that all men are to learne from her the Doctrine of fayth deliuered vnto her by the blessed Apostles And this is the reason why Tertullian speaking of Marcion and Valentinus (q) Ibid. c. 30. proueth them to be heretikes because they had fallen from the faith into which they had beleeued in the Roman Church Nam constat c. For sayth he and his words no lesse agree to Luther and Caluin then to Marcion and Valentinus it is manifest that they first beleeued the Catholike Doctrine in the Roman Church vntill in the tyme of the blessed Bishop Eleutherius for their turbulent spirit of nouelty wherwith they did also peruert their Brethren they were often excommunicated and at length cast out for euer to perpetuall ruine By this it appeareth that the Roman fayth was then held to be the Catholike fayth and the Roman Church which Tertullian calleth The Catholike Church (r) L. 4. cont Marcio c. 4. the Head and Mistresse of all Churches in the world for Marcion was borne at Sinope in Pontus and for his heresy and lewdnesse of lyfe excommunicated by his owne Father a holy Bishop who refusing to absolue him he went to Rome to seeke absolution but his Father opposing obteyned it not ValeÌ„tine was as Aegyptian borne and hauing fallen into heresy in Cyprus came to Rome in the tyme of Higinius Pope and feigning himselfe to be a Catholike was receaued into the Communion of the Roman Church but falling often backe into heresy as a dog returning to his vomit was finally cast out of the Church by the blessed Pope Elutherius as you haue heard Tertullian report And why did these heretikes as also Cerdon at the same tyme when they sought absolution from heresy come from so remote countreyes subiect to other Patriarkes and why from all the Easterne Church and why all of them to the Church of Rome in particular but because they knew her to be the Head Mistres of all Churches that had power to absolue all those which had bene excommunicated by any other Bishops whatsoeuer and to be the originall and center of Catholike Communion and that so long as they remayned out of her bosome they nether were nor should be esteemed Catholikes nor to be in state of saluation Herby it appeares how little reason you had to say out of Beatus Rhenaus (s) Pag. 131 1â—â— though Tertullian giue an honorable testimony to the Church of Rome yet be did not esteeme her so highly as wee see her accounted of at this day And since you acknowledge that Rhenanus his mouth for that and other his inconsiderat speeches is gagged by the Index expurgatorius you shew litle iudgment in obiecting his authority against vs. SECT VIII Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church VVHat hath bene sayd sheweth the futility of your argument out of Vincentius Lyrinensis which is like to the two former out of S. Iraeneus and Tertullian And how little support you haue for your cause in the authority of this ancient and learned Father he will testify for himselfe for when the Doctrine of rebaptizing Heretikes at their returne to the Catholike Church defended by Firmilianus Bishop of Cefarea Agrippinus S. Cyprian Bishops of Carthage and many others wrought so great inconueniences that it gaue a paterne of sacriledge to all heretikes and occasion of error to some Catholikes Vincentius declareth how Stephen then Pope of Rome suppressed it by his authority When sayth he (t) L. cont propha haeres nouat c. â— all men euery where exclamed against the nouelty of that Doctrine all Priests in all places ech one according to his zeale did opppse then Pope Stephen of blessed memory Bishop of the Apostolike See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops but yet more then the rest thinking it as I suppose reason so much to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth as he did surmount them in the authority of his place To conclude in his epistle which then was sent to Africa he decreed the same in these words Let nothing be innouated but that which comes by tradition be obserued And (u) Ibid. c. 10. notwithstanding that the contrary doctrine had sayth he such pregnant wits such eloquent tongues such a number of Patrons such shew of truth such testimonies of Scripture but glosed after a new and naughty fashion and that it was decreed in an African Councell yet the authority of the Pope declaring it a nouelty was of so great force that after he had condemned it all those things were abolished were disanulled were abrogated as dreames as fables as superfluous And afterwards (x) Ibid. c. 43. he alleageth as witnesses of his Doctrine diuers Greeke Fathers and addeth to them the authority of S. Felix Martyr and S. Iulius both Bishops of the Roman Church whom to declare their soueraigne authority he calleth The Head of the world And he concludeth Ibid. c. 45. Least in such plenty of proofes any thing should be wanting wee haue added for a conclusion a double authority of the See Apostolike the one of S. Sixtus a venerable man that now honoresh the Church of Rome the other of Pope Celestine of blessed menory his predecessor And their decrees he calleth Apostolicall and Catholike decrees SECT IX Other Obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared YOur obseruations are (y) Pag 101. seqq that S. Athanasius S. Augustine the Councels of Constantinople of Aegypt and of Cauthage reckoning diuers Bishops to shew their agreement in fayth with them name not only the Pope but other Bishops and write both to him them and consult with him and them as with their fellow Bishops which you say is to giue the Bishop of Rome so many mates and to equalize other Bishops with him But who seeth not what poore stuffe these your obseruations are For if one concerning matters of fayth should consult with his parish Priest and his Bishop would it follow that he equalizeth the parish Priest with the Bishop and maketh him his mate Or if you writing to the King and his Counsell I should lay to your charge that by consulting with his Maiesty and his Counsell you giue his Maiesty so many mantes as he hath Counsellors and equalize them in power and dominion with him would you not thinke mâ— a trifling and indeed a childish opponent how then shall wee thinke otherwise of you that by like consequence go about to equalize other Bishops with the Pope among themselues CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome THAT the Councell of Nice acknowledged the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ouer all Bishops is proued 1. Because Iulius a most holy Pope in his third Epistle which S. Athanesius hath inserted into his second Apology writing to the Arians and declaring vnto them the right of the Roman See to haue the
whole body of his Church to the end that whosoeuer should be so bold as to depart from the solidity of that See might know himself to be no way partaker of the diuine mysteries And (e) Ibid. that whosoeuer goeth about to diminish the power of the Bishop of Rome endeauoreth with most impious presumption to viâ—late the most sacred strength of the Rock Peter framed by the hand of God And speaking against Hilary Bishop of Arles and all such as are refractary and disobedient to the Successors of Peter and in them to Peter himselfe he (f) Ibid. addeth To whom whosoeuer thinketh the primacy to be denied can no way diminish their authority but puffed vp with the spirit of pride plungeth himselfe headlong into hell And (g) Epist 75. that he who dare oppose the Roman Church built by the voyce of our Sauiour vpon the most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles as vpon a rock is either Antichrist or a Diuel All these sayings of so learned a Doctor and so great a Saint I wish the Protestant reader duly to consider So teacheth the holy Councell of Chalcedon (h) Act. 3. affirming Peter the Apostle to be the rock and head of the Catholike Church and foundation of the true Fayth From whence it followeth that whosoeuer buildeth not vpon the foundation of Peters See is not in the Catholike Church nor in the true fayth without which no man can be saued So teacheth S. Gregory the Great who writing to Bonifacius (i) L. 3. ep 41. sayth I admonish you that whiles you haue tyme of lyfe remayning your soule be not found diuided from the Church of blessed Peter to whome the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen were committed and the power of binding and losing giuen lest his fauour be contemned here he there exclude you from the entrance into lyfe So teacheth S. I sidore a learned Doctor and Archbishop of Seuill (k) Ep. vltima ad Eugenium Episcop Toletanum saying that albeit the Episcopall dignity and power descend from S. Peter to all Catholike Bishops yet especially and by a fingular priuiledge it remayneth for euer to the Bishop of Rome as to a Head higher then the rest of the members whosoeuer therfore sayth he yelds not obedience reuerently to him is separated from the head and makes himself guilty of the schisme of the Acephalists that is of certain heretikes who acknowledged no one particular Head And he addes that the Church belieues this as the Creed of S. Athanasius and as an article of fayth and that whosoeuer belieues it not cannot be saued So teacheth S. Maximus Martyr the greatest Diuine of his age that writ learnedly against the Monothelites pestilent Heretikes that held but one will and operation in Christ and were anathematized in the sixth generall Councell He among other Elogies of the Roman Church hath (l) Epist ad Marinum Diac. this All the bounds of the earth and whosoeuer in any place of the world do confesse Christ our Lord with a pure hart and Orthodox fayth looke vpon the most holy Roman Church and her confession and fayth attentiuely as vpon a Sunne of euerlasting light receauing from her the shining light of spirituall and holy Doctrines c. For from the first comming of the Word Incarnate all the Churches of Christians throughout the world haue had from her their beginning their only and surest foundation against which the gates of hell shall no way preuaile according to the promise of our Sauiour himself that she shold haue the Keyes of Orthodoxall fayth and Confession and open to them that religiously come to the same Roman Church seeking true reall and only piety and contrariwise shut and stop euery hereticall mouth that speaks iniquity against heauen So teacheth S. Aldelmus an ancient Bishop of the Scots whom Venerable Bede highly commendeth for his eloquence for his great knowledge of humane literature of Scripture and Ecclesiasticall rites Among other his works which Bede reckoneth he writ an excellent booke against the error of the Britans who at that tyme differed from the Roman Church in the celebration of Easter And of the same subiect he writ an epistle to Geruntius in which he sheweth the Britans by reason of that their separation from the Roman Church to be in error (m) Epist ad Gerunt If sayth he the keyes of the heauenly kingdome were by Christ giuen to Peter of whom the Poet sayth He is the Porter of heauen that opens the gate to the stars who is he that despising the principall statutes of that Church and condemning the Doctrine which she commands to be obserued can enter into the gate of heauenly paradise And if Peter by a happy lot and a peculiar priuiledge deserued to receyue the power monarchy of binding both in heauen and earth who refusing to obserue the Roman rite of Easter can thinke that he is not rather to be straitly tied with in soluble bonds then any way to be absolued And the same he further proueth out of the priuiledge of not erring granted to the Roman Church when Christ promised to build his Church vpon Peter as vpon an impregnable rock So teacheth Venerable Bede (n) Homil. in die Apost Petri Pauli saying Therfore the blessed Peter confessing Christ with true fayth and following him with true loue receaued specially the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the soueraignty of iudiciall power that all the faythfull throughout the world might vnderstand that whosoeuer do any way separate themselues from the Vnity of his fayth and society can neither be losed from the bonds of their sins nor come within the gate of the heauenly kingdome And speaking of a conference held betwene Colmannus an Abbot and Wilfridus a learned Priest concerning the celebration of Easter Colmannus defending the Iewish rite and Wilfridus the custome of the Roman Church Wilfridus said (o) Beda in histor gent. Ang. l. 3. c. 25. If you disdaine to follow the decrees of the See Apostolike yea and of the vniuersall Church they being confirmed by the holy Scriptures without all doubt you sinne for be it that your Columba was a holy man and of Christ likewise your Fathers yet is their smal number in a corner of a remote Iland to be preferred before the vniuersall Church of Christ And hauing in proofe of the Authority of the Roman Church alleaged the words of Christ promising to build his Church vpon Peter and to giue him the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen Of win king that was present at the conference demanded of the disputants whether both of them agreed in this that those words of our Sauiour were principally spoken to Peter and whether the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to him And they answering Yes the king (p) Ibid. concluded And I say to you that because Peter is that porter I will not gainsay him but so far forth as I
Nilus Faber Cornelius Agrippa Erasmus Aenaas Siluius Cusanus and Polydore Virgill M. Brierley in the Aduertisement prefixed before his Protestant Apology hath giuen you in particular and by name speciall warning not to obiect them in your future wrytings against vs as being prohibited authors whose testimonies are of no more authority with vs then your owne Grand imposture or then the testimonies of diuers other Protestants whom in the same worke you alleage against vs. This may serue to giue the reader a taste of your manner of wryting in generall which how vnfitting a man of your place yeares and learning it is the ensuing Chapters will better declare CHAP. III. Whether the now Roman Church hath composed a new Creed Num. 8 YOVR first charge is a that the Roman Church in her Councell of Trent (q Pag. 3. by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth set forth for the confirmation of the same Councell hath composed a new Creed cōsisting of more then twenty articles of the now Roman fayth These your words contayne two vntruthes for neither hath the Councell of Trent composed any new Creed nor is there mention of any such Creed or articles in the bull of Pius set forth for the confirmation of that Councell Among other Bulls of his commonly annexed to the Coūcell there is extant a profession of the Catholike fayth to be made by all Ecclesiasticall persons that haue charge of soules and by all Doctors and professors of whatsoeuer Artand faculty of learning in which they oblige themselues by oath to obserue all the decrees of the Councell of Trent and of all other Oecumenicall that haue bene held in the Church of God and to anathematize all heresies condemned by them This profession you are pleased to call a new Roman Creed of more then twenty articles But if that be a Creed which consisteth of Articles you that haue composed and sweare to a new beliefe which your selues call The 39. articles are chargeable with a new Creed of your diuising But that we call the bull of Pius the fourth a Creed or the profession of our fayth contained in it Articles you cannot shew and therfore your tearmyng it a new Creed is a silly conceypt voyd of truth and a fit foundation for a Grand Imposture And no lesse vntruly you charge vs with adding in our Creed to the article of the Catholike Church the word Roman For that article of our Creed I belieue the holy Catholike Church is set downe without any such addition in all our Missals Breuiaries Primers and Catechismes And that which most of all declareth your cauilling is that in this very profession of our fayth set downe in two different bulls of Pius the 4. the Creed vsed by the Roman Church is read without any addition of the word Roman It is true that out of the Symbol of Creed when we explicate which is the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed we say it is the Roman Church which to be true appeareth euidently by the testimonies of antiquity out of which I haue already proued The Catholike Church and the Roman Church to be tearmes conuertible CHAP. IV. Whether the now Roman Church haue added any new articles to the Creed of the Apostles Num. 9 YOV say (a) Pag. 7. It is a doctrine acknowledged in our owne schooles that the Church hath no power to create new articles of fayth yet afterwards you set downe as our doctrine (b) Pag. 383. out of Philiarchus that the Church hath power to create new articles of fayth and that the contrary is one of Luthers Heresies These two propositions of yours I know not well how to saue from contradiction that I leaue to you In the thing it selfe there is neither difficulty nor difference of opinions among Catholikes for if by new articles of fayth you vnderstand doctrines newly reuealed as none but God can be the author of diuine reuelation so none but God can make articles of fayth and in this sense all Catholike Diuines agree But if by articles of fayth you vnderstand not new reuelations but such Verities as are contayned implicitly and virtually in the word of God but not as yet explicitly declared vnto vs so likewise all Catholike Diuines agree that the Church hath power to make articles of fayth that is to explicate and declare vnto vs some verities of fayth which before were not so clearly deliuered nor vniuersally receaued as such So she hath declared the epistle to the Hebrewes and that of S. Iames to be canoicall and as our learned Roffensis hath well (c) Ad articul 18. Lutheri obserued there are many things of which no question was made in the primitiue Church which yet doubts arising against them are now accleared by the diligence of posterity So in the first Councell of Constantinople the holy Ghost was explicitly declared to proceed from the Father and the Sonne So the three Creeds of Nice of Constantinople S. Athanasius adde by way of declaration many Verities which are not expresly but implicitly or virtually contained in the Creed of the Apostles And so likewise neither the celebration of Easter after the manner of the Roman Church nor the validity of Baptisme ministred by heretikes were of necessary beliefe vntill the Councell of Nice had declared them to be such In this sense the Canonicall law (d) Gloss in Extrau d◠Verb. signif tit 14. c. 4. expresseth that the Church hath power to make articles of fayth to wit by confirming and declaring them to the faithfull This power Luther denied to the Church and Pope Leo the X. in his bull against him condemned him for it But you to iustify Luther falsify Leo. Luthers assertion is this (e) Apud Bin. to 4. pag. 654. Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus non esse statuere articùlos fidei imò nec leges morum seu bonorum operum It is certaine that it is no way in the power of the Church or the Pope to appoint articles of fayth nor lawes of manners or good workes You to iustify Luther and traduce the Pope for condemning this his assertion leaue out the later part of Luthers article adde nouos in the middest and omit prorsus setting it downe thus (f) Pag. 383. Certum est ait non esse in manu Ecclesiae statuere nouos asticulos fidei Luther maintaynes as certaine that it is not in the power of the Church to ordayne new articles of fayth You cut of the later part of his article to conceale the impiety of his Doctrine denying the Church all power of making lawes either to reforme abuses or refrayne men from sinne by the practise of good workes And so likewise your leauing out of prorsus and putting in of nouos is to persuade your reader that the Pope condemned Luther for denying the Church power to coyne new articles of fayth that is to broach new reuelations which is an vntruth
suppositorum And so likewise the Church consisteth essentially of the persons that belieue as of matter and of fayth as of forme and by reason of her matter is visible as man is by his body and Christ by his humanity Now wheras to proue that the Church in her essentiall state is inuisible you alleage the whole tenor of the Apostles Creed (n) Pag 11. affirming that the obiect of euery article of that Symbol from beliefe in God vnto beliefe of life euerlasting is vnto vs inuisible and so far as it is belieued is without compasse of sense you speake vntruly and ignorantly for was not the natiuity of Christ visible to corporall eyes did he not visibly suffer in his body when he was whipped crowned with thornes and buffeted Was he not visibly crucified Did he not visibly dye Was he not visibly buried Did he not visibly ascend into heauen the Astpoles beholding (o) Act. 1.9.10.11 him And is he not to come agayne visibly to iudge the quick the dead The example which you alleage of S. Thomas is against your selfe for not only the Diuinity of Christ is the obiect of fayth which S. Thomas belieued but also his humanity and he that belieueth not his humanity aswell as his Diuinity is an heretike To what end I pray you when the Apostles thought that Christ after his resurrection appearing to them was not a man but a Spirit did he shew them his hands and (p) Luc. 24.39.40 syde and bid them feele and see that so they might belieue him not to be a Spirit because said he a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me to haue And to what end did he (q) Ioan. 20.27 bid Thomas put his finger and hand into his wounds but that by feeling them he might belieue the bodie he touched to be the same that he had seene suffer on the Crosse Nor do you bring any thing of moment to disproue this for the definition of fayth which the Apostle giues saying (r) Heb. 11.1 Fayth is an argument of things not appearing is sufficiently verified in these obiectes It sufficeth that fayth be either of things wholly inuisible or els of things visible apprehended vnder inuifible conditions proprieties as those are vnder which we apprehend Christ when we belieue him to be both man and God and those vnder which we apprehend the Scripture when we say it is the word of God or the Church when we belieue her to be the spouse of Christ the house of fayth the temple of God the mansion of the holy Ghost the gate of heauen the treasuresse of spirituall graces And who knoweth not that the Sacrament of baptisme whether we confider the matter which is water or the forme which are words is the obiect of sense and the very essentiall definition of a Sacrament is to be A visible signe of iuuisible (s) Magist in 4. d 1. S. Tho. 3. part q. 60. a 2. 3. corp grace and yet to belieue one Baptisme in remission of sinnes is an article of the Creed expressed in the Councell of Gonstantinople And this discouereth the weaknesse of your argument taken from the predestinat to approue the inuisibility of the Church for though predestination be inuisible as fayth is yet neither the predestinat nor the faithfull are inuisible and therfore if I should grant for argument sake that the Church consisteth of the predestinate only it would not follow that she is inuisible But to proue her inuisibility you (t) Pag. 11. say Diuine Scripture in positine doctrine doth manifest thus much in that speach of Christ to S. Peter Mat 16.19 Vpon this Rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it where the word Church by the iudgment of S. Augustine and the accordance of your owne Doctors doth signify Only the number of predestinat But let vs see how you make good this your charge Our Doctors which you name are Caietan Ferus Stella and Salmeron But Stella in that place neither explicates those words of Christ nor makes any mention of them nor of S. Peter nor of the Church but speakes of particular men prouing out of other words of Christ recorded by S. Luke (u) Luc. 6.47.48.49 that they which haue fayth without good works build their house vpon loose earth which therfore wanting foundation by winds and stormes of tentations is easily ouerthowne wheras they that haue both fayth good works build vpon a firme Rock which is Christ and from thence he inferreth that your Lutheran Brethren teaching that fayth cannot be without good workes build not on Christ the Rock but vpon sand This is Stellas discourse which to be imposterously alleaged by you to proue that the Church consisteth only of predestinat or that she is inuisible no man can deny And no lesse imposterous is your obiection out of Salmeron who speaketh in the same sense that Stella doth is so far from teaching that the Church is inuisible that in the very same disputation which you (x) In 1. Timoth 3. disp 22. q. Porro to 15. obiect he proueth that the house of God which is his Church is visible and conspicuous in her Head or gouernor the Bishop of Rome in her members the faithfull in the word of God which she is commanded to heare in the profession of her fayth which she is commanded to make openly and in her Sacraments wherwith she is sanctified all these being obiects of sense And (y) Tom. 7. tract 6.12.38 â—e furthermore she weth that the church in holy writ is compared to a field that hath wheat and cockle to a floare that hath corne and chaffe to a net that contaynes good and bad fishes to a vine that hath some branches bearing fruit and some that beare none to a body of which some members are liuing and some dead to a fold in which there are both sheep kids to a great house in which there are not only vessels of gold and siluer but also of wood and earth and to the Arke of Noe in which there were liuing creatures both cleane and vncleane And from these parables as also out of other testimonies of holy Scripture he inferreth against your Confession of Augusta as also against the Pelagians the Donatists and all other sectaries that the Catholike Church in this life consisteth both of good bad of predestinate reprobate I know not therfore with what conscience you produce him as a patron of your Doctrine so contrary to his owne Caietan and Ferus I haue not seene but I feare you deale with them as you do with Stella and Salmeron Besides Ferus is a prohibited author Your second obiection is proposed in these (z) Pag. 11. sin 12. words The same may be said of the Church as it is called the flock of Christ Ioh. 10. My sheep heare my voyce where by Sheep are only meant the sanctified
from the Church which is true for before the end of their life they shall become members of Gods Church and perseuere in her vntill death But how proues this that none but predestinate are in the Church Nor doth it import that he giues to the predestinate the name of Church for that name sometimes doth not signify the vniuersall Church but a particular company of the faythfull as when we say The Church of the Corinthians or of the Ephesians and when S. Paul (f) Rom. 16.3 sayth Salute Prisca and Aquila and their domesticall Church And (g) 1. Cor. 16.19 againe Aquila and Prisca with their domesticall Church salute you In the same sense the name of Church is taken by Clemens Alexandrinus S. Gregory and S. Bernard whom heere you (h) Pag. 12. obiect for they all giue that name to the iust and predestinate by reason they are the principall partes of the Church SECT III. Your third Argument YOv (i) Pag. 16. say Though all agree in this as your selues confesse that without the Catholike Church there is no saluation yet haue you confessed two sorts of Christian professors namely Excommunicates and Catechumenists to be actually saued albeit no members of your Roman Church So you inferring that the Roman Church is not the Catholike Church Syr you know that Bellarmine whom here you cite expresly (k) L. 3 de Eccles milit c. 6. declareth that when we say none can be saued out of the Church we speake only of such as neither are in the Church really nor intentionally by desire but that if they be in the Catholike Church either really or at least by desire as Catechumenists and some Excommunicats are they may be saued Which Doctrine both he other Catholike Diuines approue And it is so certaine that you know not how to disproue it but by (l) Pag. 16. that as for being saued only by desire or vow of being in the Church is but a wild and extrauagant peece of learning in the iudgment of your owne Iesuit Suarez Pardon me Syr. This is not Suarez his censure but an vntruth of yours for Suarez speaking of excommunicats (m) De trio virt d. 9. sect 1. n. 14. sayth that those Diuines which hold them not to be in the Church really but only by desire differ not from him in the substance of their Doctrine but only in manner of speech Now he defends that both excommunicats Catechumenists are in the Church actually and really which also Valentia holdeth of (n) Tom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. punct 7. §. 14. 15. excommunicats on whom therfore you (o) Pag. 15. marg lit d. saying that the Church Catholike is compared by S. Peter to the Arke of Noah from whence you inferre that as in the tyme of the deluge all which were within the arke were saued and all without it were drowned although they desired neuer so much to be admitted into the arke so whosoeuer are essentiall members of the Catholike Church cannot possibly perish and contrarily whosoeuer is not a reall and vitall member therin cannot but perish So you reason the matter misvnderstanding S. Peter for he compares not the Arke of Noe to the Church but to the Sacrament of Baptisme wherin your argument holdeth not for though in the deluge none were saued but only they which actually were in the arke yet it is certaine that in the law of grace some are saued which neuer receaued the Sacrament of Baptisme as diuers Martyrs that were baptized in their owne bloud you acknowledge the same of Valentinian the Emperor who dyed vnbaptized But admitting the arke of Noe to be a type of the Catholike Church for so it is often taken by the ancient Fathers yet your argument proues nothing for similitudes hold not in all things Wherfore I answere with S. Augustine (q) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 28. that albeit none that were in the arke perished in the deluge and all perished that were out of the arke yet it falleth out otherwise in the Catholike Church represented by the arke for ill Catholikes notwithstanding they be in the Church not only by desire but corporally and really perish because they make bad vse of their baptisme and contrarily others that belieue aright and liue accordingly though they be not in the Church really but only in hart and desire as being yet vnbaptized are saued From whence S. Augustine concludeth that what is said of being in or without the arke in order to saluation is to be vnderstood of being in or without the Church corde non corpore that is to say not corporally and really but in hart and desire Which Doctrine as it is all Catholike Diuines so it is contrary to yours and sheweth your simplicity in calling it a wild and extrauagant peece of learning The things in which the Church is like to the arke witnes S. (r) Aduers Lucifer Hierome are that as the arke was visible so is the Church as in the arke there were Creatures cleane and vncleane so in the Church there are good and bad and as in the arke there were predestinate and also Cham a reprobate so in the Church there are both predestinate and reprobate Wherfore this comparison which you haue brought of the arke destroyes your owne doctrine SECT IV. Your fourth Argument YOur fourth Argument to proue the Roman Church not to be the Catholike Church is (t) Pag. 17. because say you our Diuines that speake more ingeniously freely graunt that the Pontificall dignity Roman as it is Roman is not from Diuine authority because only from the fact of Peter And they that are more affectionate to the Roman See although they attribute it to the institution of Christ yet dare they not say that this is to be belieued vpon certainty of fayth but only as a matter probable and coniecturall If you should argue thus An Aethyopian as he is black is not a man Ergo an Aethyopian is not a man your argument were a sophisme and so is that which heere you make against the Roman Church for as an Aethyopian though he be not a man reduplicatiue and formaliter as he is black yet he is a man as he is a rationall creature so like wise though it be no matter of fayth that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman is the Catholike Church yet it is matter of fayth that S. Peter by diuine institution was created supreme Pastor and Gouernor the whole Church that the same power descendeth from him to his Successors And it is also matter of fayth that S. Peter fixed his See at Rome and died there and that the Bishop of Rome succedeth him in his See and supreme authority of Prince and Gouernor of the whole Church of Christ nor was this euer questioned by any but heretikes That which some Catholike writers dispute is whether S. Peter had any command from Christ to place his See at Rome and
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
words which you obiect to wit that Christ after his resurrection gaue equall power to all the Apostles saying As my Father sent me so I send you receaue yee the holy Ghost c. For by these words he gaue to them all equall authority to preach throughout the world to reueale matters of fayth assurance of infallibility to make canonicall Scriptures to institute the first mission of Pastors to remit sinnes to giue the holy Ghost and the like In this sense he sayth The Apostles were the same that Peter endowed with like fellowship of honor and power to wit in the exercise of these Apostolicall functions ouer the faythfull to whom he sent them But S. Cyprian sayth not that Christ made all the Apostles equall among themselues exempting them from the iurisdiction of S. Peter in the manner of exercising this power Nor is it true for he gaue it theÌ„ with subordination to him as to their Superior Peter sayth S. Leo (d) Serm. â— in Aâ—niuers suae Assumpt is preferred before all the Apostles if Christ would haue them to haue any thing common with him he gaue it them not but by him And this is declared and the reason therof yelded by Optatus S. Hierome and by S. Cyprian himselfe in that very place which you obiect for the contrary In the Episcopall chayre sayth Optatus (e) L. â— cont Parmâ—n was set the Head of all the Apostles Peter from whence he was also called Cephas to the end that in this only chayre Vnity might be preserued in all and that the other Apostles might not challenge to themselues ech one a seuerall chayre but that he might be a Schismatike and a sinner that against this only Chayre should erect another The Church sayth S. Hierome (f) L. 1. aduers louin c. 14. is built vpon Peter though els where it be also built vpon the rest yet among the twelue one is chosen to the end that a Head being made occasion of Schisme might be taken away And S. Cyprian (g) L. de vnit Eccles Christ to manifest vnity constituted one chayre and ordayned the originall of Vnity beginning from one giuing the primacy to Peter that so one Church of Christ and one chayre might be manifested And then declaring you that haue forsaken this originall of Vnity S. Peters Chayre on which the Church is built to haue lost the fayth and to be out of the Church he addoth He that keepeth not this vnity of the Church doth he belieue himselfe to hold the fayth he that resisteth the Church he that forsaketh the chaire of Peter on which the Church is built doth he thinke himselfe to be in the Church So S. Cyprian equalling you with the Nouatians for your disclayming from the Church of Peter CHAP. XII The authority of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth proued to be infallible HAVING in vayne shot your darts at S. Peter to dethrone him from the height of Authority in which Christ hath placed him you come now to try their force against the Bishop of Rome his Successor whose authority in his definitions of fayth you hold to be fallible SECT I. Our first Argument THat the authority of the Bishop of Rome in his definitions of fayth is infallible we proue out of the words of Christ spoken to S. Peter (h) Luc. 12.32 I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth faile not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren There is no man so voyd of vnderstanding sayth Leo the 9. speaking (i) Ep. ad Michael Impâ—r of this prayer that can thinke Christs prayer whose will is his power to haue bene inefficacious which the Apostle allso teacheth saying (k) Heb. 5.7 he was heard for his reuerence And for this prayer in particular Christ himselfe signifieth so much saying I haue prayed for thee for what would his prayer haue auayled Peter if he had not obtayned for him what he asked Or how cold his brethren haue any assurance of their confirmation in fayth from Peter if Peter could haue error proposing vnto them falshood for truth Againe that Christ in these words prayed not in mediatly for the whole Church nor for all the Apostles but for Peter alone appeareth in this that he expressed one singular person saying Simon Sâ—mon for in the Greeke it is twice repeated and added the pronounce of the second person I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth fayle not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren That Christ prayed not for the other Apostles you grant (l) Pag. 53. and take this for a ground to proue that he prayed for Peter only and not for Clement Vrban or any other of his Successors in the Roman See But your argument proueth nothing for Christ had formerly obtayned the personall perseuerance of Peter and the rest when he said (m) Ioan. 17.9 seqq for them I do pray c. Holy Father keep them in my name c. I pray not that thou take them out of the world but that thou preserue them from euill And therfore this prayer for Peters not fayling in fayth was not made for him in the person of a priuat man and without relation to his office of Supreme Pastor but as for a publike person that is as for the Head of the Apostles and Gouernor of the whole Church and consequently for his See and all his Successors in the same See for as that supreme dignity of Head Gouernor of the vniuersall Church was not to dye with Peter but to descend by him to his Successors so the effect of this prayer of Christ being a prerogatiue obtayned for Peter by reason of his office was to descend to Clement to Vrban and to whosoeuer hath hitherto or shall hereafter succeed him in the same office euen as whatsoeuer prerogatiue is granted to a Vice-Roy as Vice-Roy and as belonging to his office is consequently granted to all his Successors in the same office But you obiect (n) Pag. 54. that this priuiledge cannot agree to Peters Successors because Salas the Iesuit teacheth that a personall and singular priuiledge is that which is granted to an indiuiduall person with expression of his name and therfore doth not extend to any other but dyeth with the person to whom it is granted You vnderstand not Salas for he calleth a personall priuiledge that which is granted to an indiuiduall person as he is a piuat person only for his owne particular good not by reason of any publike office for the good and benefit of the community for if it be granted to him as to a publike person by reason of his office as this was to S. Peter as to the Head of the Church and for the common good of the Church though his name be neuer so much expressed in it it is not a personall but a common (o) See Bonacina Compend v. Priuileg or as Suarez (p) L. 7. de
failing in fayth and confirming his brethren was not personall but belonging to his office and descending with it to his Successors for Peter in his owne person was not to liue till the end of the world and therfore not by himselfe but by his Successors to confirme the faythfull vntill the end of the world The same truth is further proued out of an ancient Treatise intituled A dispute between the Church and the Synagogue written by a learned Author aboue 700. yeares since in which it is said (d) Cap. 19. art 4. Christ seemeth to haue defined that the fayth of the Roman Church shall neuer faile saying to Peter I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth faile not for he foresaw that Peter whose fayth he promised shold neuer faile was to be Bishop of the Roman Church and there to end his lyfe by Martyrdome And what I beseech you are we to thinke him to haue signified to vs but that that Church especially whose Bishop Peter the Head of all Churches after Christ was to be shold alwayes remaine in the confession of one true fayth To these I adde the testimony of Georgius Trapezuntius a learned Grecian who explicating the same words of Christ sayth (*) In illud Ioan. Si eum volo manere c. In them two great Mysteries are plainly expressed the first that only the fayth of Peter his Successors that is to say of the Roman Church shall not fayle The other that the fayth of the rest shall sometimes fayle Wherefore sayth Christ thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren He said Once to shew that the Apostles being confirmed with the grace of the Holy Ghost none of them should erre but that their Successors should for whose confirmation Peter that is to say his Successors are commanded to be conuerted which hath byn effectually performed for the rest of the Churches of the world haue byn often confirmed by the Roman but She neuer by others Finally S. Bernard writing to Pope Innocentius and requiring him to condemne the heresies of Abailardus subscribeth to the same exposition saying (e) Ep. 190. It is fit that all dangers scandals arising in the kingdome of God and chiefly those that concerne fayth should be referred to your Apostleship for I thinke it iust that the ruines of fayth shold be repared there where fayth cannot fayle for that is the prerogatiue of your See for to what other was it euer said I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth faile not and therfore what followeth is required from Peters Successor And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren It is tyme therfore most â—ouing Father that you show your zeale repressing the corruptors of â—ayth Out of these testimonies I inferre against you that whatsoeuer Bellarmine in his Controuersies holdeth to the contrary (f) L. 4. de Pont. c. 3. these words of Christ I haue prayed for thee Peter c. containe no priuiledge of Peter peculiar to his person but a publike prerogatiue belonging to his office and descending to his Successors as Bellarmine in a later worke (g) Apol. c. 14. §. Neque solum expresly declareth And therfore though out of them it cannot be proued but that his Successors in their priuate Doctrine or writing may erre and fall into heresy yet it followeth that they neuer shall nor can erre ex cathedra that is iudicially in their Councels Consistories publike decrees or definitions of fayth made for the whole Church for S. Augustine (h) Epist 16â— truly sayth The heauenly Mayster in the chayre of Vnity hath placed the Doctrine of verity and secured his people that for euill Prelates they forsake not the chayre of holsome Doctrine in which chayre euen they that are ill men are inforced to speake good things There is then in the Church a chayre of holsome Doctrine which is not the chaire in which Christ now sitteth in Heauen for in that there sit no ill men nor any other but himselfe Nor is this Chayre the chayre of euery Bishop for euery Bishop is not inforced to speake truth many haue bene heretikes and inuentors of heresies Wherfore S. Augustine himselfe declareth this chayre of Vnity to be that in which sitteth one Pastor in whom all Pastors of the earth are one I find sayth he (i) L. de Pastor c. 13. all good Pastors in one for surely good Pastors are not wanting but they are in one They that are diuided are many here one is praysed because vnity is commended This one chayre is none els but that of S. Peter There is one chayre sayth S. Cyprian (k) L. 1. ep 8. founded vpon the Rock by the voyce of our Lord. and againe (l) Lib. de Vnit Eccles Christ to manifest vnity constituted one chayre and ordained the originall of this vnity beginning from one giuing the primacy to Peter that so one Church of Christ and one chayre might be manifested c. He that keeps not this vnity doth he thinke himselfe to hold the fayth In the Episcopall chayre sayth Optatus (m) L. 2. contra Parmen was set Peter the Head of all the Apostles to the end that in this only chayre vnity might be preserued to all From this priuiledge obtayned by Christ for S. Peter his chayre it proceedeth that the ancient Fathers haue not doubted to belieue and teach the infallibility of the Roman Church in matters of fayth as also from other grounds of Scripture to be declared hereafter S. Cyprian speaking against the Nouatians sayth (n) L. 1. Ep. 3. They presumed to carry letters from Schismatikes and heretikes to the chayre of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praysed by the mouth of the Apostle and to whom misbeliefe can haue no accesse S. Basil writeth to Damasus Pope (o) Epist. 69. per Sabinum Diac. Surely that which is giuen by our Lord to your Holynesse is worthy of that most excellent voyce which proclamed you Blessed to wit that you may discerne betweene what is counterfeit and what is lawfull and pure and that you may without any diminution preach the fayth of our ancestors S. Ambrose writeth to Siricius Pope (p) L. 10. ep 31. Whom your Holinesse hath condemned know that we also hold them condemned according to your iudgment S. Hierome sayth to Ruffinus (q) L. 1. Apol aduers Ruffin Know thou that the Roman fayth commended by the voyce of the Apostle admitteth no such delusions and that being fensed by S. Pauls authority it cannot be altered though an Angell should teach otherwise S. Augustine writing against the Pelagians and hauing professed that the Bishop of Rome hath from the holy Scriptures authority to declare the true fayth and condemne heresies addeth (r) Epist 157. The Catholike fayth expressed in these words of the Apostolike See is so ancient so grounded so certaine
the law and not to fulfill it did our Lord Iesus Christ for the Pharisies of whom he sayth that they say and do not do any wrong to the chayre in which they did sit Did he not commend that chayre of Moyses and reprehend them preseruing the honor of the chayre Wherfore you in carping at the vices of some Popes shew your self to be like to the Donatists who sayth S. Augustine (z) Ibid. had with wicked fury separated themselues from the Roman Church And as no vices of Popes could iustify their separation so neither can it yours I denie not but that histories mention sinnes and scandals of some Popes but yet of few in comparison of the great number of most holy and learned Bishops that haue possessed that Seat for whose excellent vertues and great labors in defending and propagating the Catholike faith you ought rather to commend the Bishops of Rome then for the vices of a few to defame both them and their Seat Though all the Popes haue not bene holy like Sem and Iaphet yet as S. Gregory admonisheth (a) L. 25. Mor. c. 22. l. 3. Pastoral c. 1. it is not lawfull for you to imitate wicked Cham in laying open their faults It is no maruell if among so many good there haue bene some few bad for among the twelue Apostles there was a Iudas whose wickednesse as it was no defamation to the Apostolicall function so nether are they faults of a few bad Popes to the dignity of the Roman See But what if there had bene many Could their euill life excuse your euill fayth Shall their falling from God by frailty for a tyme iustify your departing for euer from Gods Church by contempt and obstinate rebellion If the ill liues of Prelates be a sufficient cause to forsake the Church how can you remaine in your Protestant Congregation For Luther whom your brother Klebitius in his booke against the Saxonicall Popedome tearmeth The Pope of Wittemberg was a Iewd Apostata and had conuersation with the Diuell Caluin a stigmaticall Sodomite Beza an especiall paterne of wantonnesse and lust And if you looke nearer home Cranmer and other chief Heads in your English Church haue not bene very great Saints Wherfore since you cannot but know that the ill liues of some Popes is a Non sequitur to proue that they may erre in their definitions of fayth you cannot be so simple as to alleage it to that end but only to ease your stomake of some parte of that venime wherwith it is charged against the authority of the Roman Church And yet not this without imposture for of the authors which you bringe Massonius is a fabulous Historian and forbidden by the Church (b) In indic lè prohib Costerus as in that very place he confesseth that Popes may be wicked in their liues (c) Enchir. c. 3. §. Patemur so he proueth that they cannot propose to the Church any heresy or error which is the thing you ought to disproue but cannot therfore diuert from it to rayle at the ill liues of Popes that haue bene or may be Baronius and Genebraed speake only of such Popes as were intruded partly by the tyranny of Emperors partly by the Marquis of Thuscia partly by the Nobility of Rome and Princes of Etruria This you ought to haue obserued with Baronius and with him to haue put your reader in mind of the singular care and prouidence wherwith Christ protecteth the Roman Church for notwithstanding she suffered greater calamities by the tyranny of these Christian Princes thē she had euer done vnder any heathenish persecutors yet it cannot be shewed that any of those Princes euer doubted of the infallibility of the Roman Church or that any of the aforesaid Popes albeit they came in by intrusion euer taught any thing repugnant to fayth SECT III. S. Pauls subiection to S. Peter and his acknowledgment therof TO proue that S. Paul belieued not the domination of S. Peter for so you call it (d) Pag. 57. and consequently of the Pope or the vniuersall power of the Roman Church aboue all others or yet the absolute continuance therof in the fayth of Christ you spend many arguments throughout six whole Sections from the eight to the fourteenth all which make against your selfe It is frequent with you to call the supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction of S. Peter and his successors their dominion If by dominion you vnderstand a dominiering power wherwith some temporall Princes gouerne their subiectes S. Peter forbiddeth that to all ecclesiasticall Prelates (e) 1. Pet. 5.3 commanding them not to dominiere in the Clergy But if by dominion you vnderstand a Fatherly gouerment and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church and their infallible assurance in their definitions of fayth that S. Peter and his successors haue such a power and iurisdiction hath bene already proued will be more confirmed by the answere to your arguments against S. Peters supremacy out of sundry passages of S. Paul to the Galathians (f) Pag. 58. seqq The first is Paul some tyme after the exercise of his Apostleship would not goe to Hierusalem to Peter or any of the Apostles lest he might haue seemed to haue bene authorized by them yet three yeares after that he taketh a iourney thither of see Peter doubtlesse for honor sake as one in order of Apostleship most eminent but this be did voluntarily in discretion brotherly communion not in subiection as the Context sheweth So you but the Context sheweth no such matter and the sacred Expositors teach directly the contrary S. Ambrose (g) In eum locum It was fit that Paul should desire to see Peter to whom our Sauiour had committed the charge of the Churches S. Hierome (h) Ep. 89. quae est 11. inter epist. August Peter was of so great authority that Paul writeth in his epistle Then after three yeares I came to Hierusalem to see Peter And againe (i) In c. 1. ad Gal. He went to see him to the end he might yeild honor vnto him Theodoret (k) In cap. 1. ad Gal. he went to yeild vnto Peter as to the Prince of the Apostles that honor which was fitting And shewing that S. Paul held Peter to be the supreme iudge to whom all doubts of fayth ought to be referred he sayth (l) In ep ad Leon. Paul the preacher of truth and the trumpet of the holy Ghost ranne to the great Peter for a resolution of such doubts as rising about the obseruation of the Law did minister occasion of strife to them that were at Antioch Oecumenius (m) In cap. 1. ad Gal. He went to see him as one greater then himselfe and stayed with him to honor him with his presence S. Chrysostome (n) Hom. 87. in Ioan. He went to see him aboue others because he was the mouth and Prince of the Apostles and the Head of the whole company
what the most holy and learned Doctors of Gods Church from tyme to tyme haue done And as out of this passage of S. Paul we shew you that the fayth of the Roman Church was pure in the Apostles tyme so we require of you as S. Augustine (f) L. de vnto Eccles c. 12. 13. did of the Donatists to shew vs out of Scripture that after 600. yeares she was to fall from the true fayth as you pretend her to haue done Let them sayth S. Augustine reade vs this in the Scripture and we yeild but if they reade not this in the Scripture but seeke to persuade it by their contentions wrangling I belieue those things which are read in the holy Scriptures but I belieue not those which are affirmed by vaine heretikes And in requiring this at your hands we require no other prose for the truth of your Protestant Church fayth but what we are able to shew for ours for that the Roman Church cannot erre in sayth I haue already proued (g) Hoc cap. sect 1. 2. out of Scriptures and Fathers which therfore conuince her to be the true Catholike Church in which the spirit of truth dwelleth for euer (h) Ioan. 14.16 And that the Catholike Church the Roman Church are termes conuertible denoting one and the same thing hath also bene proued (i) Aboue Chap. 1. sect 3. But because you seeme to thinke that out of this text of S. Paul it cannot be proued that the fayth which S. Peter deliuered to the Romans is hereditary to the Church of Rome or that the Catholike fayth and the Romen fayth are all one it will not be amisse to let you heare what the ancient Fathers the best interpreters of Scripture haue belieued in this point That holy and renowned Martyr S. Cyprian (k) L. 1. ep 3. out of this text proueth that the Roman Church cannot fall from that fayth which she once receaued They to wit the Nouatian heretikes hauing set vp a false Bishop presume to carry letters from Schismatikes and heretikes to the chayre of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praysed by the mouth of the Apostle and to whom vnfaithfulnes can haue no accesse If vnfaithfulnes can haue no accesse to the RomaÌ„ Church it followeth that she retaineth still the same fayth which was commended by S. Paul and that whosoeuer belieueth at this day as she belieues is free from all error in fayth The same is confirmed by an other testimony of the same Father who writing to Cornelius Pope and diuers of the Romans suffering banishment in the persecution of Decius and praysing their constancy and fayth sayth (l) Ep. 57. It was fore-seene in spirit and prophetically foretold by the Apostle My dearest brethren whiles you are of one hart and one voyce it is the confession of all the Roman Church that fayth hath shined in you which the Apostle praysed He did euen then foresee in spirit this prayse of your vertue and strength of your constancy and by prediction of future things gaue testimony of your desertes and commâ—nding the parents incouraged their Children With S. Cyprian accordeth S. Hierome When sayth he to Demetrias (m) Ep. 8. thou wast litle and the Bishop Anastasius of happy and holy memory gouerned the Roman Church a cruell tempest of heretikes risen out of the Easterne parts attempted to pollute and corrupt the sincerity of that fayth which had bene commended by the mouth of the Apostle but this personage Pope Anastasius rich in a most plentifull pouerty and in an Apostolicall care brake the pestilent head and stopped the hissing mouth of that Hydra And because I feare yea haue heard say that the buds of this most renemous plant do still liuâ— and spring vp in some I thought it my duety to admonish thee in a deuout zeale of Charity that thou keepe fast the fayth of S. Innocentius his sonne and successor in the Apostolicall chayre And writing to Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria (n) Ep. 68. Know that we haue nothing in greater recommendation then to conserue the statutes of Christ and not to transgresse the bounds of our Fathers and alwayes to haue in mynde the Roman fayth praysed by the mouth of the Apostle wherof the Church of Alexandria glories to partake And impugning Ruffinus his errors as being contrary to the Catholike fayth (o) Lib. 1. Apol aduers Ruffin Know thou that the Roman fayth commended by the Apostle receaues not such delusions though an Angell should denounce otherwise then it hath hene once preached it cannot be altered being fensed by Pauls authority If therfore S. Hierome be to be credited the Roman fayth in his tyme was conserued pure as it was preached and cannot be altered as you pretend it to haue bene since that tyme. And therfore as it were speaking to you (p) Ep. 6. ad Pammach Ocean he further sayth Who-euer thou art that auouchest new sects I pray thee haue respect to the Roman eares spare the fayth which was commended by the voyce of the Apostle And to Paula and Eustochium (q) Proem lib Comment in ep ad Galat. Will you know how the Apostle hath noted euery prouince with their proprieties the fayth of the people of Rome is praysed where is so great concourse to Churches and to Martyrs sepulchers c. Not that the Romans haue any other fayth then the rest of the christian Churches but that in them there is more deuotion and simplicity of fayth To which place of S. Hierome the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas alluding sayth (r) In vers 8. cap. 1. ad Rom. The Romans are commended for their fayth because they receaued it easily and perseuered in it constantly from whence it is that to this day are shewed very many signes of their fayth in the visitation of holy places as S. Hierome sayth vpon the Epistle to the Galathians And a litle after The Apostle reioyceth and giueth thankes to God for their fayth not only for their sake but for the profit that followed therof because they being Lords of nations other countreys were moued to belieue by their example for as the Glosse sayth The inferior doth readily what he sees done by his Superior which last words are also of S. Ambrose And S. Augustine speaking of Pelagius the Arch-heretike (s) L. 2. de peccat orig cont Pelag. c. 8. sayth He deceaued the Palestine Councell and therfore seemeth to haue bene absolued there But he was not able to deceaue the Roman Church though be endeauored to do is because the most blessed Pope Zozimus called to minde what opinion Innocentius his predecessor worthy to be imitated had of his proceeding and be considered likewise what iudgment the fayth of the Romans worthy of prayse in our Lord did make of him for he perceaued them with vnited endeauors to
Eusebius Nebrissensis proueth the like by examples of other natioÌ„s And to what he sayth I adde the reason which Blessed Augustinus Triumphus a holy and ancient wryter that liued 400. yeares since yieldeth (l) De Potest Ecclesiact c. 7. art â— why S. Paul in the Popes buls is somtimes placed on the right hand of S. Peter S. Paul sayth he was lesse then Peter greater then Peter and equall to Peter He was equall to Peter in the office of preaching lesse then Peter in Ecclesiasticall power for Peter alone was Cephas that is Head of the whole Church but he was greater then Peter in the prerogatiue of his election to the Apostleship for he was chosen by Christ after his resurrection glorification for this cause Paul in the Popes bulls is placed on the right hand Peter on the left So he Hauing now answered the arguments which hitherto you haue brought out of S. Pauls epistles and shewed that by alleaging them you conuince your owne Doctrine of falshood and proue ours I must craue pardon if I aske you a question concerning his Epistle to the Romans which Optatus asked the Donatists concerning some other of his epistles and S. Augustine concerning them all How dare you sayth Optatus (m) L. â— cont Parmen read S. Pauls epistle to the Romans in whose communion you are not You sayth S. Augustine (n) L. 2. de Baptism c. 6. that haue it and read it and say that you liue according to it why doe you not communicate with the Church to which it was sent Answere why haue you separated your selues c Choose which you will If then that is when Donatus when Luther when Caluin began the Roman Church was polluted with errors it was perished for a Church that holds false pernicious schismaticall hereticall blasphemous and Antichristian Doctrine with which you often charge the Roman Church cannot be a true Church of Christ but a Synagogue of Satan from whence then had Donatus Luther or Caluin his begining where was he Cathechized where baptized where ordayned I conclude therfore as Optatus did against the Donatists Know that you are cut of from the holy Church And I say to you as S. Augustine did to them (p) L. de vnit Eccles c. 12. You haue the epistle to the Romans but we read it and beleeue it and haue the Roman Church in our communion from which we grieue with him (p) Psal cont part Donati to see you lye cut of she being that Rock which the prowd gates of hell ouercome not CHAP. XIII Whether S. Iohn the Euangelist conceaued himselfe subiect to the Roman Church YOVR Tenet is (r) Pag. 73. that S. Iohns fayth did not conceaue the Article of subiection to the Roman Church In proofe therof you assume that in his booke of Reuelation he reuealeth the City of Rome to be Babylon that Autichrist shall haue his seate there which though it were granted yet I see not which way it followeth that Iohn did not acknowledg himselfe subiect to S. Peter or â—o his Successors in the Church of Rome But let vs examine the particulers of your Doctrine and proofes SECT I. Whether Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist THat the City of Rome is Babylon mentioned in the Reuelation say you (s) Ibid. is the gener all consent of our owne Iesuits and other Diuines But in proose hereof you can find no other Iesuits nor Diuines to alleage but Ribera Viegas and the Rhemists whom you abuse and falsify to make them serue your turne as I shall now declare The Rhemists say you (t) Pag. 74. do thus farre grant as to say The great Antichrist shall haue his seat at Rome as it may well be though others thinke that Hierusalem rather shall be his principall soat But your Iesuits Ribera and Viegas both of them Spanish Doctors and publike professors do confidently auerre the contrary and the one is so bold as to hold him to be a most notable foole that shall deny it But good Sir by your leaue this is a most notable vntruth That which Ribera sayth is that towards the end of the world Rome shall be burned not only for her former sinnes of Idolatry and persecuting of Christ vnder the Pagan Emperors but also for other sinnes that in the end of the world she shall commit vnder Pagan Kings and that this is so certaine out of the Apocalypse that no man though neuer so foolish can deny it This Ribera sayth and it may well be said that he who out of these words of Ribera inferreth as you do that the City of Rome is to be the seat of Antichrist or that Ribera sayth so is I will not say a notable foole but whether he deserue not that name I leaue to the readers censure The Doctrine of Ribera Viegas the Rhemists is that when S. Iohn calleth Rome Babylon he neither speaketh of the Church or Pope of Rome nor yet of the Citty of Rome as she is vnder the gouerment of Christian Emperors or in obedience of the See Apostolike for in that estate the hath sayth S. Hierome (u) L 2. cont louin wiped out the blasphemies written in her forehead by the confession of Christ. In that estate (x) Ep. 17. ad Marcell there is in Rome the holy Church there are the triumphant Monuments of Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the fayth praysed by the Apostle and gentility troden vnder foote the name of Christ daily aduancing it selfe on high Wherfore when S. Iohn calleth Rome Babylon Ribera Viegas and the Rhemists with the ancient Fathers expound him to giue her that name as she was the head of Paganisme the mother of superstition and Idolatry and persecuted the Church and Popes of Rome being drunke with the bloud of the Saints Martyrs of Christ Iesus (*) Apoc. 17.6 as she did vnder Nero and Domitian in S. Iohns tyme afterwards vnder other Pagan Emperors when she put to death thirty Popes successiuely one after another and as she shall do againe in the end of the world for both Ribera and Viegas hold that the Citty of Rome shall then fall from the obedience of the See Apostolike and from the fayth of Christ and that as well for her enormous sinnes anciently committed vnder the heathen Emperors as also for other like which in the end of the world she shall commit vnder heathenish Kings she shall be burn's and consumed with fyre But that Rome euen then vnder pagans Emperors was or hereafter vnder Heathenish Kings shall be the seate of Antichrist neither Ribera nor Viegas affirme nor any way insinuate as it may appeare out of their words which you here set downe in Latin (y) Pag. 74. marg for those words Roma sedes Antichristi which you attribute to Ribera are not his but foysted in by your selfe to Father on him your owne fiction
THAT the seauenth and eight Generall Councells belieued the B. of Rome to be the Head and Gouernor of the Vniuersal Church is a truth not to be denied In the second Action of the seauenth Synod was read and approued the Epistle of Adrian Pope to Tharasius in which speaking of S. Peters See he sayth Whose seate obtayning the primacy shineth throughout the whole world and is the Head of all the Churches of God In the eight Synod the profession which all Schismaticall Bishops returning to the Catholike Church were to make is expressed in these words (f) Apud Bin. to 3. pag. 923. Can. l. 6. c. 6. pag. 200. The begiuning of saluation is to conserue the rule of right fayth and no way to swarue from the tradition of our Fore-fathers because the words of our Lord cannot fayle saying Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it And the proofes of deeds haue made good these words for as much as in the See Apostolike the Catholike religion is alwayes conserued inuiolable We therfore desiring not to be separated from the fayth and doctrine of this Sea and following in all things the constitutions of the Fathers and chiefly of the holy Prelates of the See Apostolike anathematize all heresies c. And a litle after Wherfore following the See Apostolike in all things and obseruing all her constitutions we hope to deserue to liue in one communion which the See Apostolike teacheth in which there is the true and entire solidity of Christian religion we promise likewise not to recite in the sacred mysteries the names of those which are separated from the communion of the Catholike Church that is to say which agree not to the See Apostolike What you thinke Doctor Morton I know not but sure I am that if you who deny the Roman Church to be the Head and gouernesse of all Churches you that liue out of her Communion you that refuse to obey her constitutions you that professe not to follow her doctrine had liued in tyme of the seauenth and eight Synods they would haue anathematized you and condemned your doctrine as hereticall And this is the reason why you conceale these many other passages of those Councells in which the same truth is deliuered and many other points of your Protestant Doctrine condemned SECT II. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the eight Generall Councell IN your eight Chapter in the title of the eight Section you say (g) Pag. 127. The beliefe of the Article Viz. The Catholike Roman Church without subiection wherunto there is no saluation damneth the eight Councell which you call generall consisting of 383. Bishops in the yeare 870. This is your title in proofe wherof you cite Binius (h) Tom. 3. p. 143. in your margent but ignorantly and falsly for the Councell which Binius there setteth downe is not the eight generall held the yeare 870. vnder Basilius the Emperor and Adrian the second Pope of that name but a particular Synod consisting of certaine Greeke Bishops assembled the yeare 692. by the industry of Calinicus Patriarke of Constantinople in the tyme of Sergius Pope Iustinian the yonger in his pallace called Trullum hath neuer bene esteemed a lawfull Councell but alwayes reproued as a false and erraticall assembly as Binius proueth (i) To. 3. pag. 154. 155. and I shall presently declare (k) Sect. seq Againe you say The eight generall Councell consisted of 383 Bishops and giue Binius for your Author But you are mistaken wrong Binius for he (l) Tom. 3. pag. 910. proueth out of Nicetas and Anastasius who was present at the eight Councell that it consisted only of 102. Bishops Nor will it serue you for an excuse that Bellarmine sayth it consisted of 383. Bishops for you bring not him for your author but Binius who affirmeth and proueth the contrary And in what sense Bellarmine speaketh you might haue learned if you had obserued what Binius noteth out of Anastasius namely that many other Bishops agreed to this Synod though they were not present at it But let vs go on What was done say you (m) Pag. 127. in this fourth Synod of Constantinople you may vnderstand from your owne men Here I must request you to call to mind that els where you say (n) Pag. 235. marg lit â— the Councell vnder Menas was the fifth Councel of Constantinople How then can the eight general Councel which you say was held the yeare 870. be the fourth Councell of Constantinople since in this other place alleaged you affirme the Councell vnder Menas held the yeare 553. to be the fifth Councell of Constantinople for therby you ignorantly make the fifth Councell of Constantinople to haue bene held aboue 300. yeare before the fourth SECT III. Whether the eight generall Councell condemned the Saturday fast allowed by the Roman Church YOu tell vs (o) Pag. 1â—7 that we may vnderstand from our Binius that these Bishops of the eight generall Councell condemned a custome of the saboth fast in lent then vsed in the Church of Rome and therupon made they a Canon inhibiting the Church of Rome from keeping that custome any longer And you adde (p) Ibid. This Canon sayth your Surius is not receaued because it reprehendeth the Church of Rome the mother-Church of all other Churches So you And your readers especially of the vulgar sort by this your expression what will they conceaue but that the Roman Church did in those tymes fast the Sundayes in Lent for as by the Saboth day Protestants especially the vulgar vnderstand no other day but Sunday so by the Saboth fast what will they vnderstand but the Sunday fast which was neuer vsed nor allowed in the Roman Church but condemned in the Councell of Gangra as an hereticall obseruation of the Eustathians (q) See Spond anno 319. n. 9. The fast which this Canon inhibiteth is the Saturday fast which as then it was so notwithstanding this Canon is still vsed by the Roman Church in Lent and not prohibited out of Lent Nor was that Canon made by the eight generall CouÌ„cell to whom you ignorantly ascribe it but by the Trullan Synod as Binius and Surius testify whom therfore you abuse in fathering on them your owne ignorant mistake of the Trullan Synod for the eight generall Councell And so much the more because both of them with all Catholike Diuines hold the Trullan Canons to be illegitimate and of no force for as much as no Legates of Sergius then Pope were present at that Synod nor was it assembled by his authority or consent but absolutely reproued and condemned by him notwithstanding the barbarous violence of Soldiers and other meanes vsed by the Empetor to extort a confirmation from him and his successors as Venerable Bede (r) L Dâ— sex aetat in iustinian iuniore who liued at that tyme
5. Martin the first praying the Emperor to vouchsafe to read his letters The Epistle is not of Martin alone but of the whole Roman Synod which hauing condemned the Monothelites sent their decrees to Constans the Emperor desiring and exhorting him for his confirmation in the Catholike fayth to read them attentiuely by his Lawes condemne and publikely declare the Monothelites to be heretikes Can there be a more childish illation then to inferre from hence that Martin acknowledged himselfe subiect to the Emperor If a Prouinciall Synod gathered by the Archbishop of Canterbury should send the like instruction to a Peere of this Realme his spirituall subiect exhorting him to read it would it therfore follow that the Archbishop did acknowledge himselfe subiect to that Peere Who then seeth not your arguing to be trifeling 8. You say (e) Impost pag. 179. serm pag. 5. Adrian the first deuoted himselfe to the Emperor by letters as one in supplication fallen downe prostrate at the soales of his feet O Imposture Adrian writ that Epistle to Constantine and Irene his Mother against the Image-breakers heretikes of that time whose heyres you are And hauing proued effectually out of Scriptures and Fathers the veneration due to sacred Images with all loue as if he were at Constantinople present with them and prostrate at their feet beseecheth and requireth them before God and coniureth them for so are his words which you alter and mangle that renouncing and detesting the craft of those wicked heretikes they would cause the sacred Images to be restored and set vp againe in the Churches of Constantinople and of all Greece to the end they might be receaued into the vnity of the holy Catholike Apostolike and irreprehensible Roman Church But that it may appeare how you abuse your readers and hearers inferring from hence that Adrian acknowledged subiection to the Emperor it is to be obserued that in that very Epistle he often calleth Constantine and Irene His belieued children and exhorteth them by the examples of Constantine the great Helena his Mother and the rest of the Orthodoxe Emperors to exalt honor and reuerence the holy Catholike Apostolike Roman Church as their spirituall Mother from which all Churches haue receaued the documents of Fayth to embrace her doctrine to admit of her censure to loue honor and reuerence the Successor of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles to whom our Sauiour gaue the keyes of heauen with power to bind and loose on earth And as he hauing receaued from Christ the principality of the Apostleship and pastorall charge sate first in the Apostolike See so by commandment from God he left it with all the power and authority that Christ had giuen to him to his Successors for euer and therfore that the sacred Scripture declareth of how great dignity that chiefe See is and how great Veneration is due vnto it from all faithfull throughout the world So Adrian as if he had written purposely to shew your lack of iudgment and honesty that would aduenture to produce his Epistle as a selected Argument against the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome and vent it for such both in your Imposture and againe in your late Sermon before his Maiesty And not vnlike to this is an other obiection you make (f) Impost pag. 179. serm pag. 5. out of an Epistle of Agatho Pope to Constantine in the sixth Councell generall 9. You cull certaine Latin words out of two Epistles of S. Gregory the great and patching them vp into one English sentence adding to them these two adiectiues of your owne Vestris and Vestrae you make him say As for me I performe obedience vnto your commands wherunto I am subiect Both the Epistles out of which you botch vp this sentence are written to Mauritius who though he were a Catholike Emperor yet S. Gregory sticketh not to compare him to Nero and Dioclesian and reprehendeth him sharpely for his tyrannizing ouer the Roman Church the Head of all Churches and seeking to subiect her to his earthly power against the commandment of Christ who committed his Church to S. Peter when he gaue him the keyes of the kingdome of heauen The one of those Epistles he writeth against the arrogancy of Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople styling himselfe Vniuersall Bishop And as he praiseth Mauritius for desiring the peace of the Church to hinder the garboiles of warres and in the procuring therof professeth himselfe ready to obey his commands so he reprehendeth him for not repressing the pride of Iohn wherby not he alone but the peace of the whole Church was disturbed And if in the other he also professed obedience to the same Emperor it was only in temporall affaires and because with humble and submissiue words he sought to worke him to his owne good whom he cold not dissuade nor otherwise hinder from publishing an iniust Law wherby he prohibited soldiers and all such as had bene employed in publike accompts of the Common wealth to become Monkes And therfore in one of the Epistles which you obiect (g) Pag. 179. 234. he declareth to the Emperor that he vsed not his Episcopall authority nor speaketh in the right of the Common wealth but writeth as a priuat person yet adding that he stood greatly astonished at such a Law because it did shut vp the way to heauen vnto many Wherfore he dealt earnestly with him to abrogate the Law or els permit it to be moderated so that it might stand without preiudice to Christian liberty Wherunto the Emperor at length yielded as S. Gregory declareth saying (h) L. 7. ep 11. indict 1. Qua de re Serenissimus Christiantssimus Imperator omnimodò placatur concerning which matter our most Clement and most Christian Emperor is wholly pleased And therfore S. Gregory hauing corrected the Law and reduced it to a reasonable lawfulnesse and temperate moderation to wit that they which had borne offices of charge in the Common wealth and desired to become Monkes should not be receaued vntill they had giuen vp their accompts and obtained publike discharge for the same and that soldiers should not be admitted to Monasticall habit vntill they had ended three yeares of probation in their secular apparell Wherfore though S. Gregory yielded to publish the Law yet withall he shewed his Pastorall power and care in limiting and moderating the Emperors law according to the law of God Which if you had not concealed the futility of your obiection wold haue bene apparent to euery reader But you say (i) Impost pag. 179. Heere wee are arrested by your Cardinall in the name of this Pope Gregory from his Deeree concerning the Monastery of Medardus enioyning that whatsoeuer secular Prince should violate that same Decree should forthwith he depriued of his honor As if this one Act of this only Pope were so authentike and of so suffecient authority in it selfe as to be made a Precedene for euer vnto all Popes of succeeding
that presume to bring in nouelties wherby the Churches are fallen into heresy Wherfore O beloued brethren you as Phisitians cure our soules c. So S. Basil freeing the Westerne Churches especially the Roman to which he chiefly writ both from pride and error Wherfore when you obiect (m) Pag. 197. that S. Basil expressing his griefe said The Westerne Bishops neither knew the truth themselues nor would learne it he taxeth them not of error or ignorance in the true fayth as you falsly interpret but that being ignorant of the Asian affaires they were not carefull to vnderstand them from him and other Catholike Bishops that might rightly informe them but gaue to much credit to the lying reportes of heretikes who slandered him falsly as you haue heard SECT V. Whether S. Hilary excommunicated the Pope TO persuade that S. Hilary B. of Poictou so you write him he being not Bishop of Poictou which is a Prouince of France but of Poictiers the chiefe Citty of that prouince held it not necessary to be in the communion of the B. of Rome you say (n) Pag. 199. S. Hilary no sooner vnderstood that Pope Liberius as your Cardinall hath confessed had subscribed to haue communion with the Arian heretikes but he made bold to excommunicate the Pope out of his communion and fellowship saying I anathematize thee O Liberius and thy fellowes And you adde that Hilary had iust cause to do this (o) Pag. 199. sin 200. because it was alwaies lawfull for any Catholike Bishop to excommunicate any hereticall Bishop that is to abandon his fellowship and communion Here you shew great ignorance in the ordinary principles of Diuinity for to excommunicate a Bishop or any other person is not only to abandon his fellowship and communion els euery man yea euery woman may excommunicate her Bishop or any other person whatsoeuer for she may abandon his fellowship and communion denouncing Anathema vnto him There are two kindes of Anathema the one iudiciary that is to say an Ecclesiasticall Censure pronounced by an Ecclesiasticall Superior against them ouer whom he hath lawfull power and iurisdiction wherby he abandoneth their fellowship and communion and commandeth all others to do the like and withall depriueth them of the benefite of the Sacraments and seruice of the Church This Anathema is an Excommunication And this is so certaine that howbeit euery Protestant Minister may at his pleasure abandon the fellowship and communion of any other man and in that sense denounce Anathema vnto him yet neuer any was so absurdly ignorant as to thinke he could excommunicate any one ouer whom he had not Ecclesiasticall power and iurisdiction And who knoweth not that when you excommunicate Catholikes or others you do not only deny them your owne fellowship and communion but by vertue therof forbid all others to haue commerce and communication with them In this sense the Councell of Nice pronounced Anathema against the Arians in these words (p) Socrat. l. â— hist. c. 5. They that say there was a time when the Sonne was not the Catholike Church anathematizeth them that is depriueth them of the vse of the Sacraments and commandeth all men to renounce their fellowship and communion In this sense S. Hilary neither did nor was so ignorant as to thinke he could denounce Anathema to Liberius being not his Superior and therfore neither did nor could excommunicate him Another kind of Anathema there is which is not iudiciary but only executory wherby euery particular person ecclesiastick or laick man or woman protesteth and declareth to hold for Anathema such as are excommunicated by the Church In this sense S. Hilary pronounced Anathema to Liberius for hauing subscribed to the banishment of Athanasius and therby entred into Communion with the Arians The iudiciary Anathema that is the sentence of excommunication had bene pronounced before by the Councells of Nice and Sardica against the Arians in generall into whose communion Liberius was entred There was no need of pronouncing a new sentence of Anathema against him but of applying the sentence of the Councells vnto him by abiuring and abhorring him as one fallen into the sentence which the Councels had pronounced against the Arians And therfore S. Hilary addes to his Anathema these words For my part saying For my part Anathema to thee O Liberius to shew that he spake not with a iudiciary but with an abiuratory Anathema In this sense Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople (q) Ep. â—ad Hormisd anathematized Timothy the parricide surnamed Aelurus whom Felix Pope excommunicated And In the same sense Iustine the Emperor (r) Euagr. l. 5. c. 4. denounced Anathema to all heretikes condemned by the Church who yet being a secular Prince had not power to excommunicate any I conclude therfore that you confound these two Anathema's and because S. Hilary pronounced an abiuratory Anathema against Liberius inferre ignorantly that he excommunicated him But if for arguments sake I should grant that the Anathema pronounced by S. Hilary was indiciary and that he excommunicated Liberius it would make nothing for you against the Pope for when Hilary pronounced this Anathema Liberius was not Pope but fallen from his Papacy and Felix substituted Pope in his place This I haue said not questioning but supposing Liberius his subscription to the condemnation of Athanasius which yet some haue denied (s) See Bellar. l. 4. de Pontif c 9. But be it true it followeth not that he was therfore a formall heretike in his iudgement belieuing the blasphemous doctrine of the Arians but only interpretatiuè for so much as signing with them the condemnation of Athanasius and out wardly communicating with them he gaue to some that iudged of him by his outward actions occasion to thinke he belieued their doctrine And in this sense only it is in which some Catholike writers condemne him of heresy and in no other For the very Arians themselues neuer pretended that Athanasius agreed in fayth with them but condemned him only for other crimes which they had maliciously composed against him wherin though Liberius for a tyme yeilded outwardly to them yet he was euer most constant in the Catholike fayth as you may see testified by antiquity (t) Apud Iodoc Cocci to 1. l. 7. art 11. Lastly I must aduertise you that wheras you often repeate as an article of our fayth that out of the Roman Church there is no saluarion here (u) Pag. 199. and afterwards (x) Pag. 345. againe you say part of that our article is to belieue that in matters of fayth the iudgment of the Pope is infallible This you proue by imposing on Bellarmine your owne fictions His opinion is that the Popes iudgment in matters of fayth is infallible and that the contrary is erroneous and neere to heresy but he is so farre from affirming this his opinion to be anarticle of fayth or the contrary to be hereticall that he directly sayth (y) L. 4.
de Pont. c. 2. it is defended by Gerson and Almain Doctors of Paris as also by Castro and Adrianus sextus and that it is tolerated by the Church Do not you then ouerlash saying that Bellarmines opinion is part of our beliefe necessary to saluation when he so expresly teacheth the contrary SECT VI. S. Hieroms iudgment concerning the necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof HE declared his iudgment (z) Ep. 77. when to assure himselfe to be in the communion of the Catholike Church he regarded not the communion of Paulinus in whose Patriarship of Antioch he liued but professed himselfe to stick fast to the communion of Damasus Pope that is to the chaire of Peter vpon which sayth he I know the Church to be built You answeare (a) Pag. 203. that by chaire he meant not the See and Bishoprick of Rome but the true Doctrine of fayth then preached at Rome euen as Christ spake of the chaire of Moyses that is sayth S. Hierome the law of Moyses This satisfieth not both because whē some Fathers expound fayth to be the Rock on which Christ built his Church they exclude not but include the person of Peter and chiefely because S. Hierome followeth not that exposition but euer vnderstāds the person of Peter his See to be the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church Christ sayth he (b) Ad cap. 16. Math. gaue to Simon that belieued in him the name of a Rock and according to the Metaphor of a Rock it is rightly said to him I will build my Church on thee And a litle after Christ did not then actually build his Church on Peter but promised to build it on him afterward saying I will build my Church on thee and I will giue to thee the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen Wherfore as he promised not to deliuer the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to Fayth but to Peter and his Successors so on him and them he promised to build his Church And the same is manifest out of the contexture of this his Epistle to Damasus for doth he not say I am ioyned in communion to your Blessednesse that is to the chaire of Peter vpon this Rock I know the Church to be built Whosoeuer shall eate the Lambe out of this house he is prophane If any one shall not be in the arke of Nöe he shall perish in the deluge These words conuince that S. Hierome by the chaire of Peter vnderstands not fayth but the Church built on him and his Successors for the house out of which no man can eat the lambe that is offer sacrifice is not fayth to which the denomination of a house cannot agree but the Church built vpon Peter which S. Ambrose (c) In 1. Timoth 3.15 calleth The house of God wherof Damasus was then Gouernor And the same is euident out of S. Hierome himselfe for fayth is not the Arke of Nöe but the Church of Peter out of which whosoeuer shall be at the comming of the deluge shall perish And I cannot but admonish you of a fraudulent reticence for being you make so great accompt of Erasmus produce him for your only author (d) Pag. 204. that S. Hierome by the chaire of Peter vnderstandeth fayth why do you conceale that vpon this very passage Erasmus sheweth S. Hierome to condemne your doctrine of falshood Here sayth he (e) Anotat in Ep. 77. S. Hieron Hierome seemeth to be wholly of opinion that all Churches ought to be subiect to the Roman See or surely not diuided from her which peculiarly glorieth in this Apostle that had the soueraignty among the Apostles and which is so Orthodoxall that of all Orthodoxall Churches she is the chiefest in dignity This you know to be the true meaning of S. Hierome but shift it of repeating often and with great variety of words that if S. Hierome pointed out the Church of Rome as the Arke of Noah yet therby he conceaued not a perpetuity therof that Virgin Hierusalem may become a harlot and that she hath no priuiledge neuer to apostatate But this euasion I haue already disproued (f) See aboue Chap. 12. sect 1. 2. by the promise of Christ made to S. Peter and his Successors that their fayth shall not faile and that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against the Church built vpon them To this I adde that S. Hierome acknowledgeth Damasus to be his Pastor (g) Ep 77. and therfore Pastor of the vniuersall Church for when he writ that Epistle he was an inhabitant of Palestine which being in the Patriarkship of Antioch Paulinus that was then Patriarke of Antioch was actually his Pastor and he actually a sheep of Paulinus therfore could not at the same time be actually a sheep of Damasus if the sheep of the Patriarkship of Antioch were not actually subiect to the pastorall authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome Yes say you (h) Pag. 202. He might be held a sheep of the B. of Rome in respect of his baptisme But this I deny for he that being baptized in one Dioces leaueth that and becometh an inhabitant of another eo ipso becometh a sheep of that Dioces which he inhabiteth and leaueth to be a sheep of the former in which he was baptized And as the Bishop vnder whom he was baptized can haue no authority ouer him after he hath left his Dioces vnlesse he be superior in power and iurisdiction to the Bishop whose Dioces he now inhabiteth so neither could Damasus be actually Pastor to S. Hierome hauing left the Dioces and Patriarkship of Rome and inhabiting that of Antioch if Damasus had not had pastorall authority ouer the sheep of the Patriarkship of Antioch Now to your obiections The first is (i) Pag. 205. S. Hierome twited and taunted Damasus saying But away enuy and let the ambition of the Roman height depart which he did not say so much in regard of Damasus his owne pride otherwise an excellent godly Pope as for the pride of the Roman top or height namely the ambition of his state This is impertinent and vntrue Impertinent for were it true as it is not that S. Hierome reprehended the pride of the Roman Church pride is not an error in fayth but a fault in manners and therfore no warrant for you to disauow the fayth or forsake the Communion of the Roman Church It is also vntrue for S. Hierome doth not only not twite Damasus but professeth himselfe to be ioyned in communion with his Blessednesse And much lesse doth he taunt his See which he acknowledgeth to be the Rock on which the Church is built And indeed who but you would haue charged S. Hierome with twiting and taunting Damasus an excellent godly Pope whom you acknowledge to be his pastor and spirituall Father that not for any fault of his owne but for faults feigned by you against
the charge of feeding his sheep and lambes (u) Ioan. â—1 15 16. gaue him an vniuersall Pastorall power and iurisdiction ouer his whole flock throughout the world which power and iurisdiction therfore S. Augustine and the whole Councell of Mileuis (x) Apud Aug. ep 92. acknowledge Innocentius Pope to haue from the authority of the holy Scriptures that is by diuine Law from the mouth of Christ himselfe Your sixth obiection is (y) Pag. 208.209 that S. Hierome disagreed from the Roman Church in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine You told vs euen now (z) Pag. 205. that the Church of Rome was then sound in fayth If therfore S. Hierome disagreed from her in matter of necessary and Catholike Doctrine S. Hierome was an heretike for all doctrine contrary to the Catholike fayth is heresy But you regard not what you say of that renowned Doctor if you may make him like to your selfe in disagreeing from the Church of Rome in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine But let vs heare in what he disagreed Because S. Hierome sayth that although formerly all other Churches in the East did account S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall yet it was not receaued as Canonicall in the Latine or Roman Church From whence you tooke these words I know not for no such are to be found in his Epistle to Euagrius out of which you alleage them Part of them I find in his Commentary vpon Isaias and in his Epistle to Dardanus where he saith The Epistle to the Hebrewes is receaued as Canonicall by all the Greeke Churches though the custome of the Latines receaue it not But that the Roman Church receaues it not is an imposterous addition of yours to S. Hieromes text for when he sayth The custome of the Latines receaues it not that by the custome of the Latines he vnderstands not all the Latine or Roman Church he declareth saying (a) Ep. ad Euag. All the Greekes receaue the Epistle to the Hebrewes nonnulli Latinorum and many of the Latines Yea when he infinuateth that some of the Latines receaued it not he speaketh not of the Latines of his time but of some that liued before him as Tertullian S. Cyprian Lactantius Arnobius who in their workes are not found to alleage this Epistle But since the tyme of Lactantius the Latine Fathers haue bene so far from making any doubt that it is Canonicall that Philastrius (b) In Catal. haeres a Latine Father and Bishop of Bressa in Italy more ancient then S. Hierome ranketh them among heretikes that deny it to be Canonicall And in S. Hieromes time Innocentius Pope (c) Eup. ad Exuper and soone after him Gelasius with a Councell of 70. Bishops (d) Decret de lib. sacr Eccles reckon the Epistle to the Hebrewes in the number of Canonicall Scriptures If therfore Gelasius Pope with a Councell of 70. Bishops and Innocentius belieued it to be Canonicall with what forehead do you say that the Roman Church denied it to be Canonicall or how can it be thought that S. Hierome differed in any point of Catholike beliefe from the Church of Rome he that prescribeth to Demetrias (e) Ep. 8. ad Demetriad as a secure way to auoid the snares of heresy that she hold fast the fayth of S. Innocentius Pope And finally how cold he dissent from the Roman Church in this or any other point of necessary and Catholike doctrine he I say that so often commendeth and recommendeth (f) Ep. 6.8.68 the Roman fayth and defineth him to be a Catholike that holds the fayth of the Roman Church (g) Aduers Ruffi l. 1. What followeth of this you know namely that by affirming S. Hierome to disagree from the Roman Church in matter of necessarie and Catholike doctrine you make him an heretike Is not then your Argument a Grand Imposture And no lesse it is that the Councell of Trent hauing defined the bookes of Hester Daniel Baruch Ecclesiasticus Wisdome Iudith Tobias and the two bookes of the Machabies with all their parts as they are in the vulgar edition to be canonicall you (h) Pag. 209. in disproofe therof obiect these words as of Bellarmine S. Hierome sayd of these bookes that they were not within the canon of scriptures for Bellarmine in that place maketh no mention of Hester Daniel Baruch And though he grant S. Hierome to haue bene of opinion that the other bookes mentioned were not canonicall yet why do you conceale his reason which is that S. Hierome was of that opinion because the Church had not then defined the contrary in any generall Councel And how do you proue that S. Hierome in that his opinion disagreed from the Roman Church in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine since it was no matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine to belieue these bookes to be Canonicall vntill the Church had defined it in a generall Councell as in S. Hieromes time she had not done sauing only of the booke of Iudith which afterwards he receaued vnderstanding that the Councell of Nice had so declared But from hence you take occasion (i) Pag. 302. fin 303. to inueigh against Bellarmine and other our Doctors for imputing to the Councell of Nice a decree wherby they condemne Protestants as sacrilegious persons for not admitting the booke of Iudith into the number of Canonicall scriptures and alleaging S. Hierome as a witnesse to proue that which he neuer spake and for profe of a doctrine which himselfe doth vtterly abandon In this charge you are twice reproueable first for saying that we falsly impute that constitution to the Councell of Nice for that the CouÌ„cell did make such a Constitution S. Hierome witnesseth saying (k) Praefat. in Iudith Librum Iudith Nicena Synodus in numero sanctarum scripturarum legitur computasse The Nicen Councell is read to haue reckoned the booke of Iudith in the number of holy scriptures The same is testified by Rupertus (l) De diuin offic l. 12. c. 25. who repeating S. Hieromes doctrine concerning this booke and almost his words sayth Hoc volumen c. This booke is not canonicall among the Hebrewes but by the authority of the Councell of Nice it is receaued for the instruction of holy Church Secondly you are reproueable in preteÌ„ding that S. Hierome in these words declareth not that booke to be canonicall for being requested to translate it out of the Chaldean tongue in which it was written into Latin he sayth The Iewes reckoned this booke among the hagiographes whose authority is sufficient to decide controuersies And theÌ„ opposing against them the authority of the Nicen Councell he addeth But because the Councell of Nice is read to haue registred this booke in the number of holy scriptures I haue yeilded to your request In these words he plainly she weth the Church to be of a different beliefe from the Iewes touching this booke to receaue
it in that sense in which the Iewes did not receaue it to wit as sufficient to decide controuersies of fayth And in confirmation herof he numbreth this booke among other canonicall scriptures saying (m) Ep. ad Principiam Ruth Hester Iudith were of so great renowne that they gaue names to sacred volumes And in other his workes he often citeth it as diuine scripture (n) Ep. 9. ad Salu. Ep. 22. ad Bustoch in Isa c. 14. But to proue that he held it apocryphall you obiect Stapleton (o) Pag. 303. Salmeron Lindanus Acosta whom you call our lesse precipitant Authors Stapleton you falsify citing him l. 2. de authorit Script cap. 4. for he hath no booke so intituled and much lesse any such words as you set downe for his Yea he is so far from saying that S. Hierome denieth this booke to be canonicall that he sayth directly the contrary for discoursing (p) De princip doct l. 9. c. 6. how some bookes of scripture which before the definition of the Church had bene held apocryphall or doubtfull were afterwards by her authority certainly beleeued to be canonicall he exemplifieth in this of Iudith which saith he S. Hierome moued by the authority of the Councell of Nice held to be Canonicall hauing formerly accounted it to be apocryphall This is Stapletons doctrine Are you not ashamed to produce him as a witnesse for the contrary And as little truth hath your citation of Salmeron for he alleageth S. Hieromes words expresly declaring that the rule to distinguish Canonicall Scriptures from apocryphall is the authority of the Church Wherupon Salmeron truly sayth that if S. Hierome should deny this booke to be Canonicall his authority alone could not be preualent against the whole streame of Ancient Fathers holding the contrary Their testimonies you may read in Iodocus Coccius Lindanus and Acosta I haue not seene but you that haue dealt so with Stapleton and Salmeron may be presumed to deale no better with them SECT VII S. Ambrose his iudgment concerning the necessity of Vnion and subiection to the Bishop and Church of Rome S. Ambrose declared his iudgment when reporting (q) Orat. de obitu Satyri how his holy brother Satyrus in his returne out of Africa was cast by ship wrack vpon the isle of Sardinia infected with schisme he said Satyrus not esteeming any fauor to be true but that of the true fayth called vnto him the Bishop of that place and asked him whether he agreed with the Catholike Bishops that is sayth S. Ambrose with the Roman Church This sheweth that S. Ambrose and Satyrus belieued the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church and all that were not in her Communion to be schismatikes You answeare (r) Pag. 213. that the reason why Satyrus would not communicate with any Bishop that agreed not with the Roman Church was because Sardinia was then diuided into diuers schismes by hereticall spirits No maruell therfore though Satyrus asked of a Bishop whose fayth he suspected whether he belieued as that Church did whose fayth was known to be truly Catholike euen as if in tyme of rebellion the Citizens of some one City for example Yorke were more generally knowne to professe loyalty to their Soueraigne an honest man comming into the kingdome might aske the inhabitants whether they agreed with the City of Yorke therby to know whether they were loyall subiects and yet it would not follow that therfore Yorke is the head of the kingdome This your answeare framed to puzzell an ignorant reader is easely reiected Satyrus did well know and it was generally knowne both in the East and West that at that time not only the Church of Rome but also that of Milan of which Ambrose his owne brother was then actually Bishop and famous ouer all the world was sound in fayth and truly Catholike Why then did not Satyrus to informe himselfe whether that Sardinian Bishop were Catholike aske him whether he agreed with the Bishop and Church of Milan but because he knew that neither the Church of Milan nor any other but the Roman was the head of Catholike Communion as S. Ambrose himselfe teacheth saying (s) L. 1. Ep. 4. ad Imperat. From the Roman Church the rights of Venerable Communion do flow to all And why els did he say this but because he knew that neither to the Church of Milan nor to any other but the Roman Christ hath promised that her fayth shall not faile (t) Luc. 22.31 and that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her (u) Math. 16.18 In regard wherof it is said that not to the Church of Milan but to her all Churches and all the faithfull from all places must haue recourse (x) Iren. l. 3. c. 3. And vnlesse you can shew that Yorke hath an especiall Priuiledge from God not to faile in her loyalty as the Roman Church hath not to faile in the Catholike fayth and profession therof your example is impertinent Yorke may faile in loyalty and therfore to be a citizen of Yorke and to be a good subiect are not termes conuertible But the Roman Church can neither faile in the Catholike fayth nor in the profession therof and therfore to be a Catholike and to agree with the Roman Church as in themselues they are so were they held by S. Ambrose by his brother Satyrus and by the generall accord of antiquity to be all one (y) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 3. 2. S. Ambrose declared his iudgment when he called Damasus Pope Rector of the house of God which is his Church (z) In cap. 3. prioris ad Tâ—moth You answeare that we mistake the words respectiuely spoken to one person Pope Damasus and circumstantially for one tyme as if they were absolutely so meant for the persons of all Popes at all times This answeare is not respectiuely but absolutely insufficient for what dignity superiority or power of gouerment had Damasus ouer the whole Church in his person and for his tyme which euery Pope hath not had in his person and for his time The power of Ruler Gouernor of the whole Church which Damasus had was by his Popedome And as he by the right of his Popedome was so all his predecessors and successors in that See haue by the same title and right bene Rectors and Gouernors of the whole Church This is so certaine that you passing lightly ouer this first answeare fly to a second (a) Pag. 212.213 that the title of Rector or Gouernor of the whole Church argueth not Damasus to be Head of the Church because Athanasius Basil Gregory Nazianzen haue receaued titles equiualent if not more excellent as of Prop and Buttresse of the Church and fayth Eye of the world and others in which ascriptions say you there is not any acknowledgment of authority but a commendation of their care and diligence iudgment and directions in behalfe of the whole Church In the
noting the wordes in a distinct letter as the very phrase of his Sanction manifestly against his meaning For in that very Sanction or Decree he declareth that the cause that moued him to publish it was to disanull the attentats and Innonations against the Venerable Churches aswell those wherof the Patriarke Acacius hath the Priesthood as those placed in other sundry Prouinces which second part about other Churchs and Prouinces you (6) Pag. 26â— leaue out in your Marginal Latin to deceiue the Reader in making him to thinke that Constantinople is stiled absolutely Mother of all Orthodoxall Churches that thereby you may more colourably elude the like Titles attributed vnto the Roman Church So as nothing is related or alleaged by you without fraudulency and falshood SECT IV. Doctor Mortons Answeare to Vincentius Lyrinensis confuted VIncentius to proue that the Latine Churches agreed in Doctrine with the Churches of the East produceth as witnesses Felix and Iulius Popes calling them the Head of the world and S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose The sides of the world You to put off this testimony offer violence to Vincentius his words (k) Pag. 271. interpreting him to meane by Head of the world not the Bishop but the City of Rome But knowing this to be a false comment you adde as a second answeare (l) Ibid. that if he vnderstood the B. of Rome to be the Head of the Catholike Church we must also belieue that Cyprian of Carthage and Ambrose of Milan were alwayes to continue the sides of the Catholike Church This we deny for the Churches of Charthage and Milan haue no promise from Christ that the gates of Hell shall not preuaile against them nor that their fayth shall not faile as the Roman hath (m) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 1. 2. But to bolster vp one falsity with another you say (n) Pag. 271. If Lyrinensis by Head of the world vnderstood the Ecclesiasticall Orbe he cold meane no more then that the Pope is Head of the Westerne part therof But this hath bene already disproued (o) See Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. Chap. 3â— by the testimonies of Councells and Fathers Greeke and Latine directly affirming that the B. of Rome is Head of all Churches and faythfull whatsoeuer throughouth the whole world and that his spirituall power extends euen to them whom the temporall forces of Rome could neuer subdue And to goe no further for proofes Lyrinensis himselfe declared this (p) Cap. 9.10.11 when he said that all Priests in all places made resistance to the doctrine of Rebaptization defended by Agrippinus Cyprian but Stephen B of Rome more then the rest thinking it reason to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth so much as he was superior to them in the authority of his place And what els doth he throughout that whole Treatise but declame against you who haue brought nouelties into the Church contrary to that ancient truth which you found in it when Luther began and when as Caluin professeth you made a separation from the whole world SECT V. Doctor Morton in his Answeare to Optatus contradicteth himselfe OPtatus proueth the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church by the succession of Bishops in the chaire of Rome numbring them all from S. Peter to Siricius that liued in his time (r) L. 2. cont Parmen and defineth all them to be schismatikes and sinners that are separated from the communion of that only singular chaire You answeare (s) Pag. 269. that Optatus by One chaire meant not the particular chaire of Rome but the whole vniuersall Church But the contrary is euident for he reckoneth not the succession of Bishops in any other Church but only in the Roman and sayth (t) L. 2. cont Parmen that the Episcopall chaire was set vp in Rome for Peter to the end that in that chaire vnity might be preserued to all and that he might be a schismatike and a sinner that against this only chaire should set vp another What expression can be more effectuall to proue you to be a schismatike and a sinner then these words of Optatus who condemned the Donatists (u) Ibid. of bold and sacrilegious presumption for fighting against this Chaire of Peter as you do But you reply (x) Pag. 269. The particular Church of Rome is but a portion of the vniuersall Church and therfore Optatus obiecteth against the Donatists their want of vnion with the Churches of Asia commended by S. Iohn in the Reuelation as well as with Rome This you repeate afterwards againe (y) Pag. 273. and had obiected the same before (z) Pag. 100. 101. 229. 230. Your answere you haue receaued already (a) Chap. 15. sect 9. Chap. 34. sect 8. to which I adde that as he who should obiect to rebells their want of vnion with their Prince his loyall subiects doth not therby deny the supreme authority of the Prince ouer all the subiects of his dominions so Optatus obiecting to the rebellious Donatists the want of vnion with the Roman Church and other Orthodoxall Churches of Asia subiect to her doth not therby deny her authority ouer all the Churches of the world But you say (b) Pag. 270. Rome hauing departed from the sincerity of the Apostolicall profession as Asia hath done the departure from that must dissolue necessity of Vnion with Rome You grant then that the Asians haue fallen from the Apostolicall profession as Rome hath done and Rome if we belieue you hath fallen so far that her doctrine is false impious hereticall blasphemous damnable sacrilegious Antichristian Satanicall c. Ergo the Asians hauing fallen from the Apostolicall profession as Rome hath done their doctrine is also damnable hereticall blasphemous Satanicall c. And yet afterwards you say (c) Pag. 407. the Asians haue continued visible partes of the Catholike Church and Protestants stand in Christian vnity with them I conclude therfore that when it is for your purpose the Asians are truly professed Christians and partes of the Catholike Church and Protestants stand in Christian Vnion with them and when it is not for your purpose they haue fallen from the sincerity of the Apostolicall profession as Rome hath done from whence it must follow that it is as vnlawfull to be in vnion with them as with Rome whose doctrine to you is Hereticall blasphemous c. SECT VI. Other vntruthes of Doctor Morton discouered his cauilling against the Title of Holinesse giuen to the Pope YOu set downe (d) Pag. 273. this Thesis as of Bellarmine When the Fathers say that the Church of Rome cannot erre the word cannot is not to be taken absolutely and simply but with this cantion so long as the Apostolicall See continueth at Rome This is not a Thesis of Bellarmine but of a few other Deuines who hold that S. Peter fixed his See at Rome not by diuine ordination but by his owne
The small extent of the Protestant Church proueth her not to be the Catholike Church VVHen first you began to appeare in the world Luther complained (g) Pref. in 1. tom cont Reg. Augl fol. 497. that he was alone that he alone stood in the battaile forsaken of all and holpen by none The Centurists (h) Sleid. praef hist. confesse that your beginning was slender and almost contemptible Luther bearing the brunt of all the world Then you boasted your selues to be the Pusillus Grex which Christ speaketh of in the Ghospell (i) Luc. 12.31 But now Luthers brood being increased partly by his disciples and partly by the accession of many new Sects sprung from him knowing that the Catholike Church according to her name must be vniuersally spread throughout the whole world whersoeuer Christ is acknowledged you haue thought best to lay claime to all those Sectaries and to shake hands with anciēt heretikes that you may seeme to haue a Church of large extent If as Bellarmine (k) Cap. 14. Apolog. aduertised our late Soueraigne you draw into your Church all the Nestorians Eutychians and other heretikes of the East and South of which I haue spoken if all the Hussites Lutherans Zuinglians Suinkfeldians Anabaptists Confessionists Caluinists Brownists Familians Arians Samosatens and many other Sects with are at this day in the Prouinces of Europe by you named (l) Pag. 341. they will I confesse make a great rable of Sectaries that are so farre from being one Church that they anathematize and damne each other to the very pit of hell (m) See Coccius to 1. l. 8. art 7.8.9.10 Againe these sectes being confined some to one and all which here you claime as parts of the Protestāt Church to a few Prouinces of Europe and yet those not wholly theirs none of them nor all of them togeather can be the Catholike Church for she sayth S. Augustine (n) Ep. 170. ad Seuer cont Gaud. l. 3. c. 1. must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secundum totum that is diffused through out the whole world as well where these Sects are as where they are not The Catholike Church sayth he (o) Cont Lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 104. hath this certaine marke that she is knowne to all nations the Sect of Donatus is vnknowne to many nations and therfore that cannot be she So likewise the sects of Luther of Caluin of Zuinglius c. are vnknowne to many nations and therfore no one of them nor all of them togeather can be she By this Argument Optatus proued the Donatists and by the same we proue Protestants not to be the Catholike Church because she is not only in a corner of Africa or in a few Prouinces of Europe where they are but in many other places of the world where they are not Which passage of Optatus therfore I know not to what end you alleage (p) Pag. 342. vnlesse it be to proue your Church to be a Conuenticle of heretiks The same Argument S. Augustine vseth (q) De vnit Eccles c. 20. The Catholike Church by the denine and most certaine testimony of holy Scriptures is designed to be in all nations And therfore whatsouer is alleaged vnto vs by them that say Heere is Christ there is Christ if we be his sheepe we must rather heare the voyce of our Shepheard who sayth Belieue them not for these are not to be found in many places where she is and she who is euery where is also whersoeuer they are This therfore euidently proueth the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church for she is not only in England Scotland Denmarke Norway Swedland in a part of Germany Polonia Bohemia Hungaria France Heluetia and Ireland which are all the Prouinces you cold name for the extent of your Church but in the rest of the world where you haue no footing for her Communion hath place either wholly or in part in all the Nations of Europe in the East and West Indies in the Philippines in Iaponia in Chyna in Persia in all the islands of the Ocean and Medeterranean and in many of the South Sea in Greece Aegypt in Aechiopia Armenia Assyria and finally in all the foure parts of the world whersoeuer the Christian name is acknowledged And vntill you can shew your Protestant Congregation to haue the same extent you must confesse that she is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not vniuersally spread ouer all the parts of the Earth and therfore not the Catholike Church Whosoeuer sayth S. Augustine (r) Ibid. c. 4. do so dissent from the Church which is the body of Christ that their communion is not with the whole whersoeuer diffused but with themselues seuerally in some part it is manifest that they are not the Catholike Church SECT II. Whether the Protestant Church be free from Error in Doctrine TO proue that your Church is free from Error in doctrine you say (s) Pag. 342. The greatest error you can impute vnto Protestants is that they for their fayth immediatly depend vpon Christ Iesus as the Head of the Catholike Church In these words you seeme tacitly to insinuate that we depend not immediatly vpon Iesus Christ as the Head of the Catholike Church which is an vntruth that needeth no refutation We impute not that to you as your greatest Error nor as any Error at all we stedfastly belieue that Iesus Christ is the only principall immediat Head of the Catholike Church But we impute to you as an Error in fayth that you belieue not the B. of Rome to be the Lieutenant and Vicar of Christ and vnder him the secondary and ministeriall Head of the Catholike Church on earth But this is not your only error in fayth for you hold many other old condemned heresies as with Simon Magus that only fayth iustifieth With Acrius you deny Purgatory and prayer for the dead With Iouinian you equall Mariage with Virginity yea and preferre it surpassing him therin With Virgilantius you deny inuocation of Saints all religious Veneration of their relikes With Manichaeus you deny free-will With the Iconoclasts you pull downe and breake the Images of Christ and his Saints and deny that honor is to be exhibited vnto them With Berengarius you deny Transubstantiation All these to omit that you reiect fiue of the Sacraments race out of the Canon of holy Scripture diuers canonicall bookes are heresies anciently condemned and anathematized by the whole Church of Christ And if S. Augustine say (t) De haeres fin that whosoeuer holdeth any one heresy is not a Catholike Christian and S. Athanasius (u) In Symbolo that whosoeuer holdeth not the Catholike fayth entire and inuiolate cannot be saued what may we thinke of them that hold so many certaine and vndoubted heresies or what Christian hart can forbeare to compassionate their estate SECT III. Doctor Mortons pretended purity of Manners in his Protestant Church TO proue that
ouer the world as well in Europe where Protestants are as in all other parts of the world where they are not either she is the Catholike Church or els that there is no Catholike Church on earth And therfore with great reason all antiquity hath held the Roman Church and the Catholike Church to be termes conuertible and that whosoeuer is diuided from her is a schismatike and incapable of saluation The testimonies of the ancient Fathers in this behalfe I haue copiously alleaged in the first Chapter of this Apology which to repeate heere were actum agere And this sheweth how falsly you slander the Roman Church with diuiding herselfe proudly and impiously from all other Churches of the world S. Augustine said to the Donatists (l) L. 2. cont lit Petil. c. 52. that with sacrilegious fury they had separated themselues from the Chaire of S. Peter and I wish the same might not be truly said of you That Church when you began was and still is and shall euer be spread ouer all the world where Christ is knowne You first liued in her and afterwards diuided your selues from her as all Heretikes haue done she sayth S. Augustine (m) De Symb. ad Catechum l. 1. c. 6. remaining still in her roote in her Vine in her charity From hence it is that the same Father hauing reckoned by name all the Popes from S. Peter to Anastasius who was then B. of Rome compareth that Church to a Vine and the Donatists to branches cut off from her as you likewise are Wherfore as he said to them (n) Psal cont part Donat. so we say to you Come brethren if you please that you may be ingrafted into the Vine It is a griefe toys to see you lye so cut off Number the Priests from the very seat of Peter c. That is the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not And you must remember that the same S. Augustine is he that said (o) Tract 8â— in Ioan. A branch cut off from the Vine is fit for nothing but the fire CHAP. XLIII Of the Head of the Roman Church compared to the Body therof YOv compare the B. of Rome who is Head of the Roman Church with the Body thereof in many respects (p) Pag. 343. 344. 345. all which you attribute to vs as Articles of our fayth to be belieued necessarily vnder paine of damnation SECT I. Whether it be matter of Fayth that the Pope is aboue a Councell VVE belieue that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth and Gouernour of the Vniuersall Church to which you adde (q) Pag. 344. that according to our fayth there is a necessity of belieuing that the Pope is aboue a Councell In proofe of this you alleadge (r) Ibid. marg Bellarmine l. 1. de concil c. 7. who in that very place expresly teacheth the contrary and you afterwards contradicting your selfe acknowledge so much (s) Pag. 355. lit e. setting downe these words of his The matter is still questionable vntill this day which also you proue (t) Pag. 116. init out of Stapleton saying It is not yet defined by any publike Decree And in confirmation hereof you adde (u) Pag. 115. fin that the contrary is mantained by our Doctors of Paris When therfore it is for your purpose it is an Article of our fayth necessarily to be belieued with diuine fayth that the Pope is aboue a Councell and when the contrary is more for your purpose then it is no Article of our fayth nor yet defined by any publike decree but matter of opinion and questionable vntill this day These are your propositions Reconcile them SECT II. Whether it be matter of fayth that this indiuidual person v. g. Vrban the eight is true Pope and true Head of the Church YOu set downe here (x) Pag. 345. and afterwards againe (y) Pag. 351. 353. as a receaued Article of our fayth that it is necessary for euery man to belieue with diuine fayth that this determinate man for example Vrban the eight which now sitteth in the Chaire of S. Peter is true Bishop and true Head of the Church In proofe of this you alleage Salmeron and Suarez but very deceiptfully for although that be the peculiar opinion of Salmeron and Suarez whose proofes you mention not because it passeth your skill to answeare them yet they deliuer it not as matter of fayth defined by the Church or taught by all Catholike Diuines which you cold not be ignorant of for Suarez in that very place which you cite (z) Pag. 24. 345. professeth the contrary opinion to be taught by Turrecremata Albertinus Caietan Bannes Canus Vega Corduba Castro and other Catholike Diuines mantaining that we cannot haue diuine fayth of this indiuiduall man that he is true Head of the Church but morall certainty only And this they hold sufficient to oblige all men to yield perfect obedience vnto him and to belieue his definitions ex Cathedra And you contradicting your selfe had formerly acknowledged (a) Pag. 2â— this to be the opinion of many of our Schole-Doctors With what conscience then do you now charge all Catholikes with holding the contrary as necessary to be belieued with diuine fayth and vnder paine of damnation which so many of our learned Schole-Doctors deny and which in them was neuer censured by the Church nor euen by their aduersaries as any way opposite to fayth But what censure you deserue for doubting of the ordination or election of Gods Priests not I but S. Cyprian shall tell you who sayth (b) L. 4. Ep. 9. that it is no other thing but to belieue that Priests are not appointed in the Church from God nor for God that it is not to belieue in God but to be rebellious against Christ and his Ghospell SECT III. Whether the Church of Rome be at any time a Body headlesse It is a Thesis of yours (c) Pag. 34â— that the Church of Rome is a Body headlesse so long as there is a vacancy in the See betweene the death of one Pope and the election of another Which to affirme is as ridiculous as if you should call the Empire An headlesse Empire because there is no Emperor betweene the death of one and the election of an other And by the same argument you may proue Bohemia Polonia and other kingdoms and States whose Princes are electiue to be headlesse kingdoms and states There is not alwaies so precise necessity of a Pope in the Church but that as it was gouerned 300. yeares without Councels so if by reason of schismes or other difficulties it fal out that after the death of one Pope some tyme passe before the election of another God may not for that time gouerne his Church without a Pope especially all other Bishops and inferior Pastors remaining in full possession of their authority ouer their seuerall flocks Nor is the Church for that time left
Church had no true visible Head such as we require because of him it could not be said This is the B. of Rome This obiection you borowed from Baronius (m) Anno 955. who though he acknowledge that the electâ—on of Iohn was void because no true forme was obserued in it yet you passe ouer what he addeth as not being for your purpose namely that the Church afterwards consented to his election wherby the defects that interuened in his former election were supplied and he receaued and reuerenced as true Pope by the whole Church And wheras you say that this Pope was for his life monstrous it hath bene proued (n) Abouâ— Chap. 12. sect 2. that the ill liues of Popes or other Bishops are not Arguments to disproue their authority God is able to teach by Balaams Asse and the Euangelist tells you (o) Ioâ—â— 11.49 that notwithstanding Caiphas was a wicked man yet because he was high Priest he prophesied or rather God by him And our Blessed Sauiour foreseeing that Cauillers would arise hath by S. Augustine (p) Ep. 165. long since answered this your Argument to a wrangling Donatist and in him to you saying If any traitor in those dayes had by surreption crept into that ranck of Bishops which is deduced from S. Peter himselfe euen to Anastasius or Vrbanus who at this present sitteth in that chaire it could worke no preiudice to the Church and to innocent Christians for whom our Lord prouideth saying of wicked Prelates Do yee what they say but what they doe doe it not for they say and do not c. And speaking to Petilianus another Donatist after he had reprehended him for separating himselfe from the Roman Church with sacrilegious fury he addeth (q) Cont. lit Petil. l. 2. c. 51. Why dost thou call the Apostolike See the chaire of pestilence If in respect of the men whom thou thinkest to speake the Law and not to fulfill is did our Lord Iesus Christ for the Pharisees of whom he sayth they say and do not any way wrong the chaire in which they sate Nay did he not commend that chaire of Moyses and reprehend them preseruing entire the honor of the Chaire If you would thinke vpon these things you would not for the men whom you defame blaspheme the Apostolike Chaire with which you do not communicate So S. Augustine to Petilianus and so we to you SECT V. Whether the Roman Church at any time be diuided into many Heads HOw ill aduised you are to obiect either the multitude or the long continuance of Schismes which haue bene in the Roman Church you haue heard (r) See aboue Chap. 7. prope sin Chap. 12. sect 7. But because in time of Schisme when there are two or three that pretend right to the chaire of S. Peter the faithfull cannot certainly know which of them is true Pope you aske (s) Pag. 352. What resolution our Church can haue in such a case adding moreouer (t) Pag. 353. that our article of belieuing this only singular Roman Pope without which fayth none can be saued damneth two of the three parts of our Roman Church at that time Your question is a doubt springing from ignorance and your addition an vntruth To your question S. Antoninus (u) Part. 3 â—is 21. c. 2. seqq hath answeared who treating of the schisme which happened in time of Vrban the sixth against whom the French Cardinalls â—earing his seuerity and flying to Anagnia created a new Pope calling him Clement the seauenth prescribeth this rule that in time of Schisme when two or more at the same time hold themselues to be true Popes it is not necessary for saluation to belieue any one of them determinatly to be the true Pope but disiunctiuely him that hath bene Canonically assumpted And which of them determinatly that is faythfull people are not bound to know but may follow the iudgment of their Prelates and Superiors To which Gerson (x) De modo hab se temp Schism addeth that in this case it is temerarious iniutious and scandalous to hold as excommunicated or out of the state of saluation those that adhere to either part or that carry themselues noutrally and that it is lawfull to communicate with either party and to obey either of those Popes as occasion shall serue while the right of neither is certainely knowne And this he confirmeth by the answere which S. Ambrose gaue to S. Augustine concerning the lawfulnesse of fasting or not fasting on Saturdaies according to the diuersity of times places and persons I conclude therfore that your so often repeating as an article of our fayth that for saluation it is necessary to belieue that this determinat man is true Pope and true Head of the Church if you speake of belieuing it with diuine fayth you confesse the contrary to be held by many of our learned Diuines and that their opinion hath neuer bene censured by the Church But if you speake of belieuing it at least with morall certainty it is granted by all Catholike Diuines when there is but one determinat person whom the whole Church receaueth and obiecteth as her vndoubted Head and as the Vicar of Christ vpon earth But yet neither that is necessary in time of Schisme when of two or three it is doubtfull which is the true Pope for then it is sufficient to belieue him to be true Pope which is Canonically chosen without determining any of them in particular as S. Antoninus and Gerson haue taught instructing you how to carry your selfe in such a case But I feare you haue no desire to learne SECT VI. Whether the Roman Church be doubtfully headed TO proue that the Roman Church is doubtfully headed you alleage (y) Pag. 354.355.356 that after 1600. yeares it is not yet determined whether the supreme Iudge in our Church be the Roman Pope or a Councell collecting from thence that the Roman Church should not take vpon her to determine Controuersies of fayth against Protestants before she haue satisfied Protestants in this one whether Pope or Councell be indeed the supreme Iudge So you as you are wont for you are not ignorant that this diuision is inadequate since beside the Pope alone without a Councell and a Councell alone without the Pope there is a third member which is the Pope together with a Councell whose iudgment in matters of fayth all Catholikes hold to be infallible Nor did any euer defend that a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope can erre either in definitions of fayth or manners This is the sense and meaning of Catholike Doctors when they say The Church cannot erre for by the Church they vnderstand not the Pope alone without a Councell nor a Councell alone without the Pope but both of them together as they make one whole Church consisting of the Pope as Head and of the Councell as the representatiue body therof This is that supreme Iudge which
from error in their definitions of fayth hath bene the beliefe of all Orthodoxe antiquity (m) See aboue Chap. 12. sect 1. 2. Nor do you produce here any thing to the contrary which hath not bene proued to be imposterous excepting only that here you charge the new Church of Rome for so you call it with belieuing the conclusion of the Pope in matters of fayth to be infallible albeit he vse no diligence at all for the directing of his iudgment which is say you the strong breath of an Anabaptisticall and Enthusiasticall spirit We are well assured what spirit guydeth your pen. Do you find this doctrine authorized by the Church of Rome In what Councell By what Pope In your margent you cite Valentia in the seauenth Chapter of his Analysis which is to cite at randome and falsly for that worke of Valentia consisteth of eight bookes you specify none of them nor are the words you obiect to be found in the seauenth Chapter of any one of those eight bookes I find some such in the third Chapter of his last booke where as also afterwards againe (n) Analy l. 8. c. 10. he professedly disputeth what meanes the Pope is bound to vse in his definitions of fayth and whether the infallibility of his iudgment depend vpon those meanes In which question Valentia teacheth nothing but what is the most receaued opinion of Deuines and most agreeable to truth There seemeth to be some disagreement in this point among the Schoole-Doctors some saying that the Pope cannot erre if he proceed maturely hearing the counsell of Pastors and Learned men Others of which number Valentia is affirming that he cannot erre though he define alone without deliberation and consultation But these two opinions differ in words only not in reality of truth for when the authors of the former opinion say that to define the Pope is bound to proceed maturely taking the aduice of a Councell or of men wise learned and skilfull in the matter which is to be determined to the end he may not erre they say not this to signify that the infallibility of his definition consisteth in or proceedeth from the wisdome and learning of his Counsellors but only to shew that he is bound to proceed prudently and maturely And so likewise when Valentia and authors of the second opinion say that if the Pope should define alone without a Councell of Bishops or aduice of other learned men he could not erre they say it not to deny that he is bound to vse such meanes but to signify that the infallibility of his definition consisteth not in them but in his owne authority and warrant which he hath from Christ of not erring And this is the meaning of Valentia as in that very place he expresly declareth Nor do I see what you can find therin either absurd or vntrue But if you curiously demand Whether the Pope may erre in case he proceed to define inconsideratly and rashly Valentia and all Catholike Doctors will answeare that your Question implieth a Condition impossible for the Pope in his definitions cannot proceed immaturely The Philosophers say Qui dat formam dat consequentia ad formam He that giues the forme giues also the dispositions necessary for the forme And he that giueth the end giueth also such meanes as are necessary for the attaining of the end Wherfore Christ hauing made promise to the See Apostolike that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her and that the successors of S Peter shall not faile in confirming their brethren it belongeth to his diuine prouidence so to direct gouerne and assist him that he proceed not to define without sufficient deliberation and maturity If sayth S. Augustine (o) De vtil ered c. 10. the prouidence of God be not the Gouernesse of humane affaires no regard is to be bad of religion But if all this variety of Creatures do I know not with what interior knowledge mooue vs to seeke God and to serue God surely we ought not to be diffident but that there is some authority constituted by the same God wheron we relying as vpon a certaine step may ascend vnto God SECT VII Whether there be in the Scripture any Prophesy that the Church of Rome shall fall from the fayth THat Christ hath prophesied of the Church of Rome that she shall neuer fall from the fayth hath bene alredy proued (p) Chap 12. sect 1. 2. Your third Thesis to the contrary is that there is not in all the Scripture any prophesy of the fall of any Church Christian from the fayth Pag. 377. but only of the Church of Rome from which it may somtime be necessary to depart Which is in effect to say that there is in the Scripture a prophesy that the Church of Rome shall fall from the fayth In proofe of this you remit vs to the testimony of two Iesuits Ribera and Viegas that the city of Rome shall in the end of the world be the seat of Antichrist which is not their doctrine but a calumnious slander of yours They hold with the ancient Fathers that not Rome but Hierusalem shall be the Seat of Antichrist The Euangelist sayth Ribera (r) Ad cap. 11. Apocalyp n. 20. fin 21. init calling Hierusalem a great city signifieth not obscurely that she shall be great at that time in power and in number of Citizens to wit when Antichrist shall raigne in her being receaued of the Iewes and honored as the true Messias This city both because she killed our Lord and because then she shal be the Court of Antichrist full of all wickednesse and impiety he calleth Sodome and Aegypt c. for what sinne and impiety will she not be guilty of Antichrist raigning in her So Ribera from whom Viegas dissenteth not Say now Can there be a more shamfull imposture then to impute to these learned Authors your owne falsities theron to ground your calūnies against the Church of Rome as vpon truthes asserted by them Such Arguments are indeed fit proofes to iustify your departure from her But were it true that the City of Rome in the end of the world shall be the Seat of Antichrist doth that any way iustify your present departure from the Roman Church Looke back vpon what hath bene sayd you shall find how little those words Goe out of Babilon my people make for you and that euen according to your Protestant Expositors they are wholly against you In your fourth Thesis (s) Pag. 378. which is That the Church of Rome hath long bene and still is the most schismaticall Church of all other Churches Christian that carry in them a visible face of a Church you bring nothing but what hath bene already answeared point by point SECT VIII Whether Luther were iustly excommunicaeed TO proue that he was iniustly excōmunicated you say (t) Pag. 381. Luthers excommunication by Pope Leo must haue bene either for manners or
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
which there is a continued Succession of Bishops from S. Peter cannot be the Protestant Church which hath no such succession but the Roman it followeth that S Augustine held the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church and therefore he grieued to see the Donatists lye cut off from her as branches from the vine Be yee ingraffed on the Vine sayth he to the (m) Psal contra part Donati Donatists It is a griefe to vs to see you so lye cut of number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranke of Fathers who succeeded whom That is the Rocke which the proud gates of hell ouercome not And as in these words S. Augustine sheweth the miserable estate of those then that are diuided from the Roman Church so on the contrary he declareth the happinesse and security of all that are in coÌ„munion which her when speaking of Cecilianus Archbishop of Carthage who had bene condemned by a numerous Councell of Donatist Bishops in Africa he sayth (n) Ep. 162. Cecilianus might haue contemned the conspiring multitude of his enemies because he knew himself to be vnited by communicatory letters both to the Church of Rome in which the Soueraygnty of the See Apostolike hath alwayes florished and to other Countreys from whence the Ghospell came first into Africa So teacheth Possidius Bishop of Calama a familiar friend to S. Augustine whose life he writ and therein reporteth (o) Cap. 18. that when Innocentius and Zozimus had condemned the Pelagians the most religious Emperor Honorius hearing of this sentence of the Catholike Church pronounced against them obeyed it condemning also by his lawes ordayned that they should be ranked among heretikes By which it appeares that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholike Church her iudgment in matters of fayth to be infallible and that the Emperors by their lawes seconded her iudgment comdemning as Heretikes those whom she had condemned So teacheth S. Cyril Patriarke of Alexandria explicating those words of our (p) Math. 16. Sauiour Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it According to this promise of our Lord sayth (q) Apud S. Thom. in Caten ad cap. 16. Math. he â—he Apostolical Church of Peter perseuereth in her Bishops pure free from all seduction circumuention aboue all Prelats bishops aboue all Primats of Churches and people most perfect in the fayth and authority of Peter And whereas other Churches haue bene stayned with the errors of some she alone remayns established firmely vnconquerably silencing and stopping the mouthes of all Heretikes we vpon necessity of saluation neither deceiued nor drunke with the wyne of pryde togeather which her confesse and preach the forme of truth and of holy Apostolicall tradition And (r) Apud S. Thom. Opusc 1. againe Let vs remayne as members in our head the Apostolicall throne of the Bishops of Rome from which it is our part to inquire what we ought to belieue and what to hold And lastly It is sayth the Angelicall (s) Ibid. Doctor proued necessary for saluation to yeild obedience to the Bishop of Rome for Cyril sayth in his booke of Treasures Therefore Brethren if we will imitate Christ let vs as his sheep heare his voyce remayning in the Church of Peter and let vs not be puffed vp with the wynd of pride least peraduenture the crooked serpent for our contention cast vs out as long since he cast Eue out of Paradyse So teacheth S. Peter for his golden eloquence surnamed Chrysologus exhorting Eutyches the Arch-heretike to leaue his heresy and learne the true fayth from the Church of (t) Epist. ad Eutych Rome We exhort thee Reuerend Brother to lend an obedient eare to the letters of the most holy Pope of the City of Rome for as much as the Blessed Peter who liues and rules in his owne seate exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it So teacheth (u) L. de promiss prodict Dei part 4. c. 5. S. Prosper The Apostles Peter and Paul founded the Church of the Gentiles in the Citty of Rome where they taught the Doctrine of Christ our Lord and deliuered it to their Successors A Christian communicating with this generall Church is a Catholike but if he be separated from it he is an heretike and Antichrist So teacheth Arnobius (x) In psal 106. explicating the necessity of remayning in the Roman Church in these few but effectuall words He that goeth out from the Church of Peter perisheth for thirst Whereupon Erasmus sayth (y) Praefat. instruct Comment in Psalterium Arnobius seemes to yeild this honor to the Roman Church that whosoeuer is out of her is out of the Catholike Church So teacheth Iohn an ancient Patriarke of Constantinople (z) In ep ad Orientales who making profession of his fayth to Hormisdas (a) In ep ad Hormisd Pope acknowledged that in the See Apostolike the Catholike Religion is alwayes conserued inuiolable and that they who consent not fully with the See Apostolike are out of the communion of the Catholike Church So likewise teacheth S. Fulgentius Bishop of Ruspa and a famous Doctor of the African Church who togeather which other Bishops his Collegues made this answer to Peter a Deacon that had bene sent out of the (b) L. de incarnat grat c. 11. East The Roman Church enlightned with the words of the two great lights Peter Paul as with radiant beames and honoured with their bodies and which is also the top of the world without hesitation belieues so to iustice and doubtes not to Confesse so to saluation So he teaching that no Christian ought to make doubt of the fayth of the Roman Church Againe a Disciple of his that writ and dedicated his life to Felicianus his Successor reporteth that when Fulgentius going to the (c) Vita S. Fulgent c 11. Extat in Biblioth Pat. Edit Colon. tom 6. wildernes of Thebais to fast arriued at Syracusa Eulalius Bishop of that City dissuaded him with these words Thou doest well in aspiring to greater perfection but thou knowest that without fayth it is impossible to please God and that a perfidious dissention hath separated those Countreyes into which thou art trauelling from the communion of blessed Peter wherfore Sonne returne home least by seeking a more perfect life thou runne hazard of loosing the true fayth By which it is euident that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholike Church and that all such as dissented from her Doctrine were out of the true fayth and incapable of Saluation So teacheth S. Leo the first Pope of that name for his admirable learning wisdome and sanctity surnamed The Great who writing to the Bishops of Vienne sayth (d) Epist. 89. Christ from the See of Peter as from a certaine Head powreth his gifts vpon the
not to remoue it from thence or whether without any commandment from Christ he chose Rome for his See out of his owne free election as he might haue chosen Milan or any other city That he had such a command from Christ is affirmed learnedly proued by (u) De triplici virt Theol. d. 10. sect 3. n. 10. Suarez (x) L. 2. de Pont. c. 12. Bellarmine (y) Institut mor. part 2. l. 4. c. 21. §. Secunda sent Azor and by the greatest part of Catholike Diuines with many forcible testimonies of antiquity According to this opinion which is the more probable pious learnedly proued by Suarez it followeth that the Roman Church euen as Roman is by Diuine institution the See of S. Peter and his Successors and that therfore it is not left free for them to remoue their See from Rome to any other place But to giue you your greatest aduantage be it that S. Peter receaued no such commandment from Christ but that it was free for him to chose for his See either Rome or any other Citty and that his successors may also freely transferre their See from Rome Yet this affoards no help to your cause for though according to this opinion it be no matter of fayth that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman be the Catholike Church yet specificatiuè and absolutely it is for albeit S. Peter might haue placed his See els where yet it is matter of fayth that de facto he placed his See at Rome and that whiles his Successor continueth his See there the Roman Church is de facto the Head Mistresse of all Churches and that whosoeuer is not a member vnited to this Head is out of the Catholike Church This you should haue disproued but wilfully mistake the state of the question and because it is not matter of fayth but of opinion that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman is the Catholike Church you inferre that specificatiuè and absolutely it is not matter of fayth but only of opinion that she is the Catholike Church which is as good a consequence as that an Aethiopian absolutely is not a man because formally as black he is not a man With such arguments you delude ignorant Readers that want learning to discerne your sleights SECT V. Your fifth Argument YOur fifth argument to proue that the Roman Church is not the Catholike Church (z) Pag. 18.19.20 is because there was a Catholike Church which had Apostles Martyrs and Confessors blessed Saints of God before the Roman Church was founded yea and before the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed or the Apostolicall Creed it selfe composed All this though it be granted as true is yet of no force against our Doctrine which is that S. Peter was ordained by Christ Pastor of his whole flocke and therefore Gouernor of the vniuersall Church from whence it followeth that whatsoeuer Apostles Martyrs Confessors or other faythfull liued in the Church of Christ after S. Peter was made Head thereof were members of the vniuersall or Catholike Church subiect to Peter though for a tyme there were no one particular Church which was head of al Churches because S. Peter as yet had not made choyce of any particular seate as afterwards he did at Antioch and therfore the Church of Antioch whiles he sate there was the Head and Mother Church to whom all other Churches were bound to professe vnion and obedience In regard wherof that Holy Pope Innocentius the first greatly commended by S. Augustine (a) Epist. 18. Alexand. Episc Antioch sayth that the See of Antioch had not giuen place to the See of Rome but because what Antioch obtayned only by the way Rome obtayned absolutely and finally To which I adde that if the Successor of S. Peter should now remoue his See from Rome to Milan as S. Peter did from Antioch to Rome not the Church of Rome but that of Milan should be the Catholike Church as the Head and Mother Church of the world But because by the prouidence of God S. Peter fixed his seat left it to his Successors at Rome whiles they continue it there the Roman Church by reason of his See is the Head Mother Church of the world to which sayth (b) L. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus all Churches and all the faythfull from euery place are of necessity to agree by reason of this her more powerfull principality I conclude therfore that you ignorantly or wittingly mistake the state of the question for the Roman Churches being or not being the Catholike Church as the Head and Mother Church of the world no way dependeth on her being founded before or after the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed but vpon being the See in which S. Peter Prince of the Apostles liued and dyed and which he left to his Successors for the Bishop of that See being S. Peters Successor succeedeth him in his supreme authority and that authority maketh the Roman Church the Head of the world which dignity it hath euer enioyed since S. Peter sate there and shall enioy whiles his Successor continueth there which shal be to the end of the world To haue spoken to the purpose you shold haue proued that the Saints which departed this life before the Roman Church was founded were separated from the communion of S. Peter and from the Church of which he was Head which if they had bene they had no more bene Saints then you now are SECT VI. Your sixth Argument YOur sixth Argument is a mere sophisme Al Catholike Diuines accord as in a matter of fayth that the Catholike or vniuersall Church (c) Pag. 20.21.22 mentioned in the Apostles Creed hath a prerogatiue of continuing in the true fayth vntill the end of the world according to Christs promise made to S. Peter Secondly and that the Roman Church whiles the Successors of S. Peter continue their seate at Rome cannot fayle in fayth But that S. Peter fixed his seat at Rome by the commandement of Christ there to remaine to the end of his life and in his Successors to the end of the world although it be a most pious and probable opinion held by the greatest and best part of Diuines yet it is not expresse matter of Fayth because no such precept of Christ appeareth in Scripture or tradition and therfore some Diuines stick not to grant that the fixing of S. Peters See at Rome was a thing proceeding merely from his owne free will and election consequently that it is in the power of his Successors to transport it from Rome to Antioch or any other City In which case as Rome shold not then be the See of S. Peter but Antioch so neither should the Bishop of Rome be the supreme Gouernor of the whole Church nor the Church of Rome the Catholike Church as the Head and mistresse of all others as now
Pag. 42. r. out S. Hierome these words Petrus nominatur à Petra to signify that Petrus doth not signify a Rock but is a deriuatiue of Petra as Christianus of Christus But S. Hierome hath no such Doctrine but directly the contrary His words are vpon this Rock our Lord founded his Church from this Rock the Apostle Peter tooke his name to wit of a Rock And that this is the true sense of S. Hierome it is plaine out of his Comment vpon Mat. 16 where professedly declaring the words of Christ he sayth that they were not vaine and without effect but that by calling the Apostle Petrus he made him a Rock and that as Christ himselfe being the light granted to his Disciples that they shold be called the light of the world so to Simon which had belieued in Christ the Rock he gaue the name of Petrus and according to the metaphore of a Rock it is truly said to him I will build my Church vpon thee 4. You obiect (q) Pag. 42. c. S. Hilary to proue that not Peter but Christ himselfe is the Rock on which he promised to build his Church The words you bring are Vna hac fidei petra Petri ore confessa Tues Christus filius Dei viui I finde no such words in S. Hilary nor is it likely that he would vse confessa passiuely as in these words you doe But how imposterously you alleage him to proue that S. Peter is not the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church S. Hilary himselfe shall be the iudge O sayth (r) Can. 16. in Math. he in the title of a new name happy foundation of the Church and worthy stone of her Edifice O blessed Porter of Heauen to whose arbitrement are committed the keyes of the eternall kingdome whose iudgments haue authority to preiudge in heauen And els where (s) In Psal 131. he calleth Peter the first Confessor of the sonne of God the foundation of the Church And in that very place which you obiect (t) L. 6. de Trin. that after his confession subiacet he is layd vnder the building of the Church and receaues the Keyes of the heauenly kingdome 5. You obiect (u) Pag. 42.1 S. Epiphanius alleaging out of him these words (x) Haeres 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Rock of faith which shew that Peter is the firme Rock on which the Church is so strongly built that she shall neuer fayle in fayth But he that wil see your vnsincere dealing if he read S. Epiphanius his contexture shall find that in that very place which you cite for the contrary (y) Haeres 59. he affirmeth in most expresse words not once but thrice that Peter is the Rock on which Christ hath built his Church that he is the foundation of the Church and that Christ hath committed to him the charge of feeding his flock The same he teacheth in his Ancoratus (z) Propè inâ—t adding that all questions of fayth are in Peter Wherby is not only signified his supremacy which twice he there expresseth but also his authority to resolue all doubts of sayth and condemne all heresies which he expoundeth to be the gates of hell that shall neuer preuaile against the Church built vpon Peter 6. You say (a) Pag 40. Gregory surnamed the Great speaking of the foundation of the Church hath defined that whensoeuer the word Foundation is in the Scripture vsed in the singular number no other then Christ is signisied therby from whence you inferre that out of the Scripture Peter cannot be proued to be the foundation of the Church But you shall be iudged out of your owne mouth for you confesse (b) Ibid. that Petra a Rock is taken as all one with foundation you also grant (c) Pag. 42. that some of the Fathers vnderstand by Peter Rock you should haue said all for as Maldonate whom you cite (d) Pag. 39. f. marg noteth (e) In c. 16. Math. n. 16. prope fin none but heretikes euer denied it from whence it must follow that since the name of Rock which is all one with foundation is giuen him in Scripture it is all one as if the name of foundation had bene giuen him in Scripture And therfore Clemens Romanus Origen S. Hilary the Councell of Chalcedon Isidorus Pelusiota and others giue him the name of Foundation aswell as of Rock (f) Apud Iod. Cocc to 1. l. 7. art 4. 7. To S. Gregory the Great you ioyne Gregory the seauenth a most holy and learned Pope whom you traduce saying (g) Pag. 40. Hildebrand who in his owne opinion was greater then Gregory the Great and the greatest Dictator that euer possessed the Papall See Anno 1077. inuited Rodulph Duke of Sueuia to rebell against his Liege Lord and Emperor Henry the 4. and sent vnto the same Rodulph a Crowne with this inscription Petra dedit Petro Romam tibi Papa coronam Syr you haue bene formerly admonished by P. R. in his Treatise tending to mitigation against the seditious writings of Thomas Morton Minister of your tradueing and falsly slandering this holy Pope of whose admirable vertnes I may haue occasion to speake hereafter But you are still the same man and tel vs this fable which Baronius (h) Anno 1077. n. 7. apud Spond setteth downe as related by Albertus Stadenfis and Helmoldus two late writers whom he conuinceth of falshood shewing that the Princes of Germany who cold no longer endure the execrable wickednes insolency and oppressions of Henry and being greatly incensed against him for his sacrilegious practises against the See Apostolike wholly renounced him and chose in his place Rodulph Duke of Sueuia without either the aduice or knowledge of Gregory and brought him to Mentz where he was consecrated by Sigefridus Bishop of that Citty So vntrue it is that Gregory either Crowned him or sent any Crowne vnto him or any way incited him against Henry And it is to be noted that wheras you call Henry Rodulphs Liege Lord and Emperor he was neuer Crowned but only by Guibertus an Antipope set vp by himselfe to that end and consecrated by Bishops that were actually excommunicated and deposed But any thing wil serue your turne to make an argument against the Pope be it true or false 8. You obiect (i) Pag. 41. marg these words of Theophylact Confessio ipsa fundameÌ„tam But why do you mangle his words which are Our Lord rewardeth Peter bestowing a great fauour on him which is that vpon him he built the Church for because Peter confessed him to be the sonne of God he said that this Confession which he made shall be a foundation to them that belieue c. Can there be a more grosse falsification then to obiect three words of Theophilact to proue Peter not to be the foundation of the Church and leaue out the former part of the sentence in which he so expresly
affirmeth that Christ to reward his fayth built his Church vpon him 9. And no lesse deceiptfully you alleage (k) Pag. 39. g. the RomaÌ„ glosse (l) Gloss Decret part 1. d. 10. in Cap. Dominus no fler to proue that not Peter but his confession without any relation to his person is the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church for the glosse sayth Christ would haue his owne name of Petra a Rocke giuen to Peter c. therfore called him Petrus And the Chapter on which this glosse is made is taken out of an Epistle of S. Leo in which he not only affirme (m) Ep. 83. Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built but addeth that whosoeuer denyeth this truth is impiously presumptuous and plungeth himselfe into Hell To these and otherlike obiections out of the Fathers and other Catholike authors you ad some confirmations of your owne The first is None say you (n) Pag. 41. will deny but that there was meant in Peters Confession that matter which he confessed but Peter confessed not himselfe but Christ saying Then art the Sonne of the lyuing God Ergo his confession had relation to Christ and not to himselfe A false and senslesse consequence for euery confession hath relation not only to the matter as to the obiect or thing confessed but also to him that coÌ„fesseth as to the agent from which it proceedeth and therfore to inferre that when Christ answering Peter and rewarding his confession sayd vnto him Thou art Peter c. he meant not Peter but himselfe to be the Rock is as senslesse an inference as to say that when Thomas cryed out vnto Christ (o) Ioan. 20.28 My Lord my God and Christ in reward of his confession sayd (p) Ibid. vers 29. Blessed art thou Thomas he pronounced not Thomas blessed but himselfe which was the matter Thomas beleeued 2. You obiect (q) Pag. 42. fin 43. All the Apostles and Prophets are called foundations wherby is not meant their persons or dominions but their doctrines I grant that Christ S. Peter the rest of the Apostles and Prophets are foundations on which the Church is built Christ is the chiefe and primary foundation by his owne power and strength Of him the Apostle sayth (r) 1. Cor. 3.11 Other foundation no man can lay besyde that which is layd which is Christ Iesus whome therfore S. Augustine (s) In Psal 86. and S. Gregory (t) L. 28. Moral c. 9. call Fundamentum fundamentorum The foundation of foundations Besydes Christ the Apostles and Prophets are also secondary foundations of the Church for the Prophets by fore-telling Christ and the Apostles by preaching his sayth and doctrine vphold the body of the Church to wit the faythfull who therfore are called (u) Ephes 2.20 Domostikes of God built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner-stone and for this cause the wall of the Citty of the Church is sayd (x) Apoc. 1.24 to haue 12. foundations and in them the 12. names of the 12. Apostles Among these secondary foundations Peter hath the first and chiefest place The rest of the faythfull in respect of him are ordinary stones he an impregnable Rock as being built immediatly vpon Christ and the rest by meanes of him in regard wherof it was sayd to him alone and to no other of the faythfull or Apostles Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And therfore S. Augustine sayth (y) Serm. 15. de Sanct. Our Lord called Peter the foundation of the Church for which cause the Church with reason worshippeth this foundation vpon which the height of the ecclesiafticall edifice is raysed 3. You say (z) Pag. 42. that when the Fathers expound by Rock Peter they meane ether a primacy of order or honor or els a priority of Confession in Peter not of Authority and Dominion and the same you repeate afterwards saying (a) Pag. 110. The similitude of head and members hath no colour of superiority but of priority of place or of voyce And this reason you alleage (b) Pag. 41. why though the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake yet he alone answered as being the mouth of the rest I grant that Peter spake in the name of the rest but to inferre that therfore Christ when he answered Peter saying Thou art Peter made him not a Rock or promised not to make him the foundation of his Church is a Non sequitur I grant also that the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake that he answered as the mouth of the rest not because he had any Commission from them but because out of his great feruor he preuented the rest and spake for them as their head and Superiour as Christ somtimes did for all his Apostles (c) Math. 9.11 Luc. 6.2 and as the Rector is wont to answere in the name of the whole Colledge So sayth S. Cyrill of Alexandria (d) L. 4. in Ioan. c. 18. They all answere by one that was their Superiour And againe (e) Ibid. l. 12. cap. 64. when our Sauiour asked his Disciples whom doe you say that I am Peter as being Prince and head of therest first cryed out Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God So S. Cyrill of Hierusalem (f) Catech. â—â— All the Apostles being silent for this doctrine was aboue their strength Peter Prince of the Apostles and the chiefe preacher of the Church sayth vnto him Thou art Christ c. And in the same sense S. Cyprian (g) L. 1. ep 3. sayth Peter on whom our Lord built his Church speaketh for all in the voyce of the Church And S. Augustine (h) Serm. 31. de verb. Apost c. 1. Peter bearing the figure of the Church most feruent in the loue of Christ chiefe in the order of Apostles and holding the Princedome of the Apostleship often answers one for all And againe (i) Tract 124. in Ioan. That in his answere he bare the person of the Church for the primacy of his Apostleship and for the primacy which he had among the Disciples And whereas you to elude this exposition of the Fathers say (k) Pag. 42. 110. that when they expound by Rock Peter or pronounce him to be the head and Captaine of the rest they meane not primacy of authority and iurisdiction but of order or honor is a distinction that caries with it its owne confutation and shall be effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 1. hereafter CHAP. IX S. Peter exercised his Authority and Iurisdiction of supreme Pastor and Gouernor ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church TO disproue S. Peters authority ouer the other Apostles you obiect first (a) Pag. 45.46 that S. Gregory vpon those words of the Apostle (b) Rom. 9.12 I will magnify my office in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentils
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
roundly without any answere at all therfore your said Antagonist told you as with reason he might that he greatly marueyled with what conscience or if not conscience with what forehead at least you could at that tyme write and print things that you did know or might haue knowne to be merely false and forged Is not this sayth he a signe of obstinate wilfulnesse that neither God nor truth is sought for by you but only to maintaine a part or faction with what slight or falshood soeuer Hauing giuen you this admonition though he remit you or rather the reader to the Warnword for a larger satisfaction yet he also briefly answereth (k) Ibid. num 55.56.57.58 shewing 1. Your grosse ignorance in ascribing that Canon to Pope Boniface wheras it is gathered by Gratian out of the sayings of S. Boniface an Englishman that was Archbishop of Ments in Germany and a holy Martyr 2. Your fraud in setting downe the words of the Canon corruptly both in Latin and English as by leauing out the beginning which sheweth the drift of the Canon and the end which containeth a reason of all that is said and cutting of other words in the middest to couer the pious meaning of S. Boniface 3. Your falshood in leauing out and altering some words and corruptly translating others with a heape of falsities as he rightly calleth them (l) Ibid. num 57. marg Wherefore if he had iust cause to marueile with what conscience or forehead you could then repeate an obiection so fully answered before farre greater cause haue I to maruayle now that after he hath againe giuen you this second answere and so fully discouered your fraud you are not ashamed yet againe to reiterate the same obiection without taking any notice of those errors wilfull falsities which that answerer laid to your charge To him and to the Warnword I remit the reader But because the glosse affirmeth the Pope to haue plenitude of power in disposing of Prebends and that none ought therin to say vnto him why do you so You call this the height of all desperate presumption in the Popes to make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes A bold censure Kings haue fullnesse of power to dispose of the temporall offices of their kingdomes and none ought to say vnto them Why do you so Will you therfore tell them that this their authority is the height of all desperate presumption to make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes No why then do you giue it that name and censure in the Popes You might haue done well to aske S. Bernards opinion He would haue told you (m) Ep. 131. that the plenitude of power is by a singular prerogatiue giuen to the See Apostolike That he which resisteth this power resisteth the ordination of God that he hath power if he iudge it profitable to erect new Bishoprickes where formerly they were not and of those that are in being to put downe some and set vp others as reason shall dictate vnto him so that he may lawfully of Bishops make Archbishops and contrariwise if it shall seeme necessary He can summon from the furthest partes of the earth whatsoeuer Ecclesiasticall persons of neuer so high degree and compell them to appeare before him and this not once or twice but as often as he shall find it expedient This is the power which the glosse speaketh of you call it the Height of all desperate presumption wherby the Popes make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes S. Bernard holds it to be a power giuen him by Christ and that whosoeuer refisteth it as you doe resists the ordinance of God Whether is it fit that Christian men should belieue S. Bernard or you especially since you acknowledg him to be a Saint which he cold not be if he had erred in fayth nor will any wise man thinke that in this point he was of any other beliefe then all the holy Fathers of Gods Church were whose doctrine he knew and vnderstood better then you do But not contenting your selfe with censuring condemning Popes you carpe at the holy Martyr S. Boniface whom all Germany reuerenceth as their Apostle for teaching that albeit the Pope shold by his scandalous life draw innumerable multitudes with him into hell yet no man may presume to correct him to wit iuridically by punishing or deposing him for that is the sense in which S. Boniface speaketh vnlesse he also depart from the fayth But you consider not the wrong which by thus carping at the Pope you offer to all Christian Princes for dare you say that if an Emperor a King or any other absolute Prince be of so scandalous a life that by his example he lead thousands with him into Hell he may therefore be deposed Wherfore since you will hold it to be good doctrine that albeit a temporall Prince yea or many Princes liuing at the same tyme shold by their vicious liues draw thousands with them into hell none of them may therefore be corrected iuridically why do you carpe at vs for defending the same of the Pope who is but one at once Your fifth obiection is (n) Pag. 64. sin 65. S. Paul alone writ to the Romans not S. Peter True for when S. Peter writ his Epistles he was at Rome and had conuerted many of the Romans to Christ and planted the Church among them before S. Paul came theither or writ his epistle to them Againe S. Peter writ his epistles to all the faythfull and in regard therof you intitle them Generall Epistles and we Catholike Epistles a title which is not giuen to those of S. Paul Your sixth Obiection is (o) Pag. 65. It was not sayd of Peters ship as it was of that wherein S. Paul was God hath giuen vnto thee all them that sayle with thee and except those to wit the Mariners remaine in the Ship you cannot be saued Among 28. famous priuiledges which Bellarmine (p) Lib. 1. de Pont. c. 17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24 sheweth to haue bene granted to S. Peter and not to S. Paul nor to any other of the Apostles you are content to conceale them all without making any mention of them vnlesse it be of two or three to carpe at them as here you doe at his ship postposing it to that in which S. Paul sailed because in a dangerous tempest God preserued the liues of all that were in the ship for his sake But in this your dealing is no better then in the rest for the holy Doctors take the ship of Peter to be a type of the Catholike Church out of which none can be saued eternally which they say not of the ship in which Paul sayled When Christ saw two ships standing by the lake of Genezareth going into the one ship (q) Luc. 5.3 that was Simons and sitting he taught the multitude out of the ship it was not without mystery that of those two ships Christ made choyce of Peters only to
striue earnestly against his error for the Catholike truth The reason therfore why Pelagius after he had deceaued the Councell of Palestine endeauored also to deceaue the Roman Church by a feigned profession of his fayth sent to Innocentius Pope was because it was the constant beliefe of all Christians in those dayes that the Roman Church as being heyre of the fayth commended by S. Paul could not approue any doctrine but what was truly orthodoxall and Catholike as Pelagius in that his profession acknowledgeth saying (t) In fin Symb. ad Dâ—â—â— apud Hieron to 4. Baron anno 417 This o most blessed Pope is the fayth which I haue learned in the Catholike Church and which I haue alwayes held and do bold Wherin if I haue said any thing ignorantly or vnwarily I desire to be corrected by you that hold the fayth and chayre of Peter If this my confession be approued by the iudgment of your Apostleship whosoeuer layes an aspersion on me shall shew himselfe to be ignorant or malicious or els not to be a Catholike but he shall not proue me to be an heretike With this profession Pelagius sought to deceaue the Roman Church but could not because Zozimus sayth S. Augustine (u) Proximè cit considered what iudgment the fayth of the Romans commended by the Apostle had made of him in the tyme of Innocentius his predecessor For which cause Procopius truly said (x) L. 1. de bello Goth. If euer any surely the Romans chiefly are they that haue had the Christian fayth in veneration I conclude therfore that if the holy Fathers haue vnderstood the Scriptures aright the fayth of the Roman Church is proued to be infallible not only by the Scriptures formerly alleaged (y) Supra hoc â—ap but by this very passage of the Apostle Nor do Tolet or Sà whome heere you obiect (z) Pag. 66. say ought to the contrary for if they obserue that when the Apostle sayth to the Romans your fayth is published euery where it is an hyperbole because the sense is not that the fayth which they belieued was then actually preached throughout the whole world but that is was a thing knowne and published throughout the whole world that they had belieued they say nothing but what is true for the Apostle cold not say that the Roman fayth which was the fayth of Christ was then actually preached in all partes of the world as neither it is yet at this day but that it was publikely knowne throughout all the world that the Romans had receaued the fayth of Christ because in common speach and morall reputation that which is diffused ouer a great part of the world and famously knowne is said to be euery where And this publike fame was of great moment for the conuersion of other nations for Rome being the Head of the world whither all sorts of people vnder that vast Empyre had recourse for discharg of their tributes and accompts of their offices they cold not but haue knowledge that the Romans belieued in Christ And as Tolet noteth out of S. Chrysostome but you to detract from the Romans what prayse you can conceale it this publike same and knowledg of their beliefe was an example and a great motiue for other nations to receaue the fayth of Christ Now wheras you adde (a) Pag. 60. It is an obiection now a dayes breathed into the mouth of euery vulgar Papist that at that day Catholike and Roman were all one the testimonies of antiquity which I haue formerly brought in profe therof shew that none but he which is not so much as vulgarly read in Ecclesiasticall history can be ignorant of so certaine a truth Wherfore you speake vntruly when you say it is an insultation of ours easily checked with a paralell of the like if not of a larger commendation of the Church of Thessalonica by the same Apostle 1. Thessal 1.2 We giue thankes alwayes to God for you all making mention of you in our prayers remembring without ceasing your worke of fayth And againe v. 8. From you sayth he sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia but also in euery place your fayth to Godward is spread abroad c. This is your paralell which is easily disparalelled for as Baronius obserueth (c) Anno 58. out of S. Chrysostome the Romans being Head of the world their fayth was a forcible motiue to bring other nations to belieue in Christ And therfore S. Leo (d) Serm. 1. in Nat. Apost Pet. Paul had reason to say that S. Peter Prince of the Apostles not by humane counsell but by diuine ordination came from Antioch to Rome to preach the Ghospell and fixe his chayre in that Citty that so the chiefe seat of religion might be where the Head of superstition had bene and that the fayth from thence as from the top of the Empyre might be diffused throughout the world And S. Anselme (e) â—n c. 1. ad Rom. that S. Paulgiuing thankes to God for the fayth of the Romans sayth I giue thanks to God for all the faithfull in the first place for all you because you are the chiefest the Roman Church hauing the primacy among all Churches And wheras the Apostle sayth The fayth of the Romans is published throughout the whole world the same S. Anselme noteth (f) In c. 1. ad Thessal that he sayth not so to the Thessalonians but You are made a paterne to all that belieue in Macedonia and Achaia and from you the word of our Lord was bruted not only in Macedonia and Achaia but also in â—uery place that is sayth he in euery place neare to you And hereby it appeareth that the Romans for the example of their fayth and the profit that redounded therby to others were preferred by S. Paul before the Thessalonians as farre as the whole world ouer which the conuersion of Rome was quickly spread exceedeth Macedonia Achaia with a few bordering Prouinces which only had notice of the Thessalonians And therfore S. Paul giueth a further prayse to the Romans (g) Rom. 15.15 I am assured of you that you are also full of loue replenished with all knowledge so that you are able to admonish one another And againe (h) Rom. 16.19 Your obedience is published into euery place none of which prayses he gaue to the Thessalonians But lest we should gather any preeminence of the Roman Church because the Epistle to the Romans among all S. Pauls epistles hath the first place you preoccupate this obiection telling vs (i) Pag. 67. that the epistle to the Thessalonians and others were written before that to the Romans Be it so but we aduertise you with S. Anselme (k) Praefat. in ep ad Rom. It is to be belieued that they which collected S. Pauls epistles into one body iudged that the epistle to the Romans ought to haue the first place because it was
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
be directed to the holy and Venerable Pope Innocentius And we likewise had written from the Councell of Mileuis in Numidia to the same Apostolike See And what did they write We hope sayth the Councell (k) Aug. ep 92. these men which hold so peruerse pernicious opinions will sooner yeld to the authority of your Holinesse drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures by help of the mercy of our Lord Iesus-Christ who vouchsafeth to gouerne you consulting with him and to heare you praying vnto him To this Epistle of the Councell Innocentius answeared (l) Aug. ep 93. You prouide diligently and worthily for the Apostolike honor c. following in the consultation of difficult things the forme of the ancient rule which you know as well as I to haue bene alwayes obserued by the whole world But I omit this for I thinke it is not vnknowne to your wisdome for why els did you confirme this by your deeds but because you know that answeres do alwayes flow from the Apostolicall fountaine throughout all Countries to those that aske them And especially as often as matter of fayth is in question I conceiue that all our brethren and fellow-Bishops ought not to referre what may be profitable in common to all Churches to any but to Peter that is to the author of their name and dignity as your Dilection hath done If you answeare that Innocentius writ this but spake vntruly in his owne cause S. Augustine will satisfy you who highly prayseth both these answeares of his Vpon this affaire sayth S. Augustine (m) Ep. 106. relations were sent from the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the Apostolicall See c. And besides the relations of the Councells we writ also priuate letters to Pope Innocentius of blessed memory in which we discoursed more largely of the same subiect And he answeared vs to euery point as it was conuenient and fitting the Prelate of the Apostolike See should answeare And againe (n) Ep. 157. Pelagius and Celestius hauing bene the authors or most violent promotors of this new Heresy they also by meanes of the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councells with the help of God who vndertakes the protection of his Church haue bene condemned in the extent of the whole world by two reuerend Prelates of the Apostolike See Pope Innocentius and Pope Zozimus vnlesse they reforme themselues and do pennance Out of this it is euident 1. That it was the ancient tradition and custome that Councels should send their decrees to the Pope to be confirmed by his authority 2. And that it is so ordeyned not by humane but by diuine sentence 3. That all other Churches of the world compared to the Roman are as streames that flow from their mother source and are to imbrace as pure whatsoeuer doctrine she deliuereth and reiect whatsoeuer she condemneth 4. That the Fathers of both these Councels did acknowledg the Pope to be their Pastor 5. And that they did belieue his authority to be takē out of the holy Scriptures 6. That Christ guideth him in his consultations and decrees of fayth 7. That the custome ancient rule beareth that in doubts especially of fayth the See Apostolike is to be consulted and nothing determined vntill answeare had from thence Now to your obiection (o) Pag. 141. seqq that the Councell of Mileuis denied any right of Appeales from Africa to the Church of Rome which in your eyes is so forcible that you repeat it afterwards againe (p) Pag. 321.322 seqq and descant on it at large against Bellarmine who sheweth (q) L. 2. de Pont. c. 24. it to be wholly impertinent and from the matter for the question of appeales to the B. of Rome is not of Priests and inferior Clerkes of whom only the Councell of Mileuis speaketh but of Bishops for the Councell of Sardica which hath declared (r) Can. 4. 7. that Bishops may appeale to the Pope hath withall decreed (s) Can. 27. that Priests and inferior Clerkes are to be iudged by their owne Bishops that if they conceiue themselues to be wronged by them they appeale to other Bishops of the same prouince And the same had bene ordeyned not long before by the Councell of Nice (t) Iulius ep 1.2.3 apud Bin. to 1. pag. 399. seqq and afterwards by S. Leo (u) Ep. 84. ad Anastas Thessal S. Gregory (x) L. 2. indict 11. ep 6. ordeyning that maior causes be iudged in the first instance by a Councell of Bishops of the same prouince by way of appeale by the See Apostolike And to goe no further the same was answeared by the holy Pope Innocentius to whom the Councell of Mileuis sent their decrees to be confirmed (y) Aug. ep 92. For when Victricius B. of Rhoan desiring to order the gouerment of his Church according to the Roman discipline required instructions from him he (z) Ep. 2. addressed vnto him diuers rules to be obserued of which the third is that If dissentions arise betweene Priests or other Clerkes of the inferior order they are to be iudged ended by the Bishops of the same Prouince as the Councell of Nice hath determined And for the causes of Bishops he addeth (a) Ibid. If they be maior causes that are in question let them after the Episcopall iudgment be referred to the See Apostolike as the Synod of Nice and the ancient customes ordeyne This Epistle of Innocentius was cited by the Bishops of France in the second Councell of Tours 700. yeares since And his very words concerning the appeales of Bishops to the See Apostolike are inserted in forme of a Law into the Capitulary of Charlemaine And Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes in his epistle to Nicolas Pope (b) Erodoard histor Eccles Rhem. lib. 3. repeating the same decree of Innocentius sayth We Metropolitans trauilling in our prouinciall Councels haue care after iudgment to referre the maior causes that is of fayth and of maior persons that is of Bishops to the determination of the soueraigne See And speaking of Priests and inferior Clerkes Let it not please God that we thould depise the priuiledge of the first and supreme See of the holy Roman Church as to weary your soueraigne Authority with all the controuersies and quarrels of the Clergy as well of the superior as of the inferior order which the canons of the Nicen Councell and the decrees of Innocentius and other Popes of the holy See of Rome command to be determined in their owne Prouinces From hence it followeth that the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis which you obiect against appeales to Rome makes nothing at all for your purpose your peremptory conclusion is (c) Pag. 141. that the Councell of Mileuis denieth any right of appeales from Africk to the Church of Rome To make this good you should haue shewed that the Councell of Mileuis forbids the appeales of Bishops
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.
and vntruthes you breake forth into such intemperate railing (s) Impost pag. 177. ser pag. 28. that I disdaine to passe it vnder my pen and I suppose that euery honest minded reader though neuer so zealous a Protestant will be ashamed to see such venime together with so shamefull vntruthes to fall from the mouth of a man of your yeares especially since what here you write hath no other ground but your vnconscionable slandering of Vrban the second whom you nickname Turbane (t) Serm. pag. â—9 as if by a Rescript of his he had authorized Assassines to inuade kill excommunicated persons at their pleasure The case is this Certaine lewd and dissolute Clergy men excommunicated by the Church tooke armes were â—laine in the feild in a battaile fought betweene the sacrilegious Emperor Henry the fourth and Eghert Marques of Saxony Vrban being consulted declared the soldiers that killed them not to be murtherers nor to haue incurred the sentence of excommunication pronounced against such as lay violent hands on Clergy-men From whence it followeth that it is no sinne to kill excommunicated persons be they Priests or other Ecclesiasticks in a iust warre and when they inuade our liues But your inference that it is lawfull for any man to kill excommunicated persons by Assassines or any other way by his owne priuate authority is not allowed by Vrban nor asserted by any Catholike Diuine but an Imposture of yours to enrage the mindes of Protestants against Catholikes Yea to shew your Imposture Innocentius the fourth and the whole Church assembled in the generall Councell of Lions haue ordeyned Excommunication and other most grieuous punishments for all persons whatsoeuer that shall murther or goe about to murther any one by Assassines The decree is extant in the Canon Law which I shall set downe to the end the reader may see your dealing and learne neuer to credit your words hereafter Wheras sayth Innocentius (u) Sext. Decret de homicid tit 4. they that with such horrible inhumanity and barbarous cruelty so thirst after the death of others as that they cause them to be slaine by Assassines procure not only the death of their bodies but also of their soules if they be not fensed with abundant grace of God as with spirituall armor c. We being desirous to preuent so great a danger of soules and to beate downe such impious presumptions with the sword of Ecclesiasticall censure to the end that feare of punishment may be a stop to so great audaciousnesse ordayne with the approbation of the holy Councell that whatsoeuer Prince Prelate or other Ecclesiasticall or secular person shall cause or command any Christian to be killed by assassines although death follow not therby or that shall receaue defend or conceale them do ipso facto incurre the sentences of Excommunication and deposition from his dignity honor order office or benefice which therfore may freely be conferred an others by them to whom the gift of these thinges belongeth And let him with all his worldly goods as an enemy to Christian religion be cast out for euer from among Christian people And if sufficient proofe he made against any one that he hath committed so execrable a wickednesse let no other sentence of Excommunication deposition or dissidation against him be required This is the decree of Innocentius and of the whole Church assembled in the generall Councell of Lions Nor is it any obscure thing but a Canon published and inserted in forme of a Law into the Decretals of the RomaÌ„ Church Goe now and raile against the Pope for quitting the consciences of them that shall kill others by Assassines Tell vs Can the Church possibly deuise any punishments more grieuous for any malefactors theÌ„ these which she inflicteth on all them that shall ether kill or endeuor to kill others by Assassines although the effect follow not Doth she grant any exemption from these punishments to them that shall kill excommunicated persons Is not the Decree generall and in fauor of all men without exception aswell Heretikes and Schismatikes as Catholikes And as well excommunicate as not excommunicate Let the reader then iudge of your conscience what censure you deserue for slandering Vrban Pope as allowing the murther of excommunicated persons by Assasines SECT V. Doctor Morton obiecteth the Bull of Maunday Thursday TO make good your slanderous doctrine of our allowing excommunicated persons to be murthered by Assassines you say (x) Impost pag. 177. sermon pag. 30. Goe you now and complaine that you are vniustly persecuted or banished by Protestants out of seuerall Kingdomes when as they are all yearely excommunicate at Rome for Heretikes and Schismatikes by the Bull of Maundy thursday consequently made obnoxious vnto the blinde deuotion of euery Romish bloudy assassine who may be perswaded that he shall merit of God by the slaying of those supposed Schismatikes Two things may here be questioned the one whether heretikes are to be excommunicated the other whether Protestants be comprehended in the number of heretikes excommunicated in the Bull of Maundy Thursday What your opinion is concerning the former I know not but I know the practise of the Catholike Church hath euer bene to excommunicate Heretikes Why els did she in her Primitiue tymes Excommunicate the Arians in the Councell of Nice the Eunomians in the first of Constantinople the Nestorians in that of Ephesus the Eutychians in that of Chalcedon and others in other Councells Againe I know that the Church hath learned this from Christ commanding (y) Math. 18.18 that he who being thrice warned will not beare the Church be to vs as the Heathen and the Publican I know that S. Paul hath said (z) Tit. 3.10 Auoid a man that is an heretike after the first and second admonition And againe (a) 2. Cor. 6.14 what participation hath iustice with iniquity or what society is there betweene light and darkenesse and what agreement with Christ and Beliall or what part hath the faythfull with the Infidell I know that S. Iohn speaking of an heretike sayth (b) Ep. 2. vers 10. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine receaue him not into the house nor say vnto him God saue you for he that sayth vnto him God saue you communicateth with his wicked workes Wherfore it cannot be denied but that the now Church of Rome in excommunicating heretikes doth nothing but what Christ and his blessed Apostles haue commanded and what the primitiue Church and Councells haue taught her to do But then the second question is who be heretikes and who not S. Augustine (c) De vtilit credendi c. 1. distinguisheth between an heretike and one that belieueth heretikes An heretike he defineth (d) De ciuit Dei l. 18. c. 51. to be one that vnder the name of a Christian professeth obstinatly erroneous doctrine in matter of Fayth For my part I cannot conceaue but that this definition adequately agreeth to
with all that are committed to vs are and will euer be obedient to you And in his Epistle to Felix Pope For as much as our Predecessors and we haue alwayes receaued assistance from your holy Apostolike See and haue had experience of the care you haue of vs we following the decrees of the Canons fly for succour vnto it as vnto a Mother from whence our predecessors haue receaued their orders doctrine and reliefe And againe (h) Ibid. Which by no meanes we dare presume to do to wit to define matters of fayth without consulting you the Canons commanding that in maior causes nothing be determined without the B. of Rome c. For therfore Christ hath placed you and your predecessors in the height of Eminency and commanded you to haue care of all Churches c. And he addeth (i) Ibid. that It belongs to the Pope to iudge the causes of all Bishops If therfore to appeale to the Pope as to his Iudge if to acknowledg in him power to restore the greatest Patriarkes to their Sees if to professe that the iudgment of Bishops belongeth to him and that all maior causes are to be referred to his tribunall if to belieue the Roman Church to be the Head and Mother of all Churches and the Pope to be Bishop of the vniuersall Church and finally if to professe actuall and promise perpetuall obedience to the See Apostolike be Arguments of S. Athanasius his beliefe of the soueraigne authority of the See Apostolike of his obligation to obey her and to liue in vnion with her and in subiection to her then are you guilty of Imposture in omitting these and other pregnant testimonies of the same kind extant in his second Apology and obiecting in lieu of them a false tale of Liberius excommunicating Athanasius deuised by your selfe to seduce your readers And hereby you are conuinced of another vntruth in saying (k) Pag. 191. that Athanasius sought not any vnion with Felix who was Pope insteed of Liberius for these his testimonies shew that he was in communion with him and acknowledged himselfe subiect to him as to the Gouernor of the vniuersall Church But you say (l) Pag. 190. and that impertinently to the matter in hand which is to proue S. Athanasius his no subiection to the Roman Church that When we esteeme Felix to be the legitimat Pope and Liberius a Schismatike remoued from the society of Catholikes and from his Papall function wee fight notably against our owne principles which are 1. That there cannot be two Popes together and 2. That no Pope can be deposed vnlesse he appeare to be a manifest heretike which if he be he ceaseth to be Pope without any iudgement at all That there cannot be two Popes together we acknowledge to be a principle of ours Nor did it happen otherwise in the case of Liberius for when he returned to the Papacy it was by acceptation of the Clergy people of Rome equiualent to a new election and this not vntill after Felix his death For as Sozomen prudently obserueth (m) L. 4. c. 14. God by his speciall prouidence called Felix out of this life soone after Liberius returned to Rome lest the See of Peter should be defamed with the note of schisme two Popes gouerning at once contrary to the lawes of the Church The second principle is not ours but an ignorance of yours For a Pope ceaseth to be a Catholike consequētly falleth from his Papacy not only by publicke profession of heresy but also by making publicke profession of Schisme and outward communion with heretikes though in his hart he detest their doctrine for to be a Catholike it is not only necessary to belieue the Catholike fayth inwardly but also to make profession thereof outwardly abandoning the cōmunion of heretikes Wherfore the syllogisme which here you make (n) Pag. 190. sin 191. concludeth nothing the Minor proposition that Liberius notwithstanding his consenting to the condemnation of Athanasius and communicating with heretikes was a Catholiks Bishop is absolutely false And wheras you professe to set downe this Minor as the words of Bellarmine you falsify him for albeit he say that if a Pope become a manifest heretike he ceaseth eo ipso to be Pope yet in the same place (o) L. 2. de Pont. c. 30. §. Eadem est sententia he sufficiently expresseth that not only heretikes but also schismatikes are out of the Church and loose all spirituall iurisdiction ouer those which are in the Church SECT IV. S. Basills beliefe of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome proued and Doctor Mortons obiections answeared IT seemed to vs sayth S. Basil (p) Ep. 52. writing to Athanasius to be to good purpose that we write to the B. of Rome that he consider the affaires of these parts and giue his iudgement to the end that being there is difficulty in sending from thence persons by a common and Synodicall decree he may vse his authority and choose men capable of the labour of such a iourney c. And that hauing with them the Acts of Arimin they may disanull those things which haue bene done by force Bellarmine (q) L. 2. de Pont. c. 15. bringeth this testimony you except against him as peruerting S. Basil by false translation which you proue out of Baronius for where Bellarmine translateth vt res nostras videas that the B. of Rome see or view our affaires Baronius rendreth vt res nostras consideret that he consider our affaires But who seeth not this to be a mere cauill for what difference is there between intreating the Pope to take the affaires of the Easterne Churches into his consideration as Baronius readeth or to see and looke into them as Bellarmine translateth Whether you follow the one or the other it is manifest that S Basil thought it a fit way to redresse the calamities of those Churches that the Pope should take them into his consideration or haue a vigilant eye ouer them the requiring wherof from him liuing in a Countrey so remote and in another Patriarkship sheweth that S. Basil belieued some charge of visiting those Churches to belong to him superior to that which the Easterne Patriarkes had Nor doth your answeare satisfy saying (r) Pag. 195. He required not from the Pope any help or visitation of dominion or iurisdiction but only of confortation of louing and brotherly consideration hoping that the persuasions of stangers especially being indued with Gods grace would be more preualent with the Easterne people then the Counsell of their owne Bishops for this euasion is conuinced of falshood by the very words of S. Basil It is fit sayth he (s) Ep. 52. that we beseech the Pope to shew his authority in the busines sending men that may bring with them the Acts of Arimin and disannull the thinges done by force And immediatly after he professeth himselfe ready to be corrected by the Popes Legates if
for euen Bellarmine (i) L. 2. de Pont. c. 18. against whom you write and in that very place which you cite for the contrary proueth that all Archbishops Metropolitans and Patriarkes were instituted or confirmed by the Pope and that by sending them the Pal he conferred on them the plenitude of Pastorall power which being an act of supreme authority a conuincing argument of his vniuersall iurisdiction and performed by him alone proueth vnanswerably that he instituted Bishops by his owne authority alone without the helpe of a Councell And to proue the same by particular examples When Agapetus Pope came to Constantinople he deposed Anthinus in the Imperiall city in the presence of Iustinian the Emperor and this alone without the helpe of any CouÌ„cell yea and without any support at all (k) See this proued aboue Chap. 20. sect 2. And Honorius the first Pope of that name as appeareth out of his epistles to Edwin King of England and Honorius B. of Douer (l) Extant Epistola apud Bin. to 2. pag. 994.995 according to the petition made to him by Honorius sent to him and Paulinus two Palls (m) Beda hist Anglor l. 2. c. 17. with Apostolicall authority that the Superuiuer of the two might ordaine an Archbishop in place of him that first departed this life And S. Gregory a litle before that tyme sent the Pal to Augustine Archbishop of Canterbury (n) Bed l. 1. hist. Angl c. 29. who conuerted vs to Christ giuing him therby full authority to ordaine Bishops subiect to him and to erect a new Archbishoprick at Yorke And doth not Socrates report (o) L. 7. c. 35. that Perigenes being ordained B. of Patras in Achaia and the Citizens not receauing him the B. of Rome commanded that he should be Bishop of the Metropolitan Church of Corinth the Bishop of that place being dead and that he gouerned in that Church all the dayes of his life And when in the false Councell of Ephesus Anatolius had bene ordained Patriarke of Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch by what meanes was their Ordination legitimated and they confirmed in those Sees but by the authority of Leo Pope alone You wish vs (p) Pag. 296. in good fayth to tell you whether we can belieue that Maximus of Antioch was iuridically instituted or confirmed by Pope Leo because his owne Legates said so We tell you in good fayth that you are quite mistaken for not only the Legates of Pope Leo said so but also Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople with approbation of the whole Councell of Chalcedon (q) Conc. Chale Act. 10. My voyce is sayth he that none of the things ordayned by the pretended Councell of Ephesus remaine firme but only that which was done for Maximus B. of great Antioch for as much as the most holy Archbishop of Rome Leo receauing him into his Communion hath iudged that he rule the Church of Antioch And because you aske vs in good fayth we must needes say that you are no lesse mistaken concerning Anatolius for when Theodosius the Emperor requested Leo Pope to confirme him in the See of Constantinople Leo answearing (r) Ep. 33. beeseeched the Emperor not to take it in ill part if he did not confirme him vntill he had performed the things which he ordained And when Anatolius had performed them Pulcheria the Empresse giuing notice therof to Leo (s) Ep. ad Leo. inter Ep. pream bul Conc. Chalced. he confirmed him verifying that by his assent Anatolius obtained the Bishoprick of so great a City But what if there were no other proofe extant but the bare affirmation of Leo Was not Leo a most holy Prelate worthy of all credit And when he said that Anatolius by his assent obtained the Bishoprick of so great a City did he not speake it to Martian the Emperor who knew the truth of that businesse But what need we to dwell in the rehearsall of more particulars Did not S. Leo alone (t) Ep. 84. without any CouÌ„cell make Anastasius B. of Thessalonica his Vicar in the East with full power to confirme the ordinations of Bishops lawfully made in the Orientall Churches to annull those that were made against order And did not S. Gregory (u) L. 4. ep 7. write to the Bishops of Illyria following the desires of your demand wee confirme by the consent of our authority our Brother Iohn in the Bishoprick of the first Iustinianca And this power it is which S. Bernard expressed saying (x) Ep. 131. The Roman Church â—ath power is â—rect new Bishopricks where hitherto noâ—â— haue bene Of those that are in being the way depresse some aduance others as reaso is shall â—â—ctare vnto her so that of Bishops she hath power to make Archbishops and contrarity if is seeme conâ—â—â—ient SECT IV The Popes power of deposing Bishops without a Councell proued by Examples IF the Pope haue not authority to depose Bishops alone without the helpe of a Councell why did S. Cyptian (f) L. 2. ep 13. ad Stephâ— write to Stephen Pope that by his letters addressed into the prouince to the people of Arles Marcian Bishop of that city might be deposed and another substituted in his place And S. Cyprian did so title doubt of Stephens authority in this kinde that he beseecheth him to let him vnderstand who was instituted in Marcians place at Arles to the end he might know to whom to direct his brethren and letters Wherfore you are much mistaken when you say (g) Pag. 295. text marg Stephens letters were but admonitory signifying that Marcianus ought to be deposed If you will not beleeue S. Cyprian belieue Danaeus your Protestant Brother who speaking of this very example (h) Respons ad Bellarm. part 1. pag. 317. findeth it so conuincing that he is enforced to confesse that the Bishops of Rome did anciently depose other Bishops which sayth he they had no right to do but only tyranny and vsurpation So he confuting you and confessing against you himselfe that Cyprian speaketh absolutely of deposing Marcian not of admonishing that he ought to be deposed This power was likewise acknowledged when the Fathers of the first Councell of Constantinople beseeched Damasus Pope to depose Timothy an hereticall Patriarke of Alexandria and Damasus answearing them said (i) Apud Theodoret. l. 5. hist. c. 10. Wheras your charity my deare children yeildeth due reuerence to the Apostolike See it shall turne you to great honour c. But what need was there to require from me the deposition of Timothy seing he was long since deposed were with his Maister Apostimarius by the iudgment of the See Apostolike And againe (k) Ibid. paulo superiùs Know yea brethren that we haue long since deposed that prophane Timothy disciple to Apollinarius the heretike And Theodoret reporting the same (l) Ibid. Damasus a man most worthy of all praise as soone as he vnderstood
Pope is the schismatike and not the Councell But I wonder not that you take part with Schismatiks Belike you are of opinion that some obstinate Puritans in Parliament standing out against his Maiesty he and not they are the rebells for the case is alike sauing only that this is a temporall cause and that a spirituall But you demand (h) Pag. 360. with Nilus and Erasmus to what end generall Councells should be called with so much cost trouble and labour if the Pope haue infallibility of iudgment I answere to the same end that S. Peter the first Pope of Rome notwithstanding he had infallibility of iudgment called a Councell at Antioch (i) Act. 15.6.7 If you desire more reasons you haue them in Bellarmine (k) L. 4. de Pont. c. 7. who hath answeared this Argument but you were wise inough to take no notice therof SECT IX Doctor Mortons instances of France and England to proue the no-necessity of Vnion with the Church of Rome THere hath bene published by some of your Nouellists a pamphlet intituled Fasciculus rerum expetendarum fugiendarum stuffed with so many lies that the Author was ashamed to haue his name knowne It is prohibited (l) Indic libro prohib and therfore what you report out of it not to be regarded But your addition (m) Pag. 361. that the Councell of Trent is not admitted within the Kingdome of France and that therfore the French are yet at liberty to belieue as much therof as they list is a famous vntruth for although that Kingdome haue not admitted generally all the decrees made by that Councell for the reformation of Ecclesiasticall discipline yet who knoweth not that as the Catholikes of the world haue so hath that most Christian kingdome with them admitted and imbraced all the decrees of fayth made in the Councell of Trent and that the most Christian King with all his Catholike subiects belieueth them no lesse stedfastly then the decrees of fayth made in the foure first generall Councells which you admit Not vnlike to this is your addition (n) Pag. 361. fin 361. out of B. Gardiners Oration of true obedience that in the time of King Henry the eight all sortes of people in England were agreed vpon this point with most stedfast consent learned and vnlearned both men and women that no manner of persons bred or brought vp in England had ought to do with Rome for albeit some persons infected with Lutheranisme some flatterers for their owne ends soothed King Henry in his opposition to the See of Rome yet who knoweth not that the face of the kingdome was then generally Catholike as for the space of almost 1000. yeares before it had bene And who can be ignorant that in defence of the authority of the See of Rome B. Fisher Syr Thomas More writ most learned bookes which are yet and will euer be most highly esteemed throughout the Christian world and that what they writ with their pens they sealed with their bloud And who knoweth not that Cardinall Pole a man of so great worth that he wanted but two voyces for the Popedome not only writ most learnedly in the same kind but suffered and his friends for his sake great vexations and persecutions at the hands of King Henry for the same cause And that many persons of worth suffered imprisonment and death for the same cause among which were all the Charter-house Monkes of London with their Prior It is therfore a famous vntruth to say It was then the fayth of the Church of England that no person bred or brought vp in England had ought to do with Rome Moreouer you know this Oration of B. Gardiner to be prohibited by the Church (o) In indic lib. prohib and that he ashamed of it retracted it which yet you are not ashamed to obiect CHAP. XLIV Whether Luther and his followers had any iust cause to separate themselues from the Roman Church WE are come to the last Chapter of your Grand Imposture in which to free your selfe from the note of Schisme heresy you brand the Roman Church with both labor to proue that Luther had iust cause to separate himselfe from her Communion and that you continuing in the same separation are more iustifiable then Luther was in his departure from her and may more iustly plead soules saluation then any of them that remaine in Vnion with her Your Chapter you diuide into foure parts and these parts into Theses which I shall examine the more briefly because many of your proofes are repetitions of your former Arguments already answeared SECT I. Whether any Protestants haue held that the Catholike Church before Luthers fall was wholly extinguished YOur first Thesis is (p) Pag. 364. Many Papists in their aduersnesse to Protestant whom they seeke to traduce do impute vnto them this faythlesse Paradoxe as to say that the Catholike Church is sometimes extinguished A false doctrine say you which Protestants neuer taught If Protestants neuer taught this faithlesse doctrine why did Luther when he began to erect your new Church say (q) Praef. in 1. tom cont Reg. Angl. fo 497. He had none to assist him but was left alone and alone stood in the battaile forsaken of all Why did Caluin say (s) Ep. 141. It is absurd that since we haue bene enforced to diuide our selues from all the world we shold now in our very beginnings disagree among our selues Why did he say (t) Respons ad Sadolet It is publike and notorious to all learned and vnlearned that when the Principality of the B. of Rome was erected the kingdome of Christ was prostrated his glory extinguished Religion abolished the Church destroyed and hope of saluation vtterly ouerthrowne Why did Milius say (x) August Confess explic art 7. de Eccl. pag. 137. If there had byn right belieuers before Luther there had bene no need of a Lutheran reformation Why Morgensterne (y) Tract de Eccles p. 141. It is ridiculous to thinke that in the time before Luther any had the purity of Doctrine and that Luther should receaue it from them and not they from Luther It being manifest to the whole Christian world that before Luthert time all Churches were ouerwhelmed with Cymerian darknesse and that Luther was diuinely raised vp to discouer the same and to restore the light of true doctrine And in regard therof Luther boasted saying (z) Ep. ad Argentin anno 1525. Christum à nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari Why did Camierus say (a) Ep. Iesuit part altera Geneu 1601. That error did not only possesse a part of the Church as in time of the Arians but that the whole body of the Church by Apostacy was fallen from Christ Why did Simon de Voyon a Geneuian Minister in his Catalogue of Doctors (b) Praefat. ad Lect. say That in the yeare 605. falshood preuailed and then was the whole
him and to all the Bishops of Italy and of the whole Westerne Church humbly crauing to be admitted into their communion and to declare themselues free from suspicion of heresy with which they had bene charged protested that they did not belieue otherwise then the Fathers of the Nicen Councell did and that they had held formerly did still hold and would euer hold till their last breath the same fayth with them Wherupon Liberius willingly admitted them into the communion of the Westerne Church and addressed a letter to fifty nine of them by name and to all the rest in generall expressing the great ioy he conceaued to vnderstand that they had alwaies agreed in fayth with him and with the rest of the Bishops of Italy and of all the other Westerne countries for so are his words This is the story truly set downe What reliefe do you finde here for your inuisible Church since in the very height of the Arian heresy which is the greatest wayne you can sinde in the Catholike Church she abounded and shined like a sunne most gloriously with orthodoxe Pastors and people both in the East and West Shew vs such a Protestant Church before Luther or els confesse the truth that you had no Church before Luther But you tell vs (p) Pag 369. with how great a cloud of obscurity the Church shal be couered in the time of Antichrist proue it out of the Rhemists who make wholy against you for albeit they grant that then there shal be no publike seat of gouerment in the Church nor publike exercise of Ecclesiasticall functions nor publike entercourse with the See of Rome as there is not this day in Cyprus nor in England yet there shall not want Orthodoxe Pastors and people remaining in due obedience to the Roman Church and communicating with her not only in hart but practising the same in secret and making publike profession therof of if occasion require it This is the doctrine of the Rhemists and of all Catholike writers Wherfore as Catholikes are not in England at this day inuisible nor yet so obscure but that their coÌ„staney is knowne and renowned throughout the Christian world so likewise shall the faithfull be in the dayes of Antichrist Nor do Costerus Ribera Pererius Acosta Viegas or any of the Fathers which you obiect (q) Pag. 370. teach ought to the contrary The testimony of S. Hilary which you obiect (r) Pag. 3â—8 S. Augustine hath answeared long since (s) Ep. 48. for it was obiected to him by Vincentius the Rogatist of whose spirit and beliefe you shew your selfe to be vrging against vs the same testimony he vrged against S. Augustine who not only in that place as you haue heard teacheth that if the Church be somtimes obscured and as it were shadowed with cloudes by the multitude of scandalls that is persecutions when sinners bend their bow to wound her in the obscurity of the Moone yet euen then she is eminent in her most constant professors but also in his bookes Of the City of God (t) L. 20. c. 8. speaking professedly of the state of the Church in the dayes of Antichrist he sayth she shall not be so obscured that either Antichrist shall not find her or when he hath found her be able with his persecutions to ouerthrow her but that euen then faithfull Parents shall with great deuotion procure baptisme for their children that as many shall fall from the Church so others shall stand constant and others shall enter a new which before were out of her and in particular the Iewes who towardes the end of the world shal be conuerted to Christ (u) S. Aug. ibid. c. 29. And the same is testified by S. Gregory (x) Hom. 12. in Ezechiel whom you mis-cite (y) Pag. 370. for the words you obiect out of his Moralls on Iob are not there to be found SECT IV. What causes may suffice to depart from the Communion of a particular Church YOur fifth Thesis is (z) Pag. 370. All particular Churches are not to be forsaken for euery vnsoundnesse in either manners worship or doctrine In the first part of this Thesis we agree with you but you agree not with your selfe for before you tould vs (a) Pag. 11.12 that the Catholike Church is in euery part perfect and consisteth only of the sanctified elect of God But here you say (b) Pag 371. that there is scarce to be found any one example of any particular Church consisting only of sanctified professors It scarce any particular Church can be found consisting only of sanctified professors how is it true that the vniuersall Church consisteth only of the sanctified elect of God for the vniuersall Church consisteth of all the particular Churches in the world Againe here you inueigh against the Separatists for diuiding themselues from you for only scandall taken at the wicked liues of your professors May not wee then iustly except against you for obiecting so often the vices of some few Popes to make your departure from the Roman Church more iustifiable The second part of your Thesis is false for no worship no rite or ceremony which the Roman Church alloweth or permitteth to particular Churches in the administration of the Sacraments or in any part of their seruice is vnsound And therfore as such difference is not a sufficient cause for one particular Church to separate it selfe from others so on the contrary if a particular Church vse any Ecclesiasticall obseruation or ceremony disallowed and condemned by the Church of Rome the Mother of all Churches that worship is vnsound and such a Church is schismaticall and to be forsaken and if it persist obstinatly in that schisme becometh hereticall So many of the Asian Churches persisting obstinatly in the celebration of Easter according to the Iewish custome after the prohibition of Pius the first Pope of that name were iustly condemned and cut of from the vniuersall Church by Victor a boly Pope and Martyr and his sentence was confirmed by the Councell of Nice many others in so much that the obseruers of that custome haue euer since bene iudged heretikes and registred as such vnder the name of Quartadecimani by all Ecclesiasticall writers that haue made Catalogues of heresies The third part of your Thesis that all particular Churches may erre in some points as the Corinthians did in denying the Resurrection and the Galatians in teaching a necessary obseruation of the Law of Moyses together with the Ghospell of Christ and yet S. Paul (c) 1. Cor. 1.2 Galat. 1.2 calleth them both Churches and Churches of God because they were ready to be reformed and being admonished of their error to abandon it and obey the truth But not to be willing to learne and not to yeild to truth sufficiently proposed is proper to the Synagogues of Sathan and the Churches of the malignant All this you allow as true doctrine taken out of Bellarmine What
Rome and are so many witnesses against you of the Popes authority acknowledged and practised ouer the Bishops of Constantinople Polichronius was B. of Hierusalem and deposed by Sixtus Pope as Bellarmine proueth out of the Acts of Sixtus which acts witnesse Baronius (b) Anno 432. fin are cited by Nicolas the first by Petrus Damiani and other later writers And if as you obiect (c) Pag. 295. Baronius found no other Records of any Polychronius that was B. of Hierusalem at that tyme doth it therfore follow there was none such To omit the later writers he mentioneth Petrus Damiani and Nicolas were men eminently learned the one liued 600. the other 800. yeares nearer the time of Sixtus then Baronius did and the Acts of Sixtus are yet more ancient then either of them Wherefore in those dayes Record might be extant of Polychronius and his deposition by Sixtus reported in those Acts which before Baronius his time were lost or if not lost yet might not come to his knowledge 2. You answeare (d) Pag. 295. Your Popes must be thought to haue restored Bishops only by endeauoring and desiring that they might be restored You exemplify in Basilides whose cause sheweth it was a knowne truth in those dayes that the Pope had authority to restore Bishops deposed for why els did Basilides trauaile from Spaine to Rome to procure letters of restitution from him Of this Basilides you say (e) Pag. 289. fin 190. Cyprian constituted Sabinus Bishop insteed of Basilides whom he had deposed But you shew great ignorance in Ecclesiasticall history for Cyprian neither deposed Basilides nor coÌ„stituted Sabinus in his place Basilides was not an African nor any way belonging to Cyprians iurisdiction who was Primate of Africa only but Bishop of Leon in Spaine and for his enormous crimes being iustly deposed by the Bishops of that Countrey fled to Stephen Pope and by a false information of his owne innocency deceaued him that by his authority and command he might be restored to his Bishoprick The Bishops of Spaine who had condemned him sent Sabinus and Felix into Africa to informe S. Cyprian truly of the case to aske his aduice and require his intercession to the Pope that he would not restore Basilides S. Cyprian approued their proceeding and answeared that if Basilides had obtayned from the Pope any sentence of restitution it was surreptitious by reason of the false information he had giuen which alone was sufficient to make his restitution void as not only the Ciuill (f) Cod. cont ius L. Etsi but also the Canon Law (g) De Rescrip C. Dilectus declareth decreeing in a case like to this of Basilides that sentences procured from the See Apostolike by surreption are inualid and of no force Wherfore S. Cyprian rightly answeared that albeit Stephen for his incircumspection might be argued of negligence in giuing so easy credit to a false information and suffering himselfe to be deceaued therby yet the chiefe fault was in Basilides who with lies had sought to iustify himselfe This is all that antiquity recordeth of this controuersy which sheweth that in those ancient times the custome of Bishops when they thought themselues wronged by their Metropolitans was to appeale to the Pope as Basilides did against which custome nor against the Popes authority to admit of Appeales neither the Bishops of Spaine nor S. Cyprian excepted as appeareth in this that they blamed not Basilides for appealing to one that had no power to reiudge his cause but for his surprise made vpon the Pope and the Popes want of circumspection in suffering himself to be deceaued by a false information 3. You say (h) Pag. 290. Cyprian confirmed the election of Pope Cornelius whose communion both he as himselfe speaketh his Colleagues and fellow-bishops gaue approbation vnto To confirme the election of a Bishop is an Act of iurisdiction which therfore can proceed from none but a Superior This authority though you deny to the Pope yet out of a desire to annihilate his authority you ouer-shoote your marke so far as to make him inferior to all the Bishops of Africa and to stand in need of their confirmation a thing which S. Cyprian mentioneth not He only signifieth to Cornelius that Nouatianus hauing made a schisme in the Church and set himselfe vp as Antipope in opposition to Cornelius and the Africans being doubtfull which of the two they should acknowledge and obey as true Pope S. Cyprian sayth he exhorted all that sailed out of Africa to Rome to abandon Nouatianus and adhere to Cornelius and procured letters from his brethren at Rome to those of Africa that being fully certified of the truth they might sayth he to Cornelius acknowledge and firmely imbrace you and your communion that is to say the communion of the Catholike Church All therfore that you haue gained out of S. Cyprian is to proue your selfe to be out of the communion of the Catholike Church for to be of the Catholike communion and to be vnited to the Pope in S. Cyprians beliefe is one and the same thing 4. The like abuse you offer to S. Gregory saying (i) Pag. 29â— that he sought approbation from the foure Patriarkes As soone as this holy Pope was placed in the chaire of S. Peter following the custome of his Predecessors he writ a circular or Synodicall letter for so anciently those letters were called to the foure Easterne Patriarkes that hauing notice of his election they might know whom to obey and whom to haue recourse vnto in all doubts of fayth and other maior causes which was no more to seeke confirmation or approbation from them then if a King of Poland or any other electiuâ— Prince being chosen should write a circular letter to hiâ— Nobles giuing them notice of his Election and admonâ—shing them of their duty and allegiance vnto him This to haue bene the effect of those Synodicall letters is proued out of Gelasius Because sayth he to Laurence Bishop of Lignidis with fraternall loue you put vs in mynde that we should send a forme of fayth as a certaine medicine to the Bishops throughout Illyria and others although this hath bene most amply performed by our predecessor of Blessed memory yet because the custome is that when a Bishop of the Roman Church is newly made he send a forme of his fayth to the holy Churches I haue endeauored to renew the same in a compendious breuity to the end the reader by this our Epistle may vnderstand in what fayth he is to liue according to the ordinations of the Fathers And as the Popes when they were chosen did send these Synodicall letters prescribing a forme of fayth to be obserued by all Bishops so likewise all Metropolitans did send to the Popes newly chosen a profession of their fayth to the end it might be approued by the See Apostolike So did S. Cyprian to Cornelius Pope calling it (k) L. 2. ep 10. a diuine
tradition and an Ecclesiasticall institution and moreouer adding that he had commanded all the Bishops of his Prouince to doe the like SECT VIII Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning Excommunication And of heretikes excommunicating the Pope EXcommunication is a most grieuous Ecclesiasticall censure which can be inflicted by none but an Ecclesiasticall Superior that hath iurisdiction power to binde and loose to punish absolue the person excommunicated A thing so certaine that no puny-Diuine can be ignorant therof Wherfore you discouer more then vulgar ignorance in defining (l) Pag. 290. Excommunicating of others to be but a denying to haue communion with them By this definition euery subiect may excommunicate his Superior Ecclesiasticall or temporall for euery subiect of neuer so meane a ranke Ecclesiastick or laick may deny to haue communion with his Bishop or his Soueraigne and therby excommunicate them Yea by the same definition any Heretike may excommunicate the Pope or any other Bishop or Councell by which he is condemned for he may deny to haue communion with them Is this good Diuinity And yet it is yours who from this definition as from a true principle deduce that when ancient Popes excommunicated hereticall Bishops of the Easterne Church it was no act of iurisdiction in them ouer those Bishops but (m) Ibid. only a disuniting of themselues from them by denying to haue communion with them which also the same Bishops might deny to haue with the Popes And vpon this ground you iustify as well you may the Arians who being excommunicated by Iulius Pope toke to themselues liberty to excommunicate him in their false Councell at Philippopolis (n) Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. And vpon the same ground when Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria grew to so great a height of madnesse as to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against Leo the Great and first Pope of that name because he had condemned Eutyches and his heresy you say (o) Pag. 290. fin 291. He did it vpon the knowne iudgment of the Easterne Church and vpon a common right and hability to do it which as it is an answeare full of ignorance so I know not how to excuse it from impiety for although Dioscorus were an Arch-heretike though contrary to the Lawes of the Church he had by his owne authority assembled a Councell at Ephesus and approued in it the heresy of Eutyches and condemned the Orthodoxe Doctrine and not only excommunicated but beaten and wounded to death Flauianus Patriarke of Constantinople a stout champion of the Catholike fayth yet none of these crimes were alleaged against him as the cause of his excommunication and deposition but only his presumptuous attempting to excommunicate the Pope and his disobedience to him Dioscorus sayth Anatolius Archbishop of Constantinople (p) Conc. Chalced. Act. 9. Socrat. l. 2. c. 18. speaking to the Councell of Chalcedon hath not bene deposed for the fayth but because he had excommunicated my Lord the Archbishop Leo and that hauing bene thrice cited he would not appeare And the Councell of Chalcedon it selfe writing to Leo (q) Relat. ad Leon. After all these things he hath extended his phrensy euen against him to whom the guard of the Vine is committed by our Sauiour that is to say against your Holinesse hath moditated an excommunication against you who hasten to vnite the body of the Church So enormous a crime did this holy Councell iudge it to be for any Bishop euen the greatest Patriarke of the East as Dioscorus was to pronounce sentence of Excommunication against the Pope But to make this matter more euident what Christian euer heard that the iudgment of any Bishop could be valid against the Bishop of the primary See which sayth the Councell of Sinuessa (r) Nicol. Papa Ep. ad Micha Imper. is to be iudged by no man The primitiue Fathers thought it so vnlawfull to be separated from the B. of Rome that they pronounce all that are diuided from his communion to be branches cut of from the Vine which is the Catholike Church to be heretikes of a peruerse iudgment or els presumptuous selfe-liking schismatikes and sinners not to gather but to scatter not to be of Christ but of Antichrist (s) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 4. And finally so absurd a thing it was euer held for any Christian to excommunicate the Pope that the Emperor Martian writing to certaine hereticall Monkes of Palestine who being enemies to the Councell of Chalcedon had presumed to excommunicate Leo Pope telleth them (t) Apud Bin. to 2. pag. 144. that therby they had and with good cause made themselues a laughing stook to the Heathens themselues What you obiect (u) Pag. 290. out of Nicephorus that Menas Patriarke of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Vigilius Cardinall Peron hath learnedly proued to be a mere fable and were it true it was an vnlawfull attempt and inualid as you haue heard SECT IX Adrian and Nicolas Popes obiected by Doctor Morton ADrian and Nicolas the two first Popes of those names required of Constantine and Michaell Emperors of the East the restitution not only of the temporall patrimony of S. Peter iniustly taken away from the Roman Church by hereticall Emperors their predecessors still with-held by them but also of the Ecclesiasticall right of ordayning and gouerning ten Prouinces of the East as their peculiar Diocesse according to the custome of their predecessors This obiection you (x) Pag. 291. 292. tooke from Baronius (y) Anno 800. He hath giuen you an answeare to him I remit you But wheras you say These Popes did not thinke themselues to haue iurisdiction ouer the whole Church of Christ it is worth the nothing that they euen in those very Epistles which you obiect not only affirme but most effectually proue the iurisdiction of the B. of Rome ouer the whole Church and of Adrian somthing to this purpose hath bene said already (z) Chap. 33. sect â— SECT X. Of the deposition of Flauianus Patriarke of Antioch BEllarmine (a) L. â— de Pont. c. 18. produceth many examples of Easterne Bishops deposed by the Pope In answeare wherto you say (b) Pag. 295. fin 296. The chiefest example which your Cardinall may seeme principally to insiston is that Pope Damasus as he calleth it deposed Flauianus Patriarke of Antioch And therfore haue I singled out this example for a singular Argument of retorsion to proue the no-iuridicall or iudiciall authority of the Roman iurisdiction ouer the Patriarkes of Antioch Bellarmines first and chiefest examples are of eight Patriarkes of Constantinople which are so many witnesses of the Popes authority against you Among these he chiefly inssisteth on the example of Anthymus whom Agapet Pope deposed in the City of Constantinople it selfe as you haue heard (c) In this Chap. sect 4. and he proueth out of Nicolas the first Liberatus Zonaras and Gelasius The reason therfore why you passing ouer these examples single