in a very few words cut off and dismembred from their contexture whereas to shew your finistrous dealing the whole context must be set downe as it lyeth Yet some of them I will present to the readers view by which he may make coniecture of the rest 1. You begin with Baronius saying (p) Pag 38. When Luther Caluin and others aduentured to expound this of Christ and of fayth in him as the Sonne of God your two grand Cardinals oppose What do they oppose The one say you speaking of Baronius opposeth his owne passion calling it impudent madnesse in Protestants to expound the Rock to signify Christ So you vntruly and sundry wayes abusing Baronius for in that very place (q) Anno 33. n. 19. seqq he expressly affirmeth Christ to be the Rock on which the Church is built and a little before (r) Anno 31. n. 24.25.26 he had professedly proued the same out of the Syriack in which our Sauiour spake and shewed by the testimonies of Fathers that as Christ is the primary Rock or foundation on which the Church is built so he communicated to Peter his owne name of a Rock and the honor of being next to himselfe the secondary and ministeriall foundation in the structure of his Church And as witnesses of this truth he alleageth Tertullian S. Basil S. Hierome S. Leo Hypolitus Opiatus expressly affirming that the name of Cephas signifieth a Rock and is the same that Petrus or Petra which he further proueth (s) Anno 33. out of the testimonies of S. Cyprian Tertullian Origen S. Epiphanius S. Hilary S. Hierome S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Cyril S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome S. Leo and of the Councell of Ephesus all of them affirming that Christ by Rock on which he was to build his Church vnderstood S. Peter And this they teach in as plaine and effectuall words as either Baronius or any Catholike liuing at this day is able to expresse And as Baronius citeth the words of these Fathers so he might of the rest for they were of the same beliefe as likewise all the generall CouÌ„cels which to auoid prolixity he omitteth but yet expresseth their doctrine in generall in these words All the Ecclesiasticall Orthodox writers that haue liued since the aforesaid Fathers alâ— the Synods that euer haue bene lawfully assembled in the hely Ghost haue no lesse constantly and ingeniously professed the same truth to wit that Peter is by Christ our Lord made the foundation of the Church By this it appeares how vntruly you say that Barenius opposeth his owne passion against the exposition of Protectants denying Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built since he confuteth it with the testimonies of all the Fathers of all generall Councels and of all Orthodox writers You by saying he opposeth his owne passion would persuade your readers that he had nothing els to say against their exposition but only to call it Impudent madnesse Whether he might not with reason haue called it so iudge your for what els can it be to deny that to be the true sense of our Sauiours words which all Fathers Councels haue professed to be the true and lawfull sense of them But you to haue a better colour of inueighing against Baronius say that he calls the exposition of Protestants Impudent madnes which is not true for he hath not the word impudent that 's your addition to his text 2. Hauing thus wronged Baronius you passe to Bellarmine saying (t) Pag. 38. that he to proue Peter to be the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church obtrudeth the consent of our owne schoole saying that by Rock it meant Peter it is the common opinion of all Catholikes He sayth so indeed but sayth he nothing els doth he not proue it out of twenty seuerall passages of the new Testament so expounded by the ancient Fathers Doth he not proue it out of the agreeing consent of the most famous Doctors aswell of the Greeke as of the Latin Church If this be to obtrude the consent of our owne schoole then your selfe being the iudge our schole consisteth not only of all the Catholikes of later ages but of Christ of his Apostles of his Euangelists and of the ancient Fathers of the Greeke and Latin Chuurch for all these Bellarmine alleageth These we acknowledge to be our schoole and from these maysters we haue learned our Doctrine And yours being contrary to this it is soon vnderstood out of what schole from what Maister you and your grand Tutors Luther and Caluin haue learned it 3. Hauing thus handled Baronius and Bellarmine you passe to Roffensis our learned Bishop of Rochester who in tyme of K. Henry the eight writ in defence of this Doctrine against Luther and sealed what he writ with his bloud Of him you say (u) Pag. 38. fin p. 39. he approueth the same exposition that Peter is the Rock on which the Church is built saying In this truth triumpheth as though it were as cleare as the Sunne which sunne-shyne we Protestants alas aur blindnesse cannot discerne but rather iudge that it hath bene and is mistaken by you for moone-shine through some defect in your faculties of sight So you taunting that learned Bishop and with him all Catholikes telling vs of his insultation but not without imposture for the insultation is not his but Luthers who though he bring nothing against this exposition as Roffensis sheweth foolishly insulteth vpon the Pope the ancient Fathers and all Catholikes for expounding Peter to be the Rock Adeste huc c. Come hither Pope sayth (x) Art 25. Luther and all you Papists melt and cast all your studies into one if perhaps yee be able to vnty this knot At least this authority stands victorious triumphant against you This insultation of Luther it is which Roffensis iustly retorteth on him Thou sayth (y) Adart 25. Luthert he to Luther vpbraydest these things to the Orthodox members of the Catholike Church and I will returne thee thine owne words Come hither Luther with all thy Lutherans cast all your studies into one and yet you shall neuer euince but that Christ foretold truth when he said he was to build his Churh vpon a Rock namely Peter This authority stands victorious against you and triumpheth and shall triumph ouer you And how true this speach of Roffensis is who knoweth not for in other Bishopricks euen in the greatest Patriarchall seates there haue bene many heretikes and not a few of them Arch-heretikes as in the See of Hierusalem Iohn the Origenist Salustius Arsenius Heraclius Hilarius In the See of Antioch Paulus Samosatenus Eulalius Euzoius Ioannes Domnus Petrus Gnapheus Macarius In the See of Alexandria Gregorius Sergius Cappadox Lucius Dioscorus Timotheus AElurus Moggus and others In the See of Constanâ—inople Macedonius Acacius Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus Petrus Aâ—astasius Anthymus Theodorus and others And who knoweth not that
the Pope is now subiect he being an absolute Prince himselfe what could you haue answeared You must haue confessed that you had ouer shot your marke and out of a desire to be speaking against the Pope misinterpreted the words of your text wrested them to a false sense contrary to the true meaning of the Apostle S. Bernard a man endowed with the spirit of God commended by Caluin (r) L. 4. Instit. c. 7. §. 22. cap. 11. §. 11. and Melancthon (s) Art 5. 27. and estemed by your selfe as a Saint was so far from thinking that these words of the Apostle import any subiection of Popes to temporall Princes that contrarily out of them as out of a sacred Canon he teacheth the Emperor Conradus to yield obedience to the Pope as to his Pastor and spirituall Father Legi c. I haue read sayth he (t) Ep. 2â—3 to the Emperor Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers and he that resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God Which sentence I wish and admonish you to obserue in exhibiting reuerence to the chiefe and Apostolike See and to the Vicar of blessed Peter as you will haue it yielded to you by the whole Empire And in other places he reckoneth vp the chiefe Kings of the Christian world professing obedience to Innocentius the second Pope of that name as to the Pastor and Bishop of their soules (u) Ep. 124. 126. prope fin as children to their Father and members to their Head (x) Ep. 125. To S. Bernard I adde other ancient holy and learned Expositors who by Higher Powers vnderstand not the Temporall Magistrat only but also the spirituall and proue that S. Paul in these words commandeth obedience of subiects to all Superiors as well spirituall as temporall So Primasius S. Remigius S. Anselme Lyra and Carthusianus (y) In eum locuin And in confirmation of this sense Primasius by the sword giuen to higher powers vnderstandeth not only the materiall but also gladium spiritus the spirituall sword giuen to S. Peter wherwith he punished Ananias and Saphira The same sense is followed by S. Basil (z) Constit Monast c. 23. who confirmeth the same out of another passage of the Apostle (a) Heb. 2â— 17 where speaking to all Christians without exempting any temporall Power neuer so high he sayth Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them for they watch as bring to render account of your soules Which inference is also made by that holy learned Pope Gregory the seauenth who explicating your text sayth (b) L. 1. regist Ep. 22. Seeing therfore the Apostle commands obedience to worldly powers how much more to spirituall and those that haue the place of Christ among Christians And if these Expositors be not of credit with you Iohn Caluins doctrine is (c) L. 4. instit c. 10. §. 5. that if obedience must be exhibited to secular Princes for conscience sake it must also be yielded to Ecclesiasticall Superiors Wherfore the more probable Exposition is that the Apostle by Higher Powers vnderstandeth not the temporall Magistrate only but speaketh generally of all Powers as well spirituall as temporall and requireth obedience vnto them both in their degrees Which being true you can no more inferre out of his words that the Pope is subiect to temporall Princes then the contrary especially he being not noly a temporall Prince but also a spirituall so great that as the B. of Patara admonished Iustinian the Emperor (d) Liberat in Breu. c. 22. Albeit there be many Kings in the world yet none of them as the Pope who is ouer the Church of the whole world More proofes in this kind are not needfull You haue heard (e) Aboue Chap. 29. the Councell of Nice declaring the dignity of the B. of Rome as being the Vicar of Christ and gouernor of the vniuersall Church to surpasse the dignity of Kings You haue heard (f) Ibid. the most religious Emperors Kings professing obedience vnto him as children to their Father and sheepe to their Pastor And if S. Pauls words be true (g) Heb. 7.7 that without all contradiction the lesse is blessed by the greater the dignity of an Emperor who is blessed consecrated and crowned by the Pope must be lesser then the dignity of the Pope that blesseth and crowneth him This you will better vnderstand if you call to minde that the holy Martyr S. Ignatius teacheth Christians next after God to honor the Bishop (h) Ep ad Smyrnen And that all people who euer they be Soldiers Princes yea the Emperor himselfe must obey the Bishop to the end that vnity and order may be obserued in all (i) Ep. ad Philadelph And why els do the learned Fathers S. Martin S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose and S. Gregory the great preferre the Episcopall and Sacerdotall dignity before the regall and Imperiall (k) See aboue Chap. 29. Why did S. Nazanzen (l) Orat. ad ciues timore perculsos Princ. irasc call the Emperor A sheepe of his sacred flock and say vnto him The law of Christ hath made you subiect to my power and to my Tribunall for we Bishops haue an Empire also and that more perfect then yours vnlesse you will say that the spirit is inferior to the flesh and heauenly things to earthly And what els do the greatest Monarkes of the world but make profession of this when the Priest sitting and couered they kneele downe with all humility at his feet and confesse their finnes vnto him Is not this to acknowledge that they come as persons guilty to accuse themselues and that the Priest in that court of conscience is their lawfull Superior and Iudge This S. Chrysostome expressed saying (m) L. 3. de Sacerd. that Priests as if they were already transported into heauen and exalted aboue humane nature haue a Princedome which giueth them power to bind soules in comparison wherof the power of Kings is as far inferior as earth to heauen and the body to the soule This S. Ambrose when he said (n) L. de dignit Sacerd. c. 2. You see the heads of Kings and Princes humbled to the knees of Priests and that kissing their hands they belieue themselues to be protected by their prayers This Basilius the Emperor (o) Orat. in fine Conc. Gen. 8. when alluding to the words of Christ spoken to his Apostles (p) Ioan. 20.23 Whose sinnes you forgiue they are forgiuen he professed that Bishops and Pastors haue the power of binding and losing in the Church and that all lay men are to be sanctified to be bound and lesed from their bonds by them And finally this professed Constantine the great when he said (q) Ruffin l. 1. c. 1. S. Greg. l. â— ep 72. that Bishops were constituted by God as Gods among men and therfore had power to iudge of Emperors I conclude therfore that if the doctrine of the
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
the most famous Doctors and Saints of God These M. Doctor the censures which not I but they inflict on your Doctrine And now I desire to know with what conscience you taxe this their and our doctrine as false pernicious impious Schismaticall Hereticall scandalous damnable blasphemous sacrilegious Antichristian c. Or with what title you goe about to defend your owne departure from the Roman Church and to persuade others that being out of her they are in state of saluation If you answer that you haue departed from the now Roman Church because she hath departed from the true fayth which the Roman Church anciently professed that 's an excuse common to all heretikes and can no more iustify you then it could the Pelagians the Donatists or other ancient Heretikes who would neuer haue departed from the Roman Church but vpon pretence that she had fallen from the true fayth And moreouer it is absolutely false for as the Fathers censure condemne all that are out of the Roman Church as incapable of saluation so shall you heare them (c) Chap. 12. sect 1. 2. constantly affirme and prooue that it is as impossible for the Roman Church to fall from that fayth which she once receiued from the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul as it is for the word of Christ to fayle or for Christ himself to be a lyer In profe of this truth I might yet further insist by other most forcible arguments but partly not to detayne the reader and partly because diuers of them shall be touched in the current of this Apology I will immediatly passe to the examination of your Grand imposture first in generall then in particular CHAP. II. Of Doctour Mortons manner of alleaging Authors in generall Num. 7 AMONG many vnworthy sleights vsed in other your workes and particularly in this your Grand Imposture one is to maske Protestants with the names of Our Authors and Our owne men and therupon to vrge against vs their testimonies as of Authors whose Doctrine we are bound to allow and maintaine Wheras you know right well that they are not our but your men and your owne Protestant brethren and that their workes are in particular and by name condemned and forbidden by the Roman Church Of this you haue bene formerly (a) By M. Brierley in the Aduertisment before his Protest Apology admonished and yet notwithstanding in this your Grand imposture you hold on your wonted course as confidently as if you neuer had bene admonished of your vnconscionable dealing therin Of this and other your like slightes I thought fit to giue the reader notice that before hād he might haue some tast of your manner of writing in generall the particulars wherof will more clearly appeare hereafter in their due places One of the Authors whom in your former workes you haue vrged against vs as a Catholike writer is George Cassander borne at Bruges in Flanders and a pestilent heretike as being infected not only with the errors of this age and with an other peculiar to himself against the holy Ghost but also with the old condemned heresy of Apelles and others that liued afterwards vnder Zeno the Emperor called Pacifiers which heresy of his hath bene learnedly confuted not only by Ioannes à Louanio a Catholike Diuine but also by your Grand-Maister Iohn Caluin in a speciall booke written against him And for these his Heresies he is by name censured and condemned as an heretike primae (b) In indice lib. prohib classis Of all this you haue bene particularly admonished by a learned Antagonist of yours (c) F. Persons in his treatise tending to mitigation pag. 238. seqq and since againe by M. Brierley (d) Loco cit wishing you in your future writings not to vrge against vs the testimonies of Cassander as being of an hereticall and condemned Author Who would not thinke this warning sufficient to stay the hand of any man that hath regard I will not say of honesty but at least of his owne credit And yet you without taking any notice at all of these Caueats confidently vrge in this your Grand imposture the testimonies of Cassander not once (e) Pag. 135. h. 389. o 400. b. 410. q. but often not as of an Heretike but as of a Catholike nor as of a Grammarian for he was no more but as of a graue and learned Diuine Can this dealing be excused With no lesse want of sincerity and conscience you alleage against vs Paulus Venetus (f) Pa. 382. m. a seditiour fryar of Venice burnt a few yeares since at Rome for heresy and diuers others whose workes you know to be expresly and by name condemned by the Catholike Church as 1. Nilus a Bishop of Thessalonica (g) Pag. 333. l. who besides his hereticall Doctrine against the Holy Ghost whom he holdeth not to proceed from the Sonne but from the Father alone was a professed enemy to the Roman Church and writ two speciall Treatises against the Popes supremacy and Purgatory and is therfore challenged for a Protestant by Illyricus and reiected by Bellarmine and all Catholike writers 2. Faber (h) Pag. 77. b. whose workes are censured and condemned by the Vniuersity of Paris as Illyricus testifieth and in regard therof he is claymed by him for a Protestant 3. Controuersiae (i) Pag. 163. l. 382. m. memorabiles 4. Acta Concilij (k) Pag. 34. q. 338. y. 382. m. Tridentini 5. (l) Pag. 361. b. 382. k. 336. c. 388. l. Fasciculus rerum expetendarum fugiendarum All which are workes of Protestāts deceiptfully set forth without names of authors and aswell they as Nilus prohibited by the Church A second sleight of yours is to cite as Catholike authors diuers others who if they were not absolute heretikes yet were tainted with erroneous and hereticall doctrines whose bookes are therfore iustly condemned and forbidden As first Beno (m) Pa. 388. l. a feigned Cardinall and a Schismatike who to become gracious with that sacrilegious and dissolute Emperour Henry 4. vnaduisedly and vntruly vttered certaine speaches in disgrace of Religion and the Apostolike See 2. Cornelius Agrippa (n) Pag. 85 u. 385. * who was no Diuine but a Lawier and a Magician from his youth as he himself professeth And though he was afterwards ashamed of what he writ in that kind yet his other booke De vanitate scientiarum which is the worke you cite by the very title well sheweth his arrogant presumption and is iustly condemned by the Church 3. Iosephus Scaliger (o) Pag. 37. marg fine a man not vnlike to Agrippa and a condemned Author 4. Franciscus Duarenus (p) Pag. 45. c. a lawier and as the most eminent Cardinall Peron (q) Repliq. Chap. 34. pag. 270. aduertised our late Soueraigne K. Iames a professed enemy to the Pope and Church of Rome 5. Nicolaus Augustus Thuanus (r) Pag. 85. x. 385. b. 389. u. 404. f.
an other French Lawier whom you call Our noble Historian whereas the whole course of his history sheweth him to haue bene a Huguenot or litle better Nor are you contented with citing him as a Catholike author but to helpe out the matter you falsify him most notoriously as hereafter (s) Chap. 44. sect 9. shall be proued A third sleight is to vrge as Catholike authors some that are of suspected fayth as 1. Erasmus (t) Pag 208. who albeit in the end he abandoned Luther * 303. u. 306. a 381. g 380. f. g. and dyed Catholike as out of his owne confession and Osianders testimony Brierley (u) Aduertism before his Protest Apol. hath proued yet for some tyme he fauoured Luther in regard therof is challenged by Doctor Humfroy and Doctor Reynolds for a man of your religion and by Iohn Foxe Canonized for a Protestant Saint (x) Acts and Mon. pa. 402. Kalend. 22. Decemb. His rash and vnaduised writings gaue occasion to Lutherans and Zuinglians to Father on him diuers of their hereticall Tenents and therfore are generally reproued by Catholikes (y) Ind. lib. prohib condemned by the Church which you cold not be ignorant of therfore your persisting still to alleage him against vs as an approued Catholike author is inexcusable 2. To this classe may be reduced others who though Catholikes yet fell into some errors as Beatus Rhenanus Claudius Espencaus Papyrius Massonius Ioannes Ferus and Gulielmus Barklaius of which the foure first are prohibited by the Church nor were you ignorant therof for speaking of Rhenanus you say (z) Pag. 101. Rhenanus writ so whiles he had the vse of his tongue but since you haue gagged him by your Index expurgatorius By what authority then do you vngagge him whom the Roman Church which he acknowledged to be his Mother hath so iustly gagged And though William Barkley be not registred in the Index as a condemned author his booke being set forth since the Index was made yet Bellarmine (a) Tract de potest Papae aduers Barclaium in praesat hath produced against his doctrine the agreeing consent of the most learned Diuines of Italy France Spayne England and Scotland as also the decrees of ancient Popes and generall Councels and therfore with great reason hath censured him for that being no Diuine but a Lawier he presumed to write a booke De potestate Papa in temporalibus which contayning diuers errors being left imperfect at his death was afterwards published without name of author printer or place of impression for although some copies say it was printed at Mussipont yet Bellarmine conuinceth that to be an (b) Ibid. vntruth Iohn Barkeley sonne to William hath confessed the same (c) In praef Parenesis giuing notice to all men that it was published in England by Protestants and hath withall acknowledged his Father to haue erred in that booke and retracted his owne defence therof All this might haue moued you to forbeare the alleaging of Barkeleys booke against vs. And so much the vrge in this your Grand imposture the very same passage of his which your ancient Antagonist (d) F. Persons Treatise to mitigations Chap. 6. pag. 202. here tofore shewed you to haue obiected in an other treatise of yours corruptly against our common beliefe and practise falsifying and sophisticating both his and our meaning And the like abuse he sheweth you to haue offred to (e) Ibid. Tolosanus whose testimony you yet againe impertinently produce here against (f) Pag. 172. vs. 3. And to this classe may be reduced Polydore Virgill (g) Grand Impost pag. 46.97 e. 164. p. 382. â— 386 c. who being a Catholike author his Booke De inuentoribus rerum hath bene enlarged and corrupted by heretikes and is for that cause prohibited 4. Your fourth sleight is to alleadge and insist much on some writings of Aenae as Siluius Cardinall Cusanus and Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester which they set forth in their youth but afterwards repented and publikely retracted Aenaeas Siluius that was afterwards Pope Pius the second being in his yonger yeares present at the Councell of Basil and Secretary therof writ a booke exalting the authority of a Councell and depressing the authority of the Pope which booke is not only forbiden by the Church but he himselfe also being more mature in yeares more ripe in iudgment and more solidly learned repenred the writing therof when he came to be Pope set forth a speciall bull to retract it (h) Extat hac Bulla apud Binium to 4. pag. 512. seqq in which among other words he sayth In minoribus agentes c. Whiles I was in minority not yet entred into any holy orders being present at Basil among those who made themselues a generall Councell said they represented the vniuersall Church I writ a small booke of Dialogues c. in which ignorantly as Paul did I persecuted the Roman and chief See Wherfore I admonish in our Lord that you giue no credit to such former writings of mine as do in any sorte extenuate the Soueraigne authority of the See Apostolike And then hauing declared that he made not this change by his comming to the Popedome but before he was either Pope or Bishop and set downe the causes that moued him therto he addeth Hauing considered all these things I submitted my selfe to Pope Eugenius saying with Hierome I am ioyned in communion with the chayreof Peter vpon which I know the Church to be built and I had at that tyme no other orders but of Priesthood only when I returned to the obedience of Eugenius By this it appeares that when Bellarmine sayth (*) Lib. de Scriptor in Aenea Siluio he retracted his error in his old age and being Pope he speaketh only of the setting forth of the said Bull to make his retractation publikely knowne to the whole world but the error it selfe he recalled before he was either Pope or Bishop as you haue heard And this discouereth your want of sincerity who in diuers places of your Grand Imposture alleaging testimonies of Aeneas to shew his iudgment concerning the Roman Church conceale all those in which his doctrine and beliefe is truly deliuered and set downe (i) Pag. 91. d. 210. * .249 d. only such as you could pick out of his former workes written in his youth forbidden by the Church and retracted by himself which dealing is no lesse impostetous then if you should deliuer as S. Augustins doctrine that which in his Retractations he hath recalled But you seeke to lessen this Imposture by adding an other to it for lest peraduenture your Reader might haue notice of this retractation of Aeneas and therby discouer your bad dealing you couer it by insinuating that he made no such recantation till he was Pope for hauing cited a passage of his you say (k) Pag. 210. So Aeneas out of Hierome whilest
he was Aeneas and not as yet Pope of Rome himself whereas it is a certaine truth and well knowne to your selfe that Aeneas retracted those his writings euen whilst he was Aeneas and long before he was Pope of Rome himselfe Hauing done this wrong to Aenaeas you offer the like to Nocolaus Cusanus (l) Pag. 22 y. 29 f. 40. nu 44. a. 93. l.c. 7. d. 107. d 12 i. 163. m. 200. f. 179 i. 283. d. 287. l. 289. q. 301 f. 302. l. 366. d. who in his youth before he was Cardinall being also present at the Councell of Basil writ a boke which he intituled Concordantia Catholica seeking therein to exalte the authority of a Councell aboue the Pope but soone after perceiuing the Councell to grow into open schisme against Eugenius then lawfull Pope he withdrew himselfe and detesting their proceedings writ most graue and learned Epistles against them and employed his best indeautors to extinguish that Schisme as it is to be seene in his epistle to Rodericus where he fully expesseth his iudgment concerning the supreme authority of the Pope Church of Rome as also in many other places of his workes and especially in his Epistle to the Bohemians where he prescribeth to them and to all others an infallible rule to know whether they be in the true church which is to examine whether they be vnited to the Chayre of the Bishop of Rome by continuall succession deriued from S. Peter If your meaning had bene good you would haue alleaged this as the Doctrine of Cusanus and not the contrary which he himselfe acknowledged to be false and recanted but your intention was to deceaue and no meruaile for such sleights are the firtest proofes for such Doctrine No lesse want of syncerity is that which you shew in setting downe and descanting vpon a passage of Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester (m) Pag. 362. c. 390. q. who in the beginning of King Henries defection from the Church of Rome being carried away with the streame of the tyme and desiring to purchase the kings fauour writ a litle boke De vera obedientia and in it en deauored to proue the Kings supremacy in spirituall things and to iustify his diuorce from Q. Catherine and his mariage with Anne Bolen which boke is forbidden by the Church he himselfe afterwards in the dayes of Queene Mary who for his great wisdome and learning made him Lord Chancelor of England condemned his owne doing in a famous Sermon preached at Paules Chrosse which is mentioned by Iohn Stow in his (*) Anno 2. Mariae Cronicle At this Sermon were present the King and Queene Cardinall Pole the Popes legat the Embassadors of the Emperor of the french King other Princes besydes a marueylous great learned and noble auditory as perhaps was euer at any sermon in England either before or since that tyme. He tooke for his text those words of the Apostle (n) Rom 13.11 Hora estiam nos de somno surgere It is high tyme now for vs to awake from sleepe His discourse was to shew that since King Henry left the old trodden path of his Ancestots breaking from the vnion of the Roman Church they had runne astray not without great strife and diuision among themselues and that therefore it was now time to awake In this sermon he likewise made a most hūble harty accusation of himselfe for his fall consenting to king Henries wil in that booke De vera obedientia which he vttered with so great vehemency of spirit and such abundance of teares that he could not goe forward but was inforced diuers tymes to make pauses And how harty those teares were the euent declared for afterwards falling sick and drawing neare his end he caused the passion of Christ to be read vnto him commyng to the denyall of S. Peter and how Christ hauing looked backe vpon him he went out and wept bitterly the Bishop cryed out bidding them stay there and see whether his sweet Sauiour wold vouchsafe also to looke vpon him and giue him some part of Peters teares For said he Negaui cum Petro exiui cum Petro sed nondum fleui amarè cum Petro. I haue deuyed with Peter I haue gone out with Peter but I haue not yet wept bitterly with Peter And by often repetition of those words and as king God forgiuenesse with sighes and cryes he entertayned himselfe vntill flouds of teares streaming from his eyes he gaue vp the ghost This answere was giuen to Syr Francis Hastings (o) In the Wardword Encounter 4. pag. 41. seqq who obiected against vs Bishop Gardiners booke De vera obedientia as you now doe nor do I thinke that you were ignorāt thereof But howsoeuer you knew that before his death he repented himselfe of his fall recalled that booke for the passage which in this your Imposture you obiect out of it you professe to take out of the English translation (p) Pag. 390. q. the author whereof being a Protestant and of your strayne in writing both in his preface and in his marginall notes throughout the booke rayleth most imtēperatly against Bishop Gardiner for recalling that Booke tearming him Doctor double-face a weathercock that turneth ersy-uersy as the wind bloweth an Antichristian Angell of Satan a seducer a hell-hound of a false trayterous hart a filthy traytour a pernicious Papist a knaue a double-faced periured impudent trayterous chattering Chancelour that seekes to pull away the authority of the crowne from the Queene and her heyres for euer And finally he giues his reader this marke wherby he may know him to be a double periured trayterous Villayne because sayth he in that booke he affirmed that the Bishop of Romes authority in England was against Gods word and now be iugleth to bring it in againe All these and other worse are the words of your modest Brother whose style you seeme to approue by citing his translation of Bishop Gardiners booke against the Pope and Church of Rome but with what conscience you can best iudge sithence the translator testifies that he retracted it and the Church hath forbidden it and the Bishop himselfe before and at his death lamented the writing of it with so many and so harty teares Wherfore as it were a grand imposture to perswade men that it is lawfull for them to deny Christ because S. Peter out of humane infirmity denyed him so it is for you to persuade your readers that it is lawfull for them to deny the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome because Bishop Gardiner out of fraylty and other humane motiues once denyed it for as S. Peter bewayled his fall with many teares so did Bishop Gardiner his Finally and that which most of all sheweth your lack of Conscience in producing diuers of these authors as competent witnesses against vs is that wheras in your former wrytings you haue obiected the testimonies of Cassander
she is but Antioch Nor should she then haue any priuiledge of not erring in fayth as now Antioch hath not since the remouall of S. Peters See from thence But therfore to inferre that the now Roman Church against which you write this Grand Imposture being at this present the See of S. Peter or whiles hereafter she shall remaine the See of S. Peter may erre in fayth is to argue à sensu diuiso ad sensum compositum and to infer that such things as perhaps are possible but neuer shall be are already in being If I should argue thus It may possibly come to passe though it be improbable that the Metropolitan See of England may be remoued from Canterbury to Carlile Ergo the Church of Canterbury is not now the Metropolitan Church of England were not this a sophisme And so is yours Some of our Diuines grant that the See of S. Peter which maketh the Church of Rome the Mother Mistresse of all Churches and secureth her from all error in fayth may be remoued from Rome though there appeare no likelihood therof Ergo inferre you in the opinion of some of your Diuines the now Roman Church is not the Mistresse and mother Church of the world but may now fall from the fayth euen whiles she is the See of S. Peter no lesse then she might if his See were already remoued from thence Who seeth not this Argument to be sophisticall And to sophistry you ioyne fraud for to proue that the Successor of S. Peter hath not his See at Rome by diuine ordinance but only by humane election you (d) Pag. 21. alleage Suarez (e) De trip virt Theol. disp 10. sect 3. n. 10. saying that before the ascension of Christ nothing appeareth of any such ordinance either in Scripture or from tradition Here you breake of leauing out the rest of Suarez words and concealing his Doctrine for in the very same place both before and after these his words which you cull out he expresly affirmeth that it is more pious and probable that Christ after his ascension appearing to S. Peter commanded him to place his See at Rome which he ptoueth by the testimonies of many ancient Fathers and by other Arguments all which you conceale and cite him for the contrary opinion The same abuse you offer to Valentia Bellarmine and Azor. For all these prooue with many testimonies of antiquity and other forcible Arguments that it is of Diuine institution holding it for certaine and the contrary opinion not to be safe though not expresly de fide SECT VII Your seauenth Argument THAT the Successor of S. Peter in the Roman See canonically chosen is Head of the vniuersall Church all Catholikes beleeue as vndoubted matter of fayth But that this indiuiduall person v. g. Vrban the Eight is true Pope and true Head of the Church though the more probable opinion of Diuines hold it also to be of fayth yet diuers others defend that it is only of morall certaynty You not knowing how to solue the arguments of the first opinion otherwise then by rayling against it (f) Pag. 23. fine calling it a Iesuiticall fayth both grosly false wickedly blasphemous assume the second as granted which I with the authors of the first opinion do not grant but deny For the Church proposing vnto vs this indiuiduall man Vrban the eight as true Pope it is not only morally but absolutely and infallibly certayne that in the person of Vrban the eight are found all the conditions of true Baptisme Ordination Election and whatsoeuer els requisite for a true Pope and true head of the Church for as the Church being assisted by the holy Ghost cannot erre in proposing other Verities of fayth so nether in proposing this man to be the true head and lawfull gouernor of the vniuersall Church wherfore our beleefe that this man is true Pope is not humane morall and fallible but diuine and infallible vnlesse you will question the authority of the holy Ghost making it humane and fallible Yea euen in the other opinion though it be no matter of fayth that this indiuiduall man is true Pope yet the Authors thereof hold it to be a Theologicall conclusion so certayne that whosoeuer shall deny it is worthy of flames SECT VIII Your eight Argument YOVR eight argument (g) Pag. 25. 26. 27. is nothing but a repetition of what you haue sayd in the former sections without any addition of new proofes vnlesse to proue your Doctrine be to rayle against ours calling it new false scandalous pernicious hereticall blasphemous and vs periured persons all which being nothing but an empty froath of iniurious words deserue no other answere but contempt CHAP. VI. The Roman Church is the Head and Mother of all Churches IN this matter you wholly mistake the state of the question for when we demand which Church is the Head the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches the question is not which Church was first founded If you speake of priority of tyme or antiquity and call those Churches Mothers of all such as were founded after them we grant that in this sense the Church of Hierusalem is the Mother Church of all Churches and the Roman in the same sense a daughter both to the Church of Hierusalem of Antioch and all others that were founded before her And in this sense the Bishops which had bene present at the first Councell of Constantinople call the Church of Hierusalem the Mother of all other Churches (h) Theodor. l. 5. histor c. 9. But this is not the question for you know and set it downe as our Doctrine (i) Pag. 29. 38. that the Roman Church is called the Mother Church of all Churches because S. Peter was constituted by Christ the ordinary Pastor of the whole Church By which it appeares you know right well that the mother-hood which we attribute to the Roman Church is not priority of tyme but of authority and iurisdiction grounded on the supremacy of S. Peter for as by reason of his transcendent authority ouer the whole flock of Christ which is his Church he was and in his successors is the Father and Head of all Bishops so the Roman Church in which sayth S. Chrysologus (*) Epist. ad Eutych Peter still liueth and gouerneth is the Head and mother of all Churches and vnto which sayth S. (k) L. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus all Churches are necessarily to agree by reason of her more mighty Principality that is to say by reason of the soueraignty and supreme authority of the See Apostolike And in this sense she is called by S. Irenaeus (l) Ibid. and Origen (m) Apud Euseb l. 6. hist c. 12. The most ancient Church and by S. Cyprian (n) De simplicit Praelat The Root the fountayne and head of Episcopall power and The principall Church from whence Priestly vnity began (o) L. 1. ep 3. And from the same ground
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
said belonged not to the other Apostles 2. That power did extend to all Bishops because the reason of order and Ecclesiasticall vnity so required 3. The power of the Bishop of Rome was alwaies ordinary and to continue perpetually in the Church not so in the other Apostles This is Suarez his Doctrine which I haue set downe in his owne words that the reader perusing yours and comparing them with his may see how you falsify for both in your Latin margent English text you leaue out (i) Pag. 79. the reason wherwith he proues his assertion and set downe for his only ground that he cannot remember to haue read in any author any thing of this point wheras he proues it out of what he had formerly said And doth he not here againe proue it out of the power and iurisdiction which was in S. Peter ouer the whole Church descended from him to his Successors And doth he not from thence inferr three prerogatiues which his Successors had ouer the other Apostles two of which you conceale And though you set downe the third yet it is in your Latin Margent only and so dismembred from Suarez his context that the reader will not easily vnderstand the force therof Againe who is so blind that sees not your absurd manner of arguing which is this (*) Pag. 78. 79. Suarez opinion is that S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter was subiect to Linus his Successor ergo S. Iohns fayth did not conceaue the Pope to haue iurisdiction ouer all other Bishops and Pastors in the Catholike Church You might as well haue inferred that because Yorke hath a Minster London hath a Bridge for this is as good a consequence as yours But hereby the Reader may see with what silly Sophistry you delude or to vse your owne words against your selfe with what vntempered morter you daube vp the consciences of your followers Now as for Suarez his assertion that the iurisdiction of S. Peters Successor was greater then the ordinary Episcopall iurisdiction of the other Apostles a iudicious Reader wil easily conceaue to be no such improbable Doctrine if he reflect that the Successor to euery Bishop is inuested in all the Episcopall authority of his predecessors and therfore Linus being Successor to S. Peter it must follow that 8. Peter being in Episcopall authority and iurisdiction superior to all the other Apostles Linus had the same authority and iurisdiction ouer those that suruiued S. Peter And this S. Chrysostome seemeth to haue expressed (k) L. 2. de Sacerd 1â— when he said Christ committed to Peter and to Peters Successors the charge of those sheep for the regayning of which he shed his bloud from which number I trust you will not excluded S. Iohn or any other of the Apostles that suruiued S. Peter And what els did S. Cyril meane when he said (l) Apud S. Thom. Opusc cont error Graec. c. 32. As Christ receaued from his Father most ample power so he gaue the same most fully to Peter and his Successors And what Paschasinus when in the presence and with the approbation of the Councell of Chalcedon (m) Act. 1. he affirmed the Pope to be inuested in the dignity of Peter the Apostle And what meant S. Bernard (n) L. 2. de considerat when he said to Eugenius Pope Thou art Peter in power and by vnction Christ the sheep of Christ were not so without exception committed to any Bishop nor to any of the Apostles as to thee thou art Pastor not only of the sheep but Pastor of all Pastors And what meant S. Leo (o) Serm. 2. â— Anniuers suae assump when he said The ordinance of truth standeth and S. Peter continuing in the receaued solidity of a Rock hath not left the gouerment of the Church for truly he perseuereth and liueth still in his Successors And againe (p) Ibid. In the person of my humility he is vnderstood he honored in whom the solicitude of all Pastors with the sheep commended to him perseuereth and whose dignity in an vnworthy heyre fayleth not And what S. Peter surnamed Chrysologus (q) Ep. ad Eutychet when he exhorted Eutyches to heare obediently the most blessed Pope of Rome because S. Peter who liueth in his owne See and is stil president in the same exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it And what the Legates of Celestine Pope in the Councell of Ephesus (r) P. 2. Act. 2. No man doubtes for it hath bene notorious to all ages that the holy and most blessed Peter Prince and Head of the Apostles piller of the fayth foundation of the Catholike Church liues and decides causes yet vnto this day and for all eternity by his Successors And what Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria writing to S. Gregory (s) Apud Greg. l. 6. ep 37. that Peter Prince of the Apostles sitteth still in his owne Chayre in his Successors And what S. Gregory himselfe reporting (t) Dial. l. 3. c. â— that Agapet Pope comming to Constantinople the friends of a man that was lame and dumbe beseeching him to cure that man by the authority of Peter the Apostle Agapet by the same authority cured him And what the Fathers of the sixt Councell generall when commending the Epistle of Agatho Pope they said (u) Act. 18. The paper and inke appeared but it was Peter that did speake by Agatho And finally what Constantine Pogonate when writing to the Roman Synod (x) Apud 6. Syn. Act. 18. he admired the relation of Agatho at the voyce of the diuine Peter himselfe It followeth then that if Linus was inuested in the Episcopall dignity and power of Peter if S. Peter still liue and rule in his owne See and decide causes in his Successors if he speake by them and their voyce be to heard as his voyce to be subiect to Linus was no other thing then to be subiect to S. Peter and to disobey Linus was to disobey S. Peter who did speake by Linus and gouerne in his owne See by him Wherfore as the Apostles owed subiection to S. Peter whiles he liued so those that suruiâ—â—â— him did to Linus hauing the place of Peter for 〈◊〉 â—â—â—rian â—alles the Roman See L. 4. â—p 2. CHAP. XIV Your fifth Chapter with diuers Arguments answered SECT I. Of the Name Catholike AFTER a discourse made from an Argument ab authoritate negatiuè which euery Logician knowes to be of no force you say (a) Pag. 81. We begin at the word Catholike and desire to vnderstand why the epistles of Iames and Iohn and Iude were called Catholike or vniuersall as well as the two Epistles of Peter if the word Catholike were so proper to the Roman Chayre seing that the Epistles of Iames Iohn and Iude were not sent to or from Rome nor had any relation to Peter there Before I answere I desire you to remember that the name Catholike by the ancient Fathers is giuen
at all of them It belonges not to Kings sayth S. Damascen (q) Orat. 2. de Imagin to giue lawes to the Church for consider what the Apostle sayth and whom he hath placed in the Church first Apostles after Prophets then Pastors and Doctors in the constitution of the Church he placed not Kings And againe (r) Ibid. Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them for they watch as being to render accompt of your soules And remember your Prelates which haue spoken the word of God to you Kings are not they which haue spoken the word but Apostles and Prophets and Pastors and Doctors The ciuill gouerment belongs to Kings but the Ecilesiasticall constitution to Pastors and Doctors So Damascen whose Doctrine if it please you not you may learne the same lesson from your Grand-maister Caluin teaching that the chiefest place of gouerment in Christs Church belonged to the Apostles and so to Bishops and Priests their Successors And lest you might thinke that there is so much as one word in S. Paul which may argue him to grant vnto secular powers any place of gouerment in the Church Caluin (*) L. 4. Instit c. 3. sect 5. cap. 11. sect 1. specially noteth that by gubernationes gouerments which S. Paul after Apostles and Doctors reckoneth in the seauenth place are not vnderstood ciuill officers but such men as were ioyned to the Preachers for better order in spirituall gouerment But though you in neither of these places where the Apostle speaketh of the Ecclesiasticall dignities can finde any place for secular Princes and Magistrates the Fathers of the Church haue found in both of them a place for the Pope for S. Hierome obserueth (s) In Psal 44. that in the Church Bishops succeed in place of the Apostles and therefore Tertullian (t) L. de praescrip c. 2â— 32. and S. Augustine (u) Ep. 162. haue noted that their Churches were called Apostolicall so long as they continued in the fayth receaued from the Apostles as likewise all others that being afterwards founded agreed with them in Doctrine or as Tertullian speaketh propter consanguinitatem doctrinae Now as S. Peter was Head and Prince of the Apostles so the Roman Church in which he placed his Episcopall Chayre and into which sayth Tertullian (x) L. de praser c. 36. both he and S. Paul powred all their Doctrina togeather with their bloud was and is still by a speciall prerogatiue called The See Apostolike in so much that when the See Apostolike is named without any addition the Roman See is alwayes vnderstood In this language speake S. Hierome (y) L. 2. Apol aduers Ruffin when he said Ironicè to Ruffinus I wonder how the Bishops haue receâ—â—ed that which the See Apostolike hath condemned In this spake S. Augustine (z) Ep. 106. saying Relations concerning this busines were sent by the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the See Apostolike And els where (a) Ep. 162. In the Roman Church hath alwayes florished the Principality of the See Apostolike In the same language spake the Councell of Chalcedon (b) Act. 1. calling Paschasinus the Popes legate The Vicar of the See Apostolike And the Bishops of Dardania in their Epistle to Gelasius (c) Extâ—â— inter epist. Gelasij It is our desire to obey all your commands and to keep inuiolate the ordinations of the See Apostolike as from our Fathers we haue learned to do And S. Bernard (d) L. 2 de Considerat vpon those words of S. Paul He that resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God sayth to Conradus the Emperor This sentence I wish and by all meanes admonish you to keep in yelding reuerence to the chiefe and Apostolicall See From hence it also proceedeth that as S. Hierome (e) Ep. 58. said to Damasus The Bishop of Rome followeth the Apostles in honor and therfore he aboue all other Bishops is called Apostolicus Apostolicall So was S. Leo called in the Councell of Chalcedon (f) Act. 1. The most blessed and Apostolicall man Pope of old Rome which is the Head of all Churches And the Bishops of France (g) Inter op Leonis â—â—to 52. salute him with the title of The most blessed Pope to be reuerenced with Apostolicall honor And Rupertus (h) De diuiâ—â— offic l. 1.27 The Successors of the other Apostles are called Patriarkes but the Successor of Peter for the excellency of the Prince of the Apostles Apostolicus nominatur hath the name of Apostolicall And Hugo Victorinus (i) L. 1. Erud Theol. de sacram Eccles c. 43. The Pope is called Apostolicall because he hath the place of the Prince of the Apostles From hence also his Episcopall dignity is by a speciall prerogatiue called Apostolatus Apostolate or Apostleship So Paschacinus in the Councell of Chalcedon said of Pope Leo (k) Act. 1. His Apostleship hath vouch safed to command that Dioscorus sit not in the Councell So the Bishops of France writing to the same Leo beseech his Apostleship to pardon their slownesse (l) Iuter ep Leon. ante 52. Honorius the Emperor beseecheth Pope Bonifacius (m) Ep. ad Bonifac. that his Apostolate would offer vp prayers to God for the good of his Empire S. Bernard sayth to Innocentius (n) Ep. 190. It is fitting that whatsoeuer dangers or scandals arise in the kingdome of God be referred to your Apostleship All this sheweth that vnder the name of Apostles to whom S. Paul allotteth the first and chiefest place among Ecclesiasticall gouernors are vnderstood S. Peter and his Succcessors who haue the first and chiefest place of gouermentin the Church And this the Fathers Councels haue sufficiently declared by giuing the Pope the title of Apostolicall by calling his place Apostleship and his Church absolutely Apostolicall See This you could not see so dimme sighted you are in beholding any light that shewes the Authority of the Bishop or Church of Rome And this also is thereason why you could not see that S. Paul comprehendeth Peter and the Popes his Successors vnder the name of Pastors for Christ made Peter Pastor of his flock the same dignity remayneth to his Suecessors for why els did the Mileuitan Councell in tyme of the Pelagian heresy beseech Innocentius Pope (o) Aug. ep â—2 to apply his Pastorall diligence to the great perills of the weake members of the Church why did S. Hierome (p) Ep. 57. liuing in Palestine fly to Damasus Pope for resolution of his doubts as a sheep to his Pastor Why did S. Chrysostome say (q) L. 2. de Sacordot that Christ committed to Peter and his Successors the charge of those sheep for which he shed his bloud Why did S. Ambrose (r) Ep. 81. call Siricius Pope a good and rigilant Pastor that with pious solicitude keepes the flock of Christ Why did S. Prosper say (s) l. de ingrat c. 2. that Rome by
(x) Visib Monarch l. 7. à n. 433. ad 541. addeth much more of the same kind out of S. Gregories owne workes and in his owne words as that the See Apostolike by the authority of God is preferred before all Churches That all Bishops if any fault be found in them are subiect to the See Apostolike That she is the Head of fayth of all the faythfull members That if any of the foure Patriarkes had done against the Popesletters that which was done by the Bishop Salona so great a disobedience could not haue passed without a most grieuous scandall That the See Apostolike is the head of all Churches That the Roman Church by the words which Christ spake to Peter was made the Head of all Churches That no scruple nor doubt ought to be made of the fayth of the See Apostolike that all those things are false which are taught contrary to the Doctrine of the Roman Church That to returne from Schisme to the Catholike Church is to returne to the communion of the Bishop of Rome That he which will not haue S. Peter to whom the keyes of heauen were committed to shut him out from the entrance of lyfe must not in this world be separated from his See That they are peruerse men which refuse to obey the commands of the See Apostolike I conclude therfore with Doctor Sanders that he which readeth all these particulars and more of the same kinde that are to be found in the workes of S. Gregory and yet with a brasen forehead feareth not to interpret that which he writ against the name of Vniuersall Bishop so as if he could not abide that any one Bishop should haue the chiefe seate and supreme gouerment of the whole militant Church that man sayth he seemes to me either to haue cast of all vnderstanding and sense of a man or els to haue put on the obstinat peruersnesse of the Diuell How comes it then to passe that you are not ashamed to vrge here and els where so often in this your grand Imposture S. Gregories refusing the name of vniuersall Bishop as an argument to disproue his authority and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church especially since it hath bene so often and so fully answered by vs But because here you insist so much theron I will for the readers satisfaction briefly declare in what sense Pelagius and S. Gregory refused that title and how to better your argument you abuse and falsify our Authors The title of Vniuersalis Episcopus Vniuersall Bishop may be taken two wayes first for a Bishop that challengeth an vniuersall power ouer all other Bishops clayming to himselfe a right of hearing and determing all Ecclesiasticall causes in his owne and their Diocesses leauing them no other right to exercise any Episcopall iurisdiction power but only such as they shall receaue frō him as his Vicars In this sense S. Gregory conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to stile himselfe Vniuersall Bishop as it appeareth out of his plaine and expresse words in diuers of his Epistles (z) L. 4. ep 32.34 36.38 l. 7. ep 70. to which the margent will direct you And in this sense he calleth the name of vniuersall Bishop A prophane and Antichristian title 2. It may be taken in the same signification with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae so that it signify a Bishop to whom belongeth the gouerment of the vniuersall Church and the determining of all such causes as appertaine to her in generall without taking away or hindering the ordinary power and right of other Bishops and leauing each of them in their seuerall places degrees with full power and authority to iudge and determine all Causes Ecclesiasticall belonging to their Diocesses and within them In this sense the tytle of Vniuersall Bishop is not condemned by S. Gregory as new or prophane or any way vnlawfull but agreeth to the Pope no lesse then the title of Bishop of the vniuersall Church And therfore as S. Gregory (a) Ep. ad omnes Episc stileth himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church so likewise when Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria writing to him (b) L. 4. ep 36. gaue him the title of vniuersall Bishop he acknowledged (c) L. 4. ep 36. that in this sense he might lawfully accept therof and that the Councell of Chalcedon and the following Fathers had giuen it to his predecessors But yet he refused it out of his great humility as also he denied himselfe to be a Priest (d) L. 4. ep 31. and as S. Paul called himselfe the greatest of sinners (e) 1. Tim. 1.15 and thought himselfe vnworthy to be called Apostle (f) 1. Cor. 15. ◠And chiefly lest he might be thought to accept of it in the former sense vnlawfull iniurious to other Bishops in which he conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to vsurpe it And finally that therby he might better represse his insolency This doctrine is deliuered by Baronius and Bellarmine of whom because they declare Vniuersalis Episcopus in this second sense to be all one with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae you say (g) Pag. 94. They would gladly confound these two titles therby to proue their Popes to be proper Monarkes ouer the whole Church because some predecessors of S. Gregory haue bene called Bishops of the vniuersall Church which is their peruerse error refuted by one of their learned Iesuits But you must pardon me if I tell you that this is a shamefull vntruth for Baronius and Bellarmine deliuer the same double acception of Vniuersalis Episcopus which I haue declared and likewise affirme that in one of them it may be attributed to the Pope but not in the other which is not to confound but to distinguish that confusion and mistake may be auoyded And the thing it selfe is euident for if the title of Vniuersalis Episcopus might not be taken in a sense vnlawfull S. Gregory would not haue condemned it in Iohn of Constantinople as a new prophane Antichristian title And againe if it might not be taken in a sense lawfull neither the Councell of Chalcedon nor the following Fathers (h) Apud S. Greg. l. 4. ep 36. would haue giuen it to the Bishops of Rome The former sense is vnlawfull because it taketh away all ordinary power and iurisdiction due to other Bishops in their Diocesses The second is lawfull because it leaueth to them their ordinary power and iurisdiction From whence it followeth that as S. Gregory in this second sense did instile himselfe Episcopum Vniuersalis Ecclesiae (i) Ep. ad omnes Episcop so if Vniuersalis Episcopus be taken in the same sense it is also lawfull and due to the Bishops of Rome and in this sense he taketh it when he sayth that the Councell of Chalcedon and the following Fathers gaue it to his predecessors But the former sense he condemned as prophane and Antichristian reprehended in Iohn of Constantinople And Salmeron for
it selfe but one Church gouerneth another as the Metropolitan doth the Suffragans the Roman Church as being the Head and Mother Church ruleth all others of the world Nor is this explication of lesse force becauss he sayth that she gouerneth in the region of the Romans for he sayth it not to limit her gouerment but to expresse the place in which she is seated and from whence she gouerneth all other Churches I conclude therfore that by calling her the Church that gouerneth and not limiting her gouerment to anyone Church or nuÌ„ber of Churches he declareth her to be Head Gouernesse absolutely of all Churches for as S. Bernard speaking of this subiect sayth (m) L. 2. de consider at Where there is no limitation nothing is excepted And in this sense Theodoret long before had said (n) Ep. ad Leon. The Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the whole world This to be the genume sense of S. Ignatius his words Casaubon and you peraduenture did see and therfore to giue an expedite solution you reiect the whole Epistle saying (o) Pag. 100. marg No man skilfull in Greeke would belieue it to be written by S. â—gnatius But this solution is exploded by Euscbius (p) L. 3. hist. c. 30. and S. Hierome (q) L. de Scriptor who might be Casaubons and your Maysters in Greeke and yet affirme S. Ignatius to be the Author of this Epistle and transcribe a part therof yeÌ„t to be found in it as also doth S. Irenaeus (r) L. 4. aduers haeres apud Baron anno 109. to shew the admirable spirit and feruor of that holy Bishop Hauing proposed these arguments of Casaubon you obiect out of your owne obseruations (s) Pag. 100. that S. Ignatius exhorting the Trallians vnto obedience to Bishops instanceth equally in Timothy S. Pauls scholler as in Anacletus Successor to S. Peter Answere You may by the like argument proue that S. Ignatius equalleth Priests in authority with Bishops for exhorting the Trallians to obedience he instanceth as well in Priests as in the Bishop Obey sayth he (*) Ep. ad Trallianos the Bishop the Priests Who then seeth not your argument to be a childish Sophisme SECT VI. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church I Renaeus say you (t) Pag. 100. for direction in the right of Traditions referreth as well to Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna as to Linus Bishop of Rome Tertullian also to secure Christians in the Doctrine of the Apostles prescribeth vnto them that they consult with the Mother Churches immediatly founded by the Apostles naming as well Ephesus in Asia and Corinth in Achaia as Rome in Italy and for the persons mentioning as well Polycarpe ordayned by S. Iohn as Clemens by Peter The like argumeÌ„t you make out of Vincentius Lyrinensis But all of them imposterously and against your selfe And first to begin with S. Irenaeus these words Discite ab Apostolicis Ecclesijs Habetis Romae Linum which you alleage as of S. Irenaeus (u) L. 2. c. 3. I find not in him It is true that both he and Tertullian teaching the Christians of their tyme to auoyd heresy warned them that the true fayth was to be learned from the Apostolicall Churches that is from the Churches founded by the Apostles themselues or by Apostolicall men as Timothy Polycarpe and other their disciples that preached the same fayth they learned from the Apostles their Maysters But withall they taught them that the chiefe Church they were to adhere vnto and by whose authority they were to confound all Heretikes was the Roman Church All men sayth S. Irenaeus (x) L. 3. c. 3. may behold the tradition of the Apostles that is the fayth deliuered by them to their Successors in euery Church if they be desirous to heare the truth and we can number the Bishops that were made by the Apostles in Churches and their Successors euen vnto vs who neither taught nor knew any such thinge as rauing heretikes do broach c. But because it were a long businesse to number the Successions of all Churches we declare the tradition of the most great most ancient and most knowne Church founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which tradition and fayth it hath from the Apostles coÌ„ming to vs by Succession of Bishops and thereby we confound all them that any way ether by euill complacence of themselues or vaine-glory or blindnesse or ill opinion do gather otherwise then they ought Lo here how Catholikes in S. Irenaeus tyme did confound all heretikes by the fayth of the Roman Church and by the Succession of Bishops in that See And he yeldeth the reason saying (y) Ibid. for to this Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality all Churches must necessarily agree that is to say all the faythfull of what place soeuer in which Church the tradition and fayth of the Apostles hath bene alwayes conserued And in confirmation of this he reckoneth by name all the Popes from S. Peter to Eleutherius who at that tyme gouerned the Church (z) Ibid. And by that orderly and neuer-interrupted Succession he proueth the Roman Church to haue conserued vnto his daies the fayth pure and entyre as it was preached by the Apostles By this Succession that Doctrine and truth which the Apostles preached in the Church hath come to vs And this is a demonstration conuicing that it is one and the same quickening fayth which from the Apostles tyme vntill this day is conserued and delinered in truth And againe relating to this place and speaking of the same Succession of Bishops in the Roman Church which he calleth the principall Succession he declareth all those that withdraw themselues from it to be Schismatikes or heretikes They that are in the Church sayth he (a) L. 4. c. 41. ought to obey those Priests which haue their Succession from the Apostles which togeather with the Succession of their Bishoprikes haue receaued the assured grace of truth according to the good will of the heauenly Father And we ought to hold suspected all others that withdraw themselues from the like Principall Succession and ioyne togeather in some other place We ought I say to hold them as heretikes of a peruerse iudgment or as Schismatikes and selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes or els as Hypocrites that worke for lucre and vaine-glory If then S. Irenaeus in his dayes thought it an argument sufficient to conuince all Heretikes that they had fallen from the true fayth preached by the Apostles because they had fallen from the Succession of Bishops in Peters See to which all the Churches and faythfull of the world must necessarly agree how much more conuincing is the same Argument against Protestants to whom we shew not the Succession of twelue Popes in S. Peters See as S. Irenaeus did to the heretikes of his tyme but almost of 240. You were not ignorant of the force
of these testimonies of S. Irenaeus and therfore lest you might seeme to passe them ouer without answere you say (b) Pag. 100. marg fine As for the words Propter Principalitatem they are answered hereafter How are they answered first you bid vs (c) Pag. 253. marg remember that Irenaeus was he which consented with the Asian Bishops that were excommunicated by Pope Victor But wee know this to be an vntruth and wish you to remember that you acknowledge so much contradict your selfe saying (d) Pag. 131. Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops These then are your propositions Irenaus consented with the Asian Bishops Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops Reconcile them 2. Wheras S. Iraeneus sayth (e) L. 3. c. 3. It is necessary that all Churches haue recourse to the Roman Church by reason of her more mighty principality you answere (f) Pag. 253. This might haue bene spoken of the Imperiall power of that City to which the subiects of the Roman Empire were bound to resort for paying of tributes and the Gouernors of Prouinces to yield an account of their offices But the very words of S. Irenaeus shew the falshood of this answeare for he mentioneth not the City but the Church of Rome Ad hanc Ecclesiam c. To this Church sayth he all Churches must of necessity resort Againe they which were to resort to the City of Rome for the discharge of their offices and paymēt of tributes were the subiects of the Roman Empire only But S. Irenaeus tels you that omnes vndique fideles that is All the faythfull and all the Churches not only of the Roman Empire but of all the world are necessarily to repaire to the Church of Rome shewing therby that her authority and command is of larger extent then that of the Roman Empire for as Prosper truly sayd (g) De ingrat c 2. de vocat gent. l. 2. c. 6. Rome the See of Peter is greater by the fortresse of Religion then by the throne of temporall power and being made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world possesseth by religion what she doth not by force of armes 3. You answeare (h) Pag. 253.254 Be it Ecclesiasticall power yet was not the necessity of recourse vnto it absolute and perpetuall but occasionall for that tyme. This is as vntrue as the rest for the necessity of resorting to the Roman Church sayth S. Irenaeus (i) L. 3. c. 3. is by reason of her more mighty principality or which is all one by reason of the great dignity of the See Apostolike which sayth S. Augustine (k) Ep. 162. hath alwaies florished in her and which maketh her the Mother Church of the world And therfore so long as she shall be S. Peters See which shall be till the end of the world so long the necessity of all other Churches resorting to her and agreeing in fayth and communion with her shall still continue SECT VII Tertullian his Iudgment of the Roman Church TErtullian agreeth with S. Irenaeus in pressing against all heretikes the same argument of the neuer interrupted succession of Bishops in the Roman See (l) L. 3. Carm. cont Marcio c. vltimo recknoning all the Popes by name vntill his tyme against Marcion and all heretikes to proue thē to be such It is manifest saith he (m) Praescrip c. 21. that all Doctrine which agreeth with those Mother and originall Churches founded by the Apostles is true and to be held as certayne being that the Churches receaued it from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God and that whatsoeuer is contrary to this is to be accounted false and erroneous And speaking of heretikes (n) Ibid. c. 32. If there be any of them that darevent their Doctrine for Apostolicall let them shew the originall of their Churches let them vnfold the order of their Bishops in such sorte that by a Succession deriued from the beginning they proue their first Bishop to haue bene some one of the Apostoles or of the Apostolicall men that perseuered with the Apostles vnto the end This Tertullian sayth the Smyrnaeans in his dayes could do shewing that Polycarpe their Bishop was placed there by S. Iohn and that the Roman Church could do the like shewing Clement ordeyned by S. Peter And the same she can do at this day shewing that all her Bishops vnto Vrbā the eight which now possesseth that Chayre had S. Peter the Apostle for their predecessor and first Bishop in that See and that from him they can lineally deriue their pedigree wheras no heretikes could euer shew any such descent as Protestants at this day cannot And therefore Tertullian bringeth in the Catholike Church vpbrayding them and all heretikes in this manner (o) Ibid. c. 37. Who in Gods name are you When and from whence came you hither What do you among myne being none of myne By what right O Marcion dost thou cut downe my woods What leaue hast thou O Valantine to turne my streames and fountaynes another way By what authority doest thou remooue my bounds O Apelles O Luther O Caluin O Zuinglius The possession is mine I haue it of old I enioyed it before you I can deriue my pedigree from the very first Authors to whom the thing did properly belong I am the right beyre to the Apostles According to their will and testament according to their trust and charge giuen my Tenure standeth As for you they alwayes disinherited you and reiected you as aliens yea and as enemies In this very manner may Catholikes with great reason vpbrayd you who as you cannot shew any Succession of your Bishops continued from the Apostles so you are therby conuinced not to be their heires but strangers and enemies to them and to the Churches founded by them Againe Tertullian prescribing a rule for you to finde out the true fayth doctrine deliuered by the Apostles saith (p) Ibid. c. 36. Goe to If thou wilt be curiously exact in the affaire of thy saluation repaire to the Apostolicall Churches c. If thou be a neighbour to Italy thou hast Rome from whence we also haue authority O happy Church into which the Apostles powred all their Doctrine togeather with their bloud where Peter is equalled to our Sauiours passion where Paul is crowned with Iohn Baptists lot where Iohn the Apostle being plunged into boyling oyle and yet not hurt therwith was banished into an iland Let vs obserue what this Church hath learned what she hath taught Tertullian was an African a Priest of the Church of Carthage and yet speaking of the Roman Church sayth From whence we that is as Macerus expoundeth all the African Churches or all Catholikes haue authority at hand for our defence Wherfore out of this place of Tertullian Quintinus rightly inferreth that the Roman Church euen from her first foundation had great authority aboue all Churches of the world and
that 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
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
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
wordes sayth Sanders it is apparent that S. Augustine would haue had the matter of Appeales referred to the Pope and ordered as he should thinke best So that whereas you cite Sanders saying All the African Bishops were seuered from the Church of Rome his true wordes import the direct contradictory Non omnes Episcopi Africani All the Bishops of Afrike did not oppose the Roman Bishop You also alleage him de visibili Monarch pag. 368. n. 411. where he hath nothing to your purpose but only alleageth the wordes of Eulalias of Carthage his recantation We anathematize all those that proudly lift vp their neckes against the Holy Roman and Apostolical Church From these wordes can you gather your dismal assertion that All the African Bishops from the dayes of Cyprian vntill Boniface the second that is for three hundred yeares were excommunicated by the Pope and seuered from the Communion of the Roman Church The Iesuite Salmeron sayth no more then (g) Salmeron tom 12. tract 68. §. Ad Canonem that in the dayes of S. Cyprian the African Bishops began to be seuered from the Roman Church and that in the dayes of Pope Innocent and Aurelius Bishop of Carthage they were bitter and displeased against the Church of Rome But he doth not say that all the African Bishops were so nor that they withdrew their Communion and obedience from the Roman Church Yea in the dayes of S. Cyprian though he and fourescore African Bishops were displeased with Pope Stephen because he did strongely and constantly oppose their impious doctrine of Anabaptisme yet they neuer proceeded to make a Schisme and separation from the Roman Church Contrariwise the very same fourescore Bishops who had made a decree for Anabaptisme met together againe as S. Hierome doth testify (h) Hieron Dialog cont Lucifer Illi ipsi Episcopi qui Rebaptizandos haereticos cum Cypriano statuerunt ad antiquam consuetudinem reuâ—luti nouum emisâ—re decretum and repealed their decree which might haue caused their separation from the RomaÌ„ Church So false is it that all the Bishops of Africa from the dayes of S. Cyprian vntill the time of Boniface the second were seuered from the Church of Rome that euen those very Bishops of those dayes were not seuered By the Epistle of Boniface the second grant it be true no more is proued then that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage superbirâ— cepit was somewhat arrogant and proud against the Pope and that Eulalius of Carthage did against the example of his other Predecessors imitate Aurelius therin as he doth testify saying in the said Epistle of Boniface that he felt himselfe Peccatis Aurelij praegrauatum ouer-burthened with the sinnes of Aurelius But that all the Christians of Africa namely those many Martyrs that suffered persecution vnder the Arian Wandalls were tainted with this bitternes of distast and Schismaticall dis-vnion against the Roman Bishop is a fable by your selfe newly coyned and vented abroad Now to the third point proposed although the Epistle of Boniface do not iustify your slander against all the Bishops Martyrs of Africa that they were excommunicated by the Pope and out of the communion of the Roman Church yet there be many Arguments that may seeme to euince that the same is counterfeit the relation thereof being incoherent First you (i) Pag. 148. The Epistle of Boniface the second wherin about the yeare 606. the same Pope complaineth c. say that the reunion of the Church of Africa to the Church of Rome happened about the yeare 606. and in the time of Boniface the second These thinges hange not togeather and consequently are false for Boniface the second dyed in the yeare 531. that is almost an hundred yeares before the yeare 606. Secondly the said Epistle of Boniface the Second affirmes that Eulalius his reconciliation with the Church of Rome was performed in the daies of Iustine the Emperour (k) Iustini elementissimi Principis Orientis sacrarum literarum exemplaria ad voâ— destinauimus that this Emperour writ letters to the said Boniface about it Now Iustine the Emperour was dead three or foure yeares before Romiface the Second was chosen Pope Thirdly the Epistle of Boniface is written to Eulalius Bishop of Alexandria But the Bishop of Alexandria in the dayes of Boniface the second was not named Eulalius but Timothaeus an Heretike and an Aduersary of the Roman Church You saw this difficulty and to auoyd it feare not to do against the command of the Holy Ghost (m) Vide titulum Psalmi 58. Augu. tract 117. in Ioan. Ne corrumpaes Tituli inscriptionem For the Title of that Epistle in Surius being Epistola eiusdem Bonifacij ad Eulalium Alexandrinum Episcopum (n) Pag. 248. in marg at x you change it and make it to be Epistola Bonifacij ad Alexandrum Episcopum the Epistle of Boniface to Bishop Alexander nor do you tell vs of what Church or See this your Alexander was Bishop Fourthly in the time of Boniface the secoÌ„d Gilimer the Arian Wandal was King of Africa during whose reigne there was no Catholike Bishop in Carthage (o) See Baron Anno 620. seqq nor in any Church of Africa but only Arians Finally your Apostata-Bishop of Spalato Antonius de Dominis in his (p) De Repub. Eccles. lib. 4. c. 8. n. 34. London-writings which he published vnder your nose with your so great approbation and applause doth so lay about him against the Epistle of Boniface that you who are so stiffe a defender therof had best to stand aside for feare of knocks In the Controuersy about Appellations sayth he (q) Communio inter Africam Romam non est abrupta the Communion between Africa and Rome was neuer broken as Baronius and Binius do proue very well The reconciliation or recantation made by the Church of Carthage vnto Boniface the Second which some one hath faigned (r) Mara est impostura is a meere Imposture as the said Authors demonstrate Thus he May you not number this man among the Children of the Tribe of Dan and angry fellowes who doth so peremptorily auerre the Epistle of Boniface to be a meere forgery and a grand Imposture with greater reason then you haue done Bellarmine for only saying I suspect it is counterfeit In fine these Arguments abundantly shew that this Epistle of Boniface may be questioned and reiected and yet all the other Epistles of ancient Popes set downe in the Body of our Councells cells subsist firme against which the like implicancies and incoherencies cannot be vrged As for Bishop Lindan he speaketh against them who discard this Epistle voluntarily and without euident proofes saying that they might aswell infringe the credit of any ancient history which his inference is of no force against them who refuse it as counterfeit not voluntarily but constrained by the pregnant incompossibilities thereof with other knowne vndeniable truthes CHAP. XXVIII Whether the Britans
wholly on falshood imposture as likewise is your affirming that the Africans from the time of Celestine Pope to Boniface the second were separated from the communion of the Roman Church for setting aside all other Arguments since you cannot deny that she in her Kalendar of Saints placeth many most glorious African Martyrs and Confessors of that time what man euen of common sense can persuade himselfe that she would honor them as Saints if they had died out of her Communion and obedience CHAP. XXIX Of the great Reuerence of ancient Christian Emperors and Kings to the Pope BELLARMINE (f) De officio Principis Christia l. 1. c. 4. 5. proueth that Emperors and Kings owe subiection to Bishops in sprirituall affaires as to their Pastors and especially to the Pope as to the supreme Couernor of the vniuersall Church and Father of all Christians And lest he might seeme by this Doctrine to derogate from the Maiesty of Emperors or Kings or any way to lessen the reuerence due to their persons and dignity he proueth by the vndoubted testimonies of Scripture of S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Gregory and other learned Fathers as also by the acknowledgment of the most godly Christian Emperors and Kings themselues that the Episcopall and Sacerdotall dignity excelleth the Imperial as farre as gold surpasseth lead and the Soule the body that not only Constantine the great but God himselfe honoreth Bishops and Priests with the name of Angells and Gods that the Bishop is the Father the Doctor Pastor aswell of the Prince as of the people and that Christian Princes when they speake of the B. of Rome or write to him expresse their acknowledgment of his supreme dignity by giuing him the title of Holy Father and Most Blessed Father From whence it must follow that as Disciples owe obedience to their Doctor Children to their Father sheepe to their Pastor so Christian Princes in the affaires of their soules owe obedience to their Prelates and Pastors and especially to the Pope who is the Father the Archpastor chiefe Doctor of all Christians Vpon this ground S. Gregory Nazianzen for his profound learning surnamed The Deuine feared not to say to the Emperor (g) Orat. ad ciues suos timo percul Princip irascent Will you heare me with patience to speake my mind freely vnto you which truly you ought to do for so much as the law of Christ hath made you subiect to my power and to my tribunall for we Bishops haue an Empire also and that more perfect then yours vnlesse you will plead that the spirit is inferior to the flesh and heauenly things to earthly But I doubt not but that you will take in good part this my freedome of speach you being a sacred sheepe of my holy flock and a Disciple of the Grand Pastor rightly instructed by the holy Ghost euen from your yong yeares And vpon the same ground it was that holy S. Bernard gaue this admonition to Conradus the Emperor (h) Ep. 183. I haue read Let euery soule he subiect to higher powers and he that resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God Which sentence I greatly desire and by all meanes admonish you to obserue in yelding reuerence to the soueraigne and Apostolike See and to the Vicar of blessed Peter as you will haue it exhibited to you by the whole Empire These learned Fathers did vnderstand right well the honor due to Emperors and Kinges that by reason of their dignity they are to be held in great Veneration and yet neuerthelesse conceaued it no vilifiyng of their Maiesty nor abasing of their Persons to require from them obedience in spirituall affaires to their Bishops and Pastors especially to the Successor of S. Peter the supreme Bishop of Bishops and Pastor of all Pastors This is Bellarmines Doctrine and the summe of his discourse which puts you so farre out of patience that not being able to confute what he hath so solidly proued you begin to raile at the Pope (i) Pag. 160.164 for permitting his feete to be kissed as tasting rankly of Luciferian pride Which though it be no Argument either against the fayth or supremacy of the Pope and Church of Rome but a friuolous cauill no way pertinent to the question in hand hath bene already satisfied to the full (k) Chap. 10. 2. You goe on in the same streame telling vs (l) Pag. 160. that we make a barbarous boast our Popes in not admitting of two Emperors Henry the fourth and Frederick Barbarossa to their presence without aâ—â—â—â—â—â—me kind of subuission the one by appoathing vpon his bare seet the other by subiecting his neck vnto the Popes feet while as the Popes one may brag of more fauor then the first and his asse thou the second So you but your scoffes rebound vpon your owne head and turne to your shame for Henry the fourth a most flagitious Emperor was excommunicated by Gregory the seauenth moued and solicited therto by the many complaints and extreme importunity of all the Princes Ecclesiasticall and secular of Germany Henry seeing himselfe for saken by them all and fearing least they would depriue him of his Empire vnlesse he reconciled himselfe to the Church and procured absolution from the excommunication he had incurred came of his owne accord to the Pope and presented himselfe vnto him in a penitentiall habit and bare-foot crauing absolution which after three dayes instance the Pope granted him hauing inuited him to dinner courteously dismissed him This in briefe is the story related more at large by Baronius (m) Anno 1077. who hauing proued that this pennance was no way extorted by the Pope but freely done by the Emperor conuinceth Ben no that affirmed the contrary of a most impudent lye told reclamantibus omnibus Authoribus against the agreeing consent of all Authors Wherfore you in alleaging Baronius for your author that we make a barbarous boast of the Popes not admitting this Emperor without approaching on his bare feet impose falsly on Baronius as Benno did on the Pope And as litle truth do I find in that your other tale of Fredericus Barbarossa for we are so farre from making any boast therof that we know it to be a mere fable in proofe wherof you bring nothing but the bare testimony of Massonius who whether he report it or no I know not nor is it worth the examining for you know him to be a moderne fabulous and forbidden Author (n) In indice lib. prohib and that this fable of his is disproued by Baronius (o) Anno 1177. n. 86.87 and Bellarmine (p) in Apol. c. 16. out of the testimonies of Roger Houeden an historian of that time Romualdus Archbishop of Salernum who being present and an eye witnesse of all that passed writeth that Frederick falling downe prostrate at the Popes feet the Pope with teares did most courteously lift him vp in his armes But
to goe and Siricius successor to Damasus gaue to Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria power to iudge his cause And notwithstanding all the Emperors fauor he was not confirmed in the Patriarkship vntill at the intreaty of Theophilus Chrysostome the Pope had pardoned his offence and he himselfe had sent Legates to obtaine his confirmation If this be not sufficient to proue the Popes authority ouer the Bishops of Antioch what is And when you aske (g) Pag. 297. Whether the Christian Churches could be good Catholikes and in state of samation that communicated with Flauianus at the time of his opposition to the Pope it is a question sprung from ignorance for the cause of Flauianus being in agitation it was so far from being vnlawfull to communicate with him or with them that adhered either to him or Paulinus and Euagrius that for auoyding of further schisme the Councel of Capua ordained that Communion should be denied to neither party SECT XI Doctor Morton in defence of his Doctrine chargeth ancient Bishops with exercising Acts of authority out of the limits of their owne iurisdiction VVE haue proued the Popes to be supreme Gouernors of the vniuersall Church because they haue exercised acts of iurisdiction ouer the greatest Bishops of the East and West You make your apposition as you say (h) Pag. 297. by parallels and examples of other Bishops in antiquity executing Acts of confirming and deposing Bishops without the limits of their owne iurisdiction which is tacitly to contradict your selfe confessing that the Popes haue confirmed and deposed Bishops out of their owne Patriarkship to which you confine their authority but that they had no iurisdiction our those Bishops The falsity of this answeare who seeth not for confirming and deposing of Bishops is an act of iurisdiction which no Bishop hath power to exercise out of the limits of his iurisdiction And therfore to say that either the Popes or other Bishops haue executed acts of confirming or deposing Bishops without the limits of their owne iurisdiction is to accuse them of pride and iniustice in arrogating to themselues liberty to transgresse the limits of their iurisdiction executing acts of authority where they had no right But as to deny the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Popes you wrong them so to make good your deniall of their authority you wrong the other Bishops in whom you instance The first is S. Athanasius B. of Alexandria who say you (i) Pag. 300. appointed a Bishop ouer the Indians This Bishop though you name him not was Frumentius who hauing liued among the Indians and returning from thence informed S. Athanasius of the great hope he conceaued of their Conuersion to Christ if preachers were sent vnto them The fayth which Frumentius preached was the Roman fayth and he serued God after the manner of the Roman Church and induced all Christians that traded with the Indians to do the like (k) Ruffin l. 2. c. 9. Sozom. l. 2. c. 2.3 S. Athanasius with the aduice of his Clergy created him Bishop at Alexandria and sent him with other Priests to preach the Ghospell to the Indians and reduce them to the Communion of the Roman Church Where do you find in all this that S. Athanasius instituted or confirmed any Bishop without the limits of his owne iurisdiction Did he not consecrate Frumentius Bishop in his owne Church at Alexādria Did he send him to preach or exercise iurisdiction within the Dioces of any other Bishop No. He sent him to a barbarous people to reduce them to the fayth of Christ and obedience of the Roman Church which was then and is still lawfull for any Bishop in like case to do that being no where forbidden nor contrary to any Law diuine or humane nor any way derogating from the authority of the B. of Rome but most gratefull to him whose greatest desire is to reduce the whole world to the fayth of Christ and whose approbation for such enterprises is alwayes iustly presumed especially since therby the glory of the Roman Church is increased and her iurisdiction enlarged as by the conuersion of both Indies in these later tymes we see Your second example (l) Pag. 300. is of Theophilus B of Alexandria laboring to ordaine Chrysostome to be the B. of Constantinople For this you alleage Sozomen who sayth (m) L. 8. c. 2. that Chrysostome being famous for his Vertue learning throughout all the Roman Empire by voyce of the Clergy and people of Constantinople and of the Emperor himselfe was chosen Archbishop of that Imperiall City but that Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria resisted his ordination laboring to promote to that dignity Isidore a Chaplaine of his owne This is the relation of Sozomen why do you report it vntruly Your third example (n) Ibid. is of S. Gregory Nazianzen vnto whom say you Meletius B. of Antioch and Petrus of Alexandria confirmed the See and Patriarkship of Constantinople For this you bring Theodoret (o) L. ◠hist. c. 8. and Gregorius Presbyter Theodoret sayth no such thing but only that albeit the Canons to preuent ambition forbid the remouing of Bishops from one See to another yet the opinion of Meletius was that in those circumstances Gregory might hold the Bishoprick of Constantinople by reason of the great domage that Church sustained for want of a Bishop in so dangerous a time But that Meletius designed or ordained him Bishop Theodoret sayth it not nor is it true for he was created Bishop by the Councell of Constantinople which Theodoret in that Chapter mentioneth And the same is verified by other historians Gregory sayth Socrates (p) L. 5. c. 5. by the common consent of many Bishops was transferred from the Bishoprike of the City of Nazianzum to the Bishoprike of Constantinople And Sozomen (q) L. 6. c. 17. Gregory by the voices of many Bishops was designed B. of Constantinople for no Catholike Bishop nor Church of Orthodoxe people being in that City the doctrine of the Councell of Nice was in danger to be wholly exploded How then could you say that Meletius and Petrus of Alexandria confirmed vnto Gregory Nazianzen the See of Constantinople Especially since Theodoret in that very Chapter expresseth the names of diuers of those Bishops which in the generall Councell of Constantinople conferred that dignity on him and repressed the insolency of Maximus whom Timothy B. of Alexandria would haue intruded into that See Your fourth example (r) Pag. 300. is Moyses who being a man famous for miracles was ordained Bishop by certaine exiles It is true for the Romans vpon agreement of peace with Mauia Queene of the Saracens who desired to haue Moyses created Bishop of her Nation brought him to Alexandria to be consecrated by Lucius then Patriarke of that city who being an Arian heretike Moyses refused to be consecrated by him and therfore the Arians were enforced to permit him to be consecrated by the Catholike Bishops of the Roman
thing vncertaine Many thinke it to be of Damasus and his you will haue it to be But the contrary is manifest for the epistle speaketh of Bonosus an Arch-heretike who had bene condemned by Iudges appointed in thē Councell of Capua which was not held in time of Damasus but of Siricius successor to Damasus It is therefore euident that the request of Bouosus which you obiect out of this epistle to haue his cause heard againe could not be to Damasus his first condemnation being not vntill after Damasus his death When you can shew this epistle to be of Damasus you shall receaue an answeare which it were easy to giue you now if I listed to spend time in refuting your tedious discourse of racking the verbe Competit to a strict sense and which not one but many wayes is deficient as all your arguments for the most part are Your addition (e) Pag. 318. marg l. that if the epistle be not of Damasus it is certainly of some Pope and that all hold it so is affirmed by you gratis and as easely denied by me CHAP. XL. Whether the Easterne Churches be at this day accordant in Communion with Protestants SECT I. The state of the Question THE nine first Sections of your fourtenth Chapter you spend in prouing that the Grecians Aegyptians Aethiopians Assyrians Armenians Russians Melchites and other remote nations at this day dissent from the Roman Church and are accordant in Communion with Protestants The foundation of your whole discourse you lay in these words (f) Pag. 330. Whatsoeuer Christians haue not ruinated any fundamental article of sauing fayth set downe in our ancient Creeds and are vnited vnto the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus our Lord by a liuing fayth all Protestants esteeme them as true members of the Catholike Church and notwithstanding diuers their more tolerable errors and superstitions to be in state of saluation albeit no way subiect or subordinate to the Roman Church These are your words which containe in themselues open implication namely that one may be vnited to the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus by a liuing fayth and be in state of saluation and yet be out of the Catholike Church which to be none els but the Roman and that out of her there is no saluation hath bene already proued (g) Chap. 1. sect 2.3.4 From this false principle you deduce that the Grecians Asians Aegyptians Assyrians Aethiopians Africans Melchites Russians and Armenians notwithstanding their separation from the Roman Church are at this day truly professed Christian Churches (h) Pag. 379. partes of the Catholike Church (i) Pag. 406. fin 407. init faythfull Christians professing the fayth of the ancient Fathers (k) Pag. 417. in state of saluation and raile bitterly at the Church of Rome for denying the same But how great ignorance and impiety you shew and how many most shamefull vntruthes you vtter in the prosecution of this Argument it is easy to declare Some of them I shall present to the Readers view And to proceed methodically I will reduce what I am to say to two heades 1. I will proue that as the Christians of these remote nations anciently were so many of them at this day are accordant in beliefe and communion with the Roman Church yeild obedience to the Pope as to the Vicar of Christ on earth and as to the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church 2. That the inhabitants of these nations which are not Roman Catholikes are not of one beliefe or Communion with Protestants but wholly dissent from them holding most blasphemous and damnable heresies acknowledged for such by Protestants themselues From whence it will follow that you affirming them to be faythfull Christians of the same beliefe with the ancient Fathers charge the ancient Fathers with blasphemous heresies and make them incapable of saluation SECT II. Whether the Grecians of the primitiue and successiue times agreed in fayth and Communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome and particularly at the Councell of Florence THat the Greekes in the first Councell of Constantinople and afterwards in that of Calcedon endeauored to giue to their Patriarke of Constantinople the second place of dignity in the Church next after the Pope and before the other Patriarkes we acknowledge But that they sought therby to exempt themselues from their obedience and subiection to the Pope hath bene effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 5. Chap. 19. sect 4. I speake not this to deny that anciently there were of the Grecians many Heretikes which opposed the Roman Church and by her authority were condemned and that eight Patriarkes of Constantinople in particular as also Eutyches an Arch-heretike of the same City were anathematized and east out of the Church for heresy And wheras the Westerne Church by the example and diligence of the Bishops of Rome was preserued from heresy the Churches of the East new heresies daily springing vp were so pitifully torne and ten in peeces that S. Hierome complaining therof to Pope Damasus said (m) Ep. 57. Because the East striking against it selfe by the ancient fury of the people teares in litle morsells the vndeuided coate of our Lord wouen on high and that the foxes destroy the vine of Christ in such sorte that it is difficult among the drie pits that haue no water to discerne where the sealed fountaine and the inclosed garden is I haue therfore thought that I ought to consult with the Chaire of Peter and the fayth praised by the mouth of the Apostle This was the miserable state of the Easterne Churches in those dayes being gouerned somtimes by Catholike Bishops that acknowledged subiection to the Church of Rome and somtimes by Heretikes that opposed her authority vntill at length Photius hauing iniustly driuen Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople from his See and intruded himselfe into his place and being for that cause often excommunicated by Nicolas the first and Iohn the eight Popes of Rome to mantaine his iniust title withdrew himselfe from their obedience and to the end he might haue some colour to perseuer in that separation cauilled at the doctrine of the Roman Church which teacheth that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Sonne and writ against it And the Greekes following him in this error separated themselues from the Communion of the Roman man Church Yet not so but that they haue often eleauen times sayth S. Antoninus (n) Hist. par 2. tit 22. c. 23. acknowledged their error and reconciled themselues to her and especially thrice in most solemne manner in three seuerall Councells of Barium in Apulia of Lions in France and of Florence in Tuscany but still returning to their error against the holy Ghost and disobedience to the Church of Rome as dogs to their vomit Almighty God punished them with a heauy hand deliuering them vp to a miserable captiuity seruitude vnder the Turke And that they might know the
confirmed by the B. of Rome (b) Ibid. l. 3. c. 5.8 30. that all former Councells haue required their doctrines to be confirmed and authorized by him Why do you then produce him as a witnesse for the contrary Gerson and Canus are both falsified by you for Gerson in the place you cite hath no such doctrine but the contrary which els where he expresseth (c) To. 1. in Consider de paâ—â— Consid 1. saying Constat quod in materijs fidei terminandis error non cadit in Concilio generali c. It is manifest that in deciding controuersies of fayth a generall Councell cannot erre And the Doctors yeild the reason because of the speciall assistence of the holy Ghost and of Christ gouerning the Church and not permitting it to erre in those things which it cannot attaine by humane industry Canus sayth that generall Councells lawfully gathered may erre in fayth as the second of Ephesus did This is his second conclusion which you lay hold of concealing that in his third conclusion which he presently addeth he sayth That a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope cannot erre and condemneth your doctrine as absolutely hereticall Is it not then extreme perfidiousnesse to Father on him the contrary and to make Catholike Doctors Patrons of your Errors But to declare what is necessary that a generall Councell may not erre you adde (d) Pag. â—66 fin 367. The difference betweene the Roman Church and the Church of the Protestants is no more but this that the Romanists say that all generall Councells may erre except they be confirmed and authorized by the Pope but Protestants say that all generall Councells may erre except they be directed by the spirit of Gods word This indeed you say and yet leaue the question vnansweared for we likewise say that euery Councell which is not directed by the spirit of Gods word may erre The question is how it may be knowne when a Councell defineth according to Gods word and when not for Gods word may be misinterpreted Wherof Tertullian speaking truly said (e) L. de praescrip An adulterate glosse doth as much outrage to the truth as a false pen. And S. Hilary (f) L. 2 de Triâ— init There haue bene many who haue interpreted the heauenly words otherwayâ—â— then the truth did require according to the sense of their own will not for the establishing of truth for heresy is not in the writing but in the vnderstanding the fault is not in the word but in the sense And doth not S. Hierome likewise say (g) In Ep. ad Gal. c. 1. The Ghospell is not in the words but in the sense And doth not S. Augustine cry out (i) In Ioan. tract 13. Heresies and peruerse doctrine which entangle soules cast them headlong into hell haue their birth nowhere but from good Scriptures ill vndeestood And againe (k) De Gen. ad lit l. 7. c. 9. Heretikes were not heretikes but that misunderstanding the Scripture they defend obstinatly their owne false opinions against the truth therof And in another place (l) Ep. 2â—â— All heretikes which receaue the Scriptures thinke they follow them when they follow their owne Errors Of the same subiect Lyrinensis discourseth largely and learnedly (m) Chap. 1â— 30.37 shewing that the Diuel alleaged Scriptures against Christ that all Heretikes alleage them against the Church in defence of their errors which made S. Hierome say (n) In Ep. ad Gal. c. 1. that there is great daÌ„ger in speaking in the Church for feare lest by a wrong interpretation the Ghospell of Christ be made the Ghospell of man or which is worse the Ghospell of the Diuell And speaking of the Luciferians (o) Aduers Lucifer versus fin who boasted of the Scriptures as Protestants doe Let them not statter themselues to much because they seeme to haue Scripture for what they affirme for euen the Diuell hath alleaged Scriptures which consist not in reading but in vnderstanding Wherfore it is not sufficient to alleage Scriptures We alleage them and you alleage them but we disagree concerning the true sense and meaning of them from whom shall we learne it If Luther may as your fore-man speake for you all you and none but you and that by your priuate spirit must deliuer the true sense of them We sayth Luther (p) L. de serâ—â— arbit receaue nothing but the Scriptures and them so also that we our selues only haue certaine authority to expound them As we vnderstand them so was the meaning of the Holy Ghost what others bring be they neuer so great neuer so many preceedeth from the spirit of Sathan and from a mad and alimated mind So Luther And as he challenged to himselfe this priuiledge of deliuering the true sense of Scripture so his disciples haue challenged the same to themselues This spirit it is which hath hatched so many viperous sects no lesse disagreeing among themselues then all of them straying from the truth And yet you all boast of Scripture and all proclaime that you follow the word of God And no maruaile for the Diuell sayth Lyrinensis (q) Cap. 37 3â— knoweth right well that when wicked errors are to be broached the readiest way to deceaue is to alleage stifly the authority of diuine Scripture What then shall Catholike men Children of our Mother the Church do Let them interpret the diuine Canon according to the tradition of the vniuersall Church The truth of Scripture sayth S. Augustine (r) Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 33. is held by vs when we do that which pleaseth the vniuersall Church whom the authority of the same Scriptures recommendeth And againe (s) Ibid. c. 31. Whosoeuer feareth to be deceaued through the obscurity of this question let him consult with that Church which the holy Scripture hath designed without any ambiguity This Church it is of which God pronounced by the mouth of Isay (t) Isa 54.17 Thou shalt iudge euery tongue that resisteth thee in iudgment Of this Christ hath promised (u) Math. 16.18 that the gates of hell which are Errors shall not preuâ—ile against her Of this he hath said (x) Math. 18.17 that whosoeuer heares her not is to be held as a Heathen a Publican In this he hath placed (y) Ad Ephes 4.11 17. Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastors and Doctors c. that we may not be litle Children wauering and carried away with euery blast of doctrine This Church these Pastors these Doctors all Christians must heare and imbrace their exposition of Scripture as the true meaning of the holy Ghost Christ himselfe hauing said (z) Luc. 10.6 that who heareth them heareth him and S. Iohn (a) â— Ioan. 4.6 by this marke distinguisheth Orthodoxe people from Heretikes that the Orthodoxe heare and obey the Pastors and Doctors of Gods Church which heretikes refuse to do We are sayth he of God he that knoweth God heareth vs He
of the East and many of the West it is a manifest signe so much the more euident the greater the persecutions and the more and longer the schismes haue bene that she is the impregnable Rock which the proud gates of hell cannot ouerthrow SECT VIII Other Arguments out of S. Paul and other Catholike Authors answered S. Paul writing to the Romans sayth (x) Rom. 1.13 I haue often purposed to come vnto you that I may haue some fruite in you as also in the other Gentils Tolet (y) in eum loc Annot. 22. vpon these words obserueth that the Ghospell is indifferent to all and that howbeit the Romans were more eminent then other nations and had the primacy yet in preaching of the Ghospell and busines belonging to saluation the Apostle equalleth others with them These words of Tolet you obiect (z) Pag 70. but to what end I know not for Tolet declareth the reasoÌ„ why S. Paul equalleth other nations with the Romans in preaching to them the doctrine of Christ and procuring their saluation to be because as Christ found all sinners and dyed for all so he calleth all and receaueth them from whence soeuer they come If you had set downe these words of Tolet you had discouered that to inferre either from his or S. Pauls words the equality of other Churches with the Roman in matter of iurisdiction is a senselesse illation for by the same consequence you may inferre that all Diocesans in spiritual iurisdiction are equall with their Bishops and all subiects in temporall power with their Princes because Christ hauing shed his bloud equally for all the soules of all are equally deare to him and their saluation ought with all indifferency to be procured by preaching the Ghospell to all aswell to the least as to the greatest to the poorest as to the richest 2. No lesse impertinently you obiect other words of the same Apostle (a) Rom. 11.19 in which as you confesse he exhorteth not the Romans in particular but all the conuerted Gentils in generall not to be ouer-wise but to feare lest they also be broken off by infidelity as the Iewes were For these words shew that no man hath certainty of fayth that he shall be saued as Protestants vaynly presume themselues to haue but that all ought to liue in feare lest they fall into infidelity or other sinnes which feare the Bishop of Rome and the Romans ought to haue as well as other nations But to inferre from thence that the Bishop of Rome may teach hereticall Doctrine ex Cathedra or that the whole Roman Church may fall from the fayth which is the poynt in controuersy nether is it S. Pauls meaning nor any Interpreter euer expounded so 3. As little to your purpose it is that S. Paul sayth (b) Rom. 1.11 to the Romans I desire to see you that I may impart vnto you some spirituall grace to confirme you for therby as S. Hierome or whosoeuer is the author of those Commentaries Theodoret S. Chrysostome and S. Thomas expound (c) In eum locum he sheweth that they had receaued the fayth already from S. Peter Because sayth Theodoret the great Peter had already declared to them the Euangelicall Doctrine therfore S. Paul necessarily addes To confirme you And S. Hierome Paul sayth he will confirme the Romans already belleeuing not that they had not receaued the fayth by the preaching of Peter but that their fayth might be strengthned by the witnesse and doctrine of two Apostles Wherfore S. Paul desired to see them to confirme them that is as he himselfe declareth to the end both he they might receaue mutuall comfort from each other they by his fayth and he by theyrs What makes this against the primacy of S. Peter or of the Roman Church 4. You obiect (d) Pag. 72 Bellarmine confessing that S. Peter Paul were Co-sounders of the Roman Church He doth so it is true but yet so that S. Peter first planted that Church S. Paul came not to Rome till many yeares after to assist him for which cause the conuersion of the Romans and the planting of Christian religion there is absolutely attributed to S. Peter Our will is say the godly Emperors Theodosius and Gratian (e) Cod. tit 1. l. 1. that all the people ruled by the Empire of our clemency shall liue in the same religion which the diuine Apostle Peter gaue to the Romans as the religion insinuated by him vntill this present witnesseth and which it is manifest that the high Priest Damasus followeth Wherfore when Bellarmine sayth that S. Peter and Paul were Co-founders of the Roman Church he sayth it not to equall them in the foundation and much lesse in authority for in that very place (f) L. 1. de Pout c. 27. he learnedly proueth that in authority S. Peter farre exceeded S. Paul 5. You obiect (g) Pag. 72. out of Lorinus that S. Epiphanius calleth both Peter and Paul Bishops of Rome True but S. Pauls Episcopall authority was only transient he had no Episcopall Chayre at Rome as S. Peter had and therfore Lorinus sayth that S. Epiphanius called S. Paul Bishop of Rome in no other sense then because he exercised the Episcopall functions there as he might doe in any other place of the world This explication contents you not and therfore you say (h) Pag. 72. marg it is confuted in the next testimony and in the Challenge following but you breake promise for there you nether confute it nor mentioÌ„ it And as for the thing it selfe it is manifest for no man euer sayd that S. Paul had an Episcopall Chayre at Rome as S. Peter had no do S. Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius Optatus S. Augustine S. Epiphanius whome you obiect making catalogues of all the Roman Bishops from S. Peter till their tyme nor any other writers reckon S. Paul as one of them 6. You obiect (i) Pag. 72. that the authority of both is cited in the Popes Breues for confirmation of Papall ordinances that both haue their images ingrauen in the Popes bulls and that in such sort that Paul somtime hath the right hand of Peter as well as other while Peter of Paul You often borrow arguments out of Catholike authors and conceale their answeres This you borrowed out of Bellarmine (k) L. 1. de Poâ—t c. 27. who largely and learnedly answereth giuing three different solutions vnto it To him I remit the Reader Only I will tell you that the wordes which you set down in a different character as of Peterius are not his but your owne for thogh he proue out of Scripture out of a place of Virgil that apud homines among men the right hand is the better and more honorable yet he sayth not that it is so among all people sauing the Persians as you by adding to his words this particle All make him to say for he acknowledgeth and Bellarmine out of
certainly allowed and decreed by it 5. The same is confirmed out of the Councell of Sardica which being held soone after that of Nice made three decrees concerning Appeales The first (i) Cap. 3. that if in the cause of a Bishop who conceaues himselfe to be wronged a new iudgement be required the Bishop of Rome is to giue the Iudges The second (k) Cap. 4. that if a Bishop deposed by the next Bishops say his cause ought to be iudged againe none is to be installed in his See vntill the Bishop of Rome haue pronounced vpon it The third (l) Cap. 5. that a Bishop accused may haue recourse to Rome by way of appeale These Canons of Sardica sufficiently declare the beleefe of the Nicen councell touching the authority of the Bishop of Rome for as Harmen opulus writeth (m) In Epit. Can. By the aduice of the Emperor and of the Bishop of Rome the Synod if Sardica was assembled consisting of 341. Fathers which confirmed the fayth of the Councell of Nice and published the Canons Wherfore these canons touching appeales extant in the Councell of Sardica are either the very Nicen canons inserted into that of Sardica or declarations of them for the Sardican Councell consisting for the most part of the same Bishops that the Nicen did it is a senselesse thing to say that when those Bishops in their Councell at Sardica so expresly and so effectually declare the Bishop of Rome to be the supreme iudge of all Bishops they professe a new doctrine contrary to that which a litle before they had professed in the Councell of Nice 6. The authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer the whole Church is yet further declared in the Nicen Councell decreeing thus (n) Can. 39. ex 80. Graec. Arab. A Patriarke is so ouer all those that are vnder his power as he that hath the See of Rome is Head and Prince of all Patriarkes for he is the chiefest as Peter was to whom power was giuen ouer all Christian Princes and all their subiectes as being the Vicar of our Lord ouer all people and ouer the vniuer sall Church 7. The same is proued by the order of subscribing in the Councell for Victor and Vincentius being not Bishops but simple Priests because they were Legates to the Pope presided in the Councell togeather with Osius B. of Corduba and subscribed in the first place before all the Bishops and Patriarkes which they could not haue done but only in regard they represented his person who was Superior to all Bishops and Patriarkes 8. Though Constantine the Emperor was a great cause of the Bishops meeting in the Councell of Nice both because he persuaded that meanes of Concord as also because he defrayed their charges and by his letters called them together yet he called them not by his owne authority but as Ruffinus sayth (o) L. 1. c. 1. fin apud Spond Anno 325. n. 5. ex Sacerdotum sententia by the determination or decree of the Priests as in like manner he called an other Councell of 275 Bishops at Rome at the same time in which it is said Siluester gathered the whole Councell with the aduice of the Emperor The same is testified by Damasus in Syluesters life and by the sixt generall Councell saying (p) Act. 18. Constantine and Syluester worthy of prayse called the famous Councell of Nice And how can it be thought that it was called by any other authority then of the Pope seeing S. Athanasius and the Bishops of Aegypt in their Councell at Alexandria witnesse (q) Ep. Synod ad Felic that the Nicen Councell made a decree that no generall Councells should be held without the allowance of the B. of Rome and this decree it is which Iulius Pope the next but one to Syluester alleaged against the Arians (r) Ep. ad Orientales rebuking thē sharply that they had infringed it by calling their Councell at Antioch without his allowance which is also testified by Socrates Sozomen and Theodoret as you haue heard 9. And as this Councell was called by Syluester Pope so that it required confirmation from him we are certified by the Roman Councell vnder Felix the third (s) In ep Synod Felic c. 3. and by the Councell of Nice it selfe saying (t) In summ Conc. Nice Placuit c. It hath seemed good that all these Acts and decrees be sent to Syluester B. of Rome And in their letter to Syluester (u) Apud Baron An. 325. ex collect Crescon Whatsoeuer is determined in the Nicen Councell we beseech you that it may be seconded with the confirmation of your mouth And that Syluester accordingly confirmed their decrees we may learne from a Councell of the Bishops of Italy held at Rome in which he presiding sayd (x) Apud Bar. An. 325. Bin. to 1. pag. 382. Whatsoeuer is determined by the 318. holy Priests at Nice in Bithinia for the strength of the holy Catholike and Apostolike Church we with our mouth accordingly confirme and all those that shall dare to dissolue the definition of the holy and great Councell assembled at Nice in the presence of the most religious and venerable Prince Constantine the Emperor we anathematize them And all answeared So be it SECT I. Doctor Mortons Obiections against the precedent Doctrine answeared THough you either could not or would not find any thing of all that which hath bene alleaged out of the Councell of Nice in proofe of the Popes authority yet you cold find two argumēts to obiect against it The first is (y) Pag. 105. seqq The Councell of Nice decreeth that the ancient custome goe on to wit that the Patriarke of Alexandria haue power ouer Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis because the B. of Rome hath so accustomed To this argument Bellarmine hath answeared (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. that the Canon speakes of the Patriarke of Alexandria with restriction assigning to him the Prouinces of Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis and of the Pope without restriction not prescribing any lymits to his iurisdiction nor ordeyning any thing concerning the authority of the Roman Church but making her a rule and patterne for the gouerment of other Churches commanding that the B. of Alexandria haue power ouer those three prouinces because the B. of Rome hath accustomed so to allow or permit And this canon is so explicated by Nicolas the first (a) Ep. ad Michael Imper that liued almost 800. yeares since and for his learning and sanctity hath deserued the surname of Great And the same explication is confirmed by the practise both of the Roman and of the Alexandrian Church For if according to your construction the Roman Church by this canon be proued to haue no superiority of iurisdiction ouer the Church of Alexandria or other Easterne Churches but only ouer those which are within the Patriarkeship of the west how comes it to passe that S. Athanasius Patriarke
betake your selfe as to your last refuge when you are pressed with vnanswearable arguments is a mere shift inuented to delude ignorant readers with empty words voyd of truth And by this canon it is in like manner euident that the primacy was not then first giuen to the Church of Rome but preserued vnto it according to the canons Your second Argument (z) Pag. 107. to proue that the later Roman Councells are bastardly and illegitimate and that we haue little regard to the Councell of Nice is taken out of Theodoret writing that Constantine the Great required in that Synod that because the bookes of the Apostles do plainly instruct vs in diuine matters therfore we ought to make our determinations vpon questions from words which are diuinely inspired And then you tell vs that Bellarmine answeareth thus Coâ—stantine was a great Emperor indeed but no great Doctor of the Church who was yet vnbaptized and therfore vnderstood not the mysteries of religion Thus say you doth this your Cardinall twite and taunt the iudgment of that godly Emperor and as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth from his reader that which followeth in Theodoret namely that the greater part of that Councell of Nice obeyed the voyce of Constantine So you as you are wonâ— for first you falsify Bellarmine who sayth not that Constantine was yet vnbaptized but that that is the opinion of you Protestants and the old Arians from whence he argueth ad hominem against you that this testimony of Constantine is not of so great weight as Caluin and Kemnitius make it for if he were vnbaptized he could then be no great Doctor of the Church as being a Neophyte and therfore not so well skilled in the mysteries of Christian Religion What twiting or taunting of that godly Emperor your find in this answere of Bellarmine I know not but I know that you in holding Constantine to be then vnbaptized both seeke to disgrace that godly Emperor and withall to vphold the authority and credit of the Arian heretikes who to make him a Patron of their heresy gaue out that he was not baptized vntill a litle before his death and that then he receaued his baptisme from Eusebius B. of Nicomedia the chiefe ringleader of the Arian faction But that your dealing may the better appeare it is to be noted that Bellarmine is so farre from twiting or taunting that godly Emperor that he admitteth of his testimony Admitting sayth he (a) L. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. §. Admissâ— the authority of Constantine I say that in all those doctrines which concerne the nature of God there are extant testimomes in Scripture out of which if they be rightly vnderstood we may be fully and plainly instructed but the true sense of the Scriptures dependeth on the vnwritten tradition of the Church Wherfore the same Theodoret that reporteth this speach of Constantine declareth in the next Chapter that in the Councell of Nice Scriptures were produced on both sydes but the Arians were not conuinced with them because they expounded them otherwise then the Catholikes and therfore were condemned by the vnwritten tradition of the Church piously vnderstood to which condemnation no man euer doubted but that Constantine assented So Bellarmine And hereby it appeares that when you say Bellarmine citeth Theodoret yet as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth that which followeth in him namely that the greater part of the Councell obeyed the voyce of Constantine you wrong Bellarmine and a buse Theodoret who in those words relateth not to the determining of controuersies by Scriptures but to Constantines exhortation made to the Bishops of peace and concord among themselues which sayth Theodoret the greatest part of the Councell obeyed imbracing mutuall concord and true doctrine though diuers Arians disagreed some of whose names he there expresseth This you iniustly conceale like the ill Steward in the Ghospell that you may pick a quarrell with Bellarmine In confirmation of this I might adde that as S. Augustine (b) L. 5. de Baptism c. 23. and Vincentius Lyrinensis (c) Cont. haer c. 9. 10. haue testified the heresy of Rebaptization could not be disproued by Scripture but was condemned by Tradition And finally I might aske you why you like the bad Steward conceale what Theodoret writeth in that very place namely that what Constantine said he spake not to the Bishops as their Head but as a sonne that loued peace offered vp his words to the Priests as to his Fathers and that he would not enter into the Councell but after them all nor sit downe but with their leaue and in a low chayre Did he trow you belieue himselfe to be Head of the Church CHAP. XVII The second Generall Councell held at Constantinople belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome SECT I. By what authority this Councell was called BELLARMINE in proofe of the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction alleageth that the Fathers of the first generall Councell of Constantinople which was the second generall of the whole Church in their Epistle to Pope Damasus say They were gathered by his Mandate and confesse that the Church of Rome is the Head and they the members This say you (d) Pag. 109. is all that is obiected but vpon a mistake What then is the mistake Because Bellarmine in the Recognition of his workes afterwards obserued that it was not the Epistle of the second generall Synod but of the Bishops which had bene present at the Synod and met againe the next yeare after at Constantinople But if this Epistle were not of the Synod why do you speaking of it not without contradiction say (e) Pag. 10â— The generall Councell of Constantinople do endite an Epistle (f) Pag. 110. margin and inscribe it thus And why do you mentioning the inscription of the same Epistle call it Synodicae Epistolae inscriptio The inscription of the Synodicall Epistle And why doth Theodoret (h) L. 5. hist. c. 9. stile it Libellus Synodicus à Concilio Constantinopolitano missus A Synodicall writ sent by the Councell of Constantinople c But howsoeuer you alleaging that Bellarmine acknowledgeth his owne mistake is a mere cauill nothing auailing your cause for be it that those Bishops writ not their Epistle whiles they were assembled in Councell but when they met the next yeare after at Constantinople yet you must acknowledge the truth of what Bellarmine alleageth out of their Epistle vnlesse you will make them all lyers But let vs goe on Bellarmine sayth (i) Recogn pag. 46. in hoc Concil it is sufficiently proued out of the sixth generall Councell that this of Constantinople was called by the commaund of Pope Damasus you answeare (k) Pag. 109. that in proofe therof he referreth himselfe to another Councell against the vniuersall current of histories which with generall consent set downe the Mandates of Emperors as the supreme and first compulsary causes for
man highly esteemed by you hath taught you (t) Not. in ep Cyp. ad Cornel that the word Brother there signifieth not equality but society of religion And nothing els is signified by the words Colleague and Fellow-minister when other Bishops are so instiled by the Pope or the Pope by them For that ancient Father Vincentius Lyrinensis speaking of Pope Stephen and other Bishops opposing the doctrine of rebaptization defended by Firmilianus and Cyprian sayth (u) Cont. haer cap. 9. Then the blessed Stephen made resistance together with but yet before his Colleagues iudging it as I conceaue a thing worthy of him to excell them in fayth so much as he did in the authority of his place And Innocentius the first in answere to the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis (x) Inter ep Aug. ep 93. I conceaue 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 say to the author of their name and dignity And the Bishops of Aegypt in the Synod of Alexandria call S. Athanasius their Colleague (y) Athan. Apol. de fuga sua who yet was their Head and had iurisdiction ouer them as the Coūcell of Nice declareth (z) Can. 6. And lastly the Bishops of the Councell of Ephesus call Celestine Pope their fellow-minister (a) Par. 2. Act. 1. and yet in the same place stile him their most holy Father and make themselues executors of his decrees Constrained necessarily say they by the force of the Canons and by the letters of our most holy Father and Fellow-minister Celestine we are come not without teares to pronounce this heauy sentence against Nestorius I conclude therfore that these words Brother Colleague and fellow-minister when they are vsed by the Pope to other Bishops or by other Bishops to the Pope signify nothing els but society of religion and vnity of communion from whence to inferre as you do that other Bishops are of equall authority with the Pope is a peece of ignorance no way suiting with a man of your reading and altogeather vnbeseeming him that holds the place of so great a Bishop SECT IV. A friuolous cauill of Doctor Morton against Bellarmine answeared YOu obiect (b) Pag. 109. fin that wheras Theodoret sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is letters the yeares past Bellarmine against all Lexicons readeth The mandate of letters Is not this fine art trow yee c. If any should translate the yeare past into Mandate might it not be suspected that the mans witts were now in the wayne as being ignorant c. So you who by seeking to shew your wit in scoffing at Bellarmine discouer your ignorance and folly Bellarmines intent is to shew that the Councell of Constantinople was called by the Popes authority because the Fathers of the Councell writing to Damasus acknowledge that they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his letters which Bellarmine translateth mandato literarum by command of his letters following the version of Christopherson and with good cause for who is so stupid as not to vnderstand that it is all one to call the Bishops to a Councell by his letters as the Greeke sayth or by the authority and Mandate of his letters as Christopherson translated But to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Mandate neither did Bellarmine so translate nor would any man whose wits are not in the wayne haue imputed so grosse an ignorance to that learned Cardinall especially since in two different places he setteth downe the same passage at large and expresseth both Mandato litterarum (c) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. In Respon ad Apol. pro iuram fidel pag. 375. and Anno superiore saying Mandato litterarum superiore anno à vestra Reuerentia ad sanctissimum Imperatorem Theodosium missarum by the Mandate of letters sent the last yeare by your Reuerence to the most religious Emperor Theodosius Which sheweth that if he had left out of the Latin Anno superiore as you citing his words cunningly do it had not bene to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Mandate but to omit Anno superiore as a particle wholly impertinent either to proue or disproue the Popes power of calling generall Councells which no way dependeth on the yeare but on the authority and dignity of his place SECT V. Of the Decree of this second Councell generall made in fauor of the Archbishop of Constantinople AGainst what hath bene said you oppose a (d) Pag. 112. 113. Canon of the second Councell ordayning that the B. of Constantinople haue the honor of primacy next after the B. of Rome because Constantinople is new Rome This Obiection reboundeth on your owne head For if the Bishop of Constantinople sought then to obtayne the second place after the Pope because Constantinople is new Rome it is therby manifest that before that tyme the B. of old Rome had the primacy aboue all Bishops The primacy I say not of order only for this the Bishops of Constantinople neuer denied to the Pope but of authority and iurisdiction ouer the Patriarkes of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem for that authority it was in which they sought to participate with him though in the second place after vnder him which they cold not haue done vnlesse the primacy of authority ouer those Patriarkes had primitiuely and originally belonged to him So farre therfore is this your Argument from euincing any thing against the Popes authority that it confirmeth the same And so much the more because the Canon obiected whatsoeuer the sense of it be and whatsoeuer the Bishops of Constantinople pretended by it is of no force for the Councell in which it was made consisted only of the Bishops of the East and therfore was not Generall of it selfe but only by the adiunction and confirmation of another Councell of the Westerne Bishops held at Rome vnder Damasus Pope at the same tyme which neither knew of this Canon before it was made nor confirmed it after it was made as S. Gregory hath testified saying (e) L. 6. ep 31. The Roman Church neither hath nor receaueth the Canons or the Actes of the Councell of Constantinople but she hath admitted that Synod in what it defined against Macedonius And the same is testified by S. Leo (f) Ep. 53. who reprehending Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople for seeking to renew this Canon in the Councell of Chalcedon sayth The signature of certaine Bishops made as thou vauntest more then threescore yeares since cannot iustify thy intention to the vpholding whereof being of it selfe from the beginning ruinous and long since quite fallen thou hast sought weake and feeble props for neuer hauing bene transmitted by thy predecessors to the knowledge of the See Apostolike it could be of no force That this Canon was neuer allowed by the See Apostolike you know but shift it off saying (g) Pag 112. Truly it
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
Cyprian in his anger spread against Stephen I will not suffer to passe vnder my pen. But as C ham (t) Gen. 9.22 delighted to lay open the shamefull parts of his Father so you glory in publishing the faultes of the Saintes when you can espy any error or frailty in them though afterwards they repented themselues as Cyprian did for S. Augustine reporteth as most credible (u) L. 2. de Bapt. c. 4. ep 48. ad Vincent that he changed his opinion before his death and as absolutely certaine that by his glorious Martyrdome he washed out with his bloud the blemish which he had contracted by defending that error 3. In making this Argument you shew great folly it being so far from disprouing the Popes authority that it is an vnanswerable proofe therof as that ancient and learned Father Vincentius Lyrinensis in his golden Treatise against the prophane nouelties of heresies conuinceth in these words (x) Cap. 9.10.11 In tymes past Agrippinus of venerable memory Bishop of Carthage the first of all mortall men maintained this assertion against the diuine Scripture against the rule of the vniuersall Church against the minde of all the Priests of his tyme against the custome and tradition of his fore Fathers that Rebaptization was to be admitted and put in practise Which presumption of his procured so great domage to the Church that not only it gaue a paterne of sacriledge to all beretikes but also ministred occasion of error to some Catholikes When therfore all men euery where exclaimed against the Nouelty of that doctrine and all Priests in all places each one according to his zeale did repugne then Pope Stephen of blessed memory Bishop of the Apostolike See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops but yet more then the rest thinking it as I suppose reason so much to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth as he was superior to them in authority of place To conclude in his Epistle which then was sent to Africa he decreed the same in these words Let nothing be innouated but that obserued which came by tradition c. What then was the end of this whole businesse what els but common and vsuall Antiquity was retained nouelty abandoned But perhaps that new inuention wanted patrons and defenders To which I say on the contrary that it had such pregnant wits such eloquent tongues such number of defendants such shew of truth such testimonies of Scripture but glosed after a new and naughty fashion that all that conspiracy schisme should haue seemed to me inuincible had not the very profession of nouelty it selfe so taken in hand vnder that name defended with that title recommended ouerthrowne the very ground of so great a schisme To conclude what force had the Councell or decree of Africa By Gods prouidence none but all things there agreed vpon were abolished annulled abrogated as dreames as fables as superfluous And O strange mutation of things the authors of that opinion are iudged to be Catholikes and the followers accounted heretikes the maisters discharged and the schollers condemned the writers of those bookes shall be children of the kingdome of heauen and the maintainers of them shall burne in bell All this is of Vincentius Lyrinensis who tels you that albeit Cyprian and other his Colleagues authors of that doctrine be Saintes in heauen yet they that maintaine it now after it hath bene condemned by the vniuersall Church as you do iustifying Cyprian in his defence therof against Stephen Pope shall burne for euer in hell which I wish you to looke to in tyme to obserue how properly you are discribed by Vincentius a litle after comparing such as you are to Cham and expressing liuely your imposterous dealing in theirs 4. As in this obiection you shew folly arguing against your selfe so you cannot be excused from fraud for wheras we answeare that Firmilianus and Cyprian with the other Bishops that assented to them when they saw their doctrine reproued and condemned by the Church acknowledged their error retracted the same by a new decree contrary to that which before they had made in their Councell of Carthage you shift it of saying (y) Pag. 138. I passe it ouer as a vaine presumption and so it is proued to be By whom forsooth by your Reuitius a man of as much credit as your selfe His answere set downe by you in Latin in your margent as also what he bringeth out of Dionysius Alexandrinus and S. Basil you may see confuted by Baronius (a) Apud Bisciol anno 258. pag. 148. S. Hierome and other ancient Fathers The blessed Cyprian sayth S. Hierome (b) Aduers Lucifer stroue to auoid the miry lakes not to drinke of strange waters and vpon this subiect addressed the Synod of Carthage to Stephen B. of Rome who was the twenty sixth after S. Peter but his strife was in vaine And in the end they which had decreed that such as were baptized by heretikes must be rebaptized returning to the ancient custome set forth a new decree saying What do we So it hath bene deliuered to them by their ancestors and ours And Venerable Bede (c) L. quaest q. 5. Cyprian with his Bishops in Africa made a decree contrary to the custome of the Church that heretikes should be rebaptized but because in his sense which he conceaued to be right he endeauored to enrich himselfe with good workes he deserued to be soone reformed and by the instruction of spirituall men to be reduced to the vniuersall custome of holy Church And S. Augustine testifieth (d) L. 3. cont Crescon c. 3. that The orientall Bishops which had met at Icomium and Synnada reuoked their decree and corrected their iudgment And finally Dionysius Alexandrinus certified Pope Stephen (e) Ep. ad Stephan apud Euseb l. 7. hist c. 4. Nicephor l. 6. c. 7. that the same was done not only by the Orientall but also by other forraine Churches euery where Wherfore your obiecting of Firmilianus and Cyprian as opposing the Pope in this conuouersy and inferring that you may likewise oppose him in your Protestant Tenents is as if you should proue out of S. Peters deniall of Christ that it is lawfull for you to deny him for as S. Peter repented his fall so did those Bishops retract their error And hereby also appeares the fraud of your Reuitius seeking to limit this retraction of Firmilianus and other Bishops to those of the East only for you haue heard S. Hierome Bede S. Augustine Eusebius and Nicephorus testify that S. Cyprian with his African Bishops and all others vbique locorum in all place were reconcileds and this not only among themselues as Reuitius ridiculously glosseth for they dissented not among themselues but also with Stephe Pope returning to the ancient custome practise of the Church as he had commanded Wherevpon Dionysius Patriarke of Alexandria writ to him a congratulatory letter (f) Extat
what if that Pope had carried himselfe proudly towards the Emperor is that any Argument to disproue the Doctrine Primacy of the Roman Church or any excuse to you for your leauing the Catholike fayth and departing from the Church of Christ But such Arguments are fittest for a grand Imposture 3. Because you cannot answeare Bellarmines Arguments nor deny the truth of his Doctrine otherwise then by giuing the lye to the holy Saints and renowned Doctors of Gods Church you passe ouer their testimonies his whole discourse out of them with a fraudulent reticence of the particulars and thinke to be euen with him making vp by scoffing what you cannot by arguing Bellarmine say you (q) Pag. 160. sin 161. in his last worke intitled the Duty of a Christian Prince dedignifieth and abaseth Princes by wresting violently to a generall rule of office and duty all the examples of honor be could rake out of the ashes of Princes Kings and Emperors yeilded either to Popes Bishops or Priests in the superlatiue excesse of their humility zeale and deuotion and with extreme dotage exacteth very soberly a prebition and drinking of Bishops and Priests before them These are your words in which you cunningly reduce all Bellarmines proofes to examples that by scoffing at the example of S. Martin for you mention no other you may seeme to haue answeared all the rest of his proofes in which not only Princes by their examples but the holy Doctors with most cleare and vnanswearable words auerre the truth of his Doctrine Nor is it Bellarmine whom you condemne of extreme dotage but in him that most ancient venerable renowned Bishop of Tours S. Martin a man of Apostolicall sanctity that was sayth S. Bernard (r) Serm. in festo S. Martimi rich in merits rich in miracles rich in vertues that raised three dead men to life that restored light to the blinde hearing to the deafe speach to the dumbe that healed the halting and lame the withered and dry that escaped great perills by his diuine vertue that repelled the flames of fire opposing his owne body against them that clensed a leper with a kisse cured the palsy euercame Diuells saw Angells and prophesied things to come This Apostolicall Prelate being earnestly inuited to dinner by the Emperor Maximus when diuers of his fellow Bishops assembled in a Prouinciall Synod were present at Court and seeing them vse base and obiect flattery to the Emperor and other temporall Princes making themselues and their Episcopall Dignity contemptible to the Laity with no small dishonor to Gods Church and hurt as well to their owne as to lay-mens soules he in whom alone sayth Seuerus Sulpitius (s) Vita 8. Martin c. 23. Apostolicall authority remained to admonish the Emperor and Princes there present of their reuerence due to their Pastors and also to let the Bishops all other Pastors see their basenesse in vilifiyng themselues to their sheep giuing them occasion to contemne disobey them in things important for the good of their soules he I say when at dinner the Emperors owne cup was first presented vnto him by the Emperors command hauing drunke therof gaue it not to the Emperor but to his Chaplaine because sayth Sulpitius he thought no man there more worthy to drinke after himselfe then his Priest This is the example of S. Martin alleaged by Bellarmine reported and commended by Sulpitius and many other ancient and iudicious authors that haue written his life as an heroicall act of true Episcopall magnanimity and grauity If you and such as vilify the Episcopall function and lay it as S. Ambrose sayth (t) Ep. 32. vnder lay-mens feet relish it not tâ—is no wonder but that being the fact of Martin the myrror of Prelates you should scoffe at it and at Bellarmine for reporting it in proose of Sacerdotall dignity who can but wonder and thinke you to faile not only in iudgment but euen in point of ciuility good manners that will offer to controle S. Martin and teach good manners not only to him but to Seuerus Sulpitius a man of most noble parentage borne and bred vp in Rome the Head Mistres of Ciuill Policy and Vrbanity But when you say Bellarmine hath raked out of the asbesof Princes Kings and Emperors all the examples he could of honor yielded either to Popes Bishops or Priests in the superlatiue excesse of their humility zeale and denotion and wrested them to a generall rule of office and duty I must craue pardon if I thinke you to ouerlath and that willingly for Bellarmine could haue told you that the holy Bishop and Martyr Ignatius (u) Ep. ad Philadelph so ancient that as he writeth of himselfe he saw our Sauiour in mortall flesh prescribing that order of obedience in Christs Church wherby vnity may be preserued in all admonisheth Princes and soldiers to obey the Emperor Priests Deacons and all the rest of the Clergy and people whosoeuer they be soldiers Princes yea the Emperor himselfe to obey the Bishop the Bishop Christ as Christ obeyeth his Father that so vnity may be preserued in all And in his Epistle to the Christians of Smirna headuiseth them in the first place to honor God next the Bishop as bearing his image and then the King He could haue told you that the 318. Fathers assembled in the Councell of Nice one of the foure which S. Gregory reuerenced as the foure Ghospells decreed (x) Con. 80 〈◊〉 Grac. Arab as a doctrine to be belieued by all Christians that the B. of Rome is aboue all Christian Princes and people as being the Vicar of Christ our Lord ouer all people ouer all the Christian Church He could haue told you that when pennance was enioyned to Philip the first Christian Emperor (y) Euseb l. â— hist c. 7. for faultes that were bruited of him he willingly performed what was enioyned him by the Priest shewing by his deeds that the feare of God and a great esteeme of Religion liued in him He could haue told you that the most religious Emperor Theodosius being excommunicated by S. Ambrose (z) Thâ—â—d â— c. â—7 was so farre from denying the authority of S. Ambrose ouer him that he submitted himselfe with all humâ—lity and crauing absolution with harty repentance and teares obtained it As Arcadius also in like case did of Innocentius Pope (a) Niceph. l. 13. c. 33. Cedren Glycas in Arcad. He could haue told you that Iustinian writ to Pope Iohn We yield honor to the Apostolike See and to your Blessednesse which is and euer hath bene our desire and honor your Holynesse as it becometh vs to honour our Father He could haue told you of Charles the Great who as he was inferior to no Prince that euer was in wisdome and valour so he most excelled in true piety deuotion and zeale to Gods cause most especially in his filiall affection and obedience to the See Apostolike in so
of Baronius saying that herein he is iustly reproued by many as one inuading vpon and intruding into the office of diuine Causes He is indeed reproued by diuers that thinke him to haue made ecclesiasticall lawes by his owne authority But by others he is iustly excused and in particular by Baronius (r) Anno 528. alleaging for his iustification as you confesse (s) Pag. 166. that he being a man wholly illiterate his Ecclesiasticall Constitutions were made by Epiphanius and Menas Patriarkes of Constantinople but publised in his name to the end they might be better obserued which was no way hurtful but profitable to the Church whose lawes were neglected and contemned by vicious Emperors and hereticall Prelates and people which at that tyme abounded in the East and especially by the Patriarkes of Constantinople many of them hauing bene infected with heresy This is apparent out of the expresse testimonies of Iustinian himselfe who not once but often professeth (t) Nou. 1 de Monast monach Nou. 81.123.133.137 that concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires he decreed nothing but according to the prescript of the holy Canons and therfore Iohn the second Pope of that name in an Epistle to him (u) Extat apud Baron anno 534. approueth and confirmeth his Lawes being informed by two Bishops Hypatius and Demetrius his Legates that they were made by the interuention and consent of Bishops according to the Doctrine of the See Apostolike decrees of the holy Fathers Wherfore Iustinian in those constitutions did nothing but what a Catholike and religious Prince might lawfully do without preiudice to the authority of the See Apostolike or inuesting himselfe in any part of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction Moreouer that by his Lawes he intended not to derogate any thing from the authority of the Bishop or Church of Rome his Lawes themselues beare witnesse We preserue sayth he in his law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (x) Cod. tit 1. L. 7. the estate of the vnity of the most holy Churches in all things with the most holy Pope of old Rome to whom we haue also written the like for we will not suffer any thing to passe concerning the affaires of the Church which shall not be referred to his Blessednesse because he is the Head of all the holy Prelates of God And in the Law Inter claras (y) Cod. tit 1. L. 8. into which is inserted that famous Epistle which he sent by Hypatius and Demetrius with a solemne Embassage to Pope Iohn against Cyrus and Eulogius Legates of the Acemites he sayth Yielding honor to the Apostolike See and to your Holynesse which is and euer hath bene our desire and honoring your Blessednesse as it becometh vs to honor our Father we haue speedily giuen notice to your Holynesse of all things that belong to the ecclesiasticall state for we haue had great care to preserue the Vnity of your Apostolike See and the state of the holy Churches of God c. And thersore we haue made hast to subiect and vnite all the Priestes of the East partes to the See of your Holynesse nor do we suffer that any thing belonging to the state of the Churches be is neuer so cleare and vndoubted be vnknowne to your Holynesse who are the Head of all the holy Churches To these restimonies of Iustinian you haue deuised diuers answers 1. With some petty Protestant Lawier you cauill at his Epistle to the Pope and the Popes answere to him as fictitious (z) Pag. 256. But this to be a calumny is learnedly proued by the two famous lawiers Alciatus (a) Parerg. l. 4. c. 24. and Cuias (b) Obseru l. 12. c. 16. 2. By Liberatus a writer of the same tyme (c) In Breu. c. 20. who reportes Iustinians embassage sent to the Pope by Hypatius and Demetrius and the Popes answeare to him which are extant in the same Law 3. By the testimony which Iustinian himselfe giues therof in his Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (d) Cod. tit 1. L. 7. and in his Epistle to Agapet Pope 4. By Leunclauius a Protestant Lawier who hath translated and printed Iustinians Epistle to the Pope and the Popes answeare to him as the eight Law of the Code 2. Wheras Iustinian call's the Pope The chief and Head of all Bishops and the Roman Church The Head of all Churches you answeare (e) Pag. 256. that we haue heard how common the word Caput hath bene without any sense of Monarchy We haue indeed heard you say (f) Pag. 50. 110. that the similitude of Head and Members implieth no superiority of iurisdiction but only of order that is of priority of place of voyce and the like But you also haue heard (g) Chap 11. Chap. 17. sect 2. how vntrue and repugnant not only to the beliefe of antiquity but euen to common sense this is 3. You obiect (h) Pag. 256. If this Rescript of Iustinian be taken so rigidly as we would haue it it is contradictory to another Constitution of his in which he grants the chiefe right in ecclesiasticall causes to belong to the Gouernor of euery Prouince We know that as while Iustinian was Catholike he made no Lawes but with the consent of Bishops and confirmation of Popes so if after he fell into heresy and contemned the authority of the Church he made lawes repugnant to the Catholike fayth and discipline of the Church t' is no wonder That proueth against you that heretikes are they which make lawes contrary to the fayth and discipline of the Roman Church and that if Iustinian had still remained a Catholike he would haue made no such lawes as he did not before he fell into heresy 4. You obiect (i) Pag. 166. Iustinian before he fell into heresy banished two Popes Siluerius and Vigilius To proue that he banished Siluerius you set downe these words as of Baronius Siluerium Papam mittit in exilium Iustinian sendeth Siluerius Pope into banishment But you abuse Baronius He hath no such words nor attributes the banishment of Siluerius to the Emperor but sayth he was sent into exile by Bellisarius and Antonina his wife partly at the instigation of the hereticall Empresse Theodora offended with him because he would not replace in the See of Constantinople Anthymus an Eutychian heretike and an inuader of that See whom therfore Agapet Pope had iustly deposed and partly for certaine crimes forged against him by her and Vigilius Yea Baronius (k) Anno 538. witnesseth that the Bishop of Patara comming to the Emperor and shewing him how displeasing it was to God that the Pope who is ouer the Church of the whole world to whom no King in the world is comparable should be driuen from his See he presently commanded him to be recalled from the place of banishment to Rome that the accusations against him of Treason might be examined But if Baronius had said that Iustinian
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
other Popes Those words Away with enuy let the ambition of the Roman height depart were not spoken by S. Hierome to taxe the person of Damasus or his Seate of pride but to signify that albeit his Seat were placed in Rome which being the imperiall City head of the world gloried in her owne greatnesse yet he was and ought to be free from pride as being Successor to a fisher man and a disciple of the Crosse In regard wherof he deemed it no presumption in himselfe to write vnto him that by his authority he might know whose communion to imbrace and whose to auoyd Your second obiection (k) Pag. 206. is a repetition of what you haue formerly sayd of Liberius his fall from the Catholike fayth into heresy by subscribing to the condemnation of Athanasius communicating with the Arians You haue bene answeared that Liberius assented to his condemnatiō not for any error in fayth but for crimes forged against him by the Arians in so much that Athanasius himselfe euen in that excuseth him saying (l) Ep. ad Solit He was compelled therto by force of torments and therfore that which terrors and feares extorted from him ought not to bethought his sentence but that which he pronounced freely when no violence was offered vnto him Thirdly you obiect S. Hierome in despight and indignation calleth Rome Babylon and land of captiuity and tearmeth it a purple whore and strange land wherin he could not sing the Lords song concerning the holy Ghost yea he bespots the whole Clergy of that City with the note of ignorance and at last after the death of Damasus he quit Rome as a land of bondage that he might enioy his liberty in Iudaea among the Christian Iewes Could this be said of a City priuiledged with a perpetuall residence of the holy Ghost and deseruing the title of Motherhood ouer the whole Catholike Church This is your question and my answeare is That S. Hierome when he calleth Rome Babylon a land of captiuity and a purple whore giues those names to Rome not as to the seat of Religion but of the Empire not to the Church but to the Imperiall Court and Senat not to the ecclesiasticall but to the politike state of Rome to the troopes of Courtiers solicitors negotiants finally not so much in regard of secular Christians as of Monkes by reason of the distractions that the noyse confusion and tumult of men and affaires in so great a city brought to Monastical silence recollection for so it is plaine out of his Epistle to Marcella (m) Ep. 16. in which though inuiting her to leaue Rome and go to Hierusalem he call Rome Babylon yet he presently addeth It is true that in that City is the holy Church there are the trophies of the Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the fayth celebrated by the Apostle the Christian name euery day exalted by the depression of Paganisme troden vnder foot But the ambition the power and greatnesse of that City to visit and to be visited to salute to be saluted to flatter and detract to heare and speake nay to see though vnwillingly so great a multitude of men are things farre from the purpose and quiet of those that would follow a monasticall life This sheweth that when S. Hierome cals Rome Babilon purple whore he speakes not of the Church but of the temporall state of Rome And when he cals it a land of captiuity he speakes it in regard of the noyse confusion and tumult not suiting with the retirement of Monkes which inconuenience he noteth also in the City of Hierusalem which otherwise sayth (n) Ep. 13. ad Pauli de instit Monachis he by reason of the places of the Crosse and Resurrection were a dwelling much to be desired by Monkes The second part of your obiection that S. Hierome bespote the whole Clergy of that City with the note of ignorance is your false comment He complaineth only of a few Priests and Deacons of Rome who being iealous of his faour with Pope Damasus and enuiyng the great reuerence which the deuout Ladies of Rome bare to his person Damasus being dead toke boldnesse to raise slanders against him accusing him that he had translated Didymus an hereticall Author that he had conuersed too familiarly with the great Ladies of Rome and persuaded them to quit their Countrey children and friends to leaue the world and shut themselues vp as recluses in the Monasteries of Palestine Which complaint no way toucheth the fayth of the Roman Church nor the succession of S. Peter nor the communion of the See Apostolike nor maketh against the perpetuall residence of the holy Ghost in that Church S. Hierome himselfe crying out (o) Aduers Ruffin l. 3. that her fayth suffereth no delusions and being fensed by S. Pauls authority cannot be altered Your fourth obiection (p) Pag. 207. out of his Epistle to Euagrius of the Deacons of Rome sitting in presence of the Priests is already answeared (q) Aboue Chap. 15. sect 2 But you adde to it (r) Pag. 208. 218. as a fifth Argument that euery Patriarke hath a principality height of a pastorall watch-tower by reason of the greatnesse and dignity of his Patriarkship aboue all Metropolitans and Bishops whatsouer and yet haue they not ouer all Bishops power of iurisdiction but only principality of order If by principality of order you vnderstand priority of place euery Patriarke hath in that sense priority of order ouer all Bishops that are not Patriarkes And in the same sense the Pope hath priority of order ouer all Bishops Patriarkes But if by principality of order you vnderstand the Sacerdotall and Episcopall dignity conferred on them by their ordination consecration your Doctrine is vntrue for the inequality of Bishops cōsisteth not in any principality of Sacerdotall or Episcopall orders which one Bishop hath ouer another but in the inequality of Pastoral power and iurisdiction A Bishop in his orders is equall to his Metropolitan the Metropolitan to his Patriarke and the Patriarke to the Pope himselfe In this sense S. Hierome sayth (s) Ep. ad Euag Whersoeuer there shall be a Bishop either at Rome or at Eugubium at Constantinople or at Rhegium at Alexandria or at Tanais he is of the same merit and Priesthood because all Bishops if we consider only the dignity of their orders and Priesthood are equall euen he of Eugubium a small City in Italy to the Pope Erasmus his Comment vpon this passage of S. Hierome which you bring (t) Pag. 208. to proue that the inequality of Episcopall iurisdiction is not measured by the amplitude of Diocesses I approue not And much lesse do I allow your inference out of his comment that according to the diuine Law the Pope hath not any greater iurisdiction then whatsoeuer other inferior Bishop for Christ when he gaue to S. Peter
so wholly destitute of an vniuersall gouernor on earth that the elergy of Rome may not in many things supply his place as you may learne from S. Cyprian who in sundry occasions aduised with the Clergy of Rome witnesse his epistles to them (d) L. 3. ep 5. 21. l. 5. ep 4. 5. and theirs to him (e) L. 2. ep 7. l. 5. ep 13. But here (f) Pag. 346. you take occasion to calummitate Bellarmine for saying that by the Keyes which Christ gaue to S. Peter and in him to his Successors in vnderstood the principality of Ecclesiasticall power ouer all the Church that when the Pope dieth this power remaineth not formally in the Church excepting only so farre forth as it is communicated to the inferior Ministers but immediatly in the hands of Christ. And when a new Pope is chosen the Keyes are nether brought by him nor giuen to him by the Church but by Christ and this not by a new donation but by the ancient institution for when he gaue them to Peter he gaue them to all his Successors These are Bellarmines words which you cut from the example he addeth for the explanation of his doctrine that you may haue occasion to exclame against him and scoffe saying (g) Ibid. O depth of delusion Will you see a Iugler Yes we see him but too perfectly in Doctor Thomas Morton for doth not Bellarmine say It happeneth in this case as if a King when he makes a Vice-Roy of any Countrey should declare his pleasure to be that the Vice-Roy being dead they should nominate another and that he granteth vnto him now the same power he gaue to his Predecessor What depth of delusion or what iuggling do you find in this case And is not the other wholly like to this And doth not Bellarmine declare it with this very example Wherfore your question (h) Ibid. Whether the keyes of S. Peter do indeed fly into heauen at the death of euery Pope though you make it forsooth to shew your selfe acute and witty is God wot a silly conceipt to which that renowned Doctor Theodorus Studites hath answeared (i) Ep. de imagin saying that when we speake of keeping Peters Keyes at Rome it is not to be vnderstood that Christ gaue any materiall Keyes to him but only that by his mouth he gaue him power to bind and loose And as it is a poore conceipt so it is a cauill to which your selfe must answere in the other example of temporall power for tell vs Do then indeed the Vice-Royes keyes when he dieth fly to the Kings Court But you goe on asking (k) Pag. 346. What power then is it which remaineth formally in the inferior Ministers of the Church at the death of the Pope If it be the Keyes of Principality then is euery inferior Priest a Pope If it be the Keyes only of Order and absolution then shall it not be lawfull for any Bishop to exercise any power of iurisdiction by precept or punishing by excommunication during all the time of the Vacancy So you either not vnderstanding or wittingly concealing Bellarmines doctrine for doth he acknowledge no Ecclesiasticall power but only of principality ouer the whole Church which is proper to the Pope or els of Order and Absolution which is common to euery Priest Doth he not with all Catholike Diuines hold that euery Bishop besides his power to absolue in the inward Court of Conscience hath also power of externall iurisdiction to gouerne and command his Diocesans and inflict punishment vpon them by excommunication and other Ecclesiasticall censures according to the measure of their offences And doth he not sufficiently expresse this power when speaking of the Popes authority ouer the Church he sayth that the Pope being dead it still remaineth in the Church so farre forth as it is committed to inferior Ministers which are the Bishops and other Pastors vnder the Pope And by this it appeares how vntruly you adde (l) Pag. 347. that Bellarmine is driuen forsooth by this your subtle Argument into a most vncouth and extreme corner where neuer any ancient Father before him set so much as the least print of his shoo This you proue (m) Ibid. out of Binius whom you make to say that in the Inter-regnum or vacancy betweene the death of Pope Agapetus and his Successor there was called a generall Councell at Constantinople which is an Act proper to the Papall primacy But as in the rest so in this you want fidelity for Binius sayth not that this Councell was generall but directly the contrary to wit that it consisted of such Bishops only as were neare to Constantinople and some others which at that time were resident in the city Wherfore it was no generall but a particular Councell in which Menas presided not as Vicar of the See Apostolike as Binius mistaketh but only as Patriarke of Constantinople And much lesse did any Legates of the Pope preside with him for albeit the Italian Bishops which had bene Legates to Pope Agapetus assisted at the Councell yet they assisted not as his Deputies for their legation was finished and their commission expired before that time by the arriuall and especially by the death of Agapetus at Constantinople but for honors sake and as Exlegates and not as Legates It is not therfore Bellarmine but you that are driuen into such an vncouth and extreme corner that you haue no way to get out but by fathering on Binius your owne fiction of a generall Councell which Binius neuer dreamed of and which is yet worse by contradicting your selfe for before (n) Pag. 238. lin 11. you had said that this was not a generall Councell These then are your words The Councell vnder Menas was a generall Councell The Councell vnder Menas was not a generall Councell Agree them It resteth therfore that according to Bellarmines Tenet a generall Councell which hath authority to decide controuersies of fayth cannot be called without the Popes authority you hauing not bene able to produce any one example or proofe to the contrary but only your ignorant mistake of a particular Councell for a generall SECT IV. Whether the Roman Church haue at any time a false Head YOur assertion is affirmatiue for proofe you remit vs to your former argumēt already answeared to which you adde heere (o) Pag. 349. init that God neuer ordained a Head no bigger then of a wren to stand vpon the sholders of a man and so litle in respect is one Bishop of one City of Rome to be set ouer the Church vniuersally dispersed throughout the whole world But you confider not that the Church of Christ being the most perfect of all common wealthes ought to haue the most perfect gouerment which is Monarchicall S. Cyptian (p) De vnit Eccl. Optatius (q) L. 2. cont Parmen and S. Hierome (r) L. 1. cont Iouin haue taught that our Sauiour made
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
holy Fathers of Gods Church be true if the most religious Christian Emperors haue belieued aright the Episcopall and Sacerdotall dignity and especially the Papall excelleth the Imperiall and the Pope is in the number of higher Powers to whom obedience in spirituall things is due euen from the greatest Kings and Emperors as their practise witnesseth and the Apostle hath commanded saying (r) Heb. 13.17 Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them SECT II. Ancient Popes obiected and falsified by Doctor Morton YOur ancient Antagonist (s) P. Persons Treatise tend to mitig Chap. 6. 〈◊〉 34. and Cardinall Bellarmine (t) L. 1. de Conc. c. 13. haue told you long since that howbeit the B. of Rome was euer Head in spirituall matters ouer all euen the Emperors themselues yet in temporall affaires he did anciētly subiect himselfe vnto them as hauing at that time no temporall estate of his owne and therfore did then acknowledge them to be his temporall Lords and make supplication vnto them as for other things so particularly for the assembling of Synods in their Cities which could not be done without their authority and licence And in this respect the Popes of those tymes yielded due reuerence to the Emperors and had recourse to them as to their temporall Lords but that any Pope euer acknowledged subiection to Emperors in Ecclesiasticall affaires is a false Tenet which to make good you misconstrue mangle and corrupt the testimonies of ancient Popes First you say (u) Impost pag. 178. Liberius professed patience in suffering indignities from the Emperor and intreated for mercy And Vigilius being banished sued for peace and fauor What then A Christian suffering indignities from the great Turke may sue for mercy and fauor Doth he therfore acknowledge in the Turke right to persecute him or to offer indignities vnto him for his fayth as Constantius the Arian Emperor did to Liberius and Theodora the Eutychian Empresse to Vigilius 2. You obiect (x) Impost pag. 178. Sermon pag. 5. Simplicius professing continuall reuerence to all Christian Princes True but did he therfore professe that euery Christian Prince was his Soueraigne or that any Prince had right to command him in Ecclesiasticall affaires Reuerence is due from euery Christian man to all Princes and yet euery Christian man is not subiect to all Princes euen in temporall affaires much lesse in Spirituall But why do you conceale that Simplicius writeth that Epistle to the Emperor Zeno as to his spirituall child and professeth that by reason of his Apostolicall Chaire and gouerment he was bound to instruct him and declare the causes of fayth vnto him 3. The testimony of Leo (y) Impost pag. 178. Sermon pag. 5. making supplication to the Emperor to command a Synod to be celebrated in Italy hath bene already proued to make wholly against your selfe (z) See aboue Chap. 30. sect 4. 4. You produce Gelasius (a) Impost pag. 178. saying to the Emperor Anastasius that euen Bishops obey his lawes Bishops I grant obey the Lawes of secular Princes for the course of tempotall gouerment but withall Gelasius declareth to the Emperor that Albeit he be chiefe President in temporall affaires he knoweth and acknowledgeth himselfe in spirituall affaires subiect to Priests and especially to the B. of Rome and that from them he is to receaue the decisions of fayth and the heauenly Sacraments Why did you not in your Sermon giue notice of this to his Maiesty and the rest of your hearers 5. Hormisdas say you (b) Impost pag. 178. taketh notice of the Emperors command for gathering of a Councell as a motion from God and further acknowledged that he had receaued warning and that he ought to be present therat In proofe of this you set downe in your margent these words as of Hormisdas in his fifth Epistle to Anastasius the Emperor Futuram Synodum indicari mandas cui nos interesse debere ijsdem literis Deo vt credimus tibi imperanti commonuisti Ad liter as vestras respondi In this briefe passage there are diuers vntruthes and falsifications For 1. those words Futuram Synodum indicari mandas which you set downe as the words of Hormisdas are not his but forged by your selfe there is no mention of any command from the Emperor to him 2. And those words Ad literas vestras respondi are also feigned by your selfe and shew your ignorance in grammer for if Hormisdas had spoken to the Emperor in the singular number saying mandas and tibi imperanti commonuisti which you cite as his words he would not haue added in the plurall number ad literas vestras 3. When you say Hormisdas taketh notice of the Emperors command for gathering a Councell acknowledging that he had receaued warning that he ought to be present therat it is a plaine Imposture for in that very Epistle he protesteth to the Emperor that wheras he had warned him to be present at a Councell there is not in former ages any example or precedent of such a fact extant in bookes or in the memories of men but yet that at his inuitation he is willing to impose on himselfe that burthen without any precedent therof receaued from his predecessors alwaies prouided that the Emperor would performe those necessary conditions which both in that Epistle and in the instruction giuen to his Legates he proposed vnto him for the peace of the Church which were to abiure the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches to receaue the Councell of Chalcedon with the witings of S. Leo Pope and to blot out of the sacred records the names of Dioscorus Acacius and other heretikes The Emperor feigned himselfe willing to performe the conditions hoping therby to compasse his intent but neuer performed them and therfore Hormisdas wold not assent to the gathering of a Councell Wherupon Anastasius growing into a great fury writ threatning letters to him and raised a great persecution against Catholikes for which as also for his obstinacy in heresy and disobedience to the See Apostolike he ended his life in a most horrible manner being strucken dead with a thunder-bolt from Heauen This is the doctrine you ought to haue deliuered to your readers and not to haue deceaued them with falsities imposed on Hormisdas to iustify yours 6. You obiect (c) Impost pag. 178. Serm. pag. 5. Pelagius the first saying Holy Scripture commandeth vs to be subiects to Kings That Epistle of Pelagius is written to Childebert King of France as to his Sonne for so he stileth him and declareth to him that the holy Scripture commandeth subiectes to obey their Princes which all Catholikes belieue and teach as a doctrine of fayth But where doth the Scripture command Popes to yield subiection to Princes in Ecclesiasticall affaires Or where doth it command them fince they haue staies of their owne to yield temporall subiection to other Princes Your Argument therfore is impertinent 7. You alleage (d) Impost pag. 179. Ser. pag.