who was to betray him Iohn at Peters instance asked confidently what the Prince of the Apostles durst not in quire S. Chrysostome (h) Hom. vlt. in Ioan. Why doth Iohn mention his leaning on Christs brest Not without cause but to shew the confidence of Peter after his deniall for he that durst not then aske but did is by another after the charge of his brethren was giuen to him committeth is not to another but himselfe asketh the Maister and Iohn is silens He speakes and shewes his loue to Iohn c. For when Christ had communicated great matters to Peter and giuen him charge of the whole world he being desirous to haue Iohn for his partner and colleague said And this man what And as he not daring to aske at the last supper did it by Iohn so now doth he the like for Iohn thinking that he was desirous to aske but durst not And againe (i) Hom. 66. in Math. Marke how this same Iohn that lately made such demands after wholly yelds the primacy to Peter and prefers him in all things before himselfe S. Hierome (k) L. 1. aduers Iouin Among the twelue Apostles one is chosen that a Head being appointed occasion of Schisme might be taken away And declaring (l) Ibid. why the dignity of Head was not giuen to Iohn but to Peter he yeldeth this reason because Peter was the elder and lest if Christ had bestowed that dignity on a yong man whom he loued he might seeme to minister occasion of enuie to the rest That famous Emperor Leo surnamed The wise hauing declared (m) Serm. de S. Petro. that Christ male Peter Prince of pastors and required of him the care of feeding his flock as a returne of his loue addeth Peter knowing that to be a great Princedome and how great strength it requireth seing Iohn following whom Iesus greatly loued said And this man what wilt thou haue me to be placed as Head ouer the disciples what then dost thou commaund him to doe Our Lord answered as it were checking Peter So I will haue him to remayne till I come what 's that to thee follow thou me that is follow me with this pastorall staffe and as whiles I was with you I did
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
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
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
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
adde (b) Ibid. that there was neuer any Rhadamanthus so extreme as at once to pardon and kill and that therfore such mercy is to be cursed because it is cruell by these words you condemne the practice of all Christian Common wealths which when they put Malefactors to death grant them accesse to the Sacraments of Pennance and Eucharist afford them all help and instruction to dye well as the Church doth to Heretikes if they will accept therof for with them she dealeth no otherwise in this case then all Christian Princes do with other malefactors But belike nether heretikes nor other Malefactors must be put to death or if they be the Church must deny them the holy Sacraments that so their soules may perish with their bodies or els you will compare her to Rhadamanthus you will say she pardons and kils at once and curse her mercy canonizing it for cruelty What may we say or thinke of such a man Small reason therfore you had (c) Pâ—g 85. 86. to call the Inquisitions proceeding against heretikes Tyrannous Romish cruelty and Barbarous Romish cruelty And so much the reader will yet better vnderstand if he consider that nether the Inquisitors nor any other Ecclesiasticall persons pronounce nor much lesse execute sentence of death against heretikes and what the secular Magistrate doth in that kinde against Lutherans Caluinists is not by force of any new lawes made against them but according to the lawes which the most godly Christian Emperors haue anciently prouided before any Protestants were exstant in the world for the preseruation of Christian Religion against Iewes Mahumetans and Heretikes But if I were disposed to deale with you by retorsion which kind of argument is familiar to you in this Grand Imposture I cold put you in mind how without any warrant of law for at that tyme you had made no lawes against Catholikes yea and contrary to all lawes of this kingdome and of Christianity in the dayes of K. Henry the eight and Queene Elizabeth you partly sent and forced into banishment and partly consumed with the loathsomnesse of prisons and stench of dungeons many Catholikes of all degrees aswell Ecclesiasticks as Laicks I cold write of your racking and many other wayes cruelly torturing of Priests and lay Catholikes and of your putting to death many of them for crimes composed and maliciously forged against them by your selues you hauing then no lawes wherby to condemne them And I cold reckon the number and specify the cruelty of your Parlament Statutes made since that tyme against all sortes of Catholikes and the seuerity vsed in the execution of them with continuall vexation of innocent people especially by the inferior sort of your officers But for the honor of our Countrey I forbeare the rehearsall of them and wish that the Christian world abroad had not taken so much notice of them as their Histories shew them to haue done But if leauing England I passe to other nations what pen is able to expresse the neuer before heard of inhumane barbarous sacrilegious cruelties of your Geuses in the Iow Countries and your good brethren the Huguenots in France which whosoeuer desires to know more in particular may see liuely presented to his view by M. Richard Verstegan in a booke of pictures intituled Theatrum crudelicatum haereâ—icorum nostri temporis printed at Antwerp Apud Adrianum Huberti Anno 1592. with so many particulars of the tyme place persons and torments that no man euer had the face to question the truth therof nor the relation which Doctor Harding In his proofe of certayne articles of religion against Maister Iuell (d) Fol. 129.130 hath made of the Caluinists at Patâ—é not farre from Orleans throwing 25. infants quick into the fire of their burying of Catholikes aliue at S. Macarius of cutting infants in two of ripping vp the bellies of Priests aliue of drawing out their entrailes by litle and litle and winding them about stakes of cutting of the priuy parts of a Priest then frying them after causing him by violence to swallow them downe and last of all ripping vp his stomach being yet aliue to see what was become of them of their dragging other Priests after their horses then picking out their eyes cutting off their eares noses and priuy parts wearing their eares in their hats as iewels to glory in their malice hanging vp the carcasses of some yet striuing for life dispatching others at once with their pistols hacking and mangling the faces of some cleauing the heads of others in two at a stroke to make tryall of their strength To which you may adde the horible sacriledges the vnspeakeable cruelties fitter for Tygers then men and the monstruous beastlinesse of your French and Holland Brethren at Tillemont in Brabrant Anno 1635. I pretermit the particulars not to soyle my paper with the rehearsall of them If you desire to know them the famous Vniuersity of Louayne next neighbour to Tillemont hath depainted them in liuely colours in their relation you may read them If you had consired these and many other most horrible cruelties of your Ghospelling Bretheren the like wherof haue neuer bene heard among any people neuer so inhumane and sauage and added vnto them your owne outrages committed both in England and Ireland some of which Verstegans Theatrum representeth vnto you you wold surely haue bene ashamed to instile the iust proceedings of the Inquisition or the sentences pronounced against them by Catholike Magistrates Tyrannous Romish cruelty Barbarous Romish cruelty CHAP. XV. Of the signification of the word Catholike and the iudgment of diuers Fathers obiected by Doctor Morton against the Roman Church SECT I. That the word Catholike proues the Roman Church to be the true Church YOv demand (e) Pag. 88. 89 how the Roman Church seing it is Roman that is a particular Church can be called Catholike that is vniuersall or the whole Church And if it be the whole Church how can it be a particular Church distinct from the Church of Greece or Church of France will you make vs beleeue that the thumbe of the hand can be the whole body Syr as we are not so witlesse as to thinke that the thumbe of the hand can be the whole body so nether are we so foolish as to beleeue that the particular Church of the Roman Dioces can be the vniuersall Church We know and so do you to and it hath bene already proued (f) Chap. 1. Sect. 2. 3. that not only the particular Church of Rome may in a true proper acception be called the Catholike Church as Head of all Churches but also that the Roman Church taken as often it is for the collection of all Churches in the world consisting of the Roman as Head and the rest as members may be and is truly and vsually called The Catholike Church and the vniuersall Church Yea it is euident that if according to the Etimology of the name
the Roman eares spare the fayth which was praysed by the voyce of the Apostle He declared his iudgment (y) Ep. 8. when aduising Demotrias to auoyd the cruell tempest of Heresy which rising out of the Easterne parts at that tyme when Anastasius of happy and holy memory goaâ—â—ned the Roman Church attempted to pollute and corrupt the sincerity of that fayth which was commended by the mouth of the Apostle he prescribeth her this rule that the keep fast the fayth of S. Innocentius sonne and Successor to Anastasius in the Apostolicall Chayre He declared his iudgment when he said (z) Proom lib. 2. Comment ad Galat The fayth of the people of Rome is praysed Where is there so great conâ—â—â—rse to Churches and to Martyrs sepulchers Where soundeth Amen like thunder from He euen c. Not that the Romans haue any other fayth then the rest of the Christian Churches but that there is in them more deuotion and simplicity of fayth He declared his iudgment when he said to Marcella (a) Ep. 17. In Rome is the holy Church there are the trophies of the Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the fayth celebrated by the Apostle and gentility trodden vnder foot the Christian name daily aduancing it selfe on high He declared his iudgment when he said (b) Ep. 16. that Peter Patriarke of Alexandria persecuted by the Arians sted to Rome as to the safest hauen of communion These testimonies of S. Hierome declare his iudgment of the Roman Church against which you obiect (c) Pag. 91. that he reproued an ill custome not of the Pope or Church of Rome but of the Deacons of that Church who though few in number yet growing proud in regard they had the treasure of the Church in their custody contrary to the ancient practise of that Church and of all other which was that Priests fitting with the Bishop Deacons should stand they of Rome began to presume by little and little to fit This custome S. Hierome reprehended because it proceeded from pride and wanted authority for sayth he if authority be required greater is the authority of the world then of a Citty which is true in things of this nature that nether concerne fayth nor the Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for who feeth not that a custome no way concerning sayth or iurisdiction but discipline and warranted by all other Churches of the would was of greater authority then a contrary custome brought in by a few Deacons of the Roman Church without any warrant of the Bishop of Rome And who seeth not that these words of S. Hierome are impertinently brought against the Roman sayth or the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome for in them he neither speaketh against the Roman fayth nor maketh any comparison betwene the Church of Rome the rest of the world in point of iurisdiction but only betweene the authority of all the other Churches of the world and the authority of a few Deacons of the Roman Church in a custome no way repugnant to fayth nor touching the iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome And finally who seeth not that your intention is to delude and deceaue your readers For he that hath so many and so pregnant testimonies of S. Hierome in which he expresly declareth that the Roman fayth is the. Catholike fayth that it admitteth no delusions nor can be changed that the way to auoyd heresy is to hold fast the fayth of the Roman Church that we must remaine in her as being that Church which hath Succession from the Apostles that he is the safest port of communion that the Church of Christ is built vpon the Roman See and that he which is not in the communion of the Bishop of Rome gathereth not but scattereth that he is prophane and belongs not to Christ but to Antichrist He I say that hath so many and so forcible testimonies of S. Hierome yet comming to deliuer his iudgment concerning the Roman Church concealeth them all and obiecteth one only testimony wholly impertinent as you do what intention can he be thought to haue but to deceaue men in the most important affaire of their saluation But you reply (d) Pag. 91. This is that testimony of S. Hierome wherin the Fathers of the Councell of Basil did in a manner triumph in opposition to the Popes clayme How proue you this With a sentence of Aeneas Siluius O imposture For you know that the Councell of Basil was a Schismaticall Conuenticle moreouer you know that the words which you obiect are not of the Councell of Basil but of Aeneas Siluius and that he hath retracted them with the whole booke out of which you tooke them Are not then you a deceiptfull merchant to cosen your customers with such false wares Nor do I well see how you can be excused from contradiction for you say (e) Ibid. S. Hierome was a professed and deuout child of the Church of Rome when Rome was yet a true and naturall Mother and no Step-dame Ergo in S. Hieromes dayes the Church of Rome became a Step-dame which could not be otherwise then by falling into error How then is it true that as afterwards you grant (f) Pag. 17â— 19â— the Roman Church remained pure and free from error in fayth 600. yeares after Christ which was not in S. Hieromes tyme but 200. yeares after him SECT III. The iudgment of S. Gregory concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and his title of Vniuersall Bishop YOur scope here is to disproue the vniuersall authority of the Bishop of Rome by the iudgment of S. Gregory refusing and reprehending in Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople the title of Vniuersall Bishop as likewise did Pelagius and Leo Bishops of the same See And first you tell vs (g) Pag. 91. It can be no sufficient argument for concluding a Papall authority to obiect against you the testimonies of Popes in their owne cause It was necessary for you to premit this Caueat for howsoeuer you here pretend that S. Gregory S. Leo and Pelagius did not acknowledge in themselues any superiority or iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church your guilty conscience tels you the contrary and therfore you slight their testimonies as of men partiall and that speake in their owne cause And the like you do afterwards againe with reproachfull and contumelious words for wheras Bellarmine (h) L. 2. de Pont. c. 21. in profe of the ancient practise of appealing to the Pope produceth the testimonies of S. Leo and S. Gregory you (i) Pag. 30â— 304 reiect them as of partiall witnesses and compare them to Adonias who traiterously sought to set the crown on his owne head which is in effect to say that as Adonias traiterously assumed to himselfe the dignity of a King not due vnto him so did these Popes vnlawfully challenge to themselues the dignity of Pastors and Gouernors of
the vniuersall Church hauing no right therunto A most vngodly comparison for these two Popes were of the most holy learned and renowned Prelates that euer sate in the Chayre of S. Peter since his tyme whose sanctity God hath testified with most illustrious miracles and whom all posterity hath iustly honored with the surname of Great S. Leo is he that with great care and vigilancy suppressed the Manichees that came flying out of the Africa to Rome other places of Italy that vsed singular industry to roote out the Donatists in Africa the Pelagians in France the Priscilianists in Spaine writing to the Bishops of greatest learning and fame that were then liuing in those Countries to be watchfull and assemble Councells for the condemning and extirpating those heresies and like wise he himselfe against the errors of Nestorius Eutyches Dioscorus assembled in the East that famous Councell of 630. Bishops at Chalcedon who all acknowledged him to be their Head and themselues his members and children and that to him the gouerment of the Church was committed by our Sauiour (k) In relat ad Leon. and who esteemed his words as the words of S. Peter and his iudgments as oracles of God crying out all which one voyce (l) Act. 1. Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo Leo hath iudged the iudgment of God Nor was S. Gregory of lesse renowne for to omit the admirable humility wherwith he refused the dignity of supreme Pastor the conuersion of our English nation and other great workes which he performed for the good of the Church the excellent bookes he writ for which he hath deserued the title of Doctor of the Church and the many famous miracles wherwith God declared his sanctity who is ignorant of the admirable Elogies wherwith ancient writers haue celebrated his prayses Among others that famous Archbishop of Toledo and Primate of Spayne S. Hildephonsus writeth of him (m) In lib. de viris illust that in sanctity he surpassed Antony in eloquence Cyprian in wisdome Augustine by the grace of the holy Ghost was endowed with so great light of humane science that in former ages none had bene equall vnto him And Petrus Diaconus testifieth (n) Vit. S. Greg. that he saw the holy Ghost in forme of a doue at his care inspiring him whiles he was writing which alone might haue made you forbeare the traducing of so admirable a man But returning to our question this very euasion of yours to wit that the testimonies of Popes are no sufficient argument to conclude a Papall authority because they speake in their owne cause sufficiently conuinceth that you know them to haue acknowledged such authority in themselues and that when you deny it you speake without all ground of truth for who can think that S. Leo S. Gregory and many other Popes renowned Martyrs and glorious Confessors most eminent in humility and all kind of vertue and to whose sanctity God added the seale of diuine miracles should with a Luciferian pride arrogate to themselues Pastorall authority power ouer the Church of God throughout the whole world if that dignity had not bene giuen by Christ to S. Peter and in him to them I deny therfore that when they maintayne their authority they speake in their owne cause They speake in the cause of God as witnes your selfe (o) Pag. 4◠S. Paul did when he said (p) Rom. 11. I will magnify myne office in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentiles And the like did S. Gregory when vpon that text he collected a generall lesson for the defence of his owne iurisdiction against such as you are saying (q) L. 4. ep 36. The Apostle teacheth vs so to carry humility in our hart that we do keep and preserue the dignity of that order wherunto we are called Wherfore as if a Vice-Roy should defend maintaine the dignity of his place for the seruice of the King his Maister and the repression of seditious persons he that should oppose him and resist his authority vnder color that he speaketh in his owne cause would be accounted no better then a rebell so no other reckoning is to be made of him that reiects the testimonies of Popes the Vicars and Lieutenants of Christ on earth because they defend their authority for they do it to defend the honor of Christ their Maister to magnify their office with S. Paul and with S. Gregory to preserue the dignity of that order wherunto they are called which dignity S. Augustine (r) Ep. 92. and the whole Councell of Mileuis acknowledge to be taken out of the authority of holy Scriptures But here by the way I desire to be resolued of a doubt You confesse (s) Pag. 301. that power of appeales if it be right and proper is a most certaine argument of dominion Againe you cōfesse (t) Pag. 303. marg fin n. 8. that S. Gregory excommunicated Iohn a Greeke Bishop of the first Iustinianaea because he had presumed to iudge Adrian Bishop of Thebes after he had appealed to the See Apostolike which conuinceth S. Gregory to haue belieued that the Bishops of the Greeke Church might lawfully appeale from their owne Metropolitans and from their Patriarke of Constantinople to the See Apostolike that the same See had true and proper right to admit their appeales and re-iudge their causes which it could not haue if the Pope had not true proper authority ouer the Greeke Church How then can you deny that S. Gregory belieued himselfe to haue that authority or that he practised the same Yea that he had power and iurisdiction not only ouer the Greeke Church but also ouer the vniuersall Church practised the same is a thing so certaine that your Protestant brethren Friccius Peter Martyr Carion Philippus Nicolai the Centurists and Osiander (u) Apud Brier Protest Apol. Tract 1. sect 7. subdiu 9. à n. 11. ad 29. shew out of his writings these particulars That the Roman Church appointeth her watch ouer the whole world that the Apostolike See is the Head of all Churches that the Bishop of Constantinople is subiect to the Apostolike See that S. Gregory challenged to himselfe power to command Arch-bishops to ordayne or depose Bishops that he assumed to himselfe right for citing Arch-bishops to declare their causes before him when they were accused and also to excommunicate depose them giuing commission to their neighbour Bishops to proceed against them that in their prouinces he placed his Legates to examine and end the causes of such as appealed to the Roman See that he vsurped power of appointing Synods in their prouinces and required Arch-bishops that if any cause of great importance happened they should referre the same to him appointing in prouinces his Vicars ouer the Churches to end smaller matters and to reserue the greater causes to himselfe All this is testified by your owne brethren to which Doctor Sanders
(x) Visib Monarch l. 7. à n. 433. ad 541. addeth much more of the same kind out of S. Gregories owne workes and in his owne words as that the See Apostolike by the authority of God is preferred before all Churches That all Bishops if any fault be found in them are subiect to the See Apostolike That she is the Head of fayth of all the faythfull members That if any of the foure Patriarkes had done against the Popesletters that which was done by the Bishop Salona so great a disobedience could not haue passed without a most grieuous scandall That the See Apostolike is the head of all Churches That the Roman Church by the words which Christ spake to Peter was made the Head of all Churches That no scruple nor doubt ought to be made of the fayth of the See Apostolike that all those things are false which are taught contrary to the Doctrine of the Roman Church That to returne from Schisme to the Catholike Church is to returne to the communion of the Bishop of Rome That he which will not haue S. Peter to whom the keyes of heauen were committed to shut him out from the entrance of lyfe must not in this world be separated from his See That they are peruerse men which refuse to obey the commands of the See Apostolike I conclude therfore with Doctor Sanders that he which readeth all these particulars and more of the same kinde that are to be found in the workes of S. Gregory and yet with a brasen forehead feareth not to interpret that which he writ against the name of Vniuersall Bishop so as if he could not abide that any one Bishop should haue the chiefe seate and supreme gouerment of the whole militant Church that man sayth he seemes to me either to haue cast of all vnderstanding and sense of a man or els to haue put on the obstinat peruersnesse of the Diuell How comes it then to passe that you are not ashamed to vrge here and els where so often in this your grand Imposture S. Gregories refusing the name of vniuersall Bishop as an argument to disproue his authority and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church especially since it hath bene so often and so fully answered by vs But because here you insist so much theron I will for the readers satisfaction briefly declare in what sense Pelagius and S. Gregory refused that title and how to better your argument you abuse and falsify our Authors The title of Vniuersalis Episcopus Vniuersall Bishop may be taken two wayes first for a Bishop that challengeth an vniuersall power ouer all other Bishops clayming to himselfe a right of hearing and determing all Ecclesiasticall causes in his owne and their Diocesses leauing them no other right to exercise any Episcopall iurisdiction power but only such as they shall receaue frō him as his Vicars In this sense S. Gregory conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to stile himselfe Vniuersall Bishop as it appeareth out of his plaine and expresse words in diuers of his Epistles (z) L. 4. ep 32.34 36.38 l. 7. ep 70. to which the margent will direct you And in this sense he calleth the name of vniuersall Bishop A prophane and Antichristian title 2. It may be taken in the same signification with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae so that it signify a Bishop to whom belongeth the gouerment of the vniuersall Church and the determining of all such causes as appertaine to her in generall without taking away or hindering the ordinary power and right of other Bishops and leauing each of them in their seuerall places degrees with full power and authority to iudge and determine all Causes Ecclesiasticall belonging to their Diocesses and within them In this sense the tytle of Vniuersall Bishop is not condemned by S. Gregory as new or prophane or any way vnlawfull but agreeth to the Pope no lesse then the title of Bishop of the vniuersall Church And therfore as S. Gregory (a) Ep. ad omnes Episc stileth himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church so likewise when Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria writing to him (b) L. 4. ep 36. gaue him the title of vniuersall Bishop he acknowledged (c) L. 4. ep 36. that in this sense he might lawfully accept therof and that the Councell of Chalcedon and the following Fathers had giuen it to his predecessors But yet he refused it out of his great humility as also he denied himselfe to be a Priest (d) L. 4. ep 31. and as S. Paul called himselfe the greatest of sinners (e) 1. Tim. 1.15 and thought himselfe vnworthy to be called Apostle (f) 1. Cor. 15. ◠And chiefly lest he might be thought to accept of it in the former sense vnlawfull iniurious to other Bishops in which he conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to vsurpe it And finally that therby he might better represse his insolency This doctrine is deliuered by Baronius and Bellarmine of whom because they declare Vniuersalis Episcopus in this second sense to be all one with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae you say (g) Pag. 94. They would gladly confound these two titles therby to proue their Popes to be proper Monarkes ouer the whole Church because some predecessors of S. Gregory haue bene called Bishops of the vniuersall Church which is their peruerse error refuted by one of their learned Iesuits But you must pardon me if I tell you that this is a shamefull vntruth for Baronius and Bellarmine deliuer the same double acception of Vniuersalis Episcopus which I haue declared and likewise affirme that in one of them it may be attributed to the Pope but not in the other which is not to confound but to distinguish that confusion and mistake may be auoyded And the thing it selfe is euident for if the title of Vniuersalis Episcopus might not be taken in a sense vnlawfull S. Gregory would not haue condemned it in Iohn of Constantinople as a new prophane Antichristian title And againe if it might not be taken in a sense lawfull neither the Councell of Chalcedon nor the following Fathers (h) Apud S. Greg. l. 4. ep 36. would haue giuen it to the Bishops of Rome The former sense is vnlawfull because it taketh away all ordinary power and iurisdiction due to other Bishops in their Diocesses The second is lawfull because it leaueth to them their ordinary power and iurisdiction From whence it followeth that as S. Gregory in this second sense did instile himselfe Episcopum Vniuersalis Ecclesiae (i) Ep. ad omnes Episcop so if Vniuersalis Episcopus be taken in the same sense it is also lawfull and due to the Bishops of Rome and in this sense he taketh it when he sayth that the Councell of Chalcedon and the following Fathers gaue it to his predecessors But the former sense he condemned as prophane and Antichristian reprehended in Iohn of Constantinople And Salmeron for
a bloudy Tyrant So you who by calling Phocas a bloudy Tyrant would diminish the dignity of the Roman See as though that See had not had for her protectors and deuoted Children the most godly and religious Emperours of the Christian world (u) Of this see Coccius to 1. l. 7. art 8. Yea by how much more pious they haue bene so much the more deuoted haue they bene to the Chayre of S. Peter And although Phocas his cruelty be not excusable yet he was not so vngodly but that as he preserued the right of Roman Church so he performed other workes of Christian piety Such were his clensing Rome from all filth of Idolatry and his causing that famous Temple of Pantheon which was built in honor of all the heathenish Gods to be dedicated to Christ in honor of his blessed Mother and all the Martyrs 3. You cauill at Bellarmine (y) Pag. 96. without cause for saying that the Bishop of Constantinople by clayming the title of Vniuersall Bishop sought to make himselfe sole Bishop and the rest only his Vicars for Bellarmine sayth nothing but out of the expresse words of Saint Gregory himselfe (z) L. 4. ep 34. 36. â—â— 7. ep 70. Nor is it against this that diuers Bishops of the East which still held and exercised their ancient iurisdiction gaue to the Patriarke of Constantinople the Name of Vniuersall for they did giue him the sole name without yelding to him any part of their Episcopall iurisdiction which therfore they still exercised as freely and fully as before he laid clayme to that title 4. Without and contrary to all truth you obiect S. Leo against the title of Vniuersall Bishop for he was not only so called by the Councell of Chalcedon as you haue heard but he himselfe also vsed that title (a) Ep. 54. as appeareth out of the Latin Volume of his Epistles and out of the Greeke Copy of the same annexed to the Councell of Chalcedon (b) So noteth Spondanus anno 451. n. 34. To which I adde that speaking of such as you are he sayth (c) Ep. 89. Whosoeuer denieth the Supreme Authority of the Roman Chayre cannot diminish the power therof but puffed vp with the spirit of pride plungeth himselfe headlong into hell 5. I must not omit to aduertise you that you abuse Binius (d) Pag. 9â— fathering on him certaine words in his Annotation vpon the third Action of the Councell of Chalcedon as taken out of Baronius which words Binius hath not nor doth he in that Annotation so much as once mention Baronius but sheweth out of S. Gregory that the name of Vniuersall Bishop was giuen to the Popes his predecessors in that Councell and by other Fathers after wards as also that Syxtus and Zephyrinus vsed the same title long before that tyme and finally that S. Leo writing to Martian the Emperor (e) Ep. 54. stiled himselfe Episcopus Romanae vniuersalis Ecclesia Wherfore when S. Gregory sayth that his predecessors vsed not that title he only denieth that they vsed it in a solemne manner alwayes and in all their inscriptions as Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople did who witnes S. Gregory almost in euery lyne intitled himselfe Vniuersall Bishop SECT IV. S. Dionyse his iudgment concerning the Supremacy of the Roman Church CAsaubon say you (f) Pag. 100. spurs vs a necessary Question Why S. Dionyse the Areopagite professedly wryting of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy and gouerment was so vtterly silent in not mentioning the Vniuersall Visible Head of the Church reigning at Rome if at that tyme there had bene any such Monarchicall Head there Before I answer I must spur you a more necessary question why S. Dionyse professedly wryting of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy did not reckon secular Princes at least in generall whom you not only place in the Hierarchy of the Church but make Heads therof Now to Casaubons question I answeare that S. Dionise treateth not of any Church in particular nor of the Bishop of any particular See but of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy and orders in generall which he defineth thus (g) De Recles hierarch c. 1. Qui Hierarchiam dixit omnium simul sacrorum ordinum dispositionem dixit He that names a Hierarchy names the disposition or due ranking of all sacred orders And among the sacred orders he giues the first and chiefest place to Bishops The diuine order of Bishops sayth he (h) Ibid. c. 8. is the first and chiefest of those orders that see God From this number he excludeth not but includeth the Bishop of Rome as being the Head and Chiefe of all Bishops for as S. Thomas the Maister of Diuines defining a Hierarchy (i) 1. p. q. 108. art 1. corp sayth A Hierarchy is a holy Principality by which name of Principality two things are vnderstood namely the Prince himselfe and a multitude ordered vnder the Prince Who is this Prince in the Hierarchy of the Church but the Prince of the Apostles whom Christ made Pastor Gouernor of his flock and whom S. Dionyse did acknowledg for such (k) De diuin nomin c. 3. post med when speaking of the Apostles and Bishops vnder the name of Diuines he sayth Peter was present the most ancient and supreme top or Head of Diuines These passages of S. Dionyse Casaubon and you either out of ignorance could not find or if you could and did why do you conceale them SECT V. S. Ignatius his iudgment of the Roman Church CAsaubon and you with him obiect (l) Pag. 100. out of the Epistles of S. Ignatius that ancient Bishop of Antioch that he being frequent in setting forth the order Ecclesiasticall and dignity of Bishops forbeareth all mention of S. Peter or any Roman Pope What Ignatius his iudgment was of the great dignity of the Bishop and Church of Rome he himselfe declared when writing to the Romans he addressed his Epistle To the Church sanctified and illuminated in the will of God which hath done all things according to fayth and the loue of Iesus-Christ our God and Sauiour and which gouerneth in the region of the Romans worthy of God worthy of eminency worthy of memory worthy of blessednesse worthy of prayse founded in the loue and fayth of Christ hauing the name of Father c. Although this holy Martyr writ to the Trallians Magnesians Philippians Antiochians Ephesians Philadelphians and to those of Tharsis Smyrna and gaue great prayses vnto them yet he attributeth to the Roman Church as her peculiar prerogatiues that she is illuminated in the will of God that she is founded in the loue and fayth of Christ that she is of eminent dignity that she hath by reason of her Bishop the name of a Father which is to say that the rest as children are subiect to her and that she gouerneth in the region of the Romans the sense of which words cannot be that she gouerneth the Roman Dioces for no Church gouerneth
it selfe but one Church gouerneth another as the Metropolitan doth the Suffragans the Roman Church as being the Head and Mother Church ruleth all others of the world Nor is this explication of lesse force becauss he sayth that she gouerneth in the region of the Romans for he sayth it not to limit her gouerment but to expresse the place in which she is seated and from whence she gouerneth all other Churches I conclude therfore that by calling her the Church that gouerneth and not limiting her gouerment to anyone Church or nuÌ„ber of Churches he declareth her to be Head Gouernesse absolutely of all Churches for as S. Bernard speaking of this subiect sayth (m) L. 2. de consider at Where there is no limitation nothing is excepted And in this sense Theodoret long before had said (n) Ep. ad Leon. The Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the whole world This to be the genume sense of S. Ignatius his words Casaubon and you peraduenture did see and therfore to giue an expedite solution you reiect the whole Epistle saying (o) Pag. 100. marg No man skilfull in Greeke would belieue it to be written by S. â—gnatius But this solution is exploded by Euscbius (p) L. 3. hist. c. 30. and S. Hierome (q) L. de Scriptor who might be Casaubons and your Maysters in Greeke and yet affirme S. Ignatius to be the Author of this Epistle and transcribe a part therof yeÌ„t to be found in it as also doth S. Irenaeus (r) L. 4. aduers haeres apud Baron anno 109. to shew the admirable spirit and feruor of that holy Bishop Hauing proposed these arguments of Casaubon you obiect out of your owne obseruations (s) Pag. 100. that S. Ignatius exhorting the Trallians vnto obedience to Bishops instanceth equally in Timothy S. Pauls scholler as in Anacletus Successor to S. Peter Answere You may by the like argument proue that S. Ignatius equalleth Priests in authority with Bishops for exhorting the Trallians to obedience he instanceth as well in Priests as in the Bishop Obey sayth he (*) Ep. ad Trallianos the Bishop the Priests Who then seeth not your argument to be a childish Sophisme SECT VI. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church I Renaeus say you (t) Pag. 100. for direction in the right of Traditions referreth as well to Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna as to Linus Bishop of Rome Tertullian also to secure Christians in the Doctrine of the Apostles prescribeth vnto them that they consult with the Mother Churches immediatly founded by the Apostles naming as well Ephesus in Asia and Corinth in Achaia as Rome in Italy and for the persons mentioning as well Polycarpe ordayned by S. Iohn as Clemens by Peter The like argumeÌ„t you make out of Vincentius Lyrinensis But all of them imposterously and against your selfe And first to begin with S. Irenaeus these words Discite ab Apostolicis Ecclesijs Habetis Romae Linum which you alleage as of S. Irenaeus (u) L. 2. c. 3. I find not in him It is true that both he and Tertullian teaching the Christians of their tyme to auoyd heresy warned them that the true fayth was to be learned from the Apostolicall Churches that is from the Churches founded by the Apostles themselues or by Apostolicall men as Timothy Polycarpe and other their disciples that preached the same fayth they learned from the Apostles their Maysters But withall they taught them that the chiefe Church they were to adhere vnto and by whose authority they were to confound all Heretikes was the Roman Church All men sayth S. Irenaeus (x) L. 3. c. 3. may behold the tradition of the Apostles that is the fayth deliuered by them to their Successors in euery Church if they be desirous to heare the truth and we can number the Bishops that were made by the Apostles in Churches and their Successors euen vnto vs who neither taught nor knew any such thinge as rauing heretikes do broach c. But because it were a long businesse to number the Successions of all Churches we declare the tradition of the most great most ancient and most knowne Church founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which tradition and fayth it hath from the Apostles coÌ„ming to vs by Succession of Bishops and thereby we confound all them that any way ether by euill complacence of themselues or vaine-glory or blindnesse or ill opinion do gather otherwise then they ought Lo here how Catholikes in S. Irenaeus tyme did confound all heretikes by the fayth of the Roman Church and by the Succession of Bishops in that See And he yeldeth the reason saying (y) Ibid. for to this Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality all Churches must necessarily agree that is to say all the faythfull of what place soeuer in which Church the tradition and fayth of the Apostles hath bene alwayes conserued And in confirmation of this he reckoneth by name all the Popes from S. Peter to Eleutherius who at that tyme gouerned the Church (z) Ibid. And by that orderly and neuer-interrupted Succession he proueth the Roman Church to haue conserued vnto his daies the fayth pure and entyre as it was preached by the Apostles By this Succession that Doctrine and truth which the Apostles preached in the Church hath come to vs And this is a demonstration conuicing that it is one and the same quickening fayth which from the Apostles tyme vntill this day is conserued and delinered in truth And againe relating to this place and speaking of the same Succession of Bishops in the Roman Church which he calleth the principall Succession he declareth all those that withdraw themselues from it to be Schismatikes or heretikes They that are in the Church sayth he (a) L. 4. c. 41. ought to obey those Priests which haue their Succession from the Apostles which togeather with the Succession of their Bishoprikes haue receaued the assured grace of truth according to the good will of the heauenly Father And we ought to hold suspected all others that withdraw themselues from the like Principall Succession and ioyne togeather in some other place We ought I say to hold them as heretikes of a peruerse iudgment or as Schismatikes and selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes or els as Hypocrites that worke for lucre and vaine-glory If then S. Irenaeus in his dayes thought it an argument sufficient to conuince all Heretikes that they had fallen from the true fayth preached by the Apostles because they had fallen from the Succession of Bishops in Peters See to which all the Churches and faythfull of the world must necessarly agree how much more conuincing is the same Argument against Protestants to whom we shew not the Succession of twelue Popes in S. Peters See as S. Irenaeus did to the heretikes of his tyme but almost of 240. You were not ignorant of the force
of these testimonies of S. Irenaeus and therfore lest you might seeme to passe them ouer without answere you say (b) Pag. 100. marg fine As for the words Propter Principalitatem they are answered hereafter How are they answered first you bid vs (c) Pag. 253. marg remember that Irenaeus was he which consented with the Asian Bishops that were excommunicated by Pope Victor But wee know this to be an vntruth and wish you to remember that you acknowledge so much contradict your selfe saying (d) Pag. 131. Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops These then are your propositions Irenaus consented with the Asian Bishops Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops Reconcile them 2. Wheras S. Iraeneus sayth (e) L. 3. c. 3. It is necessary that all Churches haue recourse to the Roman Church by reason of her more mighty principality you answere (f) Pag. 253. This might haue bene spoken of the Imperiall power of that City to which the subiects of the Roman Empire were bound to resort for paying of tributes and the Gouernors of Prouinces to yield an account of their offices But the very words of S. Irenaeus shew the falshood of this answeare for he mentioneth not the City but the Church of Rome Ad hanc Ecclesiam c. To this Church sayth he all Churches must of necessity resort Againe they which were to resort to the City of Rome for the discharge of their offices and paymēt of tributes were the subiects of the Roman Empire only But S. Irenaeus tels you that omnes vndique fideles that is All the faythfull and all the Churches not only of the Roman Empire but of all the world are necessarily to repaire to the Church of Rome shewing therby that her authority and command is of larger extent then that of the Roman Empire for as Prosper truly sayd (g) De ingrat c 2. de vocat gent. l. 2. c. 6. Rome the See of Peter is greater by the fortresse of Religion then by the throne of temporall power and being made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world possesseth by religion what she doth not by force of armes 3. You answeare (h) Pag. 253.254 Be it Ecclesiasticall power yet was not the necessity of recourse vnto it absolute and perpetuall but occasionall for that tyme. This is as vntrue as the rest for the necessity of resorting to the Roman Church sayth S. Irenaeus (i) L. 3. c. 3. is by reason of her more mighty principality or which is all one by reason of the great dignity of the See Apostolike which sayth S. Augustine (k) Ep. 162. hath alwaies florished in her and which maketh her the Mother Church of the world And therfore so long as she shall be S. Peters See which shall be till the end of the world so long the necessity of all other Churches resorting to her and agreeing in fayth and communion with her shall still continue SECT VII Tertullian his Iudgment of the Roman Church TErtullian agreeth with S. Irenaeus in pressing against all heretikes the same argument of the neuer interrupted succession of Bishops in the Roman See (l) L. 3. Carm. cont Marcio c. vltimo recknoning all the Popes by name vntill his tyme against Marcion and all heretikes to proue thē to be such It is manifest saith he (m) Praescrip c. 21. that all Doctrine which agreeth with those Mother and originall Churches founded by the Apostles is true and to be held as certayne being that the Churches receaued it from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God and that whatsoeuer is contrary to this is to be accounted false and erroneous And speaking of heretikes (n) Ibid. c. 32. If there be any of them that darevent their Doctrine for Apostolicall let them shew the originall of their Churches let them vnfold the order of their Bishops in such sorte that by a Succession deriued from the beginning they proue their first Bishop to haue bene some one of the Apostoles or of the Apostolicall men that perseuered with the Apostles vnto the end This Tertullian sayth the Smyrnaeans in his dayes could do shewing that Polycarpe their Bishop was placed there by S. Iohn and that the Roman Church could do the like shewing Clement ordeyned by S. Peter And the same she can do at this day shewing that all her Bishops vnto Vrbā the eight which now possesseth that Chayre had S. Peter the Apostle for their predecessor and first Bishop in that See and that from him they can lineally deriue their pedigree wheras no heretikes could euer shew any such descent as Protestants at this day cannot And therefore Tertullian bringeth in the Catholike Church vpbrayding them and all heretikes in this manner (o) Ibid. c. 37. Who in Gods name are you When and from whence came you hither What do you among myne being none of myne By what right O Marcion dost thou cut downe my woods What leaue hast thou O Valantine to turne my streames and fountaynes another way By what authority doest thou remooue my bounds O Apelles O Luther O Caluin O Zuinglius The possession is mine I haue it of old I enioyed it before you I can deriue my pedigree from the very first Authors to whom the thing did properly belong I am the right beyre to the Apostles According to their will and testament according to their trust and charge giuen my Tenure standeth As for you they alwayes disinherited you and reiected you as aliens yea and as enemies In this very manner may Catholikes with great reason vpbrayd you who as you cannot shew any Succession of your Bishops continued from the Apostles so you are therby conuinced not to be their heires but strangers and enemies to them and to the Churches founded by them Againe Tertullian prescribing a rule for you to finde out the true fayth doctrine deliuered by the Apostles saith (p) Ibid. c. 36. Goe to If thou wilt be curiously exact in the affaire of thy saluation repaire to the Apostolicall Churches c. If thou be a neighbour to Italy thou hast Rome from whence we also haue authority O happy Church into which the Apostles powred all their Doctrine togeather with their bloud where Peter is equalled to our Sauiours passion where Paul is crowned with Iohn Baptists lot where Iohn the Apostle being plunged into boyling oyle and yet not hurt therwith was banished into an iland Let vs obserue what this Church hath learned what she hath taught Tertullian was an African a Priest of the Church of Carthage and yet speaking of the Roman Church sayth From whence we that is as Macerus expoundeth all the African Churches or all Catholikes haue authority at hand for our defence Wherfore out of this place of Tertullian Quintinus rightly inferreth that the Roman Church euen from her first foundation had great authority aboue all Churches of the world and
that all men are to learne from her the Doctrine of fayth deliuered vnto her by the blessed Apostles And this is the reason why Tertullian speaking of Marcion and Valentinus (q) Ibid. c. 30. proueth them to be heretikes because they had fallen from the faith into which they had beleeued in the Roman Church Nam constat c. For sayth he and his words no lesse agree to Luther and Caluin then to Marcion and Valentinus it is manifest that they first beleeued the Catholike Doctrine in the Roman Church vntill in the tyme of the blessed Bishop Eleutherius for their turbulent spirit of nouelty wherwith they did also peruert their Brethren they were often excommunicated and at length cast out for euer to perpetuall ruine By this it appeareth that the Roman fayth was then held to be the Catholike fayth and the Roman Church which Tertullian calleth The Catholike Church (r) L. 4. cont Marcio c. 4. the Head and Mistresse of all Churches in the world for Marcion was borne at Sinope in Pontus and for his heresy and lewdnesse of lyfe excommunicated by his owne Father a holy Bishop who refusing to absolue him he went to Rome to seeke absolution but his Father opposing obteyned it not ValeÌ„tine was as Aegyptian borne and hauing fallen into heresy in Cyprus came to Rome in the tyme of Higinius Pope and feigning himselfe to be a Catholike was receaued into the Communion of the Roman Church but falling often backe into heresy as a dog returning to his vomit was finally cast out of the Church by the blessed Pope Elutherius as you haue heard Tertullian report And why did these heretikes as also Cerdon at the same tyme when they sought absolution from heresy come from so remote countreyes subiect to other Patriarkes and why from all the Easterne Church and why all of them to the Church of Rome in particular but because they knew her to be the Head Mistres of all Churches that had power to absolue all those which had bene excommunicated by any other Bishops whatsoeuer and to be the originall and center of Catholike Communion and that so long as they remayned out of her bosome they nether were nor should be esteemed Catholikes nor to be in state of saluation Herby it appeares how little reason you had to say out of Beatus Rhenaus (s) Pag. 131 1â—â— though Tertullian giue an honorable testimony to the Church of Rome yet be did not esteeme her so highly as wee see her accounted of at this day And since you acknowledge that Rhenanus his mouth for that and other his inconsiderat speeches is gagged by the Index expurgatorius you shew litle iudgment in obiecting his authority against vs. SECT VIII Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church VVHat hath bene sayd sheweth the futility of your argument out of Vincentius Lyrinensis which is like to the two former out of S. Iraeneus and Tertullian And how little support you haue for your cause in the authority of this ancient and learned Father he will testify for himselfe for when the Doctrine of rebaptizing Heretikes at their returne to the Catholike Church defended by Firmilianus Bishop of Cefarea Agrippinus S. Cyprian Bishops of Carthage and many others wrought so great inconueniences that it gaue a paterne of sacriledge to all heretikes and occasion of error to some Catholikes Vincentius declareth how Stephen then Pope of Rome suppressed it by his authority When sayth he (t) L. cont propha haeres nouat c. â— all men euery where exclamed against the nouelty of that Doctrine all Priests in all places ech one according to his zeale did opppse then Pope Stephen of blessed memory Bishop of the Apostolike See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops but yet more then the rest thinking it as I suppose reason so much to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth as he did surmount them in the authority of his place To conclude in his epistle which then was sent to Africa he decreed the same in these words Let nothing be innouated but that which comes by tradition be obserued And (u) Ibid. c. 10. notwithstanding that the contrary doctrine had sayth he such pregnant wits such eloquent tongues such a number of Patrons such shew of truth such testimonies of Scripture but glosed after a new and naughty fashion and that it was decreed in an African Councell yet the authority of the Pope declaring it a nouelty was of so great force that after he had condemned it all those things were abolished were disanulled were abrogated as dreames as fables as superfluous And afterwards (x) Ibid. c. 43. he alleageth as witnesses of his Doctrine diuers Greeke Fathers and addeth to them the authority of S. Felix Martyr and S. Iulius both Bishops of the Roman Church whom to declare their soueraigne authority he calleth The Head of the world And he concludeth Ibid. c. 45. Least in such plenty of proofes any thing should be wanting wee haue added for a conclusion a double authority of the See Apostolike the one of S. Sixtus a venerable man that now honoresh the Church of Rome the other of Pope Celestine of blessed menory his predecessor And their decrees he calleth Apostolicall and Catholike decrees SECT IX Other Obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared YOur obseruations are (y) Pag 101. seqq that S. Athanasius S. Augustine the Councels of Constantinople of Aegypt and of Cauthage reckoning diuers Bishops to shew their agreement in fayth with them name not only the Pope but other Bishops and write both to him them and consult with him and them as with their fellow Bishops which you say is to giue the Bishop of Rome so many mates and to equalize other Bishops with him But who seeth not what poore stuffe these your obseruations are For if one concerning matters of fayth should consult with his parish Priest and his Bishop would it follow that he equalizeth the parish Priest with the Bishop and maketh him his mate Or if you writing to the King and his Counsell I should lay to your charge that by consulting with his Maiesty and his Counsell you giue his Maiesty so many mantes as he hath Counsellors and equalize them in power and dominion with him would you not thinke mâ— a trifling and indeed a childish opponent how then shall wee thinke otherwise of you that by like consequence go about to equalize other Bishops with the Pope among themselues CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome THAT the Councell of Nice acknowledged the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ouer all Bishops is proued 1. Because Iulius a most holy Pope in his third Epistle which S. Athanesius hath inserted into his second Apology writing to the Arians and declaring vnto them the right of the Roman See to haue the
certainly allowed and decreed by it 5. The same is confirmed out of the Councell of Sardica which being held soone after that of Nice made three decrees concerning Appeales The first (i) Cap. 3. that if in the cause of a Bishop who conceaues himselfe to be wronged a new iudgement be required the Bishop of Rome is to giue the Iudges The second (k) Cap. 4. that if a Bishop deposed by the next Bishops say his cause ought to be iudged againe none is to be installed in his See vntill the Bishop of Rome haue pronounced vpon it The third (l) Cap. 5. that a Bishop accused may haue recourse to Rome by way of appeale These Canons of Sardica sufficiently declare the beleefe of the Nicen councell touching the authority of the Bishop of Rome for as Harmen opulus writeth (m) In Epit. Can. By the aduice of the Emperor and of the Bishop of Rome the Synod if Sardica was assembled consisting of 341. Fathers which confirmed the fayth of the Councell of Nice and published the Canons Wherfore these canons touching appeales extant in the Councell of Sardica are either the very Nicen canons inserted into that of Sardica or declarations of them for the Sardican Councell consisting for the most part of the same Bishops that the Nicen did it is a senselesse thing to say that when those Bishops in their Councell at Sardica so expresly and so effectually declare the Bishop of Rome to be the supreme iudge of all Bishops they professe a new doctrine contrary to that which a litle before they had professed in the Councell of Nice 6. The authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer the whole Church is yet further declared in the Nicen Councell decreeing thus (n) Can. 39. ex 80. Graec. Arab. A Patriarke is so ouer all those that are vnder his power as he that hath the See of Rome is Head and Prince of all Patriarkes for he is the chiefest as Peter was to whom power was giuen ouer all Christian Princes and all their subiectes as being the Vicar of our Lord ouer all people and ouer the vniuer sall Church 7. The same is proued by the order of subscribing in the Councell for Victor and Vincentius being not Bishops but simple Priests because they were Legates to the Pope presided in the Councell togeather with Osius B. of Corduba and subscribed in the first place before all the Bishops and Patriarkes which they could not haue done but only in regard they represented his person who was Superior to all Bishops and Patriarkes 8. Though Constantine the Emperor was a great cause of the Bishops meeting in the Councell of Nice both because he persuaded that meanes of Concord as also because he defrayed their charges and by his letters called them together yet he called them not by his owne authority but as Ruffinus sayth (o) L. 1. c. 1. fin apud Spond Anno 325. n. 5. ex Sacerdotum sententia by the determination or decree of the Priests as in like manner he called an other Councell of 275 Bishops at Rome at the same time in which it is said Siluester gathered the whole Councell with the aduice of the Emperor The same is testified by Damasus in Syluesters life and by the sixt generall Councell saying (p) Act. 18. Constantine and Syluester worthy of prayse called the famous Councell of Nice And how can it be thought that it was called by any other authority then of the Pope seeing S. Athanasius and the Bishops of Aegypt in their Councell at Alexandria witnesse (q) Ep. Synod ad Felic that the Nicen Councell made a decree that no generall Councells should be held without the allowance of the B. of Rome and this decree it is which Iulius Pope the next but one to Syluester alleaged against the Arians (r) Ep. ad Orientales rebuking thē sharply that they had infringed it by calling their Councell at Antioch without his allowance which is also testified by Socrates Sozomen and Theodoret as you haue heard 9. And as this Councell was called by Syluester Pope so that it required confirmation from him we are certified by the Roman Councell vnder Felix the third (s) In ep Synod Felic c. 3. and by the Councell of Nice it selfe saying (t) In summ Conc. Nice Placuit c. It hath seemed good that all these Acts and decrees be sent to Syluester B. of Rome And in their letter to Syluester (u) Apud Baron An. 325. ex collect Crescon Whatsoeuer is determined in the Nicen Councell we beseech you that it may be seconded with the confirmation of your mouth And that Syluester accordingly confirmed their decrees we may learne from a Councell of the Bishops of Italy held at Rome in which he presiding sayd (x) Apud Bar. An. 325. Bin. to 1. pag. 382. Whatsoeuer is determined by the 318. holy Priests at Nice in Bithinia for the strength of the holy Catholike and Apostolike Church we with our mouth accordingly confirme and all those that shall dare to dissolue the definition of the holy and great Councell assembled at Nice in the presence of the most religious and venerable Prince Constantine the Emperor we anathematize them And all answeared So be it SECT I. Doctor Mortons Obiections against the precedent Doctrine answeared THough you either could not or would not find any thing of all that which hath bene alleaged out of the Councell of Nice in proofe of the Popes authority yet you cold find two argumēts to obiect against it The first is (y) Pag. 105. seqq The Councell of Nice decreeth that the ancient custome goe on to wit that the Patriarke of Alexandria haue power ouer Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis because the B. of Rome hath so accustomed To this argument Bellarmine hath answeared (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. that the Canon speakes of the Patriarke of Alexandria with restriction assigning to him the Prouinces of Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis and of the Pope without restriction not prescribing any lymits to his iurisdiction nor ordeyning any thing concerning the authority of the Roman Church but making her a rule and patterne for the gouerment of other Churches commanding that the B. of Alexandria haue power ouer those three prouinces because the B. of Rome hath accustomed so to allow or permit And this canon is so explicated by Nicolas the first (a) Ep. ad Michael Imper that liued almost 800. yeares since and for his learning and sanctity hath deserued the surname of Great And the same explication is confirmed by the practise both of the Roman and of the Alexandrian Church For if according to your construction the Roman Church by this canon be proued to haue no superiority of iurisdiction ouer the Church of Alexandria or other Easterne Churches but only ouer those which are within the Patriarkeship of the west how comes it to passe that S. Athanasius Patriarke
betake your selfe as to your last refuge when you are pressed with vnanswearable arguments is a mere shift inuented to delude ignorant readers with empty words voyd of truth And by this canon it is in like manner euident that the primacy was not then first giuen to the Church of Rome but preserued vnto it according to the canons Your second Argument (z) Pag. 107. to proue that the later Roman Councells are bastardly and illegitimate and that we haue little regard to the Councell of Nice is taken out of Theodoret writing that Constantine the Great required in that Synod that because the bookes of the Apostles do plainly instruct vs in diuine matters therfore we ought to make our determinations vpon questions from words which are diuinely inspired And then you tell vs that Bellarmine answeareth thus Coâ—stantine was a great Emperor indeed but no great Doctor of the Church who was yet vnbaptized and therfore vnderstood not the mysteries of religion Thus say you doth this your Cardinall twite and taunt the iudgment of that godly Emperor and as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth from his reader that which followeth in Theodoret namely that the greater part of that Councell of Nice obeyed the voyce of Constantine So you as you are wonâ— for first you falsify Bellarmine who sayth not that Constantine was yet vnbaptized but that that is the opinion of you Protestants and the old Arians from whence he argueth ad hominem against you that this testimony of Constantine is not of so great weight as Caluin and Kemnitius make it for if he were vnbaptized he could then be no great Doctor of the Church as being a Neophyte and therfore not so well skilled in the mysteries of Christian Religion What twiting or taunting of that godly Emperor your find in this answere of Bellarmine I know not but I know that you in holding Constantine to be then vnbaptized both seeke to disgrace that godly Emperor and withall to vphold the authority and credit of the Arian heretikes who to make him a Patron of their heresy gaue out that he was not baptized vntill a litle before his death and that then he receaued his baptisme from Eusebius B. of Nicomedia the chiefe ringleader of the Arian faction But that your dealing may the better appeare it is to be noted that Bellarmine is so farre from twiting or taunting that godly Emperor that he admitteth of his testimony Admitting sayth he (a) L. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. §. Admissâ— the authority of Constantine I say that in all those doctrines which concerne the nature of God there are extant testimomes in Scripture out of which if they be rightly vnderstood we may be fully and plainly instructed but the true sense of the Scriptures dependeth on the vnwritten tradition of the Church Wherfore the same Theodoret that reporteth this speach of Constantine declareth in the next Chapter that in the Councell of Nice Scriptures were produced on both sydes but the Arians were not conuinced with them because they expounded them otherwise then the Catholikes and therfore were condemned by the vnwritten tradition of the Church piously vnderstood to which condemnation no man euer doubted but that Constantine assented So Bellarmine And hereby it appeares that when you say Bellarmine citeth Theodoret yet as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth that which followeth in him namely that the greater part of the Councell obeyed the voyce of Constantine you wrong Bellarmine and a buse Theodoret who in those words relateth not to the determining of controuersies by Scriptures but to Constantines exhortation made to the Bishops of peace and concord among themselues which sayth Theodoret the greatest part of the Councell obeyed imbracing mutuall concord and true doctrine though diuers Arians disagreed some of whose names he there expresseth This you iniustly conceale like the ill Steward in the Ghospell that you may pick a quarrell with Bellarmine In confirmation of this I might adde that as S. Augustine (b) L. 5. de Baptism c. 23. and Vincentius Lyrinensis (c) Cont. haer c. 9. 10. haue testified the heresy of Rebaptization could not be disproued by Scripture but was condemned by Tradition And finally I might aske you why you like the bad Steward conceale what Theodoret writeth in that very place namely that what Constantine said he spake not to the Bishops as their Head but as a sonne that loued peace offered vp his words to the Priests as to his Fathers and that he would not enter into the Councell but after them all nor sit downe but with their leaue and in a low chayre Did he trow you belieue himselfe to be Head of the Church CHAP. XVII The second Generall Councell held at Constantinople belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome SECT I. By what authority this Councell was called BELLARMINE in proofe of the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction alleageth that the Fathers of the first generall Councell of Constantinople which was the second generall of the whole Church in their Epistle to Pope Damasus say They were gathered by his Mandate and confesse that the Church of Rome is the Head and they the members This say you (d) Pag. 109. is all that is obiected but vpon a mistake What then is the mistake Because Bellarmine in the Recognition of his workes afterwards obserued that it was not the Epistle of the second generall Synod but of the Bishops which had bene present at the Synod and met againe the next yeare after at Constantinople But if this Epistle were not of the Synod why do you speaking of it not without contradiction say (e) Pag. 10â— The generall Councell of Constantinople do endite an Epistle (f) Pag. 110. margin and inscribe it thus And why do you mentioning the inscription of the same Epistle call it Synodicae Epistolae inscriptio The inscription of the Synodicall Epistle And why doth Theodoret (h) L. 5. hist. c. 9. stile it Libellus Synodicus à Concilio Constantinopolitano missus A Synodicall writ sent by the Councell of Constantinople c But howsoeuer you alleaging that Bellarmine acknowledgeth his owne mistake is a mere cauill nothing auailing your cause for be it that those Bishops writ not their Epistle whiles they were assembled in Councell but when they met the next yeare after at Constantinople yet you must acknowledge the truth of what Bellarmine alleageth out of their Epistle vnlesse you will make them all lyers But let vs goe on Bellarmine sayth (i) Recogn pag. 46. in hoc Concil it is sufficiently proued out of the sixth generall Councell that this of Constantinople was called by the commaund of Pope Damasus you answeare (k) Pag. 109. that in proofe therof he referreth himselfe to another Councell against the vniuersall current of histories which with generall consent set downe the Mandates of Emperors as the supreme and first compulsary causes for
ruleth the whole body And therfore your answere is no lesse contrary to reason then if you should tell vs that in a politicall body as in a Colledge the Rector which is Head of the house hath no other superiority ouer his fellow-Collegials but only priority of place or of voyce nor the Gouernor of a City ouer the Citizens nor the Vice-Roy ouer the inferior officers of the kingdome And so much the more reprehēsible is this your sophistry because you know that the holy Councell of Chalcedon speaking to Leo Pope sayth (z) Inrelat ad Leon. You rule ouer vs as the Head doth ouer the members And (a) Ibide We beseech you to honor our iudgment with your decrees and that as in what concernes the weale we haue had correspondency to our Head so your Soueraignty would fulfill to your Children what concernes decency Do not these Fathers here expresly acknowledge Leo to be the ruler and Gouernor of the Vniuersall Church and beseech him to confirme and authorize their decrees If he had not power and authority ouer the whole Church why did S. Ambrose one of the Bishops to whom these Orientals addressed their letter as the inscription (b) Apud Theodoret. l. 5. hist c. 9. declareth speaking of this very Pope Damasus say (c) In cap. 3. prior ad Timoth Though all the world be Gods yet the Church is called his house wherof at this day Damasus is Gouernor If the Pope haue not iurisdiction ouer all Bishops euen the greatest Patriarkes of the East and power to annuall their decrees and the decrees of their Councells why did S. Chrysostome (d) Ep. 1. ad Innocent when he was deposed from the See of Constantinople in a Councell held by Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria write to Innocentius Pope beseeching him to annull the Acts of that Councell and punish them that had so iniustly condemned him Why did Theodoret Bishop of Cyre deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus appeale to Pope Leo (e) Ep. ad Renat ep ad Leo. acknowledging that the holy Roman See hath the sterne of gouernment ouer all the Churches of the world If the rule and gouerment of the vniuersall Church belong not to the Pope why did the Bishop of Patara in Lycia vpon the expulsion of Pope Siluerius from his See (f) Liberat. in Breui c. 12. represent vnto Iustinian the indignity of that fact saying that albeit there be many Kings and Princes in the world yet none of them ouer all the earth as the Pope is ouer the Church of all the world If the gouerment of the vniuersall Church belong not to him why did the Emperor Valentinian the third (g) Cod. l. 7. 8. instile him Rector of the vniuersaloty of Churches Why doth the same Emperor and Theodosius decree (h) Constit. Nouel tit 24. that all those things shall be lawes which haue beue or shall be ordayned by the Pope of the eternall Citty and that presumption attempt nothing against his authority for so say thoy the peace of the Church shall be maintayned by all if the vniuersality acknowledge her Rector If the Pope haue no superiority ouer other Bishops but only priority of place or of voyce why did Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria Paul of Constantinople with many others of the East in their wrongs appeale to Iulius Pope as to their Iudge (i) Socrat. l. 2. c. 11. how came he to replace them in their seates but (k) Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. by the soueraignty of his Church and (l) Nicepho l. 9. c. 8. because the charge of all belonged to him But to returne to the Councell of Constantinople Those Fathers in their letter to Damasus made sufficient acknowledgment of his authority ouer them (m) Apud Theodoret. l 5. c. 9. when they demanded from him the confirmation of their decrees of fayth and in particular that of the deposition of Timothy Patriarke of Alexandria condemned for heresy All these things say they being lawfully decreed according to the Canons of the Church we beseech your Holiness to approue them To which petition Damasus answeared (n) Apud Theodoret. ibid. c. 10. Wheras your charity most honoured children yeldeth due reuerence to the Apostolike See it shall turne you to great honor c. But what need was there to require from one the deposition of Timothy seeing he was long since deposed here with his Maister Apollinarius by the iudgment of the See Apostolike and in the presence of Peter Bishop of Alexandria SECT III. Whether the name of Brother Colleague and fellow-Minister which the Pope giueth to other Bishops and they to him argue them to be of equall authority and iurisdiction with him YOu obiect (o) Pag 110.111 that the Fathers of this second Councell generall write not to the Pope alone but to him with other Bishops of the Roman Synod whome they acknowledge to be their Colleagues and fellow members and therby cut the Roman Head into so many peeces as there were Bishops to whom they inscribed their Epistle It is a prime Argument of yours which you often repeate and strongly insist on (p) Pag 63. fin 64.83.84.110.111.116.141.268 that because Bishops are ioyned in society with the Pope or because they call him Brother Colleague and fellow-Minister as also because he writing to them calleth them his Brethren Colleagues there is no inequality of power betweene the Pope and them but that they are all equall with him Whiles you giue to the Pope say you (q) Pag. 63. fin 64. an absolute iurisdiction cum plenitudine potestatis ouer all Bishops how can you suffer him to be mated or equaled with others Bishops as Paul did Peter by ioyning in society with him Iames and Iohn 2. Here (r) Pag. 110.111 you inferre that because the Orientall Bishops that had bene present at the second Councell generall writing to Damasus Pope and other Bishops assembled at Rome call both him and them their Brethren and Colleagues they acknowledge not any authority or iurisdiction in the Pope more then in themselues or in the other Bishops to whom they write 3. You frame the like Argument (s) Pag. 116. out of the Councell of Ephesus because it calles Celestine B. of Rome Fellow-Minister 4. And out of S. Epiphanius (t) Pag. 241. who called Pope Hormisdas Brother 5. And out of S. Cyprian you tell vs (u) Pag. 268. that he neuer calleth the Pope Bishop of Bishops Father of Fathers High Priest of Christ and Monarke of the vniuersall Church as he would haue done if he had belieued his Monarchy but contrariwise in all his Epistles saluteth Pope Cornelius with only Charissime frater Most deare Brother taketh his Vale with the same Most deare brother farewell And when in his Epistles to others he falleth into mention of him he exceedeth not these Epithets Ourfellow brother Cornelius Our Colleague or fellow
that if very speedily that is within the tyme prescribed by the most holy Bishop of the Roman Church he renounce not the Nouelties of his Doctrine he is to haue no more communion with vs not place among the Minister of God And the Councell it selfe proceeding to the sentence of condemnation against him sayth (n) Conc. Ephes to 2. c. 20. Constrained necessarily by the force of the Canons and by the letters of our most holy Father Celestine we are come not without many teares to pronounce this heauy sentence against him And then they couch the sentence it selfe in these words (o) Ibid. Therfore our Lord Iesus Christ whom Nestorius hath assailed with his blasphemies by this holy Synod pronounceth him wholly depriued of all Episcopall dignity and cast out from all company and conuersation of Priests These passages proue the authority of the Pope 1. Ouer Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria whom he made his Vicar and who acknowledged himselfe bound by Celestines letters to condemne Nestorius and cast him out from among the Ministers of God 2. Ouer the Patriarke of Constantinople whom he first condemned at Rome and afterwards gaue command to Cyrill to publish his condemnation at Constantinople and to substitute another Bishop in his place And 3. ouer the Councell of Ephesus in which the Bishops professe (*) Euagr. l. 1. c. 4. that they were compelled necessarily by the force of the Canons and by the letters of Celestine to condemne Nestorius Which sayth Bellarmine was to professe that they deposed him by the command of Pope Celestine False say you (p) Pag. 114. There is not the word Command vsed by the Councell c. No you know well that to command was not the stile of Popes in primitiue and ancient tymes S. Gregory B. of Rome 150. yeares after Celestine did vtterly abhorre it I command sayth he Away with the word Command I haue not commanded And the same you repeate afterwards againe (q) Pag. 233. And to persuade your readers that the passages alleaged containe no Command of Celestine to Cyril or to the Councell you shift them off saying (r) Pag. 115. Those Fathers confesse they were moued and compelled by Celestines letters meaning by the persuasions of that Orthodox Bishop and that but only tùm tùm in part for so they say Both by the Canons and also by your letters But this euasion cannot serue for they say not They were persuaded by Celestines letters there is no mention of persuasion but that they were necessarily compelled by them which is to be Commanded for Persuasions do not necessarily compell but Commands And what more cleare then that Celestine did exercise the authority of a Iudge and Commander in ordayning Cyrill to execute exactly and seuerely the sentence of condemnation against Nestorius if he did not within ten dayes after admonition giuen him anathematize his hereticall Doctrine Was this only to persuade Was it not most strictly and properly to command Vnlesse you will say that when his Maiesty without vsing the word Command giues strict charge to his Iudges to condemne a Malefactor he commands them not but only persuades them to condemne him But you say (s) Pag. 115. Those Fathers were compelled by Celestines letters and by the Canons and therfore not wholly by his letters but only in part What then If the Iudges say they are compelled by the lawes and by his Maiesties letters to condemne a malefactor doth it therfore follow that his Maiesty hath no authority to command the Iudges or that his letters were not mandatory to them but only persuasiue with such poore euasions you deceaue your disciples But you say (t) Pag. 114. We well know that to command was not the style of Popes in primitiue and ancient times Pardon vs Syr we well know that you speake vntruly and ignorantly for Victor the first Pope of that name who liued in the first age after Christ commanded the Asian Bishops to celebrate the Feast of Easter after the manner of the Roman Church and excommunicated them that obeyed noâ— (u) Euseb l. 5. hist c. 24. 2. Anthetus that liued in the beginning of the next age writ to the Bishops of Andaluzia Toledo These things we command to be obserued according to your desire (x) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 145. Stephen the first of that name writing to S. Cyprian commanded that such as were baptized by hetetikes should not be rebaptized Let nothing be innouated sayth he (z) Vincent Lyr. aduers haer c. 9. but the ancient to adition abserued And notwithstanding the opposition of S. Cyptian of Firmiâ—ianâ—â—s and many other learned Prelates this command of Stephen preuailed and the contrary doctrine was condemned by the Councell of Nice as hereticall 4. Iulius the first of that name rebuked the Arians (a) Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. because they had rashly depersed Athanasius and other Catholike Bishops and commanded that some of them in the name of all should appeare at Rome on a set day to giue â—ccempt of the iustice of their sentence and threatned not to let them passe without punishment vnlesse they did leaue to innouate And both Theodoreâ— (b) L. 2. hist. c. 4. S. Athanasius (c) Apol. 2. out of an vndoubted Epistle of the same Pope report that following the Ecclesiasticall law hâ— commanded the Arian Bishops to come to Rome and suâ—â—â—ned Athanasius canâ—nic ally to present himselfe in iudgment and that as soone as he receaued the citation he transported himselfe in diligence to Rome What thinke you of these examples Was it not the stile of ancient Popes before S. Gregory to command and to command the greatest Patriarkes of the East But let vs goe on 5. Anastasius the second of that name speaking to Anastasius the Emperor sayth (d) In ep ad Anastas Aug. Let not Pride make resistance to the Apostolicall precepts but those things which are commanded by the Roman Church and Apostolicall authority let them be obserued 6. when Aurelius Bishop of Carthage writ to Damasus Pope for a copy of all the decrees and Statutes ordeined by the Roman Church since S. Peter to his tyme he sent them to him saying (e) Ep. 5. We wish you to obserue them and command you to publish them that with due reuerence they may be kept by all The African Bishops acknowledge (f) Ep. ad Bonifac in Concil Africa c. 101. that they had receaued from the Pope Mandata literas Mandates and letters 8. Gelasius a learned holy Pope maketh expresse mention of the decrees and commandes of the Popes his predecessor for the good of the Church (g) Ep. â— 9. Leo the great writing to Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople testifieth (h) Ep. 4â— that he bath enioyned him the execution of his decree And in his first Epistle which is to all Bishops he sayth All the decrees and constitutions as well of Innocentius of
professe by acknowledging (c) Ibid. that he ruled ouer them as the Head doth ouer the members and therfore beseeching him to confirme their decrees with his authority they adde (d) Ibid. We pray you to honor our iudgment with your decrees and that as in what concernes the Weale we haue held correspondence to our Head so your Soueraignty wold fulfill vnto your Children what is fit and conuenient These testimonies so cleare and pregnant cannot but conuince the vnderstanding of any impartiall reader that the Councell of Chalcedon beleeued the vniuersall authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome whom therefore the same Councell often calleth (e) Act. 1.2.3 Bishop of the vniuersall Church SECT III. Whether the title of Vniuersall Bishop which the Councell of Chalcedon gaue to the Pope argue in him no more but a generall care of the good of the Church such as belonges to euery Bishop and to euery Christian. OF all the proofes hereunto alleaged you take no notice two only excepted namely of the title of Vninersall Bishop and of the metaphor of a Vine by which the Councell expresseth the vniuersall Church saying (f) In relat ad Leon. that the custody therof is by Christ our Sauiour committed to the Pope These two you call Two postes to support the ruinous Monarchy of the B. of Rome And your answeare to them here (g) Pag. 117.118 and afterwards againe (h) Pag. 236. is that these attributes import no vniuersall power of iurisdiction in the Pope but of prouidence and care which euery Bishop shold haue in wishing and to his power endeauoring the vniuersall good of the whole Church But if the words of the Councell import no more it will follow that the custody of the vniuersall Church that is the gouerment therof was by Christ committed not only to euery Bishop but also to euery Christian man and woman who should wish and to their power procure the vniuersall good of the whole Church But you obiect (i) Pag. 116.117 236. that Eleutherius Pope writing to the Bishops of France sayth The vniuersall Church of Christ is committed to you that you may labor for all men and that according to Binius his exposition the meaning of Eleutherius is that for as much as heretikes oppugne the Catholike and vniuersall Church is belongeth to euery Bishop to haue an vniuersall care to defend and support it And this say you is a true answere indeed But you speake vntruly and interprete falsly for Binius hath no such word as Vniuersall care nor doth he speake of Bishops only but sayth that a care solicitude of defending the vniuersall Church against heretikes belongeth not only to Bishops but to euery Christian for as much as we are commanded by God Eccl. c. 4. to fight fortruth and iustice vntill death How do these words of Binius proue that the Pope hath not or that the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledged him not to haue authority and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church but only a charitable care of her good as S. Paul had and as euery Bishop and euery Christian man and woman according to their power are bound to haue for did not that Councel giue to Pope Leo the title of Vniuersall Archbishop and Patriarke or as you set it downe (k) Pag. 235. of Bishop of the vniuersall Church but these words say you (l) Ibid. were not the words of the Councell but of two Deacons writing to the Councell and of Paschasinus the Popes Legate False for it was giuen to him (m) Act. 3. in foure different petitions of Theodorus and Ischyrion Deacons of Alexandria of Athanasius a Priest of the same City and of Sophronius And the Councell approuing thereof commanded theyr petitions to be registred in the Acts. Moreouer the same title was giuen him by Paschasinus who though he were his legate was a Reuerend Bishop as also by Martian the Emperor the Councell no way excepting therat And did not S. Gregory and after him the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas testify that the whole Councell of Chalcedon with the following Fathers gaue the same title to Leo Pope And did not Leo a man of admirable sanctity learning instyle himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church And did not the Regulars of Constantinople and of Syria and the Bishops of the Patriarkships of Antioch and Hierusalem giue the same tytle to Agapetus Pope in the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas (n) See all this proued aboue Chap. 15. sect 3. Againe did not the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledge in Leo power to restore Theodoret to his Bishoprick of Cyre bordering vpon Persia from which he had bene deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus (o) Act. â— Did it not acknowledge in him authority to depose Dioscorus the greatest Patriarch of the East (p) Act. 3. Did not all those Fathers being the representatiue body of the Vniuersall Church professe (q) In relat ad Leon. that Leo Pope did preside rule ouer them as the Head ouer the members Is this Authority common to euery Bishop Or did Eleutherius or the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledge any such thing But he that will see how imposterously you wrest the testimony of Eleutherius against the vniuersall power and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome and against the meaning of the Councell of Chalcedon let him read the epistle and he shall finde that Eleutherius a litle before the words which you obiect declareth that althought it be lawfull to examine the accusations and crimes obiected against Bishops either before their Metropolitans or before the Bishops of their owne Prouince yet that it is not lawfull to end them there for as much as it hath bene decreed by the Apostles their Successors that the finall decision of Bishops causes is to be referred to the See Apostolike and no others substituted in their places vntill their iudgments be ended at Rome Can there be a more full expression of the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church then to professe him to be the sole supreme Iudge of all Bishops Or can there be a greater imposture then to obiect this epistle of Eleutherius for the contrary SECT IV. Whether the Councell of Chalcedon did giue to the B. of Constantinople priuiledges equall with the B. of Rome YOu obiect heere (r) Pag. 118. and often repeate that the Fathers of Chalcedon did giue priuiledges to the Patriarke of Constantinople equall with the Church of Rome Answeare The Fathers of Chalcedon in absence of the Popes Legates of the Patriarke of Alexandria and of all the Bishopes of Aegypt at the suggestion of Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople renewed the decree of the 150. Fathers made in the first generall Councell of that City which was that the B. of Constantinople shold haue the second place of honor after the B. of Rome And to this decree was added that he should haue equall priuiledges
of the Canons but iustly deposed him from the Episcopall See of this Citty Loe here the first sentence absolutely finished by Agapet before his death And then speaking of the second sentence they adde (m) Ibid. Afterwards the Bishops of Palestine assembled in this Citty and others of the East and deputies of others and we did againe present petitions touching Anthymus and the other heretikes and demanded that Anthymus should certify his beliefe by writ to the See Apostolike and should purge himselfe from all hereticall errors in this case returne to the Church of Trebizond or if he would not do it that he should be finally condemned and deposed from all Sacerdotall dignity and action And a litle after (n) Ibid. These our iust requests the same most holy personage Agapet preuenting and seeing that Anthymus had fayled to appeare condemned him with the aforesaid heretikes and despoiled him of all office and dignity Sacerdotall and of all title Orthodoxall euen till the pennance of his errors The same is declared by all the Fathers of that Councell who in their sentence pronounced against Anthymus speaking of his first deposition say (o) Act. 4. The Blessed Pope Agapet of most holy and happy memory setting with God his hand to the sacred Canons deposed Anthymus from the See which belonged not to him pardoning those which had participated and communicated in the act And then passing to the second sentence they adde (p) Ibid. But because that euen in doctrine Anthymus was charged with many accusations and that many petitions were preferred against him by diuers reuerend personages to the most religious Emperor and the most blessed Pope the same most blessed Pope after much paine taken with a Fatherly care to regaine his soule c. pronounced a sentence in writing against him full of Clemency and seemly holynesse granting him tyme of repentance and ordayned that vntill he had changed his opinion and satisfyed the doctrines canonically defined by the Fathers be should neither haue the title of a Catholike nor of a Priest This sheweth that the Councell intermedled not at all with the first sentence of Agapet by which Anthymus was deposed from the See of Constantinople but because this second sentence of his deposition from the See of Trebizond was not absolute but left depending and subiect to reuocation if he should appeare and purge himselfe from heresy the Councell taking the cause where the Pope left it and according to the order giuen by him cited Anthymus thrice to appeare and because he appeared not executed the Popes sentence on him deposing him from the Bishopricke of Trebizond and depriuing him of the title of a Priest and the name of a Catholike We say they (q) Act. 4. in sentent cont Anthym following those things which haue bene rightly examined by the most blessed Pope ordayne that he as an vnprofitable and rotten member be cast out of the body of the holy Churches of God and depriued of the Bishopricke of Trebizond and depriued of all sacred dignity and action and according to the sentence of the most holy Pope stript euen of the name of a Catholike Who now seeth not how ignorantly and vntruly you haue said (r) Pag. 122. that The cause of Anthymus which the Pope had condemned was afterwards ventilated in the Councell of Constantinople For those Fathers neither questioned nor any way examined either the first or the second sentence of the Pope against Anthymus but assembled themselues to put in execution the sentence which Agapet had pronounced and being preuented by death could not see executed All which is so farre from making against the iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the Bishops of the East that it is a strong proofe therof And that it may better appeare how vnaduised you are to vrge this history against the authority of the Roman Church it is to be noted that Anthymus an Eutychian heretike not contenting himselfe with his owne Bishopricke of Trebizond by the fauor of Iustinian who as yet knew not that he was an heretike and chiefly by the craft of Theodora the Empresse an Eutychian and for that cause a great fauorer of Anthymus intruded himselfe to the See of Constantinople But Agapet Pope coÌ„ming thither deposed him and with his owne hands ordayned Menas in his place which was an admirable effect of the power of S. Peter in his Successor for at that tyme Constantinople was the seate of Iustinian and the Head of the Empire wheras Rome was oppressed and made a slaue vnder the tiranny of Gothes a barbarous and Arian people The Church of Constantinople was most florishing and glorious and that of Rome greatly depressed and afflicted Iustinian the Emperor waâ— vâ—ctorious and triumphant and contrarily the Pope brought to such straytes that Theodat an Arian King of the Gothes threatned to ruinate the Roman Church vnlesse he would goe to Constantinople solicite the Emperor for peace and procure him to call his armies out oâ— Italy which vâ—â—â—ge therfore Agapet could not refuse though he were so poore that for the performance therof he was inforced to pawne the sacred Vessells of his Church wheras on the other side Anthymus being exalted by the Emperor and Empresse from the Bishoptick of Trebâ—zond to the Patriarkeship of Constantinople was very powrefull in meanes and highly fouored by them both And yet neuerthelesse and that the Empresse threatned Agapet if he deposed Anthymus and promised him great rewards if he would leaue him in the See of Constantinople the holy Pope soon after his ariuall being a stranger and without support deposed him casting him out of that See euen in the very Imperiall Citty in the presence of the Emperor that fauoured him and excommunicated Theodora the Empresse that obstinatly maintained him and with his owne hands ordained Menas a Priest of Constantinople in his place and pardoned Peter Patriarke of Hierusalem and other Bishops of the East that had communicated with him All this is accordingly reported by Marcellinus Comes (s) In Chron. Liberatus (t) Breu. c. 12. Victor of Tunes (u) In Chron. edit per Ios Scal. ad calc Chron. Euseb and Iustinian himselfe (x) Nou. 42. and is so cleare an euidence for the supreme authority of the B. of Rome that it admitteth no colour of answeare SECT III. Of the matter treated in the fifth generall Councell THe matter disputed in this Councell was about certaine writings of Theodorus Mopsuestinus Ibas and Theodoret commonly called Tria capitula The three Chapters Before the Councell Vigilius Pope with the Bishops of the West defended the Three Chapters which the Easterne Bishops opposed and what both of them did was vpon pious considerations in defence of the Councell of Chalcedon The Bishops of the East assembled in a Councell at Constantinople condemned the Three Chapters But Vigilius knowing that the Westerne Bishops stood in opposition to their sentence refused to confirme it hoping by that
meanes like a prudent and solicitous Pastor to worke both partes to an accord and establish peace in the Church But finding the Emperor and the Easterne Bishops violent in the prosecution of their decree and that the Bishops of Venice and the regions adioyning as also those of Ireland following his opinion relying on his authority had condemned this Councell of Constantinople and that the Church therby was in danger to be rent in sunder with Schisme and on the other syde considering that the subiect of that Contention was no matter of fayth and neither the one part nor the other any way repugnant to the Councell of Chalcedon as S. Gregory hath noted (y) L. 3. ep 37. but a thing of it selfe indifferent he altered his opinion and yelded to confirme this decree purchasing to himselfe that commendation which S. Augustine (z) Ep. 162. giues to the most famous Gouernors of Gods people both in the old new Testament which is that They tolerate for the good of vnity that which they hate for the loue of equity and imitating the example of S. Leo the great who testifies of himselfe (a) Ep. 14. that for the loue of peace he yelded to confirme the ordination of Maximus B. of Antioch which Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople without any example against the Canons had presumptuously vsurped to himselfe Nor can Vigilius herein be argued of leuity for if he altered his mind he did it vpon iust causes for the auoyding of Schisme and following the example of S. Paul who hauing first giuen his voyce for the abolishing of circumcision (b) Act. 15.11 afterwards vpon iust cause circumcised Timothy (c) Act. 16.3 and yet againe reprehended Peter that by his dissimulation he induced the Gentiles to circumcision and other Iewish ceremonies (d) Gal. 2.11 14. You to proue the no-necessity of subiection to the Pope obiect the standing out of the Easterne Bishops against Vigilius (e) Pag 123. 124. But you might by the like Argument proue that subiects are not bound to obey their Prince because some of them stand out in rebellion against him And as litle to the purpose is your telling vs (f) Pag 123. fin that those Bishops condemned all them that defended the Three Chapters for contrarily we tell you that the Bishops of the West in their Councell at Aquileia condemned all those Bishops and their Councell at Constantinople and had more right to do it then the Easterne Bishops to condemne them for they did it in defence of the Popes authority whose opinion they followed Your vrging (g) Pag. 123. the persecution which Iustinian raised against Vigilius to bring him to confirme the decree of the Easterne Bishops maketh wholly against you for why did both he and the Bishops themselues vrge Vigilius so â—uch to confirme their decree but because they knew that no decree of any Councell can be of force vnlesse it be approued by the See Apostolike (h) See this proued aboue Chap. 17. sect 6. Finally the Popes authority 〈◊〉 effectually proued out of this Councell for as much as by vertue of Vigilius his confirmation it hath obtained the force of a lawfull Councell and deserued the title of the fifth generall wheras without his confirmation it would not haue bene receaued by the Church more then that of Ariminum or the second of Ephesus which the See Apostolike hath reiected And the same is confirmed by Eutichius Patriarke of Constantinople who though he prefided in this Councell yet acknowledged the right of presiding not to belong to himselfe but to Vigilius when inuiting him to the Councell he sayd (i) Ep. ad Vigil in quinta Syn. Collat. 1. Our desire is to haue the Three Chapters examined your Blessednesse presiding ouer vs. SECT IV. Doctor Mortons glosse vpon the Word Obedience TO conclude your discourse of the fifth generall Councell as vntruly ignorantly as you began you say (k) Pag. 124. Idle and vaine is your obiection out of that Synod from one word Obedience which they professed to the Catholike See by not discerning betwene a logicall and a morall obedience for they promised obedience to that See in all her orthodoxe and reasonable perswasions but not to her peremptory commands and conclusions for you may obey S. Augustine by subscribing to his iudgment without submitting to his iurisdiction So you where first you ignorantly make this profession of obedience to the Roman Church to be of the fiâ—â—h generall Councell and alleage Bellarmine for your author who expresly sayth that they are words of the Synod held vnder Menas before the fifth generall Councell 2. Your glosse vpon the word Obedience is idle and false for you wrest it to an improper signification I deny not but that the words of Obedience and Command may be taken improperly as if when your equall or inferior requests you to do a fauor for him or perswades you to your owne good you answeare I will obey your commands vnderstanding by his Commands his requests and persuasions But that the B. of Rome as being gouernor of the vniuersall Church hath true power and authority to Command according to the most first and proper signification of the word and that the greatest Bishops Councels haue acknowledged in themselues obligation to obey in the same sense hath bene already proued (d) Chap. 18. sect 1. False therfore is you glosse that this Councell acknowledged not in themselues obligation to obey the B. of Rome nor in him authority to command but only to persuade You defend an ill cause which vpon no other ground but only to excuse your disobedience to the See Apostolike inforceth you to wrest the words of the Councell to an improper signification And as your glosse vpon the word Obedience is false so is it repugnant euen to common sense for let a generall Councell be called of all the Orthodox Bishops in the world let them condemne an Arius an Eutyches or a Pelagius if your glosse may be allowed any of these heretikes or any other neuer so impious may refuse to submit himselfe and obey their decrees saying He will obey them in all their Orthodoxe and reasonable persuasions but not in their peremptory commands and conclusions and so obey them in nothing at all For what heretike will not say that the decrees of a generall Councell against his heresy are not Orthodoxe and reasonable persuasions but peremptory commands and conclusions Cold this euasion iustify Arius his disobedience or excuse him from heresy No and so neither can your glosse iustify your cause or satisfy any man of iudgment And as your glosse is false so is your dealing imposterous for the words of the Councell truly alleaged by Bellarmine out of whom you cite them are Apostolicam Sedem sequimur obedimus ipsius communicatores communicatores habemus condemnatos ab ipsa nos condemnamus We follow and obey the See Apostolike
and her communicants we haue for our communicants and those that are condemned by her we also condemne Why then did you say that we obiect out of this Councell but one word Obedience why did you here and afterwards againe (m) Pag. 237. citing this passage out of Bellarmine in both places cut it of in the middst Can any Catholike at this day professe more perfect and exacte obedience to the See Apostolike then to hold all them for Orthodoxe and communicate with them all that communicate with her and to condemne all them that are condemned by her This was the obedience of that Councell to the Pope which to shift of and deceaue your reader you mangle the words leauing out the most effectuall part of them because they shew that if you had bene liuing in those primitiue tymes that Councell would haue detested and condemned you as it did Anthymus and other heretikes there mentioned for their disobedience to the See Apostolike and for not communicating with her CHAP. XXI Of the sixth Generall Councell SECT I. That it acknowledged the supreme Authority of the B. and Church of Rome THAT the sixth Generall Councell was called by the Authority of the B. of Rome I haue already proued (n) Chap. 17. sect 1. And that it acknowledged the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church is declared by Constantine the Emperor who speaking to the Roman Synod held vnder Agatho calls him Vniuersall Father and Vniuersall Arch-Pastor (o) Syn. 6. Act. 18. and by the Councell it selfe (p) Ibid. calling him Bishop of the first See and of the vniuersall Church And speaking of the Epistle of Agatho sent from the Roman Councell to the Emperor they receaue it as of the holy Ghost dictated from the mouth of the holy and most Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and written by the hand of the thrice blessed Pope Agatho And againe (q) Ibid. We assent say they and agree to the dogmaticall Epistle of our most holy Father the soueraigne Pope Agatho sent to your Highnesse and to the suggestion of the holy Synod of 225. Fathers vnder him And a litle after speaking of the same Epistle and acknowledging Agatho to be the Successor of S. Peter they adde The paper and inke appeared but it was Peter that did speake by Agatho One of the things which Agatho spake in that Epistle (r) Apud Bin. to ◠pag. 11. was that the Roman Church hath neuer bene stayned with error that the whole Catholike Church all the Councells all the Venerable Fathers and all the holy Doctors haue imbraced her authority and reuerenced and followed her Apostolicall Doctrine which contrarily the heretikes haue maliciously derogated from and persecuted And speaking of the same Church to the Emperor and his two sonnes (s) Ibid. This your spirituall Mother the Apostolicall Church of Christ by the grace of Almighty God shall neuer be proued to haue erred from the track of Apostolicall tradition nor by any deprauation to haue yelded to hereticall nouelties but as from the beginning of the Christian fayth the receaued it pur◠from her authors the Princes of Christes Apostles so she remaineth vntill the end according to the diuine promise which our Lord and Sauiour made to the Prince of his Disciples in the Ghospells saying Peter Peter Satan hath required to sift you as one that sifteth wheat but I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth faile not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren Your Clemency therfore consider that our Lord and Sauiour of all who hath faythfully promised that the fayth of Peter shall not faile admonished him to confirme his brethren which that my Apostolicall predecessors haue alwayes assuredly performed is a thing notorious to all men And because Theodorus Patriarke of Constantinople was a Monothelite as Anastasius testifieth (t) In vita Agathon condemned with Pyrrhus and the rest of that Sect in this sixth Councell he addeth that Since the Bishops of Constantinople haue endeauored to bring hereticall Nouelties into the Church of Christ his Apostolicall predecessors of holy memory haue neuer ceased to exhort and admonish them to desist from hereticall error lest by holding one will and operation in Christ they should occasion a beginning of diuision in the vnity of the Church SECT II. Whether the sixth Councell condemned Honorius Pope as an Heretike THese passages of the sixth Councell so forcible for the authority of the Roman Church you mention not but passing by them as being not for your purpose pick out of it a quarrell against Honorius B. of Rome that with no small lack of syncerity for wheras you obiect out of Bellarmine that in this sixth Councell as also in the seauenth and eight Honorius was condemned as a Monothelite Bellarmine contrarily proueth out of Honorius his expresse words that he was no way guilty of that heresy but alwayes a Catholike holding with the Roman Church two wils and operations in Christ And he confirmeth the same with the testimony of S. Maximus Martyr the greatest Diuine of that age and that liued in Honorius his tyme. And Maximus himselfe in a famous disputation which he had with Pyrrhus Patriarke of Constantinople alleageth as witnesse of this truth Honorius his owne Secretary that writ those epistles dictated from his mouth and was then still liuing Wherfore Bellarmine denyeth that the sixth Councel damned Honorius as an Hereticke and further proueth it because Agatho in his first epistle to Constantine the Emperor which was read in the Councell and not only read but approued and admired as the words of S. Peter and as dictated by the holy Ghost affirmeth expressly that none of his Predecessors one of which was Honorius was euer guilty of heresy but that they haue alwayes made resistance to heretikes that the Pope as Pope cannot decree any thing contrary to fayth And from thence he inferreth that the Councell did not iudge Honorius to be an heretike nor condemne him as such els by receauing and reuerencing Agathos Epistle as the words of S. Peter and as dictated by the holy Ghost the Councell should contradict it selfe and condemne both S. Peter and the holy Ghost of a lye in affirming that none of Agatho's predecessors was euer guilty of heresy And the truth hereof he confirmeth by the testimony of Nicolas the first who in his epistle to Michael the Emperor auoucheth that none of his predecessors was euer stayned with the least spot or blemish of heresy which he wold not euen for very shame haue affirmed so resolutely if Honorius in the publike assēbly of a generall Councell had bene anathematized as an heretike Wherfore Bellarmine rightly inferreth that Honorius was not condemned by the sixth Councell but his name inserted among those heretikes whom the Councell condemned by the Greekes enemies to the Church of Rome And so it is testified by Theophanes Isaurus a Greeke historian and out of him
These Syr are not Eusebius his words but yours He sayth that they did earnestly exhort Victor to peace to a diligent care of charity towards his neighbours and bitterly reproued him as prouiding vnprofitably for the good of the Church So indeed Eusebius sayth according to the translation of Ruffinus And both of them being Heretikes shew their malice against the See Apostolike in saying that other Bishops did bitterly reproue Victor for comming to giue an example of this bitternesse they bring for their paterne the wordes of S. Irenaeus in all which there is not one bitter word but a gentle remonstrance full of submission to the person of Victor and to the authority of his See for he sayth not that Victor could not but that he should not haue cut off from the body of the Church so many prouinces for so small a cause which is not to argue him of want of power but for vsing his power indiscreetly Irenaeus sayth Eusebius (r) L. 5. hist c. 24. did fitly exhort Pope Victor that he would not vtterly cut off so many Churches from the body of the vniuersall Church of Christ. And wheras you (s) Pag. 132. traduce Christopherson our learned Bishop of Chichester for this translation of Eusebius it is a cauill sprung out of your ignorance for the Greeke verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Eusebius vseth fignifieth to cut off from the whole masse or body and so it is proued out of Ruffinus who translateth thus Irenaus reproued Victor for not doing well in cutting off from the vnity of the body so many and so great Churches And so likewise translateth your learned Protestant-brother Ioannes Iacobus Grynaeus in his Basilean edition of Eusebius And in the same manner translateth Nicephorus (t) L. 4. c. 38. all of them as well skilled in Greeke as your selfe to say no more And indeed how could Irenaeus reproue Victor for exceeding the limits of his power he that crieth out (u) L. 3. c. 3. To the Roman Church all Churches and all the faythfull from all places must necessarily haue recourse by reason of her more powerfull principality Wherfore it was not want of Power that Irenaeus reproued in Victor but indiscreet vsing of his power But that euen in this he was instaken and that Victor failed not euen in point of prudence nor vsed ouer-much rigor appeareth in this that hereby he repressed the Heresy of Blastus by which many were seduced as also because the famous Councell of Nice first many others afterwards confirmed his sentence and condemned the doctrine and practise of Blastus the Asians in this point in so much that all which since that tyme haue persisted in the contrary custome haue bene accounted Heretikes and vnder the name of Quartadecimani registred for such by the Fathers that haue made catalogues of heretikes That the Nicen Councell had iust cause to condemne this Quartadeciman error you dare not deny but you deny the same of Pope Victor yeld a disparity in these words (x) Pag. 132. Be it knowne vnto you that the decree of the Nicen Councell which ordayned that Easter should be kept vpon the Lords day maketh nothing for the Act of Victor his excommunicating the Asian Bishops because as that Councell was celebrated 200. yeares after so had it far more iust and necessary cause to make such a decree by reason of the heresy of Blastus who at that tyme defended an indispensable necessity of obseruing the Iewish ceremonial law The cause then for which you approue the decree of the Nicen CouÌ„cell and condemne that of Victor in the same cause is by reason of the heresy of Blastus who say you at that tyme of the Nicen Councell defended an indispensable necessity of obseruing the Iewish ceremoniall law which wordes present vnto vs an excellent testimony of your ignorance in ecclesiasticall history for Blastus liued not at the tyme of the Nicen Councell as you affirme but 130. yeares before in the very tyme of Victor Pope and of S. Irenaeus who writ against him as S. Hierome testifieth (y) L. de Scriptor And so likewise did Tertullian at the same tyme saying (z) De praescrip c. 53. Blastus seeketh couertly to bring in Iudaisine for he teacheth that Easter is not to be kept otherwise then according to the law of Moyses And with them agreeth Eusebius reporting (a) L. 5. bist c. 14. that Blastus begun to preach and diuulge his heresy in the tyme of Victor Pope Wherfore you saying that Blastus liued not in the time of Victor but of the Nicen Councell which was more then 100. yeares after present vs ignorantly with falshood insteed of truth in lieu of impugning the fact of Victor against your will confirme the same And by the way I will not omit to aduertise the reader of three things The first is that wheras you say (b) Pag. 132. The Nicen Councell was 200. yeares after Pope Victor excommunicated the Asians you cannot be excused from another ignorant mistake for it was not much aboue 120. yeares after that tyme the sentence of Victor being in the yeare 198. and the Councell of Nice the yeare 325. The second is that the sentence of Victor being ratified and confirmed and contrarily the Iewish custome of the Asians anathematized by the three first generall Councels of Nice Constantinople (c) Ca. 7. and Ephesus (d) P. â— act 6 as also by the second of Antioch (e) Ca. 1. the first of Arles (f) Ca. 1. and that Laodicea (g) Ca. 7. and they that obeyed not the sentence of Victor registred for heretikes by Philastrius (h) In catal Haer. S. Epiphanius (i) Haer. 50. S. Augustine (k) L. de Haeres haer 29. Theodoret (l) Haeret. fab l. 3. cap. 5. S. Damascen (m) Haeres 50. and Nicephorus (n) L. 4. c. 36.37.38 you neuerthelesse blush not to approue that hereticall custome and to say (o) Pag. 157. that the Britans and Scots in obseruing it some hundreds of yeares after it was thus condemned did much more orthodoxally then the Roman Church which sheweth that any custome so it be contrary to the practise of the Roman Church is to you Orthodoxall though in it selfe it be damnable and anathematized as hereticall by neuer so many Councells and Fathers as this Asian custome obserued by the Brittans and Scots was 3. And from the same spirit proceedeth your saying (p) Pag. 131. that Pope Victor was the Schismatâ—ke that troubled the peace of the Church and not the Asian Bishops since they for their obstinacy in defending the Iewish custome haue bene by all orthodox Fathers and Councels condemned as heretikes and contrarily Pope Victor euen as M. Whit gift your brother acknowledgeth (q) In his Defence pag. 5â—0 was a godly Bishop and Martyr and the Church at that tyme in great purity as not being long after the
Apostles And wheras you (r) Pag. 131. appeale to our consciences and bid vs in all our reading shew vnto you if we can that Polycrates and other Asian Bishops so excommunicated by Pope Victor were held by any other Catholike Bishops of those tymes to be therby without the state of saluation we contrarily appeale to the conscience of any christian man whether it be not damnable doctrine to mantaine as you do that these Qartadeciman heretikes after they knew themselues to be excommunicated by the Pope and anathematized by so many Councels if they repented not but persisted obstinatly in the defence of their heresy cold be in state of saluation And lastly wheras you add (s) Pag. 131. that wee full well know that S. Hierome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiasticall writers numbred Polycrates among those who did aduance the Catholike fayth we know that you speake ignorantly and vntruly for S. Hierome in that his Catalogue doth not only number Catholikes but also diuers heretikes that writ of Ecclesiasticall affaires as Eusebius Caesariensis whome the same S. Hierome (t) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. cals The ring-leader of the Arians And so likewise he numbreth Nouatianus Donatus and Photinus whom in that very Catalogue he acknowledgeth not only to be heretikes but authors and propagators of seuerall heresies And in no other condition doth he number Polycrates whom he commendeth not for aduancing the Catholike fayth as you affirme but hauing set downe a piece of his epistle written to Pope Victor in defence of his error sayth He reports it to shew the wit and authority of the man where by authority he vnderstands not authority of right but of fact that is the credit which Polycrates had among the Quartadecimans CHAP. XXIV Doctor Morton in opposition to the Roman Church defendeth the Hereticall Doctrine of Rebaptization FIRMILIANVS B. of Caesarea in Cappadocia with other Asian Bishops out of their great hatred to heresy decreed in their Councells of Iconium Synnada that Baptisme giuen by Heretikes was inualid and therfore that Heretikes returning to the Catholike Church were to be baptized a new This Doctrine from Asia crept into Africa and Agrippinus B. of Carthage hauing layd the first grounds therof Cyprian with other African Bishops afterwards imbraced the same so far that for the authorizing therof they assembled a Councell of 80. Bishops at Carthage All which notwithstanding that doctrine as being contrary to the tradition and practise of the Catholike Church was forbidden by Stephen then Pope of Rome in these words Nihil innouetur sed seruetur quod traditum est Let no innouation be made but that obserued which hath come by tradition Firmilianus with other Bishops of Asia notwithstanding this prohibition persisted still in their error and were for that cause excommunicated by Stephen Wherat Firmilianus storming in his fury spued out reprochfull and contumelious words against him But Cyprian although he defended the same error yet not as a doctrine of fayth nor condemning the contrary nor censuring the Pope or the rest that defended it as any way guilty of Heresy for as S. Augustine writing against the Donatists and excusing Cyprian (u) L. 2. de Bapt. t. 18. l. 2. c. 4. sayth If he held that opinion it was before it was condemned by a a generall Councell to which he would most easily haue submitted his iudgment if any such had bene held in his tyme. And moreouer if he held it it was with so great temper that as both he himselfe (x) Ep. ad Iuba in Conc. Carthag and S. Augustine (y) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18. 19. l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9 alibisaepe for him testifieth for the defence therof he neuer forsooke the communion of the Roman Church but as S. Peter dissented from S. Paul concerning the circumcision of Gentils newly conuerted and yet both of them still remayned in Catholike vnity and peace so likewise though Cyprian touching rebaptization differed in opinion from Stephen yet he still remayned in communion with him And therfore when the Donatists defended their heresy by the authority of Cyprian and his Councell S. Augustine answeared (h) Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 32. l. 2. c. 31. alibi saepe that Cyprians patronage could not auaile them because they were out of the communion of the Roman Church in which Cyprian liued and dyed This is the controuersy as it passed betweene Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and Stephen Pope briefly related And you in obiecting it against the Popes authority shew impiety folly and falshood Impiety 1. In taking part with Firmilianus Cyprian in their opposition to Pope Stephen and approuing their doctrine which you know to be erroneous that soone after being condemned by a generall Councell it hath euer since bene held for an absolute heresy not only by Catholikes but also by Protestants And doth not S. Augustine say (i) L. 2. de Bapt. c. 2. that albeit Cyprian Bishop Martyr were a man of great fame and merit yet not of greater then Peter the Apostle and Martyr in whom the principality of the See Apostolike was so eminent which sheweth that Cyprian ought to haue borne respect to Stephen Pope sitting in the See inuested in the authority of Peter Prince of the Apostles And doth he not shew (l) L. 2. Cont. Crescon c. 32. that Cyprian erred herein and that the Epistles which he writ of this subiect are of no force because the contrary was decreed by the authority of the whole Church which is to be preferred before the authority of Cyprian or of any one man whatsoeuer And doth he not (m) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 23. seqq learnedly confute the Epistle which Cyprian writ to Pompeius in defence of his error And wheras you to iustify Cyprian obiect (n) Pag. 134. that he gathered a Councell of 87. Bishops which concluded contrary to the Pope and his Councell celebrated in Italy you know that S. Augustine doubted (o) L. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. whether any such Councell were euer held and if it were whether the greater part of the Votes were not against Cyprian because the Donatists could reckon but 50. Asian and 70. African Bishops that adhered to Firmilianus and Cyprian (p) S. Aug. cont Crescon l. 3. c. 3. wheras many thousands held with Stephen Pope against them And the same S. Augustine (q) L. 6. de Bapt. per tot answeareth and confuteth seuerally euery one of the verdictes of the Bishops which were said to be giuen in that Councell assembled by Cyprian 2. You cannot be excused from impiety in obiecting (r) Pag. 137. against the Popes authority the words which Firmilianus and Cyprian in their passion let slip from their mouthes against Stephen for S. Augustine (s) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 25. held them vnworthy to be mentioned and couered them with this excuse The things which
Cyprian in his anger spread against Stephen I will not suffer to passe vnder my pen. But as C ham (t) Gen. 9.22 delighted to lay open the shamefull parts of his Father so you glory in publishing the faultes of the Saintes when you can espy any error or frailty in them though afterwards they repented themselues as Cyprian did for S. Augustine reporteth as most credible (u) L. 2. de Bapt. c. 4. ep 48. ad Vincent that he changed his opinion before his death and as absolutely certaine that by his glorious Martyrdome he washed out with his bloud the blemish which he had contracted by defending that error 3. In making this Argument you shew great folly it being so far from disprouing the Popes authority that it is an vnanswerable proofe therof as that ancient and learned Father Vincentius Lyrinensis in his golden Treatise against the prophane nouelties of heresies conuinceth in these words (x) Cap. 9.10.11 In tymes past Agrippinus of venerable memory Bishop of Carthage the first of all mortall men maintained this assertion against the diuine Scripture against the rule of the vniuersall Church against the minde of all the Priests of his tyme against the custome and tradition of his fore Fathers that Rebaptization was to be admitted and put in practise Which presumption of his procured so great domage to the Church that not only it gaue a paterne of sacriledge to all beretikes but also ministred occasion of error to some Catholikes When therfore all men euery where exclaimed against the Nouelty of that doctrine and all Priests in all places each one according to his zeale did repugne then Pope Stephen of blessed memory Bishop of the Apostolike See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops but yet more then the rest thinking it as I suppose reason so much to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth as he was superior to them in authority of place To conclude in his Epistle which then was sent to Africa he decreed the same in these words Let nothing be innouated but that obserued which came by tradition c. What then was the end of this whole businesse what els but common and vsuall Antiquity was retained nouelty abandoned But perhaps that new inuention wanted patrons and defenders To which I say on the contrary that it had such pregnant wits such eloquent tongues such number of defendants such shew of truth such testimonies of Scripture but glosed after a new and naughty fashion that all that conspiracy schisme should haue seemed to me inuincible had not the very profession of nouelty it selfe so taken in hand vnder that name defended with that title recommended ouerthrowne the very ground of so great a schisme To conclude what force had the Councell or decree of Africa By Gods prouidence none but all things there agreed vpon were abolished annulled abrogated as dreames as fables as superfluous And O strange mutation of things the authors of that opinion are iudged to be Catholikes and the followers accounted heretikes the maisters discharged and the schollers condemned the writers of those bookes shall be children of the kingdome of heauen and the maintainers of them shall burne in bell All this is of Vincentius Lyrinensis who tels you that albeit Cyprian and other his Colleagues authors of that doctrine be Saintes in heauen yet they that maintaine it now after it hath bene condemned by the vniuersall Church as you do iustifying Cyprian in his defence therof against Stephen Pope shall burne for euer in hell which I wish you to looke to in tyme to obserue how properly you are discribed by Vincentius a litle after comparing such as you are to Cham and expressing liuely your imposterous dealing in theirs 4. As in this obiection you shew folly arguing against your selfe so you cannot be excused from fraud for wheras we answeare that Firmilianus and Cyprian with the other Bishops that assented to them when they saw their doctrine reproued and condemned by the Church acknowledged their error retracted the same by a new decree contrary to that which before they had made in their Councell of Carthage you shift it of saying (y) Pag. 138. I passe it ouer as a vaine presumption and so it is proued to be By whom forsooth by your Reuitius a man of as much credit as your selfe His answere set downe by you in Latin in your margent as also what he bringeth out of Dionysius Alexandrinus and S. Basil you may see confuted by Baronius (a) Apud Bisciol anno 258. pag. 148. S. Hierome and other ancient Fathers The blessed Cyprian sayth S. Hierome (b) Aduers Lucifer stroue to auoid the miry lakes not to drinke of strange waters and vpon this subiect addressed the Synod of Carthage to Stephen B. of Rome who was the twenty sixth after S. Peter but his strife was in vaine And in the end they which had decreed that such as were baptized by heretikes must be rebaptized returning to the ancient custome set forth a new decree saying What do we So it hath bene deliuered to them by their ancestors and ours And Venerable Bede (c) L. quaest q. 5. Cyprian with his Bishops in Africa made a decree contrary to the custome of the Church that heretikes should be rebaptized but because in his sense which he conceaued to be right he endeauored to enrich himselfe with good workes he deserued to be soone reformed and by the instruction of spirituall men to be reduced to the vniuersall custome of holy Church And S. Augustine testifieth (d) L. 3. cont Crescon c. 3. that The orientall Bishops which had met at Icomium and Synnada reuoked their decree and corrected their iudgment And finally Dionysius Alexandrinus certified Pope Stephen (e) Ep. ad Stephan apud Euseb l. 7. hist c. 4. Nicephor l. 6. c. 7. that the same was done not only by the Orientall but also by other forraine Churches euery where Wherfore your obiecting of Firmilianus and Cyprian as opposing the Pope in this conuouersy and inferring that you may likewise oppose him in your Protestant Tenents is as if you should proue out of S. Peters deniall of Christ that it is lawfull for you to deny him for as S. Peter repented his fall so did those Bishops retract their error And hereby also appeares the fraud of your Reuitius seeking to limit this retraction of Firmilianus and other Bishops to those of the East only for you haue heard S. Hierome Bede S. Augustine Eusebius and Nicephorus testify that S. Cyprian with his African Bishops and all others vbique locorum in all place were reconcileds and this not only among themselues as Reuitius ridiculously glosseth for they dissented not among themselues but also with Stephe Pope returning to the ancient custome practise of the Church as he had commanded Wherevpon Dionysius Patriarke of Alexandria writ to him a congratulatory letter (f) Extat
Fathers in the end descended to a flat and peremptory resolution in opposition of the Papall claime of appeales This is a flat and peremptory vntruth for the Africans neuer contested with the Pope about appeales in matters of fayth but acknowledged that they ought to referre them to him as appeareth out of the practise of the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis which sent their decrees of fayth to Innocentius Pope to be confirmed by his authority (o) See aboue Chap. 26. Their contestation was about Appeales of the inferior Clergy in ciuill and criminall causes Of them they writ to Zozimus Pope but he being dead before the ariuall of their letters they writ againe to Boniface his Successor acknowledging that they had receaued from him Mandata literas Commandments and letters which what was it else but to professe him to be their Superior And withall they represented to Boniface the great troubles which the late appeales out of Africa to Rome had brought vpon them that therfore great caution ought to be vsed lest other such or worse should happen And because they had not found in their copies of the Nicen Councell those Canons concerning appeales which Zozimus had sent in the instruction of his Legates they required tyme to send into the East for authenticall copies of the Nicen Canons but in the meane tyme they obserued the commandment of Zozimus restoring Apiarius to the communion to his Priesthood Apiarius say they to Boniface (p) Ep ad Bonifac. crauing pardon hath bene restored to the communion And againe (q) Ibid. It hath pleased vs that Apiarius should retire from the Church of Sicca retayning the honor of his degree And in their Epistle to Celestine Apiarius had bene formerly restored to his Priesthood Nor did they shew their obedience only in restoring Apiarus but moreouer in attending the comming of the Easterne Copies of the Nicen Councell they promised with great humility and with all respect protested to obserue from point to point all that was contained in the instruction of the Popes Legates For Daniel Notary of the Councell hauing read the first article which was that Bishops may appeale to the Pope Alipius said (r) Conc. Afric c. 4. We protest to obserue these things vntill the coming of the perfect copies And the second article being read which was That the causes of Priests and inferior Clerkes were to be finally determined by the Bishop of their owne Prouince S. Augustine said (s) Ibid. c. 7. We protest also to obserue this article sauing a more diligent inquiry of the Councell of Nice And the whole Councell speaking of both these articles to Boniface Pope said (t) Cap. 101. in Ep. ad Bonif. These thinges which in the fore-said instruction haue bene alleaged vnto vs of the appeales of Bishops to the Priest of the Roman Church and of the causes of Clerkes to be ended by the Bishops of their owne Prouinces We protest to obserue vntill the proofe of the Nicen Councell And we trust in the will of God that your Holinesse also will helpe vs in it By this it appeares that the Canons of Appeales to Rome sent by Zozimus were admitted and the practise of them in Africa allowed by the whole Councell vntill the comming of the Nicen copies out of the East which sheweth that their contestation was not about the Popes right of appeales els they would haue forbidden them absolutely euen in that interim but about the expediency of them and the manner of prosecuting them by Legates and executors sent from Rome Which is yet further confirmed by these their words to Pope Celestine (u) Ep. ad Celest. Wherfore premising the office of due salutation we beseech you affectionatly that hereafter you will not so easily admit to your eares those that come from these partes nor vestore to the communion such as haue bene excommunicated by vs. And a litle after To the end that they who in their owne Prouince haue bene depriued of the communion may not seeme to be hastily and otherwise then is fit restored to the communion by your Holynesse These words are another remonstrance of their acknowledgment of the Popes power ouer them and of their subiection to him for they say not to Celestine that he had not authority to restore the Communion to those that had bene excommunicated by them but humbly beseech him not to do it easily and without mature deliberation but rather that he will send them back into Africa to be iudged vpon the place where their causes might be discussed more exactly and the truth more certainely knowne by the attestation of witnesses which could not without much difficulty and charges passe to Rome And wheras the Councell of Sardica (x) Can. 7. hath decreed that if a Bishop appeale to Rome and the Pope esteeme is iust that the examination of his cause be renowed it shal be in the Popes power if he please to send Legates from Rome to ioyne with the Bishops of the same prouince from whom the appeale is made that by them the cause may be tried and iudged a new the Africans denied not this power of the B. of Rome nor any way excepted against the sending back of the Appellāts into Africa to haue their causes tried againe by the Bishops of their owne prouince but only beseeched him that he would be pleased not to send Legates who by prosecuting the causes of Appellants too violently did somtimes giue occasion of complaint Wherfore beseeching Pope Celestine they say (y) Conc. Afric c. 107 That you wil not send your Clerkes executors to all that demand them nor permit that we may seeme to introduce the smoaky pride of the world into the Church of Christ which propounds the light of simplicity and the day of humility to them that desire to see God The motiue which the Africans had to make this petition was the insolent cariage of Antony B. of Fussala in Numidia who as S. Augustine reporteth (z) Ep. 261. for his enormous crimes being depriued of his Bishoprick by procurement of the inhabitants of Fussala and left with the bare title of Bishop fraudulently got testimoniall letters of his innocency from the Primate of Numidia at the very time of this sixth Councell of Carthage and appealed to Boniface Pope who answeared with great caution that he should be restored si nulla in eius narratione surreptio intercessisset if there were no surreption in the relation of his cause Boniface dying and Celestine succeeding they of Fussala prosecuted their suite earnestly against him And he contrarily threatned that Celestine would send Clerkes executors and if need were souldiers to restore him to his Bishoprick He threatned them sayth S. Augustine (a) Ibid. with secular power as if they were to come to execute the iudgments of the See Apostolike so that the miserable inhabitants being Christians and Catholikes feared more grieuous vsage from a
Catholike Bishop then they did when they were heretikes from the lawes of the Emperors This was the cause why S. Augustine and this sixth Councell of Carthage beseeched Celestine not to grant Clerkes executors to all Appellants And this conuinceth you of an vntruth in saying (b) Pag. 145. fin 151. that the African Fathers call that Papall presumption of Appeales a smoaky secular arrogancy which they will not indure for it is not the Popes clayme of appeales that they qualify with the name of typhe or smoaky secular arrogancy but partly the vexation and insolence of Apiarius and other Priests despising and shaking off the yoake of Episcopall discipline and partly the force military Violence which the executors sent from Rome did somtimes vse in executing the iudgments of the See Apostolike For speaking to Boniface Pope of the insolency of Apiarius they say (c) Conc. Afric c. 101. But we hope by the help of Gods mercy that your Holinesse gouerning in the Roman See we shall no longer suffer this typhe And because the executors did somtimes make vse of secular forces they beseech Celestine (d) Ibid. c. 105. not to grant Clerkes executors to all that demand thē lest the typhe of the world be introduced into the Church Which is agreeable to the decree of the Councell of Ephesus forbidding Iohn Patriarke of Antioch to make vse of any military power to hinder the Bishops of Cyprus from electing to themselues an Archbishop without his consent lest sayth the Councell vnder pretence of executing sacred things the typhe of secular power be introduced into the Church And in the same sense the Author (*) Cap. 26. of S. Fulgentius his life said that Fulgentius commanded nothing with the typhe of secular dominion And no lesse vntruly (e) Pag. 145. fin you make the Africans say in their Epistle to Celestine that they will not indure the Papal presumtion of appeales there being no such thing to be read in that Epistle For what they speake of not induring hath no relation to Appeales but to the crimes of Apiarius As for the wretched Apiarius say they he hauing bene already cast out of the Church of Christ for his infamous crimes by our brother Faustinus we are no more in care for as much as by the meanes of the approbation and moderation of your Holinesse Africa will no longer indure him 5. You say (f) Pag. 155. This Councell denounced excommunication to all that thinke it lawfull to appeale beyond the seas This is another vntruth for the Councell speakes not of Bishops but of Priests and inferior Clerkes only so much you contradicting your selfe had acknowledged a little before setting downe the very words of the Councell thus (g) Pag. 146. If any Priest shall thinke that he ought to appeale beyond the sea meaning to Rome let him not be receaued any longer into the communion of the Church of Africke You reply (h) Pag. 155. that this answeare is a sophistry confuted by the consequence of the Councell for if inferior Clergy were prohibited much more was the same prouision made in behalfe of Bishops This consequence we deny as false sophistry for albeit they proposed this among their requests to Pope Celestine yet they made no decree nor prouision therof nor if they had cold it haue bene of force as being directly contradictory to the Canons of the two famous Councels of Nice and Sardica (i) See aboue Chap. 26. and also to the beliefe of S. Augustine saying (k) Ep. 162. that Cecilian might haue appealed beyond the sea because he was not of the number of Priests or other inferior Clerkes but of Bishops And moreouer he represented to Celestine Pope (l) Ep. 261. that wheras Antony B. of Fussala being depriued of his Bishoprick by the Bishops of Africa and left only with the bare title of Bishop had appealed to Boniface his predecessor he would be pleased to confirme the sentence of the Bishops of Africa because sayth he there had bene many like sentences in Africa euen the See Apostolike pronouncing the iudgmēt or confirming the iudgment of others as of Priscus Victor and Lawrence Bishops of the Cesarian Prouince SECT V. Whether this Controuersy of Appeales wrought in the Africans any separation of Communion from the Roman Church TO make your argument more plausible you say (m) Pag. 148. that by reason of this controuersy between the Africans and the Bishops of Rome Aurelius B. of Carthage his fellow Bishops of Africk with whom S. Augustine did consent were for the space of an hundred yeares separated frō the Church of Rome Of all the vntruths vttered in this your discourse of the sixt Councell of Carthage this is the greatest which therfore you haue reserued to the last place Finis coronat opus For that the African Fathers euen of this sixth Councell of Charthage during the very tyme of this controuersy remained still vnited to the See of Rome is proued 1. By the clause of their Epistle written to Pope Celestine in the end of this controuersy (n) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 646. Our Lord keepe your Holinesse many yeares praying for vs Lord and Brother which were the very worlds of peace and communion vsed in Formed letters that were neuer giuen to any but to Catholikes of the same communion (o) Aug. ep 162.163 2. Out of S. Augustine who in the current of this difference writing to Boniface Pope dedicating one of his chiefest workes vnto him sayd (p) Cont. duas ep Pelag. ad Bonifa l. 1. Thou disdainest not thou who art not high minded though thou presidest higher to be a friend of the humble 3. Out of the testimony which Pope Celestine gaue of S. Augustine after his death (q) Ep. ad Epise Galliae c. 2. Augustine a man of holy memory for his lyfe merits we haue had alwaies in our communion nor hath the rumor of any sinister suspicion euer so much as touched him which Epistle of Celestine to the French is alleaged by Pettus Diaconus (r) L. de incarn grat and by Prosper (s) Cont. Collat c. 42. to iustify S. Augustines doctrine against the Pelagians 4. And the same Prosper (t) L. de promiss predict par 3. c. 38. calles Aurelius Archbishop of Carthage vnder whom the African Councell was held after his death A Father and Bishop of worthy memory and a Citizen of the heauenly country which praise he would not haue giuen him if he had died out of the communion of the Roman Church for Prosper in that very booke (u) Part. 4. c. 5. sayth that a Christian communicating with that Church is a Catholike but if he be separated from it he is an heretike and Antichrist 5. Capreolus immediat successor to Aurelius writing to the Bishops assembled in the Councell of Ephesus (x) Act. Conc. Ephes to 2. c. 9. Wee pray you
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
2. Whosoeuer shall deny vnto him Peter and his Successor the Princedome of care and power shall neuer be able to depresse his dignity but puffed vp with pride shall drowne himselfe into Hell Your Syllogisme then is vaine the Minor thereof being manifestly false That the African Martyrs dyed out of obedience to the Roman Church I come now to your falsifies and falsifications of the Story and tenour of the foresaid questioned Epistle of Boniface the Second Two especially are very exorbitant first that the Pope denounced or thundred out (z) Pag 148. pag. 150. excommunication against the Churchs of Africa that these Aurelius and S. Augustine all other Bishops of Africa were excommunicate by the Pope for their Opposition against the Church of Rome Which notorious falshood you seeke to make good by a notable falsification (a) Pag. 149. telling vs That our Costerus and Turrian both Iesuites and also M. Harding do greatly magnify our Popes for discharging their office in excommunicating the Bishops of Afrike You neither cite any wordes nor quote any place of Turrian but referre vs in your margent to your Sadeel whome we trust as litle almost as we do your selfe You cite the wordes of the Iesuite Costerus Bene fecerunt Romani Pontifices c. but you peruert them and turne them to another matter and purpose (b) Costerus Enchirid. Controuers de summo Pontifice pag. 159. Costerus proposeth your Protestant Argument The Bishops of Africa in the dayes of S. Augustine did bitterly inueigh against Pope Celestine who after Pope Zozimus challenged authority ouer the African Churches and admitted the Appeales of Clergymen from their Bishops vnto him This is the obiection vnto which he makes Answere in the wordes by you cited Rectè ex officio fecerunt Romani Pontifices c. The Roman Bishops did well and according to their duty and the African Bishops were to blame who euen then as doth testify Boniface the 2. were inclining to a defection from the Roman Church to their owne great losse because soone after they were conquered and came vnder the Dominion of the Arian Wandals Blessed Augustine subscribed not vnto those bitter letters for he did euer beare singular veneration towards the Apostolike see Thus Costerus affirming that the Pope did well in admitting the Appeales of the Clergymen made vnto him and that herein he did discharge the office of a good Pastor but that he did excommunicate Aurelius and all other Bishops of Africa and that in so doing he did discharge his duety this Costerus doth not say No nor that the Africans were Schismatically deuided from the Church of Rome bur only that they seemed euen then to thinke vpon some such thinge M. Harding in like manner sayth (c) Answere to M. Iewelâ—s Challenge fol. 218. A. that the Churches of Africa had continued in Schisme and withdrawne themselues from the obedience of the See Apostolike through the entisement of Aurelius Bishop of Carthage but that all the Churchs of Africa or any one Church was excommunicated by the Pope this M. Harding doth not say So that the Excommunication of all the Churches and Bishops of Africa by the Pope is not recorded by any Author not by Costerus not by Harding not by the foresaid Epistle of Boniface the second it is a meere fiction of your owne head The Africans were no further separated from the Church of Rome then they eloyned themselues from it by their own voluntarily departure and fault But they did not depart from the Obedience of the Roman Church by denying the Christian fayth thereof nor by denying the Popes power and Iurisdiction ouer them but only dissented in a Problematique (d) An expediret ea potestate vti omnibus in locis non sine causa dubitacum est Bellarm. lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif c. 25. §. Ad hoc eorum Question about what was fit to be done by the Pope about the Appeales of African Clergymen of inferiour degree Although this falshood falsification may seeme grosse inough yet the second is greater The Iesuite Salmeron say (e) Pag. 149. you and Sanders do confidently hold that all the African Bishops were seuered from the Church of Rome from the dayes of S. Cyprian vntill the time of the said Boniface the Author of the Epistle Can any thinge be said or deuised more openly notoriously palpably false then this You say in the wordes that presently follow the aboue cited that You doubt not but that we stand halfe agast Verely so it is we stand more then halfe agast not that there be different opinions among our Authors about the said Epistle of Boniface the second but that Protestants can endure that such notorious falsities should be so confidently vttered and layd for grounds and principles in your discourse to iusâ—â—ly their reuolt from the obedience doctrine and discipline of the Roman Church But the Iesuit Salmeron say you and Sanders do confidently so hold If this be true we shall remayne agast at their madnesse thinke their writings worthy of the fire if they do not so hold if they affirme the contrary in plaine termes if these wordes All the African Bishops were seuered from the Church of Rome from the dayes of S. Cyprian vntill the time of Boniface the second which you allege in a distinct letter as verbally theirs be supposititious and forged how ought Protestants to remaine agast What course ought they to take with your writings Sanders then to begin with him doth not say all the Bishops but the contrary in these very wordes (f) Sanderus de visibili Monarch pag. 330. n. 247. Non ergo vt somniant Magdeburgenses aut potiùs calumniantur omnes Africani Patres opposueruâ—t se Pontifici Romano sed potiùs multi cupiebant rem adipsum referri In the Controuersy about Appellations all the African Bishops did not oppofe the Bishop of Rome as the Magdeburgians dreame or rather calumniously report yea rather many of them desired that the matter might be referred to the Pope For though Aurelius Bishop of Carthage and Primate of all Africa may seeme to haue been somewhat crosse and to haue affected an absolute Primacy in matters of discipline and behauiour yet there be many signes wherby it appeareth that others were otherwise minded yea that Aurelius himselfe did acknowledge the Primacy of the Roman Bishop and appealed to him in matters of fayth Thus Sanders Who further against your peremptory affirming that namely S. Augustine concurred with Aurelius in this point he produceth the wordes of Bishop Faustinus the Popes Legat in the Councell of Carthage vnto Aurelius requesting him that about Appeales made by Clergymen of inferior degree vnto Bishops his Holinesse would vouchsafe to write to Venerable Pope Boniface remitting the matter to his deliberation and conclusion ficut Sanctus Augustinus statuere dignatus est as Holy Augustine hath been pleased to determine by his suffrage By which
wordes sayth Sanders it is apparent that S. Augustine would haue had the matter of Appeales referred to the Pope and ordered as he should thinke best So that whereas you cite Sanders saying All the African Bishops were seuered from the Church of Rome his true wordes import the direct contradictory Non omnes Episcopi Africani All the Bishops of Afrike did not oppose the Roman Bishop You also alleage him de visibili Monarch pag. 368. n. 411. where he hath nothing to your purpose but only alleageth the wordes of Eulalias of Carthage his recantation We anathematize all those that proudly lift vp their neckes against the Holy Roman and Apostolical Church From these wordes can you gather your dismal assertion that All the African Bishops from the dayes of Cyprian vntill Boniface the second that is for three hundred yeares were excommunicated by the Pope and seuered from the Communion of the Roman Church The Iesuite Salmeron sayth no more then (g) Salmeron tom 12. tract 68. §. Ad Canonem that in the dayes of S. Cyprian the African Bishops began to be seuered from the Roman Church and that in the dayes of Pope Innocent and Aurelius Bishop of Carthage they were bitter and displeased against the Church of Rome But he doth not say that all the African Bishops were so nor that they withdrew their Communion and obedience from the Roman Church Yea in the dayes of S. Cyprian though he and fourescore African Bishops were displeased with Pope Stephen because he did strongely and constantly oppose their impious doctrine of Anabaptisme yet they neuer proceeded to make a Schisme and separation from the Roman Church Contrariwise the very same fourescore Bishops who had made a decree for Anabaptisme met together againe as S. Hierome doth testify (h) Hieron Dialog cont Lucifer Illi ipsi Episcopi qui Rebaptizandos haereticos cum Cypriano statuerunt ad antiquam consuetudinem reuâ—luti nouum emisâ—re decretum and repealed their decree which might haue caused their separation from the RomaÌ„ Church So false is it that all the Bishops of Africa from the dayes of S. Cyprian vntill the time of Boniface the second were seuered from the Church of Rome that euen those very Bishops of those dayes were not seuered By the Epistle of Boniface the second grant it be true no more is proued then that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage superbirâ— cepit was somewhat arrogant and proud against the Pope and that Eulalius of Carthage did against the example of his other Predecessors imitate Aurelius therin as he doth testify saying in the said Epistle of Boniface that he felt himselfe Peccatis Aurelij praegrauatum ouer-burthened with the sinnes of Aurelius But that all the Christians of Africa namely those many Martyrs that suffered persecution vnder the Arian Wandalls were tainted with this bitternes of distast and Schismaticall dis-vnion against the Roman Bishop is a fable by your selfe newly coyned and vented abroad Now to the third point proposed although the Epistle of Boniface do not iustify your slander against all the Bishops Martyrs of Africa that they were excommunicated by the Pope and out of the communion of the Roman Church yet there be many Arguments that may seeme to euince that the same is counterfeit the relation thereof being incoherent First you (i) Pag. 148. The Epistle of Boniface the second wherin about the yeare 606. the same Pope complaineth c. say that the reunion of the Church of Africa to the Church of Rome happened about the yeare 606. and in the time of Boniface the second These thinges hange not togeather and consequently are false for Boniface the second dyed in the yeare 531. that is almost an hundred yeares before the yeare 606. Secondly the said Epistle of Boniface the Second affirmes that Eulalius his reconciliation with the Church of Rome was performed in the daies of Iustine the Emperour (k) Iustini elementissimi Principis Orientis sacrarum literarum exemplaria ad voâ— destinauimus that this Emperour writ letters to the said Boniface about it Now Iustine the Emperour was dead three or foure yeares before Romiface the Second was chosen Pope Thirdly the Epistle of Boniface is written to Eulalius Bishop of Alexandria But the Bishop of Alexandria in the dayes of Boniface the second was not named Eulalius but Timothaeus an Heretike and an Aduersary of the Roman Church You saw this difficulty and to auoyd it feare not to do against the command of the Holy Ghost (m) Vide titulum Psalmi 58. Augu. tract 117. in Ioan. Ne corrumpaes Tituli inscriptionem For the Title of that Epistle in Surius being Epistola eiusdem Bonifacij ad Eulalium Alexandrinum Episcopum (n) Pag. 248. in marg at x you change it and make it to be Epistola Bonifacij ad Alexandrum Episcopum the Epistle of Boniface to Bishop Alexander nor do you tell vs of what Church or See this your Alexander was Bishop Fourthly in the time of Boniface the secoÌ„d Gilimer the Arian Wandal was King of Africa during whose reigne there was no Catholike Bishop in Carthage (o) See Baron Anno 620. seqq nor in any Church of Africa but only Arians Finally your Apostata-Bishop of Spalato Antonius de Dominis in his (p) De Repub. Eccles. lib. 4. c. 8. n. 34. London-writings which he published vnder your nose with your so great approbation and applause doth so lay about him against the Epistle of Boniface that you who are so stiffe a defender therof had best to stand aside for feare of knocks In the Controuersy about Appellations sayth he (q) Communio inter Africam Romam non est abrupta the Communion between Africa and Rome was neuer broken as Baronius and Binius do proue very well The reconciliation or recantation made by the Church of Carthage vnto Boniface the Second which some one hath faigned (r) Mara est impostura is a meere Imposture as the said Authors demonstrate Thus he May you not number this man among the Children of the Tribe of Dan and angry fellowes who doth so peremptorily auerre the Epistle of Boniface to be a meere forgery and a grand Imposture with greater reason then you haue done Bellarmine for only saying I suspect it is counterfeit In fine these Arguments abundantly shew that this Epistle of Boniface may be questioned and reiected and yet all the other Epistles of ancient Popes set downe in the Body of our Councells cells subsist firme against which the like implicancies and incoherencies cannot be vrged As for Bishop Lindan he speaketh against them who discard this Epistle voluntarily and without euident proofes saying that they might aswell infringe the credit of any ancient history which his inference is of no force against them who refuse it as counterfeit not voluntarily but constrained by the pregnant incompossibilities thereof with other knowne vndeniable truthes CHAP. XXVIII Whether the Britans
was the definitiue sentence pronounced by blessed Melchlades how entire how prudent how peaceable in so much that S. Augustine greatly commendeth him for it saying (h) Ibid. O blessed man O sonne of Christian peace and Father of Christian people Neuerthelesse those rebellious Donatists rested not but from the iudgement of the Pope appealed againe to the Emperor which he so much misliked that he called it (i) Ep. ad Episc Cathol ad calc gest purgat Cecil Felic A great phrensy incredible arrogancy a thing not fit to be spoken or heard a mad impudency of fury a recourse to a secular iudgement from an heauenly and a contempt of Christes authority And yet out of a great desire he had to gaine them yelding to their importunity or as S. Augustine sayth (k) Ep. 166. giuing way to their peruersnesse and hoping that what he did would be auowed by the See Apostolike he granted them another Councell of 200. Bishops at Arles which hauing duely examined their cause confirmed the Popes sentence therfore gaue them no more satisfaction then the Roman Councell had done Wherfore from this Councell they had recourse againe to the Emperor beseeching him to take the examination of the cause into his owne hands which he did but yet A sanctis antistitibus postea veniam petiturus (l) S. Aug. ep 162. with intention to aske pardon afterwards of the holy Bishops for medling in a cause that belonged not to his Court but to theirs But what did Constantines iudgement appease the fury of those obstinat heretikes No The Emperor sayth S. Augustine (m) Ibid. is chosen Iudge the Emperors iudgement is despised But no wonder for what els could be expected from such rebellious spirits but that as they had refused to stand to the sentence of the Church so also they should contemne the iudgement of the Emperor Who is there then that seeth not how far this history is from prouing that Constantine acknowledged in himselfe any authority to meddle in Ecclesiasticall causes since he durst not iudge the cause of a Bishop and charged the Donatists with neuer heard of impudency arrogancy impiety fury pernersnesse porensy and contemp of Christs authority in flying from the iudgement of the Church to his secular tribunall And that if in this cause he did any way assume to himselfe the person of a Iudge it was with protestation to aske pardon of the holy Bishops and in hope it would be auowed by them for as much as what he did was out of a desire to quiet the Donatists and reduce them to the peace and communion of the Catholike Church And how far this example of the Donatists is from helping your cause or hurting ours S. Augustine will yet better informe you (n) Cont. lic Petil. l. 2. c. 92. Ep. 166. for as when they were condemned by the Church they fled to Cōstantine so when they were repulsed and condemned by him they despised his iudgement and appealed to Iulian an Apostata from Christian religion and a professed enemy to Christ beseeching him to restore vnto them the Churches which Catholike Princes had taken from them and to that end honored him with this Elogy (o) Ep. 166. That in him alone all iustice remained which gaue S. Augustine cause to say vnto them (p) Ibid. If it were in your power you would not now call against vs Constantine a Christian Emperor because he defended the truth but you would rather raise Iulian the Apostata from hell How far these words of S. Augustine may touch you for producing this example of the sacrilegious Donatists as a precedent of your doctrine and Constantine as a paterne for secular Princes to meddle in Ecclesiasticall iudgments I leaue to the readers censure for if as you pretend this example of the Donatists flying from the iudgment of the Church to Constantine be of force to proue that the Popes iudgement will suffer an higher appeale why shall it not also be of force to proue that the iudgement of Constantine will suffer an higher appeale to Iulian the Apostata for the example of these Donatists is a precedent for the one as well as for the other A second history which you obiect (q) Pag. 16◠to proue that the Popes iudgement will suffer an higher appeale is that in the case of Athanasius Constantine chargeth all the Bishops of the Prouince of Tyre to appeare before him without delay and to shew how sincerely and truly the had giuen their iudgements The case is this Diuers hereticall Bishops of the East Arians Meletians and Colluthians assembled themselues at Tyre to accuse Athanasius of many crimes which themselues had maliciously forged and suborned false witnesses to testify against him that so they might seeme to haue iust occasion to abstaine from his communion condemne him Constantine being informed therof at the intreaty of Athanasius call's them to him to yeld accompt of their proceeding Ergo say you the Popes iudgment will suffer an higher appeale A false consequence for S. Athanasius fled from the said Councell of Tyrus vnto Constantine not as to his competent Iudge but as to the Protector of Innocency and of the Church to be maintayned in the possession of his Bishopricke honor life against which his Arian aduersaries were with such violent and insuperable malignity bent as he had no meanes to auoyd so great mischiefs tending to the ouerthrow of Catholike Religion but by imploring the ayde of the supreme secular Power That in this case Clergymen and Bishops may haue recourse vnto the arme of temporal Princes S. Paul (1) Act. 28. Coactus sum appellare Caesarem shewed by his example as (2) Athanas Apolog. 2. ad Constantium S. Athanasius and (3) August Epist 48.50 204. S. Augustine and out of them Suarez (4) Suarez defensio fidei lib. 4. c. 10. n. 5. obserueth Lastly you obiect (r) Pag. 161. fin 162. that When the cause Ecclesiasticall requireth Constantine proceedeth to denounce punishment by his owne authority against whomsoeuer that shall honor the memory of those Bishops Theognis and Eusebius These two Bishops were Arians and great fyrebrands of that blasphemous sect which had bene condemned an athematized by the holy Councell of Nice and moreouer had committed many other most enormous crimes some of which Constantine hauing mentioned in his Epistle to the people of Nicomedia addeth (s) Theod. l. 1. hist. c. 20. If any one shall be so temerarious and audacious as to goe about to praise and honor the memory of those plagues of the Church Theognis and Eusebius he shall presently be punished by me for his folly These words of Constantine shew that he did not threaten punishment to any Ecclesiasticall person but to the people of Nicomedia if they should audaciously presume to honor those Heretikes whom the Church had condemned which was not to assume any Ecclesiasticall authority to
Authentica which out of the Glosse you obiect We ordaine sayth he (i) Authen de eccles tit c. 2. according to the definitions of the holy Councells that the most holy Pope of the elder Rome is to be the first of all Prelates and that the most blessed Archbishop of Constantinople new Rome shall haue the second place after the holy See Apostelike of old Rome and shall be preferred before all the other Sees But you vrge the Glosse alleageth the Emperor saying that the B. of Constantinople hath the same right ouer those in subiection vnder him which the Pope hath ouer his True but the same Glosse declareth which you conceale that this similitude of rights between them is not in all respects but in quibusdam in some which the Glosse nominateth Yf you compare them precisely as Bishops of their peculiar Dioceses of Rome and Constantinople or as Patriarkes he of Constantinople hath the same rightes in his Dioces and Patriarkeship of Constantinople that the Pope considered precisely as Bishop and Patriarke hath ouer his Dioces of Rome Patriarkeship of the West But besides these two dignities the Pope is Chief of all Prelates and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church to which titles the B. of Constantinople hath no right but in regard of them is inferior to the Pope and subiect to him And so much you might haue vnderstood if from the Glosse you had turned your eyes to the texts of that and the precedent Chapter which declare that the Pope is aboue the B. of Constantinople and hath power to depose him when there is cause And you might also haue called to minde that many Patriarkes of Constantinople haue bene deposed by diuers Popes among them Anthymus by Agapet in the very City of Constantinople in the presence of Iustinian which neither he nor Theodora the Empresse that protected Anthymus would haue permitted if they had not acknowledged the subiection of the Patriarke of Constantinople to the B. of Rome SECT IV. Doctor Mortons fourth instance of Theodosius and Valentinian examined THe Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian say you (k) Pag. 162. in their letters to Cyrill require all Bishops without exception to be present at the Councell of Ephesus as they meane to auoid the sentence of condemnation vpon themselues Wherupon Pope Leo is glad to returne an answeare excusing his not coming by the exigence of time and his other instant occasions within his owne Dioces which would not permit him to be absent from his See and therefore hopeth his owne words to obtaine so much pardon and fauor that his Legates may be accepted of in his stead These your words are full of ignorance and falshood for first the letters of Theodosius and Valentinian to Cyrill were to call him and other Bishops to the first Councell of Ephesus which was held finished in the tyme Celestine Pope nine yeares before Leo was created B. of Rome Is it not then palpable ignorance to say that Leo is glad to returne an answeare excusing his not comming by the exigence of time and his other instant occasions within his owne Dioces when as the letters were written nine yeares before he had any Dioces at all and were neither directed to him nor any way concerned him 2. If Theodosius and Valentinian called the Bishops to the first Councell of Ephesus it was not by their owne authority but by the authority of Celestine Pope (l) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 2. Bar. anno 430. 3. Howbeit Theodosius in the yeare 449. which was 19. yeares after the writing of that letter to Cyrill by his owne authority assembled the Piratioall Synod of Ephesus in fauor of the Eutychian heresy yet knowing that no Councell can be valide which is not celebrated by the consent and authority of the B. of Rome he writ to Leo then Pope inuiting him to it And this letter it is which you ignorantly confound with the other written to Cyrill who was dead siue yeares before the writing of this to Leo. But Leo knowing the error of Eutyches to haue bene condemned already in a Councell at Constantinople and to be in it selfe so manifestly impious that as he writ to the holy Patriarke Flauianus (m) Ep. 1◠another Councell might no way seeme necessary for the condemnation of it and withall fore-seeing the great mischiefes that were like to ensue out of the Councell intended by Theodosius endeauored to diuert him wholly from that purpose or at least to perswade him that if a Councell were called it might be held in Italy But seeing he could draw the Emperor to neither of these conditions least on his part any thing should be wanting which might seeme auaileable for the destruction of Heresy and peace of the Church he sent Legates in his steed to preside in the Councell at which himselfe could not be present for the reasons expressed in diuers of his epistles (n) Ep. 12.17.18 in which also he declareth that he sent them armed with his authority either to restore Euches to the Catholike communion if he would renounce his errors and aske pardon of them as by libell presented to the See Apostolike he had promised to do or els to pronounce the last sentence of condemnation against him But wheras you to make good that the calling of Councells belongs to Emperors say (o) Pag. 162. Leo's owne words are that he hopeth to obtaine so much pardon and fauor that his Legates might be accepted of in his steed you speake not truly for his words are Because you know that my presence at Rome importeth for the common good so that saluâ Clementiae Vestrae veniâ by the good leaue of your Clemency I might not deny my selfe to the loue and requests of the Citizens thinke me to be present in these my brethren whom I haue sent in my steed and giuen them full instructions what ought to be obserued And it is to be noted that these words are not spoken by Leo to the Emperors as out of your discourse it may seeme to our English reader but to Pulcheria a woman who witnesse the Apostle (p) 1. Cor. 14.34 may not speake in the Church much lesse assemble Councells or moderate Ecclesiasticall causes Nor do they import any subiection to her in ecclesiasticall affaires but are merely words of ciuill respect and vrbanity fit to be vsed to the person of so great a Lady And your illation out of them that Emperors haue power to moderate Ecclesiasticall causes and assemble Councells is a consequence that suiteth not well with your iudgment and learning SECT V. Doctor Mortons fifth instance of Iustinian examined THe last Emperor you obiect is Iustinian Who say you (q) Pag. 162. will hardly please vs because he authorized vnder his owne hand the Code or bookes of Constitutions and Pandects for the regulating of the Clergy as well as of the Laity That this will hardly please vs you proue out
himselfe euen before his fall into heresy had banished not only Vigilius as he doth but also Siluerius as Bozius by you cited sayth he did doth it therfore follow that he had done well May not among Catholikes Children sometimes forgetting their duety rise against their Parents and subiects against their Superiors spirituall or temporall May not Catholike Princes be in passion displeasure against Bishops and vpon suspicions mistakes and misinformations do against them that which afterwards they must repent as King Henry the second did the death of S. Thomas of Canterbury Did not Constantine misinformed by the Ariaus banish S. Athanasius (k) Athan. Apol. 2. Socrat l. 2. c. 22.23 Epipha haer 66. And was not S. Chrysostome condemned by a Councell of Catholike Bishops and banished out of a Catholike Citty by Arcadius a Catholike Emperor at the instance of Eudoxia his wyfe a Catholike Empresse And yet both he and she were so far from not beliueing the supreme authority of the Roman Church or thinking it lawfull to liue out of her communion that being for this fact excommunicated by Innocentius Pope they humbled themselues and crauing absolution with sorrow for their fault obtained it What therfore Iustinian did in his wrath either against Siluerius or Vigilius is no Argument to proue his no subiection to the B. of Rome whom he called and acknowledged to be his Father but it proueth that in laying violent hands on Vigilius he behaued himselfe not like a child but like an enemy and persecutor of the Church For which offence as also for the great wronges he offered to Eutychius a most holy Patriarke of Constantinople for his heresy auarice and cruelty God punished him with a suddaine death And albeit Nicephorus (l) L. 17. c. 31. report that he died penitent and in hope therof the sixth Synod Agatho Pope and S. Gregory (m) Apud Baron amo 565. with other late writers make honorable mention of him yet Euagrius Procopius (n) Apud Baron ibid. eye witnesses of those times report otherwise The truth will be knowne at that day when the secrets of all hartes must be reuealed Lastly you obiect (o) Pag. 256. that Iustinian which made a Law declaring the Roman Church to be the Head of all Churches shewed his authority in breaking it when he called the Church of Constantinople the Head of all other Churches This obiection hath no other ground but your mistake for Iustinian speakes of the Church of S. Sophia which is the Cathedrall Church of Constantinople and this he call's The Head of all other Churches not of the whole world but of that Patriarkeship as it appeareth by the contexture following and by his other Lawes (p) Cod. tit 1. L. 7. 8. in which he declareth the Pope to be Head of all the holy Prelates of God and ordaineth that the See of Constantinople be second after Rome We ordaine sayth he (q) Nou. 131. according to the definition of Councells that the holy Pope of old Rome shall be the chiefe of all Prelates and that the blessed Archbishop of Constantinople new Rome shall haue the second place after the See Apostolike of old Rome If therfore the Church of Constantinople be the second after Rome she cannot be Head of the Roman Church and therfore not Head of all Churches of the world CHAP. XXXI Of the Authority and place of Emperors in Councells THAT no Councell is valid which is not called and approued by the B. of Rome is a truth already demoÌ„trated (r) Chap. 17. sect 6. as also that the first eight generall Councells in particular were assembled confirmed by his authority (s) Chap. 16. seqq Cusanus his Concordia which you obiect for the contrary is of no force as being a prohibited booke and which you know Cusanus himselfe hath retracted Concerning Priority of place in generall Councells whether it be due to the Pope or to Emperors some ghesse may be had by what already you haue heard (t) Chap. 29. 30. for if the Episcopall dignity be aboue the Imperiall as far as gold is aboue lead and the soule aboue the body and if Christian Kings and Emperors be sheep of Christs fold the Pope their Pastor if they his children and he their Father will you say that priority of place is due to the lesser dignity aboue the greater that the sheepe ought to sit aboue their Pastor or the Children aboue their Father Constantine the Great said to the Bishops in the Councell of Nice (u) Ruffin l. 1. c. 1. Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. S. Greg. l. 4. ep 72. God hath placed you as Gods ouer vs and we being men haue no power to iudge you that are Gods but you are to iudge vs men For Leo de Castro vpon those words of Isay (y) Ep. 60.14 The children of them that humbled thee shall come crowching to thee out of an ancient Record of the order of S. Benedict concerning the customes of the Catholike Church reporteth that Kings in ancient times going to the Synods of Bishops did prostrate themselues before them and kisse the ground not rising vntill the Bishops desâ—eding from their seates did lift them vp in their armes So far were the greatest Princes in those dayes from thinking that priority of place was due to them either before the Pope or other Bishops And vpon the same motiue it was that Emperors and Kings neuer signed the Actes of generall Councells but either after all the Bishops as Constantine Pogonate did in the sixth Councell or at least after the Popes Legates and all the Patriarkes as in some others in which for honors sake it was granted to Emperors to signe before other Bishops inferior to Patriarkes And if the most religious Emperors and Kings haue held the Pope in so great veneration that because they knew him to be the chiefe Vicar and Lieutenant of Christ on earth they haue honored him with kissing his feet and performing the office of yeomen of his stirrop (z) See about Chap. 10. If Iustine the Emperor receauing Iohn the first Pope of that name in the City of Constantinople adored him prostrate on the ground (a) Spond anno 525. n. 1. if Iustinian the elder did the like to Pope Agapetus (b) Spond anno 536. n. 5. and the younger Iustinian hauing his Imperiall crowne on his head and meeting Constantine Pope fell downe prostrat as his feet and kissed them (c) Spond an 710. n. 1. how can it be conceaued that these Emperors and Kings did thinke priority of place to be due to theÌ„selues aboue the Pope Oh but say you (d) Pag. 163. when we aske the question why none of your Popes were euer personally present in any of the first generall Councells though they were present in the same City as was Vigilius when the fifth generall Councell was celebrated Bellarmine answeareth that the Greek Bishops would
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
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.
the Pope is now subiect he being an absolute Prince himselfe what could you haue answeared You must haue confessed that you had ouer shot your marke and out of a desire to be speaking against the Pope misinterpreted the words of your text wrested them to a false sense contrary to the true meaning of the Apostle S. Bernard a man endowed with the spirit of God commended by Caluin (r) L. 4. Instit. c. 7. §. 22. cap. 11. §. 11. and Melancthon (s) Art 5. 27. and estemed by your selfe as a Saint was so far from thinking that these words of the Apostle import any subiection of Popes to temporall Princes that contrarily out of them as out of a sacred Canon he teacheth the Emperor Conradus to yield obedience to the Pope as to his Pastor and spirituall Father Legi c. I haue read sayth he (t) Ep. 2â—3 to the Emperor Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers and he that resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God Which sentence I wish and admonish you to obserue in exhibiting reuerence to the chiefe and Apostolike See and to the Vicar of blessed Peter as you will haue it yielded to you by the whole Empire And in other places he reckoneth vp the chiefe Kings of the Christian world professing obedience to Innocentius the second Pope of that name as to the Pastor and Bishop of their soules (u) Ep. 124. 126. prope fin as children to their Father and members to their Head (x) Ep. 125. To S. Bernard I adde other ancient holy and learned Expositors who by Higher Powers vnderstand not the Temporall Magistrat only but also the spirituall and proue that S. Paul in these words commandeth obedience of subiects to all Superiors as well spirituall as temporall So Primasius S. Remigius S. Anselme Lyra and Carthusianus (y) In eum locuin And in confirmation of this sense Primasius by the sword giuen to higher powers vnderstandeth not only the materiall but also gladium spiritus the spirituall sword giuen to S. Peter wherwith he punished Ananias and Saphira The same sense is followed by S. Basil (z) Constit Monast c. 23. who confirmeth the same out of another passage of the Apostle (a) Heb. 2â— 17 where speaking to all Christians without exempting any temporall Power neuer so high he sayth Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them for they watch as bring to render account of your soules Which inference is also made by that holy learned Pope Gregory the seauenth who explicating your text sayth (b) L. 1. regist Ep. 22. Seeing therfore the Apostle commands obedience to worldly powers how much more to spirituall and those that haue the place of Christ among Christians And if these Expositors be not of credit with you Iohn Caluins doctrine is (c) L. 4. instit c. 10. §. 5. that if obedience must be exhibited to secular Princes for conscience sake it must also be yielded to Ecclesiasticall Superiors Wherfore the more probable Exposition is that the Apostle by Higher Powers vnderstandeth not the temporall Magistrate only but speaketh generally of all Powers as well spirituall as temporall and requireth obedience vnto them both in their degrees Which being true you can no more inferre out of his words that the Pope is subiect to temporall Princes then the contrary especially he being not noly a temporall Prince but also a spirituall so great that as the B. of Patara admonished Iustinian the Emperor (d) Liberat in Breu. c. 22. Albeit there be many Kings in the world yet none of them as the Pope who is ouer the Church of the whole world More proofes in this kind are not needfull You haue heard (e) Aboue Chap. 29. the Councell of Nice declaring the dignity of the B. of Rome as being the Vicar of Christ and gouernor of the vniuersall Church to surpasse the dignity of Kings You haue heard (f) Ibid. the most religious Emperors Kings professing obedience vnto him as children to their Father and sheepe to their Pastor And if S. Pauls words be true (g) Heb. 7.7 that without all contradiction the lesse is blessed by the greater the dignity of an Emperor who is blessed consecrated and crowned by the Pope must be lesser then the dignity of the Pope that blesseth and crowneth him This you will better vnderstand if you call to minde that the holy Martyr S. Ignatius teacheth Christians next after God to honor the Bishop (h) Ep ad Smyrnen And that all people who euer they be Soldiers Princes yea the Emperor himselfe must obey the Bishop to the end that vnity and order may be obserued in all (i) Ep. ad Philadelph And why els do the learned Fathers S. Martin S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose and S. Gregory the great preferre the Episcopall and Sacerdotall dignity before the regall and Imperiall (k) See aboue Chap. 29. Why did S. Nazanzen (l) Orat. ad ciues timore perculsos Princ. irasc call the Emperor A sheepe of his sacred flock and say vnto him The law of Christ hath made you subiect to my power and to my Tribunall for we Bishops haue an Empire also and that more perfect then yours vnlesse you will say that the spirit is inferior to the flesh and heauenly things to earthly And what els do the greatest Monarkes of the world but make profession of this when the Priest sitting and couered they kneele downe with all humility at his feet and confesse their finnes vnto him Is not this to acknowledge that they come as persons guilty to accuse themselues and that the Priest in that court of conscience is their lawfull Superior and Iudge This S. Chrysostome expressed saying (m) L. 3. de Sacerd. that Priests as if they were already transported into heauen and exalted aboue humane nature haue a Princedome which giueth them power to bind soules in comparison wherof the power of Kings is as far inferior as earth to heauen and the body to the soule This S. Ambrose when he said (n) L. de dignit Sacerd. c. 2. You see the heads of Kings and Princes humbled to the knees of Priests and that kissing their hands they belieue themselues to be protected by their prayers This Basilius the Emperor (o) Orat. in fine Conc. Gen. 8. when alluding to the words of Christ spoken to his Apostles (p) Ioan. 20.23 Whose sinnes you forgiue they are forgiuen he professed that Bishops and Pastors haue the power of binding and losing in the Church and that all lay men are to be sanctified to be bound and lesed from their bonds by them And finally this professed Constantine the great when he said (q) Ruffin l. 1. c. 1. S. Greg. l. â— ep 72. that Bishops were constituted by God as Gods among men and therfore had power to iudge of Emperors I conclude therfore that if the doctrine of the
holy Fathers of Gods Church be true if the most religious Christian Emperors haue belieued aright the Episcopall and Sacerdotall dignity and especially the Papall excelleth the Imperiall and the Pope is in the number of higher Powers to whom obedience in spirituall things is due euen from the greatest Kings and Emperors as their practise witnesseth and the Apostle hath commanded saying (r) Heb. 13.17 Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them SECT II. Ancient Popes obiected and falsified by Doctor Morton YOur ancient Antagonist (s) P. Persons Treatise tend to mitig Chap. 6. 〈◊〉 34. and Cardinall Bellarmine (t) L. 1. de Conc. c. 13. haue told you long since that howbeit the B. of Rome was euer Head in spirituall matters ouer all euen the Emperors themselues yet in temporall affaires he did anciētly subiect himselfe vnto them as hauing at that time no temporall estate of his owne and therfore did then acknowledge them to be his temporall Lords and make supplication vnto them as for other things so particularly for the assembling of Synods in their Cities which could not be done without their authority and licence And in this respect the Popes of those tymes yielded due reuerence to the Emperors and had recourse to them as to their temporall Lords but that any Pope euer acknowledged subiection to Emperors in Ecclesiasticall affaires is a false Tenet which to make good you misconstrue mangle and corrupt the testimonies of ancient Popes First you say (u) Impost pag. 178. Liberius professed patience in suffering indignities from the Emperor and intreated for mercy And Vigilius being banished sued for peace and fauor What then A Christian suffering indignities from the great Turke may sue for mercy and fauor Doth he therfore acknowledge in the Turke right to persecute him or to offer indignities vnto him for his fayth as Constantius the Arian Emperor did to Liberius and Theodora the Eutychian Empresse to Vigilius 2. You obiect (x) Impost pag. 178. Sermon pag. 5. Simplicius professing continuall reuerence to all Christian Princes True but did he therfore professe that euery Christian Prince was his Soueraigne or that any Prince had right to command him in Ecclesiasticall affaires Reuerence is due from euery Christian man to all Princes and yet euery Christian man is not subiect to all Princes euen in temporall affaires much lesse in Spirituall But why do you conceale that Simplicius writeth that Epistle to the Emperor Zeno as to his spirituall child and professeth that by reason of his Apostolicall Chaire and gouerment he was bound to instruct him and declare the causes of fayth vnto him 3. The testimony of Leo (y) Impost pag. 178. Sermon pag. 5. making supplication to the Emperor to command a Synod to be celebrated in Italy hath bene already proued to make wholly against your selfe (z) See aboue Chap. 30. sect 4. 4. You produce Gelasius (a) Impost pag. 178. saying to the Emperor Anastasius that euen Bishops obey his lawes Bishops I grant obey the Lawes of secular Princes for the course of tempotall gouerment but withall Gelasius declareth to the Emperor that Albeit he be chiefe President in temporall affaires he knoweth and acknowledgeth himselfe in spirituall affaires subiect to Priests and especially to the B. of Rome and that from them he is to receaue the decisions of fayth and the heauenly Sacraments Why did you not in your Sermon giue notice of this to his Maiesty and the rest of your hearers 5. Hormisdas say you (b) Impost pag. 178. taketh notice of the Emperors command for gathering of a Councell as a motion from God and further acknowledged that he had receaued warning and that he ought to be present therat In proofe of this you set downe in your margent these words as of Hormisdas in his fifth Epistle to Anastasius the Emperor Futuram Synodum indicari mandas cui nos interesse debere ijsdem literis Deo vt credimus tibi imperanti commonuisti Ad liter as vestras respondi In this briefe passage there are diuers vntruthes and falsifications For 1. those words Futuram Synodum indicari mandas which you set downe as the words of Hormisdas are not his but forged by your selfe there is no mention of any command from the Emperor to him 2. And those words Ad literas vestras respondi are also feigned by your selfe and shew your ignorance in grammer for if Hormisdas had spoken to the Emperor in the singular number saying mandas and tibi imperanti commonuisti which you cite as his words he would not haue added in the plurall number ad literas vestras 3. When you say Hormisdas taketh notice of the Emperors command for gathering a Councell acknowledging that he had receaued warning that he ought to be present therat it is a plaine Imposture for in that very Epistle he protesteth to the Emperor that wheras he had warned him to be present at a Councell there is not in former ages any example or precedent of such a fact extant in bookes or in the memories of men but yet that at his inuitation he is willing to impose on himselfe that burthen without any precedent therof receaued from his predecessors alwaies prouided that the Emperor would performe those necessary conditions which both in that Epistle and in the instruction giuen to his Legates he proposed vnto him for the peace of the Church which were to abiure the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches to receaue the Councell of Chalcedon with the witings of S. Leo Pope and to blot out of the sacred records the names of Dioscorus Acacius and other heretikes The Emperor feigned himselfe willing to performe the conditions hoping therby to compasse his intent but neuer performed them and therfore Hormisdas wold not assent to the gathering of a Councell Wherupon Anastasius growing into a great fury writ threatning letters to him and raised a great persecution against Catholikes for which as also for his obstinacy in heresy and disobedience to the See Apostolike he ended his life in a most horrible manner being strucken dead with a thunder-bolt from Heauen This is the doctrine you ought to haue deliuered to your readers and not to haue deceaued them with falsities imposed on Hormisdas to iustify yours 6. You obiect (c) Impost pag. 178. Serm. pag. 5. Pelagius the first saying Holy Scripture commandeth vs to be subiects to Kings That Epistle of Pelagius is written to Childebert King of France as to his Sonne for so he stileth him and declareth to him that the holy Scripture commandeth subiectes to obey their Princes which all Catholikes belieue and teach as a doctrine of fayth But where doth the Scripture command Popes to yield subiection to Princes in Ecclesiasticall affaires Or where doth it command them fince they haue staies of their owne to yield temporall subiection to other Princes Your Argument therfore is impertinent 7. You alleage (d) Impost pag. 179. Ser. pag.
5. Martin the first praying the Emperor to vouchsafe to read his letters The Epistle is not of Martin alone but of the whole Roman Synod which hauing condemned the Monothelites sent their decrees to Constans the Emperor desiring and exhorting him for his confirmation in the Catholike fayth to read them attentiuely by his Lawes condemne and publikely declare the Monothelites to be heretikes Can there be a more childish illation then to inferre from hence that Martin acknowledged himselfe subiect to the Emperor If a Prouinciall Synod gathered by the Archbishop of Canterbury should send the like instruction to a Peere of this Realme his spirituall subiect exhorting him to read it would it therfore follow that the Archbishop did acknowledge himselfe subiect to that Peere Who then seeth not your arguing to be trifeling 8. You say (e) Impost pag. 179. serm pag. 5. Adrian the first deuoted himselfe to the Emperor by letters as one in supplication fallen downe prostrate at the soales of his feet O Imposture Adrian writ that Epistle to Constantine and Irene his Mother against the Image-breakers heretikes of that time whose heyres you are And hauing proued effectually out of Scriptures and Fathers the veneration due to sacred Images with all loue as if he were at Constantinople present with them and prostrate at their feet beseecheth and requireth them before God and coniureth them for so are his words which you alter and mangle that renouncing and detesting the craft of those wicked heretikes they would cause the sacred Images to be restored and set vp againe in the Churches of Constantinople and of all Greece to the end they might be receaued into the vnity of the holy Catholike Apostolike and irreprehensible Roman Church But that it may appeare how you abuse your readers and hearers inferring from hence that Adrian acknowledged subiection to the Emperor it is to be obserued that in that very Epistle he often calleth Constantine and Irene His belieued children and exhorteth them by the examples of Constantine the great Helena his Mother and the rest of the Orthodoxe Emperors to exalt honor and reuerence the holy Catholike Apostolike Roman Church as their spirituall Mother from which all Churches haue receaued the documents of Fayth to embrace her doctrine to admit of her censure to loue honor and reuerence the Successor of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles to whom our Sauiour gaue the keyes of heauen with power to bind and loose on earth And as he hauing receaued from Christ the principality of the Apostleship and pastorall charge sate first in the Apostolike See so by commandment from God he left it with all the power and authority that Christ had giuen to him to his Successors for euer and therfore that the sacred Scripture declareth of how great dignity that chiefe See is and how great Veneration is due vnto it from all faithfull throughout the world So Adrian as if he had written purposely to shew your lack of iudgment and honesty that would aduenture to produce his Epistle as a selected Argument against the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome and vent it for such both in your Imposture and againe in your late Sermon before his Maiesty And not vnlike to this is an other obiection you make (f) Impost pag. 179. serm pag. 5. out of an Epistle of Agatho Pope to Constantine in the sixth Councell generall 9. You cull certaine Latin words out of two Epistles of S. Gregory the great and patching them vp into one English sentence adding to them these two adiectiues of your owne Vestris and Vestrae you make him say As for me I performe obedience vnto your commands wherunto I am subiect Both the Epistles out of which you botch vp this sentence are written to Mauritius who though he were a Catholike Emperor yet S. Gregory sticketh not to compare him to Nero and Dioclesian and reprehendeth him sharpely for his tyrannizing ouer the Roman Church the Head of all Churches and seeking to subiect her to his earthly power against the commandment of Christ who committed his Church to S. Peter when he gaue him the keyes of the kingdome of heauen The one of those Epistles he writeth against the arrogancy of Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople styling himselfe Vniuersall Bishop And as he praiseth Mauritius for desiring the peace of the Church to hinder the garboiles of warres and in the procuring therof professeth himselfe ready to obey his commands so he reprehendeth him for not repressing the pride of Iohn wherby not he alone but the peace of the whole Church was disturbed And if in the other he also professed obedience to the same Emperor it was only in temporall affaires and because with humble and submissiue words he sought to worke him to his owne good whom he cold not dissuade nor otherwise hinder from publishing an iniust Law wherby he prohibited soldiers and all such as had bene employed in publike accompts of the Common wealth to become Monkes And therfore in one of the Epistles which you obiect (g) Pag. 179. 234. he declareth to the Emperor that he vsed not his Episcopall authority nor speaketh in the right of the Common wealth but writeth as a priuat person yet adding that he stood greatly astonished at such a Law because it did shut vp the way to heauen vnto many Wherfore he dealt earnestly with him to abrogate the Law or els permit it to be moderated so that it might stand without preiudice to Christian liberty Wherunto the Emperor at length yielded as S. Gregory declareth saying (h) L. 7. ep 11. indict 1. Qua de re Serenissimus Christiantssimus Imperator omnimodò placatur concerning which matter our most Clement and most Christian Emperor is wholly pleased And therfore S. Gregory hauing corrected the Law and reduced it to a reasonable lawfulnesse and temperate moderation to wit that they which had borne offices of charge in the Common wealth and desired to become Monkes should not be receaued vntill they had giuen vp their accompts and obtained publike discharge for the same and that soldiers should not be admitted to Monasticall habit vntill they had ended three yeares of probation in their secular apparell Wherfore though S. Gregory yielded to publish the Law yet withall he shewed his Pastorall power and care in limiting and moderating the Emperors law according to the law of God Which if you had not concealed the futility of your obiection wold haue bene apparent to euery reader But you say (i) Impost pag. 179. Heere wee are arrested by your Cardinall in the name of this Pope Gregory from his Deeree concerning the Monastery of Medardus enioyning that whatsoeuer secular Prince should violate that same Decree should forthwith he depriued of his honor As if this one Act of this only Pope were so authentike and of so suffecient authority in it selfe as to be made a Precedene for euer vnto all Popes of succeeding
pag. 367. and Eudaemon Ioan. Paralell Torti ac Tortoris c. 5 pag. 224. seqq This they proue out of the holy Scripture out of S. Augustine out of the practise of the Catholike Church and that with solid and forcible reasons (g) See Valent in 212 d. 5. q. 8. punct 3. But you tell vs (h) Serm. pag. 24. of a principle of ours That subiects must obey whiles they cannot resist In proofe of this you alleage (i) Serm. p. 35. Alane In his moderate defence but you neither mention any words of his nor any Chapter in particular and with good reason for Alane hath no such doctrine You produce (k) Serm. pag. 24. Creswell in his Philopater and Bellarmine The one you slander falsly The other you vnderstand not or els which I feare wittingly misconstrue his meaning For Creswell Eudaemon Ioannes (l) Apol. pro Henr. Garn. c. 3. pag. 58. hath made answeare long since to Syr Edward Cooke who cited Creswell in his Philopater as you do borrowing your obiection from him The answeare is and of certaine knowledge I know it to be true that you temerariously vent the fictions of your owne braine for truthes Philopater was not Creswell He neuer writ any such booke And who-euer Philopater was the booke is of a competent bulke and you cite out of it some nine or ten words cut off from the frame of their contexture diuided into two different sentences and this also at randome for the booke being diuided into Chapters and the Chapters into numbers you neither specify Chapter nor number which if you had done Philopater might haue spoken for himselfe and shewed the wrong you do him And no lesse is the iniury you offer to Bellarmine (m) Serm. pag. 24. His opinion is that the Church had authority to depose Nero Dioclesian or other heathenish Tyrants that persecuted Christ but did prudently abstaine from the vse therof for wanting forces the vse of her authority could no way auaile Christians but giue occasion of raising greater stormes of persecution against them Which opinion of his canot quit you from accusing slandering him wrongfully for doth he euer say or insinuate that those Emperors were not lawfull Princes or that they being so it was lawfull for Christians or any other their subiects to rebell against them This is the Doctrine you impute to him and this you should haue proued to be his but cannot therfore change the state of the Question to father on him the seditious Doctrine of your Lutheran and Caluinian brethren and to suggest to his Maiesty that the Scots haue learned the Principles of their rebellion from vs which by their owne confession (n) Serm pag. 38. they professe to haue learned from Luther Caluin and Beza Lastly as I haue admonished you of slandering Vrbane Pope and other Catholikes so must I aduertise you of the like wrong done to Garnet the Iesuit whom say you (o) Serm. Ibid. I knew at his arraignement to confesse that he heard of the powder-treason out of Confession Belike you knew it by hear-say from some one that was deafe or if he were not deafe made no scruple of lying for no man that was present and had his hearing would be so shamelesse as to say he heard him confesse that which it is certaine he neuer spake but directly the contrary and toke it vpon his death which may yet be proued by the attestation of so many and such witnesses that if it were as free for Garnets friends and kinsfolkes to sue you with an action of slander as it is free for you with controlement to write your pleasure against them that haue not freedome to answeare for themselues your accusation of Garnet wold proue aswell to your cost as to your shame you cōfesse (p) Ibid. that at his death he publikely exhorted the Romish professors to auoid all acts of treason And it is no lesse certaine that in his life time he neuer taught other Doctrine that when he heard of that damnable plot in Confession he enioyned him of whom he heard it to vse his vttermost endeauor to diswade and hinder it yea moreouer as Eudaemon Ioannes (q) Apol. pro Henr. Garn. c. 1. pag. 8. 9. reporteth from relation of them that had best meanes to know the truth the very hearing of it in Confession was so great a torment to his mind that he could not sleep nor take any rest for many dayes and that with prayers and sacrifices he did beg of the diuine goodnesse most earnestly to prouide some remedy for so execrable a designe which he could not disclose to the Magistrates without violating the seule of Sacramentall secrecy which Christ himselfe hath commanded to be kept inuiolable I conclude therfore that Garnet Cardinall Alane Bellarmine Creswell and other Catholikes whom you defame with false accusations are in the number of them of whom our Sauiour said (r) Math. 5.11.12 Blessed are yee when they shall reuile you and persecute you and speake all that naught is against you vntruly for my sake be glad and reioice for your reward is very great in heauen CHAP. XXXIV Doctor Mortons doctrine condemneth the Saintes and Martyrs of God HAVING now gone through your Sermon preached to his Maiesty out of your grand Imposture I returne to the continuance of my answere to the same Imposture You had before obiected some Fathers and hauing parted with them lōg since now after many Chapters you come to scrape acquaintance with some of them againe But their Doctrine is to ancient to haue any commerce with your Nouelties SECT I. S. Polycarpe obiected by Doctor Morton YOu beginne your twelth Chapter opposing (s) Pag. 183. that S. Polycarpe going to Rome in tyme of Anicetus Pope to consult with him about the celebration of Easter would not yeild to forsake the Asian custome contrary to that of the Roman Church and yet neuerthelesse Anicetus and Polycarpe did still communicate with ech other True but if the Asian custome had bene then condemned by the Church and the mantayners therof anathematized as heretikes as afterwards they were by Victor Pope and the holy Councell of Nice Anicetus would not haue held Polycarpe in his communion vnlesse he had forsaken the Asian custome and conformed himselfe to the Roman practised by all other Churches in the world Nor would Polycarpe haue stood out in defence of the Asian custome had he not seene that Anicetus though he misliked it yet did not condemne it but permit him still the practise therof vntill the Church defined otherwise Which Anicetus did being desirous to giue him all content for the great reuerence due vnto him as well for his yeares as also because he had bene disciple to S. Iohn Euangelist and was then actually Bishop of Smyrna a principall Church of Asia But how great reuerence Polycarpe bare to Anicetus and to the Church of Rome appeareth in this that being
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
with all that are committed to vs are and will euer be obedient to you And in his Epistle to Felix Pope For as much as our Predecessors and we haue alwayes receaued assistance from your holy Apostolike See and haue had experience of the care you haue of vs we following the decrees of the Canons fly for succour vnto it as vnto a Mother from whence our predecessors haue receaued their orders doctrine and reliefe And againe (h) Ibid. Which by no meanes we dare presume to do to wit to define matters of fayth without consulting you the Canons commanding that in maior causes nothing be determined without the B. of Rome c. For therfore Christ hath placed you and your predecessors in the height of Eminency and commanded you to haue care of all Churches c. And he addeth (i) Ibid. that It belongs to the Pope to iudge the causes of all Bishops If therfore to appeale to the Pope as to his Iudge if to acknowledg in him power to restore the greatest Patriarkes to their Sees if to professe that the iudgment of Bishops belongeth to him and that all maior causes are to be referred to his tribunall if to belieue the Roman Church to be the Head and Mother of all Churches and the Pope to be Bishop of the vniuersall Church and finally if to professe actuall and promise perpetuall obedience to the See Apostolike be Arguments of S. Athanasius his beliefe of the soueraigne authority of the See Apostolike of his obligation to obey her and to liue in vnion with her and in subiection to her then are you guilty of Imposture in omitting these and other pregnant testimonies of the same kind extant in his second Apology and obiecting in lieu of them a false tale of Liberius excommunicating Athanasius deuised by your selfe to seduce your readers And hereby you are conuinced of another vntruth in saying (k) Pag. 191. that Athanasius sought not any vnion with Felix who was Pope insteed of Liberius for these his testimonies shew that he was in communion with him and acknowledged himselfe subiect to him as to the Gouernor of the vniuersall Church But you say (l) Pag. 190. and that impertinently to the matter in hand which is to proue S. Athanasius his no subiection to the Roman Church that When we esteeme Felix to be the legitimat Pope and Liberius a Schismatike remoued from the society of Catholikes and from his Papall function wee fight notably against our owne principles which are 1. That there cannot be two Popes together and 2. That no Pope can be deposed vnlesse he appeare to be a manifest heretike which if he be he ceaseth to be Pope without any iudgement at all That there cannot be two Popes together we acknowledge to be a principle of ours Nor did it happen otherwise in the case of Liberius for when he returned to the Papacy it was by acceptation of the Clergy people of Rome equiualent to a new election and this not vntill after Felix his death For as Sozomen prudently obserueth (m) L. 4. c. 14. God by his speciall prouidence called Felix out of this life soone after Liberius returned to Rome lest the See of Peter should be defamed with the note of schisme two Popes gouerning at once contrary to the lawes of the Church The second principle is not ours but an ignorance of yours For a Pope ceaseth to be a Catholike consequētly falleth from his Papacy not only by publicke profession of heresy but also by making publicke profession of Schisme and outward communion with heretikes though in his hart he detest their doctrine for to be a Catholike it is not only necessary to belieue the Catholike fayth inwardly but also to make profession thereof outwardly abandoning the cōmunion of heretikes Wherfore the syllogisme which here you make (n) Pag. 190. sin 191. concludeth nothing the Minor proposition that Liberius notwithstanding his consenting to the condemnation of Athanasius and communicating with heretikes was a Catholiks Bishop is absolutely false And wheras you professe to set downe this Minor as the words of Bellarmine you falsify him for albeit he say that if a Pope become a manifest heretike he ceaseth eo ipso to be Pope yet in the same place (o) L. 2. de Pont. c. 30. §. Eadem est sententia he sufficiently expresseth that not only heretikes but also schismatikes are out of the Church and loose all spirituall iurisdiction ouer those which are in the Church SECT IV. S. Basills beliefe of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome proued and Doctor Mortons obiections answeared IT seemed to vs sayth S. Basil (p) Ep. 52. writing to Athanasius to be to good purpose that we write to the B. of Rome that he consider the affaires of these parts and giue his iudgement to the end that being there is difficulty in sending from thence persons by a common and Synodicall decree he may vse his authority and choose men capable of the labour of such a iourney c. And that hauing with them the Acts of Arimin they may disanull those things which haue bene done by force Bellarmine (q) L. 2. de Pont. c. 15. bringeth this testimony you except against him as peruerting S. Basil by false translation which you proue out of Baronius for where Bellarmine translateth vt res nostras videas that the B. of Rome see or view our affaires Baronius rendreth vt res nostras consideret that he consider our affaires But who seeth not this to be a mere cauill for what difference is there between intreating the Pope to take the affaires of the Easterne Churches into his consideration as Baronius readeth or to see and looke into them as Bellarmine translateth Whether you follow the one or the other it is manifest that S Basil thought it a fit way to redresse the calamities of those Churches that the Pope should take them into his consideration or haue a vigilant eye ouer them the requiring wherof from him liuing in a Countrey so remote and in another Patriarkship sheweth that S. Basil belieued some charge of visiting those Churches to belong to him superior to that which the Easterne Patriarkes had Nor doth your answeare satisfy saying (r) Pag. 195. He required not from the Pope any help or visitation of dominion or iurisdiction but only of confortation of louing and brotherly consideration hoping that the persuasions of stangers especially being indued with Gods grace would be more preualent with the Easterne people then the Counsell of their owne Bishops for this euasion is conuinced of falshood by the very words of S. Basil It is fit sayth he (s) Ep. 52. that we beseech the Pope to shew his authority in the busines sending men that may bring with them the Acts of Arimin and disannull the thinges done by force And immediatly after he professeth himselfe ready to be corrected by the Popes Legates if
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
citation and application of these attributes you deale not vprightly as is to be seene in Canisius from whom you tooke them (b) Catechisinit in Encorn Pat. But leauing that to the readers examination your owne answeare destroyeth it selfe for those ascriptions you confesse import no authority But doth the title of Rector or Gouernor import no authority As the power authority of the Head of a Colledge or Gouernor of a cōmonwealth cannot be better or more effectually expressed then by saying He is Rector of the Colledge or Gouernor of the Common-wealth so if S. Ambrose had studied to confute your answeare and expresse the Popes Monarchicall power authority ouer the whole Church he could not haue done it more effectually then by stiling him Rector or Gouernor of the house of God which is his Church for that title neuer was nor can euer be giuen to any other but to the Pope of Rome whom Christ hath made Pastor Gouernor of his whole flock (c) Ioan. 21.15 seqq And to this S. Ambrose alludeth (d) L. 10. ep 81. when writing to Siricius Pope he calls him A watchfull and pouident Pastor that with pious solicitude defends the flock of Christ from wolues that is from heretikes 3. What S. Ambrose his iudgment was concerning the infallibility of the Bishop and Church of Rome he declareth when writing to Siricius Pope of certaine heretikes whom he had condemned he sayth (e) Ibid. Whom your Holinesse hath condemned know that we also hold them condemned according to your iudgment S. Ambrose was fare more learned then Siricius and yet by reason of the infallibility of the Roman Church in determining causes of fayth and condemning heresies he submitteth to the iudgment of Siricius Impertinently therfore do you obiect (f) Pag. 214. to proue S. Ambrose his no-subiection to the Church of Rome that the Pope asked his iudgment concerning the day of Easter for a Counsellor may be more learned then a King the King may aske his iudgment and yet the authority of determining the cause is not in the Counsellor but in the King And the Counsell or though he be more learned is subiect and bound to obey the King as S. Ambrose was and acknowledged himselfe bound to obey Siricius Nor do you find vs to hold that the Pope in his determinations ought not to proceed prudently asking the aduice of learned men 4. To proue that S. Ambrose acknowledged no subiection to the Church of Rome you report (g) Pag. 214. out of Baronius that certaine Clergy-men of Milan 670. yeares after the death of S. Ambrose called the Bishoprick of Milan S. Ambrose his Church and withstood Petrus Damianus the Popes Legate alleaging that the Church of Ambrose had bene alwaies free in it selfe and neuer subiect to the lawes of the Pope of Rome But why do you conceale the truth of this history The ancient splendor and beauty of the Church of Milan being defaced and greatly decayed partly by the impurity of Clergy-men that being infected with the heresy of the Nicolaites liued incontinently and obstinatly defended the same to be lawfull and partly by Simoniacall Priests the people of Milan sent Legates to the Pope beseeching him to commiserate the lamentable state and cure the desperate diseases of that famous Church The Pope not Leo the Ninth as you mistake but Nicolas the second between whom and Leo there were other two Popes Victor and Stephen condescending to so iust a request sent two holy and learned men Petrus Damiani Cardinall of Ostia Anselme B. of Luca as his Legates to visit that Church and armed them with his owne authority to correct the offenders and ordayne whatsoeuer should be thought expedient for the reformation of so great disorders The Legates being ariued at Milan had no sooner intimated their Commission but the people stirred vp by those lewd and factious Clergy-men began to oppose them alleaging that the Church of Ambrose had bene alwais free in it selfe and neuer subiect to the Lawes of the Pope of Rome These are the only words which you cull out of Baronius whole narration leauing out what precedeth and making no mention of what followeth which is that Petrus Damiani stepping vp into the Pulpit after he had quieted the people proued effectually the soueraigne authority granted by Christ to the Roman Church ouer all Churches that whosoeuer denies that authority is an heretike The people giuing eare to his words were appeased and with one accord promised to do whatsoeuer he should ordayne There was present a great number of Clergy-men and scarce any of them that had not bene promoted to orders by Simony For the remedy of so great a mischiefe the Legats required from Guido the Archbishop an inuiolable caution and promise not to admit any from thence forward to holy orders for money and also to roote out the heresy of the Nicolaites Wherunto he willingly yeilded with imprecation of Gods wrath and reuenge on himselfe if he performed it not He gaue this caution in writing the Priests and Clerkes subscribed vnto it Which being done he prostrated himselfe on the ground asking pennance of the Legates for his offence And in like manner the Clergy-men admitting pennance were reconciled in tyme of Masse and receaued new ornaments from the Bishops hand hauing first made a profession of their fayth in which they anathematized all Heresies extolling themselues against the holy Catholike and Apostolike Church particularly those of the Nicolaites and Symonians This is the story and what greater folly can there be then to argue that S. Ambrose a most holy and learned Doctor opposed the authority of the Roman Church because a few lewd hereticall Clergy-men of Milan 670. yeares after his death disclaimed from the obedience of the B. of Rome to the end they might hold on their damnable courses and escape that punishment which their offences so iustly deserued And can there be a greater Imposture then to alleage a few rash words vttered by the people at the instigation of those heretikes to conceale that they togeather with the people Archbishop being admonished by the Popes Legats acknowledged their error with harty sorrow and promise of amendment and obedience to the See Apostolike By this a iudicious reader will perceaue that you neither regard what you alleage true or false nor stick to patronize vice and heresy in them that with you will oppose the Bishop and Church of Rome But you that follow them in their disobedience why do you not also follow them in their repentance When Theodosius in excuse of the great slaughter he had made at Thessalonica alleaged to S. Ambrose that King Dauid also had offended committing adultery and murther S. Ambrose answeared (h) Paulinus in vita Ambros Sequutus es errantem sequere poenitentem As you haue followed Dauid in his finne so follow him in his repentance And if he were now liuing he would
in like manner answere you that as you haue followed some wicked Clergy-men of his Church in their disobedience to the See Apostolike so follow them in their repentance and both he and they would condemne you of great perfidiousnesse in proclaiming their sinne and concealing their amendment 5. You obiect (i) Pag. 214.215 that S. Ambrose refused to follow the Church of Rome in the custome of washing the feet of infants is baptized which say you the Church of Rome iudged to be superfluous but contrariwise Ambrose and the Church of Milan held to be necessary Your custome is to borrow Arguments from Catholike writers and suppresse their solutions This you borow from Bellarmine (k) L. 2. de Pont. c. 16. as you do many others In him read the answere It shall suffife me to tell you that the Roman Church obligeth not other Churches to vse or omit all the rites and ceremonies which she vseth or omitteth in administration of the Sacraments or other Ecclesiasticall offices In such as are of themselues indifferent she commandeth nothing as you haue heard (l) ChaÌ„p 2â— sect 3. but leaueth freedome to other Churches to follow their owne customes Such was the ceremony of washing the feet of infantes baptized which though she practized not she condemned not and therfore it was free for the Church of Milan to vse it without any disobedience at all to the Church of Rome If you had not bene minded to trifle you should haue proued that S. Ambrose disobeyed the Roman Church in matter of fayth as you do This you cannot proue both because S. Augustine hath testified (m) Cont. Iulia Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. that in the workes of Blessed Ambrose the Roman fayth greatly shineth also because he himselfe defineth a Catholike Bishop to be one that a greeth with the Roman Church (n) Orat. de obitu Satyri and protesteth to Siricius (o) L. 10. ep 81. that whom the Roman Church condemneth he following her iudgment holdeth in like manner condemned of which number you are one SECT VIII S. Augustines iudgment concerning the necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof S. Augustines iudgment was that the Roman Church is the Head of all Churches which he professed saying (p) Ep. 162. In her hath alwaies florished the Princedome of the See Apostolike Princedome I say not only Principality of Order as you comment but of true power and authority ouer all the Churches of the world as hath bene effectually proued (q) Chap. 17. sect 2. and the ensuing testimonies of S. Augustine shall further confirme For heerein he declared his iudgment when together with all the Fathers of the Mileuitan Councell to which he was Secretary he writ to Innocentius Pope (r) Ep. â—2 For as much as God by the gift of his principall grace hath placed you in the Apostolike See and granted you to be such in our dayes as we ought rather to feare that it should be imputed to vs for a crime of negligence if we should conceale from your Reuerence those things which for the Church ought to be represented to you then to imagine that you can receaue them disdainefully or negligently we beseech you to apply your Pastorall diligence to the great perills of the weake members of Christ. You deny not but that S. Augustine with the whole Councell in these words requireth the Popes Pastorall diligence for the repressing of the Pelagian heresy in Palestine and Africk but your answere is (s) Pag. 218. that Iohn the first writing to an Arch-bishop granteth that the charge of the Church for the helpe of all in repressing of heresies was committed to him as well as to himselfe that euery Patriarke hath a Principality and height of a Pastorall watch-tower aboue all Metropolitans and Bishops and yet haue they not ouer all Bishops power of iurisdiction But these euasions I haue already proued to be vaine and not without Imposture (t) See aboue Chap. 19. sect 3. That euery Bishop ought to concurre to the help of all in repressing of heresy we deny not but we deny that euery Bishop hath a watch-tower of pastorall authority to iudge and condemne heretikes whersoeuer out of his owne Dioces as S. Augustine and the Mileuitan Fathers acknowledge the Pope to haue out of his Dioces and Patriarkship of Rome requiring him to condemne by his pastorall authority the Pelagians in Africk Palestine And that the Popes power herein exceedeth the iurisdiction of all other Bishops S. Augustine professeth writing to Boniface Pope (u) Cont. duas Epist. Palag l. 1. c. 1. Thou disdainest not to be afrend of the humble though thou be placed in a higher gouerment And againe (x) Ibid. The pastorall watch is common to vs all that haue the office of Bishops but thou art supereminent in a higher degree And yet further he declareth this supereminent power and iurisdiction of the Pope to extend it selfe ouer all the world writing to Optatus (y) Ep. 157. Pelagius and Celestius by the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councels with the helpe of God who vndertakes the protection of his Church haue bene condemned in the extent of the whole world by two reuerend Prelats of the Apostolike See Pope Innocentius and Pope Sozimus If then S. Augustine belieued aright the Pope hath Pastorall power to represse and condemne heretikes throughout the whole world which other Bishops haue not their pastorall power being confined to the limits of their owne Diocesses Your obiections against this are 1. (z) Pag. 219.210 That S. Augustine speaking of Stephen B. of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage calleth theÌ„ Two Bishops of most eminent Churches Ergo the B. of Rome hath not iurisdiction ouer the B. of Carthage for there cannot be Two most Eminents Your consequence is vntrue and such you must confesse it to be for the B. of Rome being Patriarke of all the West the B. of Carthage is subiect vnto him as you forgetting your selfe afterwards acknowledge (a) Pag. 2â—9 Wherefore S. Augustine calling Stephen and Cyprian two Bishops of two most eminent Churches intended not to deny the subordination of Cyprian to StepheÌ„ nor of the Church of Carthage to that of Rome but only to signify that as the Roman Church is most eminent by reason of her Patriarchall power ouer the West and her Primacy ouer the whole world so the Church of Carthage is also most eminent though in an inferior degree by reason of her Primacy ouer all Africa And in this sense both those Churches â—â—e most-Eminent the one ouer all Africa and the other ouer all the world Your second obiection of the Saturday-fast (b) Pag. 220. your third of the deniall of Appeales out of Africa to Rome (c) Pag. 221. your fourth concerning the cause of Cecilian (d) Ibid. your fifth of the Epistle to the Hebrues whether in S. Augustines
dayes the Roman Church held it canonicall (e) Pag. 222. are all repetitions of your former Arguments which in their due places haue bene answeared (f) Chap. 22. sect 3. Chap. 25.26 tot Chap. 30. sect 1. Chap. 34. sect 6. But to them you adde here a Consideration of your iudicious Casaubon (g) Pag. 223. requiring vs who accompt the only note of Schisme to be diuided from the Roman Church and Pope thereof to answeare Why S. Augustine who in seauen Bookes besides many other places confuted the Schismaticall Donatists yet neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope or of the infallibility of his iudgement whereby to reduce them to the vnity of the Church and truth Your iudicious Casaubon shewed great lack of iudgment in making this Argument and that he had not read S. Augustine or if he had that he did not vnderstand him or if he had read did vnderstand him then you know what he sheweth in concealing the truth For throughout all those seauen Bookes against the Donatists there is nothing which S. Augustine so often obiecteth nor so much vrgeth against them as their separation from the Roman Church repeating the same not once or twice but almost in euery Chapter of some of those bookes For when the Donatists did striue to defend their heresy of rebaptization by the authority of S. Cyprian S. Augustine answeared (h) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18.19 l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9 Contra Crescon l. ◠c. 32. l. 2. c. 3. alibi saepè that Cyprians patronage could not auaile them because they were out of the Communion of the Roman Church in which S. Cyprian liued died And doth he not in other his writings against the Donatists often vrge the succession of Bishops in the Roman Church If sayth (i) Ep. 165. he the order and succession of Bishops be to be obserued how much more assuredly and safely indeed do we begin our accompt from S. Peter himselfe to whom as he represented the whole Church our Lord sayd (k) Math. 16.18 Vpon this Rock I will build my Church For Linus succeoded to Peter Cletus to Linus c. And so reckoning all the Popes vnto Anastasius who then sate in the chaire of S. Peter he concludeth against the Donatists In this order of succession there is not one Donatist to be found to which I adde no nor yet one Protestant And reckoning the motiues that held him in the Church among them he setteth downe the succession of Bishops in the See of Rome There are sayth he (l) Cont Ep. Fundam c. 4. many thinges which with greatest reason hold me in this Catholike Church 1. The vniforme consent of people and nations which is not to be found in the Protestant Church confined to a few Northern countreyes in a corner of the world 2. A certaine authority begun by miracles which Protestants confesse themselues not to haue 3. The succession of Priests euen from S. Peter vntill this present Bishop Wherfore since that Church in which there is a continued succession of Bishops from S. Peter cannot be the Protestan Church which hath no such succession but the Roman it followeth that S. Augustine held the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church And therefore expressing to the Donatists how much he grieued to see them ly cut of from this Church he said (m) Psal cont part Donati It greeueth vs to see you ly so cut of Number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranck of Fathers who succeeded whom That 's the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not Here againe S. Augustine sheweth the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church built vpon Peter and his successors as vpon a rock against which heresies schismes which are the proud gates of hell shall neuer preuaile and all that are out of her communion to be as branches out of from the Vine and deuoid of all spirituall life And as he held all that are out of the Roman Church to be in miserable state so contrarily he held all that liue in her Communion to be most hapy and secure from error in fayth for so he deemed Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage to be notwithstanding all the plots and conspiracies of the Donatists against him He might sayth S. Augustine (n) Ep. 162. contemne the conspiring multitude of his enemies because he knew himselfe to be vnited by communicatory letters both to the Church of Rome in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike hath alwaies florished and to other Countries from whence the Ghospell came first into Africa These few passages among many others shew that your iudicious Casaubon failed much in iudgment and truth when he aduentured to say that S. Augustine in his workes against the Donatists neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope nor of the infallibility of his iudgment wherby to reduce them to the vnity of the Church and truth And as he vrged the authority of the See Apostolike against the Donatists so hath he testified that by the same authority taken from the authority of holy Scriptures (o) Aug. Ep. 91. the Pelagians were condemned who therfore seeing themselues esteemed as Heretikes throughout all the Westerne Church in which they liued sought to the Churches of the East hoping to be admitted into their Communion as the Protestants of Germany writing to Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople did (p) See Iustus Caluinus Apol. pro Eccl. Rom. pag. 10. whom therfore we may check with S. Augustines words written against Iulian a chiese mantainer of the Pelagian heresy I thinke sayth he (q) Cont. Iulia l. 1. c. 4. that part of the world ought to suffice thee in which our Lord would haue the chiefe of the Apostles to be crowned with a most glorious Martyrdome To the Gouernor of which Church Blessed Innocentius if thou woldst haue giuen care thou hadst ere this freed thy dangerous youth from the Pelagian snares for what answeare could that holy man giue to the African Councells but that which from ancient times the Roman Church with all others perseuerantly holdeth And els where he noteth (r) L. 2. de grat Christi pecc orig c. 8. that albeit Pelagius had drawne others into error he could neuer deceaue the Roman Church for the most Blessed Pope Sozimus considered what opinion his predecessor worthy to be imitated had of his proceedings and what iudgment the fayth of the Romans to be commended in our Lord had made of him But you obiect (s) Pag. 225. It is mere sophistry to inferre a necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome to be professed of all Christians at all times because the Fathers required it in their times By this Argument a Pelagian a Donatist an Eutychian or any other Heretike may iustify his departure from the Roman Church pretending as you do that the necessity of vnion with her was not for all times
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
Pastor of the sheepe not of one City nor of one Countrey but of all the sheep of Christ without any exception or limitation (g) See all this proued aboue Chap. 14. sect In this sense the name of Pastor was neuer giuen to any other Apostle or Bishop but only to S. Peter and his successors The rest of the Apostles sayth S. Bernard (h) L. 2. de confideras obtayned each of them their peculiar flocks Iames contented with Hierusalem yieldes the vniuer sality to Peter And long before him Eucherius that famous and learned Bishop of Lions (i) Hom. in Vigil S. Pe◠Christ first committed to Peter his Lambes and then his sheepe because he made him not only a Pastor but Pastor of Pastors Peter therfore feedeth the Lambes and the sheepe he feedeth the yong ones and the dammes he gouerneth the subiects and the Prelates and is therfore Pastor of all for besides Lambes and sheep there is nothing in the Church Your euasion (k) Pag. 243. n. 20. that if by Pastor we vnderstand curam studium care and study towards the good of the vniuersall Church in this all other Bishops are Pastors as well as the Pope is impertinent for charity obligeth not only Bishops but euery Christian man and woman to haue a care and study towards the good of the vniuersall Church according to their abilities But the Pope is not only bound to a charitable care and study as all others are but by reason of his Pastorall office and function is the guide and Gouernor of the vniuerfall Church throughout the whole world And vntill you can shew the like Pastorall power and iurisdiction attributed to any other Bishop you must confesse his title of Pastor to be without parallell The like hath bene proued (l) Aboue Chap. 14. sect 3. of his titles of Doctor of Pope (m) Chap. 23. of Vicar of Christ (n) Chap. 14. sect 2. of Apostolicall man (o) Chap. 14. sect 3. and Apostolate applied to his person and function and of Apostolicall See to the Roman Church Nor is it hard to proue the same of all the other titles mentioned by Bellarmine He is called Father of Fathers and Prince of Priests which titles though they may in a true sense be giuen to euery Patriark and Archbishop in respect of other Bishops subiect to them and to euery Bishop in respect of the inferior Pastors of his Dioces yet not in the same sense in which they are giuen to the Pope In like manner the name of Pontifex and Summus Pontifex are sometimes giuen to other Bishops but not as to the Pope for he is called by the foure Primats of Africa (p) See Spond anno 646. n. 1. their Synods Pater Patrum Summus omnium Praesulum Pontifex the Father of Fathers and the chiefe Bishop of all Bishops And Venerable Bede (q) L. 1. hist Angl. c. 1. sayth of S. Gregory that in toto orbe gerebat Pontificatum that his Episcopall power was ouer the whole world which S. Anselm◠also expressed dedicating his booke De incarnatione to Vrbanus Pope with this inscription Domino Patri vniuersae Ecclesiae in terra peregrinantis Summo Pontifici Vrbano To the chiefe Bishop Vrbanus Lord Father of the vniuersall Church militant on earth Where do you find any parallell to this title of the Pope The like I say of the title of Rector domus Dei Ruler or Gouernor of the house of God for albeit each of the Apostles were Rulers and Gouernors of the Church and so S. Andrew is so called in the Collect vsed on his festiuall day yet the ordinary Episcopall authority and iurisdiction of none of them nor of any other Bishop whatsoeuer but only of S. Peter and his successors extends to the rule Gouerment of the vniuersall Church For which cause Valentinian the third intituleth the Pope Rector of the Vniuersality of Churches And both he and Theodosius say (s) Constit. Nouell Tit. 24. So the peace of the Church shall be conserued by all if the Vniuersality acknowledge her Rector And Theodoret being deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo Pope because sayth he (t) Ep. ad Renat The holy Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the world Where do you find the title of Ruler or Gouernor of the Church attributed to any other Apostle or Bishop in this sense The same I say of the title of Head of the Church for in the Nicen Councell (u) Can. 39. ex Graec. Arab the B. of Rome is called Head and Prince of all Patriarkes The Councell of Sardica (x) Insert in fragment Hilar citatur expresseth the same in their Epistle to Pope Iulius à Nicol. c. i◠Ep. ad Episc Gal. It is very good fit that from all the Prouinces the Bishops haue reference to their Head that is to the See of the Apostle Peter In the Councell of Ephesus (y) Part. 2. Act. 2. when the Legates of Celestine Pope arriued thither they gaue thankes to the Fathers there assembled that by their holy and religious voices they had shewed themselues holy members to the blessed Pope their holy Head The Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon (z) In relat ad Leon. call Leo Pope their Head themselues his members and acknowledge him (a) Ibid. to rule ouer them as the Head doth ouer the members And his Legates in the same Councell said (b) Act. 1. We haue the commands of the Pope of Rome who is the Head of all Churches and the Councell contradicted not but presently obeyed his commands S. Prosper sayth (c) L. De ingrat c. 2. Rome the See of Peter is made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world possessing by religion what it doth not by force of armes which S. Leo also expresseth saying (d) Serm. 1. in Nata Apost Petri Pauli Rome by the sacred See of Peter being made Head of the world hath a larger extent of gouerment by diuine religion then by earthly dominion Eugenius B. of Carthage (e) Vict. Vticen l. ◠calls the Roman Church The Head of all Churches S. Fulgentius (f) De incarn grat c. 11. The Top of the world And Ennodius sayth (g) Lib de Synod sub Symmacho habit The dignity of the See Apostolike is Venerable throughout the whole world whiles all the faithfull are subiect vnto it as being the Head of the whole body Iustinian intituleth the Pope (h) Cod. Tit. 1. L. 7. The Head of all the holy Prelates of God and the Head of all Churches And the Bishops of the lower Maesia (i) Apud Bin. to 2. pag 154. professe Leo B. of Rome to be Truly the Head of all Churches You answere first (k) Pag. 242. that S. Basil calls Athanasius Top or crowne of the head of all S. Basill
and practised the same authority 7. Not vnlike to these are the answeares you giue to S. Athanasius (x) Pag. 254. S. Chrysostome (y) Pag. 255. and Theodoret who being iniustly deposed from their Bishoprickes appealed to to Iulius Innocentius and Leo Popes with manifest acknowledgment of their authority ouer all Bishops and Churches of the world as shall be proued SECT II. Others of Doctour Mortons Answeares to the ancient Fathers examined SOme Easterne Bishops who with great scandall of the Church and perturbation of the people refused to insert the name of Chrysostome into the Dyptikes or tables of publike records were for that cause excommunicated by Innocentius with command that they should not be admitted into the peace and communion of the Roman Church vntill they restored him This though it be an Argument of the supreme power of the B. of Rome you wrest it to a contrary sense Among them that refused to restore the name of Chrysostome were Alexander Patriarke of Antioch and Acacius Bishop of Beroë but these two to the end they might be admitted into the Communion of the Roman Church restored his name and performed what els Innocentius in ioyned them (a) Spond anno 408. n. 11. Of these two you are silent they were not for your purpose But because some others stood out for a time you lay hold on them who vpon due examination will proue as litle to your purpose as the two you conceale Your first example (b) Pag. 258.259 is of Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria who stood out vntill the end of his life But God that would not haue a man so well deseruing of his Church to die in the state of excommunication ordained by his prouidence that the soule of Theophilus could not depart out of his body vntill an Image of S. Chrysostome being brought vnto him he adored it doing pennance for his former error and by that meanes restored himselfe to the peace of the Church This his recantation is reported by Isidorus Diaconus and out of him by S. Iohn Damascen (c) L. 3. de imag prope fin Wherfore your deniall of it is a falsity framed without ground by your selfe out a desire that Theophilus should haue died out of the Communion of the Roman Church as you liue Your second example (d) Pag. 257. is of Atticus Patriarke of Constantinople who being excommunicated for the same cause persisted sometime in his error but at length moued by the example of Theophilus and Maximianus a Bishop of Macedonia making intercession for him (e) Baron anno 408. Innocentius yeilded to absolue him prouided that he would himselfe aske absolution and restore the name of Chrysostome Hereupon Atticus witnesse Theodoret (f) L. 5. hist. c. 34. sent many embassages to Rome to obtaine the communion of Innocentius but could neuer obteine it vntill partly by perswasion of the Emperor and partly fearing a tumult of the people he restored the name of Chrysostome and writ letters to Cyrill B. of Alexandria persuading him to do the like Wherfore Baronius truly sayth (g) Anno 425. that Atticus restored Chrysostome by the command and compulsion of Innocentius and not by the distraction and tumultuosnesse of the people only as you comment for if he feared the tumult of the people it was in regard the people were incensed against him for not restoring Chrysostome as Innocentius had commanded And if as you obiect (h) Pag. 258. he called two Bishops that had died in the communion of the Roman Church Schismatikes he spake in passion seing himselfe excōmunicated by the B. of Rome and knew as you also do that he spake vntruly for if it were thought Schisme to be in the communion of the Roman Church as you say he did why did he so earnestly desire and send so many Embassages to be admitted into her communion Was is to make himselfe a Schismatike Nay was it not to free himselfe from schisme Why do not you imitate him Your third example (i) Pag. 259.260.261 is of Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria who if for a tyme he obeyed not Innocentius in restoring the name of Chrysostome it was because he iudged the command of Innocentius to be against the Canons witnesse his owne words alleaged by your selfe (k) Pag. 259. fin But his iudgment was erroneous and because what he did was out of a pious zeale as he conceaued God reduced him by a miraculous Vision wherin he saw himselfe cast out of the Church by Chrysostome and a troupe of Saints that assisted him therin but that the Blessed Virgin Mary did make intercession for him as one that had defended her honor against Nestorius Cyrill moued with this vision condemning his owne iudgment concerning Chrysostome and calling a Prouinciall Synod restored his name to the sacred records as the other Patriarkes had done To this you make two replies first (l) Pag. 261. you call this A tale of Nicephorus a fabulous Author that liued 800. yeares after Cyrills death But you wrong Nicephorus for he reportes it out of Nicetas that liued almost 500. yeares nearer Cyrills tyme then himselfe and out of other ancient historians Hoc sayth he (m) L. 14. c. 28. in arcana Nicetae Philosophi historia apud alios inueni 2. You reply (n) Pag. 261. that Cyrills restoring Chrysostome cannot any whit serue our turne because he did not simply by submission to the Popes decree but by vertue of a Vision in a dreame Surely you seeme to haue bene in a dreame when you deuised this answeare for there cannot be a greater Argument of the Popes authority then that God by a miraculous vision should notify to Cyril that by reason of his resistance made to the decree of Innocentius he was out of the Church And in how great Veneration did Cyrill hold the B. of Rome he I say that being greatly exasperated against other Bishops for the name of Chrysostome yet neuer let slip from his mouth any the least irreuerent word against Innocentius And who can be ignorant that he firmely belieued the supreme authority of the Roman See when he presided in the Councell of Ephesus as Vicar to Celestine Pope (o) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 1. Without whose order as he durst not depart from the Communion of Nestorius so he executed on his person punctually what Celestine commanded And finally his beliefe was that saluation cannot be had out of the Roman Church (p) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 4. SECT III. Doctor Mortons Answere to the testimony of Acacius examined A Cacius Patriarke of Constantinople writing to Simplicius Pope professed that the care of all Churches belonged to him You answeare (q) Pag. 161. fin 162. The vniuersall care of all Churches was applied to S. Paul in the dayes of Peter and to other Bishop in whom there was no Monarchicall Popedome This satisfieth not for the vniuersall care of all Churches may be of
Charity only this euery Bishop and euery Christian is bound to haue according to the measure of his ability Or it may be of Iustice and such is the care or charge which euery Bishop hath of his owne Dioces and the Pope of the Vniuersall Church for to him by reason of his office of supreme Pastor belongeth not only a charitable care but the rule gouerment of the vniuersall Church (r) See this proued Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. In this sense Acacius spake when he said (s) Ep. ad Simplic Simplicius Pope had the care of all Churches And the Fathers euermore speake in this sense when they say that to Peter and his Successors in the See of Rome was committed the care of the vniuersal Church In this sense S. Chrysostome said (t) Hom. 87. in Ioan. The care of the whole world was committed to Peter and what he meaneth by Care he explicateth saying (u) Hom. 80. ad pop The gouerment of the Church throughout the whole world was committed to Peter Euthymius (x) Ad c. 21. Ioan. Christ committed to Peter pascendi curam gubernationem the care of feeding and gouerning his flock So Sozomenus (y) L. 3. c. 7. Iulius Pope restored to their seates Athanasius and other Bishops banished by the Arians because the care of all belonged to him by reason of the dignity of his See S. Leo speaking to Anastasius B. of Thessalonica (z) Ep. 84. and making him his Vicar in the East To the end sayth he thou maiest supply the place of my gouerment and help me in that care which by diuine institution I owe to all Churches and in person visit those Prouinces remote from the See Apostolike And to Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople (a) Ep. 46. If they who haue so grieuously offended against Flauianus offer satisfaction let relation therof be made to the See Apostolike that our solicitude may ordayne what is to be obserued S. Gregory (b) L. 4. ep 32. To all that know the Ghospell it is manifest that by the voyce of our Lord the Care and Princedome of the whole Church was committed to Peter Prince of the Apostles And againe (c) L. 7. ep 70. indict 2. By the care of our vndertaken gouerment we are enforced to extend with vigilancy the solicitude of our office S. Bernard (d) Serm. 3. de 7. misericord frag Witnesse Peter to whom the Pastorall care of the whole Church was committed These and a thousand more testimonies conuince that when the ancient Fathers speake of the care of all Churches committed to the B of Rome by Care they vnderstand the Pastorall charge and obligation of ruling and gouerning the Vniuersall Church and therby condemne you of falsity who to the testimony of Victor Vâ—iconsis calling the Roman Church the Head of all Churches answeare (e) Pag. 271. that he calls it not Head of all Churches in power and iurisdiction and that we could neuer proue this out of any ancient Father for you haue heard it proued by their most expresse and vnanswearable words (f) Aboue Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. Yf the fore to expresse this vniuersall authority and iurisdiction of the Pope ouer all Churches they vse somtimes the word Care rather then Gouerment it is because as S. Chrysostome (g) Hom. 3. in Act. speaking of the Pastorall authority of S. Peter ouer the other Apostles hath noted Eminency of spirituall power is a care of subiects not a Lord-like dominion And this sheweth the wrong you do to Costerus (h) Pag. 235. when to disproue the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction you alleage him calling it Care for with what conscience could you possesse your reader that by Care he vnderstands not power and iurisdiction but only a charitable solicitude knowing as you do that in the same Chapter (i) Eâ—chirid Tract de Pont. solut 7. he proueth out of Scripture and Fathers the Pastorall charge of ruling and gouerning the vniuersall Church committed by Christ to S. Peter and his Successors He that readeth this in Costerus and alleageth him for the contrary what can his intention be but to deceaue his readers You (1) Pag. 262. obiect Acacius his deedes full of pride and arrogancy against the Roman Church so that Baronius for his defending Peter Mogg by him established in the Bishopricke of Alexandria against the will of the same Pope Simplicius calleth him a Francirke man violently opposite vnto the Bishop of Rome I answere that Acacius so long as he continued Catholike did both by word and deed acknowledge the supreme authority of the Roman Bishop but it is grosse ignorance in you not to know that afterward he fell to be (2) Euagr. lib. 3. c. 20. Liberatus in Breu. c 18. Niceph. l. 16. c. 17. Spondom An. 484.488 a stiffe mantayner of the Entychian Heretikes namely of Peter Mogg in those dayes the chiefe defender pillar and Patriarke of that damnable Sect for which cause he was excommunicated by the Pope dying obstinate in his sinne his name was blotted out of the Dyptiches euen (3) Spond An. 51â— with the consent of the Bishops of Constantinople his successors wherby we learne this lesson that men so longe as they be Orthodoxe Christians still honor obey the Pope and Roman Church so they are no sooner blasted with the spirit of heresy but they become Frantike opposers therof as your Luther was And wheras to make men belieue that this Acacius was of great authority and esteeme euen in the Latin Church you bid vs remember (4) Pag. 263. that the two Patriarkes Cyrill and Acacius were they that sent the Copies of the Canons of Nice vnto the African Bishops by which our Popes were conuinced of fraude c. We can remember no such matters but wonder how a man so learned as you would be thought could be so childishly mistaken seing Acacius was made Patriarke in the yeare 472. that is fourty eight yeares after the sending of the Nicen CanoÌ„s to the African Bishops the Copies wherof sent by Atticus not by Acacius to haue been imperfect wherein many Canons were wanting we haue already demonstrated As for the decree and sanction of Leo Emperour in behalfe of the Church of Constantinople and Acacius the then Patriarke thereof wherein he termeth the Church of Constantinople the mother of all Christians of the Orthodox Religion whatsoeuer might be the meaning of these wordes in Acacius who moued the Emperour to make that decree his ambitious conceits which Baronius censureth yet according to the mind of the Godly Emperour they import no more then Mother of all Orthodoxe Christians in the Church of Constantinople as is cleere by the text Mother sayth he vnto our Piety and vnto all Orthodoxe Christians and of this Royall Citty the most sacred See You make the Emperor say (5) Pag. 263. the Mother of all Orthodoxall Churches
free election and therfore that if the Successors of S. Peter should remoue their See from Rome the Roman Church in that case might erre This opinion sayth Bellarmine (e) L. 4. de Pont. c. 4. is not hereticall nor manifestly erroneous but he holdeth and proueth the contrary namely that the See of S. Peter was fixed at Rome by especiall command from Christ and cannot be remoued from thence and therfore that when the Fathers say The Roman Church cannot erre the word cannot is to be taken simply and absolutely without the caution which you falsly ascribe to him You adde (f) Pag. 273. Bellarmine should haue said with you that the Roman Church cannot erre so long as the ancient and sincere fayth is preserued at Rome which is to say that she cannot erre as long as she erres not Bellarmine was of more iudgment then to proue idem per idem But you say (g) Pag. 276. The list of all the Fathers which Bellarmine in the strength of his learning and iudgment hath produced to guard defend the Monarchy of the Church and B. of Rome is of the Greeke Fathers but thirteene of the Latin not aboue eleuen within the space of the first 600. yeares This is notoriously vntrue for in the two Chapters immediatly preceding he produceth the testimonies of aboue 1340. Fathers in the foure first Generall Councells and that vnder Menas and of 26. Popes the greater part of them glorious Martyrs and the rest holy Confessors as S. Iulius S. Damasus S. Siricius S. Zozimus S. Innocentius S. Leo S. Gelasius S. Gregory Were not all these Fathers that liued within the first 600. yeares which you call the primitiue times But what if Bellarmine had produced no more but thirteene Greeke eleauen Latin Fathers Doth not Cardinal Baronius throughout his learned Annals Doth not Iodocus Coccius (h) To. 1. thesau l. 7. art 4.5.6.7.8 Do not Doctor Sanders (i) Visic Monar tot Clau. Dauid tot and other Catholike writers produce testimonies of Popes Councells and of the most religious Emperors and Kinges that haue liued since Christ in great numbers all of them professing their beliefe of the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope and necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome Why do not you subscribe to so great a cloud of witnesses rather then to Martin Luther and a few Sectaries broaching Nouellisme opposing all Orthodoxe antiquity Lastly to close vp your answeres to the Fathers you produce Tertullian (k) Pag. 277. after his defection into Montanisme calling the Pope The blessed Pope and the chiefe Bishop of Bishops but that he did it by Irony and scorne So indeed sayth Massonius a forbidden author But be it true that he spake it by Irony yet that very manner of speach sheweth it was then the custome of the faythfull to giue those titles to the Pope If Tertullian called him so by Irorny and scorne it was because he was an heretike And so you imitating him cauill at vs for instiling the Pope Your Holinesse which title say you (l) Ibid. being first giuen to Pope Leo for his Holinesse sake and sanctity of life is continued to Popes who haue bene most wicked and retayned only in respect of their functions The case is this Benedict the cleauenth (m) Extrau l. 5. C. Dudum calleth Boniface the eight his Predecessor bona memoria of good memory The glosse sayth If a Pope haue defiled the Church with exactions simonies and filthy speaches he is not therfore to be instiled mal◠memoriae not of euill but of good memory according to the ciuill Law determining that regard is not to be had to what he did but to what it was fit for him to do that is sayth the glosse not to his person but to his dignity for although his person haue offended his dignity hath not and his personall offence is not to redound to the domage of the Church And howsoeuer Prelates haue offended they are Presidents and Fathers of the whole community and therfore to be honored as the Philosopher teacheth also the Ciuill Law calling them Gods for the Excellency of their Order and dignity of their office And for the same cause Kings albeit wicked in their liues are instiled Clara memoria vel Inclyta memoria of famous or renowned memory and Emperors Dina memoria of soueraigne or diuine memory To which I adde (n) Act. 24.25 that S. Paul called Festus President of Iury Optime Fest◠Most excellent Festus and this nor for his Vertue or Honesty for he was a wicked man but for his Office the custome being that all Presidents of Prouinces were so instiled (o) Baron Anno 58. n. 33. All this I suppose you will allow for hauing read most of it in the Glosse you except not against it or if you do your exception is without ground Other Prelates therfore although they be of vicious liues may be instiled Bonae memoriae Kings Clarae vel Inclytae memoriae Emperors Diuae memoriae Temporall gouernors may haue the title of Optimi yea and be called Gods for so you call Kings (p) Serm before his Ma. at Durham pag. 14. The Pope only forsoth who is the Vicar of Christ on earth because it displeaseth you must not be saluted by the title of Your Holinesse whiles he liues nor be said to be Bonae memoriae after he is dead Other gouernors must be honored by reason of their dignities and offices The Pope only must be excepted and Doctor Morton to helpe out the matter must falsify the Glosse making it say that an ill Pope after his death is to be intituled Of blessed Memory which words howsoeuer you (q) Pag. 277. set them downe as of the glosse and in great letters to make your falsification more remarkable are not of the glosse but feigned by you And finally whether an ill Pope after his death be or be not to be intituled Bonae or Malae memoriae what makes it to your intent which is to proue that Saluation may be had out of the Roman Church But if your volume had not bene stuffed with such impertinencies it cold not haue risen to so Grand an Imposture CHAP. XXXVII Of the authority of the Epistles of ancient Popes AS the Arians and other Heretikes haue contemned the Epistles of the Bishops of Rome so all orthodoxe Christians haue euer held them in great veneratiō Eusebius Caesariensis (r) L. 3. hist c. 12. writeth that the epistle of Clement Pope to the Corinthians was so highly esteemed that the custome was to reade it publikely in the Churches which also he reporteth (s) L. 4. hist. c. 22. of the Epistle of Soter Pope And how greatly these Epistles were reuerenced may appeare out of S. Irenaeus who highly commending the Epistle of Clement (t) L. 3. c. 3. setteth downe a summary therof And in like manner Clemens Alexandrinus (u) Serm. l.
Bishops I know not what Bishop is not subiect vnto it Doth not this testimony immediatly follow in Bellarmine Yes and it is so euident that Caluin (h) L. 4. Iust. c. 7. § 1â— on the rack of truth is inforced to confesse that S Gregory in no place of his workes vanteth more of the greatnesse of his See then in these very words and that in them he attributeth to himselfe the right of punishing Bishops when they offend Is it not then imposterous to conceale this so cleare an euidence and others brought in by Bellarmine and reiect them all because you haue found a way to cauill at one especially since not only out of S. Gregories workes and the testimonies of your Protestant Brethren it is a truth not to be denyed that he belieued himselfe to haue and practised iurisdiction ouer all Bishops whatsoeuer But you say (k) Pag. 285. If Gregory in some tearmes seeme to speake somwhat loud as though he were very Great yet be confined himselfe to the Constitution of Iustinian He resolueth according to the constitution of Iustinian that the triall of Bishops causes in the first instance belongs to their Metropolitan as the cause of the Metropolitan doth to his Patriarke But withall he teacheth (l) L. 2. ep 6. that they may appeale to the See Apostolike and furthermore addeth (m) L. 11. ep 56. that If a Bishop haue no Metropolitan nor Patriarke ouer him then sayth he his cause is to be heard decided by the See Apostolike which is the head of all Churches And this is agreeable to the profession which Iustinian himselfe made in the Law Inter claras (n) Cod. tit â— l. 8. and in the Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (o) Cod. t is 1. l. 7. In the rest of this Section (p) Pag. 284. you tell vs that â—â—n of those Popes eited by Bellarmine call the Church of Rome and Bishop therof Head of all Churches or one that hath the care of all Churches or one hauing principality They do so and withall so vnanswearably affirme the Vniuersall iurisdiction of the Roman Church that you thought best not to mention their words but to put them off saying The like attributes haue bene anciently ascribed to other Churches and Bishops which how false it is you haue already heard (q) Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. Chap. 35. Chap. 36 sect 3. To giue a good farewell you conclude thus (r) Pag. 285. fin 280. There are diuers other testimonies out of Leo Gelasius and other Popes who breathed out many sentences full of ostentation of their owne greatnesse Hitherto you haue held vs in hand that the primitiue Popes did not challenge any iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church but now you say that S. Gregory in some termes seemes to speake somwhat loud as though he were very Great and that Leo Gelasius and other Popes breathed out many sentences full of ostentation of their owne greatnesse but whatsoeuer they vented out it was typhus saecularis and a swelling impostume which was lanced that it bled withall by the Councell of Carthage vnder S. Cyprian and the Councell of Africke vnder S. Augustine and that selfe-loue bewitching many Popes of the more primitiue tymes they boasted themselues to be the only Vicars of Christ and have bene taxed for their great arrogancy by the ancient Fathers of their owne tymes And afterwards (s) Pag. 303. fin 304. you compare S. Leo and S. Gregory to Adonias that sought traiterously to pull the crowne from his Fathers head and make himselfe King to which he had right This forsooth is the reuerence you beare to the primitiue Popes whom antiquity hath had in so great veneration as of S. Leo and S. Gregory in particular you haue heard (t) Chap. 15. sect 3. Truth which enforceth testimony from her enemies compelleth you to confesse (u) Pag. 172.178.182.287 that the Primitiue Popes were Holy Popes Holy Fathers excellently goodly learned and that many of them are glorious Martyrs and Saints whose memory is blessed And yet the same truth enforceth you heere to confesse that those Popes acknowledged themselues to be the only Vicars of Christ on earth to haue an vniuersall authority and to haue practised the same for which albeit you taxe them with great arrogancy yet in adding that the ancient Fathers of their owne time did the like you passe the limits of modesty and truth And who seeth not the absurd manner of arguing which in proofe hereof you vse Your words are (x) Pag. 286. in titulo sect 13. Our generall discouery of the vanity of your proofes of Papall Monarchy from the mouthes of Popes themselues who haue bene anciently noted of pride Your assumpt then is to disproue the Papall Monarchy from the mouthes of Popes themselues But you produce not any one testimony nor any one word of any one Pope but make a briefe repetition of your Arguments which in their seuerall places haue bene proued to be partly impertinent partly false and partly hereticall Impertinent as of Tertullian False as of the African Councell S. Cyrill S. Basil S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine Hereticall as of Polycrates resisting Victor and of the Arians whom to conceale that they were heretikes you call The Orientalls And finally part of them of such as for a time defended the false doctrine of Rebaptization as S. Cyprian and his Councell of Carthage which though S. Augustine haue answeared (y) L. 6. de Baptism per tot and confuted word by word you take no notice therof but vrge it as currant and of authority against the B. of Rome yet that all may not seeme to be repetitions you bring forth one new Argument (z) Pag. 286. as drawne from the mouthes of Popes themselues which is that one Flaccidius relying on the greatnesse of the Citty of Rome equalled the Deacons of Rome with Priests This you obiect as the testimony of S. Augustine himselfe pointing at the vaine boasting of Rome wheras it is not S. Augustines but of the Author quaestionum noui veteris Testamenti whom heretofore (a) Pag. 52. when he was not for your purpose you reiected as an hereticall author but now his words are of S. Augustine himselfe and an Argument drawne from the very mouthes of ancient and holy Popes Necessity enforceth you to such absurdities for better Arguments are not to be found in such a cause The blindnesse of your zeale permitted you not to see the inconsequence contrariety of your doctrine whiles you professe (b) Pag. 287. that the primitiue Popes were Holy men and yet that they were proud arrogant and challenged dominion aboue others beyond the limits of their owne iurisdiction Yes say you (c) Ibid. why not They were holy Disciples of Christ who ambitiously wished that they might sit the one on the right hand of Christ and on the other on
the left in his kingdome They were holy Apostles that sought among themselues without any ordinance of their Lord who should be chiefe They were indeed Disciples and Apostles of Christ but as yet imperfect nor did they arrogate to themselues much lesse seeke to practise superiority ouer the Church of the whole world as the Popes from the beginning haue done Which if it were not giuen them by Christ could not stand with Christian Modesty much lesse with sanctity for such a claime is not a small blemish nor a veniall offence but the very height of Luciferian pride for so you call it (d) Pag. 336. and the very marke of Antichrist himselfe Againe the ambition of the Apostles was reformed and they perfected and confirmed in grace by the cōming of the holy Ghost But there is no testimony of antiquity that any one of the primitiue Popes whom you taxe with pride and great arrogancy did at any tyme before their death relinquish that claime yea contrarily all of them constantly mantained their authority as giuen them by Christ in S. Peter and exercised the same ouer all the Churches of the world vntill their dying day And if this were in them great arrogancy and Luciferian pride they were far from being holy Saints of God which yet you truly confesse them to haue bene condemning therby your doctrine against their supremacy of falshood and your selfe of slandering Gods Saints with Luciferian pride and arrogancy Your last refuge (e) Pag. 286. that Popes are not fit witnesses in their owne cause was refuted aboue (f) Chap. 15. sect 3. CHAP. XXXVIII The Vniuersall iurisdiction of the B. of Rome proued by the Exercise of his Authority ouer other Bishops AS among the Arguments for the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction there is none more conuincing then that from the first ages after Christ by their authority they haue ordayned deposed and restored Bishops throughout the whole Church so there is none which with more sleights you seeke to clude That the Popes anciently exercised this authority is a thing so certaine that Danaeus a learned Protestant is enforced to acknowledge the truth therof (g) Resp ad Bellar. part 1. pag. 117. and answeare It followes not that because the B. of Rome vsed that right he had therfore that right for certainely he had no right to do this but only tyranny and vsurpation Which to be an vnconscionable answeare no man can doubt for the B. of Rome as now he doth so much more did he then want temporal power to cōpell Bishops especially in Countres far remote from Rome to obey him which yet he must haue had if that vse of his power had not bene from a true right giuen him by Christ but only by tyranny and vsurpation Wherfore you finding this answeare of Danaeus not to satisfy haue made a bold aduenture to deny that the ancient Popes exercised any such power which how vntrue it is the ensuing Sections shall demonstrate SECT I. The Popes vniuersall authority proued by the Institution and confirmation of Bishops and of the vse and signification of the Pall or Mantle granted to Archbishops YOur first position is (h) Pag. 288. Anciently Institutions of Metropolitans and Patriarkes were done by communicatory letters to the chiefe Patriarke which were letters of correspondence to shew their agreement in fayth in which case the B. of Rome sent his Pall in token of his consent That the B. of Rome hath euer accustomed to institute Bishops in the most remote Prouinces of the world appeareth out of the booke intituled Vitae Romanorum Pontificum written by Damasus or as others more probably thinke by Anastasius Bibliothecarius in which are reported the ordinations of Bishops made by Linus immediate successor to S. Peter and successiuely by all other Bishops of that See The letters you mention of Metropolitans Patriarkes written at the tyme of their Institution to the chiefe Patriarke the B. of Rome were not only of correspondence to shew their agreement in fayth for howbeit they did containe a profession of their agreement in fayth with the Roman Church that therby they might be receaued into her communion and haue the title of Catholike Bishops yet moreouer they contayned an oath of Obedience and subiection to the B. of Rome And by the same letters they asked his Pal which S. Gregory witnesses (i) L. 7. ep 5. indict 1. was granted to none vntill they did humbly and earnestly desire it It is true that the Pope by sending his Pal to Archbishops did expresse his consent to their Institution But if they did not owe subiection to him there had bene no need of requiring his consent and much lesse of asking his Pal for the Pal did not only containe an expression of the Popes consent to their Institution but a grant of great authority and power which by the Pal was signified and giuen vnto them So testified the irrefragable Doctor Alexander of Hales 400. yeares since When the Pal is giuen sayth he (k) Part. 4. q. 10. memb 5. art 2. §. 6. there is giuen fulnesse of Pastorall power for before a Metropolitan be honored with the Pal he is not to ordaine Priests consecrate Bishops or dedicate Churches And before him the fourth Councell of Lateran consisting of 1280. Fathers declared (l) C. 5. that after the Patriarkes of the East haue taken their Oath of Fidelity and Obedience to the B. of Rome and haue receaued the Pal from him as a token of the plenitude of Pontificall office they may grant it also to their Suffragans receauing in like manner from them an oath of Obedience both to themselues and to the Church of Rome And before the Councell of Lateran Innocentius the third (m) Myster Missae l. 1. c. 63. The Pal containes the fulnesse of Pontificall office for as much as in it and with it the fulnesse of Pontificall office is conferred for before a Metropolitan be honored with the Pal he ought not to ordaine Priests consecrate Bishops or dedicate Churches nor haue the Name of Archbishop Which also was testified before him by Honorius the second (n) Ep. ad suffragan Episcop Tyri and by S. Bernard (o) Vitae S. Malach. cap. 19. reporting of S. Malachias that hauing founded a Metropolitan See in Ireland and knowing it to want authority vntill it were confirmed by the See Apostolike he trauelled to Rome in person to procure the Pal as well for that See as also for another which Celsus had founded And before him Wilfrid an English Abbot who for his great labors in preaching the Ghospell to the Germans and conuerting that nation to Christ hath deserued to be intituled The Apostle of Germany coming to Rome and bring consecrated Bishop by Gregory the third and in his consecration called Boniface after he had taken the oath of obedience to the See Apostolike as all Bishops vsed to do (p) Spond an 723. n.
that this sect was broached deposed not only Apollinarius but also Timothy his Disciple The same appeareth by the authority which the Popes of Rome haue shewed in the deposition of eight Patriarks of Constantinople (m) Nicol. primus Ep. 8. apud Bin. to 3. pag. 688. Maximus Nestorius Acacius Anthymus Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus Petrus for not to dispute whether all of them were deposed without Councells it cannot be denied that Agapet Pope coÌ„ming to Constantinople deposed Anthymus in the very Imperiall City in presence of the Emperor Iustinian that fauored him and excommunicated the hereticall Empresse Theodora that protected him this not only without a Councell but being very poore and without assistance yea contrarily the Empresse tempting him with promises of great rewards if he would leaue Anthymus in that seat with great threats if he deposed him The Empresse in secret sayth Liberatus (o) In Breu. c. 11. promising great presents to the Pope if he would leaue Anthymus in his seat and on the other side tempting him with threats the Pope persisted in not harkening to her demand And Anthymus seeing himselfe cast out of his seat gaue vp his mantie to the Emperor retired himselfe where the Empresse tooke him into her protection And then the Pope for the Emperors sake ordained Menas Bishop in his steed consecrating him with his owne hands The same is reported by Iustinian himselfe (p) Nouel 42. and by Victor of Tunes (q) In Chron. set forth by Ioseph Scaliger (r) Ad calc Chron. Euseb adding hereto the excommunication which Agapet pronounced against the Empresse To this I adde that Celestine Pope by his authority alone commanded Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria to depose Nestorius an hereticall Bishop of Constantinople writing thus vnto him (s) In Cont. Ephefâ—ro act 1â— Adding to thee the authority of our See and with power the representation of our place thou shalt execute exactly and seuerely this sentence namely that if within ten dayes after signification of this admonition giuen to Nestorius he do not in expresse words anathematike his wicked doctrines c. thy Holinesse shall prouide for that Church without â—â—ay and declâ—â—â— him to be wholly cut off from our body In like manner S. Leo the Great depriued Hilary B. of Arles from the authority of ordaining Bishops in the Prouince of Vienne which he had iniustly vsurped Hilary is to know sayth Leo to the Bishops of Vienne (t) Ep. 89. that he is depriued of all power ouer the Prouince of Vienne which he had vsurped vnlawfully And Valentinian the Emperor acknowledging that Leo might for this fault haue iustly deposed Hilary from his Bishoprick of Arles said (u) Nou. Theod. 〈◊〉 14. The Popes clemency alone permitted Hilary to beare still the title of a Bishop And Gelasius 40. yeares after speaking of the power of Leo Pope sayd (x) De anathem vinc Flauianus hauing bene condemned by the Congregation of the Greeke Bishops the See Apostolike alone because he had not consented thereunto absolued him and contrarywise by his authority condemned Dioscorus Prelate of the second See who had bene there approued and alone annulled the wicked Synod in not consenting to it and by his authority alone ordained that the Councell of Chalcedon should be kept In like manner when Iohn Archbishop of Larissa in Thessaly had iniustly condemned Adrian B. of Thebes one of the Bishops of his iurisdiction that had appealed froÌ„ him to the See Apostolike S. Gregory exempted the B. of Thebes from his iurisdiction We ordaine sayth he (y) L. 2. ep 7 indict 11. to Iohn Archbishop of Larissa that thy brotherhood abstaine from all the iurisdiction which thou hast formerly had ouer him and his Church c. And if at any tyme or for any occasion whatsoeuer thou that attempt to contradict this our statute know that wee declare thee depriued of the sacred communion so as it may not be restored to thee except in the article of death but with leaue of the B. of Rome Finally omitting other examples of which Ecclesiasticall histories are full to these I adde the testimony of S. Bernard who speaking to Eugenius Pope said (z) L. de Considerat The power of others is confined within certaine limits thine extendeth euen to them who haue power ouer others Hast not thou power if there be cause to shut heauen to a Bishop to depose him from his Bishoprick and deliuer him to Sathan And vpon this knowne right of the Pope he required him to depose the Bishops of Yorke (a) Ep. 217. and Winchester likewise (b) Ep. 230. a wicked Bishop of the Ruthens SECT V. The Popes power of restoring Bishops without a Councell proued ANastasius Patriarke of Hierusalem that liued 1100. yeares since in acknowledgment of this power writ to Felix B. of Rome (c) Ep. ad Belic The prerogatiue of your Apostolike See hath euer bene to restore by the authority of your power them that haue bene iniustly condemned or excommunicated and to returne vnto them all that hath bene taken from them and by the Apostolicall priuiledge to punish those that condemned or excommunicated them as we know it to haue bene done both in our and in former tymes The practise of this authority is no lesse certaine out of the Ecclesiasticall writers Eustathius B. of Sebaste in Armenia being deposed from his Bishoprick by the CouÌ„cell of Melitine trauelled to Rome and bringing letters of restitution from Liberius Pope the Councell of Tyana in Cappadocia obeying receaued him without inquiring of the conditions by meanes wherof he had bene restored The things (d) S. Bafil Ep. 74. that were proposed to him by the most blessed Bishop Liberius what submission he made we know not Only he brought a letter that restored him which being shewed to the Councell of Tyana he was reestablished in his Bishops seat Againe when the Emperor Valens had driuen Peter that famous Patriarke of Alexandria whom Theodosius and Valentinian call (e) Cod. titulo 1 l 1. a man of Apostolicall sanctity from his See and placed in it Lucius an Arian heretike Peter going to Rome appealed to Damasus Pope obteined letters of restitution from him Peter sayth Socrates (f) L. 4. c. 30. being returned from Rome to Alexandria with letters from Damasus B. of Rome which confirmed the creation of Peter the people encouraged draue away Lucius and restored Peter in his place And wheÌ„ Theodoret B. of Cyre bordering vpon Persia was deposed from his Bishoprick by the Councell of Ephesus he was restored by Leo Pope Wherupon the Senators which assisted at the Councell of Chalcedon sayd (g) Act. 1. Let the most religious Bishop Theodoret come in that he may take part in the Councell because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his Bishoprick These examples shew that the venerable Councels were so far from thinking the Pope could not restore Bishops
tradition and an Ecclesiasticall institution and moreouer adding that he had commanded all the Bishops of his Prouince to doe the like SECT VIII Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning Excommunication And of heretikes excommunicating the Pope EXcommunication is a most grieuous Ecclesiasticall censure which can be inflicted by none but an Ecclesiasticall Superior that hath iurisdiction power to binde and loose to punish absolue the person excommunicated A thing so certaine that no puny-Diuine can be ignorant therof Wherfore you discouer more then vulgar ignorance in defining (l) Pag. 290. Excommunicating of others to be but a denying to haue communion with them By this definition euery subiect may excommunicate his Superior Ecclesiasticall or temporall for euery subiect of neuer so meane a ranke Ecclesiastick or laick may deny to haue communion with his Bishop or his Soueraigne and therby excommunicate them Yea by the same definition any Heretike may excommunicate the Pope or any other Bishop or Councell by which he is condemned for he may deny to haue communion with them Is this good Diuinity And yet it is yours who from this definition as from a true principle deduce that when ancient Popes excommunicated hereticall Bishops of the Easterne Church it was no act of iurisdiction in them ouer those Bishops but (m) Ibid. only a disuniting of themselues from them by denying to haue communion with them which also the same Bishops might deny to haue with the Popes And vpon this ground you iustify as well you may the Arians who being excommunicated by Iulius Pope toke to themselues liberty to excommunicate him in their false Councell at Philippopolis (n) Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. And vpon the same ground when Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria grew to so great a height of madnesse as to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against Leo the Great and first Pope of that name because he had condemned Eutyches and his heresy you say (o) Pag. 290. fin 291. He did it vpon the knowne iudgment of the Easterne Church and vpon a common right and hability to do it which as it is an answeare full of ignorance so I know not how to excuse it from impiety for although Dioscorus were an Arch-heretike though contrary to the Lawes of the Church he had by his owne authority assembled a Councell at Ephesus and approued in it the heresy of Eutyches and condemned the Orthodoxe Doctrine and not only excommunicated but beaten and wounded to death Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople a stout champion of the Catholike fayth yet none of these crimes were alleaged against him as the cause of his excommunication and deposition but only his presumptuous attempting to excommunicate the Pope and his disobedience to him Dioscorus sayth Anatolius Archbishop of Constantinople (p) Conc. Chalced. Act. 9. Socrat. l. 2. c. 18. speaking to the Councell of Chalcedon hath not bene deposed for the fayth but because he had excommunicated my Lord the Archbishop Leo and that hauing bene thrice cited he would not appeare And the Councell of Chalcedon it selfe writing to Leo (q) Relat. ad Leon. After all these things he hath extended his phrensy euen against him to whom the guard of the Vine is committed by our Sauiour that is to say against your Holinesse hath moditated an excommunication against you who hasten to vnite the body of the Church So enormous a crime did this holy Councell iudge it to be for any Bishop euen the greatest Patriarke of the East as Dioscorus was to pronounce sentence of Excommunication against the Pope But to make this matter more euident what Christian euer heard that the iudgment of any Bishop could be valid against the Bishop of the primary See which sayth the Councell of Sinuessa (r) Nicol. Papa Ep. ad Micha Imper. is to be iudged by no man The primitiue Fathers thought it so vnlawfull to be separated from the B. of Rome that they pronounce all that are diuided from his communion to be branches cut of from the Vine which is the Catholike Church to be heretikes of a peruerse iudgment or els presumptuous selfe-liking schismatikes and sinners not to gather but to scatter not to be of Christ but of Antichrist (s) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 4. And finally so absurd a thing it was euer held for any Christian to excommunicate the Pope that the Emperor Martian writing to certaine hereticall Monkes of Palestine who being enemies to the Councell of Chalcedon had presumed to excommunicate Leo Pope telleth them (t) Apud Bin. to 2. pag. 144. that therby they had and with good cause made themselues a laughing stook to the Heathens themselues What you obiect (u) Pag. 290. out of Nicephorus that Menas Patriarke of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Vigilius Cardinall Peron hath learnedly proued to be a mere fable and were it true it was an vnlawfull attempt and inualid as you haue heard SECT IX Adrian and Nicolas Popes obiected by Doctor Morton ADrian and Nicolas the two first Popes of those names required of Constantine and Michaell Emperors of the East the restitution not only of the temporall patrimony of S. Peter iniustly taken away from the Roman Church by hereticall Emperors their predecessors still with-held by them but also of the Ecclesiasticall right of ordayning and gouerning ten Prouinces of the East as their peculiar Diocesse according to the custome of their predecessors This obiection you (x) Pag. 291. 292. tooke from Baronius (y) Anno 800. He hath giuen you an answeare to him I remit you But wheras you say These Popes did not thinke themselues to haue iurisdiction ouer the whole Church of Christ it is worth the nothing that they euen in those very Epistles which you obiect not only affirme but most effectually proue the iurisdiction of the B. of Rome ouer the whole Church and of Adrian somthing to this purpose hath bene said already (z) Chap. 33. sect â— SECT X. Of the deposition of Flauianus Patriarke of Antioch BEllarmine (a) L. â— de Pont. c. 18. produceth many examples of Easterne Bishops deposed by the Pope In answeare wherto you say (b) Pag. 295. fin 296. The chiefest example which your Cardinall may seeme principally to insiston is that Pope Damasus as he calleth it deposed Flauianus Patriarke of Antioch And therfore haue I singled out this example for a singular Argument of retorsion to proue the no-iuridicall or iudiciall authority of the Roman iurisdiction ouer the Patriarkes of Antioch Bellarmines first and chiefest examples are of eight Patriarkes of Constantinople which are so many witnesses of the Popes authority against you Among these he chiefly inssisteth on the example of Anthymus whom Agapet Pope deposed in the City of Constantinople it selfe as you haue heard (c) In this Chap. sect 4. and he proueth out of Nicolas the first Liberatus Zonaras and Gelasius The reason therfore why you passing ouer these examples single
out that of Flauianus is not because that is the chiefest Bellarmine insisteth on but because in that you find something to quarrell at which you finde not in the rest But vpon examination the euidence of this very example singled out by your selfe will shew how vnanswearable the rest are The ease is this The Church of Antioch being in schisme two Bishops Paulinus and Meletius pretending right to that Patriarchall seate and some adhering to the one some to the other not without danger of a great tumult they came to agreement (d) Socrat. l. 5. c. 5. Sozom. l. 7. c. 3. that all such Ecclesiasticks as were thought fit to gouerne that Church or were in expectation therof which were sixe in number should bind themselues by a solemne oath not to admit of that Bishoprick so long as either Paulinus or Meletius liued and after the death of either of them to let the superuiuer peaceably enioy that seat alone Meletius being dead the Antiochians contrary to their oath aduanced Flauianus to the Bishoprick in opposition to Paulinus and he contrary to his oath admitted therof at which Damasus Pope and all the Bishops of the West were greatly offended (e) Sozom. l. 7. c. 11. not without cause by reason of the new schisme it caused not only in that Church and in a great part of the East but also because it was contrary to the agreement made by oath and a great wrong to Paulinus who was very old and a personage of so great veneration for his sanctity and merit that Valens an hereticall Emperor driuing many Catholike Bishops from their Churches in to banishment neuer offered to touch him (f) S. Hieron Bp. 61. ad Pamach Socrat. l. 4. c. 2. Wherefore Damasus and the rest of the Westerne Bishops writ communicatory letters to him as to the true Bishop of Antioch but abstayned from the communion of Flauianus and excommunicated Diodorus and Acacius that had ordayned him (g) Sozom. l. 7. c. 11. And wheras the Councel of Constantinople vnder Nectarius had confirmed Flauianus they the Westerne Bishops annulled that confirmation and by their letters accompained with others of the Emperor Gratian vsing also therin the helpe of Theodosius who writ to the same effect they commāded the Councell of Constantinople to come to Rome (h) S. Hiero. Ep. 27. ad Eustoch Theod. l. 5. hist. c. 8. fin c. 9. put the election of Flauianus againe in triall at a generall Councell assembled there giuing withall to both parties assignation to appeare Flauianus distrusting the equity of his cause appeared not (i) Theod. l. 5. hist. c. 23. but had recourse to excuses and to the Emperor But Paulinus obeying transported himselfe to Rome in company of other Bishops and renowned personages of the East Wherof S. Hierome speaking sayth (k) Ep. 16. ad Princip The Ecclesiasticall necessity drew me to Rome with the holy Bishops Paulinus and Epiphanius whereof the one gouerned the Church of Antioch in Syria and the other the Church of Salamina in Cyprus And againe (l) Ep 17. ad Eustoch When the Imperiall letters had drawne to Rome the Bishops of the East and West Paula saw there the admirable men and Bishops of Christ Paulinus B. of Antioch and Epiphanius B. of Salamina in Cyprus Wherby it appeareth that albeit the election of Flauianus had bene confirmed by the Councell of Constantinople Paulinus was still held to be the true B. of Antioch and Flauianus his competitor in reputation of an intruder for want of confirmation from the See Apostolike And therefore as he appeared not so neither did the Bishops of the Constantinopolitan Councell which had confirmed him but by letters written to to the Pope and Councell of Rome excused themselues You say they (m) Theod. l. 5. hist c. 9. moued with brotherly charity called vs as your members by the letters of the most religious Emperor c. But beside that our Churches being newly restored if we should haue done this had bene wholly abandoned it was a thing which many of vt could no way put in execution for as much as we trauailed to Constantinople vpon the letters of your Reuerence sent the last yeare after the Councell of Aquileia to the most religious Emperor Theodosius hauing prepared our selues for none but that iourney of Constantinople only and hauing gotten the consent of the Bishops remaining in the Prouinces for none but that And in the end of the same Epistle they make intercession for Flauianus fearing lest the cause of Paulinus would be fauored by Damasus by reason he had bene ordayned Patriarke of Antioch by Lucifer a Sardinian Bishop and Legate to Liberius predecessor to Damasus The businesse standing thus Paulinus died but the schisme liued still For his Disciples created to themselues Euagrius a new Bishop in opposition to Flauianus (n) Socrat. l. 5. c. 15. Sozom. l. 7. c. 15. wherby not only that Church but the whole world was shaken (o) Amb. Ep. 78. and brought into danger of schisme for remedy wherof Siricius Pope called a Councell at Capua to which though the Bishops of the East and West resorted in great numbers yet Flauianus still appeared not Flauianus sayth S. Ambrose (p) Ibid. hath cause to feare and therfore he flies a triall And againe (q) Ibid. One only Flauianus not subiect to Lawes as it seemes to him appeareth not when we are all assembled The Councell to preuent further danger of schisme ordained that whiles the cause was in agitation communion should not be denied to the Catholikes that adhered to either party and to make an end of that long strife committed the examination and decision of the whole cause to Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria both by reason of the great authority of his See in the East as also because his Pariarkship bordered vpon that of Antioch where the parties were present and finally because he was a man impartiall The sacred Synod sayth S. Ambrose (r) Ibid. writing to Theophilus hauing committed the right of examining this cause to your vnanimity and to our other Colleagues of Aegypt it is necessary that you summon againe our brother Flauianus And moreouer he aduertiseth Theophilus that he ought to cary the businesse so as that the finall decision therof might be reserued to the B of Rome and confirmed by him We conceaue sayth he (s) Ibid. that you ought to referre the cause to our holy brother B of the Roman Church for we presume you will iudge so as cannot displease him And al use after When hauing receaued the tenor of your acts we shall see you haue iudged things so as the Roman Church shall vndoubtedly allow therof we will receaue with ioy the fruit of your examination By this it appeares that S Ambrose held the B of Rome to be the supreme Iudge of Bishops and that to him appertained the finall decision of their causes And the same
to goe and Siricius successor to Damasus gaue to Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria power to iudge his cause And notwithstanding all the Emperors fauor he was not confirmed in the Patriarkship vntill at the intreaty of Theophilus Chrysostome the Pope had pardoned his offence and he himselfe had sent Legates to obtaine his confirmation If this be not sufficient to proue the Popes authority ouer the Bishops of Antioch what is And when you aske (g) Pag. 297. Whether the Christian Churches could be good Catholikes and in state of samation that communicated with Flauianus at the time of his opposition to the Pope it is a question sprung from ignorance for the cause of Flauianus being in agitation it was so far from being vnlawfull to communicate with him or with them that adhered either to him or Paulinus and Euagrius that for auoyding of further schisme the Councel of Capua ordained that Communion should be denied to neither party SECT XI Doctor Morton in defence of his Doctrine chargeth ancient Bishops with exercising Acts of authority out of the limits of their owne iurisdiction VVE haue proued the Popes to be supreme Gouernors of the vniuersall Church because they haue exercised acts of iurisdiction ouer the greatest Bishops of the East and West You make your apposition as you say (h) Pag. 297. by parallels and examples of other Bishops in antiquity executing Acts of confirming and deposing Bishops without the limits of their owne iurisdiction which is tacitly to contradict your selfe confessing that the Popes haue confirmed and deposed Bishops out of their owne Patriarkship to which you confine their authority but that they had no iurisdiction our those Bishops The falsity of this answeare who seeth not for confirming and deposing of Bishops is an act of iurisdiction which no Bishop hath power to exercise out of the limits of his iurisdiction And therfore to say that either the Popes or other Bishops haue executed acts of confirming or deposing Bishops without the limits of their owne iurisdiction is to accuse them of pride and iniustice in arrogating to themselues liberty to transgresse the limits of their iurisdiction executing acts of authority where they had no right But as to deny the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Popes you wrong them so to make good your deniall of their authority you wrong the other Bishops in whom you instance The first is S. Athanasius B. of Alexandria who say you (i) Pag. 300. appointed a Bishop ouer the Indians This Bishop though you name him not was Frumentius who hauing liued among the Indians and returning from thence informed S. Athanasius of the great hope he conceaued of their Conuersion to Christ if preachers were sent vnto them The fayth which Frumentius preached was the Roman fayth and he serued God after the manner of the Roman Church and induced all Christians that traded with the Indians to do the like (k) Ruffin l. 2. c. 9. Sozom. l. 2. c. 2.3 S. Athanasius with the aduice of his Clergy created him Bishop at Alexandria and sent him with other Priests to preach the Ghospell to the Indians and reduce them to the Communion of the Roman Church Where do you find in all this that S. Athanasius instituted or confirmed any Bishop without the limits of his owne iurisdiction Did he not consecrate Frumentius Bishop in his owne Church at Alexādria Did he send him to preach or exercise iurisdiction within the Dioces of any other Bishop No. He sent him to a barbarous people to reduce them to the fayth of Christ and obedience of the Roman Church which was then and is still lawfull for any Bishop in like case to do that being no where forbidden nor contrary to any Law diuine or humane nor any way derogating from the authority of the B. of Rome but most gratefull to him whose greatest desire is to reduce the whole world to the fayth of Christ and whose approbation for such enterprises is alwayes iustly presumed especially since therby the glory of the Roman Church is increased and her iurisdiction enlarged as by the conuersion of both Indies in these later tymes we see Your second example (l) Pag. 300. is of Theophilus B of Alexandria laboring to ordaine Chrysostome to be the B. of Constantinople For this you alleage Sozomen who sayth (m) L. 8. c. 2. that Chrysostome being famous for his Vertue learning throughout all the Roman Empire by voyce of the Clergy and people of Constantinople and of the Emperor himselfe was chosen Archbishop of that Imperiall City but that Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria resisted his ordination laboring to promote to that dignity Isidore a Chaplaine of his owne This is the relation of Sozomen why do you report it vntruly Your third example (n) Ibid. is of S. Gregory Nazianzen vnto whom say you Meletius B. of Antioch and Petrus of Alexandria confirmed the See and Patriarkship of Constantinople For this you bring Theodoret (o) L. ◠hist. c. 8. and Gregorius Presbyter Theodoret sayth no such thing but only that albeit the Canons to preuent ambition forbid the remouing of Bishops from one See to another yet the opinion of Meletius was that in those circumstances Gregory might hold the Bishoprick of Constantinople by reason of the great domage that Church sustained for want of a Bishop in so dangerous a time But that Meletius designed or ordained him Bishop Theodoret sayth it not nor is it true for he was created Bishop by the Councell of Constantinople which Theodoret in that Chapter mentioneth And the same is verified by other historians Gregory sayth Socrates (p) L. 5. c. 5. by the common consent of many Bishops was transferred from the Bishoprike of the City of Nazianzum to the Bishoprike of Constantinople And Sozomen (q) L. 6. c. 17. Gregory by the voices of many Bishops was designed B. of Constantinople for no Catholike Bishop nor Church of Orthodoxe people being in that City the doctrine of the Councell of Nice was in danger to be wholly exploded How then could you say that Meletius and Petrus of Alexandria confirmed vnto Gregory Nazianzen the See of Constantinople Especially since Theodoret in that very Chapter expresseth the names of diuers of those Bishops which in the generall Councell of Constantinople conferred that dignity on him and repressed the insolency of Maximus whom Timothy B. of Alexandria would haue intruded into that See Your fourth example (r) Pag. 300. is Moyses who being a man famous for miracles was ordained Bishop by certaine exiles It is true for the Romans vpon agreement of peace with Mauia Queene of the Saracens who desired to haue Moyses created Bishop of her Nation brought him to Alexandria to be consecrated by Lucius then Patriarke of that city who being an Arian heretike Moyses refused to be consecrated by him and therfore the Arians were enforced to permit him to be consecrated by the Catholike Bishops of the Roman
thing vncertaine Many thinke it to be of Damasus and his you will haue it to be But the contrary is manifest for the epistle speaketh of Bonosus an Arch-heretike who had bene condemned by Iudges appointed in thē Councell of Capua which was not held in time of Damasus but of Siricius successor to Damasus It is therefore euident that the request of Bouosus which you obiect out of this epistle to haue his cause heard againe could not be to Damasus his first condemnation being not vntill after Damasus his death When you can shew this epistle to be of Damasus you shall receaue an answeare which it were easy to giue you now if I listed to spend time in refuting your tedious discourse of racking the verbe Competit to a strict sense and which not one but many wayes is deficient as all your arguments for the most part are Your addition (e) Pag. 318. marg l. that if the epistle be not of Damasus it is certainly of some Pope and that all hold it so is affirmed by you gratis and as easely denied by me CHAP. XL. Whether the Easterne Churches be at this day accordant in Communion with Protestants SECT I. The state of the Question THE nine first Sections of your fourtenth Chapter you spend in prouing that the Grecians Aegyptians Aethiopians Assyrians Armenians Russians Melchites and other remote nations at this day dissent from the Roman Church and are accordant in Communion with Protestants The foundation of your whole discourse you lay in these words (f) Pag. 330. Whatsoeuer Christians haue not ruinated any fundamental article of sauing fayth set downe in our ancient Creeds and are vnited vnto the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus our Lord by a liuing fayth all Protestants esteeme them as true members of the Catholike Church and notwithstanding diuers their more tolerable errors and superstitions to be in state of saluation albeit no way subiect or subordinate to the Roman Church These are your words which containe in themselues open implication namely that one may be vnited to the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus by a liuing fayth and be in state of saluation and yet be out of the Catholike Church which to be none els but the Roman and that out of her there is no saluation hath bene already proued (g) Chap. 1. sect 2.3.4 From this false principle you deduce that the Grecians Asians Aegyptians Assyrians Aethiopians Africans Melchites Russians and Armenians notwithstanding their separation from the Roman Church are at this day truly professed Christian Churches (h) Pag. 379. partes of the Catholike Church (i) Pag. 406. fin 407. init faythfull Christians professing the fayth of the ancient Fathers (k) Pag. 417. in state of saluation and raile bitterly at the Church of Rome for denying the same But how great ignorance and impiety you shew and how many most shamefull vntruthes you vtter in the prosecution of this Argument it is easy to declare Some of them I shall present to the Readers view And to proceed methodically I will reduce what I am to say to two heades 1. I will proue that as the Christians of these remote nations anciently were so many of them at this day are accordant in beliefe and communion with the Roman Church yeild obedience to the Pope as to the Vicar of Christ on earth and as to the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church 2. That the inhabitants of these nations which are not Roman Catholikes are not of one beliefe or Communion with Protestants but wholly dissent from them holding most blasphemous and damnable heresies acknowledged for such by Protestants themselues From whence it will follow that you affirming them to be faythfull Christians of the same beliefe with the ancient Fathers charge the ancient Fathers with blasphemous heresies and make them incapable of saluation SECT II. Whether the Grecians of the primitiue and successiue times agreed in fayth and Communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome and particularly at the Councell of Florence THat the Greekes in the first Councell of Constantinople and afterwards in that of Calcedon endeauored to giue to their Patriarke of Constantinople the second place of dignity in the Church next after the Pope and before the other Patriarkes we acknowledge But that they sought therby to exempt themselues from their obedience and subiection to the Pope hath bene effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 5. Chap. 19. sect 4. I speake not this to deny that anciently there were of the Grecians many Heretikes which opposed the Roman Church and by her authority were condemned and that eight Patriarkes of Constantinople in particular as also Eutyches an Arch-heretike of the same City were anathematized and east out of the Church for heresy And wheras the Westerne Church by the example and diligence of the Bishops of Rome was preserued from heresy the Churches of the East new heresies daily springing vp were so pitifully torne and ten in peeces that S. Hierome complaining therof to Pope Damasus said (m) Ep. 57. Because the East striking against it selfe by the ancient fury of the people teares in litle morsells the vndeuided coate of our Lord wouen on high and that the foxes destroy the vine of Christ in such sorte that it is difficult among the drie pits that haue no water to discerne where the sealed fountaine and the inclosed garden is I haue therfore thought that I ought to consult with the Chaire of Peter and the fayth praised by the mouth of the Apostle This was the miserable state of the Easterne Churches in those dayes being gouerned somtimes by Catholike Bishops that acknowledged subiection to the Church of Rome and somtimes by Heretikes that opposed her authority vntill at length Photius hauing iniustly driuen Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople from his See and intruded himselfe into his place and being for that cause often excommunicated by Nicolas the first and Iohn the eight Popes of Rome to mantaine his iniust title withdrew himselfe from their obedience and to the end he might haue some colour to perseuer in that separation cauilled at the doctrine of the Roman Church which teacheth that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Sonne and writ against it And the Greekes following him in this error separated themselues from the Communion of the Roman man Church Yet not so but that they haue often eleauen times sayth S. Antoninus (n) Hist. par 2. tit 22. c. 23. acknowledged their error and reconciled themselues to her and especially thrice in most solemne manner in three seuerall Councells of Barium in Apulia of Lions in France and of Florence in Tuscany but still returning to their error against the holy Ghost and disobedience to the Church of Rome as dogs to their vomit Almighty God punished them with a heauy hand deliuering them vp to a miserable captiuity seruitude vnder the Turke And that they might know the
Hierusalem Andrew a Syrian Abbot (o) Nauarch Sand. ibid. calls the Pope Head and Doctor of the whole Church To which I adde out of Surius Genebrard (p) In Chron. anno 1565. that the yeare 1565. arriued at Colen an ancient man sent from Thebais in Aegypt by Alexander then Patriarke of Alexandria to present by letter his obedience to the B. of Rome The like acknowledgment of subiection extant in the end of the Councell of Florence was made by Isaias B. of Hierusalem (q) Apud Bin. to 4. pa. 495. And againe since that tyme Gabriell Patriarke of Alexandria sent Embassadors to Rome with letters to Clement the eight professing in them his beliefe of the Catholike fayth and obedience to the See Apostolike And they both in his and their owne names made solemne and publike confession thereof which together with the letter of that Patriarke Baronius hath set downe at large in the end of his sixt Tome writing it in Rome when the thing had newly passed Pope Clement being then liuing and not only the City of Rome but all Europe through which this fact was publike being ready to beare witnesse of the truth thereof against you who by carping at Baronius as hauing in this related a fable gaine nought els but to declare your folly in carping at that which you wish were false but cannot disproue SECT V. Of the Aethiopians FOr the Aethiopians whom you produce (*) Pag. 340.342.409 in the third place as Christians dissenting from the Roman Church we haue for the contrary the testimonies of Helena Empresse and Dauid her Grand-child Emperor of Aethiopia who the yeare 1524. (r) Genebrard in Chron. pag. 1â—23 Bozi de â—ig Eccles to 1. l. 4. c. 3. sent letters and Legates to Clement the seauenth then Pope of Rome promising obedience to him and crauing his blessing and withall declaring their great desire of frequent recourse to the Court of Rome if they were not hindred by the distance of place and the kingdome of Mahumetans which ly in their way These letters were turned into Latin by Paulus Iouius Petrus Aluarez as also Damianus Goes a knight of Portugall (s) Lib. de vita morib Aethiopum haue set them downe at large together with the profession of the Catholike fayth made at Rome by Zaga Zabo an Aethiopian Bishop the chiefe of these Legates And Helias Leuites (t) In lib. Bâ—bur mentioneth and setteth downe the conference he had with them The like profession was made by Nicodemus and Peter both of them Aethiopian Abbots in their epistles to Eugenius the fourth and Paul the third Bishops of Rome (u) Cocci to 1. l. 7. art 6. And who knoweth not that as Iacobus Nauarchus (x) Ep. Asiatica Doctor Sanders (y) Monar visib l. 7. n. 1057.1508 and other moderne historians record (z) Franc. Sachin hist Soc. Iesu l. 1. n. 49. after that the Portugall Marchants did not only traffick in Aethiopia but with licence of the King maried there and both liued themselues and instructed their wiues to liue in the fayth and obedience of the Roman Church the Pope at the instance of Iohn King of Portugall sent to the Abyssines with the title and dignity of Patriarke Iohn Nunnez a Priest of the Society of Iesus who had labored with great fruit in Africa among the Saracens Christians that liued there And though Andreas Ouiâ—do a man of singular prudence and fortitude whom the Patriarke by aduice of the chiefe Gouernors of the East Indies sent before him was at his ariuall entertained with all courtesy the yeare 1556. yet the King that then liued being dead both he and the Patriarke found great difficulties which they suffered with inuincible courage vntill at length by their patience industry and labour they conuerted many of the Abissines and since their death the King himselfe and his brother with a great part of that nation by their successors haue bene reduced to the fayth and obedience of the Roman Church as the Annuall relations sent from thence continually testify SECT VI. Of the Armenians YOur fourth example (a) Pag. 340.379 is of the Armenians of whom Myraeus testifieth (b) De notit Episcopat l. 1. c. 16.17.18 and especially of them which are called Franck-Armenians with the Iacobites and Georgians that they haue often and lately made profession of their obedience to the Pope of their accord in all pointes of fayth with the Roman Church And Cardinall Peron (c) Repliq. Chapit 21. speaking to King Iames of famous memory auerreth that in Armenia the greater which was formerly subiect to the King of Persia but is now vnder the Turke there were and are many Christians of the Roman communion and many Monasteries of S. Dominick And the same is testified by M. Edward Grimston your Protestant Historian in his Description of countries (d) Pag 1050 In Asia sayth he there are many Christians assisted in spirituall things by the Religious of the orders of S. Francis and S. Dominick And those of Armenia haue their Archbishop of the Order of S. Dominick who is made by the Chapter of the Religious of that Order and then confirmed by the Pope And he addeth (e) Ibid. pag. 1052. that they hold themselues to be conformable to the Roman Church celebrate Masse in vnleauened bread contrary to the Greekes and remember their first conuersion from the Church of Rome in the time of Syluester Pope And in the end of the Councell of Florence is extant the Decree of Eugenius Pope in which the Vnion of the Armenians with the Church of Rome is testified by their Legates sent to the same Councell SECT VII Of the Russians YOur fifth example (f) Pag. 340. is of the Russians no lesse false theÌ„ the former for the Bishops of Russia in the yeare 1595. submitted themselues to the Roman Church Their epistle to this purpose written vnto Clement the eight together with the profession of their fayth who pleaseth may read in Iodocus Coccius (g) To. 1. l. 7. art 6. SECT VIII Of the Assyrians YOur sixth example (h) Pag. 338. is of the Assyrians like to the rest for Abdisus their Patriarke comming to Rome in tyme of Pius the fourth to be confirmed by him in his Patriarkship made publike confession of the fayth and primacy of the Church of Rome and of belieuing whatsoeuer the holy Oecumenicall Councels and in particular what the Councell of Trent belieueth This profession he made not only in his owne name but in the names of all the Metropolitans and Bishops subiect to him many of them being in the Dominions of the great Turke diuers in the territories of the King of Persia and others in the East Indies vnder the Kingdome of Portugal The truth of this is testified by Surius and Genebrard (i) Chro. an 1562. by Doctor Sanders (k) Mon. visib l. 7.
The small extent of the Protestant Church proueth her not to be the Catholike Church VVHen first you began to appeare in the world Luther complained (g) Pref. in 1. tom cont Reg. Augl fol. 497. that he was alone that he alone stood in the battaile forsaken of all and holpen by none The Centurists (h) Sleid. praef hist. confesse that your beginning was slender and almost contemptible Luther bearing the brunt of all the world Then you boasted your selues to be the Pusillus Grex which Christ speaketh of in the Ghospell (i) Luc. 12.31 But now Luthers brood being increased partly by his disciples and partly by the accession of many new Sects sprung from him knowing that the Catholike Church according to her name must be vniuersally spread throughout the whole world whersoeuer Christ is acknowledged you haue thought best to lay claime to all those Sectaries and to shake hands with anciēt heretikes that you may seeme to haue a Church of large extent If as Bellarmine (k) Cap. 14. Apolog. aduertised our late Soueraigne you draw into your Church all the Nestorians Eutychians and other heretikes of the East and South of which I haue spoken if all the Hussites Lutherans Zuinglians Suinkfeldians Anabaptists Confessionists Caluinists Brownists Familians Arians Samosatens and many other Sects with are at this day in the Prouinces of Europe by you named (l) Pag. 341. they will I confesse make a great rable of Sectaries that are so farre from being one Church that they anathematize and damne each other to the very pit of hell (m) See Coccius to 1. l. 8. art 7.8.9.10 Againe these sectes being confined some to one and all which here you claime as parts of the Protestāt Church to a few Prouinces of Europe and yet those not wholly theirs none of them nor all of them togeather can be the Catholike Church for she sayth S. Augustine (n) Ep. 170. ad Seuer cont Gaud. l. 3. c. 1. must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secundum totum that is diffused through out the whole world as well where these Sects are as where they are not The Catholike Church sayth he (o) Cont Lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 104. hath this certaine marke that she is knowne to all nations the Sect of Donatus is vnknowne to many nations and therfore that cannot be she So likewise the sects of Luther of Caluin of Zuinglius c. are vnknowne to many nations and therfore no one of them nor all of them togeather can be she By this Argument Optatus proued the Donatists and by the same we proue Protestants not to be the Catholike Church because she is not only in a corner of Africa or in a few Prouinces of Europe where they are but in many other places of the world where they are not Which passage of Optatus therfore I know not to what end you alleage (p) Pag. 342. vnlesse it be to proue your Church to be a Conuenticle of heretiks The same Argument S. Augustine vseth (q) De vnit Eccles c. 20. The Catholike Church by the denine and most certaine testimony of holy Scriptures is designed to be in all nations And therfore whatsouer is alleaged vnto vs by them that say Heere is Christ there is Christ if we be his sheepe we must rather heare the voyce of our Shepheard who sayth Belieue them not for these are not to be found in many places where she is and she who is euery where is also whersoeuer they are This therfore euidently proueth the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church for she is not only in England Scotland Denmarke Norway Swedland in a part of Germany Polonia Bohemia Hungaria France Heluetia and Ireland which are all the Prouinces you cold name for the extent of your Church but in the rest of the world where you haue no footing for her Communion hath place either wholly or in part in all the Nations of Europe in the East and West Indies in the Philippines in Iaponia in Chyna in Persia in all the islands of the Ocean and Medeterranean and in many of the South Sea in Greece Aegypt in Aechiopia Armenia Assyria and finally in all the foure parts of the world whersoeuer the Christian name is acknowledged And vntill you can shew your Protestant Congregation to haue the same extent you must confesse that she is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not vniuersally spread ouer all the parts of the Earth and therfore not the Catholike Church Whosoeuer sayth S. Augustine (r) Ibid. c. 4. do so dissent from the Church which is the body of Christ that their communion is not with the whole whersoeuer diffused but with themselues seuerally in some part it is manifest that they are not the Catholike Church SECT II. Whether the Protestant Church be free from Error in Doctrine TO proue that your Church is free from Error in doctrine you say (s) Pag. 342. The greatest error you can impute vnto Protestants is that they for their fayth immediatly depend vpon Christ Iesus as the Head of the Catholike Church In these words you seeme tacitly to insinuate that we depend not immediatly vpon Iesus Christ as the Head of the Catholike Church which is an vntruth that needeth no refutation We impute not that to you as your greatest Error nor as any Error at all we stedfastly belieue that Iesus Christ is the only principall immediat Head of the Catholike Church But we impute to you as an Error in fayth that you belieue not the B. of Rome to be the Lieutenant and Vicar of Christ and vnder him the secondary and ministeriall Head of the Catholike Church on earth But this is not your only error in fayth for you hold many other old condemned heresies as with Simon Magus that only fayth iustifieth With Acrius you deny Purgatory and prayer for the dead With Iouinian you equall Mariage with Virginity yea and preferre it surpassing him therin With Virgilantius you deny inuocation of Saints all religious Veneration of their relikes With Manichaeus you deny free-will With the Iconoclasts you pull downe and breake the Images of Christ and his Saints and deny that honor is to be exhibited vnto them With Berengarius you deny Transubstantiation All these to omit that you reiect fiue of the Sacraments race out of the Canon of holy Scripture diuers canonicall bookes are heresies anciently condemned and anathematized by the whole Church of Christ And if S. Augustine say (t) De haeres fin that whosoeuer holdeth any one heresy is not a Catholike Christian and S. Athanasius (u) In Symbolo that whosoeuer holdeth not the Catholike fayth entire and inuiolate cannot be saued what may we thinke of them that hold so many certaine and vndoubted heresies or what Christian hart can forbeare to compassionate their estate SECT III. Doctor Mortons pretended purity of Manners in his Protestant Church TO proue that
ouer the world as well in Europe where Protestants are as in all other parts of the world where they are not either she is the Catholike Church or els that there is no Catholike Church on earth And therfore with great reason all antiquity hath held the Roman Church and the Catholike Church to be termes conuertible and that whosoeuer is diuided from her is a schismatike and incapable of saluation The testimonies of the ancient Fathers in this behalfe I haue copiously alleaged in the first Chapter of this Apology which to repeate heere were actum agere And this sheweth how falsly you slander the Roman Church with diuiding herselfe proudly and impiously from all other Churches of the world S. Augustine said to the Donatists (l) L. 2. cont lit Petil. c. 52. that with sacrilegious fury they had separated themselues from the Chaire of S. Peter and I wish the same might not be truly said of you That Church when you began was and still is and shall euer be spread ouer all the world where Christ is knowne You first liued in her and afterwards diuided your selues from her as all Heretikes haue done she sayth S. Augustine (m) De Symb. ad Catechum l. 1. c. 6. remaining still in her roote in her Vine in her charity From hence it is that the same Father hauing reckoned by name all the Popes from S. Peter to Anastasius who was then B. of Rome compareth that Church to a Vine and the Donatists to branches cut off from her as you likewise are Wherfore as he said to them (n) Psal cont part Donat. so we say to you Come brethren if you please that you may be ingrafted into the Vine It is a griefe toys to see you lye so cut off Number the Priests from the very seat of Peter c. That is the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not And you must remember that the same S. Augustine is he that said (o) Tract 8â— in Ioan. A branch cut off from the Vine is fit for nothing but the fire CHAP. XLIII Of the Head of the Roman Church compared to the Body therof YOv compare the B. of Rome who is Head of the Roman Church with the Body thereof in many respects (p) Pag. 343. 344. 345. all which you attribute to vs as Articles of our fayth to be belieued necessarily vnder paine of damnation SECT I. Whether it be matter of Fayth that the Pope is aboue a Councell VVE belieue that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth and Gouernour of the Vniuersall Church to which you adde (q) Pag. 344. that according to our fayth there is a necessity of belieuing that the Pope is aboue a Councell In proofe of this you alleadge (r) Ibid. marg Bellarmine l. 1. de concil c. 7. who in that very place expresly teacheth the contrary and you afterwards contradicting your selfe acknowledge so much (s) Pag. 355. lit e. setting downe these words of his The matter is still questionable vntill this day which also you proue (t) Pag. 116. init out of Stapleton saying It is not yet defined by any publike Decree And in confirmation hereof you adde (u) Pag. 115. fin that the contrary is mantained by our Doctors of Paris When therfore it is for your purpose it is an Article of our fayth necessarily to be belieued with diuine fayth that the Pope is aboue a Councell and when the contrary is more for your purpose then it is no Article of our fayth nor yet defined by any publike decree but matter of opinion and questionable vntill this day These are your propositions Reconcile them SECT II. Whether it be matter of fayth that this indiuidual person v. g. Vrban the eight is true Pope and true Head of the Church YOu set downe here (x) Pag. 345. and afterwards againe (y) Pag. 351. 353. as a receaued Article of our fayth that it is necessary for euery man to belieue with diuine fayth that this determinate man for example Vrban the eight which now sitteth in the Chaire of S. Peter is true Bishop and true Head of the Church In proofe of this you alleage Salmeron and Suarez but very deceiptfully for although that be the peculiar opinion of Salmeron and Suarez whose proofes you mention not because it passeth your skill to answeare them yet they deliuer it not as matter of fayth defined by the Church or taught by all Catholike Diuines which you cold not be ignorant of for Suarez in that very place which you cite (z) Pag. 24. 345. professeth the contrary opinion to be taught by Turrecremata Albertinus Caietan Bannes Canus Vega Corduba Castro and other Catholike Diuines mantaining that we cannot haue diuine fayth of this indiuiduall man that he is true Head of the Church but morall certainty only And this they hold sufficient to oblige all men to yield perfect obedience vnto him and to belieue his definitions ex Cathedra And you contradicting your selfe had formerly acknowledged (a) Pag. 2â— this to be the opinion of many of our Schole-Doctors With what conscience then do you now charge all Catholikes with holding the contrary as necessary to be belieued with diuine fayth and vnder paine of damnation which so many of our learned Schole-Doctors deny and which in them was neuer censured by the Church nor euen by their aduersaries as any way opposite to fayth But what censure you deserue for doubting of the ordination or election of Gods Priests not I but S. Cyprian shall tell you who sayth (b) L. 4. Ep. 9. that it is no other thing but to belieue that Priests are not appointed in the Church from God nor for God that it is not to belieue in God but to be rebellious against Christ and his Ghospell SECT III. Whether the Church of Rome be at any time a Body headlesse It is a Thesis of yours (c) Pag. 34â— that the Church of Rome is a Body headlesse so long as there is a vacancy in the See betweene the death of one Pope and the election of another Which to affirme is as ridiculous as if you should call the Empire An headlesse Empire because there is no Emperor betweene the death of one and the election of an other And by the same argument you may proue Bohemia Polonia and other kingdoms and States whose Princes are electiue to be headlesse kingdoms and states There is not alwaies so precise necessity of a Pope in the Church but that as it was gouerned 300. yeares without Councels so if by reason of schismes or other difficulties it fal out that after the death of one Pope some tyme passe before the election of another God may not for that time gouerne his Church without a Pope especially all other Bishops and inferior Pastors remaining in full possession of their authority ouer their seuerall flocks Nor is the Church for that time left
confirmed by the B. of Rome (b) Ibid. l. 3. c. 5.8 30. that all former Councells haue required their doctrines to be confirmed and authorized by him Why do you then produce him as a witnesse for the contrary Gerson and Canus are both falsified by you for Gerson in the place you cite hath no such doctrine but the contrary which els where he expresseth (c) To. 1. in Consider de paâ—â— Consid 1. saying Constat quod in materijs fidei terminandis error non cadit in Concilio generali c. It is manifest that in deciding controuersies of fayth a generall Councell cannot erre And the Doctors yeild the reason because of the speciall assistence of the holy Ghost and of Christ gouerning the Church and not permitting it to erre in those things which it cannot attaine by humane industry Canus sayth that generall Councells lawfully gathered may erre in fayth as the second of Ephesus did This is his second conclusion which you lay hold of concealing that in his third conclusion which he presently addeth he sayth That a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope cannot erre and condemneth your doctrine as absolutely hereticall Is it not then extreme perfidiousnesse to Father on him the contrary and to make Catholike Doctors Patrons of your Errors But to declare what is necessary that a generall Councell may not erre you adde (d) Pag. â—66 fin 367. The difference betweene the Roman Church and the Church of the Protestants is no more but this that the Romanists say that all generall Councells may erre except they be confirmed and authorized by the Pope but Protestants say that all generall Councells may erre except they be directed by the spirit of Gods word This indeed you say and yet leaue the question vnansweared for we likewise say that euery Councell which is not directed by the spirit of Gods word may erre The question is how it may be knowne when a Councell defineth according to Gods word and when not for Gods word may be misinterpreted Wherof Tertullian speaking truly said (e) L. de praescrip An adulterate glosse doth as much outrage to the truth as a false pen. And S. Hilary (f) L. 2 de Triâ— init There haue bene many who haue interpreted the heauenly words otherwayâ—â— then the truth did require according to the sense of their own will not for the establishing of truth for heresy is not in the writing but in the vnderstanding the fault is not in the word but in the sense And doth not S. Hierome likewise say (g) In Ep. ad Gal. c. 1. The Ghospell is not in the words but in the sense And doth not S. Augustine cry out (i) In Ioan. tract 13. Heresies and peruerse doctrine which entangle soules cast them headlong into hell haue their birth nowhere but from good Scriptures ill vndeestood And againe (k) De Gen. ad lit l. 7. c. 9. Heretikes were not heretikes but that misunderstanding the Scripture they defend obstinatly their owne false opinions against the truth therof And in another place (l) Ep. 2â—â— All heretikes which receaue the Scriptures thinke they follow them when they follow their owne Errors Of the same subiect Lyrinensis discourseth largely and learnedly (m) Chap. 1â— 30.37 shewing that the Diuel alleaged Scriptures against Christ that all Heretikes alleage them against the Church in defence of their errors which made S. Hierome say (n) In Ep. ad Gal. c. 1. that there is great daÌ„ger in speaking in the Church for feare lest by a wrong interpretation the Ghospell of Christ be made the Ghospell of man or which is worse the Ghospell of the Diuell And speaking of the Luciferians (o) Aduers Lucifer versus fin who boasted of the Scriptures as Protestants doe Let them not statter themselues to much because they seeme to haue Scripture for what they affirme for euen the Diuell hath alleaged Scriptures which consist not in reading but in vnderstanding Wherfore it is not sufficient to alleage Scriptures We alleage them and you alleage them but we disagree concerning the true sense and meaning of them from whom shall we learne it If Luther may as your fore-man speake for you all you and none but you and that by your priuate spirit must deliuer the true sense of them We sayth Luther (p) L. de serâ—â— arbit receaue nothing but the Scriptures and them so also that we our selues only haue certaine authority to expound them As we vnderstand them so was the meaning of the Holy Ghost what others bring be they neuer so great neuer so many preceedeth from the spirit of Sathan and from a mad and alimated mind So Luther And as he challenged to himselfe this priuiledge of deliuering the true sense of Scripture so his disciples haue challenged the same to themselues This spirit it is which hath hatched so many viperous sects no lesse disagreeing among themselues then all of them straying from the truth And yet you all boast of Scripture and all proclaime that you follow the word of God And no maruaile for the Diuell sayth Lyrinensis (q) Cap. 37 3â— knoweth right well that when wicked errors are to be broached the readiest way to deceaue is to alleage stifly the authority of diuine Scripture What then shall Catholike men Children of our Mother the Church do Let them interpret the diuine Canon according to the tradition of the vniuersall Church The truth of Scripture sayth S. Augustine (r) Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 33. is held by vs when we do that which pleaseth the vniuersall Church whom the authority of the same Scriptures recommendeth And againe (s) Ibid. c. 31. Whosoeuer feareth to be deceaued through the obscurity of this question let him consult with that Church which the holy Scripture hath designed without any ambiguity This Church it is of which God pronounced by the mouth of Isay (t) Isa 54.17 Thou shalt iudge euery tongue that resisteth thee in iudgment Of this Christ hath promised (u) Math. 16.18 that the gates of hell which are Errors shall not preuâ—ile against her Of this he hath said (x) Math. 18.17 that whosoeuer heares her not is to be held as a Heathen a Publican In this he hath placed (y) Ad Ephes 4.11 17. Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastors and Doctors c. that we may not be litle Children wauering and carried away with euery blast of doctrine This Church these Pastors these Doctors all Christians must heare and imbrace their exposition of Scripture as the true meaning of the holy Ghost Christ himselfe hauing said (z) Luc. 10.6 that who heareth them heareth him and S. Iohn (a) â— Ioan. 4.6 by this marke distinguisheth Orthodoxe people from Heretikes that the Orthodoxe heare and obey the Pastors and Doctors of Gods Church which heretikes refuse to do We are sayth he of God he that knoweth God heareth vs He
that is not of God heareth vs not In this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of Error And if at all times the Pastors of Gods Church are to be heard then surely most of all when they are assembled in a generall Councell Christ professing himselfe to be then in the middest of them (b) Math. 18.20 By their authority the sayth is maintained and heresy condemned When Firmilianus and Cyprian with many other Bishops defended the Error of Rebaptization by testimonies of Scripture but as Lyrinensis noteth (c) Cap. 10. glossed after a new and naughty fashion by what authority was that error condemned but by the custome and tradition of the Church the prohibition of Pope Stephen chiefly cooperating therto for as S. Augustine truly sayth (d) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 23. the Apostles had deliuered nothing in writing concerning that point And when the Arians in the Councell of Nice alleaged and misinterpreted Scriptures in proofe of their heresy by what meanes were they confuted and condemned but by the tradition of the Church deliuered by the Venerable Bishops assembled in that Councell (e) Seâ— aboue Chap. 16. chiefly by the authority of the B. of Rome by whom that Councell was called and confirmed (f) Ibid. and without whose confirmation no Canon of any Councell can be of force (g) Sâ—e aboue Chap. 17. seâ—t 6. And from hence it hath proceeded that as all the generall Councells which the B. of Rome hath confirmed are held by the whole Church to be of infallible authority no one Father or Doctor euer doubting therof so contrarily the Councell of Ariminum the second of Ephesus and all others which he hath reproued haue bene euer reputed spurious assemblies and of no authority And with great reason for his authority in defining controuersies of fayth Christ himselfe declared to be infallible (h) See aboue Chap. â—â— sect 1. 2. when he prayed for him that his fayth might not faile commanded him to confirme his brethren and likewise when he promised that heresies which are the gates of hell shall not prouaile against the Church built vpon him I conclude therfore that you mistake the state of the question We agree with you that a Councell which is not directed by the spirit of Gods word may erre but the difference betweene vs is who is to be the Iudge whether a Councell proceed according to the direction of Gods word or no. Luther and you his disciples casting of the yoke of obedience to your lawfull Pastors and refusing to heare them will haue no other Iudges but your selues to the end that if a generall Councell condemne your doctrine as that of Trent hath done you may reiect it vpon pretence that it hath not bene directed by the spirit of Gods word which is an excuse common to all Heretikes for what heretike will not and may not with as faire colour as you pleade that the Councells which condemned him were not directed by the shirit of Gods word Vpon this pretence the Arians that of Ephesus the Eutychians that of Chalcedon the Monothelites the sixth Councell the Image-breakers the seauenth Vpon the same pretence you reiect the Councell of Trent and make profession to reiect all Councells whatsoeuer that shall not allow you to be the only Iudges of the sense of Gods word and grant vnto euery one of you that infallible authority to expound it which you deny to a whole generall Councell When Councells haue defined sayth Luther (i) Art 11â— then will we be Iudges whether they be to be accepted or not And the same is the doctrine of Caluin (k) L. 4. instit c. 9. tot We contrarily insisting in the steps of all Orthodoxe antiquity whose testimonies are plentifully alleaged by Coccius (l) To. 1. l. 7. art 21. acknowledge that the Pastors which are the representatiue body of the Church assembled together with the B. of Rome as their Head is an infallible Iudge of the true sense of Gods word and that what they define in matters of fayth is of vnâ—oâ—â—â—â—â—d authority to be reuerenced as the Ghospells of Christ for so antiquity reuerenced the generall Councels which haue beene held before their time (m) See Coce 〈…〉 and so we reuerence the rest that haue beene held since their time all of them being assembled and confirmed by the same authority of the See Apostolike and directed by the same Spirit of truth that the first Councells were And who seeth not that you denying this authority take away all the vse of Councells in the Church making controue sies of sayth indeterminable and arguing Christ of lack of wisdome and prouidence in not leauing any certaine meanes to end dissentions and preserue Vnity in his Church SECT III. Whecher Protestants hold the Church of Christ to be inuisible YOur fourth Thesis is (n) Pag. 167.368.369.370 Protestants hold not any greater inuisibility or rather obscurity of the Church Catholike then that which the Romanists are forced to confesse This Thesis is manifestly false for you haue heard your grand Maister Caluin other your brethren (o) Here aboue sect 1. confessing that before Luthers time the Church was wholly destroyed euen as mans life is when his throat is cut that it is ridiculous to thinke there were any true belieuers when Luther began that not a part but the whole body of the Church was fallen away by Apostacy And you cannot be ignorant that other ProtestaÌ„ts haue testified (p) Brereley Prot. Apol. tract 2. c. 2. sect 11. sub dict 3. that she was not only obscured as in the time of the Arians but inuisible and could not be shewed Iuell (q) Ibid. that the truth was vnknowne at that time and vnheard of Perkins (r) Ibid. that aâ— vniuersall Apostacy ouerspread the whole face of the earth and that your Church was not then Visible to the world Milius (s) Ibid. that if there had bene any right belieuers before Luther there had bene no need of a Lutheran reformation Francus (t) Brerel Ibid. tract 2. c. 1. sect 4. that for 1400. yeares the Church of Christ was no where externall and visible Napper (u) Ibid. that for 1260. yeares Gods true Church was most certainly latent and inuisible These are the confessions of your brethren conuincing you to speake vntruly when you say Protestants hold not any greater inuisibility or rather obscurity of the Church Catholike then that which the Romanists are forced to confesse for our Tenets which we haue learned from the holy Scripture are that the Church of Christ is a magnificent throne as resplendent as the sunne (x) Psal 88.38 A lofty City placed vpon a mountaine (y) Math. 5.14 which sayth S. Augustine (z) Cont. Parm. l. 3. c. 5. cannot be hid but shal be knowne to all the coastes of the earth To a mountaine prepared in the top of mountaines eleuated
aboue the little hills vnto which all nations shall flow (a) Isa 2.2 to a Tabernacle seated in the sunne (b) Psal 28.6 of which S. Augustine speaking sayth (c) In â—um Psal He placed his tabernacle in the sunne that is to say his Church in manifestation or open view not in a corner not such as is hidden as if it were couered c. In the sunne he placed his tabernacle what doest thou meane O Heretike to fly into darknesse To a light that is not hidden vnder a bushell but set vpon a candelstick Which if Protestants see not How sayth S. Augustine (d) Tract 2. in 1. Ep. Ioan. can I call them other then blinde that see not so great a mountaine and shut their eyes against the Lampe set vpon the candelstick But what meruaile for sayth he (e) L. 2â— coâ—â— Parm. c. 3. it is the condition of all heretikes not to see the thing which in the world is most cleare constituted in the light of all nations out of the vnity wherof whatsoeuer they do can no more warrant them from the wrath of God than the spiders web from the extremity of cold Finally we belieue with S. Augustine (f) Cont. lit Petil. l. 2. c. 104. that the Catholike Church hath this certaine marke that she cannot be hidden This is the doctrine and beliefe of all Catholikes Do you herein accord with vs Do you hold the Catholike Church to be alwaies visible and alwaies as conspicuous as a lampâ— vpon a Candelstick as a city vpon a mountaine as a tabernacle in the sunne Why then do you say that she was so many yeares latent and inuisible that she could not be shewad that she was vnknowne and vnheard of that she was no where externall and visible that she was wholly destroied With what modesty then can you say that Protestants hold not any greater inuisibility or rather obscurity of the Church Catholike then that which the Romanists are forced to confesse But in proofe of this Thesis and in opposition to the holy Scripture and S. Augustine you say to vs (g) Pag. 367. fin you regard not that the Church of Christ as it is somtime in lustre glorious as the sunne so againe it is according to the iudgement of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose somtimes as the moone which hath her increases and decreases Yes we regard it well and you ought to haue regarded that although S. Augustine compare the Church to the moone in this respect that her externall lustre is somtimes diminished by persecutions and her glory obscured by the ill liues of some of her children yet he frequently compareth her to the sunne and belieueth with the Prophet (h) Isa 60.29 that her sunne shall neuer set and her moone shall not be diminished and (i) Ep. 48. that when by scandalls her light is most obscured etiam tunc in suis fortissimis eminent euen then she is eminent in her most steedfast Champions and in them remaineth resplendent and glorious displaying beames of light ouer the whole earth So farre is S. Augustine from your absurd paradoxe of the inuisibility totall decay of the Church And in what sense S. Ambrose compareth her to the moone he declareth saying (k) L. 4. Hexam c. 2. The Church hath her times of persecution and of peace she seemeth to decay as the moone but decaieth not She may be shadowed she cannot perish because she is diminished by the fall of some in persecutions to the end she may be filled with the confessions of Martyrs and that being illustrated with trophies of the bloud shed for Christ she may diffuse greater light of her deuotion and fayth throughout the whole world If Costerus Castro Lindanus and Stapleton affirme that the Arian heresy in a short time infected almost all the Churches of the world so haue Lutheranisme Caluinianisme Zuing lianisme with other new Sects sprung from them in these later times infected many prouinces of Europe But therfore is the Catholike Church in those Prouinces inuisible How then do you see Catholikes to persecute them to imprison them And euen so much more when the Arian heresy was in the greatest ruffe the Catholike Church was euery where still eminently visible as that very passage of Liberius proueth which here you produce for the contrary for Constantius the Arian Emperor hauing by threats drawne many Bishops especially of the East to subscribe to the condemnation of Athanasius and as Theodoret out of his Apology reporteth (l) L. 2. histor c. 15. the rest that refused to subscribe either concealing themselues for feare or being sent into banishment he called Liberius vnto him and vrged him not to communicate with Athanasius saying he was condemned by the whole world and defended by none but by him Liberius answeared (m) Theod. l. 2. hist. c. 16. Esto quod solus sim c. Be it that I am alone the cause of the fayth is not therfore the worse for there was a time when there were but three Children to resist the Kings commandment These three Children were brought by Nabuchodosor out of Iury into Babylon As then there were none in Babylon to defend Gods cause but only those three so sayth Liberius and out of him Salmeron here obiected by you be it that I am now left here alone to desend the cause of Athanasius the cause of the fayth is not therfore the worse This you bring to proue that the Church was then or may somtimes be brought to so low an ebbe that there be but three yea only one Orthodoxe man remaining But it is an ignorant mistake for albeit there were then in Babylon three only Children to resist Nabuchodonosor yet in Iury there was remaining a numerous Church of Orthodoxe people And so likewise though there was then no other Bishop present to withstand Constantius yet there were in the Church of God at that time many Catholike Bishops renowned for their learning and constancy and diuers of them then actually in banishment whose restitution to their Churches Liberius in that very Dialogue often demanded of Constantius And who knoweth not that beside many Catholike Bishops reckoned by S. Athanasius (n) Apud Theod. l. 2. hist. c. 14.15.16 there liued at the same time other most eminent Prelates and Doctors as Saint Hilary Pacianus Didymus Titus Bostrensis S. Cyrill of Hierusalem Optatus Eusebius Vercellensis S. Ephrem S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Epiphanius S. Basil S. Gregory Nyssen S. Ambrose and many others And as there were many Catholike Pastors so were there Catholike people gouerned by them Yea who knoweth not that both the Roman and all the Westerne Church at that time was full of Orthodoxe Pastors people in so much that after the Roman MatroÌ„s by aduice of their Husbands (o) Theod. ibid. c. 17. had presented themselues before Constantius and obteyned Liberius his returne from exile the Bishops of the East sent Legates vnto
him and to all the Bishops of Italy and of the whole Westerne Church humbly crauing to be admitted into their communion and to declare themselues free from suspicion of heresy with which they had bene charged protested that they did not belieue otherwise then the Fathers of the Nicen Councell did and that they had held formerly did still hold and would euer hold till their last breath the same fayth with them Wherupon Liberius willingly admitted them into the communion of the Westerne Church and addressed a letter to fifty nine of them by name and to all the rest in generall expressing the great ioy he conceaued to vnderstand that they had alwaies agreed in fayth with him and with the rest of the Bishops of Italy and of all the other Westerne countries for so are his words This is the story truly set downe What reliefe do you finde here for your inuisible Church since in the very height of the Arian heresy which is the greatest wayne you can sinde in the Catholike Church she abounded and shined like a sunne most gloriously with orthodoxe Pastors and people both in the East and West Shew vs such a Protestant Church before Luther or els confesse the truth that you had no Church before Luther But you tell vs (p) Pag 369. with how great a cloud of obscurity the Church shal be couered in the time of Antichrist proue it out of the Rhemists who make wholy against you for albeit they grant that then there shal be no publike seat of gouerment in the Church nor publike exercise of Ecclesiasticall functions nor publike entercourse with the See of Rome as there is not this day in Cyprus nor in England yet there shall not want Orthodoxe Pastors and people remaining in due obedience to the Roman Church and communicating with her not only in hart but practising the same in secret and making publike profession therof of if occasion require it This is the doctrine of the Rhemists and of all Catholike writers Wherfore as Catholikes are not in England at this day inuisible nor yet so obscure but that their coÌ„staney is knowne and renowned throughout the Christian world so likewise shall the faithfull be in the dayes of Antichrist Nor do Costerus Ribera Pererius Acosta Viegas or any of the Fathers which you obiect (q) Pag. 370. teach ought to the contrary The testimony of S. Hilary which you obiect (r) Pag. 3â—8 S. Augustine hath answeared long since (s) Ep. 48. for it was obiected to him by Vincentius the Rogatist of whose spirit and beliefe you shew your selfe to be vrging against vs the same testimony he vrged against S. Augustine who not only in that place as you haue heard teacheth that if the Church be somtimes obscured and as it were shadowed with cloudes by the multitude of scandalls that is persecutions when sinners bend their bow to wound her in the obscurity of the Moone yet euen then she is eminent in her most constant professors but also in his bookes Of the City of God (t) L. 20. c. 8. speaking professedly of the state of the Church in the dayes of Antichrist he sayth she shall not be so obscured that either Antichrist shall not find her or when he hath found her be able with his persecutions to ouerthrow her but that euen then faithfull Parents shall with great deuotion procure baptisme for their children that as many shall fall from the Church so others shall stand constant and others shall enter a new which before were out of her and in particular the Iewes who towardes the end of the world shal be conuerted to Christ (u) S. Aug. ibid. c. 29. And the same is testified by S. Gregory (x) Hom. 12. in Ezechiel whom you mis-cite (y) Pag. 370. for the words you obiect out of his Moralls on Iob are not there to be found SECT IV. What causes may suffice to depart from the Communion of a particular Church YOur fifth Thesis is (z) Pag. 370. All particular Churches are not to be forsaken for euery vnsoundnesse in either manners worship or doctrine In the first part of this Thesis we agree with you but you agree not with your selfe for before you tould vs (a) Pag. 11.12 that the Catholike Church is in euery part perfect and consisteth only of the sanctified elect of God But here you say (b) Pag 371. that there is scarce to be found any one example of any particular Church consisting only of sanctified professors It scarce any particular Church can be found consisting only of sanctified professors how is it true that the vniuersall Church consisteth only of the sanctified elect of God for the vniuersall Church consisteth of all the particular Churches in the world Againe here you inueigh against the Separatists for diuiding themselues from you for only scandall taken at the wicked liues of your professors May not wee then iustly except against you for obiecting so often the vices of some few Popes to make your departure from the Roman Church more iustifiable The second part of your Thesis is false for no worship no rite or ceremony which the Roman Church alloweth or permitteth to particular Churches in the administration of the Sacraments or in any part of their seruice is vnsound And therfore as such difference is not a sufficient cause for one particular Church to separate it selfe from others so on the contrary if a particular Church vse any Ecclesiasticall obseruation or ceremony disallowed and condemned by the Church of Rome the Mother of all Churches that worship is vnsound and such a Church is schismaticall and to be forsaken and if it persist obstinatly in that schisme becometh hereticall So many of the Asian Churches persisting obstinatly in the celebration of Easter according to the Iewish custome after the prohibition of Pius the first Pope of that name were iustly condemned and cut of from the vniuersall Church by Victor a boly Pope and Martyr and his sentence was confirmed by the Councell of Nice many others in so much that the obseruers of that custome haue euer since bene iudged heretikes and registred as such vnder the name of Quartadecimani by all Ecclesiasticall writers that haue made Catalogues of heresies The third part of your Thesis that all particular Churches may erre in some points as the Corinthians did in denying the Resurrection and the Galatians in teaching a necessary obseruation of the Law of Moyses together with the Ghospell of Christ and yet S. Paul (c) 1. Cor. 1.2 Galat. 1.2 calleth them both Churches and Churches of God because they were ready to be reformed and being admonished of their error to abandon it and obey the truth But not to be willing to learne and not to yeild to truth sufficiently proposed is proper to the Synagogues of Sathan and the Churches of the malignant All this you allow as true doctrine taken out of Bellarmine What
Franciscus Dauid Gentilis Gribaldus Siluanus and others all of them Caluinists reuolted to Arianisme Wherfore sayth Neuserus whosoeuer feareth to fall into Arianisme let him take heed of Caluinisme And as Caluin opposed the holy Scripture and all Christian Antiquity in their beliefe of the Diuinity of Christ and the blessed Trinity so did he in the rest of his doctrines to the number of 23. confessing point by point that the contrary was held by the primitiue Church and Fathers thereof whom he nameth noteth of error and reiecteth in a scornefull and contemptible manner as you may read in his life (a) Sect. 5. a. pag. 146. ad 265. in which the particulars are faithfully expressed in his owne words And Iacobus Gaulterius (b) Tab. Chronog saecul 16. a pag. 757. ad 795. hath related more of his errors to the number of 100. shewing that in many of them he iumpeth with ancient condemned heretikes These two are the Maister-builders of your Protestant Church whom you to honor them call (c) In your late Serm. at Durham pag. 38. Stellae primae magnitudinis Protestants generally haue in great esteeme as men raised by Gods extraordinary prouidence to enlighten the world Their doctrines you follow and with them reiect the ancient Fathers as Papists for that you acknowledg the Fathers to be against you in the chiefe heads of Doctrine wherin you differ from vs is exactly proued by your owne confessions expressed in your owne words (d) Brereley Prot. Apol. ferè per tot I appeale then to any impartiall Iudge whether you be not iustly accused of error and of obstinacy in the mantainance therof for to confesse that you hold against the primitiue Fathers and Church and yet not to reforme your selues after so many admonitions giuen you by the Church which hath condemned your errors and learnedly confuted them by her Doctors what is it but to confesse that you erre and are obstinate in error especially since many of your Tenets are precisely the same which primitiue heretikes haue held (e) See aboue Chap. 42. sect 2. and in them haue bene confuted by the primitiue Fathers and anathematized by the primitiue Church If therfore as you professe not to be willing to learne and not to yeild to truth sufficiently proposed be proper to the Synagogues of Sathan and the Churches of the malignant I leaue it to your iudgment whether your Churches may not be iustly reckoned in that number SECT V. Of Luthers Excommunication and of his Conference with the Diuell YOur seauenth Thesis is (f) Pag. 373. No vniust excommunication out of a true Church can preiudice the saluation of the excommunicate So farre we accord with you and allow what you bring out of Tolet (g) Ioan. 9.34 that the blinde man whome the Iewes cast out of their Synagogue was happy therin but wheras you adde that Luther whilest he continued in our Church was as one borne blind and when Christ opened his eyes was excommunicate by our high Priest for acknowledging the diuine light you are to remember S. Augustines words (h) Tract 45. in Ioan. that There are many who boast not only that they see but will seeme to be enlightned by Christ and those are heretikes Luther speaking of his owne life and manners before his reuolt from the Catholike Church said of himselfe (i) To. 2. Witemb fo 233. a. that during that time he was iuuenis monachus pietatis studiosus a yong man a Monke studious of godlinesse and liued in his Monastery (k) Voyon Catal. of Doct. printed in English 1598. pa. 180. Luth. vpon the Galat. Englished in c. 1. vers 14. fo 350. punishing his body with watching fasting and prayer that he honored the Pope (l) Luther ibid. of mere conscience kept chastity pouerty obedience and whatsoeuer I did sayth he I did it with a syncere hart of good zeale and for the glory of God fearing grieuously the last day and desirous to be saued from the bottome of my hart In so much that Erasmus (m) Ep ad Thom. Card. Ebor. reporteth of him that for some smal time after his reuolt there remained yet in him some reliques or sparkes of former sanctimony But afterwards he was much altered and so farre transported from the obseruance of Chastity that now he professeth to the contrary (n) In Prouerb 31. vers 1. Nothing is more sweet or pleasing vpon earth then the loue of a woman if a man can obtaine it And againe (o) Tom 7. Wittem Ep. ed Wolfing fol 505. a. He that resolueth to be without a woman let him lay a side the name of a man making himselfe a plaine Angell or spirit And yet more (p) Brer Luth. life Chap. 3. sect 6. pag. 71. h. Luth. Colloq German cap. de matrim As it is not in my power to be no man so it is not in my power it be without a woman c. It is more necessary then to eat drinke purge make cleane the nose c. In so much that he acknowledgeth (q) Colloq mensal fol. 526. a. 400. a. himselfe to haue bene almost mad through the rage of lust and desire of women exclaming out yet further (r) To. 1. Ep. Latin fol. 334. ad Philip. and saying I am burned which the great flame of my vntamed flesh c. Eight daies are now past in which I neither write pray or study being vexed partly with temptations of the flesh partly with other trouble But sayth he (s) Ibid. fol. 345. it sufficeth that we haue knowne the riches of the glory of God from him sinne cannot draw vs although we should commit fornication or kill a thousand times in one day And finally not long after with breach of his vow he maried Katherine Bore a runnagate Nunne (t) Melancth Ep. ad Ioac Camer de Luth. coning inter Theol. Consil Melancth part 1. pag. 37. for which by the most ancient Imperiall Lawes made soone after Constantine the Great (u) Sozom. l. 6. c. 3. fin lex extat Cod. l. de Epise Cler. he should haue lost his head These were his beginnings and by degrees he grew to be so wicked that Caluin was enforced to confesse Magnis vitijs laborat that Luther was subiect to great vices And in the end he grew to be so dissolute that he was censured by his owne followers who when they would giue themselues to dissolution were wont to say (x) Morgenstern tract de Eccles printed 1598. pag. 221. Hodie Lutheranice viuemus This day we will liue Luther-like Which corruption springing from Luther as from the roote grew and spread it selfe so farre among his followers that as he himselfe confesseth (y) Postil in Euang. Dominic 1. Aduentus they grew daily worse being more reuengfull couetous licencious then they were before in the Papacy And what testimony hereof other Protestants giue you
doctrine I answeare for both and that most deseruedly If we looke into his manners he was a sacrilegious Apostata that fled out of his Monastery he cast off his religious habit and burning with flames of raging lust to satisfy his fleshly desires married a vowed Nunne a crime so hainous that according to the ancient Imperiall lawes he was to be punished with death (u) Sozom. l. 6. c. 3. Cod. L de Episc Cler. His pride was such that he preferred himselfe before all the Doctors of Gods Church contemning a thousand Cyprians a thousand Augustines a thousand K. Henry Churches so farre as that he scorned to be iudged by any man but would himselfe be Iudge of men and Angells His railing was most intemperate base and scurrill traducing and reuiling euen the greatest Princes One exaÌ„ple of K. Henry the eight may suffice against whom he ragingly acted the part of Hâ—â—cules fâ—rens tearming him an enuious mad foole babling with much spight in his mouth a damnable rotten worme a basiliske and progeny of an adder a lying Sycophant couered with the title of a King a clownish wit a doltish head most wicked foolish impudent Henry saying yet further He doth not only lyelike a most vaine scurre but equalleth if not exceedeth a most wicked knaue thou liest in thy throat foolish and sacrilegious King These and many other like speeches against K. Henry are his some of them being so base and beastly that modesty forbiddeth to english them If from Princes we come to other his aduersaries he called them insathanized supersathanized and persathanized and that the Diuell was infused perfused and transfused into their mouths in so much that your Tigurines sticked not to say of him that he was full of Diuells and vsed such speeches as could hardly be thought to proceed from the furious Diuell himselfe He was voyd of all conscience being obstinatly resolued to condemne whatsoeuer a Councell should determine though neuer so Orthodoxe and holy to allow and defend whatsoeuer a Councell should condemne though neuer so wicked and hereticall To which I adde that to spight Carolstadius he retained in the Church of Wittemberg the eleuation of the Sacrament which he thought to be idolatrous He was inconstant in his doctrine teaching one day one thing another the contrary in so much that Iodocus Coccius (x) To. 1. l. 8. art 6. pag. 1038. seqq hath faythfully taken out of his workes and set downe 80. Articles in which he had contradicted himselfe gainsaying what before he had taught and shewing himselfe to be guided by the spirit of contradiction and lying Of which as also of his contentious and wrangling spirit his life affordeth you good examples (y) Brereley Luthers life Chap. 3. sect 2. Finally to shew that Luther was no very great Saint his familiar conuersation with the Diuell is a sufficient euidence I insist not in the proofe of these particulars hauing spoken of some of them already and especially because Brereley in Luthers life hath proued them all out of Luthers owne workes and by the testimony of other Protestants Nor can I find that you with all your study haue bene able to produce any thing to the contrary but only these few words (z) Pag. 381. out of Erasmus Si Luthero fauerem vt viro bono quod fatentur hostes which how truly they are cited I know not for I know that Erasmus said (a) In sâ—oâ—â—iâ— ad 〈…〉 ton Christum agnosco Lutherum non agnosco But howsoeuer Erasmus is a partiall witnesse of whom it was said Erasmus laid the eggs and Luther hatcht the Scorpions and whom Doctor Humfrey and Doctor Reynolds challenge as a man of your religion and Foxe hath placed in your Kalendar of Saints And finally if by Luthers enemies you vnderstand Catholikes you cannot nominate any one that hath euer esteemed other wise of him then as of a most wicked and sacrilegious Apostata If you could you would haue bene ready inough to do it without any prouocation from vs. If leauing his wicked life we come to his doctrine we shall find it answearable to his manners First he taught that Gouernors of Churches and Pastors haue power to teach but that the sheep must be Iudges of their doctrine and that the Bishops and Councells ought to giue place and subscribe to the censure and iudgment of the sheep 2. He taught to the great danger of Christendome that to warre against the Turkes is to resist God visiting our sinnes by them 3. He cut of from the Canon of holy Scriptures the booke of Ecclesiastes saying there is in it neuer a perfect sentence the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrewes the Epistles of S. Iames and S. Iude the second of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn with the Apocalyps 4. He held the heresy of Simon Magus that man is iustified by fayth alone and in proofe therof corrupted the text of S. Iames. adding to it this word alone and being admonished therof he raged protesting that he repented himselfe he had not translated worse 5. He taught that Good-workes are not only not necessary to saluation but hurtfull that the ten commandments belong not to Christians 6. That if the wife will not come or cannot by reason of infirmity let the maid come 7. That among Christians no man ought to be Magistrate but that each one is equally subiect to each other 8. He maketh the power of administring the Sacraments common to lay men with the Clergy 9. He taught that Christ in his passion did not only suffer in his human but also in his diuine nature 10. Concerning the Blessed Trinity he had the diuine nature to be threfold as the persons are 11. That God worketh wickednesse in the wicked and that it is not in the power of man to auoid it which what is it els but to make God the Author of sinne 12. He maketh Virginity inferior to mariage 13. To preuent praying to Saints and Purgatory he affirmeth the soule to sleepe with the body 14. He denieth that there is any locall hell before the day of iudgment All these doctrines are proued to be his out of his owne workes out of the Confessions of many other Protestants exactly and faythfully related in his life by M. Brereley (b) Chap. 2. per tot From whence I conclude that if euer any man was or may be iustly excommunicated for wickednesse of life or for hereticall and blasphemous doctrines Martin Luther by both these titles hath bene most iustly excommunicated cast out of the Church SECT IX Of the first occasion of Luthers reuolt from the Church and that Doctor Morton to defend his doctrine against Indulgences falsifieth sundry Authors POpe Leo the tenth hauing giuen out certaine Indulgences for the people of Germany that would contribute any almes to the building of that sumptuous Church which Iulius his predecessor had begun in honor of S.
therfore to be contemned as being admitted but of late which is not only a false translation but a manifest peruerting of the sense for Castro speaketh not of the doctrine or lawfulnesse of granting indulgences but de earum vsu of the vse of them which therfore in your english you cunningly omit that ouâ— of him you may proue the doctrine of them to be new Yea and concerning the very vse of them he proueth it to be most ancient by the same arguments Roffensis before him had done concluding that you and all others which contemne a thing practised so many hundreds of yeares by the Catholike Church and established by generall Councels are iustly accounted heretikes So farre is Castro from fauoring Luthers cause The third Author is Bellarmine out of whom you cite these words (n) Pag. 385. Thesaurus Ecclesiae spiritualis est fundamentum indulgentiarum Which words you english Thus The ground of indulgences is the spirituall treasury of workes consisting in the satisfactory and meritorious workes of supererogation done by the faithfull Which treasury to haue bene anciently wanting you proue also out of Bellarmine setting downe these words as his Hoc caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Louanienses This your Doctors of Louaine and some Scholemen as you know affirme was anciently wanting in the Church So you and then you tell vs (o) Ibid. out of Suarez who those Schole men were namely Mayzo and Durandus In this short passage of yours there are almost as many vntruthes and falsifications as words For first the Latin words are not Bellarmines but your owne fathered on him And so also are the English which neuerthelesse you set downe in a different character as his not only disagree from the Latin but containe false doctrine repugnant to all Catholike Diuines and in particular to Bellarmine who in that very place (p) L. 1. de Indulg c. 2. proposit 2. teacheth that meritorious workes as such cannot be applied to others nor belong to the treasure of the Church but only as satisfactory 3. You falsify making Bellarmine to limit the spirituall treasure of the Church to workes of supererogation only which is ignorantly spoken and not taught by Bellarmine nor any Catholike Diuine 4. You father on him falsly those last words Hoc thesauro caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Louanienses for they are not his nor doth he attribute any such doctrine to the Deuines of Louain nor so much as once name them in all that Chapter Is it not then great perfidiousnesse so to abuse and falsify both him and them Nor is your dealing better with Suarez for to omit that in the place you cite he treateth of no such matter nether he nor Bellarmine euer say that Duraud denied this treasure of the Church but only that he held it to consist of the satisfactions of Christ and not of the Saints Which yet he speaketh by way of doubt Theologicall dispute rather then affirmatiuely for coming to deliuer his owne opinion he sayth plainly and resolutely (q) 4. Dist 20. q. 3. Est in Ecclesia c. There is in the Church a spirituall treasure of the passion of Christ and his Saints who suffered farre greater torments then their sinnes deserued And therfore the Church out of this treasure may communicate to one or more so much as may suffice to make satisfaction for their sinnes either in part or in whole according as the Church shall please to communicate this treasure more or lesse which is nothing els but the sufferings of Christ and his Saints communicated to vs to satisfy for our sinnes Wherfore indulgences auaile by way of payment for so much as by Christ his Saints the paine to which we are lyable is paied But if he had held that the spirituall treasure of the Church consisteth of the satisfactions of Christ only that would auaile you nothing for he defendeth Indulgences which you deny and if he erred in any thing he errred not with obstinacy as you do but submitted all his workes to the correction of the holy Catholike Roman Church as you haue read in Bellarmine but conceale it I conclude therfore that the great cloud of witnesses which you haue brought to iustify Luthers doctrin against indulgences is either of Heretikes or of Catholikes in workes prohibited by the Church or if not prohibited abused and falsified by you SECT X. The causes giuen by Doctor Morton in excuse of Luthers departure from the Roman Church THe causes you haue deuised to iustify Luthers departure from the Roman Church are partly impious partly false and imposterous Impious as your excepting against the Masse (r) Pag. 387. to which Luther was persuaded by the Diuell calling it Idolatry as you do And not vnlike to this is your example of Firmilianus (s) Pag. 388. who being for the time an obstinate mantainer of Rebaptization was excommunicated by Stephen a holy Pope and notwithstanding that Stephens sentence was imbraced by all the Catholikes of the world and the doctrine of Firmilianus condemned by the holy Councell of Nice and euer since esteemed hereticall not only by Catholikes but also by Protestants you shame not to iustify Firmilianus (t) Ibid. and all the rest that followed the same heresy with him to condemne Pope Stephen as a Schismatike for excommunicating him Such examples I confesse you may find to defend Luthers departure from the Roman Church The rest of the causes which you alleage (u) Pag. 387. are false and imposterous as that the Roman Church mantaineth new articles of fayth and Satanicall doctrines that she blasphemeth the truth and tyrannically forceth men to subscribe which as they are false and slanderous accusations so you vtter them gratis and without any proofe at all and say nothing to iustify Luther but what a Donatist an Arian or any other heretike neuer so blasphemous will say for himselfe may with as good ground as Luther or you for him But you alleage (x) Pag. 389. Cassander whom you call our Cassander notwithstanding that heretofore you haue had a double admonition (y) See aboue Chap. 2. that he was a wicked heretike Prima classis whose workes being condemned and prohibited by the Church are of no more authority with vs then your Grand Imposture And not vnlike to this is your other example of Stephen Gardiner B. of Winchester as already hath bene shewed (z) Ibid. And as little to your purpose is another example which here you adde (a) Pag. 392. of an Epistle of Robert Grosthead B. of Lincolne taken out of the history of Mathew Paris which was set forth corruptedly by English Protestants and then by the Tigurine Lutherans who haue added many things both in their marginall notes and in the text in selfe against the authority of the Roman Church (b) See Bellar. l. de Scriptor Out of this Epistle of Grosthead to Innocentius the fourth you obiect a long
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
meanes not that Athanasius was the top or head of all but omnium nostrum of vs all as the Latine translation hath that is to say of all the Orthodoxe Pastors which in those Easterne parts applied themselues to remedy the calamities of that distracted Church 2. You say (l) Ibid. Cyrill in a Councell the first of Ephesus is called The Head of the assembly True he presided in that Councell as Vicar to Pope Celestine whom therfore Cyrill and the whole Councell acknowledged to be their Head (m) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 1 3. You say (n) Pag. 243. S. Chrysestome calls Antioch The head City of the whole world S. Chrysostome by the whole world vnderstandeth not all the nations vnder heauen but the East only as a litle before he had declared speaking of Flauianus He knew well that the busines of his embassy to the Empetor was not for one City but for all the East for of all the cities seated in the East our City is the Head and mother If you can shew that the Fathers and Councells when they call the Roman Church The head of all Churches and the B. of Rome The Head of all the holy Prelates of God explicate themselues to speake of the West only or of any part of the world your answeare shall be accepted but vntill then it shall stand for sophistry as it is and you well know it to be The rest of your answeares to the titles giuen to Popes by the ancient Fathers are of the same straine but to dwell in the examination of euery patticular is a superfluous labor especially the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome being vnanswearably proued by the Titles which I haue declared But you obiect (n) Pag. 258. that of later times blasphemous titles are giuen to the Popes by their Parasites and swallowed vp by them as their spirit and vitall breath I cannot but meruaile that a man of your learning yeares and calling should make such obiections in good earnest which consist merely in your owne violent wresting of words contrary to the sense meaning of them that spake them and contrary I dare say to your owne knowledge for you cannot be so simple as to thinke that those titles were euer giuen to any Pope in that sense in which you misconstrue them But your good will to the Bishop and Church of Rome is such that so you may make them hateful to your readers you regard not how you delude them nor how you wronge our Authors First then the Pope is called Sponsus Ecclesiae The bridegroome of the Church This title you except against (o) Pag. 246.251 as blasphemous because the Church (p) Ioan. 3.29 is called The Spouse of Christ But why may not the name of Bridegroome which is one of the titles of Christ without blasphemy and without wrong to Christ be giuen to his Vicar on earth in an inferior degree as the name of Light of the world another of his titles is without blasphemy or wrong to him giuen to his Apostles (q) Math. 5.14 Shall we thinke that 500. Reuerend Bishops in the second Generall Councell of Lions (r) C. vbi peric De elect in 6. blasphemed when they approued that title vnto the Pope Shall Doctor Morton now after 350. yeares come to controle them and teach them how to speake But you aske (s) Pag. 246. how S. Bernard did like of this diuinity He say you writing vnto Pope Eugenius admonisheth him not to call himselfe the Bridegroome of the Church which is the spouse of Christ for sayth he Nemo committit sponsam suam Vicario No man will commit his spouse to his Vicar Can there be a more wilfull falsification S. Bernard hath no such words They are yours and directly contrary to S. Bernards words and Doctrine who in that very Epistle (t) Ep. 237. sayth to Eugenius Tibi commissa est Domini tui sponsa The spouse of thy Lord is committed to thee And to Innocentius Pope (u) Ep. 191. To thee is committed the spouse of Christ thou art a friend of the Bridegroome It belongs to thee to present a chast Virgin to one man Christ. In what sense therfore S. Bernard admonished Eugenius (x) Ep. 237. to call the beloued spouse of Christ Princesse not my Princesse these passages of his giue sufficiently to be vnderstood and our authors haue declared (y) See Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. c. 31. Nor can this diuinity seeme strange to any man that is a Diuinor for although there be but one chiefe Bridegroome of the Church which is Christ and in respect of him all Bishops are but Paranymphes friends of the Bridegroome yet who knoweth not what Demetrius B. of Bulgaria writing to Constantinus Cabasilas hath rightly obserued that as in carnall marriage the Bridegroome by a ring weddeth himselfe to his Bride so a Bishop hath a ring giuen vnto him to signify the spirituall mariage betweene him his Church And as euery particular Bishop without any wrōg to Christ is a Bridegroome of his particular Church vnder Christ cooperating extrinsecally with him to beget children vnto him by preaching his word administring his Sacraments so likewise in the same sense the Pope is Bridegroome of the vniuersall Church and she his spouse without any wrong to Christ 2. You obiect (z) Pag. 251. out of Bzouius Innocentius the eight was called by Abrahamus Polonus Regno vnctione Christus prae participibus sui◠In Royalty and vnction Christ aboue his fellowes This title also you will haue to be blasphemous because S. Paul (a) Heb. 1.9 giues that name to Christ But what then say you to S. Bernard who (b) L. 2. de consider at calls Eugenius Pope Peter in power in Vnction Christ Did he not know how to speake Did he blaspheme And if he did not why do you misinterpret Polonus his words who spake in the same sense S. Bernard did 3. You obiect (d) Pag. 251. The Orator of the Venetians called Paul the second Celestiall Maiesty But what say you to Bassianus B. of Ephesus who in his petition to the Emperors Valentinian and Martian (e) In Conc. Chalced. Act. 11. sayth I cast my selfe at your Diuine feet quatenus dignetur Vestra caelestis Potestas c. that your celestiall Power may vouchsafe to write to the Councell c. Et vestram Diuinitatem exoro And I beseech your Diuinity c. What to that learned Doctor Theodorus Studites and his fellow Regulars saying (f) In Ep. ad Michael Imper to Michael the Emperor If your diuine Magnificence seeme to doubt of any thing or not to belieue the declaration is piously to be required from the Pope What to the Bishops of the Councell of Mopsuestia saying (g) Ep. ad Vigil to Vigilius Pope The things which concerne the state of the Churches are to be referred to your Diuinely
honored Blessednesse Did not these men know how to speake Or will you presume to charge them with blasphemy Wherfore as they by Celestiall power by Diuinity and Diuine Magnificence did not vnderstand the increated power and Maiesty of Almighty God but the great dignity and power giuen by him to Emperors and Popes vpon earth so if you had not bene minded to cauill and spend paper in obiecting silly sophismes insteed of solid Arguments you might haue knowne that the Venetian Orator by the title of Celestiall Maiesty giuen to the Pope vnderstood nothing els but the great power and dignity of supreme Gouernor of Gods Church giuen him from heauen 4. You obiect (h) Pag. 251. Galbus Embassador of France called Pius the fourth The voyce and oracle of Truth proper to Christ who sayth I am the truth So likewise Christ sayth (i) Ioan. 9.6 I am the light of the world doth he therfore blaspheme that calls the Apostles and Doctors of the Church lights of the world This Syr is not to argue but to trifle If it be blasphemy to call the Roman Church or the definitions of the B. of Rome The oracle of truth what thinke you of 289. Bishops assembled in the sixt Councell generall (k) Act. 8. 18. calling the Epistle of Agatho Pope The suggestion of the holy Ghost dictated by the mouth of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles And what of the Bishops of France who speaking to Leo Pope of the instructions of fayth which he had sent them said (l) Inter Ep. Leonis post Ep. 51. From the See Apostolike spring forth still the Oracles of the Apostolicall spirit which what are they but Oracles of truth for the Apostles were pen-men of the holy Ghost and guided by the spirit of truth And why did the Councell of Mileuis say (m) Aug. Ep. 92. that God ruleth the Pope in his consultations of fayth And why S. Augustine speaking of the Roman chaire (n) Ep. 166◠that Christ in the chaire of vnity hath placed the doctrine of Verity And why did Christ assure S. Peter that his successors shall not faile in their definitions of fayth (o) See this proued aboue Chap. 12. sect 1. 2. but because the definitions of the See Apostolike are of truth 5. If an orator of Portugall speaking of the dignity of the B. of Rome called it A dignity aboue all Principalities and Powers why may not you vnderstand that he vseth that manner of speach to professe that so great a dignity hath not bene conferred on any other either Man or Angell Which if to you it be Blasphemy is to Orthodoxall people a certaine Truth for to be the supreme Vicar of Christ on earth and gouern or of the vniuersall Church is a dignity that hath bene giuen to no man nor Angell but only to S. Peter and his successors 6. If Bellarmine (p) Cont. de Rom. Pont. Praefat. called Sixtus Quintus The Corner-stone in Sion proued precious and chiefe foundation what was it els to say but as Christ sayd to S. Peter in him to his successors that he was the Rocke and foundation of the Church signified by Sion and that wheras the rest of the Apostles are secondary foundations Peter his successors are in that ranck the chiefest and next vnto Christ and therfore in a secondary sense participate with him and as his Vicars the title of Corner-stone in Sion 7. You bid vs stop our eares (q) Pag. 25◠that we may not heare Stapleton call Gregory the thirteenth Supremum in terris Numen which you english Power Might and Maiesty of God on earth But you must be put to your Grammer againe to learne that Numen doth not only signify the increated power and Maiesty of God but any great earthly Power why els did Cicero say (r) Philip. 3. Magna est vis magnum Numen vnum idem sentientis Senatus And why did Iustinian say (s) Authen ad Ioan. Pap. Vt Eccles Rom. Necessarium duximus fontem Sacerdotij speciali nostri Numinis lege sancire Stapleton therfore blasphemes not but you falsify obtruding for his sense your owne ignorance of grammer or which is worse your wilfull misconstruction of his words 8. You obiect (t) Pag. 252. that the Glosse calls the Pope Our Lord God the Pope This is a malicious cauill for the word Deus God is not in the Roman copy not in the ancient edition of Paris anno 1522. by Thielman Keruer Printer to that famous Vniuersity nor in the edition of Turin per Nicolaum Beuilaquam anno 1520. Only I finde it in the Parisian edition of the yeare 1585. which hath no name of printer and therfore giues cause of suspicion that it is of an hereticall printer or if he were a Catholike why may it not be thought to be an error in the print or that wheras the Pope is somtimes called Dominus Dominus noster Papa in the second place Dominus for breuity sake is wont to be expressed only by the letter D the Printer thinking that Dominus was not to be repeated twice for Dominus in the second place said Deus But to giue you your greatest aduantage let the edition be Catholike let the words be as you obiect them must you presently cry blasphemy and bid vs stop our eares Doth not Deus often signify an earthly dignity Did not Dauid (u) Psal 81.1 call Magistrates Gods when he said God stood in the assembly of Gods and in the middest iudgath Gods Did not God himselfe (x) Exod. 7.1 call Moyses the God of Pharao Did not Christ say (y) Ioan. 10.35 to all that are his children by grace You are all Gods Did not Constantine the Great (z) L. 1. hist c. 2. speaking to the Bishops of the Nicen Councell say You are constituted Gods by the true God and therfore end your strefes among your selues for it is not fit that Gods should be iudged vs vs And did not S. Gregory (a) L. 4. ep 31. alleaging this testimony of Constantine adde vnto it that God himselfe in the holy Scripture hath honored Priests with the name of Gods And did not our late Soueraigne King Iames say (b) Praefat. monit that Kings are Gods vpon earth Did he or any of the other heere named blaspheme I suppose you will not presume to lay so foule an aspersion on thē or if you do we shal make bold to tel you that you blaspheme whiles in your late Sermon preached at Durham before his Maiesty you call Kings Mortall Gods Yf then the name of God may not only without blasphemy but in a true Catholike and pious sense be giuen to all Kings to all Magistrates to all Bishops to all Priests to all Gods adoptiue Children shall it be blasphemy only to giue it to the chiefe of all Priests to the Bishop of Bishops Did S. Bernard blaspheme (c) L. 2. de