passed their sentence before his comming and therevpon without delay before he had put off his cloake or shaken off the dust from his feete as the storie saith assembling the Bishops subiect to him in a Synode deposed Cyrill and Memnon Bishop of Ephesus who were chiefe agents in the proceedings against Nestorius Which deposition of Cyrill and Memnon was something hastily confirmed by the Emperour Theodosius The Synode assembled vnder Cyrill in like sort gaue sentence against Iohn and signified to Caelestinus Bishop of Rome what they had done shewing how vnaduisedly a few had presumed to condemne a great many and the Bishop of the third See Bishops of greater Sees to wit Cyrill of Alexandria and Caelestinus of Rome who was present in the Councell by his Vicegerent yet referring the finall proceeding to his consideration also hee and his Bishops being as much interessed in this businesse as they that were assembled In the end by mediation of many great and worthy ones Iohn and his Bishops that formerly were misconceited of Cyrill were satisfied and he sent the confession of his faith vnto him which he approued and so they were reconciled and made friends without any farther intermedling of the Bishop of Rome Here is nothing to be found that any way argueth or importeth an vniuersality of power in the Bishop of Rome but onely his concurrence with the other Patriarches as prime Patriarch in the waighty and important businesses of the Church and therefore the Fathers of that Councell writing to the Vicars of the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops sent by them to the Emperour to informe him concerning the differences that had arisen in the Councell and their proceedings charge and require them to doe nothing but according to their direction assuring them that if they doe otherwise they will neither ratifie that they doe nor admit them to their communion Thereby shewing that though the Romane Bishop be to concurre with the Fathers assembled in Councells yet he is not absolutely there to commaund but to follow the directions of the Maior part So that he hath a joynt interest with others but not an absolute Soueraignty ouer all others God therefore hauing ordained the high toppes of Patriarchicall dignities as it is in the eighth generall Councell that they might iointly concurre to vphold the state of the Church and the truth of Religion and that if one fell the rest might restore settle and reestablish things againe Which course Cyrill in his Epistle to Iohn of Antioche sheweth to haue beene holden by him For when he obserued that Nestorius his fellow Patriarch erred from the faith he first admonished him and threatned to reiect him from the communion of his Churches Secondly he acquainted the Bishop of Rome and the Westerne Bishops with the impieties and blasphemies of Nestorius who thereupon reiected him professing that they would admitte none to their communion but such as would condemne him Thirdly he wrote to Iuvenall Bishop of Hierusalem and to Iohn Bishop of Antioche shewing his owne dislike of Nestorius and farther professing that for his part hee was fearefull to be cast out of the communion of the Westerne Bishoppes as hee saw he must be if he accursed not Nestorius The next allegation is out of the Councell of Chalcedon where Theodorus and Ischiron Deacons in their bils of complaint exhibited to the Bishop of Rome as president and to the whole Councell call Leo the Bishop Most holy and most blessed vniuersall Arch-bishop and Patriarch of great Rome But they that presse the testimony of these two distressed Deacons flying to Leo for helpe should remember that in the Councell of Constantinople vnder Mennas not Deacons but Bishops they many are reported to haue written to the Bishop of Constantinople in this sort To our most holy Lord and most blessed Father of Fathers Iohn the Archbishop and vniuersall Patriarch and Mennas himselfe also is called Oecumenicall Patriarch Archbishop oftentimes in that Councell of Constantinople and yet I thinke they will not acknowledge the Bishops of Constantinople to haue had an vniuersall supreme commaunding power ouer the whole world Herevnto therefore they adde another proofe out of the relation of the Councell of Chalcedon made to Leo wherein the Fathers complaine of Dioscorus that as a wilde Boare he had violently entred into the vineyard of the Lord and wasted the same plucking vp the true fruitfull vines and planting vnfruitfull in their places and that hee stayed not there but reached out his hand against him to whom the keeping of the vineyard was committed by our Sauiour that is against the Bishop of Rome whom hee thought to excommunicate These words wee willingly confesse to bee words of iust complaint vpon great cause made by the Fathers of the Councell against Dioscorus but they proue not the thing in question For wee make no doubt but the keeping of the vineyard of the Lord of hosts was committed to the Bishop of Rome not onely as well as to other but in the first place as being in order and honour the chiefe But that he onely receiued from Christ this power authority charge and others from him not we onely but many learned amongst themselues doe denie as Bellarmine testifieth There are two other testimonies that may be alleaged out of the Councell of Chalcedon For Paschasinus one of the Vicegerents of the Bishop of Rome in that Councell calleth Rome the head of the churches and Leo the Bishop of Rome head of the vniuersall Church But they who presse so much the saying of the Popes Legate in fauour of the Pope must know that by head hee meant chiefe in order and honour and not one hauing all power originally in himselfe and absolutely commaunding ouer all as the Papists now teach For if he had meant so he had not been endured by the Fathers of that Councell who peremptorily pronounce that it was the greatnesse of the citie and not any power giuen by Christ or deriued to him from Peter that made the Bishop of Rome to be great that therefore they would equall the Bishop of Constantinople vnto him seeing Constantinople was now become equall vnto Rome The next testimony that they alleage is out of the Patriarchicall Councell of Constantinople vnder Mennas wherein the Fathers professe by Mennas their president that they follow and obey the Apostolique See that they communicate with them with whom that See communicateth and condemne all those it condemneth Surely this reason howsoeuer it may seeme to haue some force yet indeed hath none at all For there is no question but that the Bishop of Rome with his Westerne Synods all which according to the phrase of Antiquity are comprehended vnder the name of the Apostolique See was more to be esteemed then the particular Synode vnder Mennas and that therefore they might professe to follow it and obey the decrees of it and yet neither
greatest to the meanest But some man will say is there then no difference betweene him that is the first among Bishops and them that are of an inferiour condition Is he no more exempted from judgement then they surely no yet as some thinke there is some difference between him and them because they may be judged though not incorrigible but he as being in order and honour the first is not to be iudged if by any other meanes he may be induced to reforme himselfe or voluntarily to relinquish his place if his fault so require And that in this case as well as for heresie the Pope may be deposed we haue many of the best learned Papists consenting with vs as Ockam Cusanus Cameracensis Gerson Almaine the Bishops and Diuines in the Councells of Constance and Basill Driedo and in a word all those that thinke the Councell to be of greater authority then the Pope CHAP. 41. Of the titles giuen to the Pope and the insufficiencie of the proofes of his illimited power and Iurisdiction taken from them SEEING the vniuersality of the Popes power and jurisdiction cannot be proued from any exemption hee hath from being judged let vs proceede to consider the next proofe taken from the names titles giuen to him which is more weake then any other For we shall finde that other Bishops in auncient times writing to the Romane Bishop sometimes call him brother sometimes fellow-bishop and colleague sometimes Bishop sometimes Arch-bishop sometimes Patriarch but that they neuer gaue him any title whence he may bee proued to haue an vniuersality of illimited iurisdiction ouer all The first title that our Adversaries vrge is that of Pope which as I thinke will hardly proue the Romane Bishop to haue power ouer all For whereas Papa or Papas among the Greekes signifieth a father and is the appellation that little children beginning to speake are wont to giue to their parents and in like sort among the Latines noteth a father or grandfather hence the Christians in auncient times did vse to call their spirituall Fathers and Bishops Papes or Popes So that the name of Pape or Pope was a common name to all Bishoppes Wherevpon Hierome writing to Augustine calleth him Pope and writeth To the most honourable Pope whereas yet hee was not vniuersall Bishoppe but Bishop of little Hippo onely and therefore the name of Pope doth no way proue every one that is so called to be vniuersall Bishop But they say the Bishop of Rome is named absolutely Pope and none other Bishop that whensoeuer the name of Pope was vsed absolutely without addition all men vnderstood thereby the Romane Bishop to bee meant Whence it may bee inferred that hee was greater then all the rest as being esteemed a common father of all But for answere hereunto we say that the Romane Bishoppe was neuer in auncient times named absolutely the Pape or Pope without specification of his name or the place whereof hee was Pope but when by some other circumstance it might be knowne what Pape or Pope it was men speake of accordingly as men are wont to say no more but the Bishop did this or that when by things going before it may be knowne what Bishop they meane and so the Vicars of Leo in the Councell of Chalcedon said The most blessed and Apostolique man the Pope gaue them such directions as they there specify without adding of Rome or the name of Leo because all men knew from what Pope they came and whose Vicegerents they were in that Councell For otherwise without some circumstances specifying the party men would neuer haue vnderstood whom they had meant if they had only named the Pope indefinitely But the same vicars of Leo in the Councell of Chalcedon call him Pope of the vniuersall Church Therefore saith Bellarmine we may conclude him to be supreme and absolute commaunder ouer all out of the titles given vnto him If the Cardinall would but remember that euery Bishoppe is interessed in the care and gouernment of the whole Church as I haue elsewhere shewed out of Cyprian he would easily find the weakenesse of this consequence Wherefore let vs passe from the title of Pope to the next which is Pater Patrum that is Father of Fathers which Bellarmine saith is giuen to the Romane Bishoppe and to none else whereas yet hee knoweth the contrary to bee most true For the relation made to Iohn the Patriarch of Constantinople by the whole Synode assembled beginneth in this sort Domino nostro sanctissimo beatissimo Patri Patrum Oecumenico Patriarchae Synodus c. Where wee see that the Patriarch of Constantinople is called by a whole Synode most holy Lord most blessed Father of Fathers Oecumenicall Patriarch And the Epistle of the Bishoppes of the second Syria to the same Iohn the Patriarch beginneth thus To our most holy Lord and to the most blessed Father of Fathers Oecumenicall Arch-bishop and Patriarch So that the Title of Father of Father's is not proper to the Romane Bishop as Bellarmine vntruly affirmeth The title of summus Sacerdos or high Priest giuen to him by Saint Hierome is common to all Bishops in respect of Presbyters and all Metropolitanes in respect of Bishops although the third Councell of Carthage to shew that Metropolitanes haue not an absolute command will not haue them called high Priests or chiefe priests but onely Bishops of the first See and therefore though the Pope should bee named most holy Father chiefest Pope chiefe of Priests or high Priest yet nothing could be concluded from hence that either we deny or they affirme The title of Vicar of Christ is new and not found in all Antiquity the first in whom wee reade it being Bernard and therefore not much to bee stood on seeing the Auncient make all Bishops the Vicars of Christ and doe neuer appropriate it vnto the Bishop of Rome Yet will not Bernards appropriating of it proue the thing in question seeing hee may bee thought to haue had an eye in so doing to the chiefty of order and honour in respect whereof he is in more speciall sort a Vicar of Christ then some other rather then to any vniversality of commission and authority Head of the Church the Pope is neuer called among the Ancient though the Cardinall be pleased vntruely so to report But the Bishops assembled in the Councell of Chalcedon writing to Leo who by Vicars was President of that assembly say he was ouer them as the head ouer the members not in respect of absolute commaunding authority but of honourable presidencie onely as it appeareth in that notwithstanding the resistance of his Vicegerents they passed a decree for the advancement of the Bishop of Constantinople For otherwise Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome alloweth no man to be called Head of the Church Petrus saith he primum membrum sanctae vniversalis Ecclesiae est
did see in the greater Church of Sangalli a chalice guilded with gold that weighed threescore and tenne markes of siluer provided no doubt for the publique communion of the people formerly vsed Beatus Rhenanus saith that Conradus Pellicanus a man of wonderfull sanctity and learning did finde in the first constitution of the Carthusians that they are forbidden to possesse any vessels of price besides a siluer chalice and a pipe with which the lay people might sucke out the bloud of our Lord. Besides the booke written more then foure hundred yeares since concerning the treasures of the Church of Mentz amongst chalices of gold of a greate weight hauing handles and golden Crosses c reckoneth also syluer pipes six in number if I be not deceiued deputed to this vse of sucking out the bloud of our Lord which I suppose sayth hee the Archbishop was wont to vse Ordo Romanus sheweth that when the Bishop of Rome doth celebrate the Archdeacon giueth him to drinke of the holy chalice and afterwards powreth a little out of the same into a greater chalice or cuppe which the acoluth doth hold that the people may be confirmed or receiue the sacrament of the Lords bloud out of the sacred vessell For the wine that was not consecrated being mingled with the blood of Christ is altogether sanctified The Bishops therefore come in order to receiue of the hande of the Pope and aftar them all the Priestes come vp that they may communicate at the alter and while the Archdeacon communicateth the chiefe Bishop that is present holdeth the challice for as Bishops attend the Pope in the Church of Rome so priestes should attend and assist Bishops in other Churches The Archdeacon after hee hath communicated receiueth the chalice back againe from the Bishop and confirmeth all those with the Lords blood to whom the Pope hath giuen the communion of the body of our Lord. This seruice being performed by the altar hauing receiued by the Subdeacon the pipe with which the people are to be confirmed the Archdeacon deliuereth the chalice to be carried to the acoluth to be layed vp by him in the vestery Then doth the pope goe downe to giue the communion to the Princes of the people and their wiues and as the Archdeacon doth confirme those to whom the Pope giueth the Communion of the Lords body so do the other Deacons confirme them to whom after the Pope hath ministred to those of the better sort the other Bishops and Priestes do giue the Communion and as soone as the pope beginneth to minister the Communion to the Clergie and people the schoole of singers beginneth to sing the antheme appointed for the Communion and after that when the Pope thinketh fit Glory be to the Father c. Here wee see a cloud of witnesses testifying for the Communion in both kinds wherevpon â— Cassander feareth not to pronounce that hee verily thinketh it cannot be shewed that the sacrament of the Eucharist was any otherwise ministred in any part of the Catholike Church to the faithfull people in the holy assembly from the Lords table for a thousand yeares and more but vnder both the sacramentall signes of bread and wine Neither can this saying of Cassander be refuted by that in the second of the Acts where the faithfull are sayd to haue continued in the breaking of bread and prayer Nor by that wee reade in antiquity of the Lay communion which Caietan childishly vrgeth For sundry worthy diuines in the Roman Church haue sufficiently shewed the weakenesse of these sillie allegations Let vs see therefore how the Communion in one kind came into the Church It appeareth by Leo the first that the Manichees as they denied Christ to haue beene borne in the truth of our flesh so they denied him to haue truely dyed and risen againe and therefore they vsed to fast vppon that day that is to vs the day of saluation and ioy And whereas to hide their infidelity and heresie they came sometimes to the Churches of Catholikes and were present at the celebration of the sacred mysteries they did so temper the matter that with vnworthy mouthes they receiued the Lords body but declined to drinke the blood of our redemption Leo carefully endeauoured to make this thing knowne to all that by these signes they might bee discried that their sacrilegious dissembling might bee found out and that being discouered they might by sacerdotall auctoritie be cast out of the society of the Saints By this of Leo it appeareth that the Manichees out of an hereticall conceipt began to communicate in one kinde and that all were wont to communicate in both kindes that hereby the Manichees might be discouered and knowne from other right beleeuers in that they would communicate but in one kinde alone Which thing also Andradius doth rightly note In the time of Gelasius there were certain found that out of some superstitious conceipt would not communicate in both kindes Wee haue found saith Gelasius that certaine hauing receiued a portion of the sacred Body onely abstaine from the cup of the most holy bloud Which men because they are saide to be holden with I know not what superstition either let them receiue the whole Sacrament or let them be put and kept frrom the whole seeing there can be no division of one and the same mysterie without grievous sacriledge Thirdly whereas in case of necessity as when children or such as were sicke and weake were to receiue the communion the auncient did sometimes dippe the mysticall bread into the consecrated wine and so gaue it vnto them as it appeareth by the history of Serapion by that which Cyprian and Prosper report and by that which the Councell of Turon prescribeth that the Eucharist which is reserued for the voyage provision of such as are ready to depart hence shall be dipped into the blood of the Lord that so the Priest may truely say The body and blood of our Lord be beneficiall vnto thee vnto eternall life Some beganne to bring in this manner of dipping into the ordinary communion vnder pretence of carefull avoyding the danger of shedding the blood of Christ and greater reuerence towards the same For certaine Monkes brought the same custome into their Monasteries ingenuously confessing that herein they did contrary to the custome of other Churches But that they were forced so to doe by the rudenesse of their novices who they feared would runne into some grosse neglect if they should receiue the blood of Christ apart Neither did this custome stay here but it made an entrance into other Churches abroad also for Ivo Carnotensis about the yeare 1100 hath these wordes Let them not communicate in the bread dipped but according to the decree of the Councell of Toledo let them communicate in the bodie apart and in the blood apart those onely excepted to whom it is not prescribed but permitted to communicate in the bread dipped out of
himselfe may we not tell him he doth so Shall it be lawfull for Theoph Higgons to vse al words of disgrace that he can deuise against Luther Caluin men of as good worth as the Cardinall may no man say any thing to the Cardinall because he is a Cardinall How much soeuer he forget himselfe truly I am not ignorant that these ministers of Antichrist take very much vpon them For as Clemangis long since feared not to write their spirits are so high lofty their words so swelling their behauiour so insolent that if a Painter would paint pride he could not do it better then by representing to the beholders the forme figure of a Cardinall which kind of men though they were originally of the inferiour clergy yet together with the increase of the pompe of the See of Rome grew so great enlarged spread out their Phylacteries in such sort that they despise as farre inferiour to them and much below them not Bishops alone whom in contempt they vse to call petit Bishops but Patriarches Primates Archbishops also almost suffering themselues to be adored and worshipped of them and yet not content therewith seeke to be kings fellowes for the maintenance of which their imagined and fained greatnesse like wild Boares they made hauocke of the Vineyards of the Lord of hoastes Thus wrote he almost 200. yeares since but Gods name be blessed for it these wild Boares haue beene well hunted out of many parts of Christendome since that time But Maister Higgons as if he meant to make an oration in the praise of his Cardinall to reproue as he saith the temerity of such as steepe theis pens in gall and wormewood to vent malicious vntruths against this happy man commendeth him for his intellectuall and morall parts setting them out at large in the particulars and as his manner is to cast in things sodainly without all cause or reason that are no way pertineÌ„nt he telleth of a crime which I lay vnto him and though I pardon him yet so vncourteous he is that hee sayth I do it in malice The crime as hee will haue it called is this I charge Bellarmine that hee forgetteth himselfe very strangely in his discourse touching the notes of the Church in that in the former part of it he denieth truth of profession or Doctrine to be a note of the Church and in the latter maketh Sanctity of doctrine or profession which he defineth to be the not contayning of any vntruth in matter of faith or vniust thing in matter of manners and conuersation to be a note of the Church Betweene which two assertions as I thinke there is a manifest contradiction For if truth of doctrine and profession and Sanctity of doctrine or profession bee all one as I thinke they will be found to bee then to say truth of doctrine and profession is no note of the Church and to say Sanctity of doctrine or profession is a note of the Church as Bellarmine doth is to vtter manifest contradictions This is the want of memory I find in Bellarmine for which Maister Higgons who amongst other good naturall parts commendeth him highly for tenaciousnesse of memory is offended with Me. But because he is become so jealous of his Cardinals Honour I will shew him another Scape or two in this kind In the former part of his discourse touching the notes of the Church he denieth Sanctity or purity of doctrine free from error to be a note of the Church because it may be found in a false Church for that Schismatickes who are only Schismatickes pertaine not to the true Church whose profession notwithstanding is free from all error as was the profession of the Donatists and Luciferians in the beginning and yet in his latter part he maketh this purity from error a note of the Church In the former part he denyeth it to be a note because it agreeth not inseperably to the true Church as notes should doe seeing the Churches of the Corinthians had it not and yet in the latter part he maketh this purity of doctrine to bee a note of the Church In the former part hee will haue nothing to be a note of the Church that may be claimed or pretended by any but the true Church and thereby excludeth purity of profession which is claymed by all mis-beleeuers and yet in the later admitteth it notwithstanding any challenge Heretickes or Mis-beleeuers make vnto it By this which hath beene said I hope it doth appeare that Maister Higgons had little reason to charge Mee with want of conscience in accusing Bellarmine But for want of ciuilility of manners and respectiue demeanor towards his person whereof hee complaineth let him know that if he inuolue himselfe in infinite contradictions as hee doth if he wrong vs and the Princes People and States of our profession by hellish and diabolicall slanders as he doth if he basely abuse Luther Caluine Bucer Melachthon and others his equalls in merit and esteeme if he set his face against heauen and open his mouth to the dishonour of our late Soueraigne of famous memory and his most excellent Maiesty now regnant as he doth we will be bold to cast this dirt into his face againe if he were a better man then all Master Higgons his base and slauering commendation of him can make to be §. 2. HEre Master Higgons leaueth me and passeth to D. Morton yet so good a will he hath to say something against Me though neuer so idlely that within two or three pages hee returneth to Mee againe and chargeth Mee full wisely with perplexing and involving my selfe in manifest contradictions The first contradiction he would force vpon Me is this The Elect notwithstanding any degree of sinne which they runne into retaine that grace which can and will procure pardon for all their offences and yet sometimeâ—… there is nothing found in the Elect that can or doth cry to God for pardon It is strange truly that such as Higgons is should be permitted to play the fooles in print as they doe But our Adversaries know it is good to keepe men busied in any sort and that the greatest part of their Adherents will applaud any thing though neuer so senselesly written against vs For otherwise I know they cannot but laugh at the serious folly of this their Novice in this passage For Ineuer say the Elect haue alwayes in theÌ„ that grace that can and will procure them pardon for all their sinnes and offences as hee chargeth Me but that the Elect called according to purpose haue that Grace that excludeth sin from raigning and that this Grace once had by them is neuer totally nor finally lost Now what contradiction is there betweene these propositions The Elect at sometimes to wit before they be called haue nothing in them that cryeth for pardon and remission of their sins and the Elect after they are once called according
Symbole contayning a full explication of whatsoever might bee questioned touching the deity of Christ. This forme of Christian profession was called the Nicen creed and was received as a most excellent rule of faith by all right beleeuers throughout the world In this creed there was nothing expressely put downe touching the holy Ghost more then was found in the Apostles creed that wee beleeue in the holy Ghost But when Macedonius and Eunomius denyed the deity of the holy spirit the Fathers assembled in the first Councell of Constantinople added to the Nicen creed these words I beleeue in the holy Ghost the Lord and giver of life who proceedeth from the Father who together with the Father and the Sonne is worshipped and glorified who spake by the Prophets So expressing his proceeding from the Father without any mention of the Sonne This creed or forme of Christian profession was confirmed in the councell of Ephesus and all they accursed that should adde any thing vnto it meaning as it may well be thought to condemne such addition as might make any alteration and not such as might serue for more full and definite explication But howsoeuer this Nicen creed thus enlarged in the Councell of Constantinople without any farther addition was confirmed and proposed to the Christian world for a rule of faith in all the generall councells that ever were holden and was so publickely received in sundry Christian Churches in their liturgies But in time the Bishops of Spaine began to adde the proceeding from the Sonne saying Wee beleeue in the holy Ghost the Lord and giver of life who proceedeth from the Father and the Sonne And the French not long after admitted the same addition but the Romans admitted it not Wherevpon Charles the great in his time called a Councell at Aquisgrane in which it was debated whether the Spaniards and after them the French had done well in adding to the creed the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Sonne And whether supposing the point of doctrine to bee true it were fit to sing and recite the creed in the publicke service of the Church with this addition the Church of Rome and some other Churches refusing to admitte it Besides this some were sent to Leo the third about that matter but hee would by no meanes allow of this addition but perswaded them that had given way vnto it by litle litle to put it out and to sing the creed without it The same Leo caused the symbole to bee translated and written out in a table of siluer in such sort as it had beene deliuered in the Covncels placed the same behind the altar of S Peter and left it to posterity out of the carefull desire of preseruing the true faith as hee professed And in this Symbol in the article touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost the Father onely is named in this sort and in the holy Ghost the Lord and giver of life who proceedeth from the Father Neither was this the private fancy of Leo only for after his time Iohn the 8th shewed his dislike of this addition likewise for writing vnto Photius patriarch of Constantinople hee hath these words Reverend Sir that wee may giue you satisfaction touching that addition in the creed and from the Sonne wee let you know that not onely wee haue no such addition but also wee condemne them as transgressors of the direct word that were the first authours of this addition And afterwards he addeth wee carefully labour and endevour to bring it to passe that all our Bishops may thinke as wee doe but no man can suddenly alter a thing of such consequence and therefore it seemeth reasonable to vs that no man bee violently constrained by you to leaue out this addition But in the yeare 883 the Romans also made the same addition to the creed in the time of Pope Nicholas the first Heere by the way wee may note the inconstancy irresolution and vncertainty of the Roman Bishops one of them admitting that as right and good which another not long after condemned as a transgression of the direct law And farther that in matters of great importance other Bishops haue gone before them and drawen them to doe that in the end which at first they misliked so that all direction in former times was not sought from Rome By that which hath beene said it appeareth that the difference betweene the Churches touching this point is not such as it should cause any division or breach Yet was this addition no sooner made but so great dislikes grew vpon it many thinking nothing might be added at least without a generall Councell to the creed formerly published in so many generall Councels as a rule of faith that though the difference in trueth and in deede were but verball yet either side endevoured to shew the other erred daungerously and so this verball difference was an occasion amongst other things to cause a schisme and separation between them Thus having cleered this poynt wherein if in any thing the Grecians may be thought to haue erred let vs see what other errours are imputed to them Guido Carmelita and after him Prateolus impute vnto them sundry errours which Lucinianus of Cyprus a learned Dominican and a worthy man as hee is accounted by Possevine sheweth to be falsely ascribed vnto them As first that simple fornication is no sinne 2dly that they condemne second marriages which hee sheweth to bee vntrue likewise though the Priest blesse onely in the first and not in the second Thirdly that they thinke the contract of marriage may bee broken and the band dissolved at the pleasure of the parties Whereas contrariwise hee affirmeth they allow no diuorce so as to permitte a second marriage while both the parties liue Fourthly they are sayd to affirme that the sacrament consecrated on maundy Thursday is of more force vertue and efficacy then consecrated any other day Wherein hee sheweth that they are no lesse wronged then in the other imputations Fiftly they are charged to teach that it is no sinne to lend vpon vsury and which is worse that it is not necessary to make restitution of things vniustly taken away In both which imputations hee sayth they are much wronged For they thinke vsury to bee sinne and vrge the necessity of restitution Sixtly they are said to thinke if a Priests wife die hee ceaseth to bee a Priest any longer which is as meere a slaunder as the rest were So that it is true that Tho à Iesu hath that one of the principall things that maketh the Grecians so averse from the Latines is that they are wronged by them by vntrue reports and vnjust imputations The things wherein they differ indeed from the Church of Rome are these First they deny the Pope to be head of the vniversall Church or to haue any supreame commaunding authority in the Church and over other Bishops they say that there are fiue Patriarches or chiefe bishops of
this body they would all crye out with a loud voice If we say we haue no sinne wee deceiue our selues and there is no trueth in vs. Gregorius Ariminensis noteth that Augustine speaketh not of originall sin but actuall and that this ample grace to ouercome sinne was not giuen her till the spirit ouer-shadowed her and the power of the most High came vpon her that shee might conceiue and beare him that neuer knew sinne so that before shee might commit sinne which yet hee will not affirme because the moderne Doctours for the most part thinke otherwise so intimating that all did not And surely the wordes of Augustin doe not import that shee had no sinne but that shee ouercame it which argueth a conflict neither doth hee say he will acknowledge shee was without sinne but that hee will not moue any question touching her in this dispute of sinnes and sinners So passing by the point and not willing to enter into this dispute with the Pelagian who conceiued it would be plausible for him to pleade for the puritie of the Mother of our Lord and disgracefull for any one to except against her By that which hath beene said it appeareth that the Church of God neuer resolued any thing touching the birth of the blessed Virgin without sinne nor whether shee were free from all actuall sinne or not If happily it bee alleadged that the Church celebrated the Feast of her nativitie and therefore beleeued that shee was borne without sinne First touching the celebration of this Feast it is evident that it was not auncient That it was not in the dayes of Saint Augustine as some imagine because on that day there is read in the Church a Sermon of Saint Augustines touching the solemnitie of that day it is proued out of Saint Augustine himselfe for in his 21 Sermon de sanctis he hath these wordes Wee celebrate this day the birth-day of Iohn the Baptist which honour wee neuer read to haue beene giuen to any of the Saints Solius enim Domini beati Ioannis dies nativitatis in universo mundo celebratur colitur That is For the birth-day of our Lord onely and of Iohn the Baptist is celelebrated kept holy throughout the whole world illum enim sterilis peperit illum virgo concepit in Elizabetha sterilitas vincitur in beatâ Mariâ conceptionis consuetudo mutatur That is A woman that was barren bare the one and a virgin the other in Elizabeth barrennes is ouercome in blessed Mary the ordinary course of conceiuing is changed And in his 20 â—h sermon hee hath these words Post illum sacrosanctum Domini natalis diem nullius hominum nativitatem legimus celebrari nisi solius beati Ioannis Baptistae In aliis sanctis electis Dei novimus illum diem coli quo illos post consummationem laborum devictum triumphatumque mundum in perpetuas aeternitates praesens haec vita parturit In aliis consummata vltimi diei merita celebrantur in hoc etiam prima dies ipsa etiam hominis initia consecrantur pro hac absque dubio causà quia per hunc Dominus adventum suum ne subito homines insperatum non agnoscerent voluit esse testatum That is After that most sacred day of the birth of our Lord wee reade not that the nativity of any one amongst men is celebrated but of Iohn the Baptist onely touching other Saints and other the chosen of God wee know that that day is celebrated in which after the consummation of their labours after their victories and triumphs ouer the world this present life bringeth them forth to begin to liue for euer In others the consummate vertues of the last day are celebrated in this the first day and the beginnings of the man are consecrated for this cause no doubt because the Lord would haue his comming made knowen to the world by him least if his comming had not beene expected and looked for it might happily not haue beene acknowledged Neither doth the reading of the sermon of Saint Augustine on that day pertayning to the solemnity of the day proue that this day was kept holy before his time for as Baronius sheweth the sermon was fitted originally to the solemnity of the feast of the Annunciation the words were these Let our land reioyce illustrated with the solemne day of so great a virgine which are altered and read in the breviarie in this sorte Let our land rejoyce illustrated by the birth day of so great a virgin And it is evident by the councell of Mentz holden in the time of Charles the great in the yeare 813 that this feast was not celebrated in the Church of Germany and France in those times As likewise it appeareth by the constitutions of Charles and Ludovicus Pius Secondly the celebrating of the birth-day of the blessed virgine will no more proue that shee was borne without all sinne then that Iohn the Baptist was so borne concerning whom Bernard sayth hee knoweth he was sanctified before he came out of the wombe but how farre this sanctification freed him from sinne hee dareth not say or define any thing Thus wee see that the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died was a Protestant Church in these poynts touching the conception birth of the blessed virgine aswell as in the former CHAP. 7. Of the punishment of originall sinne and of Limbus puerorum BEllarmine sheweth that there are foure opinions in the Roman Church touching the punishment of originall sinne and the state of infants dying vnregenerate for Ambrosius Catharinus in his booke of the state of children dying vnbaptized Albertus Pighius in his first controversie and Savanarola in hâ—…s booke of the triumph of the crosse doe teach that infants dying without baptisme shall after the iudgement enioy a kinde of naturall happinesse and liue happily for euer as it were in a certaine earthly paradise howsoeuer for the present they goe downe into those lower parts of the earth which are called Limbus puerorum These men suppose that infants incurre no staine or infection by Adams sinne but that for his offence being denyed the benefit of supernaturall grace which would haue made them capable of heauen happines they are found in a state of meere nature in which as they cannot come to heauen so they are subiect to no euili that may cause them to sorrow For though they see that happines in heaven whereof they had a possibility yet they no more greiue that they haue not attained it then innumerable men doe that they are not Kings and Emperours as well as others of which honours they were capable as well as they in that they were men The second opinion is that infants dying in the state of originall sinne not remitted are excluded from the sight of God and condemned to the prison house of the infernall dwellings for euer so that they suffer the punishment of losse but
sibi abstulisse veritatem that while they were vnwilling that we should haue any authoritie for confirmation of our faith in their Scriptures they would depriue themselues of the truth of them which they euer held the richest treasure in the world Especially seeing it hath euer beene thought by the wisest in Gods Church that God in his prouidence hath therefore preserued these forlorne and forsaken Creatures and dispersed them into the seuerall Nations and kingdomes of the World that they might giue testimony to the truth of our faith by those monuments of Moses and the Prophets which they honour and embrace as receiued from God himselfe Thus then we are perswaded that there is no great nor generall corruption of the Hebrew text of Scripture and that the faults which by negligence in time crept into it are but few and such as by helpe of the Mazzoreth may easily be amended But because Andradius Bellarmine and other of our aduersaries haue vndertaken the defence of the truth and confutation of their fellowes error in this poynt I will no longer insist vpon it let vs come therefore to the new Testament CHAP. 29 Of the supposed Corruptions of the Greeke text of Scripture IN the new testament sayth Sixtus Senensis out of Hierome if any question arise amongst them that reade the Scriptures in Latine and there appeare difference variety amongst the translations we must haue recourse to the Greeke as to the fountaine assuring our selues that there were euer some incorrupt and true Copies of the new Testament found amongst them that read the same in Greeke out of which the Latine might be corrected and that if some faults be found in the Greeke Copies by the negligence or mistaking of them that wrote them out they may easily be discerned by laying together sundry Copies casually corrupted it so falling out that what in one booke is depraued by the fault of the writers in another is found right Now sayth he whereas certaine heretikes did say that either Hierome did not translate the same Greeke that now is or that he translated it very ill it is to be aunswered that the Greeke is the same which all Christians read translated before and after Hierome but that he translated it not but onely in some things corrected the old translation he found in vse before and that yet notwithstanding that vulgar and old translation is not wholly to bee abandoned and reiected for that though it doe not exactly agree with the Greeke which is the originall yet it omitteth nothing in matter of faith or truth of story nor hath any thing contrary to the trueth of religion The Romanists to proue that the Greeke text of the new Testament is corrupted and consequently that it is not safe to correct the Latine translations by it alledge certaine places which they presume they can easily demonstrate to bee corrupted Bellarmine giueth instance in these that follow In the 1 Cor 15. the Greeke that now is hath in all Copies The first man was of the earth earthly the second man is the Lord from heaven the later part of this sentence Tertullian supposeth to haue beene corrupted and altered by the Marcionites instead of that the Latine text hath The second man was from heauen heauenly as Ambrose Hierome and many of the Fathers read also Touching this place wee aunswere that not onely the Greeke Copies now extant haue it as we read and translate but the Syriacke Arabicke also and that Damascene de Orthodoxa fide readeth in the same sort Notwithstanding because many of the Fathers both Greeke and Latine follow the other reading we thinke it very doubtfull which is the originall verity This difference of the reading of the Apostles words is a matter of no great moment seeing neither of them contayne any thing contrary to the rule of faith or verity of Christian religion The second place they produce is 1 Iohn 4. 3. Where the Greeke hath Euery spirit that confesseth not c. but the Latine euery spirit that dissolueth Iesus It is true that Socrates in his history sayth that the auncient Greeke Copies had as the Latine now hath and that these words were put out by such as diuided the person of Christ yet seeing not onely all copies of the Greeke text but the Syriacke translation also hath Euery spirit that confesseth not c. and Cyprian so citeth the place and Augustine readeth and interpreteth both wee thinke it likewise very doubtfull which is the originall verity The next place is the 1. Cor 7. where in the vulgar Latine wee reade in this sort He that is with a wife is carefull for the things of the World how hee may please his wife and is diuided that is distracted with many cares but in the Greeke it is thus Hee that hath a wife is carefull for the thinges of the world how to please his wife there is a difference betweene a wife and a virgine or they are divided one from another That the former is the true reading of the Apostles words Bellarmine proueth because Hierome against Iouinian affirmeth it to be so and some other of the Fathers follow the same But he should know that not onely the most part of all the Greeke Copies haue as wee translate but the Syriacke and Arabicke translations also Besides Basil the Greeke Scholiast Theophylact and Hierome himselfe against Heluidius and to Eustochium de Custodia Virginitatis So that this proofe of the corruption of the Originalls prooueth too weake The next allegation concerning the 12. to the Romanes of serving the Lord and seruing the time is much weaker For Beza sheweth that some Greeke Copies haue as the vulgar hath and as Bellarmine sayth the truth is seruing the Lord. That the story of the Adulteresse in the 8 of Iohn is not found in many Greeke Copies doth not proue the generall corruption of the Greeke text which is the thing our aduersaries vndertake to proue For if it did the Latine also should bee reiected as corrupted and false For as Hierome witnesseth many of the Latine Copies wanted this story as well as the Greeke Some of the auncient were of opinion that this story was first found in the Apocryphall Gospell according to the Hebrewes But whatsoeuer wee thinke of it it maketh nothing against the authority of the Greeke text seeing it was euer found in some Greeke Copies though not in all The Rhemists to disgrace the Greeke alledge sundry places where they say our translators choose rather to follow the vulgar Latine then the Greeke thereby acknowledging that it is corrupt But if wee examine the particulars wee shall finde that this their allegation is nothing else but a lying and false report For they euer follow some and those the best and most incorrupt Greeke Copies as Beza sheweth Wherefore fayling in this allegation they betake
short of that the Law requireth but were also contrary vnto it and that Christ taxeth them for the same Quia non intelligebant sayth Saint Augustine homicidium nisi per interemptionem corporis humani per quam vitâ priuaretur aperuit Dominus omnem iniquum motum ad nocendum fratri in homicidij genere deputari vnde Iohannes dicit Qui odit fratrem suum homicida est quoniam putabant tantummodo corporalem cumfoeminâ illicitam commixtionem vocari moechiam demonstrauit Magister etiam talem concupiscentiam nihil esse aliud That is they vnderstood no other Kind of murther but that which is the sundring of soule and body and the taking away of life therefore our Lord shewed that euery vnrighteous motion to hurt our brother is to be accompted murther Whence also S. Iohn sayth He that hateth his brother is a man-slayer and because they thought the vnlawfull conjunction of man and woman only to be adulterie our Maister shewed that euen the desire is no lesse Now I thinke that to say that is not murther nor adultery which Christ pronounceth to be murther and adultery is not onely to teach lesse then is in the Law but to teach contrary to it But to make this point more cleare and euident and that there may bee noe doubt but that their doctrine was contrary to the Law the Scripture reporteth nay our Sauiour Christ telleth vs in the Scripture whose report wee may not doubt of that they taught a man to loue his friend and to hate his enimy whereas by the Law of God we are bound to loue our enemies to blesse them that curse vs to do good to them that hate vs and to pray for them that hurt vs and persecute us It is true indeed that S. Augustine not obseruing this glosse of hating our enemies to bee the lewd tradition of the Pharises but thinking it to be written in the Law doth in one place say that that which is sayd in the Law Thou shalt hate thine enemy is not to be taken as the voyce of him that commandeth and prescribeth what the just should doe but permitteth what the infirmity of the weake requireth and in another place writing against the Manichees sayth that that which is in the old Scripture Hate thine enemie and that which is in the Gospell Loue your enemies do agree together very well For euery vnrighteous man in quantum iniquus est odio habendus est in quantum homo diligendus in that he is vnrighteous is to be hated and in that he is a man is to be loued This saying hee sayth the Pharisees did not rightly vnderstand and that therefore Christ laboured to teach and instruct them better and to let them know that they were so to hate their enemies that they should also loue them This which S. Augustine deliuereth is most Catholike and true For we are to hate the vices and loue the persons of our enimies but neither is there any mandate in the Scriptures that we should hate our enemies neither had that precept of the Pharisees that sense wherein S. Augustine cōceiueth a man may lawfully hate his enemies but as himselfe cōfesseth they thought they were so to hate their enemies that they were not bound to loue thē against which erroneous conceipt Christ opposeth himselfe saying But I say vnto you loue your enemies Neither doth he oppose an Euangelicall coūsell of greater perfection then the Law requireth to that imperfect thing the Law prescribeth as some men haue ignorantly fancied but the true meaning of the Law to the false construction of the same made by the Pharisees as likewise he doth in all other his oppositions to that which had bin sayd to them of old time But let vs let this passe and come to the other errours of the Pharisees taxed by our Sauiour Christ in such sort as no man can excuse them Why doe ye transgresse sayth he the commandement of God by your traditions for God hath commanded saying Honour thy Father and thy Mother and he that curseth Father or Mother let him die the death but ye say Whosoeuer shall say to Father or Mother By the gift that is offered by me thou maist haue profit though he honour not his Father or Mother shall be free Thus haue you made the commandement of God of none effect by your owne tradition Againe they taught that it is nothing if a man sweare by the Altar but that he that sweareth by the gift or offering that is on the Altar is a Debtor that is bound to do that he sweareth Many other like fond wicked glosses of the Pharisees we read of whereby they made the cōmandemēts of God of none effect whereupon our Sauiour sayth Except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnes of the Scribes and Pharisees ye cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen Thus then I hope it appeareth to all that are not wilfully blinded that Christ meant not when hee sayd The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses chaire therefore whatsoeuer they bid you that obserue and doe that they could speake nothing but truth and that whatsoeuer they sayd was to be receiued without any examination but that whatsoeuer things they spake pertinentia ad Cathedram as the author of the interlineall Glosse interpreteth the words and whatsoeuer things they deliuered as sitting in Moses chaire that is doing the duty of Teachers they should bee listned vnto howsoeuer otherwise they were wicked and godlesse men They that teach iudge and rule the people of God are described to performe those things sitting to put them in minde that they must doe all things with setled composed and well aduised resolution and not rashly hastily and inconsiderately whereupon Princes haue their thrones Iudges their Tribunalls and iudgment seates and Teachers their chaires Hence Moses office of teaching the people the lawes of God and the performance of the same is metaphorically named Moses chaire and the succeeding of Moses in this office and duty of deliuering the lawes of God to the people the performance of the same is rightly expressed by the sitting on the chaire of Moses in this sense the Scribes Pharisees are rightly sayd to haue sitte on Moses chaire because they succeeded him in the office and duty of teaching the people the lawes of God and in the performance of the same duety in some part though not wholly And therefore our Sauiour Christ requireth all men notwithstanding their wicked conuersation and manifold errours in matters of doctrine to do whatsoeuer they commanded while they sate on Moses chaire that is performed the duty belonging to Moses office and place It is strange that any man should seeke to extend the words of Christ any farther as if they meant to cleare the Scribes Pharisees from all possibilitie and danger of erring in that they possessed the roome of Moses and had the places of Teachers in the
Christ without being beholding to Peter for it or inferiour to him in it but by vertue of their Bishoply authority and offīce which they receiued from Peter Alioqui enim sayth Bellarmine cum omnes Apostoli plurimos Episcopos in varijs locis constituerint si Apostoli ipsi non sint facti Episcopi à Petro certè maxima pars Episcoporum nondeducit originem suam à Petro that is For otherwise seeing all the Apostles constituted exceeding many Bishops in diuerse places if the Apostles themselues were not made Bishops by Peter certainely the greatest part of Bishoppes will not fetch their originall from Peter This his fancie of Peters making the other Apostles Bishoppes immediately after as his manner is like an honest man hee contradicteth confessing that the Apostles were all Bishops and the first Bishops of the Church in that they were Apostles without any such ordination Omnes Apostoli sayth he fuerunt Episcopi imò etiam primi Episcopi Ecclesiae tametsi non sunt ordinati that is All the Apostles were Bishops nay which more is the first Bishops of the Church without any other or new ordination besides their Apostolique mission and calling And in another place he pronoūceth perēptorily that by vertue of these words As my Father sēt me so sēd I you the Apostles were made Vicars of Christ nay that they receiued the very offīce authority of Christ and that in the Apostolique power all Ecclesiasticall power is contained and though in the former place he sayd expressely Non eo ipso quòd aliquis est Apostolus est Episcopus that is A man is not therefore a Bishop because an Apostle for the twelue were Apostles before they were either Bishops or Priests yet in the later place hee sayth it is not to be maruailed at that they were Apostles before the passīon of Christ and yet neither Priests nor Bishops for that the Lord at diuerse times gaue the Apostles diuerse kindes and degrees of power but especiallie in the twentith of Iohn perfected that hee beganne before his passīon Soe that an Apostle perfectly constituted and authorised hath both Priestlie and Episcopall dignitic and power though in the beginning when the Apostles were rather designed then fully constituted not hauing receiued their full Commissīon they vvere neither Priests nor Bishoppes But to leaue BELLARMINE lost in these mazes it is most easie demonstratiuely to proue that the Apostles in that they were Apostles perfectly and fully constituted had both Priestlie and Bishoply dignity and power in most eminent sort For did not CHRIST giue the Apostles power to doe any Ecclesiasticall act that a Bishoppe can doe Did hee not giue them power to preach and baptize vvhen hee sayd vnto them Go teach all nations Baptizing them c to minister the holy Eucharist vvhen hee sayd Doe this as est as ye shall doe it in remembrance of mee Did hee not giue them the power of the Keyes of binding loosing of remitting retaining sinnes consequently all that commeth within the compasse of Ecclesiasticall office and Ministerie doubtlesse hee did Neither is there any that dareth to deny any part of that which hath beene saide And therefore it is an idle fansie that Peter made the rest of his fellowes Bishops the Apostolique power implying in it eminently Episcopall as the greater the lesser But they will say Peter made Iames the lesser Bishop of Hierusalem Indeed Baronius falsifieth Chrysostome and maketh him say that the Doctour of the world made Iames Bishop of Hierusalem whereas hee saith no such thing but asking the question why Peter whom Christ so much fauoured was not preferred to bee Bishop of Hierusalem answereth that Christ made him Doctour of the world which was a greater honour then to haue beene fastened to the Church of Hierusalem to haue beene set in the Episcopall Throne there But it is cleare by the testimonies of Antiquity that Peter Iames the greater Iohn ordained Iames Bishop of Hierusalem So saith Anacletus in his second Epistie if any credit be to be giuen vnto it where hee hath these words A Bishop must be ordained of three Bishops as Peter Iames the greater and Iohn ordained Iames the lesser Bishop of Hierusalem Clemens Alexandrinus also as we reade in Eusebius saith the very same and Hierome de viris illustribus attributeth the ordaining of Iames not to Peter alone but to the Apostles His words are Iacobus statim post passionem Domini ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatur that is Iames presently after the passion of the Lord is ordained Bishop of Hierusalem by the Apostles If any man aske how the Apostles did ordaine or make Iames being an Apostle a Bishop if the Apostolique office imply in it the office and dignitie of a Bishop as the greater the lesser we answere that a Bishop differing from an Apostle as in other things so in this that he is fixed to some certaine place whereof specially hee taketh the care whereas the care imployment of an Apostle is more at large When the Apostles after the conversion of Nations and people began to retire themselues to certaine places there to rest and specially to take care thereof they were in that respect rather Bishops then Apostles and in this sort Iames the lesser being appointed by the Apostles to make his principall abode at Hierusalem a chiefe city of the world whence the faith spread it selfe into all other parts and more specially to take care thereof is rightly said to haue beene constituted Bishop of that place by them not as if they had giuen him any new power and authority that he had not before or not in so perfect sort but that they limited and restrained him more specially to one certaine place where he should vse the same The place in the Acts maketh nothing for the confirmation of the Popish errour for Paul and Barnabas formerly designed by Christ to be Apostles were againe by the ministerie of Prophets revealing the will and pleasure of Almighty GOD separated more specially to bee Apostles of the Gentiles and put forth into that employment with fasting prayer and imposition of hands not thereby receiuing any new power but a speciall limitation and assignation of those parts of the world wherein principally they should be employed Besides these were not Apostles but Prophets such as Agabus was that are mentioned in this place inferiour in degree to Apostles and such as might not make an Apostle to be a Bishop but did onely signifie and reueale what the will of God was and whither he meant to send these worthy Apostles and so with prayer and fasting commended them to the grace of God and therefore this place maketh nothing for proofe of Peters ordaining and appointing the rest of the Apostles to be Bishops CHAP. 24. Of the preeminence that Peter had amongst the Apostles and the reason why Christ directed his speeches specially
any thing that may import that euer there was any such donatiō neither can it stand with the course of things reported vnto vs by the auncient Historians and writers Damasus at the request of Hierome wrote the liues actions of his Predecessors yet in the life of Syluester reporteth no such thing He addeth further that hauing diligently perused the Charter of this grant hee found in it most euident arguments of forgery and falshood and therefore saith hee thinketh these things concerning Constantines donation to be Apocryphall as some other large writings attributed to Clemens Anacletus the Popes For first the Epistle of Melchiades touching the Primitiue Church the bounty of Constantine is proued coūterfeit in that he speaketh of the Councell of Nice holden after his death and of Constantines donation supposed to haue been granted in the time of Sylvester who succeeded him Besides this in the Charter of donation Constantine professeth that he was a Leper that hee was freed from the same by Sylvesters meanes by whom hee was baptized and that hee was first instructed in Christianity by him Whereas it is a meere fable that is reported of Constantines leprosie and it is most certaine that hee was a Christian before Syluester was Bishop of Rome I no where euer read saith Melchior Canus in any good and approued authors that Constantine was a Leper But another of that name surnamed Copronymus whence haply through ambiguity of the name this error might spring vnlesse this rumor concerning the Leprosie of Constantine may seeme to haue sprung from that we finde reported of him that he went out of the Citty of Byzantium to certaine hot bathes for his healthes sake Thomas Aquinas in his summe mentioneth this vulgar history of Constantines Leprosie and as it seemeth approueth the same but Caietane doth not so writing vpon Thomas neither wanteth hee good authors to induce him to reiect this fabulous report for hee hath Platina in the life of Marke Ludouicus Viues in his booke de corruptis disciplinis and Alciat all flatly denying and reiecting this report and hee hath all ancient writers of that age passing it ouer in silence who would neuer haue omitted it if they had knowne of any such thing and would vndoubtedly haue knowne it if there had beene any such thing Touching his Baptisme all the ancient Historians Hierome Eusebius Socrates Theodoritus Zozomen Cassiodorus Pomponius Laetus and other of that ranke affirme that he was baptized by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia a little before his death and not by Syluester The author of the Pontificall who is full of fables the fained Charter of Constantines donation and some late writers deceiued by these late forgeries affirme that he was first conuerted to Christianity by Syluester Bishop of Rome and by him baptized which by no meanes can be true it being most certaine he was a Christian in the time of Melchiades Syluesters predecessor It is most certainely true sayth Cusanus that Constantine the Emperour was a Christian in the time of Melchiades the Pope as it appeareth by Austine in diuers places especially in his Epistle to Glorius and Eleusius These are proofes more then sufficient that the Edict of donation attributed to Constantine is counterfeit and forged and therefore Melchior Canus writeth thus of it The Lawyers do sufficiently shew that that forme of donation which is attributed to Constantine and commonly carried about is faigned and counterfeit in that they brand it with the disgraceful inscription of chaffe Eusebius Ruffinus Theodoret Socrates Zozomen Eutropius Victor and the other approued authors who most diligently wrote all the acts of Constantine do not onely passe by this supposed donation without making any mention of it but also deliuer that Constantine by his last will and testament so deuided the Prouinces subiect to the Romane Empire among his three sonnes that all Italy fell to the lot of one of them which being so religious a Prince hee would not haue done if he had formerly giuen Italy and all the Westerne part of the Empire to the Pope Ammianus Marcellinus reporteth that Constantine held the Soueraignty of Rome and appointed Leontius to be his Leiuetenant there all Historians do report that sundry Emperours long after the time of Constantines supposed donation ruled raigned as soueraigne Lords in Italy and euen in Rome it selfe Pope Agatho writing to Constantine that called the sixth Generall Councell acknowledgeth that Rome is Imperatoris seruilis vrbs that is the Emperours cittie in all humble and submissiue subiection and it is most euident that in the time of Gregory the first the Emperour held the citty of Rome and gouerned it by a Lord Deputy But some man perhaps will say that the acts of Syluester in which this donation is found are approued by Gelasius and a Synode of Bishoppes and that therefore wee may not doubt of it This allegation is easily answered For as Cusanus rightly noteth it is a very weake and slender confirmation of the actes of Pope Syluester that is found in Gelasius and the Synode of Bishoppes holden by him For Gelasius sayth onely the author of these actes is not knowne and that yet they are read by some Catholikes in the Church of Rome and many Churches by ancient vse imitate the same The writings also sayth hee concerning the inuention of the holy crosse of our Lord and some other writings concerning the inuention of the head of Saint Iohn Baptist are truely but nouell and late reuelations and yet some Catholiques read them But when writings of this kinde shall come into the hands of Catholikes let that sentence of blessed Paul the Apostle be before them Proue all things and hold that which is good Touching Gratian in whom this Charter of Donation is now found Antoninus Arch-bishop of Florence noteth that in the old bookes it was not found And therefore it is rightly noted and distinguished from other things of more credit by the inscription of Pale◅ that is chaffe because there is no good corne in it as Platina obserueth in the life of Iohn the seauenth with whom Contius the authour of a Preface before the Decrees agreeth affirming that those things that are so noted were at the first put into the margent onely and so after crept into the text and that many of them are not found in the most ancient bookes of Decrees And in his Annotations vpon that part of the Decrees where this fayned charter of Constantine is found insinuateth that this Chaffe is not in all bookes of Decrees Touching Isidore the Magdeburgians testifie that in old copyes there is nothing found concerning this supposed donation and the like may be thought of Iuo so that there is no Author of any credit that giueth testimony to this donation and they that doe speake of it speake so differently and vncertainely that from
most blessed ones are who are in that possession it is a great question that the holy Angells are there is no question but concerning holy men departed whether they may be said to be now already in that possession it is doubtfull c. Surely it is maruaile if Saint Augustine escape the censure of Master Higgons who pronounceth it folly to doubt of these thinges Sixtus Senensis saith wee must ciuilly interpret Saint Augustine in these his sayings but Bellarmine saith directly hee sometimes doubted of the place where the soules of the iust are after death and that vpon the 36. Psalme he denyeth them to be there where after the iudgement they shall bee This is that Augustine that Master Higgons in his scurrill and ruffian-like phrase saith was not so easily to bee iaded by me as Ambrose Thinking them all Iades as it seemeth and vnfitte for such a horse-man as hee is to ride on that haue beene doubtfull or found to erre in this point if he doe I would desire to know of him what he thinketh of Irenaus who saith that the soules of men dying shall goe into an invisible place appointed for them by God and shall abide there till the resurrection attending and waiting for it and that after receiuing their bodies and perfitly rising againe that is corporally as Christ rose they shall come into the sight of God Of Iustine Martyr who saith no man receiueth the reward of the thinges he did in this life till the resurrection that the soule of the good theefe that was crucified with Christ entered into Paradise and is kept there till the day of resurrection reward that there the soules of good men doe see the humanity of Christ themselues the thinges that are vnder them and besides the Angels and Diuels Of Tertullian who saith Nulli patet coelum terrâ adhuc salvâ ne dixer im clausa that is heauen is open to none while the earth remaineth safe and whole that I say not shut vp and againe thou hast our booke of Paradise wherein wee determine that euery soule is sequestred apud inferos with them that are in the lower dwellings till the day of the Lord. Of Lactantius who will haue no man thinke that soules are iudged presently after death but that they are all detayned and kept in one common custody till the time come when the greatest iudge shall examine their workes Of Victorinus Martyr who vpon those wordes of Iohn in the Reuelation I saw the soules of the slaine vnder the Altar of God obserueth that in the time of the Law there were two Altars one of Gold within another of brasse without that as heauen is vnderstood by that golden Altar that was within to which the Priests entered onely once in the yeare so by the brasen Altar the earth is vnderstood vnder which is Infernus a region remoued from paines and fire and the resting place of the Saints in which the iust are seene and heard of the vngodly yet they cannot passe one to another Of Bernard whose opinion Alphonsus á Castro confesseth to be as I haue said Sixtus Senensis likewise but thinketh that hee is to be excused with a benigne affection because of the exceeding great number of renowned Fathers of the Church which seemed to giue authority to this opinion by their testimony amongst whom he reckoneth Ambrose for one Lastly of Pope Iohn the 22. who was violent in the maintenance of this opinion These premises considered let the Reader iudge whether Master Higgons had any cause to complaine of want of faithfullnesse and exactnesse in me in that I say that many of the Fathers thought there is no iudgment to passe vpon men till the last day that all men are holdē either in some place vnder the earth or else in some other place appointed for that purpose so that they come not into heauen nor receiue the reward of their labours till the generall iudgement and that many made prayers for the dead out of this conceipt such as that is in Iames his Liturgy that God would remember all the faithfull that are falne a sleepe in the sleepe of death since Abel the Iust till this present time For I doe not make this the ground of the generall practise and intention of the Church in her prayers as this shamelesse companion would make men beleeue SECT 5. FRom the foure Doctors of the Church and the supposed wronges offered to them he proceedeth to shew that I calumniate a worthy person to defend the inexcusable folly of our Geneuian Apostle his meaning is that I wrong Bellarmine to iustifie Calvine but what is the wrong done to the Cardinall Doctour Field saith hee accuseth Bellarmine vniustly of trifeling and sencelesse foolery in the question of prayer for the dead Let the reader take the paines to peruse the place cited by Master Higgons out of my booke and he shall finde him to bee a very false vnhonest trifeling fellow in so saying For first I doe not accuse Bellarmine of sencelesse foolery in the matter of prayer for the dead as hee vntruly reporteth against his owne knowledge but in that he seeketh to calumniate Master Caluine worthy of eternall honor in very childish sort about the name of Merit Caluine saith the Fathers were farre from the Popish errour touching merit and that yet they vsed the word whence men haue since taken occasion of errour therefore saith Bellarm hee dissenteth from all antiquity and acknowledgeth the Romane faith to be the auncient faith religion This is Bellarmines form of reasoning against Caluin if he say any thing which whether it be full of senceles foolery or not I wil refer it to the iudgment of any one that hath his sences Yet notwithstanding M. Higgons goeth on maketh a consolatory conclusion that Bell needeth not to be discontented that I haue thus wronged him seeing I haue likewise vniustly accused the Fathers But if hee may be as justly charged with foolery in his manner of reasoning against Calvin as the Fathers are truely reported to haue holden the opinion imputed to them by me as there is no question but he may I thinke this comfortable conclusion will not be very cordiall vnto him Secondly I doe not say that Bellarmine doth trifle in the question of prayer for the dead as he likewise adding one lye to another sayth I doe but in prouing the doctrine of the Romane Church that now is to be the same with that which was of olde And therefore silly Master Higgons knoweth not what he writeth But that Bellarmine doth indeede whatsoeuer this trifler sayth to the contrary egregiously trifle I will demonstrate to the Reader in such sort that neither Higgons nor any of his new masters shall be able to avoyde it Thus therefore the case standeth Bellarmine in his discourse of the notes of the Church not in the particular question