betake your selfe as to your last refuge when you are pressed with vnanswearable arguments is a mere shift inuented to delude ignorant readers with empty words voyd of truth And by this canon it is in like manner euident that the primacy was not then first giuen to the Church of Rome but preserued vnto it according to the canons Your second Argument (z) Pag. 107. to proue that the later Roman Councells are bastardly and illegitimate and that we haue little regard to the Councell of Nice is taken out of Theodoret writing that Constantine the Great required in that Synod that because the bookes of the Apostles do plainly instruct vs in diuine matters therfore we ought to make our determinations vpon questions from words which are diuinely inspired And then you tell vs that Bellarmine answeareth thus Coâ—stantine was a great Emperor indeed but no great Doctor of the Church who was yet vnbaptized and therfore vnderstood not the mysteries of religion Thus say you doth this your Cardinall twite and taunt the iudgment of that godly Emperor and as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth from his reader that which followeth in Theodoret namely that the greater part of that Councell of Nice obeyed the voyce of Constantine So you as you are wonâ— for first you falsify Bellarmine who sayth not that Constantine was yet vnbaptized but that that is the opinion of you Protestants and the old Arians from whence he argueth ad hominem against you that this testimony of Constantine is not of so great weight as Caluin and Kemnitius make it for if he were vnbaptized he could then be no great Doctor of the Church as being a Neophyte and therfore not so well skilled in the mysteries of Christian Religion What twiting or taunting of that godly Emperor your find in this answere of Bellarmine I know not but I know that you in holding Constantine to be then vnbaptized both seeke to disgrace that godly Emperor and withall to vphold the authority and credit of the Arian heretikes who to make him a Patron of their heresy gaue out that he was not baptized vntill a litle before his death and that then he receaued his baptisme from Eusebius B. of Nicomedia the chiefe ringleader of the Arian faction But that your dealing may the better appeare it is to be noted that Bellarmine is so farre from twiting or taunting that godly Emperor that he admitteth of his testimony Admitting sayth he (a) L. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. §. Admissâ— the authority of Constantine I say that in all those doctrines which concerne the nature of God there are extant testimomes in Scripture out of which if they be rightly vnderstood we may be fully and plainly instructed but the true sense of the Scriptures dependeth on the vnwritten tradition of the Church Wherfore the same Theodoret that reporteth this speach of Constantine declareth in the next Chapter that in the Councell of Nice Scriptures were produced on both sydes but the Arians were not conuinced with them because they expounded them otherwise then the Catholikes and therfore were condemned by the vnwritten tradition of the Church piously vnderstood to which condemnation no man euer doubted but that Constantine assented So Bellarmine And hereby it appeares that when you say Bellarmine citeth Theodoret yet as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth that which followeth in him namely that the greater part of the Councell obeyed the voyce of Constantine you wrong Bellarmine and a buse Theodoret who in those words relateth not to the determining of controuersies by Scriptures but to Constantines exhortation made to the Bishops of peace and concord among themselues which sayth Theodoret the greatest part of the Councell obeyed imbracing mutuall concord and true doctrine though diuers Arians disagreed some of whose names he there expresseth This you iniustly conceale like the ill Steward in the Ghospell that you may pick a quarrell with Bellarmine In confirmation of this I might adde that as S. Augustine (b) L. 5. de Baptism c. 23. and Vincentius Lyrinensis (c) Cont. haer c. 9. 10. haue testified the heresy of Rebaptization could not be disproued by Scripture but was condemned by Tradition And finally I might aske you why you like the bad Steward conceale what Theodoret writeth in that very place namely that what Constantine said he spake not to the Bishops as their Head but as a sonne that loued peace offered vp his words to the Priests as to his Fathers and that he would not enter into the Councell but after them all nor sit downe but with their leaue and in a low chayre Did he trow you belieue himselfe to be Head of the Church CHAP. XVII The second Generall Councell held at Constantinople belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome SECT I. By what authority this Councell was called BELLARMINE in proofe of the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction alleageth that the Fathers of the first generall Councell of Constantinople which was the second generall of the whole Church in their Epistle to Pope Damasus say They were gathered by his Mandate and confesse that the Church of Rome is the Head and they the members This say you (d) Pag. 109. is all that is obiected but vpon a mistake What then is the mistake Because Bellarmine in the Recognition of his workes afterwards obserued that it was not the Epistle of the second generall Synod but of the Bishops which had bene present at the Synod and met againe the next yeare after at Constantinople But if this Epistle were not of the Synod why do you speaking of it not without contradiction say (e) Pag. 10â— The generall Councell of Constantinople do endite an Epistle (f) Pag. 110. margin and inscribe it thus And why do you mentioning the inscription of the same Epistle call it Synodicae Epistolae inscriptio The inscription of the Synodicall Epistle And why doth Theodoret (h) L. 5. hist. c. 9. stile it Libellus Synodicus à Concilio Constantinopolitano missus A Synodicall writ sent by the Councell of Constantinople c But howsoeuer you alleaging that Bellarmine acknowledgeth his owne mistake is a mere cauill nothing auailing your cause for be it that those Bishops writ not their Epistle whiles they were assembled in Councell but when they met the next yeare after at Constantinople yet you must acknowledge the truth of what Bellarmine alleageth out of their Epistle vnlesse you will make them all lyers But let vs goe on Bellarmine sayth (i) Recogn pag. 46. in hoc Concil it is sufficiently proued out of the sixth generall Councell that this of Constantinople was called by the commaund of Pope Damasus you answeare (k) Pag. 109. that in proofe therof he referreth himselfe to another Councell against the vniuersall current of histories which with generall consent set downe the Mandates of Emperors as the supreme and first compulsary causes for
cleare that it is great impiety for a Christian to doubt therof S. Fulgentius sayth (s) De incarnat grat c. 11. that what the Roman Church teacheth the Christian world without hesitation belieues to iustice and doubts not to confesse to saluation S. Peter surnamed Chrysologus exhorteth Eutyches the arch-heretike thus (t) Ep. ad Eutych prafixa Act is Concil Chalced. We exhort thee reuerend brother to lend an obedient eare to the letters of the most holy Pope of the Citty of Rome for as much as the blessed Peter who liues and rules in his owne seate exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it I omit other testimonies no lesse cleare of S. Cyrill of Iohn and Maximianus Patriarkes of Constantinople of Venerable Bede S. Maximus Martyr Theodorus Studites Rabanus and others formerly alleaged (*) Chap. 1. sect 4. From this infallibility of the Roman Church it proceeded that the ancient Fathers and Councels for the decision of all doubts of fayth had euer recourse to the See of Rome and that many learned and holy Doctors haue sent their writings to the Popes of their tyme to be examined by them and approued if their Doctrine were found to be Orthodoxall or reproued if it were erroneous So did S. Augustine to Zozimus the 4. Primates of Africa to Theodorus the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to Innocentius S. Cyril to Celestine Theodoret and the Councell of Chalcedon to Leo the great S. Anselme to Vrbanus S. Bernard to Innocentius Other particulars I omit hauing dwelled long in this point already SECT II. Our second Argument AN other place of Scripture wherwith we proue the Roman Churches indefectibility in fayth are the words of Christ Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I wil build my Church the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it By the gates of hell Origen S. Epiphanius S. Hierome S. Cyril Rabanus and all other expositors vnderstand Heresies and Arch-heretikes by whom as by gates men descend into hell And contrarily by Rock they vnderstand S. Peter and his Successors in the Roman See against which heresies and whatsoeuer persecutions raised by them haue no more power to preuaile then the furious waues of raging tempests against a Rock firmely seated in the middest of the sea They may beate and breake themselues against it but destroy it they cannot And so experience teacheth for howbeit the Heathnish persecutors and other enemies of Christ haue tried their forces against it and all the other Patriarchall Sees haue fallen into heresy yet against the Roman Church God protecting it no persecutions no errors haue preuailed nor euer shall preuaile for she sayth S. Augustine (u) Psal cont part Donati is the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not Neither against the Rockon which Christ builded his Church sayth Origen (x) Tract 1. in Math. nor against the Church it selfe the gates of hell shall preuaile Vpon this Rock sayth S. Hierome (y) Ep. 57. speaking of the Roman See to Damasus I know the Church to be built he that gathereth els where scattereth Our Lord sayth S. Epiphanius (z) In Ancorato made Peter the chiefe of the Apostles a strong Rock vpon whom the Church of God is built and the gates of hell which are heresies and Arch-heretikes shall not preuaile against it for the fayth is euery way fortified in him S. Chrysostome sayth (a) Hom. 55. in Math. Our Sauiour promised to Peter power to forgiue sinnes that the Church hauing for her Pastor and Head a poore fisherman shold amongst the assalts of so many raging flouds remaine immoueable and more firmely fixed and setled then the strongest Rock S. Cyril explicating the same words of our Sauiour sayth (b) Apud S. Thom. in Catena ad c. 16. Math. According to this promise of our Lord the Apostolicall Church of Peter perseuereth in her Bishops pure and free from all seduction and circumuention aboue all Prelates and Bishops and aboue all Primates of Churches and people in the fayth and authority of Peter And wheras other Churches haue bene stayned with the errors of some she alone remaines established firmely and vnconquerably silencing and stopping the mouthes of all heretikes Possessor a famous African Bishop and banished by the Arians consulting Hormisdas Pope about the Doctrine of Faustus Rhegiensis yeldeth this reason (c) Extat Epistola apud Baron Anno 520. It is expedient to haue recourse to the head as often as the health of the members is treated of for who hath a more solicitous care of his subiects or from whom is the resolution of fayth when it is questioned to be required but from the President of that See whose first Rector heard from Christ Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it S. Leo the great (d) Serm. 2. de sua assump The solidity of that fayth which was praysed in the prince of the Apostles is perpetuall and as that remaines which Peter belieued so remaineth that also which Christ instituted in Peter Wherfore the disposition of truth remaineth and Peter perseuering in the strength of a Rock hath not left the gouerment of the Church which he once vndertooke S. Maximianus an ancient Patriarke of Constantinople higly commended by Celestine Pope (e) Ep. ad Theodosium and others (f) Apud Spond anno 431. n. 22. writeth to the Orientalls All the bounds of the earth haue sincerely acknowledged our Lord and Catholikes throughout the whole world professing the true fayth looke vpon the power of the B. of Rome as vpon the Sunne And then speaking of the reward which our Sauiour gaue to Peter for that excellent confession of his fayth he addeth For the Creator of the world amongst all men of the world chose S. Peter to whome he gaue the chayre of Doctor to be principally possessed by a perpetuall right of priuiledge to the end that whosoeuer is desirous to know any diuine and profound thing may haue recourse to the oracle and doctrine of this instruction Iustinian the Emperor maketh this profession of his fayth to Bonifacius Pope (g) Extat inter decreta Bonif. Papae The beginning of saluation is to conserue the rule of right fayth no way to swarue from the tradition of our fore-Fathers because the words of our Lord cannot faile saying Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock c. And the proofes of deeds haue made good those words because in the See Apostolike the Catholike Religion is always conserued inuiolable And the same profession was made by Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to Hormisdas Pope (h) In epist ad Hormisd abiuring the memory of all such as dye out of the Communion of the Roman Church or agree not in all things fully with her S. Gregory (i) L. 6. ep 37. Who knoweth not that the holy Church is strengthned by
Apostles And wheras you (r) Pag. 131. appeale to our consciences and bid vs in all our reading shew vnto you if we can that Polycrates and other Asian Bishops so excommunicated by Pope Victor were held by any other Catholike Bishops of those tymes to be therby without the state of saluation we contrarily appeale to the conscience of any christian man whether it be not damnable doctrine to mantaine as you do that these Qartadeciman heretikes after they knew themselues to be excommunicated by the Pope and anathematized by so many Councels if they repented not but persisted obstinatly in the defence of their heresy cold be in state of saluation And lastly wheras you add (s) Pag. 131. that wee full well know that S. Hierome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiasticall writers numbred Polycrates among those who did aduance the Catholike fayth we know that you speake ignorantly and vntruly for S. Hierome in that his Catalogue doth not only number Catholikes but also diuers heretikes that writ of Ecclesiasticall affaires as Eusebius Caesariensis whome the same S. Hierome (t) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. cals The ring-leader of the Arians And so likewise he numbreth Nouatianus Donatus and Photinus whom in that very Catalogue he acknowledgeth not only to be heretikes but authors and propagators of seuerall heresies And in no other condition doth he number Polycrates whom he commendeth not for aduancing the Catholike fayth as you affirme but hauing set downe a piece of his epistle written to Pope Victor in defence of his error sayth He reports it to shew the wit and authority of the man where by authority he vnderstands not authority of right but of fact that is the credit which Polycrates had among the Quartadecimans CHAP. XXIV Doctor Morton in opposition to the Roman Church defendeth the Hereticall Doctrine of Rebaptization FIRMILIANVS B. of Caesarea in Cappadocia with other Asian Bishops out of their great hatred to heresy decreed in their Councells of Iconium Synnada that Baptisme giuen by Heretikes was inualid and therfore that Heretikes returning to the Catholike Church were to be baptized a new This Doctrine from Asia crept into Africa and Agrippinus B. of Carthage hauing layd the first grounds therof Cyprian with other African Bishops afterwards imbraced the same so far that for the authorizing therof they assembled a Councell of 80. Bishops at Carthage All which notwithstanding that doctrine as being contrary to the tradition and practise of the Catholike Church was forbidden by Stephen then Pope of Rome in these words Nihil innouetur sed seruetur quod traditum est Let no innouation be made but that obserued which hath come by tradition Firmilianus with other Bishops of Asia notwithstanding this prohibition persisted still in their error and were for that cause excommunicated by Stephen Wherat Firmilianus storming in his fury spued out reprochfull and contumelious words against him But Cyprian although he defended the same error yet not as a doctrine of fayth nor condemning the contrary nor censuring the Pope or the rest that defended it as any way guilty of Heresy for as S. Augustine writing against the Donatists and excusing Cyprian (u) L. 2. de Bapt. t. 18. l. 2. c. 4. sayth If he held that opinion it was before it was condemned by a a generall Councell to which he would most easily haue submitted his iudgment if any such had bene held in his tyme. And moreouer if he held it it was with so great temper that as both he himselfe (x) Ep. ad Iuba in Conc. Carthag and S. Augustine (y) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18. 19. l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9 alibisaepe for him testifieth for the defence therof he neuer forsooke the communion of the Roman Church but as S. Peter dissented from S. Paul concerning the circumcision of Gentils newly conuerted and yet both of them still remayned in Catholike vnity and peace so likewise though Cyprian touching rebaptization differed in opinion from Stephen yet he still remayned in communion with him And therfore when the Donatists defended their heresy by the authority of Cyprian and his Councell S. Augustine answeared (h) Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 32. l. 2. c. 31. alibi saepe that Cyprians patronage could not auaile them because they were out of the communion of the Roman Church in which Cyprian liued and dyed This is the controuersy as it passed betweene Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and Stephen Pope briefly related And you in obiecting it against the Popes authority shew impiety folly and falshood Impiety 1. In taking part with Firmilianus Cyprian in their opposition to Pope Stephen and approuing their doctrine which you know to be erroneous that soone after being condemned by a generall Councell it hath euer since bene held for an absolute heresy not only by Catholikes but also by Protestants And doth not S. Augustine say (i) L. 2. de Bapt. c. 2. that albeit Cyprian Bishop Martyr were a man of great fame and merit yet not of greater then Peter the Apostle and Martyr in whom the principality of the See Apostolike was so eminent which sheweth that Cyprian ought to haue borne respect to Stephen Pope sitting in the See inuested in the authority of Peter Prince of the Apostles And doth he not shew (l) L. 2. Cont. Crescon c. 32. that Cyprian erred herein and that the Epistles which he writ of this subiect are of no force because the contrary was decreed by the authority of the whole Church which is to be preferred before the authority of Cyprian or of any one man whatsoeuer And doth he not (m) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 23. seqq learnedly confute the Epistle which Cyprian writ to Pompeius in defence of his error And wheras you to iustify Cyprian obiect (n) Pag. 134. that he gathered a Councell of 87. Bishops which concluded contrary to the Pope and his Councell celebrated in Italy you know that S. Augustine doubted (o) L. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. whether any such Councell were euer held and if it were whether the greater part of the Votes were not against Cyprian because the Donatists could reckon but 50. Asian and 70. African Bishops that adhered to Firmilianus and Cyprian (p) S. Aug. cont Crescon l. 3. c. 3. wheras many thousands held with Stephen Pope against them And the same S. Augustine (q) L. 6. de Bapt. per tot answeareth and confuteth seuerally euery one of the verdictes of the Bishops which were said to be giuen in that Councell assembled by Cyprian 2. You cannot be excused from impiety in obiecting (r) Pag. 137. against the Popes authority the words which Firmilianus and Cyprian in their passion let slip from their mouthes against Stephen for S. Augustine (s) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 25. held them vnworthy to be mentioned and couered them with this excuse The things which
the charge of feeding his sheep and lambes (u) Ioan. â—1 15 16. gaue him an vniuersall Pastorall power and iurisdiction ouer his whole flock throughout the world which power and iurisdiction therfore S. Augustine and the whole Councell of Mileuis (x) Apud Aug. ep 92. acknowledge Innocentius Pope to haue from the authority of the holy Scriptures that is by diuine Law from the mouth of Christ himselfe Your sixth obiection is (y) Pag. 208.209 that S. Hierome disagreed from the Roman Church in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine You told vs euen now (z) Pag. 205. that the Church of Rome was then sound in fayth If therfore S. Hierome disagreed from her in matter of necessary and Catholike Doctrine S. Hierome was an heretike for all doctrine contrary to the Catholike fayth is heresy But you regard not what you say of that renowned Doctor if you may make him like to your selfe in disagreeing from the Church of Rome in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine But let vs heare in what he disagreed Because S. Hierome sayth that although formerly all other Churches in the East did account S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall yet it was not receaued as Canonicall in the Latine or Roman Church From whence you tooke these words I know not for no such are to be found in his Epistle to Euagrius out of which you alleage them Part of them I find in his Commentary vpon Isaias and in his Epistle to Dardanus where he saith The Epistle to the Hebrewes is receaued as Canonicall by all the Greeke Churches though the custome of the Latines receaue it not But that the Roman Church receaues it not is an imposterous addition of yours to S. Hieromes text for when he sayth The custome of the Latines receaues it not that by the custome of the Latines he vnderstands not all the Latine or Roman Church he declareth saying (a) Ep. ad Euag. All the Greekes receaue the Epistle to the Hebrewes nonnulli Latinorum and many of the Latines Yea when he infinuateth that some of the Latines receaued it not he speaketh not of the Latines of his time but of some that liued before him as Tertullian S. Cyprian Lactantius Arnobius who in their workes are not found to alleage this Epistle But since the tyme of Lactantius the Latine Fathers haue bene so far from making any doubt that it is Canonicall that Philastrius (b) In Catal. haeres a Latine Father and Bishop of Bressa in Italy more ancient then S. Hierome ranketh them among heretikes that deny it to be Canonicall And in S. Hieromes time Innocentius Pope (c) Eup. ad Exuper and soone after him Gelasius with a Councell of 70. Bishops (d) Decret de lib. sacr Eccles reckon the Epistle to the Hebrewes in the number of Canonicall Scriptures If therfore Gelasius Pope with a Councell of 70. Bishops and Innocentius belieued it to be Canonicall with what forehead do you say that the Roman Church denied it to be Canonicall or how can it be thought that S. Hierome differed in any point of Catholike beliefe from the Church of Rome he that prescribeth to Demetrias (e) Ep. 8. ad Demetriad as a secure way to auoid the snares of heresy that she hold fast the fayth of S. Innocentius Pope And finally how cold he dissent from the Roman Church in this or any other point of necessary and Catholike doctrine he I say that so often commendeth and recommendeth (f) Ep. 6.8.68 the Roman fayth and defineth him to be a Catholike that holds the fayth of the Roman Church (g) Aduers Ruffi l. 1. What followeth of this you know namely that by affirming S. Hierome to disagree from the Roman Church in matter of necessarie and Catholike doctrine you make him an heretike Is not then your Argument a Grand Imposture And no lesse it is that the Councell of Trent hauing defined the bookes of Hester Daniel Baruch Ecclesiasticus Wisdome Iudith Tobias and the two bookes of the Machabies with all their parts as they are in the vulgar edition to be canonicall you (h) Pag. 209. in disproofe therof obiect these words as of Bellarmine S. Hierome sayd of these bookes that they were not within the canon of scriptures for Bellarmine in that place maketh no mention of Hester Daniel Baruch And though he grant S. Hierome to haue bene of opinion that the other bookes mentioned were not canonicall yet why do you conceale his reason which is that S. Hierome was of that opinion because the Church had not then defined the contrary in any generall Councel And how do you proue that S. Hierome in that his opinion disagreed from the Roman Church in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine since it was no matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine to belieue these bookes to be Canonicall vntill the Church had defined it in a generall Councell as in S. Hieromes time she had not done sauing only of the booke of Iudith which afterwards he receaued vnderstanding that the Councell of Nice had so declared But from hence you take occasion (i) Pag. 302. fin 303. to inueigh against Bellarmine and other our Doctors for imputing to the Councell of Nice a decree wherby they condemne Protestants as sacrilegious persons for not admitting the booke of Iudith into the number of Canonicall scriptures and alleaging S. Hierome as a witnesse to proue that which he neuer spake and for profe of a doctrine which himselfe doth vtterly abandon In this charge you are twice reproueable first for saying that we falsly impute that constitution to the Councell of Nice for that the CouÌ„cell did make such a Constitution S. Hierome witnesseth saying (k) Praefat. in Iudith Librum Iudith Nicena Synodus in numero sanctarum scripturarum legitur computasse The Nicen Councell is read to haue reckoned the booke of Iudith in the number of holy scriptures The same is testified by Rupertus (l) De diuin offic l. 12. c. 25. who repeating S. Hieromes doctrine concerning this booke and almost his words sayth Hoc volumen c. This booke is not canonicall among the Hebrewes but by the authority of the Councell of Nice it is receaued for the instruction of holy Church Secondly you are reproueable in preteÌ„ding that S. Hierome in these words declareth not that booke to be canonicall for being requested to translate it out of the Chaldean tongue in which it was written into Latin he sayth The Iewes reckoned this booke among the hagiographes whose authority is sufficient to decide controuersies And theÌ„ opposing against them the authority of the Nicen Councell he addeth But because the Councell of Nice is read to haue registred this booke in the number of holy scriptures I haue yeilded to your request In these words he plainly she weth the Church to be of a different beliefe from the Iewes touching this booke to receaue
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
them Sect. 3. pag. 182. Doctor Mortons rayling against the Inquisition Sect. 4. pag. 187. CHAP. XV. Of the signification of the word Catholike the iudgment of diuers Fathers obiected by Doctor Morton against the Roman Church pag. 195. That the word Catholike proues the Roman Church to be the true Church Sect. 1. ibid. The iudgment of S. Hierome concerning the Church Catholike Sect. 2. pag. 198. The iudgment of S. Gregory concerning the Supremacy of the B. of Rome and his title of vniuersall Bishop Sect. 3. pag. 201. S. Dionyse his iudgment concerning the supremacy of the Roman Church Sect. 4. pag. 302. S. Ignatius his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 5. p. 303. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 6. p. 304. Tertullian his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 7. pag. 308. Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church Sect. 8. pag. 311. Other obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared Sect. 9. pag. 312. CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the B. and Church of Rome pag. 313. Doctor Mortons obiections against the precedent doctrine answeared Sect. 1. pag. 318. CHAP. XVII The second generall Councell held at Constantinople belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome pag. 324. By what authority this Councell was called Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Primacy of the Pope be Primacy of Authority and Iurisdiction or of Order only Sect. 2. pag. 328. Whether the names of Brother Collegue and Fellow-Minister which the Pope giueth to other Bishops and they to him argue them to be of equall Authority and Iurisdiction with him Sect. 3. pag. 330. A friuolous cauill of Doctor Morton against Bellarmine answeared Sect. 4. pag. 335. Of the Decree of this second Councell generall made in fauor of the Archbishop of Constantinople Sect. 5. pag. 336. That no Canon of any Councell can be of force vntill it be confirmed by the See Apostolike Sect. 6. pag. 338. That the Bishops of Constantinople knew this Canon to be of no force Sect. 7. pag. 340. CHAP. XVIII The third Councell generall being the first of Ephesus belieued the supreme authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome ouer all Bishops pag. 343. Of the deposition and condemnation of Nestorius by the command of Pope Celestine and whether the style of ancient Popes were to command Sect. 1. ibid. The Councell of Ephesus acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the cause of Iohn Patriarke of Antioch Sect. 2. pag. 351. Of the Ordination of the Bishops of Cyprus treated in the Councell of Ephesus Sect. 3. pag. 352. Whether it may be gathered out of the Councell of Ephesus that the authority of the Pope is aboue a generall Councell Sect. 4. pag. 353. CHAP. XIX The Councell of Chalcedon belieued the supreme authority of the B. of Rome pag. 355. That Leo Pope called the Councell of Chalcedon by his authority and presided in it by his Legates Sect. 1. ibid. That the Councell of Chalcedon by the authority of Leo Pope deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus restored Theodoret Sect. 2. pag. 356. Whether the title of Vniuersall Bishop which the Councell of Chalcedon gaue to the Pope argue in him no more but a generall care of the good of the Church such as belongs to euery Bishop and to euery Christian Sect. 3. pag. 360. Whether the Couneell of Chalcedon did giue to the B. of Constantinople priuiledges equall with the B. of Rome Sect. 4. pag. 362. Falsifications and vntruths of Doctor Morton discouered his Arguments answeared Sect. 5. pag. 367. CHAP. XX. The fifth Councell generall belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop Church of Rome p. 375. Doctor Mortons ignorance and contradictions concerning this Councell Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons ignorance further discouered and his falsifying of Binius Sect. 2. pag. 377. Of the matter treated in the fifth generall Councell Sect. 3. pag. 381. Doctor Mortons glosse vpon the word Obedience Sect. 4. pag. 383. CHAP. XXI Of the sixth generall Councell pag. 385. That it acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the fixth Councell condemned Honoriu Pope as an Heretike Sect. 2. pag. 387. CHAP. XXII Of the seauenth and eight generall Councells pag. 391. That these two Councells acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the eight generall Councell Sect. 2. pag. 392. Whether the eight generall Councell condemned the Saturday-fast allowed by the Roman Church Sect. 3. pag. 394. CHAP. XXIII Doctor Morton defendeth the hereticall custome of the Asian Bishops pag. 397. CHAP. XXIV Doctor Morton in opposition to the Roman Church defendeth the hereticall Doctrine of Rebaptization pag. 402. CHAP. XXV. Other Arguments of Doctor Morton out of S. Cyprian answeared pag. 408. CHAP. XXVI The Councells of Carthage and Mileuis acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome pag. 411. CHAP. XXVII Appeales to Rome proued out of the African Councell which was the sixth of Carthage p. 419. The state of the question Sect. 1. ibid. That the Nicen Canons were more then twenty in number And that the Canons concerning appeales to Rome were true Canons of the Nicen Councell Sect. 2. pag. 421. Whether if there had bene no Canon for appeales to Rome in the Councell of Nice it had bene forgery in Pope Zosimus to alleage a Canon of the Sardican Councell for a Canon of Nice Sect. 3. pag. 426. Vntruthes and falsifications of D. Morton discouered and his obiections answeared Sect. 4. pag. 429. Whether this Controuersy of appeales wrought in the Africans any separation of Communion from the Roman Church Sect. 5. pag. 437. CHAP. XXVIII Whether the Britans and Scots not celebrating Easter after the manner of the Roman Church were for that cause separated from her communion p. 450. CHAP. XXIX Of the great reuerence of ancient Christian Emperors and Kings to the Pope pag. 454. CHAP. XXX Whether Christian Emperors haue inuested themselues in Ecclesiasticall affaires pag. 461. Constantine the Great inuested not himselfe in Ecclesiastical causes Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons second Example of Theodosius examined Sect. 2. pag. 469. Doctor Mortons third instance of Theodosius the yonger and Honorius examined Sect. 3. pag. 471. Doctor Mortons fourth instance of Theodosius and Valentinian examined Sect. 4. pag. 473. Doctor Mortons fifth instance of Iustinian examined Sect. 5. pag. 475. CHAP. XXXI Of the authority and place of Emperors in Councells pag. 480. CHAP. XXXII Whether Popes haue challenged ciuill subiection from Emperors and Kings Christian and Heathen pag. 483. Doctor Mortons first Argument out of Innocent the third examined Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons second Argument out of Hieremy the Prophet examined Sect. 2. pag. 486. Doctor Mortons third Argument out of the examples of diuers Popes examined Sect. 3. pag. 490. Doctor Morton contradicteth himselfe Sect. 4. pag. 494. CHAP. XXXIII
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
of these testimonies of S. Irenaeus and therfore lest you might seeme to passe them ouer without answere you say (b) Pag. 100. marg fine As for the words Propter Principalitatem they are answered hereafter How are they answered first you bid vs (c) Pag. 253. marg remember that Irenaeus was he which consented with the Asian Bishops that were excommunicated by Pope Victor But wee know this to be an vntruth and wish you to remember that you acknowledge so much contradict your selfe saying (d) Pag. 131. Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops These then are your propositions Irenaus consented with the Asian Bishops Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops Reconcile them 2. Wheras S. Iraeneus sayth (e) L. 3. c. 3. It is necessary that all Churches haue recourse to the Roman Church by reason of her more mighty principality you answere (f) Pag. 253. This might haue bene spoken of the Imperiall power of that City to which the subiects of the Roman Empire were bound to resort for paying of tributes and the Gouernors of Prouinces to yield an account of their offices But the very words of S. Irenaeus shew the falshood of this answeare for he mentioneth not the City but the Church of Rome Ad hanc Ecclesiam c. To this Church sayth he all Churches must of necessity resort Againe they which were to resort to the City of Rome for the discharge of their offices and paymēt of tributes were the subiects of the Roman Empire only But S. Irenaeus tels you that omnes vndique fideles that is All the faythfull and all the Churches not only of the Roman Empire but of all the world are necessarily to repaire to the Church of Rome shewing therby that her authority and command is of larger extent then that of the Roman Empire for as Prosper truly sayd (g) De ingrat c 2. de vocat gent. l. 2. c. 6. Rome the See of Peter is greater by the fortresse of Religion then by the throne of temporall power and being made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world possesseth by religion what she doth not by force of armes 3. You answeare (h) Pag. 253.254 Be it Ecclesiasticall power yet was not the necessity of recourse vnto it absolute and perpetuall but occasionall for that tyme. This is as vntrue as the rest for the necessity of resorting to the Roman Church sayth S. Irenaeus (i) L. 3. c. 3. is by reason of her more mighty principality or which is all one by reason of the great dignity of the See Apostolike which sayth S. Augustine (k) Ep. 162. hath alwaies florished in her and which maketh her the Mother Church of the world And therfore so long as she shall be S. Peters See which shall be till the end of the world so long the necessity of all other Churches resorting to her and agreeing in fayth and communion with her shall still continue SECT VII Tertullian his Iudgment of the Roman Church TErtullian agreeth with S. Irenaeus in pressing against all heretikes the same argument of the neuer interrupted succession of Bishops in the Roman See (l) L. 3. Carm. cont Marcio c. vltimo recknoning all the Popes by name vntill his tyme against Marcion and all heretikes to proue thē to be such It is manifest saith he (m) Praescrip c. 21. that all Doctrine which agreeth with those Mother and originall Churches founded by the Apostles is true and to be held as certayne being that the Churches receaued it from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God and that whatsoeuer is contrary to this is to be accounted false and erroneous And speaking of heretikes (n) Ibid. c. 32. If there be any of them that darevent their Doctrine for Apostolicall let them shew the originall of their Churches let them vnfold the order of their Bishops in such sorte that by a Succession deriued from the beginning they proue their first Bishop to haue bene some one of the Apostoles or of the Apostolicall men that perseuered with the Apostles vnto the end This Tertullian sayth the Smyrnaeans in his dayes could do shewing that Polycarpe their Bishop was placed there by S. Iohn and that the Roman Church could do the like shewing Clement ordeyned by S. Peter And the same she can do at this day shewing that all her Bishops vnto Vrbā the eight which now possesseth that Chayre had S. Peter the Apostle for their predecessor and first Bishop in that See and that from him they can lineally deriue their pedigree wheras no heretikes could euer shew any such descent as Protestants at this day cannot And therefore Tertullian bringeth in the Catholike Church vpbrayding them and all heretikes in this manner (o) Ibid. c. 37. Who in Gods name are you When and from whence came you hither What do you among myne being none of myne By what right O Marcion dost thou cut downe my woods What leaue hast thou O Valantine to turne my streames and fountaynes another way By what authority doest thou remooue my bounds O Apelles O Luther O Caluin O Zuinglius The possession is mine I haue it of old I enioyed it before you I can deriue my pedigree from the very first Authors to whom the thing did properly belong I am the right beyre to the Apostles According to their will and testament according to their trust and charge giuen my Tenure standeth As for you they alwayes disinherited you and reiected you as aliens yea and as enemies In this very manner may Catholikes with great reason vpbrayd you who as you cannot shew any Succession of your Bishops continued from the Apostles so you are therby conuinced not to be their heires but strangers and enemies to them and to the Churches founded by them Againe Tertullian prescribing a rule for you to finde out the true fayth doctrine deliuered by the Apostles saith (p) Ibid. c. 36. Goe to If thou wilt be curiously exact in the affaire of thy saluation repaire to the Apostolicall Churches c. If thou be a neighbour to Italy thou hast Rome from whence we also haue authority O happy Church into which the Apostles powred all their Doctrine togeather with their bloud where Peter is equalled to our Sauiours passion where Paul is crowned with Iohn Baptists lot where Iohn the Apostle being plunged into boyling oyle and yet not hurt therwith was banished into an iland Let vs obserue what this Church hath learned what she hath taught Tertullian was an African a Priest of the Church of Carthage and yet speaking of the Roman Church sayth From whence we that is as Macerus expoundeth all the African Churches or all Catholikes haue authority at hand for our defence Wherfore out of this place of Tertullian Quintinus rightly inferreth that the Roman Church euen from her first foundation had great authority aboue all Churches of the world and
that all men are to learne from her the Doctrine of fayth deliuered vnto her by the blessed Apostles And this is the reason why Tertullian speaking of Marcion and Valentinus (q) Ibid. c. 30. proueth them to be heretikes because they had fallen from the faith into which they had beleeued in the Roman Church Nam constat c. For sayth he and his words no lesse agree to Luther and Caluin then to Marcion and Valentinus it is manifest that they first beleeued the Catholike Doctrine in the Roman Church vntill in the tyme of the blessed Bishop Eleutherius for their turbulent spirit of nouelty wherwith they did also peruert their Brethren they were often excommunicated and at length cast out for euer to perpetuall ruine By this it appeareth that the Roman fayth was then held to be the Catholike fayth and the Roman Church which Tertullian calleth The Catholike Church (r) L. 4. cont Marcio c. 4. the Head and Mistresse of all Churches in the world for Marcion was borne at Sinope in Pontus and for his heresy and lewdnesse of lyfe excommunicated by his owne Father a holy Bishop who refusing to absolue him he went to Rome to seeke absolution but his Father opposing obteyned it not ValeÌ„tine was as Aegyptian borne and hauing fallen into heresy in Cyprus came to Rome in the tyme of Higinius Pope and feigning himselfe to be a Catholike was receaued into the Communion of the Roman Church but falling often backe into heresy as a dog returning to his vomit was finally cast out of the Church by the blessed Pope Elutherius as you haue heard Tertullian report And why did these heretikes as also Cerdon at the same tyme when they sought absolution from heresy come from so remote countreyes subiect to other Patriarkes and why from all the Easterne Church and why all of them to the Church of Rome in particular but because they knew her to be the Head Mistres of all Churches that had power to absolue all those which had bene excommunicated by any other Bishops whatsoeuer and to be the originall and center of Catholike Communion and that so long as they remayned out of her bosome they nether were nor should be esteemed Catholikes nor to be in state of saluation Herby it appeares how little reason you had to say out of Beatus Rhenaus (s) Pag. 131 1â—â— though Tertullian giue an honorable testimony to the Church of Rome yet be did not esteeme her so highly as wee see her accounted of at this day And since you acknowledge that Rhenanus his mouth for that and other his inconsiderat speeches is gagged by the Index expurgatorius you shew litle iudgment in obiecting his authority against vs. SECT VIII Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church VVHat hath bene sayd sheweth the futility of your argument out of Vincentius Lyrinensis which is like to the two former out of S. Iraeneus and Tertullian And how little support you haue for your cause in the authority of this ancient and learned Father he will testify for himselfe for when the Doctrine of rebaptizing Heretikes at their returne to the Catholike Church defended by Firmilianus Bishop of Cefarea Agrippinus S. Cyprian Bishops of Carthage and many others wrought so great inconueniences that it gaue a paterne of sacriledge to all heretikes and occasion of error to some Catholikes Vincentius declareth how Stephen then Pope of Rome suppressed it by his authority When sayth he (t) L. cont propha haeres nouat c. â— all men euery where exclamed against the nouelty of that Doctrine all Priests in all places ech one according to his zeale did opppse then Pope Stephen of blessed memory Bishop of the Apostolike See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops but yet more then the rest thinking it as I suppose reason so much to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth as he did surmount them in the authority of his place To conclude in his epistle which then was sent to Africa he decreed the same in these words Let nothing be innouated but that which comes by tradition be obserued And (u) Ibid. c. 10. notwithstanding that the contrary doctrine had sayth he such pregnant wits such eloquent tongues such a number of Patrons such shew of truth such testimonies of Scripture but glosed after a new and naughty fashion and that it was decreed in an African Councell yet the authority of the Pope declaring it a nouelty was of so great force that after he had condemned it all those things were abolished were disanulled were abrogated as dreames as fables as superfluous And afterwards (x) Ibid. c. 43. he alleageth as witnesses of his Doctrine diuers Greeke Fathers and addeth to them the authority of S. Felix Martyr and S. Iulius both Bishops of the Roman Church whom to declare their soueraigne authority he calleth The Head of the world And he concludeth Ibid. c. 45. Least in such plenty of proofes any thing should be wanting wee haue added for a conclusion a double authority of the See Apostolike the one of S. Sixtus a venerable man that now honoresh the Church of Rome the other of Pope Celestine of blessed menory his predecessor And their decrees he calleth Apostolicall and Catholike decrees SECT IX Other Obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared YOur obseruations are (y) Pag 101. seqq that S. Athanasius S. Augustine the Councels of Constantinople of Aegypt and of Cauthage reckoning diuers Bishops to shew their agreement in fayth with them name not only the Pope but other Bishops and write both to him them and consult with him and them as with their fellow Bishops which you say is to giue the Bishop of Rome so many mates and to equalize other Bishops with him But who seeth not what poore stuffe these your obseruations are For if one concerning matters of fayth should consult with his parish Priest and his Bishop would it follow that he equalizeth the parish Priest with the Bishop and maketh him his mate Or if you writing to the King and his Counsell I should lay to your charge that by consulting with his Maiesty and his Counsell you giue his Maiesty so many mantes as he hath Counsellors and equalize them in power and dominion with him would you not thinke mâ— a trifling and indeed a childish opponent how then shall wee thinke otherwise of you that by like consequence go about to equalize other Bishops with the Pope among themselues CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome THAT the Councell of Nice acknowledged the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ouer all Bishops is proued 1. Because Iulius a most holy Pope in his third Epistle which S. Athanesius hath inserted into his second Apology writing to the Arians and declaring vnto them the right of the Roman See to haue the
were more then maruell if the Church of Rome should admit any Canon that may any way derogate from her presumption This your answere is as if the lower house of Parliament should enact a law against the Kings iust and lawfull authority or at least without his knowledge and the King not admitting therof you should iustify their acte saying a It were more then maruell if the King should admit any acte that may any way derogate from his presumption Were this loyalty Were this good Doctrine Yet such is yours for concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires the Pope hath the same place in a generall Councell that a King hath in his Parliament And as no Statute enacted in Parliament can be of force vnlesse it be confirmed by his Maiesty so no Canon nor decree of a Councell can be of force vnlesse it be confirmed by the Pope SECT VI. That no Canon of any Councell can be of force vntill it be confirmed by the See Apostolike FOr who knoweth not that as Socrates shewing the decrees of the Arian Councell at Antioch to be of no force sayth (h) L. 2. c. 5. Iulius B. of Rome was not there nor sent any in his steed wheras the Ecclesiasticall Canon commandes that no decrees be made for the Churches without the sentence of the B. of Rome Which Doctrine is els where repeated by himselfe (i) L. 2. c. 13. and by Epiphanius Scholasticus in the Tripartite saying (k) L. 4. c. 9. Councells must not be held without the allowance of the B of Rome And by Sozomen (l) L. 3. c. 9. who writes that Iulius rebuked the Arians for that against the lawes of the Church they had not called him to the Synod there being a Sacerdotall law which declareth all Actes to be inualid that are made without the allowance of the B of Rome The reprehension of Iulius which these Historians mention is exstant in his first Epistle to the Orientalls where he sayth The Nicen Canons command that by no meanes Councells be held without the B. of Rome And in his secōd Epistle which S. Athanasius hath inserted into his second Apology speaking to the Arians Are you ignorant that the custome is that if any exceptions were taken against the Bishops there we should first haue bene written to that what is iust might be determined from hence And how ancient this custome is Marcellus the first a holy Pope and Martyr testifieth saying (m) Ep. ad Epise Antioch Prouin The Apostles ordeyned that no Synod should be held without the Authority of the See of Rome Which ordination of the Apostles the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian confirmed by a speciall law in these words (n) Const Nouel Theo. tit 24. We decree that according to the ancient custome nothing be innouated in the Churches without the sentence of the Reuerend Pope of the City of Rome And in like manner Iustinian in his Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (o) Cod. tit 1. l. 7. We preserue the estate of the Vnity of the most holy Churches in all things with the most holy Pope of ancient Rome to whom we haue written the like because we will not haue any thing to passe concerning the affayres of the Church which shall not be also referred to his Blessednesse because he is the Head of all the holy Prelatet of God And in his letter to the Pope (p) Cod. tit 1. l. 8. We wil not suffer that any thing be treated of belonging to the estate of the Church though cleare and manifest which shall not also be referred to your Holynesse who are the Head of all Churches Vpon this ground it was that Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria was accused and by the Popes command punished in the Councell of Chalcedon (q) Act. 1. for that he had temerariously presumed to hold a Synod without the authority of the See Apostolike which neither was nor could euer lawfully be done And Euagrius in the history of the same Councell reportes (r) L. 2. c. 18. that the Senators demanding of Leo's Legates what charge there was against Dioscorus they answered that he must yeld an account of his iudgment because against right he had vsurped the person of a Iudge without the B. of Romes permission Wherupon by the iudgment of the Synod he was commanded as a person guilty to stand vp in the middest of the place and accused of many crimes as the same Narration declareth Againe from this ground it proceeded that as the Fathers of Chalcedon testify (s) Act. 10. in generall Councells the Legates of the See Apostolike were alwayes wont to speake and confirme the decrees made in the first place before all other Bishops And as all those Councells generall and particular which haue required and obtained Confirmation from the See Apostolike haue euer bene held valid and reuerenced throughout the Christian world so contrarily all those that haue wanted this confirmation haue bene reiected and condemned as vnlawfull and spurious assemblies The Councell of Ariminum for number of Bishops was exceeding great and yet for want of this confirmation the profession of fayth made by them in that Councell as also the Councell it selfe haue euer bene reputed inualid The number of Bishops assembled at Ariminum sayth Damasus with many other Bishops (t) Theod. l. 2. c. 22. Sozom. l. 6. c. 23. ought to haue no force of preiudice for as much as that profession of fayth was made without the consent of the B. of Rome whose sentence before others ought to haue bene attended Againe for want of this confirmation the second Councell of Ephesus hath alwayes bene condemned as a piraticall Synod And that famous Martyr Stephanus Iunior speaking of a Councell held by the Image-breakers vnder Constantinus Copronymus answered (u) Apud Damas edit Pacis an 1603. part 2. pag. 491. How can this Councell be called Oecumenical which was not allowed by the B. of Rome without whose authority no Ecclesiasticall decrees can be made In like manner Pelagius predecessor to S. Gregory speaking of Iohn B of Constantinople sayth (x) Ep. 1. That intituling himselfe Vniuersall he presumed to call a general Councell wheras the authority of calling generall Synods hath bene consigned by a singular priuiledge to the Apostolike See of blessed Peter c. And therfore sayth he (y) Ibid. to the Bishops of that Councell all that you haue decreed in that no-Synod of yours for Synod so attempted it could not be but a Conuenticle I ordaine by the authority of blessed Peter that it be annulled and abrogated And S. Gregory speaking of this sentence of Pelagius sayth (z) L. 4. op 38. l. 7. ep 70. Our Predecessor Pelagius of blessed memory hath disanulled by a sentence entirely valid all the actes of that Synod except what concerned the cause of Gregory B. of Antioch Finally to adde more proofes for the confirmation of a truth so certaine were to adde light
to the Sunne starres to the Heauens and water to the Ocean These sufficiently shew that you by confessing that this Canon of the Councell of Constantinople was neuer admitted by the Church of Rome discouer your folly in insisting so much on a Canon which for want of due confirmation is inualid SECT VII That the Bishops of Constantinople knew this Canon to be of no force YOu aske (a) Pag. 112. Which of the Fathers for the space of 60. yeares after opposed against this Canon What one Bishop before Pope Leo thought is not most equall I answeare that this Canon was so farre from being allowed either by the Popes or other Fathers of that tyme that because it was not confirmed by the See Apostolike it presently dyed and the Patriarkes of Constantinople acknowledged themselues still subiect to the Pope and the Pope exercised his iurisdiction ouer them as formerly he had done For this Councell of Constantinople being held in the tyme of Nectarius Patriarke of that Citty S. Chrysostome that was his immediat Successor being deposed at the procurement of Eudoxia the Empresse by a Councell of Bishops held at Constantinople vnder Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria had recourse by letters of appeale to Innocentius Pope beseeching him to disanull by his letters and authority the Actes of that Councell to abrogate their sentence of condemnation iniustly pronouÌ„ced against him to restore him to his Bishopricke and punish his aduersaries according to the Canons of the Church yet not with such rigor but that if they did repent he would be pleased to spare them All these particulars are the requests of S. Chrysostome expressed in his letters to InnoceÌ„tius (b) Ep. 1. 2. ad Innocent in which who seeth not that he acknowleged in him the power of an absolute Iudge not only ouer himselfe but also ouer Theophilus the greatest Patriarke of the East and ouer the whole Councell that had condemned him Chrysostome was no sooner thrust out of his See and sent into banishment but his enemies set vp Arsacius in his place who liuing not much aboue a yeare Innocentius would neuer admit him to his communion and after his death commanded his name to be razed out of the records of the Church After Arsacius succeeded Atticus Chrysostome yet liuing Him likewise Innocentius excommunicatated and notwithstanding that he sent many embassages to procure absolution he could neuer obteyne it vntill he had inrolled the name of Chrysostome in the records of the Church as Innocentius ordeined (c) Theod. l. 5. c. 34. Sone after him succeded Nestorius who being fallen into heresy was by the authority and command of Pope Celestine excommunicated deposed in the first Councell of Ephesus (d) See the next Chap. sect 1. In his place Maximianus a man of excellent vertue was ordained by the Legates of the See Apostolike and confirmed by Celestine Pope and who in acknowledgment of the See Apostolike writ a famous Epistle to the Orientals Part of his words you haue heard aboue (e) Chap. 1. sect 4. After him succeeded Flauianus who hauing condemned Eutyches in a Synod at Constantinople and being therfore deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus by meanes of Dioscorus an hereticall Patriarke of Alexandria appealed to Leo Pope Fliuianus saith Liberatus (f) In breuiar c. 22. appealed to the Apostolike See by petition presented to his Legates The same is testified by Leo himselfe (g) Ep. 24. and by Valentinian the third to Theodosius his Father in law (h) In Ep. preamb. Concil Chalced. These examples are so many testimonies of your ignorance You aske which of the Fathers for the space of 60. yeares after the Councell of Constatinople opposed against this Canon or what one Bishop before Leo thought it not equall But we contrarily demand of you which of the Bishops of Constantinople in whose fauor this Canon was made for the space of 70. yeares which passed betweene the two Councells of Constantinople and Chalcedon did clayme any priuiledge of honor ouer the other Patriarkes of the East or any exemption from the Popes iurisdiction by vertue of this Canon Or what Pope in those 70. yeares did thinke it equall The examples alleaged conuince that the most famous Bishops of Constantinople which liued in that tyme knew the Canon to be of no force since in the wronges done them by other Patriarkes and Councells of the East they neuer alleaged it in their owne defence but still appealed to the Popes of those tymes as to their lawfull Iudges and the Popes thought their appeales to be most equall and iust absoluing them condemned their aduersaries And finally that this Canon tooke no effect is a thing evident by the answere which the Popes Legates made when Anatolius B. of Constantinople attempted to haue it renewed in the Councell of Chalcedon for hauing said that it was not to be found in the Code of the Canons of the vniuersall Church they added (i) Act. 1â— If the Bishops of Constantinople haue enioyed it what would they haue more And if they haue not enioyed it why do they now require it CHAP. XVIII The third Councell Generall being the first of Ephesus belieued the supreme Authority and Iurisdiction of the B. of Rome ouer all Bishops SECT I. Of the deposition and condemnation of Nestorius by the Command of Pope Celestine and whether the style of ancient Popes were to Command CELESTINE Pope being informed of the blasphemous Doctrine of Nestorius Patriarke of Constantinople who held that in Christ there were two persons diuine and humane and that therfore the B. Virgin Mary was the mother of man only and not of God condemned it first at Rome and then made Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria his Vicar in the East giuing him Commission to publish and execute his sentence at Constantinople This he signified to Nestorius himselfe (k) Conc. Ephes to 1. c. 17. sin We haue sent sayth Celestine the forme of this iudgment together with the whole processe to our holy fellow-Bishop of Alexandria to the end that he being made our Vicar may notify this our Decree vnto all And giuing Commission to Cyrill to publish and execute his sentence he sayth (l) Ep. ad Cyril in Conc. Ephes to 1. c. 16. Adding to thee the authority of our See and vsing with power the representation of our place thou shalt execute exactly and seuerely this sentence namely that if within ten dayes told after signification of this admonition made to Nestorius he do not in expresse words anathematize his wicked Doctrines c. thy Holinesse shall prouide for that Church without delay and declare him to be wholly cut off from our body Who seeth not that these words of Celestine import a command to Cyrill And in conformity to this command Cyrill writ to the Clergy people of Constantinople (m) Conc. Ephes to 1. c. â—5 We are constrayned to signify to Nestorius by Synodicall letters
that if very speedily that is within the tyme prescribed by the most holy Bishop of the Roman Church he renounce not the Nouelties of his Doctrine he is to haue no more communion with vs not place among the Minister of God And the Councell it selfe proceeding to the sentence of condemnation against him sayth (n) Conc. Ephes to 2. c. 20. Constrained necessarily by the force of the Canons and by the letters of our most holy Father Celestine we are come not without many teares to pronounce this heauy sentence against him And then they couch the sentence it selfe in these words (o) Ibid. Therfore our Lord Iesus Christ whom Nestorius hath assailed with his blasphemies by this holy Synod pronounceth him wholly depriued of all Episcopall dignity and cast out from all company and conuersation of Priests These passages proue the authority of the Pope 1. Ouer Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria whom he made his Vicar and who acknowledged himselfe bound by Celestines letters to condemne Nestorius and cast him out from among the Ministers of God 2. Ouer the Patriarke of Constantinople whom he first condemned at Rome and afterwards gaue command to Cyrill to publish his condemnation at Constantinople and to substitute another Bishop in his place And 3. ouer the Councell of Ephesus in which the Bishops professe (*) Euagr. l. 1. c. 4. that they were compelled necessarily by the force of the Canons and by the letters of Celestine to condemne Nestorius Which sayth Bellarmine was to professe that they deposed him by the command of Pope Celestine False say you (p) Pag. 114. There is not the word Command vsed by the Councell c. No you know well that to command was not the stile of Popes in primitiue and ancient tymes S. Gregory B. of Rome 150. yeares after Celestine did vtterly abhorre it I command sayth he Away with the word Command I haue not commanded And the same you repeate afterwards againe (q) Pag. 233. And to persuade your readers that the passages alleaged containe no Command of Celestine to Cyril or to the Councell you shift them off saying (r) Pag. 115. Those Fathers confesse they were moued and compelled by Celestines letters meaning by the persuasions of that Orthodox Bishop and that but only tùm tùm in part for so they say Both by the Canons and also by your letters But this euasion cannot serue for they say not They were persuaded by Celestines letters there is no mention of persuasion but that they were necessarily compelled by them which is to be Commanded for Persuasions do not necessarily compell but Commands And what more cleare then that Celestine did exercise the authority of a Iudge and Commander in ordayning Cyrill to execute exactly and seuerely the sentence of condemnation against Nestorius if he did not within ten dayes after admonition giuen him anathematize his hereticall Doctrine Was this only to persuade Was it not most strictly and properly to command Vnlesse you will say that when his Maiesty without vsing the word Command giues strict charge to his Iudges to condemne a Malefactor he commands them not but only persuades them to condemne him But you say (s) Pag. 115. Those Fathers were compelled by Celestines letters and by the Canons and therfore not wholly by his letters but only in part What then If the Iudges say they are compelled by the lawes and by his Maiesties letters to condemne a malefactor doth it therfore follow that his Maiesty hath no authority to command the Iudges or that his letters were not mandatory to them but only persuasiue with such poore euasions you deceaue your disciples But you say (t) Pag. 114. We well know that to command was not the style of Popes in primitiue and ancient times Pardon vs Syr we well know that you speake vntruly and ignorantly for Victor the first Pope of that name who liued in the first age after Christ commanded the Asian Bishops to celebrate the Feast of Easter after the manner of the Roman Church and excommunicated them that obeyed noâ— (u) Euseb l. 5. hist c. 24. 2. Anthetus that liued in the beginning of the next age writ to the Bishops of Andaluzia Toledo These things we command to be obserued according to your desire (x) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 145. Stephen the first of that name writing to S. Cyprian commanded that such as were baptized by hetetikes should not be rebaptized Let nothing be innouated sayth he (z) Vincent Lyr. aduers haer c. 9. but the ancient to adition abserued And notwithstanding the opposition of S. Cyptian of Firmiâ—ianâ—â—s and many other learned Prelates this command of Stephen preuailed and the contrary doctrine was condemned by the Councell of Nice as hereticall 4. Iulius the first of that name rebuked the Arians (a) Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. because they had rashly depersed Athanasius and other Catholike Bishops and commanded that some of them in the name of all should appeare at Rome on a set day to giue â—ccempt of the iustice of their sentence and threatned not to let them passe without punishment vnlesse they did leaue to innouate And both Theodoreâ— (b) L. 2. hist. c. 4. S. Athanasius (c) Apol. 2. out of an vndoubted Epistle of the same Pope report that following the Ecclesiasticall law hâ— commanded the Arian Bishops to come to Rome and suâ—â—â—ned Athanasius canâ—nic ally to present himselfe in iudgment and that as soone as he receaued the citation he transported himselfe in diligence to Rome What thinke you of these examples Was it not the stile of ancient Popes before S. Gregory to command and to command the greatest Patriarkes of the East But let vs goe on 5. Anastasius the second of that name speaking to Anastasius the Emperor sayth (d) In ep ad Anastas Aug. Let not Pride make resistance to the Apostolicall precepts but those things which are commanded by the Roman Church and Apostolicall authority let them be obserued 6. when Aurelius Bishop of Carthage writ to Damasus Pope for a copy of all the decrees and Statutes ordeined by the Roman Church since S. Peter to his tyme he sent them to him saying (e) Ep. 5. We wish you to obserue them and command you to publish them that with due reuerence they may be kept by all The African Bishops acknowledge (f) Ep. ad Bonifac in Concil Africa c. 101. that they had receaued from the Pope Mandata literas Mandates and letters 8. Gelasius a learned holy Pope maketh expresse mention of the decrees and commandes of the Popes his predecessor for the good of the Church (g) Ep. â— 9. Leo the great writing to Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople testifieth (h) Ep. 4â— that he bath enioyned him the execution of his decree And in his first Epistle which is to all Bishops he sayth All the decrees and constitutions as well of Innocentius of
and her communicants we haue for our communicants and those that are condemned by her we also condemne Why then did you say that we obiect out of this Councell but one word Obedience why did you here and afterwards againe (m) Pag. 237. citing this passage out of Bellarmine in both places cut it of in the middst Can any Catholike at this day professe more perfect and exacte obedience to the See Apostolike then to hold all them for Orthodoxe and communicate with them all that communicate with her and to condemne all them that are condemned by her This was the obedience of that Councell to the Pope which to shift of and deceaue your reader you mangle the words leauing out the most effectuall part of them because they shew that if you had bene liuing in those primitiue tymes that Councell would haue detested and condemned you as it did Anthymus and other heretikes there mentioned for their disobedience to the See Apostolike and for not communicating with her CHAP. XXI Of the sixth Generall Councell SECT I. That it acknowledged the supreme Authority of the B. and Church of Rome THAT the sixth Generall Councell was called by the Authority of the B. of Rome I haue already proued (n) Chap. 17. sect 1. And that it acknowledged the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church is declared by Constantine the Emperor who speaking to the Roman Synod held vnder Agatho calls him Vniuersall Father and Vniuersall Arch-Pastor (o) Syn. 6. Act. 18. and by the Councell it selfe (p) Ibid. calling him Bishop of the first See and of the vniuersall Church And speaking of the Epistle of Agatho sent from the Roman Councell to the Emperor they receaue it as of the holy Ghost dictated from the mouth of the holy and most Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and written by the hand of the thrice blessed Pope Agatho And againe (q) Ibid. We assent say they and agree to the dogmaticall Epistle of our most holy Father the soueraigne Pope Agatho sent to your Highnesse and to the suggestion of the holy Synod of 225. Fathers vnder him And a litle after speaking of the same Epistle and acknowledging Agatho to be the Successor of S. Peter they adde The paper and inke appeared but it was Peter that did speake by Agatho One of the things which Agatho spake in that Epistle (r) Apud Bin. to ◠pag. 11. was that the Roman Church hath neuer bene stayned with error that the whole Catholike Church all the Councells all the Venerable Fathers and all the holy Doctors haue imbraced her authority and reuerenced and followed her Apostolicall Doctrine which contrarily the heretikes haue maliciously derogated from and persecuted And speaking of the same Church to the Emperor and his two sonnes (s) Ibid. This your spirituall Mother the Apostolicall Church of Christ by the grace of Almighty God shall neuer be proued to haue erred from the track of Apostolicall tradition nor by any deprauation to haue yelded to hereticall nouelties but as from the beginning of the Christian fayth the receaued it pur◠from her authors the Princes of Christes Apostles so she remaineth vntill the end according to the diuine promise which our Lord and Sauiour made to the Prince of his Disciples in the Ghospells saying Peter Peter Satan hath required to sift you as one that sifteth wheat but I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth faile not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren Your Clemency therfore consider that our Lord and Sauiour of all who hath faythfully promised that the fayth of Peter shall not faile admonished him to confirme his brethren which that my Apostolicall predecessors haue alwayes assuredly performed is a thing notorious to all men And because Theodorus Patriarke of Constantinople was a Monothelite as Anastasius testifieth (t) In vita Agathon condemned with Pyrrhus and the rest of that Sect in this sixth Councell he addeth that Since the Bishops of Constantinople haue endeauored to bring hereticall Nouelties into the Church of Christ his Apostolicall predecessors of holy memory haue neuer ceased to exhort and admonish them to desist from hereticall error lest by holding one will and operation in Christ they should occasion a beginning of diuision in the vnity of the Church SECT II. Whether the sixth Councell condemned Honorius Pope as an Heretike THese passages of the sixth Councell so forcible for the authority of the Roman Church you mention not but passing by them as being not for your purpose pick out of it a quarrell against Honorius B. of Rome that with no small lack of syncerity for wheras you obiect out of Bellarmine that in this sixth Councell as also in the seauenth and eight Honorius was condemned as a Monothelite Bellarmine contrarily proueth out of Honorius his expresse words that he was no way guilty of that heresy but alwayes a Catholike holding with the Roman Church two wils and operations in Christ And he confirmeth the same with the testimony of S. Maximus Martyr the greatest Diuine of that age and that liued in Honorius his tyme. And Maximus himselfe in a famous disputation which he had with Pyrrhus Patriarke of Constantinople alleageth as witnesse of this truth Honorius his owne Secretary that writ those epistles dictated from his mouth and was then still liuing Wherfore Bellarmine denyeth that the sixth Councel damned Honorius as an Hereticke and further proueth it because Agatho in his first epistle to Constantine the Emperor which was read in the Councell and not only read but approued and admired as the words of S. Peter and as dictated by the holy Ghost affirmeth expressly that none of his Predecessors one of which was Honorius was euer guilty of heresy but that they haue alwayes made resistance to heretikes that the Pope as Pope cannot decree any thing contrary to fayth And from thence he inferreth that the Councell did not iudge Honorius to be an heretike nor condemne him as such els by receauing and reuerencing Agathos Epistle as the words of S. Peter and as dictated by the holy Ghost the Councell should contradict it selfe and condemne both S. Peter and the holy Ghost of a lye in affirming that none of Agatho's predecessors was euer guilty of heresy And the truth hereof he confirmeth by the testimony of Nicolas the first who in his epistle to Michael the Emperor auoucheth that none of his predecessors was euer stayned with the least spot or blemish of heresy which he wold not euen for very shame haue affirmed so resolutely if Honorius in the publike assēbly of a generall Councell had bene anathematized as an heretike Wherfore Bellarmine rightly inferreth that Honorius was not condemned by the sixth Councell but his name inserted among those heretikes whom the Councell condemned by the Greekes enemies to the Church of Rome And so it is testified by Theophanes Isaurus a Greeke historian and out of him
be directed to the holy and Venerable Pope Innocentius And we likewise had written from the Councell of Mileuis in Numidia to the same Apostolike See And what did they write We hope sayth the Councell (k) Aug. ep 92. these men which hold so peruerse pernicious opinions will sooner yeld to the authority of your Holinesse drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures by help of the mercy of our Lord Iesus-Christ who vouchsafeth to gouerne you consulting with him and to heare you praying vnto him To this Epistle of the Councell Innocentius answeared (l) Aug. ep 93. You prouide diligently and worthily for the Apostolike honor c. following in the consultation of difficult things the forme of the ancient rule which you know as well as I to haue bene alwayes obserued by the whole world But I omit this for I thinke it is not vnknowne to your wisdome for why els did you confirme this by your deeds but because you know that answeres do alwayes flow from the Apostolicall fountaine throughout all Countries to those that aske them And especially as often as matter of fayth is in question I conceiue that all our brethren and fellow-Bishops ought not to referre what may be profitable in common to all Churches to any but to Peter that is to the author of their name and dignity as your Dilection hath done If you answeare that Innocentius writ this but spake vntruly in his owne cause S. Augustine will satisfy you who highly prayseth both these answeares of his Vpon this affaire sayth S. Augustine (m) Ep. 106. relations were sent from the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the Apostolicall See c. And besides the relations of the Councells we writ also priuate letters to Pope Innocentius of blessed memory in which we discoursed more largely of the same subiect And he answeared vs to euery point as it was conuenient and fitting the Prelate of the Apostolike See should answeare And againe (n) Ep. 157. Pelagius and Celestius hauing bene the authors or most violent promotors of this new Heresy they also by meanes of the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councells with the help of God who vndertakes the protection of his Church haue bene condemned in the extent of the whole world by two reuerend Prelates of the Apostolike See Pope Innocentius and Pope Zozimus vnlesse they reforme themselues and do pennance Out of this it is euident 1. That it was the ancient tradition and custome that Councels should send their decrees to the Pope to be confirmed by his authority 2. And that it is so ordeyned not by humane but by diuine sentence 3. That all other Churches of the world compared to the Roman are as streames that flow from their mother source and are to imbrace as pure whatsoeuer doctrine she deliuereth and reiect whatsoeuer she condemneth 4. That the Fathers of both these Councels did acknowledg the Pope to be their Pastor 5. And that they did belieue his authority to be takē out of the holy Scriptures 6. That Christ guideth him in his consultations and decrees of fayth 7. That the custome ancient rule beareth that in doubts especially of fayth the See Apostolike is to be consulted and nothing determined vntill answeare had from thence Now to your obiection (o) Pag. 141. seqq that the Councell of Mileuis denied any right of Appeales from Africa to the Church of Rome which in your eyes is so forcible that you repeat it afterwards againe (p) Pag. 321.322 seqq and descant on it at large against Bellarmine who sheweth (q) L. 2. de Pont. c. 24. it to be wholly impertinent and from the matter for the question of appeales to the B. of Rome is not of Priests and inferior Clerkes of whom only the Councell of Mileuis speaketh but of Bishops for the Councell of Sardica which hath declared (r) Can. 4. 7. that Bishops may appeale to the Pope hath withall decreed (s) Can. 27. that Priests and inferior Clerkes are to be iudged by their owne Bishops that if they conceiue themselues to be wronged by them they appeale to other Bishops of the same prouince And the same had bene ordeyned not long before by the Councell of Nice (t) Iulius ep 1.2.3 apud Bin. to 1. pag. 399. seqq and afterwards by S. Leo (u) Ep. 84. ad Anastas Thessal S. Gregory (x) L. 2. indict 11. ep 6. ordeyning that maior causes be iudged in the first instance by a Councell of Bishops of the same prouince by way of appeale by the See Apostolike And to goe no further the same was answeared by the holy Pope Innocentius to whom the Councell of Mileuis sent their decrees to be confirmed (y) Aug. ep 92. For when Victricius B. of Rhoan desiring to order the gouerment of his Church according to the Roman discipline required instructions from him he (z) Ep. 2. addressed vnto him diuers rules to be obserued of which the third is that If dissentions arise betweene Priests or other Clerkes of the inferior order they are to be iudged ended by the Bishops of the same Prouince as the Councell of Nice hath determined And for the causes of Bishops he addeth (a) Ibid. If they be maior causes that are in question let them after the Episcopall iudgment be referred to the See Apostolike as the Synod of Nice and the ancient customes ordeyne This Epistle of Innocentius was cited by the Bishops of France in the second Councell of Tours 700. yeares since And his very words concerning the appeales of Bishops to the See Apostolike are inserted in forme of a Law into the Capitulary of Charlemaine And Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes in his epistle to Nicolas Pope (b) Erodoard histor Eccles Rhem. lib. 3. repeating the same decree of Innocentius sayth We Metropolitans trauilling in our prouinciall Councels haue care after iudgment to referre the maior causes that is of fayth and of maior persons that is of Bishops to the determination of the soueraigne See And speaking of Priests and inferior Clerkes Let it not please God that we thould depise the priuiledge of the first and supreme See of the holy Roman Church as to weary your soueraigne Authority with all the controuersies and quarrels of the Clergy as well of the superior as of the inferior order which the canons of the Nicen Councell and the decrees of Innocentius and other Popes of the holy See of Rome command to be determined in their owne Prouinces From hence it followeth that the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis which you obiect against appeales to Rome makes nothing at all for your purpose your peremptory conclusion is (c) Pag. 141. that the Councell of Mileuis denieth any right of appeales from Africk to the Church of Rome To make this good you should haue shewed that the Councell of Mileuis forbids the appeales of Bishops
to resist all nouelties with such constancy as the authority of the See Apostolike and the seuerity of the Prelates assembled in one may not seeme to permit that the doctrine of those whom the Church hath long since condemned come to be borne againe 6. Eugenius another successor to Aurelius being pressed by the LieutenaÌ„t of Hunericus Lord of Africa to enter into a publike disputation with the Arians answeared (y) Victor Vtic. l. 2. He would not do it without writing to his fellow Bishops and chiefly to the Roman Church which is the Head of all Churches 7. S. Fulgentius sayth (z) De incarn grat c. 11. Which the Roman Church which is the head of the world holdesh and teacheth and with her the whole Christian world doth both without hesitation belieue to iustice and also doubts not to confesse to saluation And when the same Sainct was going to the wildrnesse of Thebais in Aegypt to fast (a) Author vitae S. Fulg. c. 12. to 6. Bibliothec Pat. he desisted from his intent when comming to Sicily he vnderstood from Eulalius B. of Syracusa that those Countries were separated from the communion of the Roman Church lest desiring a more perfect life he should runne hazard of loosing the true fayth And insteed of gong into Aegypt he went in pilgrimage to Rome to visit the Sepulchers of the holy Apostles Peter Paul 8. The African Bishops consulted S. Leo the great in their doubts of fayth and S. Leo writ to them a famous decretall Epistle (b) Leo ep 87. 9. Almost all the African Bishops 220. in number being banished into Sardinia by Thrasimundus the Arian King Symmachus Pope relieued maintained them at his owne charges (c) Paul Diac. l. 17. rerum Roman which he would not haue done if they had bene separated from his communion 10. Possessor a famous African Bishop writ to Hormisdas Pope (d) Ep. ad Hormisd It is fit and expedient that we haue recourse to the Heard as often as the health of the members is treated of for who hath greater solicitude of his subiects or from whom is more to be required the stability of fayth that is wauering then from the President of that seate whose first Gouernor heard from Christ. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church 11. Victor Bishop of Vtica reporteth (e) L. 1. de persequut Vandal that the Arians in Africa did call the Catholikes Romans as you now call vs Romanists which they did vpon no other ground then because the African Catholikes were of the Roman Communion 12. And that the possession which the Bishop of Rome were in of appeales out of Africa was not interrupted by the sixt Conncell of Carthage is prouâ—d out of Ferrandus a Deacon of that Church (f) Breuiar Can. art 59. 60. which liued soone after that tyme hath registred in his collection of Canons this as the fifth sixth Canon of the Councell of Sardica That a condemned Bishop may if he will appeale to the See Apostolike and that during the appeale no other can be ordained in his place By these and many other euidences which may be produced it is manifest that by this Controuersy of Appeales the Africans were not separated from the communion of the Roman Church and that therfore to affirme as you do that they remained in the state of separation for the space of 100. yeares vntill the tyme of Boniface the second is a notorious vntruth for all the examples here alleaged are of African Bishops that liued within the compass of 100. yeares after the sixth Councell of Carthage Against this truth confirmed by so many euident and vndeniable proofes that the African Church was not in the dayes of Aurelius Primate of Africa and S. Augustine seuered by Schisme from the Roman Church you vrge the Epistle of Boniface the second wherein he testifieth that the African Church was in his dayes reconciled vnto them Roman In the Body of your Councells say (g) Pag. 148. you there is (h) Apud Suriumtom 2. Concil pag. 384. So you quote him falsly for it is Tom. 1. Concil pag. 1057. extant the Epistle of Boniface the second wherein about the yeare 606. the same Pope complaineth that Aurelius with his fellow-Bishops of Africa with whome S. Augustine did consent had by the instigation of Satan for so the Epistle speaketh been separated from the Church of Rome vntill now after an hundred yeares space Eulalius Bishop of Carthage acknowledging his offence seeketh and desireth to be reconciled to the Church of Rome Thus farre the Epistle of your Pope Do you belicue this Epistle concerning the Excommunication of the Churches of Africk Then had you best stand aside a while for scare of knocks For behold there are at hand children of the Tribe of Dan angry fellowes that lay about them 1. Bellarmine (i) Bellar. lib. 2. de Pont. Rom. c. 25. I greatly suspect sayth he that this Epistle is counterfait 2. It is full of fraud sayth (k) Binius Tom. 1. Conc. in hanc Epistolam Binius 3. Which sayth Baronius some wicked Impostor hath fayned c. Do not you belieue this Epistle of Boniface to be true Then harken to your (l) Lindan Panopl l. 4. c. 89. Lindan This Epistle sayth he is not supposititious but true c. Thus you And then finding in Baronius that during those huÌ„dred yeares there were whole troopes and armias of African Martyrs and holy Confessors you triumph and bid vs take (m) Pag. 150. this your Syllogisme to ruminate vpon No true Christian Martyrs dye out of the state of Saluation Diuers true Christian Martyrs dye out of Obedience to the Roman Church Ergo Diuers dying out of Obedience to the Roman Church dye not out of the state of Saluation Thus you dispute in your fancy victoriously as hauing by this your discourse and Syllogisme knock't the Roman Church on the heal I shall first discouer the weakenesse and vanity of your Syllogisme then shew the multiplicity of your falsities and fraudes supposed and cunningly contriued into your relation of the Story lastly lay open the reasons why that Epistle may be suspected yea reiected as being Counterfait In your Sollogisme I grant the Maior Proposition That no true Martyr dyeth out of the state of Saluation In your Minor or Assumption Diuers true Christian Martyrs dye out of obedience to the Roman Church I distinguish sundry Kinds of Disobediences First there is disobedience Heretical which resists the doctrines decrees of Fayth deliuered by the Catholike Roman Church yea denieth the prime article of Christian vnity the headship and supreme authority of her Bishop In the state of this Disobedience there can be no true Martyrdome no hope of Saluation Secondly there is Disobedience Schismatical which belieuing firmely the Doctrine of the Roman Church and acknowledging the Supreme authority of her Bishop excepts against the present
owne house and the Citizens of Paris breaking into the houses of Huguenots killed many of them The like they did at Lions Roan Orleans and diuers other places This is the history of the Massacre of Paris reported by Surius (k) Comment rerum in or be gest anno 1572. out of the relation printed at Paris and out of the King of France his letters written with his owne hand to the Princes of Germany Which though it be a liuely expession of the barbarous cruelty of your French brethren yet they are not ashamed in their printed bookes to reuile the most Christian King and exaggerate his cruelty for this facts when as they witnesse Surius (l) Ibid. in the space of a few yeares by their owne priuate authority without and contrary to all order of Law haue murdered many thousand Catholikes in France and would peraduenture reioyce if by their hands the King had likewise dispatched all the rest And what your loue to the Catholikes of England is these obiections are a sufficient testimony which serue for nothing els but to exasperate the King and State against them SECT VII The same matter prosecuted YOu goe on obiecting (m) Pag. 172. 176. Tolosanus a Lawier who writeth He had not read in any history that for the space of 300. yeares after Christ Christians euer rebelled against Kings or plotted against their gouerment which Barklay extendeth to a longer time of 1000. yeares We ioyne with Tolosanus Barklay therin And if any Christians before or after those times haue rebelled or held it lawfull to rebell against their Soueraignes we disclaime from them as from furies and plagues of the Christian Common wealth We detest their Doctrine as impious and hartily wish that all your new Reformers and some others more ancient not vnlike to them and well liked of by you were of the same mind for who knoweth not that Wickliffe a predecessor to you in many pointes of your doctrine and a Foxian Saint (n) Ianuar. 2. teacheth that if a Prince gouerne ill or fall into sinne he is no longer a Prince but that his subiects may take armes against him and punish him at their pleasure Who hath not heard of Luthers Doctrine in his Articles condemned by the Catholike Church (o) In bulla Leonis 10. that Christians are free exempted from all Princes Lawes and that therupon immediatly followed in Germany that tumultuous rebellion of the Pesants against their Lords wherin were slaine aboue an hundred thousand (p) Surâ—is Comment rerum in or be gest anno 1525. And who is ignorant of Caluins Doctrine that Princes Lawes oblige not in conscience but only for externall and temporall respects (r) L. 4. instit c. 10. §. 5. You I know haue labored to excuse him from these and other seditious Tenets But I likewise know that Brerely hath truly told you (s) Prot. Apol praefa sect 11. that your excuse consisteth vpon violent comparing of phrases vnworthy your iudgment vnworthy your learning vnworthy of reply therto Caluins words are (t) In Daniel c. 6. vers 22.25 Apud Brerel cit Abdicant se potestate terrent Principes dum insurgunt contra Deum c. Earthly Princes do bereaue themselues of authority when they erect themselues against God They are vnworthy to be accompted in the number of men and we must rather spit vpon their faces then obey them Can these words admit any glosse Are they not euidently seditious Doth not Doctor Wilkes (u) Brereley ibid. obiect them to the Puritanes as such They were sayth he (x) Brereley ibid. your Teachers who accompt those Princes who are not refined by their spirit vnworthy to be accompted amongst the number of men and therfore rather to be spitted vpon then obeyed They were your Teachers who defend rebellion against Princes of a different Religion c. But what need haue we of Caluins or his Brethrens words when we haue the vnanswearable proofe of his deeds Doth not M. Sutcliffe confesse (y) Brereley ibid. sect 11. that they of Geneua at the instigation of Caluin and Farellus deposed their Liege Lord and Prince from his temporall right albeit he was by right of succession the temporall Lord and owner of that City territory And doth not M. Bancroft speaking of the chiefe Ministers of Geneua which were Caluin Farellus and Beza say (z) Brereley ibid. It hath bene a principle with them that if Kings and Princes refuse to reforme Religion the inferior Magistrates or people by direction of the Ministery may lawfully and ought if need require euen by force and armes to reforme it themselues From whence but from these Principles haue Caluin Beza and other their Successors to this day conuinced the same vnlawfull vsurpation And to come nerer home did not King Iames of famous memory in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 complain (a) L. 2. c. 40. 41. of the perturbation and confusion of the kingdom of Scotland wrought by the fiery spirits of your Ministers in particular of the calamities brought vpon his Grand-Mother and Mother by them and of their seditious plots against himselfe in his yonge age And from whence did the late rebells of Scotland learne their lesson but out of the same Schoole and from the same Maisters Do not you acknowledge (b) Serm. pag. 38. that they defend their rising in armes against his Maiesty by the authority of Luther Caluin and Beza I know your pretend to quit them from that imputation but the Scots were to conuersant with their doctrine not to vnderstand it And besides what hath bene said it were easy if worth the labor to shew that notwithstanding your defence of their innocency all the water of the Ocean is not able to wash them cleane from the filth of those doctrines But if you please to be further satisfied in this point read M. Parison (c) Monarchomachia per tot Breerley (d) Prot. Apol praef tot and Endaemon Ioannes (e) Apol. pro Henr. Garn. c. 3. who set down so many particulars of the acknowledged doctrines and practises of Protestants in that kind in the expresse words of your owne writers that impudency it selfe cannot gainesay them And as it is certaine that you can neuer free your brethren from these doctrines so it is no lesse that you charge Catholikes falsly with the same for who knoweth not the constant doctrine of all our Diuines to be that rebellion of subiects against their Liege Lords and Soueraignes is vnlawfull in any case in any occasion vnder any pretence or to any end whatsoeuer This is taught by the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas of Aquine not in one but in many places of his workes This is the doctrine of Caietan of Sotus Valentia Bellarmine Tolet Serarius Becanus Richeome Salmeron Lessius Gretserus Hessius Eudaemon Ioannes and in a word of all Catholike Diuines (f) Of this see Patison
in any thing he had erred and acknowledgeth in the Pope authority of a Iudge We are ready sayth he to be iudged by you prouided that they which slander vs may appeare face to face with vs before your Reuerence Doth all this import nothing but a request of louing and brotherly visitation or consideration Could S. Basil in more effectuall words expresse the Popes power and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church then by requesting him to send his Legates with authority to annull the Acts of a generall Councell as that of Arimin was No they are testimonies so forcible that with no glosse can be eluded But you reply (u) Pag. 194. against Bellarmine that he will needes haue S. Basil to desire the Popes Decree wheras Baronius readeth Counsell or Aduice Here againe you cauill for the Greeke word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by interpretation of Budaeus signifieth voluntatem sententiam iudicium Why then was it not lawfull for Bellarmine to say S. Basil desired the Popes decree for to desire him to giue his sentence and iudgement what was it els but to acknowledge in him the authority of a Iudge with power to sentence to iudge to decree Ecclesiasticall causes in the East Which power he also declareth in other places of his workes for do not both he (x) Ep. 73. al. 74. and S. Gregory Nazianzen (y) Epist ad Clede testify that Eustathius B. of Sebaste by vertue of Liberius his letters presented to the Easterne Bishops in the Councell of Tyana and by vertue of his command intimated in them was receaued into the communion of the whole Easterne Church and restored to his See Eustathius sayth S. Basil to the Bishops of the West hauing bene cast out of his Bishoprick because he was deposed in the Synod of Melitine aduised himselfe to find meanes to be restored trauailing to you Of the things that were proposed to him by the most Blessed Bishop Liberius and what submission be made we know not Only he brought a letter that restored him which being shewed to the Councell of Tyana he was reestablished in his Bishops seat Againe doth not S. Basil (z) Ep. 77. compare the Church to a body wherof the Westerne part by reason of the Roman See is the Head and the Eastern the Feet And doth he not from this very Metaphor denominate the B. of Rome Head of the vniuersall Church and all other Bishops fellow-members of the same body (a) Ep. 70. ad Episc transmar edit Paris an 1603. Againe doth he not beseech Pope Damasus (c) Ibid. to send Legates with order to examine the accusations laid to his charge and to appoint a place for him to meet them that his cause might be iudged by them and he punished if he were found guilty And doth he not require the same Pope (d) Ep. 74. to giue order by his letters to all the Easterne Churches that they admit into their communion all such as hauing departed from the Catholike truth shall disclaime from their Errors and to renounce the Communion of them that shall persist obstinatly in their nouelties And lastly declaring the Popes authority in determining all doubts and controuersies of fayth he sayth In very deed that which was giuen by our Lord to your Piety is worthy of that most excellent voyce which proclamed you blessed to wit that you may discerne betweene that which is counterfeit and that which is lawfull and pure and without any diminution may preach the fayth of our Ancestors I conclude therfore that if S. Basil beleeued aright the Pope hath authority to restore Bishops deposed to their Sees to send Legates with power to dissolue the Acts of generall Councels to condemne hereticall doctrines to iudge the causes of Bishops to punish delinquents And is this nothing els but charitable aduice but perswasion but counsell Is it not to vse authority to exercise iurisdiction But you obiect (f) Pag. 1â—6 that S. Basil in his owne name and in the name of his fellow Bishops in the East hauing written often to Pope Damasus and other Westerne Bishops and sent to Rome foure seuerall legations requiring helpe and comfort from them in their afflictions could not receaue any answeare in so much that S. Basil taxeth them with supercilious pride haughtinesse and that they did neither know the truth nor would learne it This you obiect out of Baronius from whom you might haue taken the solution which is that S. Basil was oppressed and as it were ouerwhelmed with waues of sorow and affliction not only for the common calamity of the Orientall Church but also for his owne particular for as much as by Eustathius B. of Sebaste and others who hiding the venime of their heresy feigned themselues to be Catholikes he was accused and defamed of heresy in the East and brought into suspition euen with his owne Monkes and his dearely beloued Neocaesarians And this made him likewise not to be well thought of in the West in so much that Damasus Pope for a time desisted from that familiar communication by letters which Basil expected and differred the sending of Legates to examine his cause and cleare the truth which he had required greatly desired Yet as you (g) Pag. 198. confesse was he then a member of the Catholike Church and held communion with the Church of Rome both in fayth and charity Nor was Damasus so wholly wanting to his comfort but that euen then when he was suspected of heresy vpon his letters he called a Councell at Rome in which he condemned Apollinarius Vitalis and Timotheus (h) Baron anno 373. Sozo l. 6. c. 25. called Vitalis to Rome and excommunicated Timotheus as he testifieth in his Epistle to the Easterne Bishops (i) Apud Theodo l. 5. histor c. 11. expressing withall the profession which they had made to him of their beliefe of the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Now if S. Basil in these afflictions and grieuing at the intermission of such communicatory letters from the Westerne Bishops and chiefly from Damasus as he expected let fall from his mouth some hasty words as other holy men whom Baronius (k) An. 373. nameth in like occasions haue done is that by you to be reproached vnto him or is it any argument of his deniall of the Supremacy of the B. of Rome which he hath taught so clearely so constantly so effectually in so many places of his workes Yea albeit S. Basil gaue a litle way to the motions of nature yet by vertue he soone recalled himselfe retracting what he had said as his letters full of humility written soone after to Damasus the other Westerne Bishops expresse You sayth (l) Ep. 1. in addiâ— he are praised by all mortall men that you remaine pure and without blemish in fayth keeping entire the doctrine taught you by the Apostles It is not so with vs among whom there are some
it in that sense in which the Iewes did not receaue it to wit as sufficient to decide controuersies of fayth And in confirmation herof he numbreth this booke among other canonicall scriptures saying (m) Ep. ad Principiam Ruth Hester Iudith were of so great renowne that they gaue names to sacred volumes And in other his workes he often citeth it as diuine scripture (n) Ep. 9. ad Salu. Ep. 22. ad Bustoch in Isa c. 14. But to proue that he held it apocryphall you obiect Stapleton (o) Pag. 303. Salmeron Lindanus Acosta whom you call our lesse precipitant Authors Stapleton you falsify citing him l. 2. de authorit Script cap. 4. for he hath no booke so intituled and much lesse any such words as you set downe for his Yea he is so far from saying that S. Hierome denieth this booke to be canonicall that he sayth directly the contrary for discoursing (p) De princip doct l. 9. c. 6. how some bookes of scripture which before the definition of the Church had bene held apocryphall or doubtfull were afterwards by her authority certainly beleeued to be canonicall he exemplifieth in this of Iudith which saith he S. Hierome moued by the authority of the Councell of Nice held to be Canonicall hauing formerly accounted it to be apocryphall This is Stapletons doctrine Are you not ashamed to produce him as a witnesse for the contrary And as little truth hath your citation of Salmeron for he alleageth S. Hieromes words expresly declaring that the rule to distinguish Canonicall Scriptures from apocryphall is the authority of the Church Wherupon Salmeron truly sayth that if S. Hierome should deny this booke to be Canonicall his authority alone could not be preualent against the whole streame of Ancient Fathers holding the contrary Their testimonies you may read in Iodocus Coccius Lindanus and Acosta I haue not seene but you that haue dealt so with Stapleton and Salmeron may be presumed to deale no better with them SECT VII S. Ambrose his iudgment concerning the necessity of Vnion and subiection to the Bishop and Church of Rome S. Ambrose declared his iudgment when reporting (q) Orat. de obitu Satyri how his holy brother Satyrus in his returne out of Africa was cast by ship wrack vpon the isle of Sardinia infected with schisme he said Satyrus not esteeming any fauor to be true but that of the true fayth called vnto him the Bishop of that place and asked him whether he agreed with the Catholike Bishops that is sayth S. Ambrose with the Roman Church This sheweth that S. Ambrose and Satyrus belieued the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church and all that were not in her Communion to be schismatikes You answeare (r) Pag. 213. that the reason why Satyrus would not communicate with any Bishop that agreed not with the Roman Church was because Sardinia was then diuided into diuers schismes by hereticall spirits No maruell therfore though Satyrus asked of a Bishop whose fayth he suspected whether he belieued as that Church did whose fayth was known to be truly Catholike euen as if in tyme of rebellion the Citizens of some one City for example Yorke were more generally knowne to professe loyalty to their Soueraigne an honest man comming into the kingdome might aske the inhabitants whether they agreed with the City of Yorke therby to know whether they were loyall subiects and yet it would not follow that therfore Yorke is the head of the kingdome This your answeare framed to puzzell an ignorant reader is easely reiected Satyrus did well know and it was generally knowne both in the East and West that at that time not only the Church of Rome but also that of Milan of which Ambrose his owne brother was then actually Bishop and famous ouer all the world was sound in fayth and truly Catholike Why then did not Satyrus to informe himselfe whether that Sardinian Bishop were Catholike aske him whether he agreed with the Bishop and Church of Milan but because he knew that neither the Church of Milan nor any other but the Roman was the head of Catholike Communion as S. Ambrose himselfe teacheth saying (s) L. 1. Ep. 4. ad Imperat. From the Roman Church the rights of Venerable Communion do flow to all And why els did he say this but because he knew that neither to the Church of Milan nor to any other but the Roman Christ hath promised that her fayth shall not faile (t) Luc. 22.31 and that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her (u) Math. 16.18 In regard wherof it is said that not to the Church of Milan but to her all Churches and all the faithfull from all places must haue recourse (x) Iren. l. 3. c. 3. And vnlesse you can shew that Yorke hath an especiall Priuiledge from God not to faile in her loyalty as the Roman Church hath not to faile in the Catholike fayth and profession therof your example is impertinent Yorke may faile in loyalty and therfore to be a citizen of Yorke and to be a good subiect are not termes conuertible But the Roman Church can neither faile in the Catholike fayth nor in the profession therof and therfore to be a Catholike and to agree with the Roman Church as in themselues they are so were they held by S. Ambrose by his brother Satyrus and by the generall accord of antiquity to be all one (y) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 3. 2. S. Ambrose declared his iudgment when he called Damasus Pope Rector of the house of God which is his Church (z) In cap. 3. prioris ad Tâ—moth You answeare that we mistake the words respectiuely spoken to one person Pope Damasus and circumstantially for one tyme as if they were absolutely so meant for the persons of all Popes at all times This answeare is not respectiuely but absolutely insufficient for what dignity superiority or power of gouerment had Damasus ouer the whole Church in his person and for his tyme which euery Pope hath not had in his person and for his time The power of Ruler Gouernor of the whole Church which Damasus had was by his Popedome And as he by the right of his Popedome was so all his predecessors and successors in that See haue by the same title and right bene Rectors and Gouernors of the whole Church This is so certaine that you passing lightly ouer this first answeare fly to a second (a) Pag. 212.213 that the title of Rector or Gouernor of the whole Church argueth not Damasus to be Head of the Church because Athanasius Basil Gregory Nazianzen haue receaued titles equiualent if not more excellent as of Prop and Buttresse of the Church and fayth Eye of the world and others in which ascriptions say you there is not any acknowledgment of authority but a commendation of their care and diligence iudgment and directions in behalfe of the whole Church In the
that this sect was broached deposed not only Apollinarius but also Timothy his Disciple The same appeareth by the authority which the Popes of Rome haue shewed in the deposition of eight Patriarks of Constantinople (m) Nicol. primus Ep. 8. apud Bin. to 3. pag. 688. Maximus Nestorius Acacius Anthymus Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus Petrus for not to dispute whether all of them were deposed without Councells it cannot be denied that Agapet Pope coÌ„ming to Constantinople deposed Anthymus in the very Imperiall City in presence of the Emperor Iustinian that fauored him and excommunicated the hereticall Empresse Theodora that protected him this not only without a Councell but being very poore and without assistance yea contrarily the Empresse tempting him with promises of great rewards if he would leaue Anthymus in that seat with great threats if he deposed him The Empresse in secret sayth Liberatus (o) In Breu. c. 11. promising great presents to the Pope if he would leaue Anthymus in his seat and on the other side tempting him with threats the Pope persisted in not harkening to her demand And Anthymus seeing himselfe cast out of his seat gaue vp his mantie to the Emperor retired himselfe where the Empresse tooke him into her protection And then the Pope for the Emperors sake ordained Menas Bishop in his steed consecrating him with his owne hands The same is reported by Iustinian himselfe (p) Nouel 42. and by Victor of Tunes (q) In Chron. set forth by Ioseph Scaliger (r) Ad calc Chron. Euseb adding hereto the excommunication which Agapet pronounced against the Empresse To this I adde that Celestine Pope by his authority alone commanded Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria to depose Nestorius an hereticall Bishop of Constantinople writing thus vnto him (s) In Cont. Ephefâ—ro act 1â— Adding to thee the authority of our See and with power the representation of our place thou shalt execute exactly and seuerely this sentence namely that if within ten dayes after signification of this admonition giuen to Nestorius he do not in expresse words anathematike his wicked doctrines c. thy Holinesse shall prouide for that Church without â—â—ay and declâ—â—â— him to be wholly cut off from our body In like manner S. Leo the Great depriued Hilary B. of Arles from the authority of ordaining Bishops in the Prouince of Vienne which he had iniustly vsurped Hilary is to know sayth Leo to the Bishops of Vienne (t) Ep. 89. that he is depriued of all power ouer the Prouince of Vienne which he had vsurped vnlawfully And Valentinian the Emperor acknowledging that Leo might for this fault haue iustly deposed Hilary from his Bishoprick of Arles said (u) Nou. Theod. 〈◊〉 14. The Popes clemency alone permitted Hilary to beare still the title of a Bishop And Gelasius 40. yeares after speaking of the power of Leo Pope sayd (x) De anathem vinc Flauianus hauing bene condemned by the Congregation of the Greeke Bishops the See Apostolike alone because he had not consented thereunto absolued him and contrarywise by his authority condemned Dioscorus Prelate of the second See who had bene there approued and alone annulled the wicked Synod in not consenting to it and by his authority alone ordained that the Councell of Chalcedon should be kept In like manner when Iohn Archbishop of Larissa in Thessaly had iniustly condemned Adrian B. of Thebes one of the Bishops of his iurisdiction that had appealed froÌ„ him to the See Apostolike S. Gregory exempted the B. of Thebes from his iurisdiction We ordaine sayth he (y) L. 2. ep 7 indict 11. to Iohn Archbishop of Larissa that thy brotherhood abstaine from all the iurisdiction which thou hast formerly had ouer him and his Church c. And if at any tyme or for any occasion whatsoeuer thou that attempt to contradict this our statute know that wee declare thee depriued of the sacred communion so as it may not be restored to thee except in the article of death but with leaue of the B. of Rome Finally omitting other examples of which Ecclesiasticall histories are full to these I adde the testimony of S. Bernard who speaking to Eugenius Pope said (z) L. de Considerat The power of others is confined within certaine limits thine extendeth euen to them who haue power ouer others Hast not thou power if there be cause to shut heauen to a Bishop to depose him from his Bishoprick and deliuer him to Sathan And vpon this knowne right of the Pope he required him to depose the Bishops of Yorke (a) Ep. 217. and Winchester likewise (b) Ep. 230. a wicked Bishop of the Ruthens SECT V. The Popes power of restoring Bishops without a Councell proued ANastasius Patriarke of Hierusalem that liued 1100. yeares since in acknowledgment of this power writ to Felix B. of Rome (c) Ep. ad Belic The prerogatiue of your Apostolike See hath euer bene to restore by the authority of your power them that haue bene iniustly condemned or excommunicated and to returne vnto them all that hath bene taken from them and by the Apostolicall priuiledge to punish those that condemned or excommunicated them as we know it to haue bene done both in our and in former tymes The practise of this authority is no lesse certaine out of the Ecclesiasticall writers Eustathius B. of Sebaste in Armenia being deposed from his Bishoprick by the CouÌ„cell of Melitine trauelled to Rome and bringing letters of restitution from Liberius Pope the Councell of Tyana in Cappadocia obeying receaued him without inquiring of the conditions by meanes wherof he had bene restored The things (d) S. Bafil Ep. 74. that were proposed to him by the most blessed Bishop Liberius what submission he made we know not Only he brought a letter that restored him which being shewed to the Councell of Tyana he was reestablished in his Bishops seat Againe when the Emperor Valens had driuen Peter that famous Patriarke of Alexandria whom Theodosius and Valentinian call (e) Cod. titulo 1 l 1. a man of Apostolicall sanctity from his See and placed in it Lucius an Arian heretike Peter going to Rome appealed to Damasus Pope obteined letters of restitution from him Peter sayth Socrates (f) L. 4. c. 30. being returned from Rome to Alexandria with letters from Damasus B. of Rome which confirmed the creation of Peter the people encouraged draue away Lucius and restored Peter in his place And wheÌ„ Theodoret B. of Cyre bordering vpon Persia was deposed from his Bishoprick by the Councell of Ephesus he was restored by Leo Pope Wherupon the Senators which assisted at the Councell of Chalcedon sayd (g) Act. 1. Let the most religious Bishop Theodoret come in that he may take part in the Councell because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his Bishoprick These examples shew that the venerable Councels were so far from thinking the Pope could not restore Bishops
after the authority wherby Athanasius was restored it was by the command of the Emperor Constantius as the same historian recordeth These are your words then which none can be more vntrue for that Iulius in his letters did not only giue his aduice declaring that he thought Athanasius worthy to be restored but operatiuely exercised his power authority and by vertue of them effectually and absolutely restored Athanasius and those other Bishops is a truth not only acknowledgeth by your Protestant writers as you haue heard (a) Chap. 37. sect 2. but in it selfe so certaine that I thinke no man but Doctor Morton could haue the face to deny it Iulius B. of Rome sayth Socrates (b) L. 2. c. 11. by reason of the priuiledge of his Church aboue others defended their cause and sent them back with letters written to the Easterne Bishops wherby each of them might be restored to their place and reprehended seuerely those that had rashly deposed them And they going from Rome and relying vpon the letters of Iulius recouered their seates againe Which is also expressed in the title of that Chapter The B. of Rome sayth Sozomen (c) L 3. c. 7. hauing examined their complaintes and found that they agreed touching the Decrees of the Councell of Nice receaued them into his communion and because by reason of the dignity of his See the charge of all belonged to him he restored to each of them his Church And in the title of that Chapter Athanasius Paul by the letters of Iulius receaued their seates againe Are not these words cleare inough But yet moreouer doth not Nicephorus say (d) L. 9. c. 8. that Iulius by the greatnesse of his See and out of the ancient priuiledge prerogatiue therof knowing that the charge of all Bishops whersoeuer belonged to him as to a Iudge armed ech of them with powerfull letters and sending them back into the East restored their Churches vnto them And do not he and Sozomen adde (e) Ibid. that he rebuked the Arians for that they had rashly deposed those Bishops and troubled the Churches not standing to the decrees of the Councell of Nice and commanded that some of them in the name of all should on a set day appeare at Rome to giue account of the iustice of their sentence and threatned not to let them passe without punishment vnlesse they did cease to innouate And doth not Felix Pope (f) Ep. ad Athanas cet Episc Aegypt who liued soone after that tyme deliuer the same in most cleare and effectuall words And finally do not he Theodoret (g) L. 2. hist c. 4. Sozomen (h) L. 3. c. 7. and S. Athanasius himselfe (i) Apolog. 2. out of the vndoubted Epistle of Iulius report that Iulius following the Ecclesiasticall Law commanded the Arian Bishops to come to Rome and summoned the diuine Athanasius canonically to present himselfe in iudgment and that as soone as he receaued this citation he transported himselfe in diligence to Rome but the Authors of the tragedy went not because they knew their lies would be openly discouered How thinke you now Did not Iulius with the authority of a Iudge restore those Orthodoxe Bishops to their Churches and that by the prerogatiue of his See and because the charge of all Bishops belonged vnto him Did he not command and Canonically cite both Athanasius and his aduersaries to appeare in iudgment at Rome and appoint them a day for it And finding Athanasius to be free from the crimes which his enemies had maliciously forged against him did he not threaten to punish them vnlesse they desisted to innouate and trouble the Churches Is this nothing but to declare that he thought those Orthodoxe Bishops worthy to be restored Is it not to exercise the authority of a Iudge And this sheweth the falshood of your addition (k) Pag. 306. fin that the authority wherby Athanasius was restored was the command of the Emperor Constantius For he being an Arian was so far from commanding him or any of those Catholike Bishops to be restored that as Socrates writeth (l) L. 2. c. 12. when he heard that Paul B. of Constantinople was restored by the letters of Iulius he stormed therat and caused the Prefect of the City by his secular power to thrust him out againe as he in his owne person once before had done (m) See Spon anno 342. n. 7. 8. And the Arian crew supported by him so molested Athanasius that they enforced him to fly againe to Rome and Constantius himselfe perseuered in persecuting him as long as he durst which was witnes Sozamen (n) L. 3. c. 19. and Theodoret (o) L. 2. c. 11. 12. vntill Athanasius and Iulius made complaint therof to his brother Constans a Catholike Emperor who assisting the Ecclesiasticall authority of Iulius with his Imperiall power writ threathing letters to Constantius and so effectuall that he durst resist no longer but permitted Athanasius according to the iust sentence giuen by Iulius to returne to his Church and affisted him therin And how far Constantius was from hauing any power to restore Bishops or to forbid them from returning to their seates appeareth in this that when he commanded the Bishops assembled at Ariminum (p) Socrat. l. 2. c. 29. not to dissolue their Councell but to expect his answere they sent a peremptory message vnto him and neglecting his command as of one that had no authority to meddle in Ecclesiasticall affaires presently dissolued their Councell and returned to their Churches Let the reader now iudge how many vntruthes you haue told in this one history and whether you may not be thought guilty of impiety in defending and canonizing the outragious proceedings of blasphemous heretikes and iultifying the sacrilegious violence offered to Catholike Bishops for not subscribing to their heresy and finally in answearing (q) Pag. 285. that the testimonies of ancient Popes in proofe of their authority may be confuted and indeed confounded by as ancient oppositions as of the Orientals against the authority of Pope Iulius Such examples we allow you to mantaine your doctrine and disobedience to the Bishop Church of Rome But I presume that euery vnderstanding Protestant will disclaime from such an Aduocate and thinke that by such precedents his cause is not defended but disgraced condemned and parallalled with Arianisme SECT VII Other passages of Doctor Morton examined BEllarmine in proofe (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 18. of the Popes authority alleageth that Sixtus the third deposed Polychronius You say (a) Pag. 195. margin lit l. He numbreth him as one of the eight Patriarkes which Nicolas the first of that name reckoneth in his Epistle to Michaell the Emperor This is another vntruth The eight Patriarkes which Bellarmine mentioneth out of the Epistle of Nicolas were of Constantinople namely Maximus Nestorius Acacius Anthymus Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus Petrus All these were deposed by the Bishops of
tradition and an Ecclesiasticall institution and moreouer adding that he had commanded all the Bishops of his Prouince to doe the like SECT VIII Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning Excommunication And of heretikes excommunicating the Pope EXcommunication is a most grieuous Ecclesiasticall censure which can be inflicted by none but an Ecclesiasticall Superior that hath iurisdiction power to binde and loose to punish absolue the person excommunicated A thing so certaine that no puny-Diuine can be ignorant therof Wherfore you discouer more then vulgar ignorance in defining (l) Pag. 290. Excommunicating of others to be but a denying to haue communion with them By this definition euery subiect may excommunicate his Superior Ecclesiasticall or temporall for euery subiect of neuer so meane a ranke Ecclesiastick or laick may deny to haue communion with his Bishop or his Soueraigne and therby excommunicate them Yea by the same definition any Heretike may excommunicate the Pope or any other Bishop or Councell by which he is condemned for he may deny to haue communion with them Is this good Diuinity And yet it is yours who from this definition as from a true principle deduce that when ancient Popes excommunicated hereticall Bishops of the Easterne Church it was no act of iurisdiction in them ouer those Bishops but (m) Ibid. only a disuniting of themselues from them by denying to haue communion with them which also the same Bishops might deny to haue with the Popes And vpon this ground you iustify as well you may the Arians who being excommunicated by Iulius Pope toke to themselues liberty to excommunicate him in their false Councell at Philippopolis (n) Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. And vpon the same ground when Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria grew to so great a height of madnesse as to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against Leo the Great and first Pope of that name because he had condemned Eutyches and his heresy you say (o) Pag. 290. fin 291. He did it vpon the knowne iudgment of the Easterne Church and vpon a common right and hability to do it which as it is an answeare full of ignorance so I know not how to excuse it from impiety for although Dioscorus were an Arch-heretike though contrary to the Lawes of the Church he had by his owne authority assembled a Councell at Ephesus and approued in it the heresy of Eutyches and condemned the Orthodoxe Doctrine and not only excommunicated but beaten and wounded to death Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople a stout champion of the Catholike fayth yet none of these crimes were alleaged against him as the cause of his excommunication and deposition but only his presumptuous attempting to excommunicate the Pope and his disobedience to him Dioscorus sayth Anatolius Archbishop of Constantinople (p) Conc. Chalced. Act. 9. Socrat. l. 2. c. 18. speaking to the Councell of Chalcedon hath not bene deposed for the fayth but because he had excommunicated my Lord the Archbishop Leo and that hauing bene thrice cited he would not appeare And the Councell of Chalcedon it selfe writing to Leo (q) Relat. ad Leon. After all these things he hath extended his phrensy euen against him to whom the guard of the Vine is committed by our Sauiour that is to say against your Holinesse hath moditated an excommunication against you who hasten to vnite the body of the Church So enormous a crime did this holy Councell iudge it to be for any Bishop euen the greatest Patriarke of the East as Dioscorus was to pronounce sentence of Excommunication against the Pope But to make this matter more euident what Christian euer heard that the iudgment of any Bishop could be valid against the Bishop of the primary See which sayth the Councell of Sinuessa (r) Nicol. Papa Ep. ad Micha Imper. is to be iudged by no man The primitiue Fathers thought it so vnlawfull to be separated from the B. of Rome that they pronounce all that are diuided from his communion to be branches cut of from the Vine which is the Catholike Church to be heretikes of a peruerse iudgment or els presumptuous selfe-liking schismatikes and sinners not to gather but to scatter not to be of Christ but of Antichrist (s) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 4. And finally so absurd a thing it was euer held for any Christian to excommunicate the Pope that the Emperor Martian writing to certaine hereticall Monkes of Palestine who being enemies to the Councell of Chalcedon had presumed to excommunicate Leo Pope telleth them (t) Apud Bin. to 2. pag. 144. that therby they had and with good cause made themselues a laughing stook to the Heathens themselues What you obiect (u) Pag. 290. out of Nicephorus that Menas Patriarke of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Vigilius Cardinall Peron hath learnedly proued to be a mere fable and were it true it was an vnlawfull attempt and inualid as you haue heard SECT IX Adrian and Nicolas Popes obiected by Doctor Morton ADrian and Nicolas the two first Popes of those names required of Constantine and Michaell Emperors of the East the restitution not only of the temporall patrimony of S. Peter iniustly taken away from the Roman Church by hereticall Emperors their predecessors still with-held by them but also of the Ecclesiasticall right of ordayning and gouerning ten Prouinces of the East as their peculiar Diocesse according to the custome of their predecessors This obiection you (x) Pag. 291. 292. tooke from Baronius (y) Anno 800. He hath giuen you an answeare to him I remit you But wheras you say These Popes did not thinke themselues to haue iurisdiction ouer the whole Church of Christ it is worth the nothing that they euen in those very Epistles which you obiect not only affirme but most effectually proue the iurisdiction of the B. of Rome ouer the whole Church and of Adrian somthing to this purpose hath bene said already (z) Chap. 33. sect â— SECT X. Of the deposition of Flauianus Patriarke of Antioch BEllarmine (a) L. â— de Pont. c. 18. produceth many examples of Easterne Bishops deposed by the Pope In answeare wherto you say (b) Pag. 295. fin 296. The chiefest example which your Cardinall may seeme principally to insiston is that Pope Damasus as he calleth it deposed Flauianus Patriarke of Antioch And therfore haue I singled out this example for a singular Argument of retorsion to proue the no-iuridicall or iudiciall authority of the Roman iurisdiction ouer the Patriarkes of Antioch Bellarmines first and chiefest examples are of eight Patriarkes of Constantinople which are so many witnesses of the Popes authority against you Among these he chiefly inssisteth on the example of Anthymus whom Agapet Pope deposed in the City of Constantinople it selfe as you haue heard (c) In this Chap. sect 4. and he proueth out of Nicolas the first Liberatus Zonaras and Gelasius The reason therfore why you passing ouer these examples single
of the holy Ghost are vnited and so fully agreed in the chiefe question which was most in controuersy that no further speach therof is necessary But that our agreement may be so absolute firme that hereafter there be no difference betweene vs it will not be amisse that we treat of the fyre of Purgatory of the primacy of the Pope of celebrating in leauened or vnleauened bread and of Transubstantiation Those Bishops answeared We O most holy Father haue no licence to treat of these things which words you set downe as the answere of all the Greeke Prelates when as they were spoken only by foure of them who hauing receaued no commission to treat of those Questions refused to make answere vnto them in the name of all their brethren But neuerthelesse which you conceale they declared their owne iudgment concerning the three first to be conformable to the doctrine of the Roman Church adding moreouer that of the fourth which was Transubstantiation they could not treat without the authority of all the Easterne Church How doth this proue that the Greekes in the Councell of Florence agreed not in doctrine with the Roman Church especially since these foure Bishops declared to the Pope that concerning the three first points of the foure proposed by him they belieued as the Roman Church did and concerning the fourth as at that time they did not affirme it so neither did they deny it and sone after not only they but all the rest of the Greeke Bishops and Abbots together with their Emperor in the Letters of Vnion expresly declared that not only in the three first namely of the Popes supremacy of Purgatory of the lawfulnesse of celebrating Masse in vnleauened bread they belieued as the Roman Church did but also in the fourth of Transubstantiation saying that by the Priest vpon the Altar of bread is made the very body of Christ. All this you could not be ignorant of and yet blush not to deny it and to adde another vntruth saying (c) Pag. 331. fin 332. init Yea and their Emperor Palaeologus that was so earnest to peece them together was himselfe but hardly welcomed home to the Greeke Church which was now much more exasperated against the Roman Church in so much that they did now pronounce their Patriarke of Constantinople the supreme and chiefe of all Bishops These your words cannot be freed from a notable imposture for you falsify Bellarmine alleaging these words in a differeÌ„t letter as his The Greekes did now to wit after their returne from the Councell of Florence pronounce their Patriarke of Constantinople the supreme and chiefe of all Bishops Bellarmine speaketh of their fall from the Roman Church the yeare 1054. which was not after the Councell of Florence but almost 400. yeares before it You to perswade your reader that he speakes of their fall after their returne from that Councell cunningly insert into his words this aduerbe Now and falsify the yeare putting in stead of Anno 1054. which Bellarmine hath Anno 1454. Can there be more wilfull fraud then this But you shew no lesse folly then fraud for wheras you say (d) Pag. 331. the Councell of Florence was the yeare 1549. to proue that the Greekes after their returne from that Councell denied the primacy of the Pope you say (e) Pag. 332. Now to wit the yeare 1454. which was in your account 100. yeares before that Councell they did pronounce their Patriarke of Constantinople the supreme and chiefe of all Bishops I deny not that the Greeks a few yeares after the Councell of Florence returned to vomit and that a great part of them still persisteth in the errors which then they abiured I only speake here of your simplicity who to proue that they fell from the Roman Church after their returne from the Councell of Florence say (f) Pag. 332. marg they fell the yeare 1454. which according to your account was 100. yeares before that Councell With these impostures you delude your readers who not doubting of your fidelity take your doctrine vpon your word SECT III. That many of the Grecians at this day are of the Roman Communion and professe subiection to the B. of Rome THat many of the Grecians are at this day accordant in fayth and Communion with the Roman Church professe subiection and obedience to the B. of Rome is a thing notorious for who is ignorant that as in Rome there is a Seminary wherin many youthes of our English nation are trained vp in vertue and learning to the end that being ordained Priestes and returning into England they may help to reduce their Countrey to the Catholike fayth so likewise there hath bene many yeares another of Grecians for the reduction of Greece And who knoweth not that as Cardinall Peron (g) Repliqu Chap. 22. aduertised our late Soueraigne K. Iames in the Iles of Malta Cyprus Candia Xante Chios Naxos and other Greeke and Asian Islands the Roman fayth and Communion hath place euen at this day either wholly or for the greatest part And if it be true that as you affirme (h) Pag. 335. Russia a good part of Polonia Dalmatia and Croatia belong to the Greeke Church and are vnder the iurisdiction of the Patriarke of Constantinople with what forehead can you challenge the inhabitants of these Countreys in generall to dissent in fayth communion from the Church of Rome when it is notorious that in Dalmatia Croatia Polonia as also in Lituania and Transiluania the fayth and Communion of the Roman Church is not only allowed but publikely professed And for the Russians Michaell Hipation and Cyrill with the rest of the Bishops of that Nation haue lately submitted themselues to the same Church as both their Epistle and profession of fayth addressed to Clement the eight in the yeare 1595. abundantly testify (i) Apud Cocci to 1. l. 7. art â— SECT IV. Of the Aegyptians YOur second example of remote nations dissenting from the Roman Church (k) Pag. 304.342.400.409 417. is of the Aegyptians To shew your error herein these euidences may serue for as Iacobus Nauarchus (l) Ep. Asiâ—â— Coccius (m) Tom. 1. l. 7. art 6. and Doctour Sanders (n) Monar Visib l. 7. n. 1121. relate Eugenius Pope hauing actually vnited the Greekes and Latines in the Councell of Florence and wrirten to the Patriarkes of the East to the same effect they in their Epistles to him writ back Honorably Catholikely and resolutely of the Latin Church and authority of the Pope And in particular Iohn Patriarke of Alexandria that is to say of the Christians of Aegypt and of all the countreys which first belonged to the Empire of Aegypt and afterwards to the Prefecture therof styleth the B. of Rome The perfection of Priesthood the Apostolicall Father of all Churches the Prince of Priests the Guide of Pilgrimes that shews the way to the rest the Physitian of the diseased And his Vicar of
that is not of God heareth vs not In this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of Error And if at all times the Pastors of Gods Church are to be heard then surely most of all when they are assembled in a generall Councell Christ professing himselfe to be then in the middest of them (b) Math. 18.20 By their authority the sayth is maintained and heresy condemned When Firmilianus and Cyprian with many other Bishops defended the Error of Rebaptization by testimonies of Scripture but as Lyrinensis noteth (c) Cap. 10. glossed after a new and naughty fashion by what authority was that error condemned but by the custome and tradition of the Church the prohibition of Pope Stephen chiefly cooperating therto for as S. Augustine truly sayth (d) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 23. the Apostles had deliuered nothing in writing concerning that point And when the Arians in the Councell of Nice alleaged and misinterpreted Scriptures in proofe of their heresy by what meanes were they confuted and condemned but by the tradition of the Church deliuered by the Venerable Bishops assembled in that Councell (e) Seâ— aboue Chap. 16. chiefly by the authority of the B. of Rome by whom that Councell was called and confirmed (f) Ibid. and without whose confirmation no Canon of any Councell can be of force (g) Sâ—e aboue Chap. 17. seâ—t 6. And from hence it hath proceeded that as all the generall Councells which the B. of Rome hath confirmed are held by the whole Church to be of infallible authority no one Father or Doctor euer doubting therof so contrarily the Councell of Ariminum the second of Ephesus and all others which he hath reproued haue bene euer reputed spurious assemblies and of no authority And with great reason for his authority in defining controuersies of fayth Christ himselfe declared to be infallible (h) See aboue Chap. â—â— sect 1. 2. when he prayed for him that his fayth might not faile commanded him to confirme his brethren and likewise when he promised that heresies which are the gates of hell shall not prouaile against the Church built vpon him I conclude therfore that you mistake the state of the question We agree with you that a Councell which is not directed by the spirit of Gods word may erre but the difference betweene vs is who is to be the Iudge whether a Councell proceed according to the direction of Gods word or no. Luther and you his disciples casting of the yoke of obedience to your lawfull Pastors and refusing to heare them will haue no other Iudges but your selues to the end that if a generall Councell condemne your doctrine as that of Trent hath done you may reiect it vpon pretence that it hath not bene directed by the spirit of Gods word which is an excuse common to all Heretikes for what heretike will not and may not with as faire colour as you pleade that the Councells which condemned him were not directed by the shirit of Gods word Vpon this pretence the Arians that of Ephesus the Eutychians that of Chalcedon the Monothelites the sixth Councell the Image-breakers the seauenth Vpon the same pretence you reiect the Councell of Trent and make profession to reiect all Councells whatsoeuer that shall not allow you to be the only Iudges of the sense of Gods word and grant vnto euery one of you that infallible authority to expound it which you deny to a whole generall Councell When Councells haue defined sayth Luther (i) Art 11â— then will we be Iudges whether they be to be accepted or not And the same is the doctrine of Caluin (k) L. 4. instit c. 9. tot We contrarily insisting in the steps of all Orthodoxe antiquity whose testimonies are plentifully alleaged by Coccius (l) To. 1. l. 7. art 21. acknowledge that the Pastors which are the representatiue body of the Church assembled together with the B. of Rome as their Head is an infallible Iudge of the true sense of Gods word and that what they define in matters of fayth is of vnâ—oâ—â—â—â—â—d authority to be reuerenced as the Ghospells of Christ for so antiquity reuerenced the generall Councels which haue beene held before their time (m) See Coce 〈…〉 and so we reuerence the rest that haue beene held since their time all of them being assembled and confirmed by the same authority of the See Apostolike and directed by the same Spirit of truth that the first Councells were And who seeth not that you denying this authority take away all the vse of Councells in the Church making controue sies of sayth indeterminable and arguing Christ of lack of wisdome and prouidence in not leauing any certaine meanes to end dissentions and preserue Vnity in his Church SECT III. Whecher Protestants hold the Church of Christ to be inuisible YOur fourth Thesis is (n) Pag. 167.368.369.370 Protestants hold not any greater inuisibility or rather obscurity of the Church Catholike then that which the Romanists are forced to confesse This Thesis is manifestly false for you haue heard your grand Maister Caluin other your brethren (o) Here aboue sect 1. confessing that before Luthers time the Church was wholly destroyed euen as mans life is when his throat is cut that it is ridiculous to thinke there were any true belieuers when Luther began that not a part but the whole body of the Church was fallen away by Apostacy And you cannot be ignorant that other ProtestaÌ„ts haue testified (p) Brereley Prot. Apol. tract 2. c. 2. sect 11. sub dict 3. that she was not only obscured as in the time of the Arians but inuisible and could not be shewed Iuell (q) Ibid. that the truth was vnknowne at that time and vnheard of Perkins (r) Ibid. that aâ— vniuersall Apostacy ouerspread the whole face of the earth and that your Church was not then Visible to the world Milius (s) Ibid. that if there had bene any right belieuers before Luther there had bene no need of a Lutheran reformation Francus (t) Brerel Ibid. tract 2. c. 1. sect 4. that for 1400. yeares the Church of Christ was no where externall and visible Napper (u) Ibid. that for 1260. yeares Gods true Church was most certainly latent and inuisible These are the confessions of your brethren conuincing you to speake vntruly when you say Protestants hold not any greater inuisibility or rather obscurity of the Church Catholike then that which the Romanists are forced to confesse for our Tenets which we haue learned from the holy Scripture are that the Church of Christ is a magnificent throne as resplendent as the sunne (x) Psal 88.38 A lofty City placed vpon a mountaine (y) Math. 5.14 which sayth S. Augustine (z) Cont. Parm. l. 3. c. 5. cannot be hid but shal be knowne to all the coastes of the earth To a mountaine prepared in the top of mountaines eleuated
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