oppressed inclosed as the most part of the faithfull were constrained to hide themselues in caues and places vnder ground to auoid the persecutions tyrannies of the infidells Iointlie that wee say not that S. PETER remained alwaies fixed and tied to Rome while he was Bishop thereof but that he went from tyme to tyme planting the Ghospell in the lesser citties and placing Bishops ouer them and that during these voyages he administred the Roman Church by the ministrie of Linus and Cletus whom he had there establisheth for his Coadiutors which is the cause for which if wee belieue Russinus they are sometimes reckoned in the order of the Bishops of Rome before S. CLEMENT and sometymes after him And whereas the Iewes prayed S. PAVL when he came to Rome to informe them of the sect of the Christians which they obiect to vs they would not haue done if saint PETER had already bene Bishop there Wee answere that they prayed S. PAVL to informe them not of the sect of the Christiās but of the opiniō that he whom they reputed to be greatly versed in the Iewish doctrine had of them Otherwise how could S. PAVL say in his epistle to the Romans aboue fower yeare before his arriuall at Rome your faith is declared through the whole world To the sixt obiection which is that S. LVKE who hath written the historie of the Apostles speaketh not of the voyage of S. PETER to Rome we answere S. LVKE purposed to write particularlie the actes of saint PAVL his master and not these of the other Apostles For except that which past betweene the death of our Lord and the conuersion of saint PAVL where he treates the historie of the Apostles in cōmon to make it serue for a foundation to the particular relation of the actes of S. PAVL and except the discourse of the conuersion of Cornelius which hee adds there for as much as this conuersion was the ouerture of the Ghospell to the Gentiles for whose vocatiō S. PAVL had bene called S. LVKE doth not after that to the end of his booke make mention of anie other Apostle vnlesse in as much as hee was in the place where S. PAVL was and yet he omitts the voyage of S PAVL to Ierusalem to visit S. PETER S. PETER S. PAVLES meeting at Antioch and the right hand of association giuen by S. PETER S. IAMES S. IOHN to S. PAVL the voyage of the same S PAVL into Galatia which caused Beza to saie Luke hath omitted manie thinges and principallie S. PAVLES voyage to the Galathians And therefore so farr is S. IEROM from making vse of S. LVKES silence to weaken the credit of S. PETERS staie at Rome as contrariwise he argues the staie of S. PETER at Antioch and at Rome to shew how S. LVKE hath passed manie thinges vnder silence and takes this foundation for a certaine and vndoubted principle of historie Finallie saith S. IEROM we haue learnt that Peter was the first Bishop of the Church of Antioch and that from thence be was transferred to Tome which Luke hath vtterly omitted To the seauenth obiection which is that S. PAVL speakes of the enterview betweene S. PETER and himselfe both at Ierusalem and Antioch but speaks of no meeting betweene S. PETER and him at Rome which was the famousest cittie of the world wee answere that the epistle to the Galatiās which is the onely place where S. PAVL speaks of the enterviews betweene S. PETER and him to dissipate the reproaches that they that would seduce the 〈◊〉 laid vpon him that he had not bene instituted Apostle by Christ but by S. PETER by the other Apostles who gaue him their right hands for associatiō was written if wee belieue S. CHRYSOSTOME before the epistle to the Romans and then we must not thinke it strange that S. PAVL touched nothing there of the enterview of S. PETER him at Rome since it was written before the voyage of S. PAVL to Rome To the eighth obiection which is that S. IOHN makes mention of the kinde of death of S. PETER but makes noe mention of the place of his death we answere two things the one that S. IOHN makes mentiō of the kinde of S. PETERS death not of of the place where because the kinde and not the place of the death of S. PETER belonges to the explication of this prophecie of our Lord When thou shall be olde thou shalt stretch forth thy hands And the other that so farre is this clause of S. IOHN from weakning the beliefe of S. PETERS death at Rome that it fullie confirmes and authoriseth it For S. IOHN hauing writt his Ghospell manie yeares after the martyrdome of S. PEEER and hauing explained and proued this 〈◊〉 os our Lord thou shalt stretch forth thy hāds by the kinde of S. PETERS death without specifying it particularly it must be that when S. IOHN 〈◊〉 his Ghospell the kinde of S. PETERS death was knowne and euidēt to all partes of the Church Now the kinde of S. PETERS death could not be knowne to all partes of the Church but the place of his death must likewise be knowne to them nor could the place of S. PETERS death be knowne to all the Church bee anie other then Rome For how could it háppen that not onely all the ancient authors yea those that writt in the next age after S. IOHN as S. DIONISIVS of Corinth S. IRENEVS Caius Tertullian infinite others but the very stones also the inscriptions of the sepulchres of S. PETER S. PAVL which were yet preserued and publickly shewed at Rome in the tyme of Caius should witnesse with a cōmon voice that S PETER had bene martired at Rome that noe other Church but the Roman did euer glorie in his Relicks and his martirdome if frō the time wherein S. Iohn writt his Ghospell the place of S. PFTERS death had bene knowne to all the partes of the Church had bene anie other then Rome And therefore what remaines in all the texts obiected to vs from scripture which agrees not perfectly with the Chronology of the Church concerning the history of S. PETER Saint PAVL affirmes that three yeare after his conuersion he trauelled to Ieru salem to visit S. PETER consents not that exactly with our computatiō which reckons the conuersion of S. PAVL the first yeare after the death of our Lord the voyage of S. PETER to Antioch the fifth S. LVKE reportes that S. PAVL being come to Ierusalem for the distributiō of the almes during the famine which began the eleauenth yeare after the death of Christ found S. PETER there prisoner doth not that wholie agree with our Chronologie which supposes that the Episcopall Seate of saint PETER at Antioch was seauen yeare fiue compleate two imperfect The same S. LVKE writes that S. PETER withdrawing himselfe
that Pope INNOCENT aduertised of his death excommunicated the Emperor 〈◊〉 and the Empresse Eudoxia in these wordes And therefore I the 〈◊〉 and a sinner as depositary or Keeper of the Throne of the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 off thee and her from the participation of the immaculate mysteries of Christ our God and ordaine that whtasoeuer Bishop or Clarke of the holy Church of God which shall presume to administer them to you after he hath read this 〈◊〉 shall be deposed For whereas Socrates and after him Prosper and 〈◊〉 Comes reckon the Death of the Empresse Eudoxia to be manie 〈◊〉 before the death of saint CHRISOSTOME which is peraduenture the cause that moued Photius to saie that this George mistakes himselfe in some places of the history this is an Error in Socrates a Nouatian author and an Enemie to saint CHRYSOSTOMES memorie who in steede of saying as Cedrenus Zonarus Nicephorus and all the later grecians saie that Eudoxia dyed three monthes after the death of saint Chrysostome and vnder the seauenth consulship of Honorius and the second of Theodosius hath said that she died three monthes after the exile of S. Chrysostome and vnder the consulship of Honorius and Aristenetus perchance deceiued by the ambiguity of the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies sometymes death sometymes goeinge out whereof it is credible they frō whom he tooke his history had made vse The proofe of the error is that Sozimus a pagan author who writt aboue 30. yeare before Socratcs and was eye witnesse of this history which Socrates was not extendes the life of Eudoxia many yeares beyond the banishment of S. Chrysostome For he saith plainely that the reuolt of the Isaureans was after the banishment of Iohn and that vpon the newes that came to Constantinople of their reuolt the Emperor sent Arzabacius with an armie into Pamphilia to suppresse them who hauing had many victories and prosperous successes against them might haue wholly rooted thē out had not Arzabacius degenerated from his first vigor and giuen himselfe vp to pleasures and couetousnesse for which cause he was called backe to Constantinople to vndergoe a capitall iudgement but being returned to the Court he gaue parte of his spoyles to the Empresse who saued him Nowe besides that it was impossible that all these things should happen in three monthes and moreouer that S. Chrysostome testifies that during his staie in Cucusus where he spent the first yeare of his exile the Isaurians had not yet bene suppressed by the Romans Marcellinus Comes setts downe precisely the departure of Arzabacius against the Isaurians to be the yeare after the cōsulship of Honorius and Aristenetus to witt vnder the cōsulship of Stilicon Anthemius a thing wholy incompatible with what Socrates and himselfe saie that the Empresse dyed the yeare of the consulship of Honorius and Aristenetus For how could the Empresse saue Arzabacius after his returne from the Isaurians warr begun vnder the consulship of Stilicon and Anthemius if she were dead in the consulship of Honorius and Aristenetus which was before that of Stilicō Anthemius And why did not S. Chrysostome himselfe in soe many letters as he writt in his fower yeares banishment make mentiō of the death of Eudoxia that was the cause of it if she were dead 3. monthes after his departure into banishment And how could Palladius who although he extēdes not his history to the tyme of Arcadius his excōmunication neuerthelesse he goes on with it to S. Chrysostoms death haue forgotten to put Eudoxia's death amongst the examples of the persons that dyed for hauing persecuted S. Chrysostom if she had bene dead when he writ his history therefore also the Emperor Leo surnamed the learned Cedrenus Zonarus Nicephorus Glicas all the other later Greekes haue rather chosen to followe Zozimus George of Alexādria their cōputation in Eudoxia's death then that of Socrates but this obseruation deserues a discourse of more leasure lett vs gett ground And why then when the tempest was appeased would the same Innocent neuer receiue Alexander Patriark of Antioch and Atticus Bishop of Constantinople into his communion till they had restored the name of saint Chrysostome into the recordes of their Churches I haue diligentlie inquired saith Pope Innocent writing to Alexander Patriark of Antioch whether the cause of the blessed Bishop Iohn hath bene fully satisfied in all conditions and being informed by those of your legation that all thinges haue bene fully performed according to our desire I haue giuing God thankes admitted the communion of your Church And a little after As for the letters of the Bishop Atticus because they were ioyned with yours I haue receiued them least the refusall of a man longe agoe suspended by vs might be an iniurie to you and yet we haue sussiciently and more then sussiciently ordained in the actes what ought to be obserued in his person And why doth THEODORET say Iohn being dead those of the west would neuer admitt the communion neither of the Egiptians nor of those of the East nor of the Bishops of Bosphorus and Thrace that is to saie of the iurisdictiō of Constantinople till they had inscribed the name of this admirable personage into the roll of the Bishops his predecessors and they esteemed Arsacius that succeeded him not worthie of a bare salutation And as for Atticus successor of Arsatius after manie legations and treaties for peace they finally receiued him but not vntill he had first added the name of Iohn to the other Bishops For that Theodoret saith this of those of the West and that saint Innocent recites it of himselfe are not thinges repugnant forasmuch that as the Greekes by the word Easterne meant the Patriark of Antioch and the Bishops of his Patriarkship and by the word Egiptians the Patriark of Alexandria and the Bishops of his Patriarkship soe by the word Westerne they vnderstood the Pope and the Bishops of his patriarkship because the Pope neuer decided matters of moment without some assembly either generall or particular of the Bishops of his patriarkship from whence it is that in the same letter of Innocent to Alexander it is added at the end that twenty 〈◊〉 Bishops of Italie haue subscribed to it And why then when the cause of Pelagius and Celestius had bene iudged both in the East where Pelagius was by the Synod of Palestine and in Africa where Celestius had bene by the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis did the Councell of Carthage write this to Pope Innocent This proceeding then our holie Lord and brother we conceiued we ought to represent to your charitie that to the statutes of our mediocritie there might be allso applied the authoritie of the Apostolicke Sea And againe We doubt not but your Reuerence when you shall haue seene the decrees of the Bishops which are said to be made vpon this occasion
it temporally executory they testified that it was by the Popes authority that it had iudged the cause of Flauianus The synod of Chalcedon said the lawe by the authoritie of the most blessed Bishop of the Citty eternall in glorie Rome examining exactly matters of Faith aud strengthning the foundation of Religion attributed to Flauianus the reward of his past life and the palme of a Glorious death Now how is this anie other thing but to saie that which Pope Gelasius writt forty yeares after in these wordes The sea Apostolicke delegated the Councell of Chalcedon to be made for the common faith and the Catholicke and Apostolicke truth And againe Flauianus hauing bene condemned by the Congregation of the Greeke Bishops the sea Apostolicke alone because he had not consented thereunto absolued him and contrary wise by his authoritie condemned Dioscorus Prelate of the second sea who had there bene approued and alone annulled the wicked synod in not consenting to it and alone by his authoritie ordained that the Councell of Chalcedon should be kept But things incident carry vs away lett vs againe returne to our careere And why then when the Councell of Chalcedon was open was the first cōplaint that was made against Dioscorus patriark of Alexandria that he had presumed to vndertake to keepe a generall Councell and to be President there without commission from the Pope Vpon which complaint also Dioscorus came downe from this Patriarkall seate wherein he was first sett and stood in the middest of the place as an accused party and not as iudge Wee haue in our handes said Paschasinus Bishop of Lylibea in Sicilia and Legat from the Pope speaking to the Councell the commaundments of the blessed and Apostolicke Prelate of the Cittie of Rome who is the head of all Churches whereby he vouchsaffed to ordaine prouisionallie that Dioscorus sit not in the councell and that if he attempt it that he should be cast out And Lucentius Bishop of 〈◊〉 also the Popes Legate Dioscorus said he must yeild an account of iudgement for as much as hauing noe right to doe the office of a iudge be attempted it and presumed to holde a Synod without the authoritie of the sea Apostolicke which neuer hath bene lawfull nor neuer was done And Euagrius in the narration of the history of the Councell The senat saith he hauing 〈◊〉 of the legates from Leo what charge there was against Dioscorus they 〈◊〉 that he must yeild an account of his owne iudgement because against might 〈◊〉 had vsurped the person of a Iudge without the Bishop of Romes permission After which answere ` Dioscorus by the senats iudgment stood in the 〈◊〉 of the place And why then when Theodoret Bishop of Cyre a cittie as hath bene said in the confines of Persia had bene restored by Pope Leo from the Deposition of the Councell of Ephesus from whence he had appealed to him did the Emperors Officers who assisted in the Councell of Chalcedon to cause order to be obserued proclayme Lett the Right Reuerend Bishop 〈◊〉 come in that he may haue part in the Synod because the most holy Archbishop 〈◊〉 bath 〈◊〉 him to his ` Bishopricke and that supplied vpon this restitution the most sacred and religious Emperor hath ordained that he shall assist in the holy 〈◊〉 For that the Emperor had made himselfe the Executor of the Popes authority in this Councell it appeares by the protestations he had made of it a little before in these wordes Wee conceiued that we ought first to addresse ourselues to thy Holynesse who hast the superintendance and principalitie of Faith And againe Our desire is that peace should be restored to the Churches by this Councell celebrated vnder thy authoritie And why then when the Priests and deacons of Alexandria presented their Petitions against Dioscorus in the Councell of Chalcedon did they couch them in these termes all the Councell seeing and approuing it and ordayning that they should be registred in the Actes To the most holy and most blessed Archbishop and Vniuersall Patriarcke Leo and to the most holy and 〈◊〉 Councell For as for the instance that the Bishop of Constantinople made afterward to participate in this title vnder the Pope and in second place after the Pope as Constantinople being a second Rome it shall be spoken of hereafter And why then when Paschasinus the Popes Legate gaue his voice vpon the deposition of Dioscorus did he saie That the Pope had pardoned all those who in the false Councell of Ephesus had by force consented to Dioscorus that is to 〈◊〉 to almost all the Metropolitans and Patriarkes of the Easterne Empire The 〈◊〉 Apostolicke saith he graunts them pardon for those things that they committed there against their wills for asmuch as they haue remained vnto this time adhering to the most holie Archbishop Leo and to the holy and vniuersall Councell And why then when the actes of the false Councell of Ephesus were in the Councell of Chalcedon annulled did Anatolius Bishop of Constātinople pronounce that of all that had bene done in the Councell of Ephesus nothing ought to remaine entire but the election of Maximus Bishop of Antioch for as much as that had bene cōfirmed by the Pope My voice said he is that none of the things ordained by the pretended Councell of Ephesus shall remaine firme concept that which was done for Maximus Bishop of great Antioch for as much as the most holy Archbishop of Rome Leo receiuing him into his communion hath iudged that he ought to rule the Church of Antioch From whence it is also that the same 〈◊〉 who had bene created Archbishop of Constantinople in the false Councell of Ephesus held not his Archbishopricke from the false Councell of Ephesus but from the confirmation of the sea 〈◊〉 as Pope Leo writing to the Emperor Marcian puts him in mynde in these Wordes It should haue sufficed him that by the consent of my fauour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishopricke of soe great a Cittie And why then when the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon framed that famous relation to Pope Leo which is not only inserted in all the 〈◊〉 and latine Actes of the Westerne and Easterne libraries but also is cited by the Greeke Schismatickes and amongst others by Nilus Arch bishop of Tessalonica in his Booke against the Pope did they write to him that he had ruled in the Councell as the head to the members and that the Emperors had presided there to cause order to be obserued that is to auoide such murthers and tumultes as happened in the false Councell of Ephesus And put a like difference betwene the Popes Presidencie and the Emperors as betweene the Presidencie of Iesus the high priest of the Sinagogue and that of Zorobabel prince of the Iewish people in the building of the Temple You presided the Councell writt to the Pope in ' this assemblie as the head
besides the tyme imployed in his 〈◊〉 six yeare in the East to wit a yeare and a halfe at Corinth three moneths in the Synagogue of the lewes at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two yeares in the schoole of Tyrannus three moneths againe in 〈◊〉 and two other yeares finallie in the prison at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this word and 〈◊〉 forth two yeare after hath reference to 〈◊〉 tyme of saint Paules imprisonment and not to the tyme of the institution of 〈◊〉 as it appeared by saint Paules testimonie who saith that 〈◊〉 had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many yeares Now saint Paul departed from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come to Rome the fower and twentith yeare after the death of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he came forth of prison when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 steed and 〈◊〉 notes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being 〈◊〉 to Rome was absolued from his faultes committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the credit that his brother Pallas had with the Emperor Nero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tacitus quoteth that Pallas was fallen from Neros fauour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Antistius which was the second yeare after the 〈◊〉 of Christ or if we comprehend the yeare of Christs death within 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the siue and twentith And to this S. IEROM agrees 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Paul was sent prisoner to Rome the fiue and twentith yeare after the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Lord that is the second yeare of Nero when Festus Procurator 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Felix From the fower and twentith yeare then after the 〈◊〉 of Christ if you subtract the six yeares interposed betweene the Councell of 〈◊〉 and the voyage of S. Paul to Rome there will 〈◊〉 that the Councell of Jerusalem was holden at the latest the eighteenth yeare after the death of our Lord not the twentith as they suppose Now betweene the conuersion of S. Paul the Councell of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Paul teacheth vs that there were seauenteene yeares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 writt to the 〈◊〉 three yeares after I went to Ierusalem to see 〈◊〉 And againe and then after fourteene yeares I went vp againe into Ierusalem For where Caluin will haue it that the voyage of Ierusalem where of S. Paul speakes in the Epistle to the Galathians when he saith againe after fourteene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 went vp to Ierusalem should not be the voyage of the Councell but the voyage of the almes for the famine is a grosse ignorāce since the voyage of the almes for the famine was made before the death of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who deceased as it shall heereafter appeare twelue yeare after the death of Christ. And whereas the same Caluin saith that the fourteene yeare quoted by S. Paul should not be added to the end 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before mētioned but should be coūted frō his conuersiō 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the greeke phrase which insinuates that these fourteene years were interposed betweene the voyage for the visit of S. Peter the voyage to the councell which gaue Beza occasiō to translate it thus And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interuented I went vp againe into Ierusalem And to saint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paul testifies that after seauenteene yeares 〈◊〉 conferred fullie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then let vs defalke from the foure and twentie yeares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Death of Christ at the end where of saint PAVLE went to 〈◊〉 the six yeares which passed betweene the Councell of Ierusalem and the departure of saint Paule to goe to Rome and from the remainder which will bee eighteene yeares subtract the seauenteene yeare which passed betweene the Conuersion of Saint PAVL and the Councell of Jerusalem it will appeare that the conuersion of saint PAVL happened the first yeare after the death of our Lord as the Chronicon of Eusebius reckons it and then that the third yeare after the conuersion of saint PAVL which was that wherein saint PAVL transported himselfe first into Ierusalem and from Ierusalem as saith the Epistle to the Galathians into Syria and Cilicia that is to saie according to the historie of the Acts to Tharsus and Antioch was the fowrth yeare after the death of Christ and consequentlie that the staie of S. PETER at Antioch began the fourth yeare after the death of Christ. For S. LEO the first saith plainelie that the name of Christian had the originall at Antioch Saint Peter preaching there which could not haue bene so if Saint Peter had not bene come to Antioch within the compasse of the same yeare that saint Paul arriued there during the which saint Luke testifies that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch And against this it can not be said that saint LVKE toucheth nothing of this voyage of saint 〈◊〉 to Antioch for saint LVKE doth no more touch the conference of Saint PETER and saint PAVL at Antioch which neuerthelesse wee learne out of the Epistle to the Galathians nor that saint PAVLE recites in the Epistle to the Galathians the enterview betweene saint PETER and him at Antioch after the Councell of Jerusalem For besides that saint 〈◊〉 maintaines that the enterview betweene saint PETER and saint PAVL at Antioch was before the Councell of Ierusalem though it be recited after it saint PAVLE doth no where saie that saint PETER and hee neuer mett more then once at Antioch Now the voyage that saint PAVL made into Ierusalem when he carried the almes for the generall famine foretould by Agabus found S. PETER prisoner there was the cleauenth yeare after the death of our Sauiour For the Scripture saith that this famine fell out vnder Claudius and Dion reckons the beginning of the generall famine which happened in Claudius his time vnder the 795. th yeare of the foundation of Rome which was the second yeare of Claudius his Empire that is to saie the eleauenth after the Death of our Lord And Iosephus obserues that Herod called Agrippa author of saint PETERS imprisonment deceased the seauenth yeare of his Raigne which was the third yeare of the Empire of Claudius And therefore betweene the first voyage of saint PAVL to Ierusalem and the second there was seauen yeare that is to saie fiue whole yeares and two imperfect yeares which is the time that the Fathers and wee after them assigne for saint PETERS staie at Antioch For that the Latin Chronicon of Eusebius saith that he was there twenty siue yeares it is a deprauution of the copies of Bsale in which insteede of fiue they haue set in 25. as it may bee seene by the accompt of the yeares noted by retaile which are fiue to wit from the three and twentith of Tiberius to the second of Claudius or possiblie a frequent chance in chronologicall tables an intire addition as it is coniectured by the Armenian copie and diuers latine manuscripts of the same Chronicon of Eusebius which are kept in the librarie of the Vatican and by the Greeke and Latine edition of Scaliger in none of which this quotation is to be found And to this there is
no repugnācy in that that the historie of the Acts following the custome of the Scripture which is often to recite immediatly things farr from that tyme placeth the voyage of saint PAVL to Ierusalem presently after the prophecie of Agalus for saint LVKE speaking of the famine foretould by Agabus adds which also happened vnder Claudius 〈◊〉 to shew that the prophecie had bene longe before the Empire of 〈◊〉 by meanes whereof betweene the prophecie of Agapus and the tyme of the famine which began but the second yeare of the Empire of 〈◊〉 there were past many yeares nether that the same historie notes that PAVL and BARNABAS conuersed a yeare at Antioch for that should not be taken from their arriuall vntill the voyage of the 〈◊〉 which was executed manie yeares after the prophecie of Agabus but it is meant that they staide a whole yeare at Antioch without departing from it and then came againe nor that it saith that Agabus came at the same tyme to Antioch for this note of tyme is refer'd in generall to the tyme before the Empire of Claudius and it is put to discerne the tyme of the pronunciation of the prophecie which was vnder the Empire of 〈◊〉 from the tyme wherein it was accomplished which was vnder the Empire of Claudius To the second obiection which is that Saint PETER assisted at the Councell of Ierusalem which was celebrated twenty yeare after the Death of Christ and consequentlie could not bee arriued at Rome the second yeare of the Empire of Claudius which was the eleauenth after the Death of Christ neither could then haue bene Bishop there twentie fiue yeare 〈◊〉 answere there is nothing incompatible betweene these two histories For Suetonius writes that Claudius draue the Iewes out of Rome which moued 〈◊〉 said hee at the instance of Christ. Now Orosius notes and that as he saith after Iosephus that this banishment happened the ninth yeare of the Empire of Claudius which was the eighteenth yeare after the Death of our Lord that is to saie as wee haue demonstrated in the solution last past the same yeare of the Councell of Ierusalem And saint LVKE consirmes who writes that saint PAVL being come to Corinth a little after the Councell of Jerusalem found Prisca and Aquila there who were said hee new returne'd out of Italie because Claudius had commaunded all the Iewes to goe forth of Rome And therefore what wonder is it that saint PETER beiug ariued at Rome the second yeare of the Empire of Claudius and hauing bene constrained to auoid Rome with the other Iewes seauen yeare after that is to saie the ninth yeare of the Raigne of Claudius because of the Edict publisht by him against the Iewes were in the East at the Councell of Jerusalem which was celebrated that same yeare and afterward the heate of the Edict being cooled returned to Rome To the third obiection which is that saint PAVL writing to the Romans saluted not saint PETER which he could not haue forgotten to doe if he had bene there wee answere that the Epistle to the Romans was written in the time of the Iewes exile from Rome and during saint PETERS being in the East to wit betweene the Councell of Ierusalem and the death of Claudius for it was written at Corinth when saint PAVL passed by there to make his last iourney to Jerusalem And therefore although 〈◊〉 and Aquila and some other lesse notable Iewes were alreadie returned to Rome neuerthelesse it followes not that saint PETER who was the principall author of the Iewes conuersion for which their nation was banisht should so soone returne Iointlie that if this argumēt were of weight we must withall conclude that Timothie was not Bishop of Ephesus for S. PAVL writing to the Ephesians makes no mention of him and that saint James was not Bishop of Ierusalem for in the Epistle to the Hebrewes written in saint Iames his life tyme as appeares by these 〈◊〉 know that the brother Timothie hath bene licenced with whom if he returne 〈◊〉 I will visit you there is no mention made of saint James And therefore so farr is Theodoret an author of the same tyme with the Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon and one of the most famous writers of the Ecclesiasticall historie from takeing one argument from the Epistle to the Romans as the Popes aduersaries doe to call in question S. PETERS staie at Rome as contrariwise commenting the Epistle to the Romans he saith that saint PAVL there vseth the word to confirme for as much as S. Peter had alreadie founded the Ghospell amongst them Because saith Theodoret that the great Peter had alreadie declared to them the euangelicall doctrine therefore saint Paul necessarilie adds to confirme you To the fourth obiection which is that S. PAVL writing from Rome not onely toucheth no word of S. PETER but also in the epistle written to the Philippians from Rome saith that all sought that which was of themselues and none sought which was of Christ And in the second to Timothie written from the same place that all had forsaken him Wee answere that in the one he speakes of those that he might haue sent to the Philippians and that in the other he speakes either of his familiars as S. CHRYSOST saith and of those which were accustomed to follow him or of those that had power to defend him at the Emperiall Tribunall of which number S. PETER was like to be none And besides wee maintaine that S. PAVL speakes by Synecdoche saying all insteede of saying many as S. IEROM acknowledgeth in these words For as much as saint Paul had bene forsaken by manie hee therefore writes that all had forsaken him And Bullinger minister of Zurich In these I doubt not but the Apostle vsed a Synecdoche in this passage saying he had bene forsaken of all when as onely some had sorsaken him And finally wee will adde that if from the silence of S. PAVL it be permitted to inferre that saint PETER was not at Rome when saint PAVL writt these epistles wee must then also conclude by the same argument that saint PAVL was not there For in anie one of the epistles that S. PAVL hath written from Rome he neither makes mention of the cittie nor Church of Rome and wee onely know that he writt them from Rome because in the epistle to the Philippians hee speakes of Cesars howse and because in the epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians and in the second to Timothie he speakes of his prison To the sift obiection which is that when saint PAVL arriued at Rome the bretheren went to meete him amongst whom there is no mention of S. PETER Wee answere that all the Roman Church went not to meete S. PAVL but some particular Christians the Church then not being so free and quiet at Rome as they could make those publicke demonstratiōs but contrarily so
of Rome Now Liberius falle was in the end of his first banishement as saint HILLARY insinuats when he reproacheth to the Emperor Cōstantius that he had plucked Liberius out of 〈◊〉 and that he was vncertaine whether he had shewed more impietie in his banishement or in his repeale And as saint IEROM affirmes when he saith Liberius ouercome with the wearinesse of his banishment and hauing subscribed to the Arrian impietie was entred into Rome in manner of a conqueror And thefore the faith of Sirmium which Liberius had signed before his fall which happened at the end of his first exile that is to saie two yeare before the Councell of Arimini could not be that which was forged at 〈◊〉 the yeare of the Councell of Arimini but it was the first of Sirmium which 〈◊〉 also ratifies when he saith that Those of the East brought a forme of Faith that they had drawne from Liberius by which he condemned those that did not affirme that the Sonne was like to the Father in substance and in all things For that was the first Creede poposed to the Councell of Sirmium and embraced by the Demy Arrians which concealed the word 〈◊〉 and insteede thereof substituted like in substance The second coniecture is that the Latine translation of the faith of the false Councell of Sardica which is inserted into the Appendix of the Epistles which is annexed to the end of this writing which Monsieur le Feure will haue to bee gathered by the same Author is so differing not in sence but in wordes from that which is found in the worke of the Synodes of saint HILLARY that it seemes they could not both come from one pen and besides it is noted with this Title The decree of the Arrians whereas saint HILLARY in his booke of the Synodes to spare the Demy-Arrians which held the Simbole of the false Councell of Sardica and to oblige them to bandy against the compleate Arrians whose impietie was proceeded much farther in their latter professions reckons the Faith of the false Councell of Sardica amongst the orthodoxall beleifes supplyed by interpretation that it might receiue an orthodoxall interpretation and was not hereticall by expression but by omission The third coniectures is that in the tyme this writing intitled from saint HILLARY was composed that is to saie after the Councell of Arimini neither saint HILLARIE not anie other Catholicke could say 〈◊〉 to Liberius whosefault and repentance were both arriued before the Councell of Arimini but only the Luciferians who withdrew themselues from the communion of Liberius and of the Catholicke Church after the death of Constantius because that when Constantius was dead Liberius and the other Bishops and Catholickes receiued into the communion of the Church and to the exercise of the Episcopall order those Bishops which hauing bene induced by fraude or force to signe the councell of Arimini protested to repent it For when this writing was made that is to say after the Councell of Arimini Liberius was acknowledged for a Catholicke by all the Catholicke Bishops of the Earth and was so euer after the Councell of Arimini euen to the end of his life as it appeares both by the testimonie of the Councell of the West celebrated vnder Damasus imediate successor to Liberius which disanulling the acts of the Councell of Arimini alleaged amongst other nullities that the Bishop of Rome whose sentence should be attended before all others neuer cōsented to it And by the testimony of saint BASILE who solicites saint ATHANASIVS to write to the Bishop of Rome to be watchfull ouer the affaires of the East and send some to disannull the Councell of Arimini and testifies that the Catholicks of the East and namely the Councells of Militina and Tyana communicated with Liberius and himselfe calls him the blessed Bishop Liberius And by the testimonies of saint EPIPHANIVS who writeth 〈◊〉 Bishop of Sebaste in Armenia the lesse seemed to doe the office of a Legate with many other Bishops to the blessed Liberius of Rome and subscribed to the proposition of the councell of Nicea and to the profession of the orthodoxall Faith And by the testimonie of saint AMBROSE who intitles Liberius after his Death Liberius of happie memory And finally by the testimonie of Siricius imediate Successor to Damasus who saith The generall decrees of my Predecessor Liberius of Reuerend memorie sent through all the prouinces after the disannulling the Councell of Arimini forbad to rebaptise the Arrians when they returned to the Church By meanes whereof either this writing which anathematizeth Liberius after the Councell of Arimini is not saint HILLARIES but of some Luciferian author of the same age or these parenthesises inserted by forme of notes in the Epistles of Liberius inuironned with Semycircles and written in other caracters this is the Arrian trechery this I haue noted I that am noe Apostata And a while after I for my parte saie anathema to thee Liberius and to thy complices And againe Anathema to thee for the second third time ô wicked Liberius haue bene interlaced by the Luciferians or saint HILLARIE inserted the parenthesis into the Epistle of Liberius before he made this writing and hauing in this writing left the places voide to put iu the Epistles which he cited whose Collection was a parte in his papers those that caused them to be published after his death sett into the voide blancke places which he had left the copies of the Epistles which were amongst his papers as they were there found And the fowrth coniecture finallie is that this writing is not a compleate and intire writing of saint HILLARIES but a collection of diuers fragments of the intier worke of saint HILLARIES put together in a heape and without order as may appeare by the transposition of the Epistles there inserted and particularlie of one of Liberius Epistles which is sett in the place where the Epistle of the Councell of 〈◊〉 to Constantius should haue bene By occasion whereof it remaines vncertaine whether these parenthesis be of the author or of the collector that is either of saint HILLARIE or of some Luciferian compiler who to fauor the 〈◊〉 of the Luciferians and to make the memorie of Liberius odious and adhominable hath thrust in these parenthesis And this is spoken of the first answere The second answere against saint HILLARIES pretended anathema against Liberius is that there is great difference betweene an excommunicatiō and an anathema for asmuch as every formall excommunication importes iurisdiction and euery anathema doth not soe For there are two kinds of anathema the one iudiciarie the other executory applicatorie and adiuratory Iudiciary anathema's are those which are pronounced by persons constituted in the Ecclesiasticall Tribunall and which haue power to iudge of matters of Religion and who decree what kindes of things or persons ought to be anathematized and these anathema's import iurisdiction
thee scatters And S. AVST In the Roman Church hath alwaies 〈◊〉 the principalitie of the Sea Apostolicke And Prosper whom saint 〈◊〉 reputes his second selfe and whom Joseph Scalager calls the most learned man of his age The principalitie of the Apostolick priesthood hath made 〈◊〉 greater by the Tribunall of Religion then by that of the Empire els where changing his prose into verse Rome great Apostle Peter's sacred Seate Head of the Churches-Bodie heere below Hath by Faithes Empire made her selfe more great Then she by all her armed powres could grow And 〈◊〉 the first in the epistle to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica It hath bene prouided by a grand order that all should not attribute all things to themselues but that in euery prouince there should be some whose sentence might holde the first place amongst their bretheren And againe that there might be others constituted in the greater citties who might vse a greater diligence by whom the care of the vniuersall Church might flow to the onely Seate of Peter And therefore 〈◊〉 the Allexandriās would accuse Dionisius Patriark of Alexandria their Bishop they went vp to Rome saith S. ATHANASIVS accused him before 〈◊〉 Bishop of Rome And when the same ATHANASIVS likewise Patriark of Alexandria Paul Bishop of Constautinople and Marcellus Primat of Aneyra in Galatia had bene deposed by diuers Councells of the 〈◊〉 The Bishop of Rome saith Sozomene restored to each one his Church because to him for the dignitie of his Sea the care of all things belonged And when the cause of Iohn Patriark of Antioch had bene propounded to the Councell of Ephesus the Councell remitted the iudgment to the Pope And Iuuenall Bishop of Jerusalem said that the anoient custome and 〈◊〉 tradition bare that the Church of Antioch should be ruled by the Roman And when the Councell of Chalcedon disanulled the actes of the false Councell of Ephesus they excepted the creation of Maximus Patriark of Antioch because saith Anatolius Archbishop of Constantinople The Pope hauing receiued him into his communion hath iudged that he should rule the Church of Antioch And when Theodoret Bishop of Cyre in the borders of Persia and subiect to the patriarkhip of Antioch had bene deposed in the same Councell of Ephesus he appealed to the Pope and the Councell of Chalcedon receiued him because saith the Senat The Pope had restored him to his dignitie And when Flauianus Archbishop of Constantinople had bene deposed by Dioscorus Patriark of Alexandria and by the false Councell of Ephesus he appealed likewise to the Pope and that saith the Emperor Valentinian following the custome of the Councells And when Iohn Patriark of Alexandria had bene driuen from his Sea by the plott of the 〈◊〉 Zeno he also appealed to the Pope that with the intercessiō of the Patriark of Antioch as Liberatus Archdeacon of 〈◊〉 a writer of a thousand and one hundred yeares antiquitie reportes in these wordes John saith Liberatus hauing taken Synodicall letters of intercession from Calendian Patriarke of Antioch appealed to Pope Simplicius And thus much of the comparison of the Pope with the other Patriarkes For as for the canon of the Councell of Nicea which seemes to rule the Bishops of Alexandria Antioch ouer the Bishop of Rome it shall be spoken of heereafter Of the difficulties of the Scripture concerning the tyme of S. Peters staie at Antioch and at Rome CHAPT IV. BVT against this that wee haue affirmed of the sitting of Saint PFTER at Antioch and at Rome Caluine and the other aduersaries of the Church forme twelue principall obiections eight from the Scripture and fower from the Fathers The first obiection is that S. PAVL found S. PETER in Ierusalem the two first voyages that he made thither the one three yeare after his conuersion the other when he carried the almes for the famine foretould by Agabus then that the Episcopall staie of S. PETER at Antioch which after S. Ieroms computation betweene these two voyages could not be seauen yeares as S. Gregorie affirmes it as wee suppose it for asmuch as S. Paules conuersiōhappened at the soonest three yeares after the death of IESVS CHRIST S. PETER departed from Jerusalem to goe to Rome the secōd yeare of the Empire of Claudius which was the eleauenth yeare after the death of Christ. The seconde obiection is that S. PETER still assisted at Jerusalem at the Councell holdē for the legall causes about twentie yeare saie they after the death of our Lord and was crucified as we saie the fourteenth yeare of the Empire of Nero that is the seauen thirtith yeare after the death of our Sauiour then he could not haue bene 25 yeare at Rome as wee saie The third that S. PAVL addressing the principall of his epistles to the Romans doth not there salute S. PETER whom he would not haue forgottē if he had bene there The fourth is that S. PAVL writing from Rome to the Philippians complained that euery one sought his owne not that which was of Christ. And to Timothie that all had abandoned him which he would not haue done if S. PETFR had bene there The fist that when S. PAVL came to Rome the bretheren went to meete him amongst whom there is noe mention of S. PETFR and the Iewes prayed him to declare to them his opinion of the sect of the Christians a thing they would not haue required if S. PETER had preached at Rome before him The sixt that S. LVKE who writ the history of the Actes of the Apostles maketh no mention of S. PETERS voyage to Rome The seauenth that S. PAVL who hath described the enterview betweene S. PETER and him at Jerusalem and Antioch speakes not of their enter-view at Rome which was the most famous cittie of the world And the eigth that S. Iohn made mention of the kinde of death by which S. PETER should glorifie God but makes no mention of the place of his death Now lett vs first dispatch the obiections taken out of scripture and after we will proceede to those taken out of the Fathers To the first obiection then from Scripture which is that S. PAVL still found Saint PETER in Jerusalem in the two first voyages that he made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one three yeares after his conuersion and the other when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the almes for the famine foretould by Agabus and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Episcopall staie of S. PETER at Antioch which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the two voyages could not bee of seauen yeares I answere that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Paul happened not in the third yeare after the death of our 〈◊〉 as they pretend a thing which troubles all the harmonie of the history but the first And this I proue in this manner Betweene the Councell of Ierusalem and S. 〈◊〉 departure to goe to Rome S. Paul remained
from Ierusalem at his deliuery which was the second yeare of the Raigne of Claudius went into an other place that is to saie into an other place proper to goe out of Iudea from the iurisdiction of Herod such as was Ioppa where those vsed to imbarke that would saile to Rome into the west doth not that excellently agree with S. IEROMS computatiō who reports that S. PETER came to Rome the second yeare of the Empire of Claudius For that S. LVKE saith onely that he went into an other place expresses not whither but leaues him seauen yeare after without mention it is not to abandon the historie of S. PAVL his master The same S. LVKE testifies that S. PETER was againe at the Councell at Ierusalem holden for legall causes Fitts not that iust with that that Suetonius saith that Claudius draue the Iewes from Rome which raisd tumults for Christs cause to that that Orosius notes that this banishment was in the ninth yeare of Claudius that is the eighteenth yeare after the death of Christ which was the verie yeare of the Councell S. IOHN expounds this prophecie of our Lord to S. PETER Thou shalt stretch forth thy hands and aen other shall girde thee by the kinde of S. PETERS death and adds that our Lord foretelling enigmaticallie the martirdome of S. PETER said to him follow mee doth not this agree with that Tertullian saith speaking of the Roman Church Happie Church in which the Apostles haue shedd all their doctrine with their bloud in which Peter is equalled to the passion of our Lord And with what S. AMBROSE writes that S. Peter being come forth of Rome to flie persecution our Lord appeared to him and said I goe to Rome to be crucified againe S. PETER insinuates in his first epistle that he writt it from Babylon many greeke copies contrarily date it from Rome Is not this solued by that that Eusebius and S. IEROM saie that S. PETER calls Rome allegorically Babylon for as much as Rome was then in regard of the Iewes the same as the Asian Babylon had bene in the tyme of the Prophets He adds the salutation of MARKE The Church said hee which is in Babylon and Marke my sonne salute you doth not that agree both with the vse of the word Marcus which was a Roman name and not a Babylonian and with these wordes of Papias auditor of S. IOHN reported by Clemens Alexandrinus Marke being requested at Rome by the bretheren writ a short Ghospell which Peter hauing read approued For whereas Erasmus saith that S. IEROM attributes the name of ` Babylon to Roms in choller for as much as hee had bene euill intreated there and will haue that Babylon whereof S. PETER speakes to be the Asirian-Babylon These are two childish ignorances the one not to know that S. IEROM had alreadie interpreted that Babylon whereof S. PETER speakes to be Rome both in his commentarie vpon Esay and in his catalogue of the Ecclesiasticall Authors written long before the euill intreaty that he receiued at Rome which happened vnder Syricius And the other not to know that when S. PETER writ this epistle Iosephus witnesseth there were then no Iewes in Babylon But this is enough of the instances of scripture lett vs proceede to those of the Fathers which consist in fower principall obiections The first that Clemens Comanus writes to IAMES brother of our Lord Bishop of Ierusalem the death of S. PETER at Rome a thing repugnant saie the obiectors to scripture which witnesseth that IAMES was martired longe before the death of PETER The second that S. IEROM writes that S. PETER was crucified in Iudea The third that S. AVST affirmes that the history of the battle of S. PETER and Simon Magus at Rome proceeded from an opinion or as they saie from a fabulous narration And the fowrth that in the order of PETERS successors some place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before Clement some after to which they farther add for the banquet and confectes after the Feast that Eusebius and the Legend vpon which they charge vs that we found the Papacy contradict one another for as much as Eusebius saith that S. PETER was crucified and the Legend saith he was beheaded To the first of these obiectiōs which is that Clement writing to IAMES brother to our Lord declares to him the martirdome of S. PETER Wee answere three things first that that epistle is apocripha and supposed for though it was translated frō Greeke into latine by Ruffinus that it is cited by the first Councell of Vaison which was holden vnder the Emperor 〈◊〉 the third contayning manie good doctrines neuerthelesse it is certaine thar the Greeke originall of the recognitions of Clement to which it was annexed relatiue was apocripha had bene either supposed or corrupted by the Hebionites The second that the Bishop of Ierusalem to whom this epistle is addressed was not IAMES the Apostle brother to our Lord but Simon brother successor in the Bishoprick to IAMES the Apostle intitled the brother of our Lord whom this epistle calls IAMES brother of our Lord according to the custome the Hebrewes had to beare manie names sometimes to inherit names one from an other as it appeares both by the repugnancie of the tyme of the death of the Apostle IAMES brother of our Lord which Ruffinus interpretor aduocate for his epistle who had translated the Ecclesiasticall history of Eusebius could not be ignorāt of by the inscription in the which the author of the epistle intitles him to whom he addresses it IAMES brother of our Lord and Bishop of Ierusalem intitles him not Apostle which he could not haue forgottē to doe in that place if it had bene the Apostle IAMES brother to our Lord. And the third that those that obiect this strayning forth a gnat swallow a Camell that is in thinking to taxe the ignorance of others in the matter of the Chronologie of the Fathers discouer their owne in the historie of the Scripture for the Apostle S. IAMES whose martirdome they saie the Scripture reportes was the Apostle IAMES brother of IOHN martir'd by Herod in the twelfth of the Actes not the Apostle IAMES brother of our Lord who was ten yeares after still in Jerusalem and of whose death the Scripture neuer speakes in anie part of it the Church hauing learnt what she knowes of it not from the Scripture but from Josephus and from Hegesippus and from Clement Alexādrinus from Eusebius from S. IEROM who testifie that IAMES the Apostle brother of our Lord dyed vnder the Pontificate of Ananus the young and in the seauenth yeare of the Empire of Nero. To the second obiection which is that S. IEROM writes that S PETER was crucified in Iudea we answere that S. IEROM doth no where write that S. PETER was crucified in
the name where of the fraude was founded that that of the Catholicks was holden at Nicea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that of the hereticks at Nice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and reporting the two impostures of the Arrians vse in the first which was to hold a mocke-Councell at Nice in Thrace the word affinitie of name and saie that the Arrians aduised themselues of this fraude to surprise the simple by the affinitie of the names And in the second which was to hold a mocke Councell at Nicea in Bithinia they vse the word identity of names and say that they committed this fraude to surprise the simple by the identity of names By which meanes that in the writings of saint HILLARY the Towne of Nice in Thrace where the Conuenticle of the Arrians was held is called Nicea It is a vice of the Copists which haue imposed it vpon some learned men But in Summe what soeuer the cittie of Nice in Thrace be it is Certaine that that of Nicea in Bithinia where the Catholicke Councell was holden was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nicea and not Nice Which I would not reproche to Caluin were it not that all the Authors of the Ecclesiasticall historie agreeing in this note he is as inexcusable for hauing bene ignorant of it as many Catholickes which are deceiued after him are excusable for hauing followed him bonafide But heere is to much of this digression let vs come to the point He alleadges then that in the Councell of Nicea S. ATHANASIVS presided and that the Popes Legates had onely the fourth place I praie you saith Caluin if they had acknowledged Iulius for head of the Church would those that represented his person haue bene cast backe to the fourth place Had Athanasius presided in the generall Councell where the order of the Hierarchie ought to be siugularly obserued Now what should I answere to this but what the oracle said of Chalcedon to witt that heresie is the land of the blinde For all the Authors of Ecclesiasticall antiquitie S. EPIPHANIVS Ruffinus Socrates Theodoret Sózomene and S. ATHANASIVS himselfe and the Councell of Alexandria reported by him to whom wee may ouer and aboue add S. HILLARY testifie that S. ATHANASIVS was yet Deacon in the time of the Councell of Nicea and was not made Bishop of Alexandria till fiue moneths after the Councell of Nicea and that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria his Predecessor assisted at the Councell of Nicea and did not preside there so farr was S. ATHANASIVS that was then but his Deacon from presiding but onely held the second place there and was preceded by the Popes Legates It is true Caluin may easily be pardoned this error since he is soe ignorant in the Ecclesiasticall historie as to haue belieued that Sabellius who was aboue threescore yeares before Arrius and the Councell of Nicea was since both the one and the other But let vs leaue the error there and passe forward to the consequence Caluins argument then against the Legates of the Pope is that Sozomen writes At this Councell assisted from the Sea Apostolicke Macarius Bishop of Ierusalem Eustachius Bishop of Antioch Alexander Bishop of Alexandria and as for Julius Bishop of Rome hee assisted not at it because of his age but in his steede there assisted Vito and Vincentius Priests of the same Church And from thence Caluin infers that the Legats of Julius were onely then in the fourth place and consequently that Iulius did not preside there Now could I note in passing by that the Councell of Nicea was not holden vnder Julius as Caluin thought but vnder Sybuester the predecessor of Julius and that it is a deprauation of Sozomens copies that hath deceiued Caluin and before him Cassiodorus Beda and many others For first Eusebius saint IEROM Socrates Theodoret Gelasius of Cyzica and the ancient latine subscriptions and after all those Hincmarus Archbishop of Rheims testifie the Councell of Nicea was holdē in the time of Syluester and not of Iulius And secondly Sozomene notes that vnder the third consulship of Crispus and Constantine Caesars which is he by whom he hath begun his historie Syluester was Bishop of Rome Now the third consulship of Crispus and Constantine ended but fower moneths before the ouerture of the Councell of Nicea which begun in the moneth of May vnder the cōsulship of Paulinus Julianus by which meanes Julius could not haue sent his Legats seeing betweene Syluester and Julius Sozomene reports that there was a Papacy interposed which was that of Marcus which according to S. IEROM lasted eight moneths And thirdly the cause wherefore Sozomene obserues that the Bishop of Rome assisted not at the Councell which was his extreame age or as Theodoret saith his profound age could not agree with the person of Iulius who liued till thirtie yeares after the Councell And fourthly Sozomene assignes but twentie fiue yeares to Iulius Papacie in which place we must reade but fifteen with Socrates and consequently he could not presuppose that Iulius had bene Pope in the tyme of the Councell of Nicea seeing aswell hee as Socrates affirme that Iulius dyed after the death of Magnentius Gallus and Siluanus that is to saie thirtie yeares after the Councell for Magnentius was slaine according to Socrates vnder the sixth consulship of Constantine and the second of Gallus which was the twentie eigth yeare after the Councell and Gallus vnder the seauenth of Constantine and the third of his ownē which was the twentie ninth yeare after the Councell and Siluáńus according to Amianus Marcellinus after Gallus I add that Iulius would neuer haue reproched to those of the East that they did not request him to assist at the Councell of Antioch which was holden sixteen yeares after the Councell of Nicea if he had bene so old at the tyme of the Councell of Nicea as he could not be there I add that Sozomene had had much more cause to impute it to Iulius his age that he was not at the Councell of Sardica which was holden twentie two yeare after that of Nicea then that he was not at that of Nicea And finally I add that Sozomene himselfe decides the point of the question and teacheth vs that it is a vice in the writing which is slipt into the text of the historie For after he had finisht in the closing vp of the first booke the whole narration of the Councell of Nicea with these words Heere 〈◊〉 this place ends all that concernes the Councell of Nicea And after he had employed all the ninteen first chapters of his second booke to sett downe what past betweene the Councell of Nicea and that of Antioch against Eustathius when he had finished the recitall of the Councell of Antioch against
Bishops and councells that supposed that it was to gaine the crowne of martirdome to dye for resisting it some belieuing Pope Vigilius neuer confirmed it and others belieuing that Pope Vigilius who was said to confirme it was not true Pope forasmuch as he had intruded into the Papacy his predecessor being yet liuing that whatsoeuer threatnings banishments and punishment the Emperor Iustinian employed vpon it hee could neuer compasse it neither hee nor his next successors but this is enough for this obiection of Caluin let vs goe on to the rest Of the order of the sittings in the sixth Councell of Carthage CHAPT XIII CAluins sixt obiection is taken from thé sixth Councell of Carthage In the sixth Councell of Carthage saith Caluin Aurelius Archbishop of the cittie presided and not the Ambassadors of the Sea of Rome Now wee might send him to dispute this matter with Hincmarus Archbishop of Rheims of almost eight hundred yeares antiquitie who said contrarywise speaking of the sixth Councell of Carthage The Councell of Carthage where the Sea Apostolicke presided by his Uicars Neuerthelesse least it should seeme to be a delaie the best will be to trie it out in the field To this obiection then wee will bring three answeres the first that there is nothing more vncertaine then the Rolles of the sittings and signatures of Councells where the copies varie and mistake at euery turne sometymes following the order of the persons sending somtymes the order of the persons sent somtymes the order of the tyme of their arriuall somtymes the errors in the writing which slipp in in the transcription of listes and Catalogues as it appeares besides an hundred other proofes by the repetition of one of the Sessions of the first Councell of Ephesus inserted into the latine copie of the Councell of Chalcedon in which Arcadius Proiectus and Phillippus the Popes legates are named not onely after all the Bishops but euen after Bessula Deacon and legate of Carthage which was the order of the tyme of their arriuall and neuerthelesse the greeke originall of the same Councell of Ephesus placeth them in all the Sessions whereat they assisted immediately after saint CYRILL first legate of the Pope and as it appeares by the thing itselfe which is presented by the testimony of Hincmarus for Hincmarns affirmes particularly that the Sea Apostolicke presided by legates at the Councell of Carthage in these words The Councell of Carthage where the Sea 〈◊〉 presided by Uicars The second that there where diuers kindes of legates some which represented the negotiating person of the Pope as 〈◊〉 Agents Nuntios Apocrisaries and Ambassadors and others which represented the iudiciary person of the Pope as Cathedraticall Vicars and legates a kinde onely necessary for generall Councells where the Bodie of the Church speakes with her head and not for particular Councells as this of Carthage was Now amongst these deputies some held the ranke of those that sent them and others not for in the Councell of Chalcedon Iustinian Bishop of Cos legat or rather Nuntio and Ambassador from the Pope to Constantinople although he bore the 〈◊〉 of the Pope legate at the Councell neuerthelesse sate not with the other legates of the Pope but after the Patriarkes and among the 〈◊〉 and at the Councell of Constantinople holden vnder Menas the Ambassadors of the Patriarkes of Antioch and Ierusalem were not sett in the ranke of their Patriarkes but in the ranke of their simple personall dignitie and after the Archbishops and Bishops And the third Answere finally is that in the sixth Councell of Carthage the legation of the Popes deputies was finished by the death of Sozimus who had sent them the yeare before and had not bene renewed by Boniface his Successor whose creation they knewe well for they procured and charged themselues to carry him the Councells letters but they had not yet receiued anie commission from him and treated onely vpon the memories that they had brought from his predecessor By meanes whereof they were noe more the Popes legates but Exlegates continuing neuertheles in office to solicite for the rights of the Roman Church that they had begun in the former Councell and for this cause bearing for honor sake in the signatures the title of the Legates of the Roman Church but not the title of legates or Vicars of Pope Boniface then sitting And indeede if they had bene then in the actuall qualitie of the Popes Vicars and Cathedraticall Vicars that is to saie representing the iudiciary person of the Pope they had bene sett one with an other and had all signed in the ranke of Bishops Now this was not soe for Faustinus Archbishop of Potentia assisted but in his simple ranke of Archbishop belowe Aurelius Archbishop of Carthage and Ualentine Archbishop of Numidia and Phillippus and Asellus were not there in the ranke of Bishops but sate and signed as simple priests after all the Bishops where as in the Councell of Ephesus which was generall the same Phillip priest as Vicar deputed to represent the iudiciarie person of the Pope was set with saint CYRILL and Arcadius likewise the Popes legates before all the other Primates Archbishop s and Bishops It it true that Faustinus Phillippus and Asellus had bene either nuntios or legates to Pope Sozimus in a Councell holden the yeare before at Carthage vnder the twelfth consulship of Honorius and the eigth of Theodosius as it appeares from the discourse and from the Epistle of the sixth Councell of Carthage but of this Councell for that which is inserted vnder the date of the same consulls in the Rapsodie of the Councells of Africa speakes not of the Popes legates there remaines to vs noe piece whereby wee may iudge whether the Popes agents presided or presided not onely it appeares that the authority of the Pope was very eminent there for it was sent to Rome and confirmed by the Pope as Prosper an author of the same age testifies in these words Under the 12 th Consulship of Honorius and the eigth of Theodosius a Councell of two hundred and fourteen Bishops hauing bene holden at Carthage the Synodicall decrees were carried to Pope Sozimus Which hauing bene approued by him the heresie of Pelagius was condemned throughout the world And againe Pope Zosimus annexed to the decrees of the African Councells the force of his sentence and for the extirpation of the wicked armed the right hand of all the Prelates with the sworde of Peter Of the order of the sittings in the Councell of Aquilea CHAPT XIV THE seauenth obiection of Caluin is That there was a generall Councell kept euen in Italie to witt adds hee the Councell of Aquilea wherein saint AMBROSE presided for the credit that he had with the Emperor Now this obiection is the crowne master-piece of all Caluins obiections for matter of impertinency For first S. AMBROSE did not preside there but Valerianus Bishop of Aquilea
hundred and fortie seauenth yeare and the death of Aurelius who still liued according to the computation of the Illustrious Cardinall Baronius the yeare fower hundred twentie fiue there was so long a space as there must necessarily be one or more Bishops betweene both The fifth proofe is that Fulgentius Ferrandus an African author of more then a thousand one hundred yeares antiquitie not onely placeth Genetlius betweene Gratus and Aurelius but also placeth the Councell of Carthage holden vnder Genetlius before the third Councell of Carthage and other Councells of Carthage assembled vnder Aurelius For in the fourth article of his Epitomy speaking of the ordination of Bishops which ought to be done by three Bishops with the Metropolitans consent he alleadgeth for the credit of this decree the Councell of Carthage holden vuder the Prelate Genetlius the tenth title and the generall Councell of Carthage title fortie seauenth and the Councell of zelles which generall Councell of Carthage was the third Councell of Carthage as it appeares both by the words of the decree alleadged which are there and because it is placed before the Councell of Zelles which was holden vnder the twelfth consulship of Honorius that is to saie the yeare before the sixth Councell of Carthage And in the twentie fowrth article speaking of the decree which forbids Bishops to vsurpe one an others people he alleadgeth for warrāt to that lawe the Councell of Carthage vnder S. GRATVS title the ninth and the Councell of Carthage vnder the Prelate Genetlius title the ninth And the Councell of Carthage title the fifth putting the Coūcell of Carthage celebrated vnder S. GRATVS which was the first Councell of Carthage in the first place the Councell of Carthage celebrated vnder Genetlius in the second place and the other Councell of Carthage in the third place The sixth proofe is that in the third Councell of Carthage holden vnder the consulship of Cesarius and Atticus whereof the preface is reported in the Rapsody of the Councell of Africa Uictor Bishop of Pupputa is nominated amongst the Bishops of the Councell with the Epithere of old man whereas in the Councell of Carthage holden vnder Genetlius he is named without anie mention of age a thing which shewes that the Councell holden vnder Genetlius had preceded the third Councell of Carthage For there is noe appearance that in the third Councell of Carthage Uictor of Pupputa should haue bene called old man and that in the Councell holden vnder Genetlius if this Councell had bene celebrated as the Illustrious Cardinall Baronius would haue it twentie seauen yeares after the third Councell of Carthage the mention of his age should haue bene omitted The seauenth proofe is that in the third Councell of Carthage Epigonius calls the same Uictor of Pupputa the father of the African Bishops and the most ancient in promotion And neuerthelesse in the Councell of Carthage holden vnder 〈◊〉 he is mentioned after Victor Bishop of Abdera a cittie of Africa soe called otherwise called Gemanicia that S. CYPRIAN calls Abbir of 〈◊〉 and Uictor of Vtica Abdir and Ptolomy Abdeira A thing that euidently shewes that the Councell of Carthage holden vnder Genetlius preceded the third Councell of Carthage For the Africans were so curious to obserue the orders of promotion in the Catalogues of their Coūcells that they neuer inuerted it as appeares by the cōplaint that S. AVGVS made to Victorinus that in his tractatorie or according to Erasmus Editiō tractorie he had named him before some Bishops in promotion more ancient then himselfe The eigth proofe is that Victor Bishop of Abdera who assisted at the Councell holdē vnder Genetlius that we call the secōd Councell of Carthage was dead before the tyme of the Emperor Valentinian the third consequentlie that the Emperor mentioned in the Date of the same coūcell could be noe other then Ualentinian the second for from the tyme of the seauenth Coūcell of Carthage which was holden six yeares before the Empire of Ualentiniā the third it was noe more Uictor but Candidus that was Bishop of Abdera The ninth proofe is that Uictor Bishop of Pupputa Epigonius Bishop of Bulla regalis who were present in the second and third councell of Carthage were deceased long before the Empire of Ualentinian the third which began the yeare foure hundred twentie fiue For in the cōference of Carthage which was holdē the yeare foure hūdred and eleauen is was noe more Uictor but Pānonius that was Bishop of Pupputa nor Epigonius but Dominick that was Bishop of Bulla regalis The tenth proofe is that in the second Councell of Carthage there is mention made of the Coūcell celebrated the yeares before in the pretory which could not agree with the tyme of Aurelius vnder whose Pontificate all the Councells of Africa were celebrated within the diuisions of the Basilickes The 11 th proofe is that in the same 2d. councell of Carthage it is said that the decree of clergy continence had bene made that is to saie reduced into a written lawe in the former councell which could not agree with the tyme of the Emperor Ualentinian the third since more thē twelue yeare before he came to the Empire the fifth Councell of Carthage had cited the decrees of the clergies continence as made in former councells but in the tyme of the Emperor Ualentinian the second vnder whom the letter of Siricius to the African Bishops concerning the clergies continence was carried into Africa For whereas the councell of Zelles holden onelie seauen yeares before the Empire of Ualentinian the third caused to be read and inserted into the acts thereof two letters of Pope Siricius that was not particularly for the Statute of clergie continence which had bene published long before in Africa but for the other articles which were therein contained And the twelfth proofe finallie is that the twelfth councell of Toledo a generall councell for all Spaine a prouince neere to Africa holden vnder the King Flauius Eruigius and in the age of the Emperor Constantine Pogonat and of the third generall councell of Constantinople that is to saie neere a thousand yeares agone citeth the councell of Carthage holden vnder Genetlius which we call the second councell of Carthage with thetitle of the second coūcell of Africa in these wordes In the second councell of Africa the fifth canon Felix the Bishop of Selempsela said I insinuate also if you please to your holynes that the dioceses that neuer had Bishops may haue none And a little after Genetlius Bishop saith If the motion made by our brother and fellow Bishop Felix please you let it be confirmed by vs all and cites the councell celebrated vnder the cnsulship of Cesarius and Atticus that we call the third councell of Carthage with the title of the third Councell of Africa in these wordes In the third
the Text as it appeares both by the current of the discourse by the latine collections of Dionisius and by the copies of the Greeke edition where it is not to be foūd And this he did not to deceaue as is aboue said but because it was the custome of the Roman Church to cite the Canons of the Councell of Sardica which was an Appendix of the Councell of Nicea vnder the Title of canons of the Coūcell of Nicea as it is the custome of the Greeke to cite the canōs of the Councell intituled Trullian vnder the title of the Canons of the sixth Generall Councell for that the Councell of Sardica was an Appendix and a supplie of the councell of Nicea holden in the same age and for the same cause with the councell of Nicea the Greekes yea euen those that are Schismatickes are of agreement with vs. It pleased said Zonara the two Emperors to cause a Councell to be holden to decide those things that had bene decreed in the Councell of Nicea At Sardica then assembled three hundred fortie one Bishops who made a decree confirming the Synod of the Fathers of the councell of Nicea excommunicating those that held the contrary And Balsamō It pleased the Emperors that the Bishops should assēble at Sardica to dispute about those thinges that had bene decided at Nicea the assēbly thē was made of three hūdred fortie one Bishops the holie Creede of the Fathers called at Nicea was confirmed And Glycas By the aduise of the Emperors the Coūcell was assēbled at Sardica where there were three hundred fourtie one Fathers who confirmed the sacred and holie Creede made at Nicea From whence it is that the Emperor Iustinian who intitles the Councell of Sardica a generall Councell yet neuerthelesse reckons but foure Generall Councells as cōprehending and confounding the Councell of Sardica vnder one selfe same title with that of Nicea because the Coūcell of Sardica had made noe creede in chiefe like the other Generall Councells but had contented itselfe with confirming and expounding that of the Councell of Nicea Likewise also that the custome of the Roman Church was often to cite the canons of the Coūcell of Sardica vnder the title of the canons of the Councell of Nicea aswell because the Councell of Sardica was annexed as an appendix to the Councell of Nicea as because the Councell of Nicea and that of Sardica had bene sett downe in the Latine edition by one selfe same penn and brought to Rome by one selfe-same Messenger to witt by Osius who had presided at both and they were written one following an other yea in some copies where of they saie one is to be found at Arras without being distinguished the one from the other It appeares from the letters of the Popes Innocent and Leo the first who alleadge the one in his Epistle to Uictricius reported by Charlemaine and by Hincmarus and the other in his Epistle to the Emperor Theodosius the second annexed to the front of the copies of the Councell of Chalcedon the decrees of the Councell of Sardica vnder the title of the decrees of the Councell of Nicea And indeede if this extension of title had bene a fallacy how came it that the Pelagians which barked with so much fury against Pope Zozimus his ashes who had condemned them and slandred and defamed him of preuarication neuer reproached him of this falshood And how could S. AVGVSTINE and Prosper who vndertooke the defence of his memory haue qualified him after his death Holy Reuerent and most blessed And how could Pope Leo thirtie yeares after haue fallen into the same crime And then what profitt could it haue bene to the Pope to alleadge by fallacy the Councell of Sardica vnder the title of the Coūcell of Nicea contrarywise if he had regarded his owne particular interest why had it not bene of lesse aduantage to him to conceale the title of the Councell of Sardica which in regard of generall authoritie was as authenticall and in regard of the particular discipline of Africa was more authenticall and more obligatory then that of Nicea For first as for generall authoritie there were these equalities betweene the Councell of Nicea the Councell of Sardica that they had bene holden in tymes neere and contiguous one to the other and celebrated the one for the explication and strengthning of the other that the same Osius which had presided at the one had presided at the other And that there were like number of Bishops in the one as in the other and that the one was called from all partes of the world as well as the other That it was so not only saint ATHANASIVS and after him Socrates and Sozomene testifie that in the Councell of Sardica there were more then three hundred Bishops amongst which were the Patriarke of Alexandria who was saint ATHANASIVS himselfe the Bishop of Hierusalem who was Maximus the Bishop of Constantinople according to Sozomene who was Paule the Archbishop of Carthage who was Gratus and many of the same Bisshops which had assisted at the Conncell of Nicea as Osius Bishop of Cordua in Spaine Nicasius Bishop of Dina in Gaule Protogenes Bishop of Sardica in Illyria Marcellus Primate of Aneyra in Galatia Asclepas Bishop of Gaza in high Palestina Aetias Bishop of Lydda in Lowe Palestina Paphnutius of Egipt Spyridon of Cyprus and others But also saint 〈◊〉 affirmeth that the Councell of Sardica was called by the commaundement of the two Emperors of East and West a thing which appertained only to generall Councells and that it was compounded of more then thirtie fiue Prouinces and in this reckoning counting Africa but for one Spaine but for one the Gaule and Almany but for one Great Britaine but for one Macedō but for one Thrace bur for one Galatia but for one Egipt but for one and the three Arabias and three Palestinas but for one as it shall appeare in the Chapter following where wee will treate of deliberate purpose of the authoritie of the Councell of Sardica and confute all the obiections that the Popes aduersaries make against it And this is to be said of the equality of the Councells of Nicea and 〈◊〉 as concerning generall authoritie For to the particular obligation of Africa so farr of is the Councell of Sardica from being lesse authenticall then that of Nicea as contrarywise the Councell of Sardica had this aduantage aboue that of Nicea that in the Councell of Nicea there was but one only Bishop of Africa to witt Cecilianus Archbishop of Carthage as the second generall Councell of Constantinople notes in these words Only Cecilianas Bishop of Carthage came from all Africa to the Councell of Nicea whereas in the Councell of Sardica there were thirtie six African Bishops amongst which was Gratus Archbishop of Carthage Of Africa saith S. ATHANASIVS there signed at the
that the Church was then perished for since the excellent King will haue it that the only assured marke to discerne which either of the Church which hee calls English or of ours is the true Church be it that which is the essentiall forme of the Church and that he pretends to be doctrine it is necessary that he suppose that the difference which are betweene the Church that hee calls English and ours be questions which take awaie the essentiall forme of the Church and destroy the being of a Church And by consequence that that of the one or other Societie which errs in these pointes shall bee depriued of the essentiall 〈◊〉 of a Church and destitute from the being of a Church And then if when Luther came into the world there were noe Societie neither visible nor inuisible which held that that the English Church holdes at this daie in the pointes disputed betweene her and vs it followes there was then noe Church Of the authoritie of the worke intituled imperfect CHAP. XVII The Continuance of the Kings Answere AND therefore the excellent King thinkes that he ought with soe much the more Care in so great a floud of different opinions withdrawe himselfe into the mountaines of the holie Scripture THE REPLIE WHEN Nauplius King of the Island of Euboea now called Negrepont would at the returne frō the Seige of Troy cause the fleete of the Greekes to be shipwrackt to reuenge the death of his Sonn Palamides hee sett by night torches in forme of a beacon vpon one of the mountaines of his Island at the foote whereof the Sea was full of bankes cliffes and rockes so to drawe their shipps by the hope of a safe hauen to runn hazard and perish in those shores Soe whenantient heretickes whom saint AVGVSTINE calls mountaines for Shipwracke would cause the Catholickes to make shipwracke in Faith the more their doctrines haue bene pernicious and mortall the more they haue adorned and illustrated them with texts and lampes of the scripture This appeares in the heresie of the Arrians who painted and coloured their error with more then fortie passages of the Bible and by this art attempted to call men backe from the externall and sensible markes of the Church which could not bee pretended by false ensignes by those who had them not to reduce them to the only marke of the scripture the interpretation whereof by their subtletie they made subiect to as manie deceipts as there were wordes But aboue all this is verified in the writer from whom his Maiestie borrowes this language who was one of the most passionate Champions of the Arrians For though he cites these wordes without naming the Father neuerthelesse both the termes wherein they are couched and the tracke of those who haue alleadged them before him to witt Caluin in some of the prefaces to his institution the author of the Booke of the Eucharist in the preface to his worke cannot suffer vs to doubt but that they were taken from the author of the worke intituled Imperfect falselie attributed to Sainct CHRYSOSTOME Now that this Author was not onelie an open Arrian but one of the most eager and violent Champions of the Arrians it appeares by this that he calls the Trinitie triangular impietie and the doctrine of the homousians that is to saie of those that held the Consubstantialitie of the Father and the sonne Heresie Not but that I knew well that he is sometimes alleadged euen by Catholickes with the title of saint CHRISOSTOME vnder whose name he had bene first printed at Basle But because it is one thinge to alleadge him in places where hee disputes not against the Church wherein he is excellent and aboue all in the discourse of manners and an other to alleadge him in the places where hee combates with deliberate purpose against the doctrine of the Catholicke Church of his age as he doth in that from whence the words are taken which his maiestie produceth For behold the expresse termes of the passage When you shall see the impious heresie which is the armie of Antichrist sett in the holie places of the Church then let them which are in Iudea flie into the Mountaines that is to saie let them that are in the christian Societie haue recourse to the scriptures And a little after The Lord then knowinge that so great a confusion of things should arriue in the last daies for this cause commaunds that the Christians who are in the Christian Societie being willing to receaue the stedfastnes of the true faith should haue recourse to noe other thing but to the Scriptures otherwise if they cast their eyes elsewhere they shall be scandalized and perish not discerning which is the true Church Now that by this impious heresie and by this Armie of Antichrist he intends the Catholicke Church and the communion of them which beleeue the equalitie of the Father and the sonne he plainelie shewes when he saith in the same Homilie that the great spirituall euills which haue come vpon the Church haue happened in the time of Constantine and Theodosius and that the armie of Antichrist is the heresie and the abhomination of desolation which hath since them possest the holie places of the Church that is to saie the Basilickes that Theodosius cōmaunded to be deliuered vp to the Catholickes And whē he saith in the former Homilie that the heresie of the Homousians that is to saie of those that hold Christ to be consubstantiall which his Father Fights not only against the Church of Christ but euen against the other heresies which hold not the like And in the nineteneth Homilie when hee calls the worshippers the Trinitie Those that honor the triangular impietie Whereby it appeares that this passage if so farre from giuing fauour to his Maiesties intention as contrariwise it manifestes how dangerous a thing it is to seeke to reduce the markes of the Church to the onelie doctrine drawne from the scripture by the interpretation of euerie particular person since the Arrians in the point which of all others should be most expresse in the scriptures for the catholickes to witt in the point of the diuinitie of Christ for if there be anie thing cleree in a Testament it should be the qualitie of the testator refused all the other markes of the Church and all the other waies of disputation and burnt with desire to fight by the onely texts of the Scripture disarmed from the traditions of the Church Of the vnderstanding of these words of S. Augustine to seeke the Church in the words of Christ. CHAP. XVIII The continuance of the Kings answere AND to seeke according to the Councell that S AVGVSTINE heretofore gaue to the Deuatists the Church in the Words of Christ. THE REPLIE WHEN S. AVGVSTINE said in the booke of the vnitie of the Church there is a question betweene the Donatists and vs where the Church is what shall wee thē doe shall wee seeke her
the world But who sees not that this was in the time wherein 〈◊〉 contract was expired and that of the Christian Church did beginne The lawe and the prophetts saith our Sauiour Vntill Iohn And sainct PAVLE Blindnes is partlie fallen vpon Israel that the fullnes of the Gentiles might be introduced Now the lease that God had made of his vine to the Iewish Church hauing bene but for a time what wonder is it that when this lease is come to expire the prerogatiue that she had by vertue of her contract should cease and that the master of the vineyard should lett forth his Vineyard to other 〈◊〉 and this fufficeth for the comparison of the Christian Church with the Iewish For to ascend to the time before the lawe of Moyses and to alleadge the little mention that is made there of the continuance of the Church it is clere that it had bene a thinge superfluous for the Scripture to haue represented particularlie the estate of the Church of those ages the knowledge of the succession of the Church not hauing bene necessarie but after the last institution of the lawe for the seruice whereof she is establisht as to the Iewes after the institution of the lawe of Moyses and to the Christians after the institution of the Euangelicall lawe Although both before and after the floud there are manie monuments of it For both before the floud this that the sonns of God knew the daughters of men shewes that there was an especiall people which boare the title of the children of God which title the interpretors would haue to be taken by the posteritie of Seth to distinguish themselues from the posteritie of Cain when Seth had begotten Enos and that they began saith the Scripture to all chemselues by the name of the Lord And the vniuersall corruption which fell out in the end vpon all the other families descended from Seth except that of Noe was a corruption of manners and for which if wee beleeue saint HIEROME all those that perish with a temporall death in the floud perisht not with an eternall death And after the floud that Noe liued almost to the sixtith yeare of Abraham And Sem the Sonn of Noe whom Luther calls the Pope of his Age till after the death of Iacob And that Melchisedech kinge of Salem was priest of the most high and in his qualitie blest Abraham that Rebecca wife of Isaach wēt to enquire of God vpon the misterie of her childrē shewes that euē thē the true worship visible seruice of God had place both before elsewhere thē in the familie of Abrahā Butto cōclude grant all the hypothesis to be such as the Protestāts pretend that the Church had bene interrupted both before the lawe vnder thelawe what would that make against the christiā church to whō Christ held this language As in the daies of Noe I swore that I would neuer againe bringe the waters of the Floud vpon the Earth soe I haue sworne that I will noe more be angrie against thee Thou shalt noe more be called the forsaken I will noe more doe to this people as in former daies I will contract a new alliance with them not according to the alliance I contracted with their Fathers when I brought them out of the land of Egipt The cittie of the Lord shall noe more be pulled vp nor destroyed The glorie of this second howse shall bee much greater then that of the first The cittie built vpon the mountaine cannot be hidden The gates of Hell shall not preuaile against my Church I am with you to the consummation of ages This Ghospell of the Kingdome must be preached through the whole world and then the end shall come Hee hath placed in his Church the Apostles Prophetts Pastors and Doctors c till wee all shall meete in the vnitie of faith The Church is the firmament of truth and other such like Of the comparison of the Charitie of the antient African Church and the moderne Roman Church CHAP. XXXVII The continuance of the Kinges answere AND surely the antient Church to recall the Donatists that were refractory to her communiō had accustomed by an admirable Charitie to prouide euen for the te mporall commodities of the Bishops that should be conuerted and of others also And the Roman Church to knitt againe the loue and good will betweene her and the English Church hath first employed the thunderboltes of Bulls and afterward of force sometimes openly and sometimes vnder-hand THE REPLIE THE antient Catholicke Church of Africa offered for the good of Charitie and of the Ecclesiasticall communion to yeeld vp the Bishoprickes of Africa not to those Donatist Bishops which still remained on Donatus his partie but to those that would returne to the communion of the Catholicke Church And the Roman Church hath excommunicated by her Bulls not those that will returne from the English diuision to the Catholick communion but those that after many admonitions are obstinate still to remaine in the separation And therefore there is in this no Antithesis betweene the proceedings of the antient Catholicke Church and those of the moderne For as concerning this word the thunderboltes of Bulls by which some thinke to make the Popes censures the more odious his maiestie may remember if 〈◊〉 please that it is an antient phrase of speeche that the Grecians vse who called the condemnations euen of secular iudgementes thunderboltes and to expresse that one was condemned in iudgment they would saie he was Thunder-strucken Of the innocencie of the Church in the matter of conspiracies against his maiestie CHAP. XXXVIII The continuance of the Kings answere TRAYTORS manifestlie culpable of the paricide vndertaken in this prouince she hath receiued into her lapp and still wholie protects them those that haue suffered iudgemēt for the same cause she Inrolles in the Catalogue of martyrs and propugneth from daie to daie their innocencie against all lawes diuine and humane THE REPLIE IF anie of those that were partakers of the abhominable cōspiracie proiected against his maiestie be receiued at Rome it is an error of fact and not of Right founded vpon a false information that is to saie vpon the beleefe that they haue imprinted there that they are not culpable of that attempt as Princes are accustomed to receaue in the qualitie of innocent persons those that haue recourse to them out of other Prouinces if the verball processe of the crime be not sent to them that they may informe themselues of the truth or falshood of the imputation And this lawe is a lawe of resuge and freedome cōmon to the Estates of all Princes But to beleeue that the Pope protects them in the qualitie of being culpable of this conspiracie I know to well how much I haue heard him detest it with his owne mouth For as touching those that haue bene excluded in England that that