it selfe but one Church gouerneth another as the Metropolitan doth the Suffragans the Roman Church as being the Head and Mother Church ruleth all others of the world Nor is this explication of lesse force becauss he sayth that she gouerneth in the region of the Romans for he sayth it not to limit her gouerment but to expresse the place in which she is seated and from whence she gouerneth all other Churches I conclude therfore that by calling her the Church that gouerneth and not limiting her gouerment to anyone Church or nuÌ„ber of Churches he declareth her to be Head Gouernesse absolutely of all Churches for as S. Bernard speaking of this subiect sayth (m) L. 2. de consider at Where there is no limitation nothing is excepted And in this sense Theodoret long before had said (n) Ep. ad Leon. The Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the whole world This to be the genume sense of S. Ignatius his words Casaubon and you peraduenture did see and therfore to giue an expedite solution you reiect the whole Epistle saying (o) Pag. 100. marg No man skilfull in Greeke would belieue it to be written by S. â—gnatius But this solution is exploded by Euscbius (p) L. 3. hist. c. 30. and S. Hierome (q) L. de Scriptor who might be Casaubons and your Maysters in Greeke and yet affirme S. Ignatius to be the Author of this Epistle and transcribe a part therof yeÌ„t to be found in it as also doth S. Irenaeus (r) L. 4. aduers haeres apud Baron anno 109. to shew the admirable spirit and feruor of that holy Bishop Hauing proposed these arguments of Casaubon you obiect out of your owne obseruations (s) Pag. 100. that S. Ignatius exhorting the Trallians vnto obedience to Bishops instanceth equally in Timothy S. Pauls scholler as in Anacletus Successor to S. Peter Answere You may by the like argument proue that S. Ignatius equalleth Priests in authority with Bishops for exhorting the Trallians to obedience he instanceth as well in Priests as in the Bishop Obey sayth he (*) Ep. ad Trallianos the Bishop the Priests Who then seeth not your argument to be a childish Sophisme SECT VI. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church I Renaeus say you (t) Pag. 100. for direction in the right of Traditions referreth as well to Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna as to Linus Bishop of Rome Tertullian also to secure Christians in the Doctrine of the Apostles prescribeth vnto them that they consult with the Mother Churches immediatly founded by the Apostles naming as well Ephesus in Asia and Corinth in Achaia as Rome in Italy and for the persons mentioning as well Polycarpe ordayned by S. Iohn as Clemens by Peter The like argumeÌ„t you make out of Vincentius Lyrinensis But all of them imposterously and against your selfe And first to begin with S. Irenaeus these words Discite ab Apostolicis Ecclesijs Habetis Romae Linum which you alleage as of S. Irenaeus (u) L. 2. c. 3. I find not in him It is true that both he and Tertullian teaching the Christians of their tyme to auoyd heresy warned them that the true fayth was to be learned from the Apostolicall Churches that is from the Churches founded by the Apostles themselues or by Apostolicall men as Timothy Polycarpe and other their disciples that preached the same fayth they learned from the Apostles their Maysters But withall they taught them that the chiefe Church they were to adhere vnto and by whose authority they were to confound all Heretikes was the Roman Church All men sayth S. Irenaeus (x) L. 3. c. 3. may behold the tradition of the Apostles that is the fayth deliuered by them to their Successors in euery Church if they be desirous to heare the truth and we can number the Bishops that were made by the Apostles in Churches and their Successors euen vnto vs who neither taught nor knew any such thinge as rauing heretikes do broach c. But because it were a long businesse to number the Successions of all Churches we declare the tradition of the most great most ancient and most knowne Church founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which tradition and fayth it hath from the Apostles coÌ„ming to vs by Succession of Bishops and thereby we confound all them that any way ether by euill complacence of themselues or vaine-glory or blindnesse or ill opinion do gather otherwise then they ought Lo here how Catholikes in S. Irenaeus tyme did confound all heretikes by the fayth of the Roman Church and by the Succession of Bishops in that See And he yeldeth the reason saying (y) Ibid. for to this Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality all Churches must necessarily agree that is to say all the faythfull of what place soeuer in which Church the tradition and fayth of the Apostles hath bene alwayes conserued And in confirmation of this he reckoneth by name all the Popes from S. Peter to Eleutherius who at that tyme gouerned the Church (z) Ibid. And by that orderly and neuer-interrupted Succession he proueth the Roman Church to haue conserued vnto his daies the fayth pure and entyre as it was preached by the Apostles By this Succession that Doctrine and truth which the Apostles preached in the Church hath come to vs And this is a demonstration conuicing that it is one and the same quickening fayth which from the Apostles tyme vntill this day is conserued and delinered in truth And againe relating to this place and speaking of the same Succession of Bishops in the Roman Church which he calleth the principall Succession he declareth all those that withdraw themselues from it to be Schismatikes or heretikes They that are in the Church sayth he (a) L. 4. c. 41. ought to obey those Priests which haue their Succession from the Apostles which togeather with the Succession of their Bishoprikes haue receaued the assured grace of truth according to the good will of the heauenly Father And we ought to hold suspected all others that withdraw themselues from the like Principall Succession and ioyne togeather in some other place We ought I say to hold them as heretikes of a peruerse iudgment or as Schismatikes and selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes or els as Hypocrites that worke for lucre and vaine-glory If then S. Irenaeus in his dayes thought it an argument sufficient to conuince all Heretikes that they had fallen from the true fayth preached by the Apostles because they had fallen from the Succession of Bishops in Peters See to which all the Churches and faythfull of the world must necessarly agree how much more conuincing is the same Argument against Protestants to whom we shew not the Succession of twelue Popes in S. Peters See as S. Irenaeus did to the heretikes of his tyme but almost of 240. You were not ignorant of the force
of these testimonies of S. Irenaeus and therfore lest you might seeme to passe them ouer without answere you say (b) Pag. 100. marg fine As for the words Propter Principalitatem they are answered hereafter How are they answered first you bid vs (c) Pag. 253. marg remember that Irenaeus was he which consented with the Asian Bishops that were excommunicated by Pope Victor But wee know this to be an vntruth and wish you to remember that you acknowledge so much contradict your selfe saying (d) Pag. 131. Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops These then are your propositions Irenaus consented with the Asian Bishops Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops Reconcile them 2. Wheras S. Iraeneus sayth (e) L. 3. c. 3. It is necessary that all Churches haue recourse to the Roman Church by reason of her more mighty principality you answere (f) Pag. 253. This might haue bene spoken of the Imperiall power of that City to which the subiects of the Roman Empire were bound to resort for paying of tributes and the Gouernors of Prouinces to yield an account of their offices But the very words of S. Irenaeus shew the falshood of this answeare for he mentioneth not the City but the Church of Rome Ad hanc Ecclesiam c. To this Church sayth he all Churches must of necessity resort Againe they which were to resort to the City of Rome for the discharge of their offices and paymēt of tributes were the subiects of the Roman Empire only But S. Irenaeus tels you that omnes vndique fideles that is All the faythfull and all the Churches not only of the Roman Empire but of all the world are necessarily to repaire to the Church of Rome shewing therby that her authority and command is of larger extent then that of the Roman Empire for as Prosper truly sayd (g) De ingrat c 2. de vocat gent. l. 2. c. 6. Rome the See of Peter is greater by the fortresse of Religion then by the throne of temporall power and being made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world possesseth by religion what she doth not by force of armes 3. You answeare (h) Pag. 253.254 Be it Ecclesiasticall power yet was not the necessity of recourse vnto it absolute and perpetuall but occasionall for that tyme. This is as vntrue as the rest for the necessity of resorting to the Roman Church sayth S. Irenaeus (i) L. 3. c. 3. is by reason of her more mighty principality or which is all one by reason of the great dignity of the See Apostolike which sayth S. Augustine (k) Ep. 162. hath alwaies florished in her and which maketh her the Mother Church of the world And therfore so long as she shall be S. Peters See which shall be till the end of the world so long the necessity of all other Churches resorting to her and agreeing in fayth and communion with her shall still continue SECT VII Tertullian his Iudgment of the Roman Church TErtullian agreeth with S. Irenaeus in pressing against all heretikes the same argument of the neuer interrupted succession of Bishops in the Roman See (l) L. 3. Carm. cont Marcio c. vltimo recknoning all the Popes by name vntill his tyme against Marcion and all heretikes to proue thē to be such It is manifest saith he (m) Praescrip c. 21. that all Doctrine which agreeth with those Mother and originall Churches founded by the Apostles is true and to be held as certayne being that the Churches receaued it from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God and that whatsoeuer is contrary to this is to be accounted false and erroneous And speaking of heretikes (n) Ibid. c. 32. If there be any of them that darevent their Doctrine for Apostolicall let them shew the originall of their Churches let them vnfold the order of their Bishops in such sorte that by a Succession deriued from the beginning they proue their first Bishop to haue bene some one of the Apostoles or of the Apostolicall men that perseuered with the Apostles vnto the end This Tertullian sayth the Smyrnaeans in his dayes could do shewing that Polycarpe their Bishop was placed there by S. Iohn and that the Roman Church could do the like shewing Clement ordeyned by S. Peter And the same she can do at this day shewing that all her Bishops vnto Vrbā the eight which now possesseth that Chayre had S. Peter the Apostle for their predecessor and first Bishop in that See and that from him they can lineally deriue their pedigree wheras no heretikes could euer shew any such descent as Protestants at this day cannot And therefore Tertullian bringeth in the Catholike Church vpbrayding them and all heretikes in this manner (o) Ibid. c. 37. Who in Gods name are you When and from whence came you hither What do you among myne being none of myne By what right O Marcion dost thou cut downe my woods What leaue hast thou O Valantine to turne my streames and fountaynes another way By what authority doest thou remooue my bounds O Apelles O Luther O Caluin O Zuinglius The possession is mine I haue it of old I enioyed it before you I can deriue my pedigree from the very first Authors to whom the thing did properly belong I am the right beyre to the Apostles According to their will and testament according to their trust and charge giuen my Tenure standeth As for you they alwayes disinherited you and reiected you as aliens yea and as enemies In this very manner may Catholikes with great reason vpbrayd you who as you cannot shew any Succession of your Bishops continued from the Apostles so you are therby conuinced not to be their heires but strangers and enemies to them and to the Churches founded by them Againe Tertullian prescribing a rule for you to finde out the true fayth doctrine deliuered by the Apostles saith (p) Ibid. c. 36. Goe to If thou wilt be curiously exact in the affaire of thy saluation repaire to the Apostolicall Churches c. If thou be a neighbour to Italy thou hast Rome from whence we also haue authority O happy Church into which the Apostles powred all their Doctrine togeather with their bloud where Peter is equalled to our Sauiours passion where Paul is crowned with Iohn Baptists lot where Iohn the Apostle being plunged into boyling oyle and yet not hurt therwith was banished into an iland Let vs obserue what this Church hath learned what she hath taught Tertullian was an African a Priest of the Church of Carthage and yet speaking of the Roman Church sayth From whence we that is as Macerus expoundeth all the African Churches or all Catholikes haue authority at hand for our defence Wherfore out of this place of Tertullian Quintinus rightly inferreth that the Roman Church euen from her first foundation had great authority aboue all Churches of the world and
passage in which he acknowledgeth in most effectuall words his beliefe of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome For in the very first words of his Epistle he sayth Be it known to your Wisdome that I obey the Apostolike mandats with filiall affection deuoutly reuerently and that I make resistance to those things which are against the Apostolike mandats zealing the honor of my Father for to both I am bound ex diuino mandato by the commandment of God for the Apostolike mandats neither are nor can be any other then the doctrines of the Apostles and of our Lord Iesus Christ Maister and Lord of the Apostles whose place and person our Lord the Pope chiefly holdeth in the Hierarchy of the Church A iudicious reader would thinke it a hard matter for any man out of these words and doctrine of Grosthead to frame an argument against the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome and yet are you so witty that you haue done it but by what art By cutting and mangling the Bishops words as the reader will see if he please to compare them with the Latin set downe in your Margent and euen that Latin mangled and falsified as it is you thought best not to english because it would haue giuen light to a iudicious reader to see your dealing What you adde (c) Pag. 394. of the Bishops not receauing a Prouision sent by the Pope maketh nothing for you for by the whole discourse of his Epistle it appeareth that he iudged the Prouision to be procured fraudulently by surreption therfore not to be a true mandate of the See Apostolike and vpon that ground he made resistance vnto it which the ciuill (d) Cod. Si cont ius L. Etsi Canon law (e) De rescript C. Dilectus in such cases declare to be lawfull without any impeachment to the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome SECT XI Whether Protestants had any Professors of their fayth before Luther THere is no way more expedite or effectuall to conuince heretikes to be such their doctrines to be prophane nouelties then to require of them a Catalogue of primitiue Fathers and learned men which haue agreed with them and dissented from the Roman Church in all those points in which they dissent from her as contrarily there is no way more effectuall for an Orthodoxe man to proue himselfe to be such then to shew that the Fathers Doctors of Gods Church in all ages from the beginning haue professed and taught the same doctrine he professeth and teacheth To this triall S. Athanasius challenged the Arians Behold sayth he to them (f) In decret Nic. Syn. cont Euseb we haue proued the succession of our doctrine deliuered from hand to hand from-Father to sonne you new Iewes you children of Caiphas what predecessors of your names can you shew To the same triall that most religious Emperor Theodosius prouoked the heretikes of his time for as Sozomen recordeth (g) L. 7. c. 11. hauing called together the chiefe of the Nouatians Arians and Macedonians he demanded of them whether they thought that the ancient Fathers which gouerned the Church before those dissensions in matter of Religion fell out were holy and Apostolicall men whether they did allow of their expositions of holy Scripture and would accept of them as of competent Iudges for the triall of their cause and ending of all controuersies Those Heretikes highly praysed the doctrine and expositions of the Fathers but yet could not agree among themselues to haue the bookes of the Fathers produced and their owne doctrines tried by them Wherupon Theodosius forbid them all exercise of their religion and inflicted other punishments vpon them With him accorded herein the Emperor Iustinian publishing by an especiall Law (h) L. 5. 6. that to confute the lyes of impious Heretikes and represse the madnesse of those that giue assent vnto them it is necessary to manifest vnto all what the most holy Priests of God haue taught and to follow them How often doth S. Augustine stop the mouthes of the Pelagians (i) Cout Iul. Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. l. 2. versus fin l. 5. c. 17. cont duas Ep. Pelag. l. 4. c. 12. with the testimonies of almost all the famous Bishops and Doctors both of the East West specifying them by their names somtimes twelue somtimes fourteene together adding to them the rest in generall The same kind of Argument was vsed by S. Leo the Great (k) Ep. 97. when hauing vrged against the Nestorians and Eutychians the testimonies of the holy Fathers Athanasius Hilary Ambrose and Chrysostome Theophilus Alexandrinus Basil the great and Cyril he concludeth thus to the Emperor to whom he writeth To these testimonies if you vouchsafe to attend you shall find that we teach no other thing then what our holy Fathers haue taught throughout the whole world and that no man dissenteth from them but impious heretikes Lastly the same manner of arguing from the testimonies of Fathers was vsed in the sixth generall Councell against the Monothelites in the second of Nice against the Image-breakers and in the Councell of Florence against the error of the Grecians denying the holy Ghost to proceed from the Sonne To this triall learned Catholikes haue often challenged the Sectaries of this age to that end haue set forth Catalogues of the most learned Doctors of Gods Church from the very time of Christ shewing them to haue bene members of the Roman Church and to haue belieued and taught the now Roman fayth not only in the generall heads wherin Protestants agree with vs but also in each of the seuerall points in which they dissent from vs to haue held them to be hereticall and confuted them as such euen as we do alleaging their testimonies at this day against Protestants The truth of this is to be seene in Iodocus Coccius a German who as it is declared in the Preface to his first Tome being in his youth a Lutheran afterwards partly by frequenting the Sermons of Catholike Preachers partly by hearing disputations in Schooles partly by obseruing the meruailous concord of Catholiks and the fatall discord of Protestants in matters of fayth partly by considering seriously and weighing with himselfe that the Churches of Protestants were confined to a few Prouinces and not spread ouer the whole world as the Church of Christ (l) Isa 49. was prophesied to be and that they wanted succession and continuance being newly sprung vp and lastly by a diligent perusall of the writings of ancient Fathers whom be found to agree wholly with vs and dissent from Protestants abandoned them and abiuring their doctrine east himselfe into the armes of his Catholike Mother the Roman Church And aswell for the confusion of heretikes confirmation of Catholikes as also to yeild vnto all men a reason of his fayth he vndertooke an immense labor in which he spent 24. yeares of reading the
and I may say fatall crime of the writers of his Coate false citation and misinterpretation of Authors What iniury hath he done the dead whose soules are blessed in heauen and whose ashes are reuerenced on earth to make them defend a doctrine in opposition to which they emptied euery veine in their most acred bodies What cruelty to the liuing by a pretended obedience to the authority of the primitiue times to inforce them to belieue the errors of the present Doth he hope his Volumes shall fall only into the hands of the ignorant or els of the negligent so far that any doctrine shall posse for currant which his fancy hath bene pleased to coyne Did he intrust others to make scrutiny into Authors for his purpose so aduenture his reputation to the world on an vncertaine and perhaps vnfaythfull euidence Or did he belieue according to the rule of the worst Statesmen any allegation how iniurious soeuer most iust if it serued the aduancement of his designe For certainly he hath giuen the world an example of such a courage that no good Writer will euer follow in daring thus to be disproued by any Reader who hath the benefit of a Library and the patience to compare truth with falshood For without giuing credit to the testimonies I here alleage if any man will search into the Authors themselues he shall find them mangled as that (*) Procrustes apud Plutarch in Theseo Tyrant did his ghests who with most barbarous torment shortned or lengthned their bodies according to the proportion of his bed No man writes short of his sense but is extended on the rack no man beyond but is mutilated without mercy This discouery of his vnhappy practise I wish may beget his conuersion not confusion But should he be so enamoured on his error as not to be remoued by the most forcible Arguments of Truth I hope Reader in thee to reape some fruit of my labor The Almighty in distribution of his benefits will not be directed by humane iudgment Let his diuine wisdome therfore bestow the fruit of my study where on whom he pleaseth for to his glory I must consecrate that with whatsoeuer I am Only Curious Reader I must beg thy pardon that in endeauouring to write busines I haue neglected language which like that musick Poets ascribe to the Syrens hath bene often treacherous to the hearer Elegancy of speach is a gift in which the wicked share equally with the good and the most sacred tongue that euer spake disdained to adulterate truth with any fallacy of an artificiall Phrase The policy of some Republikes hath expeld their Orators as subiects whom the power of eloquence rendred formidable the multitude being easy to receaue any impression through the eare and Oratory being a weapon as sharpe to destroy as defend the State Nor doe I value the cunning of language worthy the industry of the serious It may be of consequence where well directed but truth needs not borrow any ornament of language to make it selfe more amiable That which I aime at is thy satisfaction and that the Church of God which is on earth no other but the Roman may shine vnclouded in the sight of men as it hath euer bene most pure in the eye of God And that all mankind whom error hath misled may re-vnite themselues into her fayth guided by which the innocent can only hope for perseurance to glory and the repentant a way to mercy An Addition COurteous Reader I had almost forgotten to aduertise thee that wheras Doctor Morton hath made two Editions of his Grand Imposture the Edition which I shall cite in this Apology is the second reuised and supplied and printed at London by George Miller for Robert Milbourne 1628. A table of the Chapters and Sections of this Booke CHAP. I. GEnerall principles premised for the better vnderstanding of this Apology Pag. 1. The importance of the subiect Sect. 1. ib. Whether the Roman Church be truly called the Catholike Church and in what sense Sect. 2. pag. 4. That in the language of antiquity the Catholike Church and the Roman Church were two names signifying one and the same thing Sect. 3. pag. 7. That whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church is out of the state of saluation Sect. 4. pag. 13. CHAP. II. Of Doctor Mortons manner of alleaging Authors in generall pag. 27. CHAP. III. Whether the now Roman Church hath composed a new Creed pag. 36. CHAP. IV. Whether the now Roman Church haue added any new Articles to the Creed of the Apostles pag. 38. CHAP. V. That the word Roman is no deprauation but a true declaration of the article of the Catholike Church pag. 40. Doctor Mortons first Argument against the precedent doctrine answeared Sect. 1. ibid. His second Argument answeared Sect. 2. pag. 43. His third Argument answeared Sect. 3. pag. 52. His fourth Argument answeared Sect. 4. pag. 54. His fifth Argument answeared Sect. 5. pag. 56. His sixth Argument answeared Sect. 6. pag. 58. His seauenth Argument answeared Sect. 7. pag. 59. His eight Argument answeared Sect 8. pag. 60. CHAP. VI. That the Roman Church is the Head and mother of all Churches pag. 61. CHAP. VII S. Peters primacy defended pag. 72. CHAP. VIII Abuses and wronges offered by Doctor Morton to the ancient Fathers and other Catholike writers pag. 81. CHAP. IX S. Peter exercised his authority and iurisdiction of supreme Pastor and Gouernor ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church pag. 88. CHAP. X. Doctor Mortons Arguments against the former doctrine answeared pag. 93. CHAP. XI Sleights and falsifications of Doctor Morton to shift of the testimonies of ancient Fathers teaching S. Peters supremacy pag. 107. CHAP. XII The authority of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth proued to be infallible pag. 117. Our first Argument Sect. 1. pag. ibid. Our second Argument Sect. 2.125 S. Pauls subiection to S. Peter and his acknowledgment therof Sect. 3. pag. 132. Other Arguments of Doctor Morton answeared Sect. 4. pag. 140. Priuiledges granted to other of the Apostles and not to S. Peter obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 5. pag. 143. What estimation S. Paul had of the Roman Church Sect. 6. pag. 152. Why S. Paul did not entitle his Epistles Catholike Epistles Sect. 7. pag. 159. Other Arguments out of S. Paul and other Catholike Authors answeared Sect. 8 pag. 162. CHAP. XIII Whether S. Iohn the Euangelist conceaued himselfe subiect to the Roman Church pag. 166. Whether Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist Sect. 1. ibid. Whether S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter were subiect to the B. of Rome S. Peters Successor Sect. 2. pag. 173. CHAP. XIV Why the Epistles of S. Iames Iohn and Iude are intituled Catholike Epistles pag. 177. Of the name Catholike Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the title of Vicar of Christ belong to the Pope and in what sense Sect. 2. pag. 180. Whether S. Paul reckoning the Ecclesiasticall orders gaue the Pope any place among
Ambrose to confute Iulian the Pelagian heretike sayth (g) L. 1. cont Iulia. Pelag. c. 2. Here is Ambrose of Milan whom thy Mayster Pelagius so highly commended as to say that in his bookes chiefly the Roman fayth doth shyne so that his very enemy durst not reprehend his fayth and most pure interpretation of Scripture Who seeth not that S. Augustine here by the Roman fayth vnderstands the Catholike fayth And therefore speaking againe of the great constancy of the same Saint of his labours and dangers for the Catholike fayth he sayth (h) Cont. Iulian Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. The Roman world doubteth not to magnify them with him wher againe by the Roman world he vnderstandeth all the Catholikes of the world The same was the beliefe of S. Hierome (i) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. What fayth sayth he doth Ruffinus call his fayth That which the Roman Church holds or that which is cōtayned in Origens books if he answere that which the Roman Church holds then are we Catholikes The same appeares by the Epistle of Theodosius the Emperor to Acatius Bishop of Berōe and other his Collegues to whom he sayth (k) In Synod Ephes to 5. c. 10. It becometh your Holinesse to aske these things of God earnestly and by manifest tokens to shew your selues approued Priests of the Roman Religion The same appeares by Palladius (l) In vita Chrysostomi who writeth of Theodorus Tyanaeus that he fortified his Bishoprick with a wall of piety by perseuering till the end of his life in the communion of the faithfull Romans of whom Paul giueth testimony saying your fayth is renowned throughout the whole world The same appeares by what Victor of Tunes reporteth of Vitalianus a Scythian (m) In Anastas namely that he tooke armes against Anastasius the Emperor and would neuer promise peace vnto him but vpon condition that he should vnite all the Churches of the East to the Roman which plainely sheweth that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholike Church as the Head and center of Catholike Communion and Mother of all Churches The same appeares by Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople who abiuring the memory of Acatius said to Hormisdas Pope (n) Epist ad Hormisd We hope to be in one communion with you declared by the See Apostolike in which there is the integrity of Christian Religion and perfect solidity and we promise not to recite hereafter in the sacred mysteries the names of those that haue separated themselues from the communion of the Catholike Church that is to say that agree not in all things with the See Apostolike And not vnlike to this is the profession of fayth which Iustinian the Emperor sent to Agapetus Pope The same appeares by (o) Ep. ad Agapet apud Bin. to 2. pag. 417.420 S. Augustine testifying (p) Ep. 157. that the Heresy of Pelagius and Celestius by meanes of the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councels hath beene condemned in the extent of the whole world by the Reuerend Prelates of the Apostolike See yea euen by two of them Pope Innocentius and Pope Zozimus And that S. Augustine by the See Apostolike vnderstands the Catholike Church Possidius speaking of the same subiect declareth (q) In vita Aug. c. 18. calling the sentence pronounced by these Popes Ecclesiae Catholicae iudicium The iudgment of the Catholike Church Innocentius sayth he and Zozimus in their seuerall tymes censuring the Pelagians and cutting them of from the members of the Church by their letters addressed to the African Churches of the East and West commaunded them to be anathematized and auoyded by all Catholikes and the most religious Emperour Honorius hearing of this sentence of the Catholike Church pronounced against them condemned them also by his lawes ordayning that they should be ranked among Heretikes The same appeares by Gelasius (r) In decret de Scriptor apocryph an African borne and it is thought a Disciple of S. Augustine testifying that the holy Roman Catholike and Apostolike Church hath not bene preferred before other Churches by any Synodicall constitutions but hath obteyned the primacy by the voyce of our Lord and Sauiour in the Ghospell saying Thou art Peter c. The same appeares by S. Prosper S. Augustines second soule saying (s) L. de promiss praedict Dei part 4. c. 5 The Apostles Peter and Paul founded the Church of the Gentils in the Citty of Rome where they taught the doctrine of Christ our Lord they deliuered it to their Successors peaceable and free from diuision the Christian that communicates with this generall Church is a Catholike but if he be separated from it he is an Heretike and Antichrist The same appeares by the testimony of those two famous Doctors of the African Church S. Fulgentius and Primasius with other their fellow-Bishops 220. in number who being banished by the Arian King Trasamundus out of Africa into Sardinia writ from thence a Synodicall Epistle to the Catholikes of Africa in which they exhort them for the auoyding of Pelagianisme to read the books of S. Augustine of which say they (t) Extat in Bibliotheca Patr. edit Colon. to 6. part 1. pag. 152. Hormisdas of blessed memory a glorious Bishop of the Apostolike See made mention with great commendation of Catholike prayse in the Epistle which he writ in answer to the Consultation of Possessor our holy brother and fellow-Bishop His words are these What the Roman Church that is the Catholike Church holds and obserues concerning freewill and the grace of God may be fully knowne out of diuers books of blessed Augustine chiefly those which he writ to Prosper Hilary These their words conuince that not only in the beliefe of that ancient and holy Pope Hormisdas but also of all the Catholike Bishops of Africa the Roman Church and the Catholike Church the Roman fayth and the Catholike fayth were Synonima's betokening one and the same thing The same appeares by S. Gregory the Great who setteth downe the forme of abiuration which all Bishops returning from Schisme to the Vnity of the Catholike Church were to make expressing it in these words (u) L. 1. epist 30. I Bishop of N. hauing discerned the trappe of diuision wherein I was caught am returned by Gods grace with my pure and free will to the Vnity of the See Apostolike and I vow and promise that I will neuer returne to Schisme but alwayes remayne in the Vnity of the Catholike Church and in the communion of the Bishop of Rome This profession sheweth that as now it is so then it was held to be no lesse then open Schisme to be diuided from the Roman Church And the like profession made by Nicolas the first of that name was afterwards sent by Adrian the second to the eight Councell generall and being read in the first Action was approued and praysed by all the Fathers therof (x) Act. 1. apud Bin. to 3.881.913
which there is a continued Succession of Bishops from S. Peter cannot be the Protestant Church which hath no such succession but the Roman it followeth that S Augustine held the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church and therefore he grieued to see the Donatists lye cut off from her as branches from the vine Be yee ingraffed on the Vine sayth he to the (m) Psal contra part Donati Donatists It is a griefe to vs to see you so lye cut of number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranke of Fathers who succeeded whom That is the Rocke which the proud gates of hell ouercome not And as in these words S. Augustine sheweth the miserable estate of those then that are diuided from the Roman Church so on the contrary he declareth the happinesse and security of all that are in coÌ„munion which her when speaking of Cecilianus Archbishop of Carthage who had bene condemned by a numerous Councell of Donatist Bishops in Africa he sayth (n) Ep. 162. Cecilianus might haue contemned the conspiring multitude of his enemies because he knew himself to be vnited by communicatory letters both to the Church of Rome in which the Soueraygnty of the See Apostolike hath alwayes florished and to other Countreys from whence the Ghospell came first into Africa So teacheth Possidius Bishop of Calama a familiar friend to S. Augustine whose life he writ and therein reporteth (o) Cap. 18. that when Innocentius and Zozimus had condemned the Pelagians the most religious Emperor Honorius hearing of this sentence of the Catholike Church pronounced against them obeyed it condemning also by his lawes ordayned that they should be ranked among heretikes By which it appeares that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholike Church her iudgment in matters of fayth to be infallible and that the Emperors by their lawes seconded her iudgment comdemning as Heretikes those whom she had condemned So teacheth S. Cyril Patriarke of Alexandria explicating those words of our (p) Math. 16. Sauiour Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it According to this promise of our Lord sayth (q) Apud S. Thom. in Caten ad cap. 16. Math. he â—he Apostolical Church of Peter perseuereth in her Bishops pure free from all seduction circumuention aboue all Prelats bishops aboue all Primats of Churches and people most perfect in the fayth and authority of Peter And whereas other Churches haue bene stayned with the errors of some she alone remayns established firmely vnconquerably silencing and stopping the mouthes of all Heretikes we vpon necessity of saluation neither deceiued nor drunke with the wyne of pryde togeather which her confesse and preach the forme of truth and of holy Apostolicall tradition And (r) Apud S. Thom. Opusc 1. againe Let vs remayne as members in our head the Apostolicall throne of the Bishops of Rome from which it is our part to inquire what we ought to belieue and what to hold And lastly It is sayth the Angelicall (s) Ibid. Doctor proued necessary for saluation to yeild obedience to the Bishop of Rome for Cyril sayth in his booke of Treasures Therefore Brethren if we will imitate Christ let vs as his sheep heare his voyce remayning in the Church of Peter and let vs not be puffed vp with the wynd of pride least peraduenture the crooked serpent for our contention cast vs out as long since he cast Eue out of Paradyse So teacheth S. Peter for his golden eloquence surnamed Chrysologus exhorting Eutyches the Arch-heretike to leaue his heresy and learne the true fayth from the Church of (t) Epist. ad Eutych Rome We exhort thee Reuerend Brother to lend an obedient eare to the letters of the most holy Pope of the City of Rome for as much as the Blessed Peter who liues and rules in his owne seate exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it So teacheth (u) L. de promiss prodict Dei part 4. c. 5. S. Prosper The Apostles Peter and Paul founded the Church of the Gentiles in the Citty of Rome where they taught the Doctrine of Christ our Lord and deliuered it to their Successors A Christian communicating with this generall Church is a Catholike but if he be separated from it he is an heretike and Antichrist So teacheth Arnobius (x) In psal 106. explicating the necessity of remayning in the Roman Church in these few but effectuall words He that goeth out from the Church of Peter perisheth for thirst Whereupon Erasmus sayth (y) Praefat. instruct Comment in Psalterium Arnobius seemes to yeild this honor to the Roman Church that whosoeuer is out of her is out of the Catholike Church So teacheth Iohn an ancient Patriarke of Constantinople (z) In ep ad Orientales who making profession of his fayth to Hormisdas (a) In ep ad Hormisd Pope acknowledged that in the See Apostolike the Catholike Religion is alwayes conserued inuiolable and that they who consent not fully with the See Apostolike are out of the communion of the Catholike Church So likewise teacheth S. Fulgentius Bishop of Ruspa and a famous Doctor of the African Church who togeather which other Bishops his Collegues made this answer to Peter a Deacon that had bene sent out of the (b) L. de incarnat grat c. 11. East The Roman Church enlightned with the words of the two great lights Peter Paul as with radiant beames and honoured with their bodies and which is also the top of the world without hesitation belieues so to iustice and doubtes not to Confesse so to saluation So he teaching that no Christian ought to make doubt of the fayth of the Roman Church Againe a Disciple of his that writ and dedicated his life to Felicianus his Successor reporteth that when Fulgentius going to the (c) Vita S. Fulgent c 11. Extat in Biblioth Pat. Edit Colon. tom 6. wildernes of Thebais to fast arriued at Syracusa Eulalius Bishop of that City dissuaded him with these words Thou doest well in aspiring to greater perfection but thou knowest that without fayth it is impossible to please God and that a perfidious dissention hath separated those Countreyes into which thou art trauelling from the communion of blessed Peter wherfore Sonne returne home least by seeking a more perfect life thou runne hazard of loosing the true fayth By which it is euident that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholike Church and that all such as dissented from her Doctrine were out of the true fayth and incapable of Saluation So teacheth S. Leo the first Pope of that name for his admirable learning wisdome and sanctity surnamed The Great who writing to the Bishops of Vienne sayth (d) Epist. 89. Christ from the See of Peter as from a certaine Head powreth his gifts vpon the
Nilus Faber Cornelius Agrippa Erasmus Aenaas Siluius Cusanus and Polydore Virgill M. Brierley in the Aduertisement prefixed before his Protestant Apology hath giuen you in particular and by name speciall warning not to obiect them in your future wrytings against vs as being prohibited authors whose testimonies are of no more authority with vs then your owne Grand imposture or then the testimonies of diuers other Protestants whom in the same worke you alleage against vs. This may serue to giue the reader a taste of your manner of wryting in generall which how vnfitting a man of your place yeares and learning it is the ensuing Chapters will better declare CHAP. III. Whether the now Roman Church hath composed a new Creed Num. 8 YOVR first charge is a that the Roman Church in her Councell of Trent (q Pag. 3. by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth set forth for the confirmation of the same Councell hath composed a new Creed cōsisting of more then twenty articles of the now Roman fayth These your words contayne two vntruthes for neither hath the Councell of Trent composed any new Creed nor is there mention of any such Creed or articles in the bull of Pius set forth for the confirmation of that Councell Among other Bulls of his commonly annexed to the Coūcell there is extant a profession of the Catholike fayth to be made by all Ecclesiasticall persons that haue charge of soules and by all Doctors and professors of whatsoeuer Artand faculty of learning in which they oblige themselues by oath to obserue all the decrees of the Councell of Trent and of all other Oecumenicall that haue bene held in the Church of God and to anathematize all heresies condemned by them This profession you are pleased to call a new Roman Creed of more then twenty articles But if that be a Creed which consisteth of Articles you that haue composed and sweare to a new beliefe which your selues call The 39. articles are chargeable with a new Creed of your diuising But that we call the bull of Pius the fourth a Creed or the profession of our fayth contained in it Articles you cannot shew and therfore your tearmyng it a new Creed is a silly conceypt voyd of truth and a fit foundation for a Grand Imposture And no lesse vntruly you charge vs with adding in our Creed to the article of the Catholike Church the word Roman For that article of our Creed I belieue the holy Catholike Church is set downe without any such addition in all our Missals Breuiaries Primers and Catechismes And that which most of all declareth your cauilling is that in this very profession of our fayth set downe in two different bulls of Pius the 4. the Creed vsed by the Roman Church is read without any addition of the word Roman It is true that out of the Symbol of Creed when we explicate which is the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed we say it is the Roman Church which to be true appeareth euidently by the testimonies of antiquity out of which I haue already proued The Catholike Church and the Roman Church to be tearmes conuertible CHAP. IV. Whether the now Roman Church haue added any new articles to the Creed of the Apostles Num. 9 YOV say (a) Pag. 7. It is a doctrine acknowledged in our owne schooles that the Church hath no power to create new articles of fayth yet afterwards you set downe as our doctrine (b) Pag. 383. out of Philiarchus that the Church hath power to create new articles of fayth and that the contrary is one of Luthers Heresies These two propositions of yours I know not well how to saue from contradiction that I leaue to you In the thing it selfe there is neither difficulty nor difference of opinions among Catholikes for if by new articles of fayth you vnderstand doctrines newly reuealed as none but God can be the author of diuine reuelation so none but God can make articles of fayth and in this sense all Catholike Diuines agree But if by articles of fayth you vnderstand not new reuelations but such Verities as are contayned implicitly and virtually in the word of God but not as yet explicitly declared vnto vs so likewise all Catholike Diuines agree that the Church hath power to make articles of fayth that is to explicate and declare vnto vs some verities of fayth which before were not so clearly deliuered nor vniuersally receaued as such So she hath declared the epistle to the Hebrewes and that of S. Iames to be canoicall and as our learned Roffensis hath well (c) Ad articul 18. Lutheri obserued there are many things of which no question was made in the primitiue Church which yet doubts arising against them are now accleared by the diligence of posterity So in the first Councell of Constantinople the holy Ghost was explicitly declared to proceed from the Father and the Sonne So the three Creeds of Nice of Constantinople S. Athanasius adde by way of declaration many Verities which are not expresly but implicitly or virtually contained in the Creed of the Apostles And so likewise neither the celebration of Easter after the manner of the Roman Church nor the validity of Baptisme ministred by heretikes were of necessary beliefe vntill the Councell of Nice had declared them to be such In this sense the Canonicall law (d) Gloss in Extrau d◠Verb. signif tit 14. c. 4. expresseth that the Church hath power to make articles of fayth to wit by confirming and declaring them to the faithfull This power Luther denied to the Church and Pope Leo the X. in his bull against him condemned him for it But you to iustify Luther falsify Leo. Luthers assertion is this (e) Apud Bin. to 4. pag. 654. Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus non esse statuere articùlos fidei imò nec leges morum seu bonorum operum It is certaine that it is no way in the power of the Church or the Pope to appoint articles of fayth nor lawes of manners or good workes You to iustify Luther and traduce the Pope for condemning this his assertion leaue out the later part of Luthers article adde nouos in the middest and omit prorsus setting it downe thus (f) Pag. 383. Certum est ait non esse in manu Ecclesiae statuere nouos asticulos fidei Luther maintaynes as certaine that it is not in the power of the Church to ordayne new articles of fayth You cut of the later part of his article to conceale the impiety of his Doctrine denying the Church all power of making lawes either to reforme abuses or refrayne men from sinne by the practise of good workes And so likewise your leauing out of prorsus and putting in of nouos is to persuade your reader that the Pope condemned Luther for denying the Church power to coyne new articles of fayth that is to broach new reuelations which is an vntruth
Elect of God as the testimonies of your owne Iesuites the iudgment of S. Augustine and S. Chrysostome do confirme This then is your argument Suarez Tolet and Bellarmine for those are the Iesuites you name S. Chrysostome S. Augustine by sheep in the words of Christ obiected vnderstand only the sanctified Elect of God Ergo the Church consisteth only of predestinat An absurd consequence and falsly fathered on these authors who teach that the name of sheep in holy writ is taken sometimes for the elect and sometymes for the reprobate In this text of S. Iohn which you obiect it is taken for the elect for Christ speakes of those sheep to whom he will giue euerlasting life and which therfore no man shall pluck out of his (a) Ioan. 10.28 hand as Suarez rightly (b) L. 3. de auxil grat c. 16. â—â— 18 obserueth but other sheep there are which the infernall wolfe shall deuour such was Iudas and such are all reprobate Christians And if it were true that by sheep in Scripture were vnderstood the elect only yet your consequence is false and the Doctrine contained in it hereticall and such it is held to be by those very authors which you alleage to patronize it Suarez sheweth (*) De tripl virt Theol. part 1. disp 9. 〈◊〉 6. seqq that the Church is a fold contayning both sheep and kids that is both predestinate and reprobate as Christ himselfe hath (c) Math. 25.33 declared And treating there of the sense of this very place of S. Iohn he prooueth that some wolues are in the Church and some sheep out of the Church this I say he proueth out of the words of S. Augustine whom you alleage for the contrary saying (d) Tract 45. in Ioan. According to prescience and predestination how many sheep are without and how many wolues within how many liue wantonly now that will become Christians how many blaspheme Christ who shall belieue in Christ c. And how many prayse God within who will blaspheme him are chast and will become wantons stand now and will fall And he concludeth that these later notwithstanding they be actually in the Church are reprobat and the former though they be actually out of the Church are predestinate All this and much more to the same effect is alleaged by Bellarmine (e) L. 3. de Eocles c. 7. 9. out of Scriptures and Fathers And the same is deliuered by Tolet in that very place which you cite for the (f) Ad c. 10. Ioan. Aunotat 16. contrary for he sayth that as some who did not as yet belieue were sheep and elect so contrarily some that did actually belieue and were sheep were notwithstanding reprobats as Iudas And lastly S. Chrysostome is so far from holding with you that the Church containes only the sanctified Elect of God that he writeth (g) In Psal 39. thus The whole Church consisteth not of perfect men but hath also those that giue themselues to idlenesse and slouth that lead easy and dissolute liues and willingly serue their pleasures And that in the net of the Apostles which is the Church are contayned good and bad (h) Hom. 45. in cap. 12. Math. fishes Which Doctrine he like wise deliuereth in other places of his workes I conclude therfore that you haue wronged Suarez Tolet Bellarmine S. Augustine and Chrysostome fathering your false Doctrine on them But you proceed (i) Pag. 12. saying A third Scripture we find Rom. 1.9 where the Apostle sayth He that hath not the spirit of Christ the same is not his which sheweth that none is truly a Christian but as he is regenerated by the spirit of Christ. But we find this Scripture to make nothing at all for you for you for who euer is regenerated in the Sacrament of Baptisme receiueth some gifts of the holy Ghost which is the Spirit of Christ And as he is truly a man that is borne of Adam by naturall propagation so is he truly a Christian that is borne of Christ in Baptisme by spirituall regeneration for as therby he receaueth fayth so he is inrolled in the number of Christians and made a member of the mysticall body of Christ which is his Church True it is that all members of the Church are not alike those that with fayth haue sanctifiing grace which is the life of our soules are liuing members they that haue fayth without grace are according to diuers opinions tearmed diuersly some say they are dead members some that because they are dead they are not members properly but improperly or equiuocally and therfore rather to be called partes of the Church then members Others say that they are neither members nor partes but as superfluous or corrupt humors in the body of man These opinions though they differ in words yet they agree in this that fayth being the essentiall forme of the Church all the faythfull be they Saints or sinners predestinat or reprobat are contained in the precincts therof euen as all whether members parts or humors of man are contained in the body of man And as for this different manner of speach Turrecremata Canus and others cited by them and here alleaged by you out of Bellarmine for out of him you tooke them call sinners partes of the Church and not members but only equiuocally because as Suarez rightly (*) De trip virtute Theol. p. 1. d. 9. n. 12. obserueth by members they vnderstand only such partes as liue wheras the name of partes may also agree to those that liue not Wherfore they differ only in the names vnderstanding by partes the very same that the holy Councell of Trent and other Diuines do by members And doubtlesse this manner of speach vsed by the Councell is more proper because sinners hauing fayth hope are not voyd of all motion of spirituall life for as fayth is the beginning of iustification so it vniteth the belieuer in some sort vnto Christ Nor doth Costerus whom here you obiect differ from this opinion for that he denyes not sinners to be dead partes or members of the Church he declareth (k) Enchir iâ— contro 6.2 prope fin when speaking of the Bishops of Sardis and Laodicea that were reprehended the one that he was dead in Spirit the other that he was nether cold nor boat but luke-warme wretched miserable poore blind and naked he affirmeth that notwithstanding this they were both still acknowledged to be Bishops and heads of their Churches And a litle after where he sayth (l) Solut. ad obiect Haerâ—t that sinners are in the Church as humors in the body he sayth withall that they are as wythered bowes on the tree Wherfore vnlesse you will haue the Head to be no member of the body and the wythered bowes no partes of the tree you must consesse that your obiecting of Costerus to proue that sinners and reprobates are no partes of the Church is a grand Imposture And
not to remoue it from thence or whether without any commandment from Christ he chose Rome for his See out of his owne free election as he might haue chosen Milan or any other city That he had such a command from Christ is affirmed learnedly proued by (u) De triplici virt Theol. d. 10. sect 3. n. 10. Suarez (x) L. 2. de Pont. c. 12. Bellarmine (y) Institut mor. part 2. l. 4. c. 21. §. Secunda sent Azor and by the greatest part of Catholike Diuines with many forcible testimonies of antiquity According to this opinion which is the more probable pious learnedly proued by Suarez it followeth that the Roman Church euen as Roman is by Diuine institution the See of S. Peter and his Successors and that therfore it is not left free for them to remoue their See from Rome to any other place But to giue you your greatest aduantage be it that S. Peter receaued no such commandment from Christ but that it was free for him to chose for his See either Rome or any other Citty and that his successors may also freely transferre their See from Rome Yet this affoards no help to your cause for though according to this opinion it be no matter of fayth that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman be the Catholike Church yet specificatiuè and absolutely it is for albeit S. Peter might haue placed his See els where yet it is matter of fayth that de facto he placed his See at Rome and that whiles his Successor continueth his See there the Roman Church is de facto the Head Mistresse of all Churches and that whosoeuer is not a member vnited to this Head is out of the Catholike Church This you should haue disproued but wilfully mistake the state of the question and because it is not matter of fayth but of opinion that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman is the Catholike Church you inferre that specificatiuè and absolutely it is not matter of fayth but only of opinion that she is the Catholike Church which is as good a consequence as that an Aethiopian absolutely is not a man because formally as black he is not a man With such arguments you delude ignorant Readers that want learning to discerne your sleights SECT V. Your fifth Argument YOur fifth argument to proue that the Roman Church is not the Catholike Church (z) Pag. 18.19.20 is because there was a Catholike Church which had Apostles Martyrs and Confessors blessed Saints of God before the Roman Church was founded yea and before the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed or the Apostolicall Creed it selfe composed All this though it be granted as true is yet of no force against our Doctrine which is that S. Peter was ordained by Christ Pastor of his whole flocke and therefore Gouernor of the vniuersall Church from whence it followeth that whatsoeuer Apostles Martyrs Confessors or other faythfull liued in the Church of Christ after S. Peter was made Head thereof were members of the vniuersall or Catholike Church subiect to Peter though for a tyme there were no one particular Church which was head of al Churches because S. Peter as yet had not made choyce of any particular seate as afterwards he did at Antioch and therfore the Church of Antioch whiles he sate there was the Head and Mother Church to whom all other Churches were bound to professe vnion and obedience In regard wherof that Holy Pope Innocentius the first greatly commended by S. Augustine (a) Epist. 18. Alexand. Episc Antioch sayth that the See of Antioch had not giuen place to the See of Rome but because what Antioch obtayned only by the way Rome obtayned absolutely and finally To which I adde that if the Successor of S. Peter should now remoue his See from Rome to Milan as S. Peter did from Antioch to Rome not the Church of Rome but that of Milan should be the Catholike Church as the Head and Mother Church of the world But because by the prouidence of God S. Peter fixed his seat left it to his Successors at Rome whiles they continue it there the Roman Church by reason of his See is the Head Mother Church of the world to which sayth (b) L. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus all Churches and all the faythfull from euery place are of necessity to agree by reason of this her more powerfull principality I conclude therfore that you ignorantly or wittingly mistake the state of the question for the Roman Churches being or not being the Catholike Church as the Head and Mother Church of the world no way dependeth on her being founded before or after the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed but vpon being the See in which S. Peter Prince of the Apostles liued and dyed and which he left to his Successors for the Bishop of that See being S. Peters Successor succeedeth him in his supreme authority and that authority maketh the Roman Church the Head of the world which dignity it hath euer enioyed since S. Peter sate there and shall enioy whiles his Successor continueth there which shal be to the end of the world To haue spoken to the purpose you shold haue proued that the Saints which departed this life before the Roman Church was founded were separated from the communion of S. Peter and from the Church of which he was Head which if they had bene they had no more bene Saints then you now are SECT VI. Your sixth Argument YOur sixth Argument is a mere sophisme Al Catholike Diuines accord as in a matter of fayth that the Catholike or vniuersall Church (c) Pag. 20.21.22 mentioned in the Apostles Creed hath a prerogatiue of continuing in the true fayth vntill the end of the world according to Christs promise made to S. Peter Secondly and that the Roman Church whiles the Successors of S. Peter continue their seate at Rome cannot fayle in fayth But that S. Peter fixed his seat at Rome by the commandement of Christ there to remaine to the end of his life and in his Successors to the end of the world although it be a most pious and probable opinion held by the greatest and best part of Diuines yet it is not expresse matter of Fayth because no such precept of Christ appeareth in Scripture or tradition and therfore some Diuines stick not to grant that the fixing of S. Peters See at Rome was a thing proceeding merely from his owne free will and election consequently that it is in the power of his Successors to transport it from Rome to Antioch or any other City In which case as Rome shold not then be the See of S. Peter but Antioch so neither should the Bishop of Rome be the supreme Gouernor of the whole Church nor the Church of Rome the Catholike Church as the Head and mistresse of all others as now
affirmeth that Christ to reward his fayth built his Church vpon him 9. And no lesse deceiptfully you alleage (k) Pag. 39. g. the RomaÌ„ glosse (l) Gloss Decret part 1. d. 10. in Cap. Dominus no fler to proue that not Peter but his confession without any relation to his person is the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church for the glosse sayth Christ would haue his owne name of Petra a Rocke giuen to Peter c. therfore called him Petrus And the Chapter on which this glosse is made is taken out of an Epistle of S. Leo in which he not only affirme (m) Ep. 83. Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built but addeth that whosoeuer denyeth this truth is impiously presumptuous and plungeth himselfe into Hell To these and otherlike obiections out of the Fathers and other Catholike authors you ad some confirmations of your owne The first is None say you (n) Pag. 41. will deny but that there was meant in Peters Confession that matter which he confessed but Peter confessed not himselfe but Christ saying Then art the Sonne of the lyuing God Ergo his confession had relation to Christ and not to himselfe A false and senslesse consequence for euery confession hath relation not only to the matter as to the obiect or thing confessed but also to him that coÌ„fesseth as to the agent from which it proceedeth and therfore to inferre that when Christ answering Peter and rewarding his confession sayd vnto him Thou art Peter c. he meant not Peter but himselfe to be the Rock is as senslesse an inference as to say that when Thomas cryed out vnto Christ (o) Ioan. 20.28 My Lord my God and Christ in reward of his confession sayd (p) Ibid. vers 29. Blessed art thou Thomas he pronounced not Thomas blessed but himselfe which was the matter Thomas beleeued 2. You obiect (q) Pag. 42. fin 43. All the Apostles and Prophets are called foundations wherby is not meant their persons or dominions but their doctrines I grant that Christ S. Peter the rest of the Apostles and Prophets are foundations on which the Church is built Christ is the chiefe and primary foundation by his owne power and strength Of him the Apostle sayth (r) 1. Cor. 3.11 Other foundation no man can lay besyde that which is layd which is Christ Iesus whome therfore S. Augustine (s) In Psal 86. and S. Gregory (t) L. 28. Moral c. 9. call Fundamentum fundamentorum The foundation of foundations Besydes Christ the Apostles and Prophets are also secondary foundations of the Church for the Prophets by fore-telling Christ and the Apostles by preaching his sayth and doctrine vphold the body of the Church to wit the faythfull who therfore are called (u) Ephes 2.20 Domostikes of God built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner-stone and for this cause the wall of the Citty of the Church is sayd (x) Apoc. 1.24 to haue 12. foundations and in them the 12. names of the 12. Apostles Among these secondary foundations Peter hath the first and chiefest place The rest of the faythfull in respect of him are ordinary stones he an impregnable Rock as being built immediatly vpon Christ and the rest by meanes of him in regard wherof it was sayd to him alone and to no other of the faythfull or Apostles Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And therfore S. Augustine sayth (y) Serm. 15. de Sanct. Our Lord called Peter the foundation of the Church for which cause the Church with reason worshippeth this foundation vpon which the height of the ecclesiafticall edifice is raysed 3. You say (z) Pag. 42. that when the Fathers expound by Rock Peter they meane ether a primacy of order or honor or els a priority of Confession in Peter not of Authority and Dominion and the same you repeate afterwards saying (a) Pag. 110. The similitude of head and members hath no colour of superiority but of priority of place or of voyce And this reason you alleage (b) Pag. 41. why though the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake yet he alone answered as being the mouth of the rest I grant that Peter spake in the name of the rest but to inferre that therfore Christ when he answered Peter saying Thou art Peter made him not a Rock or promised not to make him the foundation of his Church is a Non sequitur I grant also that the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake that he answered as the mouth of the rest not because he had any Commission from them but because out of his great feruor he preuented the rest and spake for them as their head and Superiour as Christ somtimes did for all his Apostles (c) Math. 9.11 Luc. 6.2 and as the Rector is wont to answere in the name of the whole Colledge So sayth S. Cyrill of Alexandria (d) L. 4. in Ioan. c. 18. They all answere by one that was their Superiour And againe (e) Ibid. l. 12. cap. 64. when our Sauiour asked his Disciples whom doe you say that I am Peter as being Prince and head of therest first cryed out Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God So S. Cyrill of Hierusalem (f) Catech. â—â— All the Apostles being silent for this doctrine was aboue their strength Peter Prince of the Apostles and the chiefe preacher of the Church sayth vnto him Thou art Christ c. And in the same sense S. Cyprian (g) L. 1. ep 3. sayth Peter on whom our Lord built his Church speaketh for all in the voyce of the Church And S. Augustine (h) Serm. 31. de verb. Apost c. 1. Peter bearing the figure of the Church most feruent in the loue of Christ chiefe in the order of Apostles and holding the Princedome of the Apostleship often answers one for all And againe (i) Tract 124. in Ioan. That in his answere he bare the person of the Church for the primacy of his Apostleship and for the primacy which he had among the Disciples And whereas you to elude this exposition of the Fathers say (k) Pag. 42. 110. that when they expound by Rock Peter or pronounce him to be the head and Captaine of the rest they meane not primacy of authority and iurisdiction but of order or honor is a distinction that caries with it its owne confutation and shall be effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 1. hereafter CHAP. IX S. Peter exercised his Authority and Iurisdiction of supreme Pastor and Gouernor ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church TO disproue S. Peters authority ouer the other Apostles you obiect first (a) Pag. 45.46 that S. Gregory vpon those words of the Apostle (b) Rom. 9.12 I will magnify my office in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentils
and againe (o) In c. 1. ad Gal. he went to him as to one greater then himselfe and that not in a vulgar manner but as he obserueth out of the Greeke Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to behold and admire him as a personage of great excellency and maiesty as men goe to behold and admire great and famous Cities for which cause and to satisfy himselfe with a perfect view of his person and behauiour notwithstanding his great employments he stayed 15. dayes with him If therfore the generall accord of sacred expositors be of weight this 1. place of S. Paul which you produce to disproue his subiection to S. Peter is so farre from disprouing it that it strongly proueth it and his owne acknowledgment therof Againe 14. yeares after this time sayth S. Paul I went vp to Hierusalem according to reuelation to conferre with them the Ghospell which I preach among the Gentils From this place you argue (q) Pag. 5â— that S. Paul held himselfe equall in authority with S. Peter for S. Hierome whom you alleage out of Salmeron sayth it is one thing to conferre an other thing to learne for among them that conferre there is equality What equality of iurisdiction and power No for a subiect may conferre with his Superiour a Collegiall with his Rector but of Doctrine and learning only as S. Hierome there declareth adding that betweene him that teacheth and him that learneth he that learneth is the lesser to wit in knowledge And therfore I grant that S. Paul went not to learne of S. Peter he had learned his Ghospell by reuelation immediatly from Iesus Christ the same Maister that taught S. Peter Nor did he receaue from S. Peter or the other Apostles power or authority to preach for that likewise he had immediatly from Christ in this sense he sayth (*) Gal. 2.6 The Apostles added nothing to me Neuerthelesse because he had not conuersed with Christ in mortall flesh nor learned his Doctrine from the other Apostles which had bene instructed by him before his death lest the Gentils to whom he preached being incensed against him by false Apostles might haue any doubt of the truth of his Doctrine or of his Commission to preach for their satisfaction and that his preaching might not be in vaine and without profit to the hearers he went to Hierusalem and conferred his Ghospell with the chiefe Apostles to the end that the Gentils might be certified of the truth of his Doctrine knowing it to haue their approbation and to be the same that they preached But you that borow your argument from Salmeron (r) In Ep. ad Gal. Disput â—2 why do you conceale what followeth in his Comment If sayth he it was needfull for so great an Apostle of Christ to conferre his Ghospell with the Apostles and Peter how much more necessary was it that Luther and Caluin should haue brought theirs to be conferred with the See Apostolike With what pillars of the Church did they conferre it as Paul did or with what Miracle did they proue it they that could neuer persuade themselues so much as to come to the See Apostolike and Roman Church the mother of all Churches to conferre nor to the Oecumenicall Councell of Trent that was gathered for their soules health sake that was free and open to them that did courteously intreat them and with a safe conduct inuite them to come So Salmeron whose words you thought best not to mention both because they shew your Doctrine to be destitute of lawfull authority and also because they refute the fabulous report which you (s) Pag. 404. make out of Thuanus your historian that diuers Protestants came to the Councell and desired of the Popes Legates liberty to dispute but could not be admitted for Samleron was present at the Councell as one of the Popes Diuines who therfore knew what passed in the Councell better then Thuanus And to Salmerons testimony I adde your owne confessions in the late Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of Scotland against the pretended Generall assembly holden at Glascow (t) Pag. 13. and in your Apology of the Church of England which also expresseth the reasons why you refused to come set downe in your owne words and refelled by Doctor Harding in his Confutation of the same Apology (u) Part. ad Chap. 7. fol. 293. seqq How far therfore you are from the Doctrine example of S. Paul in this point not only Salmeron but Venerable Bede and S. Anselme (x) In cap. 2. ad Gal. haue declared out of S. Augustine whose words both they and Salmeron set downe to this purpose If the Apostle Paul himselfe sayth S. Augustine (y) L. 28. contra Paust c. 4. being called from Heauen after the Ascension of our Lord had not found the Apostles liuing that by communicating and conferring his Ghospell with thew he might shew himselfe to be of the same society the Church would giue no credit at all vnto him But when they knew that he preached the same Doctrine which they did that he liued in communion and vnity with them and did worke Miracles as they did our Lord therby commending him he deserued so great authority that his words at this day are heard in the Church euen as if Christ were heard to speake in him as he most truly said With these Fathers accordeth S. Hierome (z) Epist 89. quae est 10. inter epist. August defining that Paul had not had security of preaching the Ghospell if it had not bene approued by Peters sentence and the rest that were with him So S. Hierome whose testimony with the rest shew how beggarly a cause you haue since those very Scriptures which you produce in defence therof are so many verdicts against you A third text of S. Paul (*) 2. Cor. 12.11 you set downe thus I am nothing inferior vnto the Chiefe of the Apostles But I cannot commend your translation for none but Peter is Chiefe of the Apostles to whom therfore S. Paul compares not himselfe in the singular number as you here and els where falsifiing his words make him to say but to the Chiefe Apostles in the plurall number and yet not that in authority and iurisdiction of which he speaketh not but in the dignity of an Apostle in his great labors in his Miracles in his reuelations in his dangers and iourneys vndertaken for the preaching of Christ as the Context before and after sheweth S. Ambrose Theodoret S. Anselme S. Thomas Aquinas and other expositors declare (a) In eum locum But you vrge the testimonies of Fathers (b) Pag. 60. fin vpon this text of S. Paul And first that S. Ambrose saith (c) In 1. Cor. c. 12. Paul was no lesse in dignity then Peter You falsity S. Ambrose there compares not Paul with Peter in particular but speaking of him and the rest in generall sayth that albeit he were called to the
teach the people out of it for as S. Hilary sayth (r) Can. 13. in Math. the Church is the ship in which the word of life is placed and preached and which they that are out of it cannot vnderstand but lye like sand barren and vnprofitable and the preaching of Gods word out of the ship of Simon in particucular signifies that Christ dwelleth in that society which keepes the fayth and communion of Peter and makes his See the pastorall chayre from whence by Peter and his successors he teacheth the doctrine of his Ghospell Our Lord sayth S. Ambrose (s) Serm. 11. goeth only into that ship of the Church of which Peter is Mayster our Lord saying Vpon this rock I will build my Church And then he addeth that the Church of Peter is the Arke of Nōe to shew that out of his Church none can be saued Which Doctrine S. Hierome likewise deliuereth comparing the Roman Church to the Arke of Nōe out of which whosoeuer is shall perish at the coming of the floud Moreouer howbeit other ships be tossed yet sayth S. Ambrose Peters ship is not tossed in her wisdome sayleth perfidiousnesse is absent (t) L. 5. in c. 5. Luc. fayth fauoureth for how cold that ship be tossed of which he is Gouernor that is the strength of the Church And S. Bernard (u) L. 2. de consider The sea is the world the ships the Churches From whence it is that Peter walking on the waters like our Lord shewed himselfe to be the only Vicar of Christ which was not to gouerne one nation but all for many waters are many people and therfore wheras each of the others hath his peculiar ship to thee he speakes to Eugenius Pope S. Peters successor is committed that one mighty great ship made of them all to wit the vniuersall Church of the whole world I conclude therfore that the ship of S. Peter is the pastorall Chayre from whence the doctrine of Christ is to be learned by all and the Arke of Nōe out of which none can be saued and that therfore betweene his ship and that in which S. Paul sayled as also betweene the priuiledges granted to the one and to the other there is as much difference as betweene the eternall saluation of all Gods elect and the corporall lyfe of a few Mariners and passengers that sayled with S. Paul Your seauenth and principall Obiection is (x) Pag. 65. If S. Peter had written of himselfe as S. Paul did of himselfe saying I haue the care of all the Churches this one wold haue seemed to you a firmer foundation then the word Rock or any other of those Scriptures wherby you labour to erect a Monarchy on S. Peter and by your consequence vpon the Pope ouer all Churches in the world Answere There are two kindes of solicitude and care one proceeding from the obligation of iustice the other merely out of the zeale of Charity The supreme care which S. Peter had both of all Churches and of their Pastours was of obligation of iustice because he had iurisdiction ouer them all as being supreme Pastor ouer the whole flock of Christ and therfore as the Pastor hath obligation of iustice to gouerne his flock and attend to the good therof so had S. Peter to attend to the good gouerment of the vniuersall Church and whatsoeuer persons therof which function was not committed to S. Paul nor did Christ promise to build his Church on him as he did on S. Peter and therfore that care he had of the vniuersall Church proceeded from his great zeale of Gods glory and feruorous charity which made him trauell so much in the conuersion of soules SECT VI. What estimation S. Paul had of the Roman Church YOu say (y) Pag. 65. S. Paul had not by farre so great estimation of the Roman Church as we would make the world belieue How proue you this because say you Dionysius Bishop of the Corinthians witnesse Eusebius (z) L. 2. c. 24. sayth that Peter and Paul both founded the Church of Corinth and that of Rome This then is your argument Dionysius Bish of Corinth sayth Peter and Paul founded the Churches of Corinth and Rome Ergo S. Paul had not by farre so great estimation of the Church of Rome as we would make the world belieue A witlesse consequence It is true that we account it a great honor and happinesse for the Church of Rome to haue bene founded by those two most glorious Princes of the Apostles and so it was also to the Church of Corinth But the Church of Rome was not only founded but moreouer ennobled by them for as Tertullian (a) L. de Praescr c. 36. obserueth they powred into her all their doctrine togeather with their bloud and enriched her with the inestimable treasure of their sacred bodies But her chiefest dignity and that which maketh her absolutely the Head and Mother of all Churches is that S. Peter the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church fixed his seate at Rome and ending his life there left the same dignity to his successors and they as occasion required ceased not to send their pastorall admonitions to the Corinthians for when not long after S. Peter and Paul had founded a Church among them they fell into errors and dissentions among themselues S. Clement Pope successor to S. Peter writ vnto them sayth S. Irenaeus (b) L. 3. c. 3. potentissimas literas most effectuall letters reducing them to peace and shewing them the Doctrine which they had newly receaued from the Apostles And to the same purpose Soter Pope not long after writ also vnto them And that the Corinthians acknowledged these epistles of the Roman Church to be sent vnto them as from their Mother Church whose doctrine they were to imbrace and receaued them as such appeareth in this that is Dionysius their Bishop and Eusebius (c) L. 4. hist. c. 22. out of him testify they held them in so great veneration that they vsed to read them publikely in the Churches for the instruction of the saythfull But this you could not see or if you did see it were willing to conceale it as not being for your purpose 2. Wheras we in commendation of the Roman fayth and Church are wont to alleage those words of S. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (d) Rom. 1.8 I giue thankes to my God through Iesus Christ for all you because your fayth is renowned throughout the whole world you say (e) Pag. 66. that we vpon this commendation of the fayth of those Romans vse in a manner to triumph as though that Encomium with the same fayth were hereditary to that Church or as if at that day Catholike and Roman had bene all one If in this testimony of S. Paul we triumph and hold the Catholike fayth and the Roman fayth to be all one and hereditary to the Church of Rome we do therin nothing more then
said belonged not to the other Apostles 2. That power did extend to all Bishops because the reason of order and Ecclesiasticall vnity so required 3. The power of the Bishop of Rome was alwaies ordinary and to continue perpetually in the Church not so in the other Apostles This is Suarez his Doctrine which I haue set downe in his owne words that the reader perusing yours and comparing them with his may see how you falsify for both in your Latin margent English text you leaue out (i) Pag. 79. the reason wherwith he proues his assertion and set downe for his only ground that he cannot remember to haue read in any author any thing of this point wheras he proues it out of what he had formerly said And doth he not here againe proue it out of the power and iurisdiction which was in S. Peter ouer the whole Church descended from him to his Successors And doth he not from thence inferr three prerogatiues which his Successors had ouer the other Apostles two of which you conceale And though you set downe the third yet it is in your Latin Margent only and so dismembred from Suarez his context that the reader will not easily vnderstand the force therof Againe who is so blind that sees not your absurd manner of arguing which is this (*) Pag. 78. 79. Suarez opinion is that S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter was subiect to Linus his Successor ergo S. Iohns fayth did not conceaue the Pope to haue iurisdiction ouer all other Bishops and Pastors in the Catholike Church You might as well haue inferred that because Yorke hath a Minster London hath a Bridge for this is as good a consequence as yours But hereby the Reader may see with what silly Sophistry you delude or to vse your owne words against your selfe with what vntempered morter you daube vp the consciences of your followers Now as for Suarez his assertion that the iurisdiction of S. Peters Successor was greater then the ordinary Episcopall iurisdiction of the other Apostles a iudicious Reader wil easily conceaue to be no such improbable Doctrine if he reflect that the Successor to euery Bishop is inuested in all the Episcopall authority of his predecessors and therfore Linus being Successor to S. Peter it must follow that 8. Peter being in Episcopall authority and iurisdiction superior to all the other Apostles Linus had the same authority and iurisdiction ouer those that suruiued S. Peter And this S. Chrysostome seemeth to haue expressed (k) L. 2. de Sacerd 1â— when he said Christ committed to Peter and to Peters Successors the charge of those sheep for the regayning of which he shed his bloud from which number I trust you will not excluded S. Iohn or any other of the Apostles that suruiued S. Peter And what els did S. Cyril meane when he said (l) Apud S. Thom. Opusc cont error Graec. c. 32. As Christ receaued from his Father most ample power so he gaue the same most fully to Peter and his Successors And what Paschasinus when in the presence and with the approbation of the Councell of Chalcedon (m) Act. 1. he affirmed the Pope to be inuested in the dignity of Peter the Apostle And what meant S. Bernard (n) L. 2. de considerat when he said to Eugenius Pope Thou art Peter in power and by vnction Christ the sheep of Christ were not so without exception committed to any Bishop nor to any of the Apostles as to thee thou art Pastor not only of the sheep but Pastor of all Pastors And what meant S. Leo (o) Serm. 2. â— Anniuers suae assump when he said The ordinance of truth standeth and S. Peter continuing in the receaued solidity of a Rock hath not left the gouerment of the Church for truly he perseuereth and liueth still in his Successors And againe (p) Ibid. In the person of my humility he is vnderstood he honored in whom the solicitude of all Pastors with the sheep commended to him perseuereth and whose dignity in an vnworthy heyre fayleth not And what S. Peter surnamed Chrysologus (q) Ep. ad Eutychet when he exhorted Eutyches to heare obediently the most blessed Pope of Rome because S. Peter who liueth in his owne See and is stil president in the same exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it And what the Legates of Celestine Pope in the Councell of Ephesus (r) P. 2. Act. 2. No man doubtes for it hath bene notorious to all ages that the holy and most blessed Peter Prince and Head of the Apostles piller of the fayth foundation of the Catholike Church liues and decides causes yet vnto this day and for all eternity by his Successors And what Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria writing to S. Gregory (s) Apud Greg. l. 6. ep 37. that Peter Prince of the Apostles sitteth still in his owne Chayre in his Successors And what S. Gregory himselfe reporting (t) Dial. l. 3. c. â— that Agapet Pope comming to Constantinople the friends of a man that was lame and dumbe beseeching him to cure that man by the authority of Peter the Apostle Agapet by the same authority cured him And what the Fathers of the sixt Councell generall when commending the Epistle of Agatho Pope they said (u) Act. 18. The paper and inke appeared but it was Peter that did speake by Agatho And finally what Constantine Pogonate when writing to the Roman Synod (x) Apud 6. Syn. Act. 18. he admired the relation of Agatho at the voyce of the diuine Peter himselfe It followeth then that if Linus was inuested in the Episcopall dignity and power of Peter if S. Peter still liue and rule in his owne See and decide causes in his Successors if he speake by them and their voyce be to heard as his voyce to be subiect to Linus was no other thing then to be subiect to S. Peter and to disobey Linus was to disobey S. Peter who did speake by Linus and gouerne in his owne See by him Wherfore as the Apostles owed subiection to S. Peter whiles he liued so those that suruiâ—â—â— him did to Linus hauing the place of Peter for 〈◊〉 â—â—â—rian â—alles the Roman See L. 4. â—p 2. CHAP. XIV Your fifth Chapter with diuers Arguments answered SECT I. Of the Name Catholike AFTER a discourse made from an Argument ab authoritate negatiuè which euery Logician knowes to be of no force you say (a) Pag. 81. We begin at the word Catholike and desire to vnderstand why the epistles of Iames and Iohn and Iude were called Catholike or vniuersall as well as the two Epistles of Peter if the word Catholike were so proper to the Roman Chayre seing that the Epistles of Iames Iohn and Iude were not sent to or from Rome nor had any relation to Peter there Before I answere I desire you to remember that the name Catholike by the ancient Fathers is giuen
at all of them It belonges not to Kings sayth S. Damascen (q) Orat. 2. de Imagin to giue lawes to the Church for consider what the Apostle sayth and whom he hath placed in the Church first Apostles after Prophets then Pastors and Doctors in the constitution of the Church he placed not Kings And againe (r) Ibid. Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them for they watch as being to render accompt of your soules And remember your Prelates which haue spoken the word of God to you Kings are not they which haue spoken the word but Apostles and Prophets and Pastors and Doctors The ciuill gouerment belongs to Kings but the Ecilesiasticall constitution to Pastors and Doctors So Damascen whose Doctrine if it please you not you may learne the same lesson from your Grand-maister Caluin teaching that the chiefest place of gouerment in Christs Church belonged to the Apostles and so to Bishops and Priests their Successors And lest you might thinke that there is so much as one word in S. Paul which may argue him to grant vnto secular powers any place of gouerment in the Church Caluin (*) L. 4. Instit c. 3. sect 5. cap. 11. sect 1. specially noteth that by gubernationes gouerments which S. Paul after Apostles and Doctors reckoneth in the seauenth place are not vnderstood ciuill officers but such men as were ioyned to the Preachers for better order in spirituall gouerment But though you in neither of these places where the Apostle speaketh of the Ecclesiasticall dignities can finde any place for secular Princes and Magistrates the Fathers of the Church haue found in both of them a place for the Pope for S. Hierome obserueth (s) In Psal 44. that in the Church Bishops succeed in place of the Apostles and therefore Tertullian (t) L. de praescrip c. 2â— 32. and S. Augustine (u) Ep. 162. haue noted that their Churches were called Apostolicall so long as they continued in the fayth receaued from the Apostles as likewise all others that being afterwards founded agreed with them in Doctrine or as Tertullian speaketh propter consanguinitatem doctrinae Now as S. Peter was Head and Prince of the Apostles so the Roman Church in which he placed his Episcopall Chayre and into which sayth Tertullian (x) L. de praser c. 36. both he and S. Paul powred all their Doctrina togeather with their bloud was and is still by a speciall prerogatiue called The See Apostolike in so much that when the See Apostolike is named without any addition the Roman See is alwayes vnderstood In this language speake S. Hierome (y) L. 2. Apol aduers Ruffin when he said Ironicè to Ruffinus I wonder how the Bishops haue receâ—â—ed that which the See Apostolike hath condemned In this spake S. Augustine (z) Ep. 106. saying Relations concerning this busines were sent by the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the See Apostolike And els where (a) Ep. 162. In the Roman Church hath alwayes florished the Principality of the See Apostolike In the same language spake the Councell of Chalcedon (b) Act. 1. calling Paschasinus the Popes legate The Vicar of the See Apostolike And the Bishops of Dardania in their Epistle to Gelasius (c) Extâ—â— inter epist. Gelasij It is our desire to obey all your commands and to keep inuiolate the ordinations of the See Apostolike as from our Fathers we haue learned to do And S. Bernard (d) L. 2 de Considerat vpon those words of S. Paul He that resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God sayth to Conradus the Emperor This sentence I wish and by all meanes admonish you to keep in yelding reuerence to the chiefe and Apostolicall See From hence it also proceedeth that as S. Hierome (e) Ep. 58. said to Damasus The Bishop of Rome followeth the Apostles in honor and therfore he aboue all other Bishops is called Apostolicus Apostolicall So was S. Leo called in the Councell of Chalcedon (f) Act. 1. The most blessed and Apostolicall man Pope of old Rome which is the Head of all Churches And the Bishops of France (g) Inter op Leonis â—â—to 52. salute him with the title of The most blessed Pope to be reuerenced with Apostolicall honor And Rupertus (h) De diuiâ—â— offic l. 1.27 The Successors of the other Apostles are called Patriarkes but the Successor of Peter for the excellency of the Prince of the Apostles Apostolicus nominatur hath the name of Apostolicall And Hugo Victorinus (i) L. 1. Erud Theol. de sacram Eccles c. 43. The Pope is called Apostolicall because he hath the place of the Prince of the Apostles From hence also his Episcopall dignity is by a speciall prerogatiue called Apostolatus Apostolate or Apostleship So Paschacinus in the Councell of Chalcedon said of Pope Leo (k) Act. 1. His Apostleship hath vouch safed to command that Dioscorus sit not in the Councell So the Bishops of France writing to the same Leo beseech his Apostleship to pardon their slownesse (l) Iuter ep Leon. ante 52. Honorius the Emperor beseecheth Pope Bonifacius (m) Ep. ad Bonifac. that his Apostolate would offer vp prayers to God for the good of his Empire S. Bernard sayth to Innocentius (n) Ep. 190. It is fitting that whatsoeuer dangers or scandals arise in the kingdome of God be referred to your Apostleship All this sheweth that vnder the name of Apostles to whom S. Paul allotteth the first and chiefest place among Ecclesiasticall gouernors are vnderstood S. Peter and his Succcessors who haue the first and chiefest place of gouermentin the Church And this the Fathers Councels haue sufficiently declared by giuing the Pope the title of Apostolicall by calling his place Apostleship and his Church absolutely Apostolicall See This you could not see so dimme sighted you are in beholding any light that shewes the Authority of the Bishop or Church of Rome And this also is thereason why you could not see that S. Paul comprehendeth Peter and the Popes his Successors vnder the name of Pastors for Christ made Peter Pastor of his flock the same dignity remayneth to his Suecessors for why els did the Mileuitan Councell in tyme of the Pelagian heresy beseech Innocentius Pope (o) Aug. ep â—2 to apply his Pastorall diligence to the great perills of the weake members of the Church why did S. Hierome (p) Ep. 57. liuing in Palestine fly to Damasus Pope for resolution of his doubts as a sheep to his Pastor Why did S. Chrysostome say (q) L. 2. de Sacordot that Christ committed to Peter and his Successors the charge of those sheep for which he shed his bloud Why did S. Ambrose (r) Ep. 81. call Siricius Pope a good and rigilant Pastor that with pious solicitude keepes the flock of Christ Why did S. Prosper say (s) l. de ingrat c. 2. that Rome by
that all men are to learne from her the Doctrine of fayth deliuered vnto her by the blessed Apostles And this is the reason why Tertullian speaking of Marcion and Valentinus (q) Ibid. c. 30. proueth them to be heretikes because they had fallen from the faith into which they had beleeued in the Roman Church Nam constat c. For sayth he and his words no lesse agree to Luther and Caluin then to Marcion and Valentinus it is manifest that they first beleeued the Catholike Doctrine in the Roman Church vntill in the tyme of the blessed Bishop Eleutherius for their turbulent spirit of nouelty wherwith they did also peruert their Brethren they were often excommunicated and at length cast out for euer to perpetuall ruine By this it appeareth that the Roman fayth was then held to be the Catholike fayth and the Roman Church which Tertullian calleth The Catholike Church (r) L. 4. cont Marcio c. 4. the Head and Mistresse of all Churches in the world for Marcion was borne at Sinope in Pontus and for his heresy and lewdnesse of lyfe excommunicated by his owne Father a holy Bishop who refusing to absolue him he went to Rome to seeke absolution but his Father opposing obteyned it not ValeÌ„tine was as Aegyptian borne and hauing fallen into heresy in Cyprus came to Rome in the tyme of Higinius Pope and feigning himselfe to be a Catholike was receaued into the Communion of the Roman Church but falling often backe into heresy as a dog returning to his vomit was finally cast out of the Church by the blessed Pope Elutherius as you haue heard Tertullian report And why did these heretikes as also Cerdon at the same tyme when they sought absolution from heresy come from so remote countreyes subiect to other Patriarkes and why from all the Easterne Church and why all of them to the Church of Rome in particular but because they knew her to be the Head Mistres of all Churches that had power to absolue all those which had bene excommunicated by any other Bishops whatsoeuer and to be the originall and center of Catholike Communion and that so long as they remayned out of her bosome they nether were nor should be esteemed Catholikes nor to be in state of saluation Herby it appeares how little reason you had to say out of Beatus Rhenaus (s) Pag. 131 1â—â— though Tertullian giue an honorable testimony to the Church of Rome yet be did not esteeme her so highly as wee see her accounted of at this day And since you acknowledge that Rhenanus his mouth for that and other his inconsiderat speeches is gagged by the Index expurgatorius you shew litle iudgment in obiecting his authority against vs. SECT VIII Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church VVHat hath bene sayd sheweth the futility of your argument out of Vincentius Lyrinensis which is like to the two former out of S. Iraeneus and Tertullian And how little support you haue for your cause in the authority of this ancient and learned Father he will testify for himselfe for when the Doctrine of rebaptizing Heretikes at their returne to the Catholike Church defended by Firmilianus Bishop of Cefarea Agrippinus S. Cyprian Bishops of Carthage and many others wrought so great inconueniences that it gaue a paterne of sacriledge to all heretikes and occasion of error to some Catholikes Vincentius declareth how Stephen then Pope of Rome suppressed it by his authority When sayth he (t) L. cont propha haeres nouat c. â— all men euery where exclamed against the nouelty of that Doctrine all Priests in all places ech one according to his zeale did opppse then Pope Stephen of blessed memory Bishop of the Apostolike See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops but yet more then the rest thinking it as I suppose reason so much to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth as he did surmount them in the authority of his place To conclude in his epistle which then was sent to Africa he decreed the same in these words Let nothing be innouated but that which comes by tradition be obserued And (u) Ibid. c. 10. notwithstanding that the contrary doctrine had sayth he such pregnant wits such eloquent tongues such a number of Patrons such shew of truth such testimonies of Scripture but glosed after a new and naughty fashion and that it was decreed in an African Councell yet the authority of the Pope declaring it a nouelty was of so great force that after he had condemned it all those things were abolished were disanulled were abrogated as dreames as fables as superfluous And afterwards (x) Ibid. c. 43. he alleageth as witnesses of his Doctrine diuers Greeke Fathers and addeth to them the authority of S. Felix Martyr and S. Iulius both Bishops of the Roman Church whom to declare their soueraigne authority he calleth The Head of the world And he concludeth Ibid. c. 45. Least in such plenty of proofes any thing should be wanting wee haue added for a conclusion a double authority of the See Apostolike the one of S. Sixtus a venerable man that now honoresh the Church of Rome the other of Pope Celestine of blessed menory his predecessor And their decrees he calleth Apostolicall and Catholike decrees SECT IX Other Obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared YOur obseruations are (y) Pag 101. seqq that S. Athanasius S. Augustine the Councels of Constantinople of Aegypt and of Cauthage reckoning diuers Bishops to shew their agreement in fayth with them name not only the Pope but other Bishops and write both to him them and consult with him and them as with their fellow Bishops which you say is to giue the Bishop of Rome so many mates and to equalize other Bishops with him But who seeth not what poore stuffe these your obseruations are For if one concerning matters of fayth should consult with his parish Priest and his Bishop would it follow that he equalizeth the parish Priest with the Bishop and maketh him his mate Or if you writing to the King and his Counsell I should lay to your charge that by consulting with his Maiesty and his Counsell you giue his Maiesty so many mantes as he hath Counsellors and equalize them in power and dominion with him would you not thinke mâ— a trifling and indeed a childish opponent how then shall wee thinke otherwise of you that by like consequence go about to equalize other Bishops with the Pope among themselues CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome THAT the Councell of Nice acknowledged the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ouer all Bishops is proued 1. Because Iulius a most holy Pope in his third Epistle which S. Athanesius hath inserted into his second Apology writing to the Arians and declaring vnto them the right of the Roman See to haue the
a person of so great dignity and very aged he vndertake so long so laborious and so dangerous a iourney to declare vnto Anicetus the reasons of his persisting in the Asian custome which if Anicetus had then condemned it is not to be doubted but that Polycarpe would haue departed from it as all orthodoxe Bishops did when they saw it condemned by the Church and the defenders of it declared to be heretikes SECT II. S. Cyprian obiected by Doctor Morton TO proue that Cyprian belieued not any necessity of vnion with the Roman Church you repeate here (t) Pag. 185.188 what you had sayd before of his being excommunicated by Pope Stephen contemning the excommunication for which you bring no other proofe then the testimony of Cassander an heretike Primae classis whose workes you know to be forbidden and yet shame not to cite him as a Catholike author that you may call his lies Our confessions for that they be lies I haue already proued (u) Chap. 24. And so much the more reproueable you are because S. Cyprians testimonies which shew him to haue beleeued the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church and all that are diuided from her to be Schismatikes you shift off (x) Pag. 186. with an answeare of Goulartius that Cyprian spake them of his owne only authority against Schismatikes who troubled his iurisdiction Which to be a false and vnconscionable answeare you and your Goulartius may learne from the Centurists who reprehend S. Cyprian (y) Brerel Protest Apol. tract 1. sect 3. subdiu 10. for teaching that our Lord hath built his Church vpon Peter that one Chaire by our Lords voyce is built vpon Peter as vpon a Rock that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholike Church for calling Peters chaire the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued and for teaching that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all others the Mother and Roote of the Catholike Church To these testimonies acknowledged by the Centurists I adde that Cyprian (z) L. 4. ep 2. exhorteth Antonianus in time of Schisme to adhere to the Pope and hold fast his communion that is sayth he the communion of the Catholike Church and expressly affirmeth (a) L. de Vnit. Eccles that Who-euer resisteth the Chaire of Peter nether holdeth the fayth nor is in the Church And speaking of some certayne heretikes he obiecteth vnto them their great boldnesse in presuming to saile to the chaire of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praised by the voice of the Apostle and to whom perfidiousnesse can haue no accesse To this you answeare (b) Pag. 186. No Father of the primitiue times is more vrged by you then S. Cyprian no Epistle more insisted vpon then this no words more inculcated then these and we may adde no Father no epistle no sentence more egregiously abused and peruerted for he speaketh not of perfidiousnesse in doctrine but only in discipline by the false and perfidious reportes of schismaticall fellowes c. If this sentence of S. Cyprian be peruerted not we but you peruert it And so it will appeare to any impartiall Iudge that shall read the words not cut short as you rehearse theÌ„ that the sense may not be vnderstood but entire as I haue set theÌ„ downe The Nouatians were not only Schismatikes but heretikes as S. Cyprian in that epistle els where often calleth them And in the words alleaged when he opposeth their perfidiousnesse to the Roman fayth commended by the Apostle by perfidiousnesse he vnderstandeth error in doctrine or misbeliefe which is oposite to fayth not perfidiousnesse in discipline for that hath no opposition at all with fayth Wherefore he reprehendeth the Nouatians that hauing not only diuided themselues by schisme from the chaire of S. Peter which is the principall Church from whence sacerdotall vnity is deriued but also forsaken the Roman fayth praysed by the mouth of the Apostle they dare notwithstanding presume to saile to Rome in hope to deceaue that Church and get their doctrine approued by her not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth being praysed by the Apostle misbeliefe can haue no accesse to them Which doctrine S. Hierome seemeth to haue taken from this place of Cyprian when speaking to Ruffinus he saith (c) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. Know that the Roman fayth commended by the voice of the Apostle admitteth no delusions and that being fensed by S. Pauls authority it cannot be altered c. SECT III. S. Athanasius obiected by Doctor Morton THat S. Athanasius beleeued not the necessity of vnion and subiection to the Roman Church you proue (d) Pag. 190. for that being excommunicated by Liberius Pope he regarded not his excommunication This we deny It is peraduenture true though not altogether certaine (e) Onuphr in Not ad Plati Ruffin l. 1. histâ—c 27. Sozom l. 4. c. 14. that Liberius wearied out with two yeares banishment and other vexations by Constantius the Arian Emperor yeilded to signe the condemnation of Athanasius and entred into communion with the Arians and thereby became a Schismatike But that he excommunicated Athanasius is not reported by any writer nor is it true but a fiction of yours And were it true the excommunication had not only bene iniust as being pronounced against an innocent person and therfore no way obligatory but also inualid for as much as Liberius by forsaking the communion of Catholikes and entring into communion with heretikes was fallen from his Papacy and had no power to pronounce excommunication against Athanasius or if he had pronounced it Athanasius had not bene bound to obey To proue that Athanasius regarded not the excommunication of the B. of Rome you should haue proued that whiles Liberius was true Pope he excommunicated Athanasius and that Athanasius refused to obey which you proue not and therfore your obiection is impertinent and your assertion false For who knoweth not that Athanasius acknowledged the supreme power of the Roman Church when being cast out of his Bishoprick he appealed to Iulius Pope and Iulius by the dignity and prerogatiue of the Roman See restored him againe to his Church (f) Socrat. l. 2. c. 11. Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. And what els did he meane when he and the rest of the Aegyptian Bishops writing to Marcus Pope endorsed their letter To the holy and Venerable Lord of Apostolicall Eminency Marke Father of the holy Roman Apostolike See and of the vniuersall Church And in the letter We desire that by the authority of the Church of your holy See which is the Mother and Head of all Churches we may deserue to receaue the copies of the Nicen Canons by these our Legates for the instruction and comfort of the faythfull that being fensed by your authority c. And againe (g) Eadem Ep. We are yours and
thing vncertaine Many thinke it to be of Damasus and his you will haue it to be But the contrary is manifest for the epistle speaketh of Bonosus an Arch-heretike who had bene condemned by Iudges appointed in thē Councell of Capua which was not held in time of Damasus but of Siricius successor to Damasus It is therefore euident that the request of Bouosus which you obiect out of this epistle to haue his cause heard againe could not be to Damasus his first condemnation being not vntill after Damasus his death When you can shew this epistle to be of Damasus you shall receaue an answeare which it were easy to giue you now if I listed to spend time in refuting your tedious discourse of racking the verbe Competit to a strict sense and which not one but many wayes is deficient as all your arguments for the most part are Your addition (e) Pag. 318. marg l. that if the epistle be not of Damasus it is certainly of some Pope and that all hold it so is affirmed by you gratis and as easely denied by me CHAP. XL. Whether the Easterne Churches be at this day accordant in Communion with Protestants SECT I. The state of the Question THE nine first Sections of your fourtenth Chapter you spend in prouing that the Grecians Aegyptians Aethiopians Assyrians Armenians Russians Melchites and other remote nations at this day dissent from the Roman Church and are accordant in Communion with Protestants The foundation of your whole discourse you lay in these words (f) Pag. 330. Whatsoeuer Christians haue not ruinated any fundamental article of sauing fayth set downe in our ancient Creeds and are vnited vnto the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus our Lord by a liuing fayth all Protestants esteeme them as true members of the Catholike Church and notwithstanding diuers their more tolerable errors and superstitions to be in state of saluation albeit no way subiect or subordinate to the Roman Church These are your words which containe in themselues open implication namely that one may be vnited to the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus by a liuing fayth and be in state of saluation and yet be out of the Catholike Church which to be none els but the Roman and that out of her there is no saluation hath bene already proued (g) Chap. 1. sect 2.3.4 From this false principle you deduce that the Grecians Asians Aegyptians Assyrians Aethiopians Africans Melchites Russians and Armenians notwithstanding their separation from the Roman Church are at this day truly professed Christian Churches (h) Pag. 379. partes of the Catholike Church (i) Pag. 406. fin 407. init faythfull Christians professing the fayth of the ancient Fathers (k) Pag. 417. in state of saluation and raile bitterly at the Church of Rome for denying the same But how great ignorance and impiety you shew and how many most shamefull vntruthes you vtter in the prosecution of this Argument it is easy to declare Some of them I shall present to the Readers view And to proceed methodically I will reduce what I am to say to two heades 1. I will proue that as the Christians of these remote nations anciently were so many of them at this day are accordant in beliefe and communion with the Roman Church yeild obedience to the Pope as to the Vicar of Christ on earth and as to the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church 2. That the inhabitants of these nations which are not Roman Catholikes are not of one beliefe or Communion with Protestants but wholly dissent from them holding most blasphemous and damnable heresies acknowledged for such by Protestants themselues From whence it will follow that you affirming them to be faythfull Christians of the same beliefe with the ancient Fathers charge the ancient Fathers with blasphemous heresies and make them incapable of saluation SECT II. Whether the Grecians of the primitiue and successiue times agreed in fayth and Communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome and particularly at the Councell of Florence THat the Greekes in the first Councell of Constantinople and afterwards in that of Calcedon endeauored to giue to their Patriarke of Constantinople the second place of dignity in the Church next after the Pope and before the other Patriarkes we acknowledge But that they sought therby to exempt themselues from their obedience and subiection to the Pope hath bene effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 5. Chap. 19. sect 4. I speake not this to deny that anciently there were of the Grecians many Heretikes which opposed the Roman Church and by her authority were condemned and that eight Patriarkes of Constantinople in particular as also Eutyches an Arch-heretike of the same City were anathematized and east out of the Church for heresy And wheras the Westerne Church by the example and diligence of the Bishops of Rome was preserued from heresy the Churches of the East new heresies daily springing vp were so pitifully torne and ten in peeces that S. Hierome complaining therof to Pope Damasus said (m) Ep. 57. Because the East striking against it selfe by the ancient fury of the people teares in litle morsells the vndeuided coate of our Lord wouen on high and that the foxes destroy the vine of Christ in such sorte that it is difficult among the drie pits that haue no water to discerne where the sealed fountaine and the inclosed garden is I haue therfore thought that I ought to consult with the Chaire of Peter and the fayth praised by the mouth of the Apostle This was the miserable state of the Easterne Churches in those dayes being gouerned somtimes by Catholike Bishops that acknowledged subiection to the Church of Rome and somtimes by Heretikes that opposed her authority vntill at length Photius hauing iniustly driuen Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople from his See and intruded himselfe into his place and being for that cause often excommunicated by Nicolas the first and Iohn the eight Popes of Rome to mantaine his iniust title withdrew himselfe from their obedience and to the end he might haue some colour to perseuer in that separation cauilled at the doctrine of the Roman Church which teacheth that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Sonne and writ against it And the Greekes following him in this error separated themselues from the Communion of the Roman man Church Yet not so but that they haue often eleauen times sayth S. Antoninus (n) Hist. par 2. tit 22. c. 23. acknowledged their error and reconciled themselues to her and especially thrice in most solemne manner in three seuerall Councells of Barium in Apulia of Lions in France and of Florence in Tuscany but still returning to their error against the holy Ghost and disobedience to the Church of Rome as dogs to their vomit Almighty God punished them with a heauy hand deliuering them vp to a miserable captiuity seruitude vnder the Turke And that they might know the
in a very few words cut off and dismembred from their contexture whereas to shew your finistrous dealing the whole context must be set downe as it lyeth Yet some of them I will present to the readers view by which he may make coniecture of the rest 1. You begin with Baronius saying (p) Pag 38. When Luther Caluin and others aduentured to expound this of Christ and of fayth in him as the Sonne of God your two grand Cardinals oppose What do they oppose The one say you speaking of Baronius opposeth his owne passion calling it impudent madnesse in Protestants to expound the Rock to signify Christ So you vntruly and sundry wayes abusing Baronius for in that very place (q) Anno 33. n. 19. seqq he expressly affirmeth Christ to be the Rock on which the Church is built and a little before (r) Anno 31. n. 24.25.26 he had professedly proued the same out of the Syriack in which our Sauiour spake and shewed by the testimonies of Fathers that as Christ is the primary Rock or foundation on which the Church is built so he communicated to Peter his owne name of a Rock and the honor of being next to himselfe the secondary and ministeriall foundation in the structure of his Church And as witnesses of this truth he alleageth Tertullian S. Basil S. Hierome S. Leo Hypolitus Opiatus expressly affirming that the name of Cephas signifieth a Rock and is the same that Petrus or Petra which he further proueth (s) Anno 33. out of the testimonies of S. Cyprian Tertullian Origen S. Epiphanius S. Hilary S. Hierome S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Cyril S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome S. Leo and of the Councell of Ephesus all of them affirming that Christ by Rock on which he was to build his Church vnderstood S. Peter And this they teach in as plaine and effectuall words as either Baronius or any Catholike liuing at this day is able to expresse And as Baronius citeth the words of these Fathers so he might of the rest for they were of the same beliefe as likewise all the generall CouÌ„cels which to auoid prolixity he omitteth but yet expresseth their doctrine in generall in these words All the Ecclesiasticall Orthodox writers that haue liued since the aforesaid Fathers alâ— the Synods that euer haue bene lawfully assembled in the hely Ghost haue no lesse constantly and ingeniously professed the same truth to wit that Peter is by Christ our Lord made the foundation of the Church By this it appeares how vntruly you say that Barenius opposeth his owne passion against the exposition of Protectants denying Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built since he confuteth it with the testimonies of all the Fathers of all generall Councels and of all Orthodox writers You by saying he opposeth his owne passion would persuade your readers that he had nothing els to say against their exposition but only to call it Impudent madnesse Whether he might not with reason haue called it so iudge your for what els can it be to deny that to be the true sense of our Sauiours words which all Fathers Councels haue professed to be the true and lawfull sense of them But you to haue a better colour of inueighing against Baronius say that he calls the exposition of Protestants Impudent madnes which is not true for he hath not the word impudent that 's your addition to his text 2. Hauing thus wronged Baronius you passe to Bellarmine saying (t) Pag. 38. that he to proue Peter to be the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church obtrudeth the consent of our owne schoole saying that by Rock it meant Peter it is the common opinion of all Catholikes He sayth so indeed but sayth he nothing els doth he not proue it out of twenty seuerall passages of the new Testament so expounded by the ancient Fathers Doth he not proue it out of the agreeing consent of the most famous Doctors aswell of the Greeke as of the Latin Church If this be to obtrude the consent of our owne schoole then your selfe being the iudge our schole consisteth not only of all the Catholikes of later ages but of Christ of his Apostles of his Euangelists and of the ancient Fathers of the Greeke and Latin Chuurch for all these Bellarmine alleageth These we acknowledge to be our schoole and from these maysters we haue learned our Doctrine And yours being contrary to this it is soon vnderstood out of what schole from what Maister you and your grand Tutors Luther and Caluin haue learned it 3. Hauing thus handled Baronius and Bellarmine you passe to Roffensis our learned Bishop of Rochester who in tyme of K. Henry the eight writ in defence of this Doctrine against Luther and sealed what he writ with his bloud Of him you say (u) Pag. 38. fin p. 39. he approueth the same exposition that Peter is the Rock on which the Church is built saying In this truth triumpheth as though it were as cleare as the Sunne which sunne-shyne we Protestants alas aur blindnesse cannot discerne but rather iudge that it hath bene and is mistaken by you for moone-shine through some defect in your faculties of sight So you taunting that learned Bishop and with him all Catholikes telling vs of his insultation but not without imposture for the insultation is not his but Luthers who though he bring nothing against this exposition as Roffensis sheweth foolishly insulteth vpon the Pope the ancient Fathers and all Catholikes for expounding Peter to be the Rock Adeste huc c. Come hither Pope sayth (x) Art 25. Luther and all you Papists melt and cast all your studies into one if perhaps yee be able to vnty this knot At least this authority stands victorious triumphant against you This insultation of Luther it is which Roffensis iustly retorteth on him Thou sayth (y) Adart 25. Luthert he to Luther vpbraydest these things to the Orthodox members of the Catholike Church and I will returne thee thine owne words Come hither Luther with all thy Lutherans cast all your studies into one and yet you shall neuer euince but that Christ foretold truth when he said he was to build his Churh vpon a Rock namely Peter This authority stands victorious against you and triumpheth and shall triumph ouer you And how true this speach of Roffensis is who knoweth not for in other Bishopricks euen in the greatest Patriarchall seates there haue bene many heretikes and not a few of them Arch-heretikes as in the See of Hierusalem Iohn the Origenist Salustius Arsenius Heraclius Hilarius In the See of Antioch Paulus Samosatenus Eulalius Euzoius Ioannes Domnus Petrus Gnapheus Macarius In the See of Alexandria Gregorius Sergius Cappadox Lucius Dioscorus Timotheus AElurus Moggus and others In the See of Constanâ—inople Macedonius Acacius Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus Petrus Aâ—astasius Anthymus Theodorus and others And who knoweth not that
indulgences we know not for all his actions are not written We know that S. Paul did excommunicat the incestuous Corinthian (b) 1. Cor. 5.5 and afterwards when he repented at the intercession of Timothy Titus as Theodoret (c) In 1. Cor. 2.10 expoundeth granted him a pardon or Indulgence in the person of Christ that is to say by the power he had receaued from Christ to that end Nor is it to be doubted but that S. Peter who as ordinary Pastor had power ouer the whole Church did exercise the same power if the like occasion were offered 4. In those primitiue times the Canonization of Saints was not performed with so great solemnity nor with such exact inquiry into all particulars nor with the deposition of so many witnesses as in these later ages it is If then the Church did with vnanimous consent reuerence any one that had died for Christ as the Martyrs did or that liued died holily as did the Confessors he was by publike voyce and consent of the Church reuerenced as a Saint the See Apostolike either expresly or taciâ—ly approuing the same and therby canonized In this manner were Canonized S. Stephen and others that died before S. Peter without whose approbation neither S. Stephen nor any one els was then reuerenced by the whole Church as a Saint not any since that time without the approbation of his Successors 5. To make good S. Peters iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles you require vs (d) Pag. 46. fin to shew that he pardoned Simony and almost an 100. the like sinnes which is to say that vnlesse we shew that the other Apostles committed Simony and almost an 100. the like sinnes and that S. Peter pardoned them we must not belieue S. Peter to haue had power and iurisdiction ouer them That S. Peter euer pardoned Simony we read not but that he punished it we proue by the power he shewed ouer Simon Magus (e) See aboue Nu. 24. And how far the Successors of S. Peter are from pardoning or any way conniuing at Simony yea how seuere they are and euer haue bene in the punishment therof the decrees and constitutions of diuers Popes extant in the Canon Law giue abundant witnesse against such men as you are who out of their hatred to the Roman See are wont to slander S. Peter in his Successors falsly with pardoning Simony and almost an 100. the like sinnes as here you do without any proofe at all 6. With no lesse folly you require vs (f) Pag. 46. 47. to shew that S. Peter was distinguished from the other Apostles by some one note and character of Imperial eminency and authority as by his guard or coyne or habit or command or constitutions as euery temporall Monarch is distinguished from his Nobles Can there be greater simplicity then to require vs to shew that S. Peter like an Emperor had Princely robes a guard and a peculiar coyne as kings Emperors haue when he was no temporall Monarch and when not only he but as you forgetting your selfe (g) Pag. 283. confesse the holy Popes his Successors in those primitiue time were alas daily in danger of banishments imprisonments torments death Is it not then ridiculous to bid vs shew S. Peters guard and his coyne his commands we shew for Oecumenius sayth (h) In cap 1 â—ct The Apostles were committed to the gouerment of Peter and presently at his command appointed two whom they thought worthiest to be chosen in place of Iudas which Doctrine is also deliuered by S. Chrysostome (i) Hom 3. in Act. Of the Constitutions of the Apostles which were peculiarly of S. Peter as their Head and set forth by Clement his Disciple and Successor we know that albeit they are of no great reckoning among many of the Latines as hauing some things inserted into them by heretikes yet they are greatly esteemed by the Greekes and both cited and commended by S. Epiphanius (k) Hâ—â—r 45. ser 70. and other Greeke Fathers To which I add that they are learnedly defended by Turrianus (l) Proem in lib. Clem. Ro. and Genebrard (m) L. de Liturg Apostol c. 5 fol. 21.22 affirmes them to haue bene receaued by all antiquity Your last argument to proue as you call it (n) Pag. 47. the no domination of S. Peter ouer the other Apostles is that meeting together at Hierusalem they sent Peter and Iohn into Samaria which proueth Peter to haue no superiority ouer the rest by whom he was sent or if it doe it must needs imply in Iohn an equality with Peter for as Iohn was not sent as Superior to the other Apostles so neither was Peter This inference we wholly deny 1. because in a Corporation or Colledge as that of the Apostles was the Superior may out of his owne desire be sent in the name of the whole Community the Maior in name of the Citty and the Deane in name of the Chapter 2. The authority of the whole Colledge together which includeth both the head the members differeth from the Head alone to vse the phrase of Metaphysicks tanquam includens ab incluso and is at least extensiue of greater authority then the Head alone and therfore the Head alone may be sent by authority of the whole Colledge 3. And if we take a community for the inferiors not including their Superior though he cannot be sent by their command he may by their in treaty So S. Chrysostome (*) In cap 11 ep ad Gal. sayth Paul was sent to Hierusalem by the Christians of Antioch who yet were not his Superiors So the Deane is sometymes sent by the Canons and the Rector by the Collegialls So was Pope Piâ—â— the second sent by the Colledge of Cardinals about an expedition intended against the Turkes and as Bozius obserneth (o) De fig. Eccles to 2. l. 18. c. 2. §. Quocirca the Roman Emperors were often sent by the Senate Nor doth such a mission any way extenuate but rather manifest the authority of such Missionants for persons of greatest quality are fittest to be employed vpon weighty affaires especially when they import the publike good as this Mission of Peter and Iohn did for Philip the Deacon hauing conuerted the Samaritans to Christ these two great Apostles were sent to oppose the wicked practises of Simon Magus by whom the Samaritans had bene long seduced and to confirme them in their fayth giuing them the holy Ghost by imposition of hands a thing which Philip though otherwise a most perfect man and full of the holy Ghost yet being no Bishop was not able to doe that being a function proper to Bishops To this you haue no other reply to make then tell vs that a iourney vndertakeâ— by a Gouernor at the desire and request of his inferiors cannot be called a mission but a profection and going An answere that serues for nothing but to discouer your ignorance for the
so but that all the other Apostles had likewise authority to preach vnto them both But you oppose (c) Pag. 59. that S. Ambrose (d) In Gal. 2â— from hence cellecteth two different Primacies the one of Peter and the other of Paul S. Ambroses words are As Paul receaued a primacy of founding Churches among the Gentiles so Peter had the primacy of founding the Church a dignity farre greater then to preach and found Churches among the Gentils and that implieth the subiection of S. Paul and all other Prelates of the Church vnto him 2. You say (e) Pag. 59. Chrysostome argueth from these words of S. Paul that both he and Peter had the same dignity and Oecumenius wisheth his reader to obserue that Paul herein equalled himselfe to Peter I answeare The false Apostles excepted against S. Pauls Doctrine and authority to preach because he had not conuersed with Christ nor bin trayned vp in his schole before his passion as the other Apostles had and by that meanes seduced some of the Galathians as it appeares out of the first Chapter of his epistle to them Wherfore in the second Chapter he certifies them that he went to Hierusalem to conferre his Ghospell with the chiefe knowne Apostles and was receaued by them into their society as being an Apostle no lesse then they were and one that had learned his Doctrine by reuelation and receaued his authority to preach from the same mayster that taught and authorized them And herein only S. Chrysostome and Oecumenius say that S. Paul is equall to the rest compares himselfe to Peter the chiefest of them for sayth Oecumenius (f) In cap. 2 ad Gal. though he speake this of Peter praedicationis causa to authorize his owne Doctrine with the Galathians yet he respecteth and honoreth Peter farre aboue himselfe that is to say as Head of the Apostles for so he had called him a little before and (g) Ad c. 1. Act. As one to whom the gouerment of the Disciples was committed and that had power to command them all And how cold S. Chrysostome meane any other thing he that said (h) In c. 2. ad Gal. hom 87 in Ioan. Paul went to Peter as to one greater then himselfe as to the mouth and Prince of the Apostles and Head of the whole company that in matters belonging to authority Paul giues the primacy to Peter (i) Hom. 35. in c. 14.1 ad Cor. that Peter surpassed the rest of the Apostles in authority by many degrees (k) L. 2. de Saâ—ord that he was chiefe of the Apostles had the whole world subiect to him (l) Orat. 5. aduers Iudaeot that Christ deliuered to him the gouermeÌ„t of the Church throughout the whole world (m) Hom 80. ad Antioch the charge of feeding those sheep which he had redeemed with his bloud (n) L. 2. de Sacord 3. You obiect (o) Pag. 61. S. Gregory saying Paul was made the Head of Nations and obtayned the principality of the whole Church S. Paul I grant obtayned the principality of the whole Church as the rest of the Apostles did because they were all Princes ouer the whole Church as S. Hierome and others collect out of those words of the Psalme (p) Psal 44.17 Thou shalt make them Princes ouer all the earth And this is the principality which S. Chrysostome declared S. Paul to haue (q) Hom. 18. in epist ad Rom when he said all preaching the affayres of the world all mysteries and all dispensations were committed to him But this argueth not that the Princedome and authority of S. Paul or the other Apostles was independant and without subordination to S. Peter for as S. Hierome (r) In psal 44. obserueth The Church hath Bishops insteed of the Apostles and as their Successors in their Episcopall authority which therfore in that respect are Peers and Princes of the Church yet not without due subordination for all Bishops are subiect to the Pope and so were Paul and the other Apostles to Peter And this S. Gregory himselfe to shew your imposture in obiecting him for the contrary declareth saying (s) L. 4. ep 38. Peter the Apostle is the chiefe member of the holy and vniuersall Church Paul Andrew Iohn what are they but Heads of seuerall flocks SECT IV. Other arguments of Doctor Morton answeared IN prosecution of the same matter you obiect (m) Pag. 62.63.64 that Paul named Iames before Peter saying Iames Cephas and Iohn wherby you will haue Paul to mate and equall Iames Iohn with Peter for it had bene ill manners in him to name Iames before Peter if Peter had bene Iames his Superior as it would be thought ill manners in a Catalogue of Bishops to reckon the Bishop of Colen before the Pope You argue from an vncertaine ground for S. Chrysostome in his commentary S. Ambrose and S. Hierome both in the text and commentary read Peter Iames and Iohn and so likewise doth S. Hieromâ— in other his workes (n) Contrâ— Heliud l. de Scriptor Eccles in Paulo It is therfore credible that S. Paul in naming them obserued the same order but if he named them otherwise it is no argument to proue that he equalled Iames in authority with Peter first because as S. Chrysostome (o) In cap. 1. ep ad Gal. noteth S. Paul in that very Epistle professeth himselfe to yeld greater honor to Peter and shew more loue to him then to the rest in saying that he went vp to Hierusalem not for any of them but for his sake alone 2. because ascending by gradation he placeth Peter aboue himselfe and next vnto Christ I am Paules and I Apolloes but I of Cephas and I of Christ 3. If it be true that he named Iames before Peter he did it not to equall them in authority and much lesse to preferre Iames before Peter but in regard of the priority of the knowledge which Iames receaued of the great grace giuen to Paul for when he came the first tyme to Hierusalem to giue the Apostles notice of his calling and of the great fruit of his labors he found none of them there but Iames. Put now the like case and it will neither be ill manners nor any derogation to the Popes authority to name him after the Bishop of Colen or of Milan 4. Because it is certaine that in all other places of the new Testament in which there is a Catalogue of all the Apostles in generall or of some in particular Peter is still named in the first place and if here as you say he is named before Peter because he was Bishop of Hierusalem it is no argument to proue him Superior or equall in authority to Peter S. Bernard (q) Serm. 3. de 7. misericord fragm nameth Paul Mathew before Peter and yet in that very place expresly sayth that the Pastorall care of the whole Church was committed to
of the East and many of the West it is a manifest signe so much the more euident the greater the persecutions and the more and longer the schismes haue bene that she is the impregnable Rock which the proud gates of hell cannot ouerthrow SECT VIII Other Arguments out of S. Paul and other Catholike Authors answered S. Paul writing to the Romans sayth (x) Rom. 1.13 I haue often purposed to come vnto you that I may haue some fruite in you as also in the other Gentils Tolet (y) in eum loc Annot. 22. vpon these words obserueth that the Ghospell is indifferent to all and that howbeit the Romans were more eminent then other nations and had the primacy yet in preaching of the Ghospell and busines belonging to saluation the Apostle equalleth others with them These words of Tolet you obiect (z) Pag 70. but to what end I know not for Tolet declareth the reasoÌ„ why S. Paul equalleth other nations with the Romans in preaching to them the doctrine of Christ and procuring their saluation to be because as Christ found all sinners and dyed for all so he calleth all and receaueth them from whence soeuer they come If you had set downe these words of Tolet you had discouered that to inferre either from his or S. Pauls words the equality of other Churches with the Roman in matter of iurisdiction is a senselesse illation for by the same consequence you may inferre that all Diocesans in spiritual iurisdiction are equall with their Bishops and all subiects in temporall power with their Princes because Christ hauing shed his bloud equally for all the soules of all are equally deare to him and their saluation ought with all indifferency to be procured by preaching the Ghospell to all aswell to the least as to the greatest to the poorest as to the richest 2. No lesse impertinently you obiect other words of the same Apostle (a) Rom. 11.19 in which as you confesse he exhorteth not the Romans in particular but all the conuerted Gentils in generall not to be ouer-wise but to feare lest they also be broken off by infidelity as the Iewes were For these words shew that no man hath certainty of fayth that he shall be saued as Protestants vaynly presume themselues to haue but that all ought to liue in feare lest they fall into infidelity or other sinnes which feare the Bishop of Rome and the Romans ought to haue as well as other nations But to inferre from thence that the Bishop of Rome may teach hereticall Doctrine ex Cathedra or that the whole Roman Church may fall from the fayth which is the poynt in controuersy nether is it S. Pauls meaning nor any Interpreter euer expounded so 3. As little to your purpose it is that S. Paul sayth (b) Rom. 1.11 to the Romans I desire to see you that I may impart vnto you some spirituall grace to confirme you for therby as S. Hierome or whosoeuer is the author of those Commentaries Theodoret S. Chrysostome and S. Thomas expound (c) In eum locum he sheweth that they had receaued the fayth already from S. Peter Because sayth Theodoret the great Peter had already declared to them the Euangelicall Doctrine therfore S. Paul necessarily addes To confirme you And S. Hierome Paul sayth he will confirme the Romans already belleeuing not that they had not receaued the fayth by the preaching of Peter but that their fayth might be strengthned by the witnesse and doctrine of two Apostles Wherfore S. Paul desired to see them to confirme them that is as he himselfe declareth to the end both he they might receaue mutuall comfort from each other they by his fayth and he by theyrs What makes this against the primacy of S. Peter or of the Roman Church 4. You obiect (d) Pag. 72 Bellarmine confessing that S. Peter Paul were Co-sounders of the Roman Church He doth so it is true but yet so that S. Peter first planted that Church S. Paul came not to Rome till many yeares after to assist him for which cause the conuersion of the Romans and the planting of Christian religion there is absolutely attributed to S. Peter Our will is say the godly Emperors Theodosius and Gratian (e) Cod. tit 1. l. 1. that all the people ruled by the Empire of our clemency shall liue in the same religion which the diuine Apostle Peter gaue to the Romans as the religion insinuated by him vntill this present witnesseth and which it is manifest that the high Priest Damasus followeth Wherfore when Bellarmine sayth that S. Peter and Paul were Co-founders of the Roman Church he sayth it not to equall them in the foundation and much lesse in authority for in that very place (f) L. 1. de Pout c. 27. he learnedly proueth that in authority S. Peter farre exceeded S. Paul 5. You obiect (g) Pag. 72. out of Lorinus that S. Epiphanius calleth both Peter and Paul Bishops of Rome True but S. Pauls Episcopall authority was only transient he had no Episcopall Chayre at Rome as S. Peter had and therfore Lorinus sayth that S. Epiphanius called S. Paul Bishop of Rome in no other sense then because he exercised the Episcopall functions there as he might doe in any other place of the world This explication contents you not and therfore you say (h) Pag. 72. marg it is confuted in the next testimony and in the Challenge following but you breake promise for there you nether confute it nor mentioÌ„ it And as for the thing it selfe it is manifest for no man euer sayd that S. Paul had an Episcopall Chayre at Rome as S. Peter had no do S. Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius Optatus S. Augustine S. Epiphanius whome you obiect making catalogues of all the Roman Bishops from S. Peter till their tyme nor any other writers reckon S. Paul as one of them 6. You obiect (i) Pag. 72. that the authority of both is cited in the Popes Breues for confirmation of Papall ordinances that both haue their images ingrauen in the Popes bulls and that in such sort that Paul somtime hath the right hand of Peter as well as other while Peter of Paul You often borrow arguments out of Catholike authors and conceale their answeres This you borrowed out of Bellarmine (k) L. 1. de Poâ—t c. 27. who largely and learnedly answereth giuing three different solutions vnto it To him I remit the Reader Only I will tell you that the wordes which you set down in a different character as of Peterius are not his but your owne for thogh he proue out of Scripture out of a place of Virgil that apud homines among men the right hand is the better and more honorable yet he sayth not that it is so among all people sauing the Persians as you by adding to his words this particle All make him to say for he acknowledgeth and Bellarmine out of
(x) Visib Monarch l. 7. à n. 433. ad 541. addeth much more of the same kind out of S. Gregories owne workes and in his owne words as that the See Apostolike by the authority of God is preferred before all Churches That all Bishops if any fault be found in them are subiect to the See Apostolike That she is the Head of fayth of all the faythfull members That if any of the foure Patriarkes had done against the Popesletters that which was done by the Bishop Salona so great a disobedience could not haue passed without a most grieuous scandall That the See Apostolike is the head of all Churches That the Roman Church by the words which Christ spake to Peter was made the Head of all Churches That no scruple nor doubt ought to be made of the fayth of the See Apostolike that all those things are false which are taught contrary to the Doctrine of the Roman Church That to returne from Schisme to the Catholike Church is to returne to the communion of the Bishop of Rome That he which will not haue S. Peter to whom the keyes of heauen were committed to shut him out from the entrance of lyfe must not in this world be separated from his See That they are peruerse men which refuse to obey the commands of the See Apostolike I conclude therfore with Doctor Sanders that he which readeth all these particulars and more of the same kinde that are to be found in the workes of S. Gregory and yet with a brasen forehead feareth not to interpret that which he writ against the name of Vniuersall Bishop so as if he could not abide that any one Bishop should haue the chiefe seate and supreme gouerment of the whole militant Church that man sayth he seemes to me either to haue cast of all vnderstanding and sense of a man or els to haue put on the obstinat peruersnesse of the Diuell How comes it then to passe that you are not ashamed to vrge here and els where so often in this your grand Imposture S. Gregories refusing the name of vniuersall Bishop as an argument to disproue his authority and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church especially since it hath bene so often and so fully answered by vs But because here you insist so much theron I will for the readers satisfaction briefly declare in what sense Pelagius and S. Gregory refused that title and how to better your argument you abuse and falsify our Authors The title of Vniuersalis Episcopus Vniuersall Bishop may be taken two wayes first for a Bishop that challengeth an vniuersall power ouer all other Bishops clayming to himselfe a right of hearing and determing all Ecclesiasticall causes in his owne and their Diocesses leauing them no other right to exercise any Episcopall iurisdiction power but only such as they shall receaue frō him as his Vicars In this sense S. Gregory conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to stile himselfe Vniuersall Bishop as it appeareth out of his plaine and expresse words in diuers of his Epistles (z) L. 4. ep 32.34 36.38 l. 7. ep 70. to which the margent will direct you And in this sense he calleth the name of vniuersall Bishop A prophane and Antichristian title 2. It may be taken in the same signification with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae so that it signify a Bishop to whom belongeth the gouerment of the vniuersall Church and the determining of all such causes as appertaine to her in generall without taking away or hindering the ordinary power and right of other Bishops and leauing each of them in their seuerall places degrees with full power and authority to iudge and determine all Causes Ecclesiasticall belonging to their Diocesses and within them In this sense the tytle of Vniuersall Bishop is not condemned by S. Gregory as new or prophane or any way vnlawfull but agreeth to the Pope no lesse then the title of Bishop of the vniuersall Church And therfore as S. Gregory (a) Ep. ad omnes Episc stileth himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church so likewise when Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria writing to him (b) L. 4. ep 36. gaue him the title of vniuersall Bishop he acknowledged (c) L. 4. ep 36. that in this sense he might lawfully accept therof and that the Councell of Chalcedon and the following Fathers had giuen it to his predecessors But yet he refused it out of his great humility as also he denied himselfe to be a Priest (d) L. 4. ep 31. and as S. Paul called himselfe the greatest of sinners (e) 1. Tim. 1.15 and thought himselfe vnworthy to be called Apostle (f) 1. Cor. 15. ◠And chiefly lest he might be thought to accept of it in the former sense vnlawfull iniurious to other Bishops in which he conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to vsurpe it And finally that therby he might better represse his insolency This doctrine is deliuered by Baronius and Bellarmine of whom because they declare Vniuersalis Episcopus in this second sense to be all one with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae you say (g) Pag. 94. They would gladly confound these two titles therby to proue their Popes to be proper Monarkes ouer the whole Church because some predecessors of S. Gregory haue bene called Bishops of the vniuersall Church which is their peruerse error refuted by one of their learned Iesuits But you must pardon me if I tell you that this is a shamefull vntruth for Baronius and Bellarmine deliuer the same double acception of Vniuersalis Episcopus which I haue declared and likewise affirme that in one of them it may be attributed to the Pope but not in the other which is not to confound but to distinguish that confusion and mistake may be auoyded And the thing it selfe is euident for if the title of Vniuersalis Episcopus might not be taken in a sense vnlawfull S. Gregory would not haue condemned it in Iohn of Constantinople as a new prophane Antichristian title And againe if it might not be taken in a sense lawfull neither the Councell of Chalcedon nor the following Fathers (h) Apud S. Greg. l. 4. ep 36. would haue giuen it to the Bishops of Rome The former sense is vnlawfull because it taketh away all ordinary power and iurisdiction due to other Bishops in their Diocesses The second is lawfull because it leaueth to them their ordinary power and iurisdiction From whence it followeth that as S. Gregory in this second sense did instile himselfe Episcopum Vniuersalis Ecclesiae (i) Ep. ad omnes Episcop so if Vniuersalis Episcopus be taken in the same sense it is also lawfull and due to the Bishops of Rome and in this sense he taketh it when he sayth that the Councell of Chalcedon and the following Fathers gaue it to his predecessors But the former sense he condemned as prophane and Antichristian reprehended in Iohn of Constantinople And Salmeron for
the Pope is now subiect he being an absolute Prince himselfe what could you haue answeared You must haue confessed that you had ouer shot your marke and out of a desire to be speaking against the Pope misinterpreted the words of your text wrested them to a false sense contrary to the true meaning of the Apostle S. Bernard a man endowed with the spirit of God commended by Caluin (r) L. 4. Instit. c. 7. §. 22. cap. 11. §. 11. and Melancthon (s) Art 5. 27. and estemed by your selfe as a Saint was so far from thinking that these words of the Apostle import any subiection of Popes to temporall Princes that contrarily out of them as out of a sacred Canon he teacheth the Emperor Conradus to yield obedience to the Pope as to his Pastor and spirituall Father Legi c. I haue read sayth he (t) Ep. 2â—3 to the Emperor Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers and he that resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God Which sentence I wish and admonish you to obserue in exhibiting reuerence to the chiefe and Apostolike See and to the Vicar of blessed Peter as you will haue it yielded to you by the whole Empire And in other places he reckoneth vp the chiefe Kings of the Christian world professing obedience to Innocentius the second Pope of that name as to the Pastor and Bishop of their soules (u) Ep. 124. 126. prope fin as children to their Father and members to their Head (x) Ep. 125. To S. Bernard I adde other ancient holy and learned Expositors who by Higher Powers vnderstand not the Temporall Magistrat only but also the spirituall and proue that S. Paul in these words commandeth obedience of subiects to all Superiors as well spirituall as temporall So Primasius S. Remigius S. Anselme Lyra and Carthusianus (y) In eum locuin And in confirmation of this sense Primasius by the sword giuen to higher powers vnderstandeth not only the materiall but also gladium spiritus the spirituall sword giuen to S. Peter wherwith he punished Ananias and Saphira The same sense is followed by S. Basil (z) Constit Monast c. 23. who confirmeth the same out of another passage of the Apostle (a) Heb. 2â— 17 where speaking to all Christians without exempting any temporall Power neuer so high he sayth Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them for they watch as bring to render account of your soules Which inference is also made by that holy learned Pope Gregory the seauenth who explicating your text sayth (b) L. 1. regist Ep. 22. Seeing therfore the Apostle commands obedience to worldly powers how much more to spirituall and those that haue the place of Christ among Christians And if these Expositors be not of credit with you Iohn Caluins doctrine is (c) L. 4. instit c. 10. §. 5. that if obedience must be exhibited to secular Princes for conscience sake it must also be yielded to Ecclesiasticall Superiors Wherfore the more probable Exposition is that the Apostle by Higher Powers vnderstandeth not the temporall Magistrate only but speaketh generally of all Powers as well spirituall as temporall and requireth obedience vnto them both in their degrees Which being true you can no more inferre out of his words that the Pope is subiect to temporall Princes then the contrary especially he being not noly a temporall Prince but also a spirituall so great that as the B. of Patara admonished Iustinian the Emperor (d) Liberat in Breu. c. 22. Albeit there be many Kings in the world yet none of them as the Pope who is ouer the Church of the whole world More proofes in this kind are not needfull You haue heard (e) Aboue Chap. 29. the Councell of Nice declaring the dignity of the B. of Rome as being the Vicar of Christ and gouernor of the vniuersall Church to surpasse the dignity of Kings You haue heard (f) Ibid. the most religious Emperors Kings professing obedience vnto him as children to their Father and sheepe to their Pastor And if S. Pauls words be true (g) Heb. 7.7 that without all contradiction the lesse is blessed by the greater the dignity of an Emperor who is blessed consecrated and crowned by the Pope must be lesser then the dignity of the Pope that blesseth and crowneth him This you will better vnderstand if you call to minde that the holy Martyr S. Ignatius teacheth Christians next after God to honor the Bishop (h) Ep ad Smyrnen And that all people who euer they be Soldiers Princes yea the Emperor himselfe must obey the Bishop to the end that vnity and order may be obserued in all (i) Ep. ad Philadelph And why els do the learned Fathers S. Martin S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose and S. Gregory the great preferre the Episcopall and Sacerdotall dignity before the regall and Imperiall (k) See aboue Chap. 29. Why did S. Nazanzen (l) Orat. ad ciues timore perculsos Princ. irasc call the Emperor A sheepe of his sacred flock and say vnto him The law of Christ hath made you subiect to my power and to my Tribunall for we Bishops haue an Empire also and that more perfect then yours vnlesse you will say that the spirit is inferior to the flesh and heauenly things to earthly And what els do the greatest Monarkes of the world but make profession of this when the Priest sitting and couered they kneele downe with all humility at his feet and confesse their finnes vnto him Is not this to acknowledge that they come as persons guilty to accuse themselues and that the Priest in that court of conscience is their lawfull Superior and Iudge This S. Chrysostome expressed saying (m) L. 3. de Sacerd. that Priests as if they were already transported into heauen and exalted aboue humane nature haue a Princedome which giueth them power to bind soules in comparison wherof the power of Kings is as far inferior as earth to heauen and the body to the soule This S. Ambrose when he said (n) L. de dignit Sacerd. c. 2. You see the heads of Kings and Princes humbled to the knees of Priests and that kissing their hands they belieue themselues to be protected by their prayers This Basilius the Emperor (o) Orat. in fine Conc. Gen. 8. when alluding to the words of Christ spoken to his Apostles (p) Ioan. 20.23 Whose sinnes you forgiue they are forgiuen he professed that Bishops and Pastors haue the power of binding and losing in the Church and that all lay men are to be sanctified to be bound and lesed from their bonds by them And finally this professed Constantine the great when he said (q) Ruffin l. 1. c. 1. S. Greg. l. â— ep 72. that Bishops were constituted by God as Gods among men and therfore had power to iudge of Emperors I conclude therfore that if the doctrine of the
confirmed by the B. of Rome (b) Ibid. l. 3. c. 5.8 30. that all former Councells haue required their doctrines to be confirmed and authorized by him Why do you then produce him as a witnesse for the contrary Gerson and Canus are both falsified by you for Gerson in the place you cite hath no such doctrine but the contrary which els where he expresseth (c) To. 1. in Consider de paâ—â— Consid 1. saying Constat quod in materijs fidei terminandis error non cadit in Concilio generali c. It is manifest that in deciding controuersies of fayth a generall Councell cannot erre And the Doctors yeild the reason because of the speciall assistence of the holy Ghost and of Christ gouerning the Church and not permitting it to erre in those things which it cannot attaine by humane industry Canus sayth that generall Councells lawfully gathered may erre in fayth as the second of Ephesus did This is his second conclusion which you lay hold of concealing that in his third conclusion which he presently addeth he sayth That a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope cannot erre and condemneth your doctrine as absolutely hereticall Is it not then extreme perfidiousnesse to Father on him the contrary and to make Catholike Doctors Patrons of your Errors But to declare what is necessary that a generall Councell may not erre you adde (d) Pag. â—66 fin 367. The difference betweene the Roman Church and the Church of the Protestants is no more but this that the Romanists say that all generall Councells may erre except they be confirmed and authorized by the Pope but Protestants say that all generall Councells may erre except they be directed by the spirit of Gods word This indeed you say and yet leaue the question vnansweared for we likewise say that euery Councell which is not directed by the spirit of Gods word may erre The question is how it may be knowne when a Councell defineth according to Gods word and when not for Gods word may be misinterpreted Wherof Tertullian speaking truly said (e) L. de praescrip An adulterate glosse doth as much outrage to the truth as a false pen. And S. Hilary (f) L. 2 de Triâ— init There haue bene many who haue interpreted the heauenly words otherwayâ—â— then the truth did require according to the sense of their own will not for the establishing of truth for heresy is not in the writing but in the vnderstanding the fault is not in the word but in the sense And doth not S. Hierome likewise say (g) In Ep. ad Gal. c. 1. The Ghospell is not in the words but in the sense And doth not S. Augustine cry out (i) In Ioan. tract 13. Heresies and peruerse doctrine which entangle soules cast them headlong into hell haue their birth nowhere but from good Scriptures ill vndeestood And againe (k) De Gen. ad lit l. 7. c. 9. Heretikes were not heretikes but that misunderstanding the Scripture they defend obstinatly their owne false opinions against the truth therof And in another place (l) Ep. 2â—â— All heretikes which receaue the Scriptures thinke they follow them when they follow their owne Errors Of the same subiect Lyrinensis discourseth largely and learnedly (m) Chap. 1â— 30.37 shewing that the Diuel alleaged Scriptures against Christ that all Heretikes alleage them against the Church in defence of their errors which made S. Hierome say (n) In Ep. ad Gal. c. 1. that there is great daÌ„ger in speaking in the Church for feare lest by a wrong interpretation the Ghospell of Christ be made the Ghospell of man or which is worse the Ghospell of the Diuell And speaking of the Luciferians (o) Aduers Lucifer versus fin who boasted of the Scriptures as Protestants doe Let them not statter themselues to much because they seeme to haue Scripture for what they affirme for euen the Diuell hath alleaged Scriptures which consist not in reading but in vnderstanding Wherfore it is not sufficient to alleage Scriptures We alleage them and you alleage them but we disagree concerning the true sense and meaning of them from whom shall we learne it If Luther may as your fore-man speake for you all you and none but you and that by your priuate spirit must deliuer the true sense of them We sayth Luther (p) L. de serâ—â— arbit receaue nothing but the Scriptures and them so also that we our selues only haue certaine authority to expound them As we vnderstand them so was the meaning of the Holy Ghost what others bring be they neuer so great neuer so many preceedeth from the spirit of Sathan and from a mad and alimated mind So Luther And as he challenged to himselfe this priuiledge of deliuering the true sense of Scripture so his disciples haue challenged the same to themselues This spirit it is which hath hatched so many viperous sects no lesse disagreeing among themselues then all of them straying from the truth And yet you all boast of Scripture and all proclaime that you follow the word of God And no maruaile for the Diuell sayth Lyrinensis (q) Cap. 37 3â— knoweth right well that when wicked errors are to be broached the readiest way to deceaue is to alleage stifly the authority of diuine Scripture What then shall Catholike men Children of our Mother the Church do Let them interpret the diuine Canon according to the tradition of the vniuersall Church The truth of Scripture sayth S. Augustine (r) Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 33. is held by vs when we do that which pleaseth the vniuersall Church whom the authority of the same Scriptures recommendeth And againe (s) Ibid. c. 31. Whosoeuer feareth to be deceaued through the obscurity of this question let him consult with that Church which the holy Scripture hath designed without any ambiguity This Church it is of which God pronounced by the mouth of Isay (t) Isa 54.17 Thou shalt iudge euery tongue that resisteth thee in iudgment Of this Christ hath promised (u) Math. 16.18 that the gates of hell which are Errors shall not preuâ—ile against her Of this he hath said (x) Math. 18.17 that whosoeuer heares her not is to be held as a Heathen a Publican In this he hath placed (y) Ad Ephes 4.11 17. Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastors and Doctors c. that we may not be litle Children wauering and carried away with euery blast of doctrine This Church these Pastors these Doctors all Christians must heare and imbrace their exposition of Scripture as the true meaning of the holy Ghost Christ himselfe hauing said (z) Luc. 10.6 that who heareth them heareth him and S. Iohn (a) â— Ioan. 4.6 by this marke distinguisheth Orthodoxe people from Heretikes that the Orthodoxe heare and obey the Pastors and Doctors of Gods Church which heretikes refuse to do We are sayth he of God he that knoweth God heareth vs He
then may we thinke of your Protestant Congregation For many of your Tenets haue bene condemned in ancient Heretikes and held euer since for heresies (d) See aboue Chap. 42. sect 2. And yet that you are not ready to be reformed but are most obstinate in your defence of them which is the essentiall character of heresy is most easily proued for it we speake of Luther he acknowledged his new Tenets to be contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers and Doctors of Gods Church For sayth he (e) Colloq mensal Cap. de Patr. Eceles In the workes of Hierome there is not a word of true fayth in Christ and sound religion Tertullian is very superstitious I haue held Origen long since accursed Of Chrysostome I make no accomp◠Basil is of no worth he is wholly a Monke I weigh him not a haire Cyprian is a weake Deuine Againe he preferreth his owne collected sense of Scripture before the expositions of all the Fathers saying (g) Tom 2. Witemb l. cont Reg. Aug. fol. 34 ◠b. The diuine Maiesty makes for me so as I care not if a thousand Augustines a thousand Cyprians a thousand King Henry Churches stand against me concludeth saying (h) Tom. 2. Witemb printed 1554. fol. 290. b. Be it that the Church Augustine and other Doctors also Peter Apollo yea an Angell from heauen teach otherwise yet my Doctrine is such as setteth forth Gods only glory c. Peter the chiefe of the Apostles did liue and teach extra verbum Dei besides the word of God And speaking of all the ancient Fathers in generall and preferring his owne iudgment doctrine before theirs he sayth (i) Tom. ◠Witemb 〈◊〉 no 1551. l. de seruo arb sol 434. The Fathers of so many ages haue bene plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures they erred all their life time and vnlesse they repented before their death they neither were Saints nor appertained to the Church And if we come to the Councells he regarded them as little as he did the Fathers and was resolued with a most peruerse and obstinate mind to deny and contradict whatsoeuer a Councell should determine though neuer so true and to maintaine stifly the contrary though neuer so impious and damnable for speaking of communion in both kindes he sayth (k) De formula Missae Hospin hist. Sacramen part 2. fol. 13. a. If a Councell should in any case decree this then least of all would we vse both kinds yea rather in despight of the Councell and that decree we would vse either but one kind only or neither but in no case both In like manner he teacheth (l) Tom. 2. German fol. 214. that if a Councell should grant Church-men liberty to marry he would thinke that man more in Gods grace who during his life should keep three whores then he that should marry according to the Councels decree and that he would command vnder paine of damnation that no man should mary by permission of such a Councell but should either liue chast or if that were not possible then not to despaire though he kept a whore And speaking of the eleuation of the Sacrament (m) In parua Confessione I did know the eleuation of the Sacrament to be Idolatricall as making for sacrifice yet neuerthelesse I did retaine it in the Church at Witemberg to despight the Diuell Carolstadius Finally notwithstanding he himselfe acknowledged and many of your Protestant brethren confesse (n) See the next Section that he learned the chiefe points of his doctrine from the Diuell he was not ashamed to say (o) Apud Zuing l. to 2. ad Luth. confess fol. 478. a. If I be deceaued God hath deceiued me c. I am certaine (p) Luth. to 2. Witemb fol. 333. a. that I haue my opinions from Heauen c. They shall continue I would haue you know (q) Aduers falso nominat Eccles stat that hereafter I will not vouchsafe you so much honor as to suffer either you or the Angells of heauen to iudge of my doctrine c. For seeing I am certaine of it I will in respect of it iudg both of you and of Angells And yet for all this vaunting that he had no perswasion of the truth of his doctrine is a thing manifest both for that he had great remorse of Conscience (r) To. 2. Ger. Ien. fol. 9. b. to 2. Witemb anno 1562. l. de abrog Missa priu fol. 24.4 b. tom 5. Annot. breuiss his hart beating within him and reprehending him that he being a sole man and of no accompt should alone oppose himselfe against the Church the Fathers the Councells the customs the multitudes and greatnesse of wise men censuring them all to haue liued in ignorance and error and himselfe only to be wise as also because he offered to submit to the Pope (s) To. 1. Witemb fol. 215. b. M. Cooper Chron. printed 1565. fol. 278. a. and to suppresse his new doctrine so that he might not be compelled to recant Wherby it is manifest that he was resolued to goe against his owne knowledge and conscience either in preaching his new doctrine knowing it to be false or els in offering to suppresse it knowing it to be true If leauing Luther we come to Caluin whereas the holy Scriptures instruct vs in our beliefe of the Diuinity of Christ and of the truth of that most sublime and incomprehensible mystery of the Blessed Trinity and the holy Fathers out of them proue the same Caluin accuseth them of misinterpreting the Scriptures and by his blasphemous doctrine destroieth those diuine misteries the first Principles and ground of Christian religion The particulars are set downe at large and very punctually by M. Brereley (t) Caluins life sect 3. pag. 136. seqq out of Caluins owne workes and confirmed by the testimonies of other Protestants And the thing is so certaine that as Iacobus Andreas Schlusselburg Hunnius and Pelargus testify (u) Ibid. the troupes of Arians now raging in Transiluania Poland and Hungary are but Colonies sent from Geneua all the chiefest of them hauing bene at first Caluinists and so continue to this day in other points of their doctrine (x) Gratianus Prosper Instrum doctri printed Loschi 1586. reputing themselues to be the most pure reformed Caluinists by reason of their deniall of the Blessed Trinity which they reiect (y) Osiand Cent. 16. l. 2. c. 22. pag. 209. fin as being the three-headed Cerberus the deuice of Antichrist and the chiefe part of Popish Antichristian corruption From this knowne foundation of the Arians Doctrine Adam Neuserus a Caluinist and chiefe Pastor at Heydelberg who reuolted from thence to Arianisme writ from Constantinople to Gerlachius a Protestant preacher saying (z) Osiand ibid. pag. 208. I know none in our time to haue bene made an Arian that was not first a Caluinist as Seruetus Blandrata Paulus Alciatus