indulgences we know not for all his actions are not written We know that S. Paul did excommunicat the incestuous Corinthian (b) 1. Cor. 5.5 and afterwards when he repented at the intercession of Timothy Titus as Theodoret (c) In 1. Cor. 2.10 expoundeth granted him a pardon or Indulgence in the person of Christ that is to say by the power he had receaued from Christ to that end Nor is it to be doubted but that S. Peter who as ordinary Pastor had power ouer the whole Church did exercise the same power if the like occasion were offered 4. In those primitiue times the Canonization of Saints was not performed with so great solemnity nor with such exact inquiry into all particulars nor with the deposition of so many witnesses as in these later ages it is If then the Church did with vnanimous consent reuerence any one that had died for Christ as the Martyrs did or that liued died holily as did the Confessors he was by publike voyce and consent of the Church reuerenced as a Saint the See Apostolike either expresly or taciâ—ly approuing the same and therby canonized In this manner were Canonized S. Stephen and others that died before S. Peter without whose approbation neither S. Stephen nor any one els was then reuerenced by the whole Church as a Saint not any since that time without the approbation of his Successors 5. To make good S. Peters iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles you require vs (d) Pag. 46. fin to shew that he pardoned Simony and almost an 100. the like sinnes which is to say that vnlesse we shew that the other Apostles committed Simony and almost an 100. the like sinnes and that S. Peter pardoned them we must not belieue S. Peter to haue had power and iurisdiction ouer them That S. Peter euer pardoned Simony we read not but that he punished it we proue by the power he shewed ouer Simon Magus (e) See aboue Nu. 24. And how far the Successors of S. Peter are from pardoning or any way conniuing at Simony yea how seuere they are and euer haue bene in the punishment therof the decrees and constitutions of diuers Popes extant in the Canon Law giue abundant witnesse against such men as you are who out of their hatred to the Roman See are wont to slander S. Peter in his Successors falsly with pardoning Simony and almost an 100. the like sinnes as here you do without any proofe at all 6. With no lesse folly you require vs (f) Pag. 46. 47. to shew that S. Peter was distinguished from the other Apostles by some one note and character of Imperial eminency and authority as by his guard or coyne or habit or command or constitutions as euery temporall Monarch is distinguished from his Nobles Can there be greater simplicity then to require vs to shew that S. Peter like an Emperor had Princely robes a guard and a peculiar coyne as kings Emperors haue when he was no temporall Monarch and when not only he but as you forgetting your selfe (g) Pag. 283. confesse the holy Popes his Successors in those primitiue time were alas daily in danger of banishments imprisonments torments death Is it not then ridiculous to bid vs shew S. Peters guard and his coyne his commands we shew for Oecumenius sayth (h) In cap 1 â—ct The Apostles were committed to the gouerment of Peter and presently at his command appointed two whom they thought worthiest to be chosen in place of Iudas which Doctrine is also deliuered by S. Chrysostome (i) Hom 3. in Act. Of the Constitutions of the Apostles which were peculiarly of S. Peter as their Head and set forth by Clement his Disciple and Successor we know that albeit they are of no great reckoning among many of the Latines as hauing some things inserted into them by heretikes yet they are greatly esteemed by the Greekes and both cited and commended by S. Epiphanius (k) Hâ—â—r 45. ser 70. and other Greeke Fathers To which I add that they are learnedly defended by Turrianus (l) Proem in lib. Clem. Ro. and Genebrard (m) L. de Liturg Apostol c. 5 fol. 21.22 affirmes them to haue bene receaued by all antiquity Your last argument to proue as you call it (n) Pag. 47. the no domination of S. Peter ouer the other Apostles is that meeting together at Hierusalem they sent Peter and Iohn into Samaria which proueth Peter to haue no superiority ouer the rest by whom he was sent or if it doe it must needs imply in Iohn an equality with Peter for as Iohn was not sent as Superior to the other Apostles so neither was Peter This inference we wholly deny 1. because in a Corporation or Colledge as that of the Apostles was the Superior may out of his owne desire be sent in the name of the whole Community the Maior in name of the Citty and the Deane in name of the Chapter 2. The authority of the whole Colledge together which includeth both the head the members differeth from the Head alone to vse the phrase of Metaphysicks tanquam includens ab incluso and is at least extensiue of greater authority then the Head alone and therfore the Head alone may be sent by authority of the whole Colledge 3. And if we take a community for the inferiors not including their Superior though he cannot be sent by their command he may by their in treaty So S. Chrysostome (*) In cap 11 ep ad Gal. sayth Paul was sent to Hierusalem by the Christians of Antioch who yet were not his Superiors So the Deane is sometymes sent by the Canons and the Rector by the Collegialls So was Pope Piâ—â— the second sent by the Colledge of Cardinals about an expedition intended against the Turkes and as Bozius obserneth (o) De fig. Eccles to 2. l. 18. c. 2. §. Quocirca the Roman Emperors were often sent by the Senate Nor doth such a mission any way extenuate but rather manifest the authority of such Missionants for persons of greatest quality are fittest to be employed vpon weighty affaires especially when they import the publike good as this Mission of Peter and Iohn did for Philip the Deacon hauing conuerted the Samaritans to Christ these two great Apostles were sent to oppose the wicked practises of Simon Magus by whom the Samaritans had bene long seduced and to confirme them in their fayth giuing them the holy Ghost by imposition of hands a thing which Philip though otherwise a most perfect man and full of the holy Ghost yet being no Bishop was not able to doe that being a function proper to Bishops To this you haue no other reply to make then tell vs that a iourney vndertakeâ— by a Gouernor at the desire and request of his inferiors cannot be called a mission but a profection and going An answere that serues for nothing but to discouer your ignorance for the
and her communicants we haue for our communicants and those that are condemned by her we also condemne Why then did you say that we obiect out of this Councell but one word Obedience why did you here and afterwards againe (m) Pag. 237. citing this passage out of Bellarmine in both places cut it of in the middst Can any Catholike at this day professe more perfect and exacte obedience to the See Apostolike then to hold all them for Orthodoxe and communicate with them all that communicate with her and to condemne all them that are condemned by her This was the obedience of that Councell to the Pope which to shift of and deceaue your reader you mangle the words leauing out the most effectuall part of them because they shew that if you had bene liuing in those primitiue tymes that Councell would haue detested and condemned you as it did Anthymus and other heretikes there mentioned for their disobedience to the See Apostolike and for not communicating with her CHAP. XXI Of the sixth Generall Councell SECT I. That it acknowledged the supreme Authority of the B. and Church of Rome THAT the sixth Generall Councell was called by the Authority of the B. of Rome I haue already proued (n) Chap. 17. sect 1. And that it acknowledged the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church is declared by Constantine the Emperor who speaking to the Roman Synod held vnder Agatho calls him Vniuersall Father and Vniuersall Arch-Pastor (o) Syn. 6. Act. 18. and by the Councell it selfe (p) Ibid. calling him Bishop of the first See and of the vniuersall Church And speaking of the Epistle of Agatho sent from the Roman Councell to the Emperor they receaue it as of the holy Ghost dictated from the mouth of the holy and most Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and written by the hand of the thrice blessed Pope Agatho And againe (q) Ibid. We assent say they and agree to the dogmaticall Epistle of our most holy Father the soueraigne Pope Agatho sent to your Highnesse and to the suggestion of the holy Synod of 225. Fathers vnder him And a litle after speaking of the same Epistle and acknowledging Agatho to be the Successor of S. Peter they adde The paper and inke appeared but it was Peter that did speake by Agatho One of the things which Agatho spake in that Epistle (r) Apud Bin. to ◠pag. 11. was that the Roman Church hath neuer bene stayned with error that the whole Catholike Church all the Councells all the Venerable Fathers and all the holy Doctors haue imbraced her authority and reuerenced and followed her Apostolicall Doctrine which contrarily the heretikes haue maliciously derogated from and persecuted And speaking of the same Church to the Emperor and his two sonnes (s) Ibid. This your spirituall Mother the Apostolicall Church of Christ by the grace of Almighty God shall neuer be proued to haue erred from the track of Apostolicall tradition nor by any deprauation to haue yelded to hereticall nouelties but as from the beginning of the Christian fayth the receaued it pur◠from her authors the Princes of Christes Apostles so she remaineth vntill the end according to the diuine promise which our Lord and Sauiour made to the Prince of his Disciples in the Ghospells saying Peter Peter Satan hath required to sift you as one that sifteth wheat but I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth faile not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren Your Clemency therfore consider that our Lord and Sauiour of all who hath faythfully promised that the fayth of Peter shall not faile admonished him to confirme his brethren which that my Apostolicall predecessors haue alwayes assuredly performed is a thing notorious to all men And because Theodorus Patriarke of Constantinople was a Monothelite as Anastasius testifieth (t) In vita Agathon condemned with Pyrrhus and the rest of that Sect in this sixth Councell he addeth that Since the Bishops of Constantinople haue endeauored to bring hereticall Nouelties into the Church of Christ his Apostolicall predecessors of holy memory haue neuer ceased to exhort and admonish them to desist from hereticall error lest by holding one will and operation in Christ they should occasion a beginning of diuision in the vnity of the Church SECT II. Whether the sixth Councell condemned Honorius Pope as an Heretike THese passages of the sixth Councell so forcible for the authority of the Roman Church you mention not but passing by them as being not for your purpose pick out of it a quarrell against Honorius B. of Rome that with no small lack of syncerity for wheras you obiect out of Bellarmine that in this sixth Councell as also in the seauenth and eight Honorius was condemned as a Monothelite Bellarmine contrarily proueth out of Honorius his expresse words that he was no way guilty of that heresy but alwayes a Catholike holding with the Roman Church two wils and operations in Christ And he confirmeth the same with the testimony of S. Maximus Martyr the greatest Diuine of that age and that liued in Honorius his tyme. And Maximus himselfe in a famous disputation which he had with Pyrrhus Patriarke of Constantinople alleageth as witnesse of this truth Honorius his owne Secretary that writ those epistles dictated from his mouth and was then still liuing Wherfore Bellarmine denyeth that the sixth Councel damned Honorius as an Hereticke and further proueth it because Agatho in his first epistle to Constantine the Emperor which was read in the Councell and not only read but approued and admired as the words of S. Peter and as dictated by the holy Ghost affirmeth expressly that none of his Predecessors one of which was Honorius was euer guilty of heresy but that they haue alwayes made resistance to heretikes that the Pope as Pope cannot decree any thing contrary to fayth And from thence he inferreth that the Councell did not iudge Honorius to be an heretike nor condemne him as such els by receauing and reuerencing Agathos Epistle as the words of S. Peter and as dictated by the holy Ghost the Councell should contradict it selfe and condemne both S. Peter and the holy Ghost of a lye in affirming that none of Agatho's predecessors was euer guilty of heresy And the truth hereof he confirmeth by the testimony of Nicolas the first who in his epistle to Michael the Emperor auoucheth that none of his predecessors was euer stayned with the least spot or blemish of heresy which he wold not euen for very shame haue affirmed so resolutely if Honorius in the publike assēbly of a generall Councell had bene anathematized as an heretike Wherfore Bellarmine rightly inferreth that Honorius was not condemned by the sixth Councell but his name inserted among those heretikes whom the Councell condemned by the Greekes enemies to the Church of Rome And so it is testified by Theophanes Isaurus a Greeke historian and out of him
thing vncertaine Many thinke it to be of Damasus and his you will haue it to be But the contrary is manifest for the epistle speaketh of Bonosus an Arch-heretike who had bene condemned by Iudges appointed in thē Councell of Capua which was not held in time of Damasus but of Siricius successor to Damasus It is therefore euident that the request of Bouosus which you obiect out of this epistle to haue his cause heard againe could not be to Damasus his first condemnation being not vntill after Damasus his death When you can shew this epistle to be of Damasus you shall receaue an answeare which it were easy to giue you now if I listed to spend time in refuting your tedious discourse of racking the verbe Competit to a strict sense and which not one but many wayes is deficient as all your arguments for the most part are Your addition (e) Pag. 318. marg l. that if the epistle be not of Damasus it is certainly of some Pope and that all hold it so is affirmed by you gratis and as easely denied by me CHAP. XL. Whether the Easterne Churches be at this day accordant in Communion with Protestants SECT I. The state of the Question THE nine first Sections of your fourtenth Chapter you spend in prouing that the Grecians Aegyptians Aethiopians Assyrians Armenians Russians Melchites and other remote nations at this day dissent from the Roman Church and are accordant in Communion with Protestants The foundation of your whole discourse you lay in these words (f) Pag. 330. Whatsoeuer Christians haue not ruinated any fundamental article of sauing fayth set downe in our ancient Creeds and are vnited vnto the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus our Lord by a liuing fayth all Protestants esteeme them as true members of the Catholike Church and notwithstanding diuers their more tolerable errors and superstitions to be in state of saluation albeit no way subiect or subordinate to the Roman Church These are your words which containe in themselues open implication namely that one may be vnited to the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus by a liuing fayth and be in state of saluation and yet be out of the Catholike Church which to be none els but the Roman and that out of her there is no saluation hath bene already proued (g) Chap. 1. sect 2.3.4 From this false principle you deduce that the Grecians Asians Aegyptians Assyrians Aethiopians Africans Melchites Russians and Armenians notwithstanding their separation from the Roman Church are at this day truly professed Christian Churches (h) Pag. 379. partes of the Catholike Church (i) Pag. 406. fin 407. init faythfull Christians professing the fayth of the ancient Fathers (k) Pag. 417. in state of saluation and raile bitterly at the Church of Rome for denying the same But how great ignorance and impiety you shew and how many most shamefull vntruthes you vtter in the prosecution of this Argument it is easy to declare Some of them I shall present to the Readers view And to proceed methodically I will reduce what I am to say to two heades 1. I will proue that as the Christians of these remote nations anciently were so many of them at this day are accordant in beliefe and communion with the Roman Church yeild obedience to the Pope as to the Vicar of Christ on earth and as to the supreme Pastor and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church 2. That the inhabitants of these nations which are not Roman Catholikes are not of one beliefe or Communion with Protestants but wholly dissent from them holding most blasphemous and damnable heresies acknowledged for such by Protestants themselues From whence it will follow that you affirming them to be faythfull Christians of the same beliefe with the ancient Fathers charge the ancient Fathers with blasphemous heresies and make them incapable of saluation SECT II. Whether the Grecians of the primitiue and successiue times agreed in fayth and Communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome and particularly at the Councell of Florence THat the Greekes in the first Councell of Constantinople and afterwards in that of Calcedon endeauored to giue to their Patriarke of Constantinople the second place of dignity in the Church next after the Pope and before the other Patriarkes we acknowledge But that they sought therby to exempt themselues from their obedience and subiection to the Pope hath bene effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 5. Chap. 19. sect 4. I speake not this to deny that anciently there were of the Grecians many Heretikes which opposed the Roman Church and by her authority were condemned and that eight Patriarkes of Constantinople in particular as also Eutyches an Arch-heretike of the same City were anathematized and east out of the Church for heresy And wheras the Westerne Church by the example and diligence of the Bishops of Rome was preserued from heresy the Churches of the East new heresies daily springing vp were so pitifully torne and ten in peeces that S. Hierome complaining therof to Pope Damasus said (m) Ep. 57. Because the East striking against it selfe by the ancient fury of the people teares in litle morsells the vndeuided coate of our Lord wouen on high and that the foxes destroy the vine of Christ in such sorte that it is difficult among the drie pits that haue no water to discerne where the sealed fountaine and the inclosed garden is I haue therfore thought that I ought to consult with the Chaire of Peter and the fayth praised by the mouth of the Apostle This was the miserable state of the Easterne Churches in those dayes being gouerned somtimes by Catholike Bishops that acknowledged subiection to the Church of Rome and somtimes by Heretikes that opposed her authority vntill at length Photius hauing iniustly driuen Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople from his See and intruded himselfe into his place and being for that cause often excommunicated by Nicolas the first and Iohn the eight Popes of Rome to mantaine his iniust title withdrew himselfe from their obedience and to the end he might haue some colour to perseuer in that separation cauilled at the doctrine of the Roman Church which teacheth that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Sonne and writ against it And the Greekes following him in this error separated themselues from the Communion of the Roman man Church Yet not so but that they haue often eleauen times sayth S. Antoninus (n) Hist. par 2. tit 22. c. 23. acknowledged their error and reconciled themselues to her and especially thrice in most solemne manner in three seuerall Councells of Barium in Apulia of Lions in France and of Florence in Tuscany but still returning to their error against the holy Ghost and disobedience to the Church of Rome as dogs to their vomit Almighty God punished them with a heauy hand deliuering them vp to a miserable captiuity seruitude vnder the Turke And that they might know the