and Scots not celebrating Easter after the manner of the Roman Church were for that cause separated from her Communion AMONG other examples of ancient Churches which you pretend to haue bene separated from the Church of Rome and yet in state of saluation you produce for your last instance (l) Pag. 156. 157. 158. the Britans and Scots who kept their Easter if not wholly after the Iewish manner yet contrary to the custome of the Roman Church of the whole Christian world Wherin you are guilty of diuers vntruthes For first you speake of this their custome as ancient among the Britans wheras Bede (m) L. 2. hist Anglo c. 19. recordeth that Honorius Pope about the yeare 635. and Iohn the fourth a few yeares after writ to the Britans and Scots letters full of authority and learning for correcting this errorâ— that Pope Iohn in the beginning of his Epistle (n) Extat apud Bin. to 2. pag. 1029. manifestly declareth nuperrime temporibus istis exortam esse haeresim hanc that this heresy was very lately sprung vp among them which Florentius Wigorniensis also testifieth saying (o) In Chron. an 628. Eo tempore c. At that time Honorius Pope did reproue the error of the Quartadecimans in the celebration of Easter sprung vp among the Scots 2. You attribute this custome to the Britans Scots in generall as if they had bene all guilty therof wheras Venerable Bede attributes it not to all the Britans non totis sayth he (p) L. 3 hist cap. 25. not to all of them nor to all the Scots but especially to such as dwelled in Ireland and also to some of them that dwelled in Britany Besides the whole English Church in a manner was free from that error 3. You assume (q) Pag. 190. as granted by vs that the Britans and Scots were schismatically diuided from the Church of Rome but not heretically That their opinion was Hereticall you haue heard Bede testify saying that this heresy was very lately sprung vp among them And who knoweth not that as hath bene proued (r) Chap. 23. the Quartadecimans had bene long before that time anathematized by the three first generall CouÌ„cells of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus and the maintainers of that error registred for heretikes by Philastrius S. Augustine Theodoret and others All which notwithstanding you are not ashamed to say (s) Pag. 157. init that the Britan Church did Orthodoxally in following the Quartadociman rite contrary to the custome of the Roman Church 4. Though the Britans and Scots in this their obseruation did disagree from the rest of the Christian world yet because they did it not with a schismaticall intention but out of simplicity and ignorance of the Ecclesiasticall computation they liuing in a corner of the world whither no learned Catholike Calculator of times had as yet come vnto them the See Apostolike did still retaine them in her communion deeming this error pardonable in them And therfore when the Abbot Colmanus in the famous conference held betweene him and Wilfridus concerning this matter vrged in defence of their custome (t) Apud Bed l. 3. hist. c. 25. that they could not belieue that their Reuerend Father Columba and his successors being men so beloued of God did contrary to the holy Scriptures in celebrating Easter as vntill that tyme they had done Wilfride answeared (u) Ibid. I deny not but that your Fathers were seruants of God and beloued of him whom they loued with a rude kind of simplicity but with a godly intention Nor do I thinke that this their obseruation of Easter was greatly hurtfull vnto them so long as none had come to them to informe them of the decrees of more perfection which they ought to haue obserued For I belieue that if a Catholike Calculator had come vnto them they would haue followed his admonitions c. And therfore sayth Baronius (x) Anno 604. n. 5. It seemed not good to the Catholike Church to blotout of the Catalogue of Saints such men as had liued among them eminent in sanctity and whom God had illustrated with miracles 5. But to proue that the Scottish and Brittish Churches were not subiect to the Roman you alleage (z) Pag. 157. marg Galfridus out of the Centurists saying Dinothus a learned Abbot proued with many Arguments that they owed no subiection to Augustine whom S. Gregory had sent to preach the fayth of Christ to the English This is a falsification which therfore you vent in the Centurists name for Galfridus hath not any one word of the Britans or Scots no-subiection to the Church of Rome but only a passionate and cholerick speach of the Britans not acknowledging any superiority of Augustine ouer them seing he was sent only to the English and that the authority of their owne Archbishop was not taken away by his comming for ought they knew which question of iurisdiction falleth out daily between Bishops euen where the Popes authority is most acknowledged Yea moreouer that both the Britans and Scots acknowledged the authority of the B. of Rome ouer them Galfridus against you and your Centurists beareth witnesse reporting (a) L. 9. c. 12. 11. that on the day of Pentecost at Chester King Arthur being present there was a great meeting of Princes Lords and Bishops for his Coronation And that of three Archbishops which Britaine had at that time of Chester London and Yorke Dubritius Archbishop of Chester being Primate of Britaine and Legate of the See Apostolike did the office of the Church and crowned King Arthur If therfore the Pope had his Legate in Britaine and that no lesse a man then the Primate of all Britaine it is manifest that the Britans acknowledged the authority of the See Apostolike oâ—er them Which is yet made more euident because as your Bale (b) De script Eceles fol. 30. confesseth Dauid that famous Welsh Bishop was canonized by Pope Calixtus the second and not only Bale but S. Prosper (c) Chron. â—n 432.434 Bede (d) L. 1. hist c. 13. 17. and Marianus Scotus (e) Chron. an 430. write that Celestine Pope sent Palladius and Germanus learned Bishops into Britaine to extirpate the Pelagian heresy and to reduce the Scots to true piety and Patricius who had studied Diuinity in Rome and was a man most excellent in learning and sanctity to the Irish and Scots to defend them from the same heresy All which sheweth that aswell the Britans as also the Scots Irish euen before the comming of S. Augustine were in the communion of the Roman Church and that the Pope had supreme care ouer them in spirituall affaires since he appointed them Bishops from Rome Iustly therefore may we conclude that your denying the subirction of the British Scotish and Irish Churches to the See of Rome at the time of S. Augustines coming into this Iland to preach to the English is grounded
that presume to bring in nouelties wherby the Churches are fallen into heresy Wherfore O beloued brethren you as Phisitians cure our soules c. So S. Basil freeing the Westerne Churches especially the Roman to which he chiefly writ both from pride and error Wherfore when you obiect (m) Pag. 197. that S. Basil expressing his griefe said The Westerne Bishops neither knew the truth themselues nor would learne it he taxeth them not of error or ignorance in the true fayth as you falsly interpret but that being ignorant of the Asian affaires they were not carefull to vnderstand them from him and other Catholike Bishops that might rightly informe them but gaue to much credit to the lying reportes of heretikes who slandered him falsly as you haue heard SECT V. Whether S. Hilary excommunicated the Pope TO persuade that S. Hilary B. of Poictou so you write him he being not Bishop of Poictou which is a Prouince of France but of Poictiers the chiefe Citty of that prouince held it not necessary to be in the communion of the B. of Rome you say (n) Pag. 199. S. Hilary no sooner vnderstood that Pope Liberius as your Cardinall hath confessed had subscribed to haue communion with the Arian heretikes but he made bold to excommunicate the Pope out of his communion and fellowship saying I anathematize thee O Liberius and thy fellowes And you adde that Hilary had iust cause to do this (o) Pag. 199. sin 200. because it was alwaies lawfull for any Catholike Bishop to excommunicate any hereticall Bishop that is to abandon his fellowship and communion Here you shew great ignorance in the ordinary principles of Diuinity for to excommunicate a Bishop or any other person is not only to abandon his fellowship and communion els euery man yea euery woman may excommunicate her Bishop or any other person whatsoeuer for she may abandon his fellowship and communion denouncing Anathema vnto him There are two kindes of Anathema the one iudiciary that is to say an Ecclesiasticall Censure pronounced by an Ecclesiasticall Superior against them ouer whom he hath lawfull power and iurisdiction wherby he abandoneth their fellowship and communion and commandeth all others to do the like and withall depriueth them of the benefite of the Sacraments and seruice of the Church This Anathema is an Excommunication And this is so certaine that howbeit euery Protestant Minister may at his pleasure abandon the fellowship and communion of any other man and in that sense denounce Anathema vnto him yet neuer any was so absurdly ignorant as to thinke he could excommunicate any one ouer whom he had not Ecclesiasticall power and iurisdiction And who knoweth not that when you excommunicate Catholikes or others you do not only deny them your owne fellowship and communion but by vertue therof forbid all others to haue commerce and communication with them In this sense the Councell of Nice pronounced Anathema against the Arians in these words (p) Socrat. l. â— hist. c. 5. They that say there was a time when the Sonne was not the Catholike Church anathematizeth them that is depriueth them of the vse of the Sacraments and commandeth all men to renounce their fellowship and communion In this sense S. Hilary neither did nor was so ignorant as to thinke he could denounce Anathema to Liberius being not his Superior and therfore neither did nor could excommunicate him Another kind of Anathema there is which is not iudiciary but only executory wherby euery particular person ecclesiastick or laick man or woman protesteth and declareth to hold for Anathema such as are excommunicated by the Church In this sense S. Hilary pronounced Anathema to Liberius for hauing subscribed to the banishment of Athanasius and therby entred into Communion with the Arians The iudiciary Anathema that is the sentence of excommunication had bene pronounced before by the Councells of Nice and Sardica against the Arians in generall into whose communion Liberius was entred There was no need of pronouncing a new sentence of Anathema against him but of applying the sentence of the Councells vnto him by abiuring and abhorring him as one fallen into the sentence which the Councels had pronounced against the Arians And therfore S. Hilary addes to his Anathema these words For my part saying For my part Anathema to thee O Liberius to shew that he spake not with a iudiciary but with an abiuratory Anathema In this sense Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople (q) Ep. â—ad Hormisd anathematized Timothy the parricide surnamed Aelurus whom Felix Pope excommunicated And In the same sense Iustine the Emperor (r) Euagr. l. 5. c. 4. denounced Anathema to all heretikes condemned by the Church who yet being a secular Prince had not power to excommunicate any I conclude therfore that you confound these two Anathema's and because S. Hilary pronounced an abiuratory Anathema against Liberius inferre ignorantly that he excommunicated him But if for arguments sake I should grant that the Anathema pronounced by S. Hilary was indiciary and that he excommunicated Liberius it would make nothing for you against the Pope for when Hilary pronounced this Anathema Liberius was not Pope but fallen from his Papacy and Felix substituted Pope in his place This I haue said not questioning but supposing Liberius his subscription to the condemnation of Athanasius which yet some haue denied (s) See Bellar. l. 4. de Pontif c 9. But be it true it followeth not that he was therfore a formall heretike in his iudgement belieuing the blasphemous doctrine of the Arians but only interpretatiuè for so much as signing with them the condemnation of Athanasius and out wardly communicating with them he gaue to some that iudged of him by his outward actions occasion to thinke he belieued their doctrine And in this sense only it is in which some Catholike writers condemne him of heresy and in no other For the very Arians themselues neuer pretended that Athanasius agreed in fayth with them but condemned him only for other crimes which they had maliciously composed against him wherin though Liberius for a tyme yeilded outwardly to them yet he was euer most constant in the Catholike fayth as you may see testified by antiquity (t) Apud Iodoc Cocci to 1. l. 7. art 11. Lastly I must aduertise you that wheras you often repeate as an article of our fayth that out of the Roman Church there is no saluarion here (u) Pag. 199. and afterwards (x) Pag. 345. againe you say part of that our article is to belieue that in matters of fayth the iudgment of the Pope is infallible This you proue by imposing on Bellarmine your owne fictions His opinion is that the Popes iudgment in matters of fayth is infallible and that the contrary is erroneous and neere to heresy but he is so farre from affirming this his opinion to be anarticle of fayth or the contrary to be hereticall that he directly sayth (y) L. 4.
Nilus Faber Cornelius Agrippa Erasmus Aenaas Siluius Cusanus and Polydore Virgill M. Brierley in the Aduertisement prefixed before his Protestant Apology hath giuen you in particular and by name speciall warning not to obiect them in your future wrytings against vs as being prohibited authors whose testimonies are of no more authority with vs then your owne Grand imposture or then the testimonies of diuers other Protestants whom in the same worke you alleage against vs. This may serue to giue the reader a taste of your manner of wryting in generall which how vnfitting a man of your place yeares and learning it is the ensuing Chapters will better declare CHAP. III. Whether the now Roman Church hath composed a new Creed Num. 8 YOVR first charge is a that the Roman Church in her Councell of Trent (q Pag. 3. by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth set forth for the confirmation of the same Councell hath composed a new Creed cōsisting of more then twenty articles of the now Roman fayth These your words contayne two vntruthes for neither hath the Councell of Trent composed any new Creed nor is there mention of any such Creed or articles in the bull of Pius set forth for the confirmation of that Councell Among other Bulls of his commonly annexed to the Coūcell there is extant a profession of the Catholike fayth to be made by all Ecclesiasticall persons that haue charge of soules and by all Doctors and professors of whatsoeuer Artand faculty of learning in which they oblige themselues by oath to obserue all the decrees of the Councell of Trent and of all other Oecumenicall that haue bene held in the Church of God and to anathematize all heresies condemned by them This profession you are pleased to call a new Roman Creed of more then twenty articles But if that be a Creed which consisteth of Articles you that haue composed and sweare to a new beliefe which your selues call The 39. articles are chargeable with a new Creed of your diuising But that we call the bull of Pius the fourth a Creed or the profession of our fayth contained in it Articles you cannot shew and therfore your tearmyng it a new Creed is a silly conceypt voyd of truth and a fit foundation for a Grand Imposture And no lesse vntruly you charge vs with adding in our Creed to the article of the Catholike Church the word Roman For that article of our Creed I belieue the holy Catholike Church is set downe without any such addition in all our Missals Breuiaries Primers and Catechismes And that which most of all declareth your cauilling is that in this very profession of our fayth set downe in two different bulls of Pius the 4. the Creed vsed by the Roman Church is read without any addition of the word Roman It is true that out of the Symbol of Creed when we explicate which is the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed we say it is the Roman Church which to be true appeareth euidently by the testimonies of antiquity out of which I haue already proued The Catholike Church and the Roman Church to be tearmes conuertible CHAP. IV. Whether the now Roman Church haue added any new articles to the Creed of the Apostles Num. 9 YOV say (a) Pag. 7. It is a doctrine acknowledged in our owne schooles that the Church hath no power to create new articles of fayth yet afterwards you set downe as our doctrine (b) Pag. 383. out of Philiarchus that the Church hath power to create new articles of fayth and that the contrary is one of Luthers Heresies These two propositions of yours I know not well how to saue from contradiction that I leaue to you In the thing it selfe there is neither difficulty nor difference of opinions among Catholikes for if by new articles of fayth you vnderstand doctrines newly reuealed as none but God can be the author of diuine reuelation so none but God can make articles of fayth and in this sense all Catholike Diuines agree But if by articles of fayth you vnderstand not new reuelations but such Verities as are contayned implicitly and virtually in the word of God but not as yet explicitly declared vnto vs so likewise all Catholike Diuines agree that the Church hath power to make articles of fayth that is to explicate and declare vnto vs some verities of fayth which before were not so clearly deliuered nor vniuersally receaued as such So she hath declared the epistle to the Hebrewes and that of S. Iames to be canoicall and as our learned Roffensis hath well (c) Ad articul 18. Lutheri obserued there are many things of which no question was made in the primitiue Church which yet doubts arising against them are now accleared by the diligence of posterity So in the first Councell of Constantinople the holy Ghost was explicitly declared to proceed from the Father and the Sonne So the three Creeds of Nice of Constantinople S. Athanasius adde by way of declaration many Verities which are not expresly but implicitly or virtually contained in the Creed of the Apostles And so likewise neither the celebration of Easter after the manner of the Roman Church nor the validity of Baptisme ministred by heretikes were of necessary beliefe vntill the Councell of Nice had declared them to be such In this sense the Canonicall law (d) Gloss in Extrau d◠Verb. signif tit 14. c. 4. expresseth that the Church hath power to make articles of fayth to wit by confirming and declaring them to the faithfull This power Luther denied to the Church and Pope Leo the X. in his bull against him condemned him for it But you to iustify Luther falsify Leo. Luthers assertion is this (e) Apud Bin. to 4. pag. 654. Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus non esse statuere articùlos fidei imò nec leges morum seu bonorum operum It is certaine that it is no way in the power of the Church or the Pope to appoint articles of fayth nor lawes of manners or good workes You to iustify Luther and traduce the Pope for condemning this his assertion leaue out the later part of Luthers article adde nouos in the middest and omit prorsus setting it downe thus (f) Pag. 383. Certum est ait non esse in manu Ecclesiae statuere nouos asticulos fidei Luther maintaynes as certaine that it is not in the power of the Church to ordayne new articles of fayth You cut of the later part of his article to conceale the impiety of his Doctrine denying the Church all power of making lawes either to reforme abuses or refrayne men from sinne by the practise of good workes And so likewise your leauing out of prorsus and putting in of nouos is to persuade your reader that the Pope condemned Luther for denying the Church power to coyne new articles of fayth that is to broach new reuelations which is an vntruth
free election and therfore that if the Successors of S. Peter should remoue their See from Rome the Roman Church in that case might erre This opinion sayth Bellarmine (e) L. 4. de Pont. c. 4. is not hereticall nor manifestly erroneous but he holdeth and proueth the contrary namely that the See of S. Peter was fixed at Rome by especiall command from Christ and cannot be remoued from thence and therfore that when the Fathers say The Roman Church cannot erre the word cannot is to be taken simply and absolutely without the caution which you falsly ascribe to him You adde (f) Pag. 273. Bellarmine should haue said with you that the Roman Church cannot erre so long as the ancient and sincere fayth is preserued at Rome which is to say that she cannot erre as long as she erres not Bellarmine was of more iudgment then to proue idem per idem But you say (g) Pag. 276. The list of all the Fathers which Bellarmine in the strength of his learning and iudgment hath produced to guard defend the Monarchy of the Church and B. of Rome is of the Greeke Fathers but thirteene of the Latin not aboue eleuen within the space of the first 600. yeares This is notoriously vntrue for in the two Chapters immediatly preceding he produceth the testimonies of aboue 1340. Fathers in the foure first Generall Councells and that vnder Menas and of 26. Popes the greater part of them glorious Martyrs and the rest holy Confessors as S. Iulius S. Damasus S. Siricius S. Zozimus S. Innocentius S. Leo S. Gelasius S. Gregory Were not all these Fathers that liued within the first 600. yeares which you call the primitiue times But what if Bellarmine had produced no more but thirteene Greeke eleauen Latin Fathers Doth not Cardinal Baronius throughout his learned Annals Doth not Iodocus Coccius (h) To. 1. thesau l. 7. art 4.5.6.7.8 Do not Doctor Sanders (i) Visic Monar tot Clau. Dauid tot and other Catholike writers produce testimonies of Popes Councells and of the most religious Emperors and Kinges that haue liued since Christ in great numbers all of them professing their beliefe of the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope and necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome Why do not you subscribe to so great a cloud of witnesses rather then to Martin Luther and a few Sectaries broaching Nouellisme opposing all Orthodoxe antiquity Lastly to close vp your answeres to the Fathers you produce Tertullian (k) Pag. 277. after his defection into Montanisme calling the Pope The blessed Pope and the chiefe Bishop of Bishops but that he did it by Irony and scorne So indeed sayth Massonius a forbidden author But be it true that he spake it by Irony yet that very manner of speach sheweth it was then the custome of the faythfull to giue those titles to the Pope If Tertullian called him so by Irorny and scorne it was because he was an heretike And so you imitating him cauill at vs for instiling the Pope Your Holinesse which title say you (l) Ibid. being first giuen to Pope Leo for his Holinesse sake and sanctity of life is continued to Popes who haue bene most wicked and retayned only in respect of their functions The case is this Benedict the cleauenth (m) Extrau l. 5. C. Dudum calleth Boniface the eight his Predecessor bona memoria of good memory The glosse sayth If a Pope haue defiled the Church with exactions simonies and filthy speaches he is not therfore to be instiled mal◠memoriae not of euill but of good memory according to the ciuill Law determining that regard is not to be had to what he did but to what it was fit for him to do that is sayth the glosse not to his person but to his dignity for although his person haue offended his dignity hath not and his personall offence is not to redound to the domage of the Church And howsoeuer Prelates haue offended they are Presidents and Fathers of the whole community and therfore to be honored as the Philosopher teacheth also the Ciuill Law calling them Gods for the Excellency of their Order and dignity of their office And for the same cause Kings albeit wicked in their liues are instiled Clara memoria vel Inclyta memoria of famous or renowned memory and Emperors Dina memoria of soueraigne or diuine memory To which I adde (n) Act. 24.25 that S. Paul called Festus President of Iury Optime Fest◠Most excellent Festus and this nor for his Vertue or Honesty for he was a wicked man but for his Office the custome being that all Presidents of Prouinces were so instiled (o) Baron Anno 58. n. 33. All this I suppose you will allow for hauing read most of it in the Glosse you except not against it or if you do your exception is without ground Other Prelates therfore although they be of vicious liues may be instiled Bonae memoriae Kings Clarae vel Inclytae memoriae Emperors Diuae memoriae Temporall gouernors may haue the title of Optimi yea and be called Gods for so you call Kings (p) Serm before his Ma. at Durham pag. 14. The Pope only forsoth who is the Vicar of Christ on earth because it displeaseth you must not be saluted by the title of Your Holinesse whiles he liues nor be said to be Bonae memoriae after he is dead Other gouernors must be honored by reason of their dignities and offices The Pope only must be excepted and Doctor Morton to helpe out the matter must falsify the Glosse making it say that an ill Pope after his death is to be intituled Of blessed Memory which words howsoeuer you (q) Pag. 277. set them downe as of the glosse and in great letters to make your falsification more remarkable are not of the glosse but feigned by you And finally whether an ill Pope after his death be or be not to be intituled Bonae or Malae memoriae what makes it to your intent which is to proue that Saluation may be had out of the Roman Church But if your volume had not bene stuffed with such impertinencies it cold not haue risen to so Grand an Imposture CHAP. XXXVII Of the authority of the Epistles of ancient Popes AS the Arians and other Heretikes haue contemned the Epistles of the Bishops of Rome so all orthodoxe Christians haue euer held them in great veneratiō Eusebius Caesariensis (r) L. 3. hist c. 12. writeth that the epistle of Clement Pope to the Corinthians was so highly esteemed that the custome was to reade it publikely in the Churches which also he reporteth (s) L. 4. hist. c. 22. of the Epistle of Soter Pope And how greatly these Epistles were reuerenced may appeare out of S. Irenaeus who highly commending the Epistle of Clement (t) L. 3. c. 3. setteth downe a summary therof And in like manner Clemens Alexandrinus (u) Serm. l.
Elect of God as the testimonies of your owne Iesuites the iudgment of S. Augustine and S. Chrysostome do confirme This then is your argument Suarez Tolet and Bellarmine for those are the Iesuites you name S. Chrysostome S. Augustine by sheep in the words of Christ obiected vnderstand only the sanctified Elect of God Ergo the Church consisteth only of predestinat An absurd consequence and falsly fathered on these authors who teach that the name of sheep in holy writ is taken sometimes for the elect and sometymes for the reprobate In this text of S. Iohn which you obiect it is taken for the elect for Christ speakes of those sheep to whom he will giue euerlasting life and which therfore no man shall pluck out of his (a) Ioan. 10.28 hand as Suarez rightly (b) L. 3. de auxil grat c. 16. â—â— 18 obserueth but other sheep there are which the infernall wolfe shall deuour such was Iudas and such are all reprobate Christians And if it were true that by sheep in Scripture were vnderstood the elect only yet your consequence is false and the Doctrine contained in it hereticall and such it is held to be by those very authors which you alleage to patronize it Suarez sheweth (*) De tripl virt Theol. part 1. disp 9. 〈◊〉 6. seqq that the Church is a fold contayning both sheep and kids that is both predestinate and reprobate as Christ himselfe hath (c) Math. 25.33 declared And treating there of the sense of this very place of S. Iohn he prooueth that some wolues are in the Church and some sheep out of the Church this I say he proueth out of the words of S. Augustine whom you alleage for the contrary saying (d) Tract 45. in Ioan. According to prescience and predestination how many sheep are without and how many wolues within how many liue wantonly now that will become Christians how many blaspheme Christ who shall belieue in Christ c. And how many prayse God within who will blaspheme him are chast and will become wantons stand now and will fall And he concludeth that these later notwithstanding they be actually in the Church are reprobat and the former though they be actually out of the Church are predestinate All this and much more to the same effect is alleaged by Bellarmine (e) L. 3. de Eocles c. 7. 9. out of Scriptures and Fathers And the same is deliuered by Tolet in that very place which you cite for the (f) Ad c. 10. Ioan. Aunotat 16. contrary for he sayth that as some who did not as yet belieue were sheep and elect so contrarily some that did actually belieue and were sheep were notwithstanding reprobats as Iudas And lastly S. Chrysostome is so far from holding with you that the Church containes only the sanctified Elect of God that he writeth (g) In Psal 39. thus The whole Church consisteth not of perfect men but hath also those that giue themselues to idlenesse and slouth that lead easy and dissolute liues and willingly serue their pleasures And that in the net of the Apostles which is the Church are contayned good and bad (h) Hom. 45. in cap. 12. Math. fishes Which Doctrine he like wise deliuereth in other places of his workes I conclude therfore that you haue wronged Suarez Tolet Bellarmine S. Augustine and Chrysostome fathering your false Doctrine on them But you proceed (i) Pag. 12. saying A third Scripture we find Rom. 1.9 where the Apostle sayth He that hath not the spirit of Christ the same is not his which sheweth that none is truly a Christian but as he is regenerated by the spirit of Christ. But we find this Scripture to make nothing at all for you for you for who euer is regenerated in the Sacrament of Baptisme receiueth some gifts of the holy Ghost which is the Spirit of Christ And as he is truly a man that is borne of Adam by naturall propagation so is he truly a Christian that is borne of Christ in Baptisme by spirituall regeneration for as therby he receaueth fayth so he is inrolled in the number of Christians and made a member of the mysticall body of Christ which is his Church True it is that all members of the Church are not alike those that with fayth haue sanctifiing grace which is the life of our soules are liuing members they that haue fayth without grace are according to diuers opinions tearmed diuersly some say they are dead members some that because they are dead they are not members properly but improperly or equiuocally and therfore rather to be called partes of the Church then members Others say that they are neither members nor partes but as superfluous or corrupt humors in the body of man These opinions though they differ in words yet they agree in this that fayth being the essentiall forme of the Church all the faythfull be they Saints or sinners predestinat or reprobat are contained in the precincts therof euen as all whether members parts or humors of man are contained in the body of man And as for this different manner of speach Turrecremata Canus and others cited by them and here alleaged by you out of Bellarmine for out of him you tooke them call sinners partes of the Church and not members but only equiuocally because as Suarez rightly (*) De trip virtute Theol. p. 1. d. 9. n. 12. obserueth by members they vnderstand only such partes as liue wheras the name of partes may also agree to those that liue not Wherfore they differ only in the names vnderstanding by partes the very same that the holy Councell of Trent and other Diuines do by members And doubtlesse this manner of speach vsed by the Councell is more proper because sinners hauing fayth hope are not voyd of all motion of spirituall life for as fayth is the beginning of iustification so it vniteth the belieuer in some sort vnto Christ Nor doth Costerus whom here you obiect differ from this opinion for that he denyes not sinners to be dead partes or members of the Church he declareth (k) Enchir iâ— contro 6.2 prope fin when speaking of the Bishops of Sardis and Laodicea that were reprehended the one that he was dead in Spirit the other that he was nether cold nor boat but luke-warme wretched miserable poore blind and naked he affirmeth that notwithstanding this they were both still acknowledged to be Bishops and heads of their Churches And a litle after where he sayth (l) Solut. ad obiect Haerâ—t that sinners are in the Church as humors in the body he sayth withall that they are as wythered bowes on the tree Wherfore vnlesse you will haue the Head to be no member of the body and the wythered bowes no partes of the tree you must consesse that your obiecting of Costerus to proue that sinners and reprobates are no partes of the Church is a grand Imposture And
not to remoue it from thence or whether without any commandment from Christ he chose Rome for his See out of his owne free election as he might haue chosen Milan or any other city That he had such a command from Christ is affirmed learnedly proued by (u) De triplici virt Theol. d. 10. sect 3. n. 10. Suarez (x) L. 2. de Pont. c. 12. Bellarmine (y) Institut mor. part 2. l. 4. c. 21. §. Secunda sent Azor and by the greatest part of Catholike Diuines with many forcible testimonies of antiquity According to this opinion which is the more probable pious learnedly proued by Suarez it followeth that the Roman Church euen as Roman is by Diuine institution the See of S. Peter and his Successors and that therfore it is not left free for them to remoue their See from Rome to any other place But to giue you your greatest aduantage be it that S. Peter receaued no such commandment from Christ but that it was free for him to chose for his See either Rome or any other Citty and that his successors may also freely transferre their See from Rome Yet this affoards no help to your cause for though according to this opinion it be no matter of fayth that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman be the Catholike Church yet specificatiuè and absolutely it is for albeit S. Peter might haue placed his See els where yet it is matter of fayth that de facto he placed his See at Rome and that whiles his Successor continueth his See there the Roman Church is de facto the Head Mistresse of all Churches and that whosoeuer is not a member vnited to this Head is out of the Catholike Church This you should haue disproued but wilfully mistake the state of the question and because it is not matter of fayth but of opinion that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman is the Catholike Church you inferre that specificatiuè and absolutely it is not matter of fayth but only of opinion that she is the Catholike Church which is as good a consequence as that an Aethiopian absolutely is not a man because formally as black he is not a man With such arguments you delude ignorant Readers that want learning to discerne your sleights SECT V. Your fifth Argument YOur fifth argument to proue that the Roman Church is not the Catholike Church (z) Pag. 18.19.20 is because there was a Catholike Church which had Apostles Martyrs and Confessors blessed Saints of God before the Roman Church was founded yea and before the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed or the Apostolicall Creed it selfe composed All this though it be granted as true is yet of no force against our Doctrine which is that S. Peter was ordained by Christ Pastor of his whole flocke and therefore Gouernor of the vniuersall Church from whence it followeth that whatsoeuer Apostles Martyrs Confessors or other faythfull liued in the Church of Christ after S. Peter was made Head thereof were members of the vniuersall or Catholike Church subiect to Peter though for a tyme there were no one particular Church which was head of al Churches because S. Peter as yet had not made choyce of any particular seate as afterwards he did at Antioch and therfore the Church of Antioch whiles he sate there was the Head and Mother Church to whom all other Churches were bound to professe vnion and obedience In regard wherof that Holy Pope Innocentius the first greatly commended by S. Augustine (a) Epist. 18. Alexand. Episc Antioch sayth that the See of Antioch had not giuen place to the See of Rome but because what Antioch obtayned only by the way Rome obtayned absolutely and finally To which I adde that if the Successor of S. Peter should now remoue his See from Rome to Milan as S. Peter did from Antioch to Rome not the Church of Rome but that of Milan should be the Catholike Church as the Head and Mother Church of the world But because by the prouidence of God S. Peter fixed his seat left it to his Successors at Rome whiles they continue it there the Roman Church by reason of his See is the Head Mother Church of the world to which sayth (b) L. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus all Churches and all the faythfull from euery place are of necessity to agree by reason of this her more powerfull principality I conclude therfore that you ignorantly or wittingly mistake the state of the question for the Roman Churches being or not being the Catholike Church as the Head and Mother Church of the world no way dependeth on her being founded before or after the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed but vpon being the See in which S. Peter Prince of the Apostles liued and dyed and which he left to his Successors for the Bishop of that See being S. Peters Successor succeedeth him in his supreme authority and that authority maketh the Roman Church the Head of the world which dignity it hath euer enioyed since S. Peter sate there and shall enioy whiles his Successor continueth there which shal be to the end of the world To haue spoken to the purpose you shold haue proued that the Saints which departed this life before the Roman Church was founded were separated from the communion of S. Peter and from the Church of which he was Head which if they had bene they had no more bene Saints then you now are SECT VI. Your sixth Argument YOur sixth Argument is a mere sophisme Al Catholike Diuines accord as in a matter of fayth that the Catholike or vniuersall Church (c) Pag. 20.21.22 mentioned in the Apostles Creed hath a prerogatiue of continuing in the true fayth vntill the end of the world according to Christs promise made to S. Peter Secondly and that the Roman Church whiles the Successors of S. Peter continue their seate at Rome cannot fayle in fayth But that S. Peter fixed his seat at Rome by the commandement of Christ there to remaine to the end of his life and in his Successors to the end of the world although it be a most pious and probable opinion held by the greatest and best part of Diuines yet it is not expresse matter of Fayth because no such precept of Christ appeareth in Scripture or tradition and therfore some Diuines stick not to grant that the fixing of S. Peters See at Rome was a thing proceeding merely from his owne free will and election consequently that it is in the power of his Successors to transport it from Rome to Antioch or any other City In which case as Rome shold not then be the See of S. Peter but Antioch so neither should the Bishop of Rome be the supreme Gouernor of the whole Church nor the Church of Rome the Catholike Church as the Head and mistresse of all others as now
she is but Antioch Nor should she then haue any priuiledge of not erring in fayth as now Antioch hath not since the remouall of S. Peters See from thence But therfore to inferre that the now Roman Church against which you write this Grand Imposture being at this present the See of S. Peter or whiles hereafter she shall remaine the See of S. Peter may erre in fayth is to argue à sensu diuiso ad sensum compositum and to infer that such things as perhaps are possible but neuer shall be are already in being If I should argue thus It may possibly come to passe though it be improbable that the Metropolitan See of England may be remoued from Canterbury to Carlile Ergo the Church of Canterbury is not now the Metropolitan Church of England were not this a sophisme And so is yours Some of our Diuines grant that the See of S. Peter which maketh the Church of Rome the Mother Mistresse of all Churches and secureth her from all error in fayth may be remoued from Rome though there appeare no likelihood therof Ergo inferre you in the opinion of some of your Diuines the now Roman Church is not the Mistresse and mother Church of the world but may now fall from the fayth euen whiles she is the See of S. Peter no lesse then she might if his See were already remoued from thence Who seeth not this Argument to be sophisticall And to sophistry you ioyne fraud for to proue that the Successor of S. Peter hath not his See at Rome by diuine ordinance but only by humane election you (d) Pag. 21. alleage Suarez (e) De trip virt Theol. disp 10. sect 3. n. 10. saying that before the ascension of Christ nothing appeareth of any such ordinance either in Scripture or from tradition Here you breake of leauing out the rest of Suarez words and concealing his Doctrine for in the very same place both before and after these his words which you cull out he expresly affirmeth that it is more pious and probable that Christ after his ascension appearing to S. Peter commanded him to place his See at Rome which he ptoueth by the testimonies of many ancient Fathers and by other Arguments all which you conceale and cite him for the contrary opinion The same abuse you offer to Valentia Bellarmine and Azor. For all these prooue with many testimonies of antiquity and other forcible Arguments that it is of Diuine institution holding it for certaine and the contrary opinion not to be safe though not expresly de fide SECT VII Your seauenth Argument THAT the Successor of S. Peter in the Roman See canonically chosen is Head of the vniuersall Church all Catholikes beleeue as vndoubted matter of fayth But that this indiuiduall person v. g. Vrban the Eight is true Pope and true Head of the Church though the more probable opinion of Diuines hold it also to be of fayth yet diuers others defend that it is only of morall certaynty You not knowing how to solue the arguments of the first opinion otherwise then by rayling against it (f) Pag. 23. fine calling it a Iesuiticall fayth both grosly false wickedly blasphemous assume the second as granted which I with the authors of the first opinion do not grant but deny For the Church proposing vnto vs this indiuiduall man Vrban the eight as true Pope it is not only morally but absolutely and infallibly certayne that in the person of Vrban the eight are found all the conditions of true Baptisme Ordination Election and whatsoeuer els requisite for a true Pope and true head of the Church for as the Church being assisted by the holy Ghost cannot erre in proposing other Verities of fayth so nether in proposing this man to be the true head and lawfull gouernor of the vniuersall Church wherfore our beleefe that this man is true Pope is not humane morall and fallible but diuine and infallible vnlesse you will question the authority of the holy Ghost making it humane and fallible Yea euen in the other opinion though it be no matter of fayth that this indiuiduall man is true Pope yet the Authors thereof hold it to be a Theologicall conclusion so certayne that whosoeuer shall deny it is worthy of flames SECT VIII Your eight Argument YOVR eight argument (g) Pag. 25. 26. 27. is nothing but a repetition of what you haue sayd in the former sections without any addition of new proofes vnlesse to proue your Doctrine be to rayle against ours calling it new false scandalous pernicious hereticall blasphemous and vs periured persons all which being nothing but an empty froath of iniurious words deserue no other answere but contempt CHAP. VI. The Roman Church is the Head and Mother of all Churches IN this matter you wholly mistake the state of the question for when we demand which Church is the Head the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches the question is not which Church was first founded If you speake of priority of tyme or antiquity and call those Churches Mothers of all such as were founded after them we grant that in this sense the Church of Hierusalem is the Mother Church of all Churches and the Roman in the same sense a daughter both to the Church of Hierusalem of Antioch and all others that were founded before her And in this sense the Bishops which had bene present at the first Councell of Constantinople call the Church of Hierusalem the Mother of all other Churches (h) Theodor. l. 5. histor c. 9. But this is not the question for you know and set it downe as our Doctrine (i) Pag. 29. 38. that the Roman Church is called the Mother Church of all Churches because S. Peter was constituted by Christ the ordinary Pastor of the whole Church By which it appeares you know right well that the mother-hood which we attribute to the Roman Church is not priority of tyme but of authority and iurisdiction grounded on the supremacy of S. Peter for as by reason of his transcendent authority ouer the whole flock of Christ which is his Church he was and in his successors is the Father and Head of all Bishops so the Roman Church in which sayth S. Chrysologus (*) Epist. ad Eutych Peter still liueth and gouerneth is the Head and mother of all Churches and vnto which sayth S. (k) L. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus all Churches are necessarily to agree by reason of her more mighty Principality that is to say by reason of the soueraignty and supreme authority of the See Apostolike And in this sense she is called by S. Irenaeus (l) Ibid. and Origen (m) Apud Euseb l. 6. hist c. 12. The most ancient Church and by S. Cyprian (n) De simplicit Praelat The Root the fountayne and head of Episcopall power and The principall Church from whence Priestly vnity began (o) L. 1. ep 3. And from the same ground
it is that S. Maximus Martyr said (p) Spond anno 657. n. 8. All the Churches of Christians had their beginning from the holy Roman Church and the Primates of Africa (q) Ep. ad Theod. Papam that all other Churches were to learne from her as from their natiue fountayne what they ought to belieue and Innocentius the first in his Epistle (r) Epist. 9. highly commended by S. Augustine (s) Epist 106. that from the Roman Church other Churches as springs proceeding from their mother source and running with the purity of their originall through the diuers regions of the whole world are to take what they ought to ordaine And the holy Councell of Chalcedon (t) Epist ad Leonem that the fountaine and source of our religion is from the See Apostolike And finally for diuers other respects the Roman Church is iustly called The most ancient Church as Bozius learnedly proueth (*) Desig Eccles to 1. l. 3. cap. 10. To him I remit you Wherfore the mother-hood of the Roman Church which we defend consisteth in her supreme authority and iurisdiction ouer all other Churches This you should disproue which here you do not but inferre that Hierusalem Caesarea Antioch the Brittish Church the Greeke Church in generall are all Mothers to the Roman because they were founded before her which is a false cōsequent drawne out of a wilfull mistake of the state of the question for though the Church of Hierusalem was founded before that of Caesarea yet who knoweth not that as the famous Councell of Nice (*) Can. 7. hath declared S. Hierome (†) Ep. 61. testifieth and you here confesse the Church of Caesarea was the Metropolitan or mother Church of all Palestine and that both the Church of Hierusalem and all others of that prouince were for aboue foure hundred yeares subiect to her Againe who knoweth not that the Bishops of Caesarea of Hierusalem and of all the East were subiect to the Bishop of Antioch as to their Patriarke notwithstanding that the Church of Antioch was founded after some of the Easterne Churches And who knoweth not that albeit the Church of Antioch was founded before that of Rome it was neuerthelesse subiect to the Church of Rome for why els did Iuuenal Bishop of Hierusalem say (u) In Concil Ephes Act. 4. in the presence of the whole Councell of Ephesus that the ancient custome and Apostolicall tradition was that the Church of Antioch is to be ruled and iudged by the Roman Syr a man of your reading ought to haue knowne that in the mysteries of Christ the yonger are preferred before the elder Abel before Cain Iacob before Esau Iudas before Ruben Dauid before Eliab Salomon before Adonias and so likewise of Christians the Gentils were preferred before the Iewes the Latines before the Greekes and the west before East for as the Apostle sayth (x) 1. Cor. 15.46 that is naturall which is first and spirituall that which is afterward and he that by his birth-right shall exalt himselfe as being the elder shall by the right hand of God be humbled that so the fauors he bestoweth on his Church may be knowne to proceed from no other root but his gracious vocation So we see among the Apostles that although in the opinion of S. Epiphanius (y) Haeresi 51. which is followed by Baronius (z) Anno 32. n. 23. Lorinus (a) In ca. 1. Act. 5.13 Serarius (b) Tract de Apost and many others Andrew were elder then Peter and as S. Ambrose (c) In c. 12.2 ad Corinth sayth followed Christ before Peter yet Andrew receaued not the primacy but Peter And therfore though the Churches of Hierusalem of Antioch and others of the East were founded before that of Rome yet not they but she obtayned the primacy Wherfore you produce in vaine the testimonies of S. Hierome S. Augustine and S. Basil affirming that the Ghospell was first preached at Hierusalem and other partes of the East and that from thence it came into the West for this proueth that the Church of Hierusalem and some others were founded before that of Rome and therfore were mothers to her in antiquity not in iurisdiction and authority But S. Chrysostome say (d) Pag. 30. you affirmeth that S. Iames was the first that obtayned a Bishopricke namely at Hierusalem You ought to haue added that the same S. Chrysostome likewise sayth (e) In Ioan. Hom. vltima that he was made Bishop of Hierusalem by S. Peter mayster of the whole world If therfore Iames was chosen Bishop of Hierusalem by Peter that sufficiently sheweth his authority ouer Iames and the other Apostles And what els did S. Chrysostome signify saying that Iames was made Bishop of Hierusalem by Peter Mayster of the world but that as much as the Bishop of the whole world surpasseth in authority the Bishop of one See so much did Peter surpasse Iames in authority which Euthymius hath also expressed in the same words with Chrysostome And no lesse effectually S. Bernard The rest of the Apostles sayth he (f) L. 2. de consid c. 9. obtayned ech of them their peculiar flocks Iames contented with Hierusalem yelds the vniuersality to Peter And S. Gregory (g) L. 4. epist 38. Peter surely is the chiefe member of the holy and Vniuersall Church Paul Andrew Iohn what were they but heads of particular Dioceses Impertinent therfore is your alleaging of S. Chrysostome to proue that Iames was the first that obtained a Bishopricke at Hierusalem for both he and these other Fathers testify that Peter was Bishop of the whole Church and consequently also of Hierusalem which was a part of the Church And who knoweth not that of all the Apostles S. Peter first preached the Ghospell to the Iewes and also to the Gentils first in the East and then in the West and that by his authority he instituted the three Patriarkcall seats of Rome Antioch and Alexandria by which all other Churches of the world were gouerned and that as Bozius (h) De sign Eccles l. 4. c. 2. 3. obserueth the whole world was conuerted by those which either were sent by S. Peter and his Successors in the Roman See hauing their mission and authority from them or els by such as were made Bishops by them whom S. Peter had ordayned And so likewise wheras here (i) Pag. 33. you make the Church of Caesarea mother to that of Rome who knoweth not that S. Peter founded that Church and made Cornelius the Centurion Bishop therof which therfore remained subiect to S. Peters See Impertinent likewise and fraudulent is your obiection (k) Pag. 34. out of Sozomene (l) L. 3. c. 7. that the Eastern Greeke Churches challenged this prerogatiue in their letters to Pope Iulius that they came from the East who first brought Christian Religion to Rome for if they came from the East their ordination and authority was from S.
Peter And againe those letters were not of Orthodoxe Bishops but of the Arians assembled in their false Councell at Antioch who with an hereticall pride stomaked at the Authority of the Bishop of Rome because as Sozomene there reporteth by the dignity and prerogatiue of his See he had restored to their Church Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria Paul of Constantinople and other Catholike Bishops whom they had deposed and rebuked them sharply for their vniust proceedings against them But yet their writing was more tolerable then yours for though to magnify themselues they alleaged that the Doctors of Christian Religion came first from the East to Rome yet withall they acknowledged (m) Sozom. ibid. that the Roman Church obtayned the prize of honour from them all as hauing bene from the beginning the Metropolitan of Religion A truth which you here conceale and euery where deny But you tell vs (n) Pag. 29. 30. that Bellarmine groundeth the motherhood of the Roman Church on a false principle taken out of the counterfeit epistles of Anacletus which is that all the Apostles had their Episcopall ordination of Pastorship from Peter which principle is denyed by Azor and Suarez Heere you speake vntruly and contradict your selfe for as you confesse (o) Pag. 38. Bellarmine groundeth the monarchie of S. Peter vpon those words of our Sauiour Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock will I build my Church c. And on the same passage as also vpon those other words Iohn 21. feed my lambes feed my sheepe by which Christ made him Pastor of his whole flock not only Bellarmine but all Catholikes with the ancient Fathers ground their beleefe of the Monarchy of S. Peter and of the vniuersall authority and motherhood of the Roman Church Wherfore Bellarmine here alleaged by you out of those passages of Scripture supposeth the supremacy of the Roman Church as vndoubted matter of fayth and from thence inferreth probablie as a singular priuiledge of S. Peter that all the Apostles had theyr Episcopall ordination from him and proueth the same not only out of the epistle of Anacletus which you are pleased (p) Pag. 29. 34. to call counterfeit and bastardly grounding your selfe on the testimony of Cusanus in a prohibited worke and which you know he himselfe hath retracted but out of the expresse testimonies of S. Cyprian of Innocentius the first in his epistles to the two Councels of Carthage and Mileuis of Iulius the first and Leo the Great all which you imposterously conceale This deduction of Bellarmine though it follow probably yet not so necessarily that the authority of the Roman Church any way dependeth theron And therefore other learned Diuines and in particular Azor and Suarez who no lesse firmely beleeued the Roman Church to be the mother of all Churches then Bellarmine did are herein of a different opinion from him holding that the Apostles were not ordayned Bishops by Peter but immediatly by Christ himselfe which say you (q) Pag. 29. 31. they mantayne vpon the oracles of God out of direct Scriptures accompanied with the consent of S. Augustine and many other Diuines And because you would haue vs beleeue that in their opinion none of the Apostles were ordayned by Peter you set downe in a different letter these words as theirs (r) Pag. 30. mitio Mathias had his ordination to the Bishoprick which Iudas lost not by the hands of Peter but by lot immediatly from God and S. Paul his not by S. Peter but by a voyce from Heauen euen immediatly from Christ. But your dealing is insufferable for these words are not theirs but feigned by your selfe and falsly fathered on them And as the words are not theirs so nether is the Doctrine for when they say The Apostles were ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ they speake not of Mathias and Paul but only of those twelue which Christ called and conuersed with in his life tyme as Suarez expressly declareth (s) De trip virt Theol. disp 10 sect 1. n. 7. prouing withall that both Mathias and Paul were not ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ but by the Apostles s their imposition of hands which also for as much as concerneth S. Paul he confirmeth with the testimonies of S. Chrysostome and S. Leo. Againe whereas you say they mantayne that the Apostles were ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ out of direct Scriptures accompanied with the consent of S. Augustine you cannot be excused from an vntruth for albeit Suarez in proofe of his opinion alleage the glosse vpon those words of the Apostle God placed in his Church first Apostles c. yet he neither vrgeth these words of S. Paul nor any other text of Scripture to that purpose nor any testimony of S. Augustine sauing one out of the booke of Questions of the old and new Testament which you ought not to regard because when it is alleaged against you you reiect it with contempt (t) Pag. 50. marg as hereticall contrary to S. Augustine but because you conceaue that here it makes for your purpose you will haue it to be S. Augustines So inconstant and contradictorious are you to your selfe And I must here also aduertise you of your absurd manner of arguing whiles you frame a syllogisme (u) Pag. 30. fin 31. assuming for your Maior proposition out of Bellarmine that all the other Apostles were ordayned Bishops by S. Peter and out of Suarez Azor for your Minor that all the other Apostles were not ordayned by S. Peter which being two contradictories as there is no man so senselesse that wil defend two opinions playnly contradictory so there is no man so foolish that will grant both the premises of this your syllogisme which yet he must do that will allow your argument to be good He that will defend Bellarmines opinion will deny your Minor and he that will hold with Azor and Suarez will deny your Maior and so your consequent in both the opinions is false for what els can a consequent be that is inferred out of two premises contradictory to themselues Moreouer you say (x) Pag. 34. fine 35. The nation of Brittayne by our owne accounts receaued the Ghospell Cardinall Baronius and Suarez acknowledging thus much out of most ancient records by the preaching of Ioseph of Arimathia in the 35. yeare of Christ two yeares before Peter did found the Church of Antioch where he was seated 7. yeares before he founded the Church of Rome that is to say in Brittany was planted a Church nine yeares before there was any Church in Rome and hereby so much her elder sister So you not without ignorance and falsehood for you set downe this acknowledgment in a different character as the words of Baronius and Suarez which yet are not theirs nor of any of the other authors whom you name but your owne fiction They indeed acknowledge that Ioseph of Arimathia came into Brittany but that his coming
in a very few words cut off and dismembred from their contexture whereas to shew your finistrous dealing the whole context must be set downe as it lyeth Yet some of them I will present to the readers view by which he may make coniecture of the rest 1. You begin with Baronius saying (p) Pag 38. When Luther Caluin and others aduentured to expound this of Christ and of fayth in him as the Sonne of God your two grand Cardinals oppose What do they oppose The one say you speaking of Baronius opposeth his owne passion calling it impudent madnesse in Protestants to expound the Rock to signify Christ So you vntruly and sundry wayes abusing Baronius for in that very place (q) Anno 33. n. 19. seqq he expressly affirmeth Christ to be the Rock on which the Church is built and a little before (r) Anno 31. n. 24.25.26 he had professedly proued the same out of the Syriack in which our Sauiour spake and shewed by the testimonies of Fathers that as Christ is the primary Rock or foundation on which the Church is built so he communicated to Peter his owne name of a Rock and the honor of being next to himselfe the secondary and ministeriall foundation in the structure of his Church And as witnesses of this truth he alleageth Tertullian S. Basil S. Hierome S. Leo Hypolitus Opiatus expressly affirming that the name of Cephas signifieth a Rock and is the same that Petrus or Petra which he further proueth (s) Anno 33. out of the testimonies of S. Cyprian Tertullian Origen S. Epiphanius S. Hilary S. Hierome S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Cyril S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome S. Leo and of the Councell of Ephesus all of them affirming that Christ by Rock on which he was to build his Church vnderstood S. Peter And this they teach in as plaine and effectuall words as either Baronius or any Catholike liuing at this day is able to expresse And as Baronius citeth the words of these Fathers so he might of the rest for they were of the same beliefe as likewise all the generall CouÌ„cels which to auoid prolixity he omitteth but yet expresseth their doctrine in generall in these words All the Ecclesiasticall Orthodox writers that haue liued since the aforesaid Fathers alâ— the Synods that euer haue bene lawfully assembled in the hely Ghost haue no lesse constantly and ingeniously professed the same truth to wit that Peter is by Christ our Lord made the foundation of the Church By this it appeares how vntruly you say that Barenius opposeth his owne passion against the exposition of Protectants denying Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built since he confuteth it with the testimonies of all the Fathers of all generall Councels and of all Orthodox writers You by saying he opposeth his owne passion would persuade your readers that he had nothing els to say against their exposition but only to call it Impudent madnesse Whether he might not with reason haue called it so iudge your for what els can it be to deny that to be the true sense of our Sauiours words which all Fathers Councels haue professed to be the true and lawfull sense of them But you to haue a better colour of inueighing against Baronius say that he calls the exposition of Protestants Impudent madnes which is not true for he hath not the word impudent that 's your addition to his text 2. Hauing thus wronged Baronius you passe to Bellarmine saying (t) Pag. 38. that he to proue Peter to be the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church obtrudeth the consent of our owne schoole saying that by Rock it meant Peter it is the common opinion of all Catholikes He sayth so indeed but sayth he nothing els doth he not proue it out of twenty seuerall passages of the new Testament so expounded by the ancient Fathers Doth he not proue it out of the agreeing consent of the most famous Doctors aswell of the Greeke as of the Latin Church If this be to obtrude the consent of our owne schoole then your selfe being the iudge our schole consisteth not only of all the Catholikes of later ages but of Christ of his Apostles of his Euangelists and of the ancient Fathers of the Greeke and Latin Chuurch for all these Bellarmine alleageth These we acknowledge to be our schoole and from these maysters we haue learned our Doctrine And yours being contrary to this it is soon vnderstood out of what schole from what Maister you and your grand Tutors Luther and Caluin haue learned it 3. Hauing thus handled Baronius and Bellarmine you passe to Roffensis our learned Bishop of Rochester who in tyme of K. Henry the eight writ in defence of this Doctrine against Luther and sealed what he writ with his bloud Of him you say (u) Pag. 38. fin p. 39. he approueth the same exposition that Peter is the Rock on which the Church is built saying In this truth triumpheth as though it were as cleare as the Sunne which sunne-shyne we Protestants alas aur blindnesse cannot discerne but rather iudge that it hath bene and is mistaken by you for moone-shine through some defect in your faculties of sight So you taunting that learned Bishop and with him all Catholikes telling vs of his insultation but not without imposture for the insultation is not his but Luthers who though he bring nothing against this exposition as Roffensis sheweth foolishly insulteth vpon the Pope the ancient Fathers and all Catholikes for expounding Peter to be the Rock Adeste huc c. Come hither Pope sayth (x) Art 25. Luther and all you Papists melt and cast all your studies into one if perhaps yee be able to vnty this knot At least this authority stands victorious triumphant against you This insultation of Luther it is which Roffensis iustly retorteth on him Thou sayth (y) Adart 25. Luthert he to Luther vpbraydest these things to the Orthodox members of the Catholike Church and I will returne thee thine owne words Come hither Luther with all thy Lutherans cast all your studies into one and yet you shall neuer euince but that Christ foretold truth when he said he was to build his Churh vpon a Rock namely Peter This authority stands victorious against you and triumpheth and shall triumph ouer you And how true this speach of Roffensis is who knoweth not for in other Bishopricks euen in the greatest Patriarchall seates there haue bene many heretikes and not a few of them Arch-heretikes as in the See of Hierusalem Iohn the Origenist Salustius Arsenius Heraclius Hilarius In the See of Antioch Paulus Samosatenus Eulalius Euzoius Ioannes Domnus Petrus Gnapheus Macarius In the See of Alexandria Gregorius Sergius Cappadox Lucius Dioscorus Timotheus AElurus Moggus and others In the See of Constanâ—inople Macedonius Acacius Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus Petrus Aâ—astasius Anthymus Theodorus and others And who knoweth not that
what the most holy and learned Doctors of Gods Church from tyme to tyme haue done And as out of this passage of S. Paul we shew you that the fayth of the Roman Church was pure in the Apostles tyme so we require of you as S. Augustine (f) L. de vnto Eccles c. 12. 13. did of the Donatists to shew vs out of Scripture that after 600. yeares she was to fall from the true fayth as you pretend her to haue done Let them sayth S. Augustine reade vs this in the Scripture and we yeild but if they reade not this in the Scripture but seeke to persuade it by their contentions wrangling I belieue those things which are read in the holy Scriptures but I belieue not those which are affirmed by vaine heretikes And in requiring this at your hands we require no other prose for the truth of your Protestant Church fayth but what we are able to shew for ours for that the Roman Church cannot erre in sayth I haue already proued (g) Hoc cap. sect 1. 2. out of Scriptures and Fathers which therfore conuince her to be the true Catholike Church in which the spirit of truth dwelleth for euer (h) Ioan. 14.16 And that the Catholike Church the Roman Church are termes conuertible denoting one and the same thing hath also bene proued (i) Aboue Chap. 1. sect 3. But because you seeme to thinke that out of this text of S. Paul it cannot be proued that the fayth which S. Peter deliuered to the Romans is hereditary to the Church of Rome or that the Catholike fayth and the Romen fayth are all one it will not be amisse to let you heare what the ancient Fathers the best interpreters of Scripture haue belieued in this point That holy and renowned Martyr S. Cyprian (k) L. 1. ep 3. out of this text proueth that the Roman Church cannot fall from that fayth which she once receaued They to wit the Nouatian heretikes hauing set vp a false Bishop presume to carry letters from Schismatikes and heretikes to the chayre of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praysed by the mouth of the Apostle and to whom vnfaithfulnes can haue no accesse If vnfaithfulnes can haue no accesse to the RomaÌ„ Church it followeth that she retaineth still the same fayth which was commended by S. Paul and that whosoeuer belieueth at this day as she belieues is free from all error in fayth The same is confirmed by an other testimony of the same Father who writing to Cornelius Pope and diuers of the Romans suffering banishment in the persecution of Decius and praysing their constancy and fayth sayth (l) Ep. 57. It was fore-seene in spirit and prophetically foretold by the Apostle My dearest brethren whiles you are of one hart and one voyce it is the confession of all the Roman Church that fayth hath shined in you which the Apostle praysed He did euen then foresee in spirit this prayse of your vertue and strength of your constancy and by prediction of future things gaue testimony of your desertes and commâ—nding the parents incouraged their Children With S. Cyprian accordeth S. Hierome When sayth he to Demetrias (m) Ep. 8. thou wast litle and the Bishop Anastasius of happy and holy memory gouerned the Roman Church a cruell tempest of heretikes risen out of the Easterne parts attempted to pollute and corrupt the sincerity of that fayth which had bene commended by the mouth of the Apostle but this personage Pope Anastasius rich in a most plentifull pouerty and in an Apostolicall care brake the pestilent head and stopped the hissing mouth of that Hydra And because I feare yea haue heard say that the buds of this most renemous plant do still liuâ— and spring vp in some I thought it my duety to admonish thee in a deuout zeale of Charity that thou keepe fast the fayth of S. Innocentius his sonne and successor in the Apostolicall chayre And writing to Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria (n) Ep. 68. Know that we haue nothing in greater recommendation then to conserue the statutes of Christ and not to transgresse the bounds of our Fathers and alwayes to haue in mynde the Roman fayth praysed by the mouth of the Apostle wherof the Church of Alexandria glories to partake And impugning Ruffinus his errors as being contrary to the Catholike fayth (o) Lib. 1. Apol aduers Ruffin Know thou that the Roman fayth commended by the Apostle receaues not such delusions though an Angell should denounce otherwise then it hath hene once preached it cannot be altered being fensed by Pauls authority If therfore S. Hierome be to be credited the Roman fayth in his tyme was conserued pure as it was preached and cannot be altered as you pretend it to haue bene since that tyme. And therfore as it were speaking to you (p) Ep. 6. ad Pammach Ocean he further sayth Who-euer thou art that auouchest new sects I pray thee haue respect to the Roman eares spare the fayth which was commended by the voyce of the Apostle And to Paula and Eustochium (q) Proem lib Comment in ep ad Galat. Will you know how the Apostle hath noted euery prouince with their proprieties the fayth of the people of Rome is praysed where is so great concourse to Churches and to Martyrs sepulchers c. Not that the Romans haue any other fayth then the rest of the christian Churches but that in them there is more deuotion and simplicity of fayth To which place of S. Hierome the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas alluding sayth (r) In vers 8. cap. 1. ad Rom. The Romans are commended for their fayth because they receaued it easily and perseuered in it constantly from whence it is that to this day are shewed very many signes of their fayth in the visitation of holy places as S. Hierome sayth vpon the Epistle to the Galathians And a litle after The Apostle reioyceth and giueth thankes to God for their fayth not only for their sake but for the profit that followed therof because they being Lords of nations other countreys were moued to belieue by their example for as the Glosse sayth The inferior doth readily what he sees done by his Superior which last words are also of S. Ambrose And S. Augustine speaking of Pelagius the Arch-heretike (s) L. 2. de peccat orig cont Pelag. c. 8. sayth He deceaued the Palestine Councell and therfore seemeth to haue bene absolued there But he was not able to deceaue the Roman Church though be endeauored to do is because the most blessed Pope Zozimus called to minde what opinion Innocentius his predecessor worthy to be imitated had of his proceeding and be considered likewise what iudgment the fayth of the Romans worthy of prayse in our Lord did make of him for he perceaued them with vnited endeauors to
it selfe but one Church gouerneth another as the Metropolitan doth the Suffragans the Roman Church as being the Head and Mother Church ruleth all others of the world Nor is this explication of lesse force becauss he sayth that she gouerneth in the region of the Romans for he sayth it not to limit her gouerment but to expresse the place in which she is seated and from whence she gouerneth all other Churches I conclude therfore that by calling her the Church that gouerneth and not limiting her gouerment to anyone Church or nuÌ„ber of Churches he declareth her to be Head Gouernesse absolutely of all Churches for as S. Bernard speaking of this subiect sayth (m) L. 2. de consider at Where there is no limitation nothing is excepted And in this sense Theodoret long before had said (n) Ep. ad Leon. The Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the whole world This to be the genume sense of S. Ignatius his words Casaubon and you peraduenture did see and therfore to giue an expedite solution you reiect the whole Epistle saying (o) Pag. 100. marg No man skilfull in Greeke would belieue it to be written by S. â—gnatius But this solution is exploded by Euscbius (p) L. 3. hist. c. 30. and S. Hierome (q) L. de Scriptor who might be Casaubons and your Maysters in Greeke and yet affirme S. Ignatius to be the Author of this Epistle and transcribe a part therof yeÌ„t to be found in it as also doth S. Irenaeus (r) L. 4. aduers haeres apud Baron anno 109. to shew the admirable spirit and feruor of that holy Bishop Hauing proposed these arguments of Casaubon you obiect out of your owne obseruations (s) Pag. 100. that S. Ignatius exhorting the Trallians vnto obedience to Bishops instanceth equally in Timothy S. Pauls scholler as in Anacletus Successor to S. Peter Answere You may by the like argument proue that S. Ignatius equalleth Priests in authority with Bishops for exhorting the Trallians to obedience he instanceth as well in Priests as in the Bishop Obey sayth he (*) Ep. ad Trallianos the Bishop the Priests Who then seeth not your argument to be a childish Sophisme SECT VI. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church I Renaeus say you (t) Pag. 100. for direction in the right of Traditions referreth as well to Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna as to Linus Bishop of Rome Tertullian also to secure Christians in the Doctrine of the Apostles prescribeth vnto them that they consult with the Mother Churches immediatly founded by the Apostles naming as well Ephesus in Asia and Corinth in Achaia as Rome in Italy and for the persons mentioning as well Polycarpe ordayned by S. Iohn as Clemens by Peter The like argumeÌ„t you make out of Vincentius Lyrinensis But all of them imposterously and against your selfe And first to begin with S. Irenaeus these words Discite ab Apostolicis Ecclesijs Habetis Romae Linum which you alleage as of S. Irenaeus (u) L. 2. c. 3. I find not in him It is true that both he and Tertullian teaching the Christians of their tyme to auoyd heresy warned them that the true fayth was to be learned from the Apostolicall Churches that is from the Churches founded by the Apostles themselues or by Apostolicall men as Timothy Polycarpe and other their disciples that preached the same fayth they learned from the Apostles their Maysters But withall they taught them that the chiefe Church they were to adhere vnto and by whose authority they were to confound all Heretikes was the Roman Church All men sayth S. Irenaeus (x) L. 3. c. 3. may behold the tradition of the Apostles that is the fayth deliuered by them to their Successors in euery Church if they be desirous to heare the truth and we can number the Bishops that were made by the Apostles in Churches and their Successors euen vnto vs who neither taught nor knew any such thinge as rauing heretikes do broach c. But because it were a long businesse to number the Successions of all Churches we declare the tradition of the most great most ancient and most knowne Church founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which tradition and fayth it hath from the Apostles coÌ„ming to vs by Succession of Bishops and thereby we confound all them that any way ether by euill complacence of themselues or vaine-glory or blindnesse or ill opinion do gather otherwise then they ought Lo here how Catholikes in S. Irenaeus tyme did confound all heretikes by the fayth of the Roman Church and by the Succession of Bishops in that See And he yeldeth the reason saying (y) Ibid. for to this Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality all Churches must necessarily agree that is to say all the faythfull of what place soeuer in which Church the tradition and fayth of the Apostles hath bene alwayes conserued And in confirmation of this he reckoneth by name all the Popes from S. Peter to Eleutherius who at that tyme gouerned the Church (z) Ibid. And by that orderly and neuer-interrupted Succession he proueth the Roman Church to haue conserued vnto his daies the fayth pure and entyre as it was preached by the Apostles By this Succession that Doctrine and truth which the Apostles preached in the Church hath come to vs And this is a demonstration conuicing that it is one and the same quickening fayth which from the Apostles tyme vntill this day is conserued and delinered in truth And againe relating to this place and speaking of the same Succession of Bishops in the Roman Church which he calleth the principall Succession he declareth all those that withdraw themselues from it to be Schismatikes or heretikes They that are in the Church sayth he (a) L. 4. c. 41. ought to obey those Priests which haue their Succession from the Apostles which togeather with the Succession of their Bishoprikes haue receaued the assured grace of truth according to the good will of the heauenly Father And we ought to hold suspected all others that withdraw themselues from the like Principall Succession and ioyne togeather in some other place We ought I say to hold them as heretikes of a peruerse iudgment or as Schismatikes and selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes or els as Hypocrites that worke for lucre and vaine-glory If then S. Irenaeus in his dayes thought it an argument sufficient to conuince all Heretikes that they had fallen from the true fayth preached by the Apostles because they had fallen from the Succession of Bishops in Peters See to which all the Churches and faythfull of the world must necessarly agree how much more conuincing is the same Argument against Protestants to whom we shew not the Succession of twelue Popes in S. Peters See as S. Irenaeus did to the heretikes of his tyme but almost of 240. You were not ignorant of the force
meanes like a prudent and solicitous Pastor to worke both partes to an accord and establish peace in the Church But finding the Emperor and the Easterne Bishops violent in the prosecution of their decree and that the Bishops of Venice and the regions adioyning as also those of Ireland following his opinion relying on his authority had condemned this Councell of Constantinople and that the Church therby was in danger to be rent in sunder with Schisme and on the other syde considering that the subiect of that Contention was no matter of fayth and neither the one part nor the other any way repugnant to the Councell of Chalcedon as S. Gregory hath noted (y) L. 3. ep 37. but a thing of it selfe indifferent he altered his opinion and yelded to confirme this decree purchasing to himselfe that commendation which S. Augustine (z) Ep. 162. giues to the most famous Gouernors of Gods people both in the old new Testament which is that They tolerate for the good of vnity that which they hate for the loue of equity and imitating the example of S. Leo the great who testifies of himselfe (a) Ep. 14. that for the loue of peace he yelded to confirme the ordination of Maximus B. of Antioch which Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople without any example against the Canons had presumptuously vsurped to himselfe Nor can Vigilius herein be argued of leuity for if he altered his mind he did it vpon iust causes for the auoyding of Schisme and following the example of S. Paul who hauing first giuen his voyce for the abolishing of circumcision (b) Act. 15.11 afterwards vpon iust cause circumcised Timothy (c) Act. 16.3 and yet againe reprehended Peter that by his dissimulation he induced the Gentiles to circumcision and other Iewish ceremonies (d) Gal. 2.11 14. You to proue the no-necessity of subiection to the Pope obiect the standing out of the Easterne Bishops against Vigilius (e) Pag 123. 124. But you might by the like Argument proue that subiects are not bound to obey their Prince because some of them stand out in rebellion against him And as litle to the purpose is your telling vs (f) Pag 123. fin that those Bishops condemned all them that defended the Three Chapters for contrarily we tell you that the Bishops of the West in their Councell at Aquileia condemned all those Bishops and their Councell at Constantinople and had more right to do it then the Easterne Bishops to condemne them for they did it in defence of the Popes authority whose opinion they followed Your vrging (g) Pag. 123. the persecution which Iustinian raised against Vigilius to bring him to confirme the decree of the Easterne Bishops maketh wholly against you for why did both he and the Bishops themselues vrge Vigilius so â—uch to confirme their decree but because they knew that no decree of any Councell can be of force vnlesse it be approued by the See Apostolike (h) See this proued aboue Chap. 17. sect 6. Finally the Popes authority 〈◊〉 effectually proued out of this Councell for as much as by vertue of Vigilius his confirmation it hath obtained the force of a lawfull Councell and deserued the title of the fifth generall wheras without his confirmation it would not haue bene receaued by the Church more then that of Ariminum or the second of Ephesus which the See Apostolike hath reiected And the same is confirmed by Eutichius Patriarke of Constantinople who though he prefided in this Councell yet acknowledged the right of presiding not to belong to himselfe but to Vigilius when inuiting him to the Councell he sayd (i) Ep. ad Vigil in quinta Syn. Collat. 1. Our desire is to haue the Three Chapters examined your Blessednesse presiding ouer vs. SECT IV. Doctor Mortons glosse vpon the Word Obedience TO conclude your discourse of the fifth generall Councell as vntruly ignorantly as you began you say (k) Pag. 124. Idle and vaine is your obiection out of that Synod from one word Obedience which they professed to the Catholike See by not discerning betwene a logicall and a morall obedience for they promised obedience to that See in all her orthodoxe and reasonable perswasions but not to her peremptory commands and conclusions for you may obey S. Augustine by subscribing to his iudgment without submitting to his iurisdiction So you where first you ignorantly make this profession of obedience to the Roman Church to be of the fiâ—â—h generall Councell and alleage Bellarmine for your author who expresly sayth that they are words of the Synod held vnder Menas before the fifth generall Councell 2. Your glosse vpon the word Obedience is idle and false for you wrest it to an improper signification I deny not but that the words of Obedience and Command may be taken improperly as if when your equall or inferior requests you to do a fauor for him or perswades you to your owne good you answeare I will obey your commands vnderstanding by his Commands his requests and persuasions But that the B. of Rome as being gouernor of the vniuersall Church hath true power and authority to Command according to the most first and proper signification of the word and that the greatest Bishops Councels haue acknowledged in themselues obligation to obey in the same sense hath bene already proued (d) Chap. 18. sect 1. False therfore is you glosse that this Councell acknowledged not in themselues obligation to obey the B. of Rome nor in him authority to command but only to persuade You defend an ill cause which vpon no other ground but only to excuse your disobedience to the See Apostolike inforceth you to wrest the words of the Councell to an improper signification And as your glosse vpon the word Obedience is false so is it repugnant euen to common sense for let a generall Councell be called of all the Orthodox Bishops in the world let them condemne an Arius an Eutyches or a Pelagius if your glosse may be allowed any of these heretikes or any other neuer so impious may refuse to submit himselfe and obey their decrees saying He will obey them in all their Orthodoxe and reasonable persuasions but not in their peremptory commands and conclusions and so obey them in nothing at all For what heretike will not say that the decrees of a generall Councell against his heresy are not Orthodoxe and reasonable persuasions but peremptory commands and conclusions Cold this euasion iustify Arius his disobedience or excuse him from heresy No and so neither can your glosse iustify your cause or satisfy any man of iudgment And as your glosse is false so is your dealing imposterous for the words of the Councell truly alleaged by Bellarmine out of whom you cite them are Apostolicam Sedem sequimur obedimus ipsius communicatores communicatores habemus condemnatos ab ipsa nos condemnamus We follow and obey the See Apostolike
Apostles And wheras you (r) Pag. 131. appeale to our consciences and bid vs in all our reading shew vnto you if we can that Polycrates and other Asian Bishops so excommunicated by Pope Victor were held by any other Catholike Bishops of those tymes to be therby without the state of saluation we contrarily appeale to the conscience of any christian man whether it be not damnable doctrine to mantaine as you do that these Qartadeciman heretikes after they knew themselues to be excommunicated by the Pope and anathematized by so many Councels if they repented not but persisted obstinatly in the defence of their heresy cold be in state of saluation And lastly wheras you add (s) Pag. 131. that wee full well know that S. Hierome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiasticall writers numbred Polycrates among those who did aduance the Catholike fayth we know that you speake ignorantly and vntruly for S. Hierome in that his Catalogue doth not only number Catholikes but also diuers heretikes that writ of Ecclesiasticall affaires as Eusebius Caesariensis whome the same S. Hierome (t) Apol. aduers Ruffin l. 1. cals The ring-leader of the Arians And so likewise he numbreth Nouatianus Donatus and Photinus whom in that very Catalogue he acknowledgeth not only to be heretikes but authors and propagators of seuerall heresies And in no other condition doth he number Polycrates whom he commendeth not for aduancing the Catholike fayth as you affirme but hauing set downe a piece of his epistle written to Pope Victor in defence of his error sayth He reports it to shew the wit and authority of the man where by authority he vnderstands not authority of right but of fact that is the credit which Polycrates had among the Quartadecimans CHAP. XXIV Doctor Morton in opposition to the Roman Church defendeth the Hereticall Doctrine of Rebaptization FIRMILIANVS B. of Caesarea in Cappadocia with other Asian Bishops out of their great hatred to heresy decreed in their Councells of Iconium Synnada that Baptisme giuen by Heretikes was inualid and therfore that Heretikes returning to the Catholike Church were to be baptized a new This Doctrine from Asia crept into Africa and Agrippinus B. of Carthage hauing layd the first grounds therof Cyprian with other African Bishops afterwards imbraced the same so far that for the authorizing therof they assembled a Councell of 80. Bishops at Carthage All which notwithstanding that doctrine as being contrary to the tradition and practise of the Catholike Church was forbidden by Stephen then Pope of Rome in these words Nihil innouetur sed seruetur quod traditum est Let no innouation be made but that obserued which hath come by tradition Firmilianus with other Bishops of Asia notwithstanding this prohibition persisted still in their error and were for that cause excommunicated by Stephen Wherat Firmilianus storming in his fury spued out reprochfull and contumelious words against him But Cyprian although he defended the same error yet not as a doctrine of fayth nor condemning the contrary nor censuring the Pope or the rest that defended it as any way guilty of Heresy for as S. Augustine writing against the Donatists and excusing Cyprian (u) L. 2. de Bapt. t. 18. l. 2. c. 4. sayth If he held that opinion it was before it was condemned by a a generall Councell to which he would most easily haue submitted his iudgment if any such had bene held in his tyme. And moreouer if he held it it was with so great temper that as both he himselfe (x) Ep. ad Iuba in Conc. Carthag and S. Augustine (y) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18. 19. l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9 alibisaepe for him testifieth for the defence therof he neuer forsooke the communion of the Roman Church but as S. Peter dissented from S. Paul concerning the circumcision of Gentils newly conuerted and yet both of them still remayned in Catholike vnity and peace so likewise though Cyprian touching rebaptization differed in opinion from Stephen yet he still remayned in communion with him And therfore when the Donatists defended their heresy by the authority of Cyprian and his Councell S. Augustine answeared (h) Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 32. l. 2. c. 31. alibi saepe that Cyprians patronage could not auaile them because they were out of the communion of the Roman Church in which Cyprian liued and dyed This is the controuersy as it passed betweene Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and Stephen Pope briefly related And you in obiecting it against the Popes authority shew impiety folly and falshood Impiety 1. In taking part with Firmilianus Cyprian in their opposition to Pope Stephen and approuing their doctrine which you know to be erroneous that soone after being condemned by a generall Councell it hath euer since bene held for an absolute heresy not only by Catholikes but also by Protestants And doth not S. Augustine say (i) L. 2. de Bapt. c. 2. that albeit Cyprian Bishop Martyr were a man of great fame and merit yet not of greater then Peter the Apostle and Martyr in whom the principality of the See Apostolike was so eminent which sheweth that Cyprian ought to haue borne respect to Stephen Pope sitting in the See inuested in the authority of Peter Prince of the Apostles And doth he not shew (l) L. 2. Cont. Crescon c. 32. that Cyprian erred herein and that the Epistles which he writ of this subiect are of no force because the contrary was decreed by the authority of the whole Church which is to be preferred before the authority of Cyprian or of any one man whatsoeuer And doth he not (m) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 23. seqq learnedly confute the Epistle which Cyprian writ to Pompeius in defence of his error And wheras you to iustify Cyprian obiect (n) Pag. 134. that he gathered a Councell of 87. Bishops which concluded contrary to the Pope and his Councell celebrated in Italy you know that S. Augustine doubted (o) L. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. whether any such Councell were euer held and if it were whether the greater part of the Votes were not against Cyprian because the Donatists could reckon but 50. Asian and 70. African Bishops that adhered to Firmilianus and Cyprian (p) S. Aug. cont Crescon l. 3. c. 3. wheras many thousands held with Stephen Pope against them And the same S. Augustine (q) L. 6. de Bapt. per tot answeareth and confuteth seuerally euery one of the verdictes of the Bishops which were said to be giuen in that Councell assembled by Cyprian 2. You cannot be excused from impiety in obiecting (r) Pag. 137. against the Popes authority the words which Firmilianus and Cyprian in their passion let slip from their mouthes against Stephen for S. Augustine (s) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 25. held them vnworthy to be mentioned and couered them with this excuse The things which
ignorant that the custome is that we be first written vnto that from hence may proceed the iust decision of things If therfore any suspicion were conceaued against the Bishops there it ought to haue bene referred hither to our Church And therupon he denounceth to them that in condemning Athanasius without expecting his sentence they had done contra canones against the Canons namely of the Nicen Councell which he setteth downe in his second Epistle to them and that aswell Athanasius as other Catholike Bishops whom they had condemned in appealing from their Councell to him as he in repealing their Actes in restoring the Appellants to their seates and in summoning their aduersaries to Rome had done quod Ecclesiastici Canonis est according to the Canons of the Church If therfore the holy Popes Iulius Felix Marcus and Liberius that liued soone after the Councell of Nice if S. Athanasius that was personally present if Iohn the learned Orator of the Latines speaking in all their names in the councell of Florence if Socrates Sozomen Theodoret Nicephorus and many other ancient writers deserue to be credited and if they knew how to call things by their proper names there were in the Nicen Councell more then 20. Canons properly so called which is also acknowledged by your Protestant brethren (a) Brereley Prot. Apol. Tract 1. sect 7. subdiu 2. Oecolampadius who chargeth the Latin copies of the 20. Canons as defectiue Caluin M. Iuell and M. Bilson mentioning a Canon of the Nicen Councell concerning the Sacrament and lastly by Doctor Whitgift (b) Brereley ibid. prouing out of the second Councell of Arles S. Hierome and other approued authors diuers Canons which are not to be found in those 20. The testimonies which you obiect for the contrary vrge not Not that of Pope Stephen for though he say that in the Roman Church there are 20. Chapters of the Nicen councell yet he immediatly addeth that it is vncertaine by what negligence the rest are wanting which words you wittingly leaue out mangling the sentence that so he may seeme to fauor your opinion of the 20. Canons Theodoret and Nicephorus speake only of 20. Canons or lawes made pro conformandis moribus for ordering or reforming of manners wheras notwithstanding as Pisanus out of their owne words hath obserued els where they acknowledg that the Arians in condemning Athanasius had infringed the Nicen Canons and that Athanasius in appealing to him had done according to the same Canons Wherfore it the two Patriarkes Cyrill and Atticus knew not of more then 20. Nicen Canons it was because the Arians hauing cast out the Catholike Bishops and possessed their seates as we read in Socrates Sozomen Theodoret and Nicephorus (c) Brereley ibid. had corrupted the Canons of that Councell and suppressed those which declared their proceedings to be vnlawfull contrary to the Nicen Canons And howsoeuer those Patriarkes thought you cannot deny that your 20. Canons were not the only nor all the true Canons of Nice vnlesse you will grant the Canons of Ruffinus which you allow to be corrupt and false for as Osiander confesseth (d) Epit. Cent. 4. pag. 122. those 20. of Ruffinus differ ordine rebus both in order and matter from the others which Cyrill Atticus sent out of the East And the same is yet made more euident out of the Councell of Florence affirming (e) Sess 20. that by the testimonies of many ancient and holy Fathers the African Councell it selfe did know those Canons which they receaued out of the East to be corrupt and false It resteth therfore that neither they nor the other of Ruffinus comprehend all the true Canons of Nice but that there were others declaring the primacy of the Roman Church her authority to call confirme Councells and in particular her right of appeales as Pisanus hath proued whom therfore you abusiuely alleage for the contrary Nor is your dealing better with Turrianus for albeit he grant that as in the Councell of Chalcedon so likewise in that of Nice beside Canons there were among the Actes other Decrees or Constitutions and that of this number are the seuerall Decrees which you set downe out of him yet with what conscience do you conceale the rest for in the words immediatly preceding he sayth In illis Actis c. In those Actes was also contayned that Canon of Appeales which Zozimus Pope in the sixt Councell of Carthage witnesseth to be of the Nicen Councell and which after the Nicen Councell was renewed in the Councell of Sardica C. 7. And is not this very point here in question Our dispute is not verball whether the decree of Appeales to Rome made in the Councell of Nice were a Canon properly so called or a Constitution Words of this kind are by the best authors vsed promiscuously The canons of Councells are somtimes called Canones somtimes Capitula somtimes Leges somtimes Decreta somtimes CoÌ„stitutiones The reall difficulty betweene vs is whether appeales to Rome were decreed in the Councell of Nice by any either Canon properly so called or by any Law or Constitution That they were decreed hath bene proued and that not only ancient writers giue it the name of a Canon but enen Pisanus and Turrianus those very two whome you produce for the contrary I conclude therfore that as this your discourse is a digression from the truth so it is from the purpose and a trifling shift to put of the reall difficulty by reducing it to a question de nomine And that which most sheweth your folly is that by trifling you wholly ouerthrow your cause for you grant (f) Pag. 302. all the examples which our Authors collect out of the Fathers and Councells as though they had bene Canons of the Nicen Councell to be Constitutions of the same Councell though not Canons which is to grant that in the Nicen Councell there was a Constitution wherby Appeales to Rome were decreed for this is one of the examples which our Authors collect out of the Epistles of Iulius out of Socrates Sozomen Theodoret Nicephorus and other ancient writers And this alone is sufficient to shew that as you deny the same without ground so you conclude your digression falsly saying (g) Pag. 303. that the decree which the Popes alleaged for appeales is not to be found at all either among the Canons or the Constitutions of the Councell of Nice SECT III. Whether if there had bene no Canon for appeales to Rome in the Councell of Nice it had bene forgery in Pope Zozimus to alleage a Canon of the Sardican Councell for a Canon of Nice SOme Catholike writers coniecture that the Canons of appealing to Rome which Pope Zozimus directed to the Africans were Canons of the Councell of Sardica but sent by him vnder the title of Nicen Canons You say (h) Pag. 145. These Canons of Sardiâ—a mun be iudged fictions and that it is sufficiently proued to be a falâ—hood
pag. 367. and Eudaemon Ioan. Paralell Torti ac Tortoris c. 5 pag. 224. seqq This they proue out of the holy Scripture out of S. Augustine out of the practise of the Catholike Church and that with solid and forcible reasons (g) See Valent in 212 d. 5. q. 8. punct 3. But you tell vs (h) Serm. pag. 24. of a principle of ours That subiects must obey whiles they cannot resist In proofe of this you alleage (i) Serm. p. 35. Alane In his moderate defence but you neither mention any words of his nor any Chapter in particular and with good reason for Alane hath no such doctrine You produce (k) Serm. pag. 24. Creswell in his Philopater and Bellarmine The one you slander falsly The other you vnderstand not or els which I feare wittingly misconstrue his meaning For Creswell Eudaemon Ioannes (l) Apol. pro Henr. Garn. c. 3. pag. 58. hath made answeare long since to Syr Edward Cooke who cited Creswell in his Philopater as you do borrowing your obiection from him The answeare is and of certaine knowledge I know it to be true that you temerariously vent the fictions of your owne braine for truthes Philopater was not Creswell He neuer writ any such booke And who-euer Philopater was the booke is of a competent bulke and you cite out of it some nine or ten words cut off from the frame of their contexture diuided into two different sentences and this also at randome for the booke being diuided into Chapters and the Chapters into numbers you neither specify Chapter nor number which if you had done Philopater might haue spoken for himselfe and shewed the wrong you do him And no lesse is the iniury you offer to Bellarmine (m) Serm. pag. 24. His opinion is that the Church had authority to depose Nero Dioclesian or other heathenish Tyrants that persecuted Christ but did prudently abstaine from the vse therof for wanting forces the vse of her authority could no way auaile Christians but giue occasion of raising greater stormes of persecution against them Which opinion of his canot quit you from accusing slandering him wrongfully for doth he euer say or insinuate that those Emperors were not lawfull Princes or that they being so it was lawfull for Christians or any other their subiects to rebell against them This is the Doctrine you impute to him and this you should haue proued to be his but cannot therfore change the state of the Question to father on him the seditious Doctrine of your Lutheran and Caluinian brethren and to suggest to his Maiesty that the Scots haue learned the Principles of their rebellion from vs which by their owne confession (n) Serm pag. 38. they professe to haue learned from Luther Caluin and Beza Lastly as I haue admonished you of slandering Vrbane Pope and other Catholikes so must I aduertise you of the like wrong done to Garnet the Iesuit whom say you (o) Serm. Ibid. I knew at his arraignement to confesse that he heard of the powder-treason out of Confession Belike you knew it by hear-say from some one that was deafe or if he were not deafe made no scruple of lying for no man that was present and had his hearing would be so shamelesse as to say he heard him confesse that which it is certaine he neuer spake but directly the contrary and toke it vpon his death which may yet be proued by the attestation of so many and such witnesses that if it were as free for Garnets friends and kinsfolkes to sue you with an action of slander as it is free for you with controlement to write your pleasure against them that haue not freedome to answeare for themselues your accusation of Garnet wold proue aswell to your cost as to your shame you cōfesse (p) Ibid. that at his death he publikely exhorted the Romish professors to auoid all acts of treason And it is no lesse certaine that in his life time he neuer taught other Doctrine that when he heard of that damnable plot in Confession he enioyned him of whom he heard it to vse his vttermost endeauor to diswade and hinder it yea moreouer as Eudaemon Ioannes (q) Apol. pro Henr. Garn. c. 1. pag. 8. 9. reporteth from relation of them that had best meanes to know the truth the very hearing of it in Confession was so great a torment to his mind that he could not sleep nor take any rest for many dayes and that with prayers and sacrifices he did beg of the diuine goodnesse most earnestly to prouide some remedy for so execrable a designe which he could not disclose to the Magistrates without violating the seule of Sacramentall secrecy which Christ himselfe hath commanded to be kept inuiolable I conclude therfore that Garnet Cardinall Alane Bellarmine Creswell and other Catholikes whom you defame with false accusations are in the number of them of whom our Sauiour said (r) Math. 5.11.12 Blessed are yee when they shall reuile you and persecute you and speake all that naught is against you vntruly for my sake be glad and reioice for your reward is very great in heauen CHAP. XXXIV Doctor Mortons doctrine condemneth the Saintes and Martyrs of God HAVING now gone through your Sermon preached to his Maiesty out of your grand Imposture I returne to the continuance of my answere to the same Imposture You had before obiected some Fathers and hauing parted with them lōg since now after many Chapters you come to scrape acquaintance with some of them againe But their Doctrine is to ancient to haue any commerce with your Nouelties SECT I. S. Polycarpe obiected by Doctor Morton YOu beginne your twelth Chapter opposing (s) Pag. 183. that S. Polycarpe going to Rome in tyme of Anicetus Pope to consult with him about the celebration of Easter would not yeild to forsake the Asian custome contrary to that of the Roman Church and yet neuerthelesse Anicetus and Polycarpe did still communicate with ech other True but if the Asian custome had bene then condemned by the Church and the mantayners therof anathematized as heretikes as afterwards they were by Victor Pope and the holy Councell of Nice Anicetus would not haue held Polycarpe in his communion vnlesse he had forsaken the Asian custome and conformed himselfe to the Roman practised by all other Churches in the world Nor would Polycarpe haue stood out in defence of the Asian custome had he not seene that Anicetus though he misliked it yet did not condemne it but permit him still the practise therof vntill the Church defined otherwise Which Anicetus did being desirous to giue him all content for the great reuerence due vnto him as well for his yeares as also because he had bene disciple to S. Iohn Euangelist and was then actually Bishop of Smyrna a principall Church of Asia But how great reuerence Polycarpe bare to Anicetus and to the Church of Rome appeareth in this that being
de Pont. c. 2. it is defended by Gerson and Almain Doctors of Paris as also by Castro and Adrianus sextus and that it is tolerated by the Church Do not you then ouerlash saying that Bellarmines opinion is part of our beliefe necessary to saluation when he so expresly teacheth the contrary SECT VI. S. Hieroms iudgment concerning the necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof HE declared his iudgment (z) Ep. 77. when to assure himselfe to be in the communion of the Catholike Church he regarded not the communion of Paulinus in whose Patriarship of Antioch he liued but professed himselfe to stick fast to the communion of Damasus Pope that is to the chaire of Peter vpon which sayth he I know the Church to be built You answeare (a) Pag. 203. that by chaire he meant not the See and Bishoprick of Rome but the true Doctrine of fayth then preached at Rome euen as Christ spake of the chaire of Moyses that is sayth S. Hierome the law of Moyses This satisfieth not both because whē some Fathers expound fayth to be the Rock on which Christ built his Church they exclude not but include the person of Peter and chiefely because S. Hierome followeth not that exposition but euer vnderstāds the person of Peter his See to be the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church Christ sayth he (b) Ad cap. 16. Math. gaue to Simon that belieued in him the name of a Rock and according to the Metaphor of a Rock it is rightly said to him I will build my Church on thee And a litle after Christ did not then actually build his Church on Peter but promised to build it on him afterward saying I will build my Church on thee and I will giue to thee the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen Wherfore as he promised not to deliuer the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to Fayth but to Peter and his Successors so on him and them he promised to build his Church And the same is manifest out of the contexture of this his Epistle to Damasus for doth he not say I am ioyned in communion to your Blessednesse that is to the chaire of Peter vpon this Rock I know the Church to be built Whosoeuer shall eate the Lambe out of this house he is prophane If any one shall not be in the arke of Nöe he shall perish in the deluge These words conuince that S. Hierome by the chaire of Peter vnderstands not fayth but the Church built on him and his Successors for the house out of which no man can eat the lambe that is offer sacrifice is not fayth to which the denomination of a house cannot agree but the Church built vpon Peter which S. Ambrose (c) In 1. Timoth 3.15 calleth The house of God wherof Damasus was then Gouernor And the same is euident out of S. Hierome himselfe for fayth is not the Arke of Nöe but the Church of Peter out of which whosoeuer shall be at the comming of the deluge shall perish And I cannot but admonish you of a fraudulent reticence for being you make so great accompt of Erasmus produce him for your only author (d) Pag. 204. that S. Hierome by the chaire of Peter vnderstandeth fayth why do you conceale that vpon this very passage Erasmus sheweth S. Hierome to condemne your doctrine of falshood Here sayth he (e) Anotat in Ep. 77. S. Hieron Hierome seemeth to be wholly of opinion that all Churches ought to be subiect to the Roman See or surely not diuided from her which peculiarly glorieth in this Apostle that had the soueraignty among the Apostles and which is so Orthodoxall that of all Orthodoxall Churches she is the chiefest in dignity This you know to be the true meaning of S. Hierome but shift it of repeating often and with great variety of words that if S. Hierome pointed out the Church of Rome as the Arke of Noah yet therby he conceaued not a perpetuity therof that Virgin Hierusalem may become a harlot and that she hath no priuiledge neuer to apostatate But this euasion I haue already disproued (f) See aboue Chap. 12. sect 1. 2. by the promise of Christ made to S. Peter and his Successors that their fayth shall not faile and that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against the Church built vpon them To this I adde that S. Hierome acknowledgeth Damasus to be his Pastor (g) Ep 77. and therfore Pastor of the vniuersall Church for when he writ that Epistle he was an inhabitant of Palestine which being in the Patriarkship of Antioch Paulinus that was then Patriarke of Antioch was actually his Pastor and he actually a sheep of Paulinus therfore could not at the same time be actually a sheep of Damasus if the sheep of the Patriarkship of Antioch were not actually subiect to the pastorall authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome Yes say you (h) Pag. 202. He might be held a sheep of the B. of Rome in respect of his baptisme But this I deny for he that being baptized in one Dioces leaueth that and becometh an inhabitant of another eo ipso becometh a sheep of that Dioces which he inhabiteth and leaueth to be a sheep of the former in which he was baptized And as the Bishop vnder whom he was baptized can haue no authority ouer him after he hath left his Dioces vnlesse he be superior in power and iurisdiction to the Bishop whose Dioces he now inhabiteth so neither could Damasus be actually Pastor to S. Hierome hauing left the Dioces and Patriarkship of Rome and inhabiting that of Antioch if Damasus had not had pastorall authority ouer the sheep of the Patriarkship of Antioch Now to your obiections The first is (i) Pag. 205. S. Hierome twited and taunted Damasus saying But away enuy and let the ambition of the Roman height depart which he did not say so much in regard of Damasus his owne pride otherwise an excellent godly Pope as for the pride of the Roman top or height namely the ambition of his state This is impertinent and vntrue Impertinent for were it true as it is not that S. Hierome reprehended the pride of the Roman Church pride is not an error in fayth but a fault in manners and therfore no warrant for you to disauow the fayth or forsake the Communion of the Roman Church It is also vntrue for S. Hierome doth not only not twite Damasus but professeth himselfe to be ioyned in communion with his Blessednesse And much lesse doth he taunt his See which he acknowledgeth to be the Rock on which the Church is built And indeed who but you would haue charged S. Hierome with twiting and taunting Damasus an excellent godly Pope whom you acknowledge to be his pastor and spirituall Father that not for any fault of his owne but for faults feigned by you against
the charge of feeding his sheep and lambes (u) Ioan. â—1 15 16. gaue him an vniuersall Pastorall power and iurisdiction ouer his whole flock throughout the world which power and iurisdiction therfore S. Augustine and the whole Councell of Mileuis (x) Apud Aug. ep 92. acknowledge Innocentius Pope to haue from the authority of the holy Scriptures that is by diuine Law from the mouth of Christ himselfe Your sixth obiection is (y) Pag. 208.209 that S. Hierome disagreed from the Roman Church in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine You told vs euen now (z) Pag. 205. that the Church of Rome was then sound in fayth If therfore S. Hierome disagreed from her in matter of necessary and Catholike Doctrine S. Hierome was an heretike for all doctrine contrary to the Catholike fayth is heresy But you regard not what you say of that renowned Doctor if you may make him like to your selfe in disagreeing from the Church of Rome in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine But let vs heare in what he disagreed Because S. Hierome sayth that although formerly all other Churches in the East did account S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall yet it was not receaued as Canonicall in the Latine or Roman Church From whence you tooke these words I know not for no such are to be found in his Epistle to Euagrius out of which you alleage them Part of them I find in his Commentary vpon Isaias and in his Epistle to Dardanus where he saith The Epistle to the Hebrewes is receaued as Canonicall by all the Greeke Churches though the custome of the Latines receaue it not But that the Roman Church receaues it not is an imposterous addition of yours to S. Hieromes text for when he sayth The custome of the Latines receaues it not that by the custome of the Latines he vnderstands not all the Latine or Roman Church he declareth saying (a) Ep. ad Euag. All the Greekes receaue the Epistle to the Hebrewes nonnulli Latinorum and many of the Latines Yea when he infinuateth that some of the Latines receaued it not he speaketh not of the Latines of his time but of some that liued before him as Tertullian S. Cyprian Lactantius Arnobius who in their workes are not found to alleage this Epistle But since the tyme of Lactantius the Latine Fathers haue bene so far from making any doubt that it is Canonicall that Philastrius (b) In Catal. haeres a Latine Father and Bishop of Bressa in Italy more ancient then S. Hierome ranketh them among heretikes that deny it to be Canonicall And in S. Hieromes time Innocentius Pope (c) Eup. ad Exuper and soone after him Gelasius with a Councell of 70. Bishops (d) Decret de lib. sacr Eccles reckon the Epistle to the Hebrewes in the number of Canonicall Scriptures If therfore Gelasius Pope with a Councell of 70. Bishops and Innocentius belieued it to be Canonicall with what forehead do you say that the Roman Church denied it to be Canonicall or how can it be thought that S. Hierome differed in any point of Catholike beliefe from the Church of Rome he that prescribeth to Demetrias (e) Ep. 8. ad Demetriad as a secure way to auoid the snares of heresy that she hold fast the fayth of S. Innocentius Pope And finally how cold he dissent from the Roman Church in this or any other point of necessary and Catholike doctrine he I say that so often commendeth and recommendeth (f) Ep. 6.8.68 the Roman fayth and defineth him to be a Catholike that holds the fayth of the Roman Church (g) Aduers Ruffi l. 1. What followeth of this you know namely that by affirming S. Hierome to disagree from the Roman Church in matter of necessarie and Catholike doctrine you make him an heretike Is not then your Argument a Grand Imposture And no lesse it is that the Councell of Trent hauing defined the bookes of Hester Daniel Baruch Ecclesiasticus Wisdome Iudith Tobias and the two bookes of the Machabies with all their parts as they are in the vulgar edition to be canonicall you (h) Pag. 209. in disproofe therof obiect these words as of Bellarmine S. Hierome sayd of these bookes that they were not within the canon of scriptures for Bellarmine in that place maketh no mention of Hester Daniel Baruch And though he grant S. Hierome to haue bene of opinion that the other bookes mentioned were not canonicall yet why do you conceale his reason which is that S. Hierome was of that opinion because the Church had not then defined the contrary in any generall Councel And how do you proue that S. Hierome in that his opinion disagreed from the Roman Church in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine since it was no matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine to belieue these bookes to be Canonicall vntill the Church had defined it in a generall Councell as in S. Hieromes time she had not done sauing only of the booke of Iudith which afterwards he receaued vnderstanding that the Councell of Nice had so declared But from hence you take occasion (i) Pag. 302. fin 303. to inueigh against Bellarmine and other our Doctors for imputing to the Councell of Nice a decree wherby they condemne Protestants as sacrilegious persons for not admitting the booke of Iudith into the number of Canonicall scriptures and alleaging S. Hierome as a witnesse to proue that which he neuer spake and for profe of a doctrine which himselfe doth vtterly abandon In this charge you are twice reproueable first for saying that we falsly impute that constitution to the Councell of Nice for that the CouÌ„cell did make such a Constitution S. Hierome witnesseth saying (k) Praefat. in Iudith Librum Iudith Nicena Synodus in numero sanctarum scripturarum legitur computasse The Nicen Councell is read to haue reckoned the booke of Iudith in the number of holy scriptures The same is testified by Rupertus (l) De diuin offic l. 12. c. 25. who repeating S. Hieromes doctrine concerning this booke and almost his words sayth Hoc volumen c. This booke is not canonicall among the Hebrewes but by the authority of the Councell of Nice it is receaued for the instruction of holy Church Secondly you are reproueable in preteÌ„ding that S. Hierome in these words declareth not that booke to be canonicall for being requested to translate it out of the Chaldean tongue in which it was written into Latin he sayth The Iewes reckoned this booke among the hagiographes whose authority is sufficient to decide controuersies And theÌ„ opposing against them the authority of the Nicen Councell he addeth But because the Councell of Nice is read to haue registred this booke in the number of holy scriptures I haue yeilded to your request In these words he plainly she weth the Church to be of a different beliefe from the Iewes touching this booke to receaue
dayes the Roman Church held it canonicall (e) Pag. 222. are all repetitions of your former Arguments which in their due places haue bene answeared (f) Chap. 22. sect 3. Chap. 25.26 tot Chap. 30. sect 1. Chap. 34. sect 6. But to them you adde here a Consideration of your iudicious Casaubon (g) Pag. 223. requiring vs who accompt the only note of Schisme to be diuided from the Roman Church and Pope thereof to answeare Why S. Augustine who in seauen Bookes besides many other places confuted the Schismaticall Donatists yet neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope or of the infallibility of his iudgement whereby to reduce them to the vnity of the Church and truth Your iudicious Casaubon shewed great lack of iudgment in making this Argument and that he had not read S. Augustine or if he had that he did not vnderstand him or if he had read did vnderstand him then you know what he sheweth in concealing the truth For throughout all those seauen Bookes against the Donatists there is nothing which S. Augustine so often obiecteth nor so much vrgeth against them as their separation from the Roman Church repeating the same not once or twice but almost in euery Chapter of some of those bookes For when the Donatists did striue to defend their heresy of rebaptization by the authority of S. Cyprian S. Augustine answeared (h) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18.19 l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9 Contra Crescon l. ◠c. 32. l. 2. c. 3. alibi saepè that Cyprians patronage could not auaile them because they were out of the Communion of the Roman Church in which S. Cyprian liued died And doth he not in other his writings against the Donatists often vrge the succession of Bishops in the Roman Church If sayth (i) Ep. 165. he the order and succession of Bishops be to be obserued how much more assuredly and safely indeed do we begin our accompt from S. Peter himselfe to whom as he represented the whole Church our Lord sayd (k) Math. 16.18 Vpon this Rock I will build my Church For Linus succeoded to Peter Cletus to Linus c. And so reckoning all the Popes vnto Anastasius who then sate in the chaire of S. Peter he concludeth against the Donatists In this order of succession there is not one Donatist to be found to which I adde no nor yet one Protestant And reckoning the motiues that held him in the Church among them he setteth downe the succession of Bishops in the See of Rome There are sayth he (l) Cont Ep. Fundam c. 4. many thinges which with greatest reason hold me in this Catholike Church 1. The vniforme consent of people and nations which is not to be found in the Protestant Church confined to a few Northern countreyes in a corner of the world 2. A certaine authority begun by miracles which Protestants confesse themselues not to haue 3. The succession of Priests euen from S. Peter vntill this present Bishop Wherfore since that Church in which there is a continued succession of Bishops from S. Peter cannot be the Protestan Church which hath no such succession but the Roman it followeth that S. Augustine held the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church And therefore expressing to the Donatists how much he grieued to see them ly cut of from this Church he said (m) Psal cont part Donati It greeueth vs to see you ly so cut of Number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranck of Fathers who succeeded whom That 's the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not Here againe S. Augustine sheweth the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church built vpon Peter and his successors as vpon a rock against which heresies schismes which are the proud gates of hell shall neuer preuaile and all that are out of her communion to be as branches out of from the Vine and deuoid of all spirituall life And as he held all that are out of the Roman Church to be in miserable state so contrarily he held all that liue in her Communion to be most hapy and secure from error in fayth for so he deemed Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage to be notwithstanding all the plots and conspiracies of the Donatists against him He might sayth S. Augustine (n) Ep. 162. contemne the conspiring multitude of his enemies because he knew himselfe to be vnited by communicatory letters both to the Church of Rome in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike hath alwaies florished and to other Countries from whence the Ghospell came first into Africa These few passages among many others shew that your iudicious Casaubon failed much in iudgment and truth when he aduentured to say that S. Augustine in his workes against the Donatists neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope nor of the infallibility of his iudgment wherby to reduce them to the vnity of the Church and truth And as he vrged the authority of the See Apostolike against the Donatists so hath he testified that by the same authority taken from the authority of holy Scriptures (o) Aug. Ep. 91. the Pelagians were condemned who therfore seeing themselues esteemed as Heretikes throughout all the Westerne Church in which they liued sought to the Churches of the East hoping to be admitted into their Communion as the Protestants of Germany writing to Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople did (p) See Iustus Caluinus Apol. pro Eccl. Rom. pag. 10. whom therfore we may check with S. Augustines words written against Iulian a chiese mantainer of the Pelagian heresy I thinke sayth he (q) Cont. Iulia l. 1. c. 4. that part of the world ought to suffice thee in which our Lord would haue the chiefe of the Apostles to be crowned with a most glorious Martyrdome To the Gouernor of which Church Blessed Innocentius if thou woldst haue giuen care thou hadst ere this freed thy dangerous youth from the Pelagian snares for what answeare could that holy man giue to the African Councells but that which from ancient times the Roman Church with all others perseuerantly holdeth And els where he noteth (r) L. 2. de grat Christi pecc orig c. 8. that albeit Pelagius had drawne others into error he could neuer deceaue the Roman Church for the most Blessed Pope Sozimus considered what opinion his predecessor worthy to be imitated had of his proceedings and what iudgment the fayth of the Romans to be commended in our Lord had made of him But you obiect (s) Pag. 225. It is mere sophistry to inferre a necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome to be professed of all Christians at all times because the Fathers required it in their times By this Argument a Pelagian a Donatist an Eutychian or any other Heretike may iustify his departure from the Roman Church pretending as you do that the necessity of vnion with her was not for all times
haue done nothing but bring witnesses against your selfe for all of them condemne the Greekes of heresy and conuince you of a notorious vntruth in saying l (p) Pag 336. that in our iudgement the Greekes are no heretikes excepting for the denying a necessity of subiection and vnion to the Church of Rome Nor do these only censure them for their heresy of the holy Ghost but other writers more ancient condemne them as guilty of other errors SECT II. Of the Lutherans of Germany writing to Hieremy Patritriarke of Constantinople to be admitted into the Communion of the Greeke Church and his answeare to them THe Pelagians being condēned by the Roman Church pretended to be of the communion of the Church of Greece which S. Augustine speaking of to Iulian the Pelagian (r) Cont. Iulian Pelag. l. 1. c. 4. said I thinke that part of the world ought to suffice thee in which our Lord wold haue the chiefe of his Apostles to be crowned with a most glorious Martyrdome to the President of which Church blessed Innocentius if thou woldest haue giuen eare thou hadst ere now freed thy dangerous youth from the Pelagian snares The same wee say to you who haue imitated the Pelagians in your pretence of vnion with the Greeke Church Your German brethren writ to Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople sending him a prosession of their fayth and desiting to be admitted into the communion of his Church He answeared them addressing his letters to the Protestants of Prague in Bohemia These letters of Hieremy set forth by the Lutherans of Wittemberg you obiect (s) Pag. 334. to proue that Protestants accord in fayth and communion with the Greeke Church but with your wonted syncerity for as it appeareth out of the edition of Stanislaus Socolouius Deuine to the King of Poland printed at Colen Apud Maternum Cholinum 1582. that epistle as it is set forth by the Lutheran Deuines of Wittemberg Anno 1584. is corrupted and falsified and for that cause iustly forbidden (t) In Ind. lib. prohib Neuerthelesse that very edition of Wittemberg is sufficient to shew the claime you make to the Grecians as to men of your communion to be a Grand imposture for it expresseth that the Greeke Church to this day teacheth inuocations of Saints and Angels veneration of Relikes worship of Images Transubstantiation with the Masse and significant ceremonies thereof Auricular Confession inioyned satisfaction all the seauen Sacraments in particular Confirmation with Chrisme and extreme Vnction prayer sacrifice and almes for the dead free will Monachisme Vowes of chastity the fast of Lent and other set fasting dayes that Priests may not mary after orders taken that the tradition doctrine of the Fathers is to be kept with many other things as M. Brereley (u) Prot. Apol tract 1. sect ◠sub 12. pag. 202. sheweth setting downe exactly the Page and part of the Page where euery one of these particulars is to be read in that protestant edition And the same is confirmed out of Syr Edwin Sands who in his Relation of the estate of Religion vsed in the West parts of the world in the fifth leafe before the end affirmeth that the Greeke Church agreeth with Rome in opinion of Transubstantiation generally in the sacrifice and whole body of the Masse in praying to Saints in auricular Confession in offering sacrifice and prayer for the dead Purgatory Worshiping of pictures c. And I must not omit the testimony of Iustus Caluinus who being brought vp in Protestancy was afterwardes conuerted to the Catholike fayth and being taxed for it by many of his friends writ a Booke to satisfy them and the world in which he declareth the moriues of his conuersion and among them the agreement of externe Churches with the Roman in condemning Protestants And he insisteth particularly on this Epistle of Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople and the censure which in it is giuen of the Protestant doctrine acknowledging that therby he was greatly confirmed in his beliefe of the Roman Church For sayth he (x) Pag. ◠fin seqq the Greekes and Latines agree so precisely in the chiefest Heads of doctrine that I wonder much the Nouellists haue not the same opinion of the Patriarke of Constantinople that they haue of the Pope for if the one be Antichrist the other must of necessity be Antichrist by reason of their accordance in doctrine And so much more to be pitied is the simplicity of some of them who dreaming still of I know not what accordāce with the Greeke Church cease not to inquire of the doctrine of the East by sending letters and Catechismes What haue they so soone forgotten how fatally the Confession of Augusta was reiected and how deepely censured by the Patriarke of Constantinople Let them goe to Tubinga and inquire Crusius will informe them Or if the iourney seeme teadious let them read the Oration of Chytraeus printed at Francford Of the estate of the Churches in Greece Asia Bohemia c. There p. 113.115.116.133 They shall find somthing to this purpose but chiefly pag. 132. where out of Crusius he setteth downe a summe of that Censure in these few propositions First the Patriarke laboreth to proue that the holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father 2. He attributes too much to freewill 3. He holds that man is iustified by fayth hope and charity 4. He alloweth seauen Sacraments 5. He inuocateth Saints deceased and Mary the Mother of God and the holy Angells and adoreth their sacred Images not with Latria for that is due to God alone but coniunctiuely that is not in regard of the matter but of the Saints represented by the matter and with an amicable affection declaring the veneration and honor due to the Saints 6. He defendeth Monasticall institute as an angelicall profession 7. He takes his proofes out of the Fathers and Councells 8. He inuiteth vs courteoussy to agree with them This is the summe of the whole Censure related by Crusius which if any one with vs please to read at large throughout he shall find more and greater arguments to condemne the new Fayth and especially these words which the Patriarke addeth for a conclusion We had resolued absolutely to be silent and giue no answeare to these your writings which so manifestly wrest both the Scripture the expositions of the holy Doctors to your fancy since we haue this exhortation from Paul Anoid an heretike after the first and second admonition But because with our silence we might seeme to assent vnto you as if you did vnderstand and belieue a right and that you had the Scriptures and holy Fathers on your side we haue thought good to set downe these things in defence of the truth albeit we are fully satisfied out of your writings that you can neuer accord with vs or rather with truth And in the same place in the end of the third answeare pag. 370. Wherfore we desire you not to trouble vs
ouer the world as well in Europe where Protestants are as in all other parts of the world where they are not either she is the Catholike Church or els that there is no Catholike Church on earth And therfore with great reason all antiquity hath held the Roman Church and the Catholike Church to be termes conuertible and that whosoeuer is diuided from her is a schismatike and incapable of saluation The testimonies of the ancient Fathers in this behalfe I haue copiously alleaged in the first Chapter of this Apology which to repeate heere were actum agere And this sheweth how falsly you slander the Roman Church with diuiding herselfe proudly and impiously from all other Churches of the world S. Augustine said to the Donatists (l) L. 2. cont lit Petil. c. 52. that with sacrilegious fury they had separated themselues from the Chaire of S. Peter and I wish the same might not be truly said of you That Church when you began was and still is and shall euer be spread ouer all the world where Christ is knowne You first liued in her and afterwards diuided your selues from her as all Heretikes haue done she sayth S. Augustine (m) De Symb. ad Catechum l. 1. c. 6. remaining still in her roote in her Vine in her charity From hence it is that the same Father hauing reckoned by name all the Popes from S. Peter to Anastasius who was then B. of Rome compareth that Church to a Vine and the Donatists to branches cut off from her as you likewise are Wherfore as he said to them (n) Psal cont part Donat. so we say to you Come brethren if you please that you may be ingrafted into the Vine It is a griefe toys to see you lye so cut off Number the Priests from the very seat of Peter c. That is the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not And you must remember that the same S. Augustine is he that said (o) Tract 8â— in Ioan. A branch cut off from the Vine is fit for nothing but the fire CHAP. XLIII Of the Head of the Roman Church compared to the Body therof YOv compare the B. of Rome who is Head of the Roman Church with the Body thereof in many respects (p) Pag. 343. 344. 345. all which you attribute to vs as Articles of our fayth to be belieued necessarily vnder paine of damnation SECT I. Whether it be matter of Fayth that the Pope is aboue a Councell VVE belieue that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth and Gouernour of the Vniuersall Church to which you adde (q) Pag. 344. that according to our fayth there is a necessity of belieuing that the Pope is aboue a Councell In proofe of this you alleadge (r) Ibid. marg Bellarmine l. 1. de concil c. 7. who in that very place expresly teacheth the contrary and you afterwards contradicting your selfe acknowledge so much (s) Pag. 355. lit e. setting downe these words of his The matter is still questionable vntill this day which also you proue (t) Pag. 116. init out of Stapleton saying It is not yet defined by any publike Decree And in confirmation hereof you adde (u) Pag. 115. fin that the contrary is mantained by our Doctors of Paris When therfore it is for your purpose it is an Article of our fayth necessarily to be belieued with diuine fayth that the Pope is aboue a Councell and when the contrary is more for your purpose then it is no Article of our fayth nor yet defined by any publike decree but matter of opinion and questionable vntill this day These are your propositions Reconcile them SECT II. Whether it be matter of fayth that this indiuidual person v. g. Vrban the eight is true Pope and true Head of the Church YOu set downe here (x) Pag. 345. and afterwards againe (y) Pag. 351. 353. as a receaued Article of our fayth that it is necessary for euery man to belieue with diuine fayth that this determinate man for example Vrban the eight which now sitteth in the Chaire of S. Peter is true Bishop and true Head of the Church In proofe of this you alleage Salmeron and Suarez but very deceiptfully for although that be the peculiar opinion of Salmeron and Suarez whose proofes you mention not because it passeth your skill to answeare them yet they deliuer it not as matter of fayth defined by the Church or taught by all Catholike Diuines which you cold not be ignorant of for Suarez in that very place which you cite (z) Pag. 24. 345. professeth the contrary opinion to be taught by Turrecremata Albertinus Caietan Bannes Canus Vega Corduba Castro and other Catholike Diuines mantaining that we cannot haue diuine fayth of this indiuiduall man that he is true Head of the Church but morall certainty only And this they hold sufficient to oblige all men to yield perfect obedience vnto him and to belieue his definitions ex Cathedra And you contradicting your selfe had formerly acknowledged (a) Pag. 2â— this to be the opinion of many of our Schole-Doctors With what conscience then do you now charge all Catholikes with holding the contrary as necessary to be belieued with diuine fayth and vnder paine of damnation which so many of our learned Schole-Doctors deny and which in them was neuer censured by the Church nor euen by their aduersaries as any way opposite to fayth But what censure you deserue for doubting of the ordination or election of Gods Priests not I but S. Cyprian shall tell you who sayth (b) L. 4. Ep. 9. that it is no other thing but to belieue that Priests are not appointed in the Church from God nor for God that it is not to belieue in God but to be rebellious against Christ and his Ghospell SECT III. Whether the Church of Rome be at any time a Body headlesse It is a Thesis of yours (c) Pag. 34â— that the Church of Rome is a Body headlesse so long as there is a vacancy in the See betweene the death of one Pope and the election of another Which to affirme is as ridiculous as if you should call the Empire An headlesse Empire because there is no Emperor betweene the death of one and the election of an other And by the same argument you may proue Bohemia Polonia and other kingdoms and States whose Princes are electiue to be headlesse kingdoms and states There is not alwaies so precise necessity of a Pope in the Church but that as it was gouerned 300. yeares without Councels so if by reason of schismes or other difficulties it fal out that after the death of one Pope some tyme passe before the election of another God may not for that time gouerne his Church without a Pope especially all other Bishops and inferior Pastors remaining in full possession of their authority ouer their seuerall flocks Nor is the Church for that time left
Church had no true visible Head such as we require because of him it could not be said This is the B. of Rome This obiection you borowed from Baronius (m) Anno 955. who though he acknowledge that the electâ—on of Iohn was void because no true forme was obserued in it yet you passe ouer what he addeth as not being for your purpose namely that the Church afterwards consented to his election wherby the defects that interuened in his former election were supplied and he receaued and reuerenced as true Pope by the whole Church And wheras you say that this Pope was for his life monstrous it hath bene proued (n) Abouâ— Chap. 12. sect 2. that the ill liues of Popes or other Bishops are not Arguments to disproue their authority God is able to teach by Balaams Asse and the Euangelist tells you (o) Ioâ—â— 11.49 that notwithstanding Caiphas was a wicked man yet because he was high Priest he prophesied or rather God by him And our Blessed Sauiour foreseeing that Cauillers would arise hath by S. Augustine (p) Ep. 165. long since answered this your Argument to a wrangling Donatist and in him to you saying If any traitor in those dayes had by surreption crept into that ranck of Bishops which is deduced from S. Peter himselfe euen to Anastasius or Vrbanus who at this present sitteth in that chaire it could worke no preiudice to the Church and to innocent Christians for whom our Lord prouideth saying of wicked Prelates Do yee what they say but what they doe doe it not for they say and do not c. And speaking to Petilianus another Donatist after he had reprehended him for separating himselfe from the Roman Church with sacrilegious fury he addeth (q) Cont. lit Petil. l. 2. c. 51. Why dost thou call the Apostolike See the chaire of pestilence If in respect of the men whom thou thinkest to speake the Law and not to fulfill is did our Lord Iesus Christ for the Pharisees of whom he sayth they say and do not any way wrong the chaire in which they sate Nay did he not commend that chaire of Moyses and reprehend them preseruing entire the honor of the Chaire If you would thinke vpon these things you would not for the men whom you defame blaspheme the Apostolike Chaire with which you do not communicate So S. Augustine to Petilianus and so we to you SECT V. Whether the Roman Church at any time be diuided into many Heads HOw ill aduised you are to obiect either the multitude or the long continuance of Schismes which haue bene in the Roman Church you haue heard (r) See aboue Chap. 7. prope sin Chap. 12. sect 7. But because in time of Schisme when there are two or three that pretend right to the chaire of S. Peter the faithfull cannot certainly know which of them is true Pope you aske (s) Pag. 352. What resolution our Church can haue in such a case adding moreouer (t) Pag. 353. that our article of belieuing this only singular Roman Pope without which fayth none can be saued damneth two of the three parts of our Roman Church at that time Your question is a doubt springing from ignorance and your addition an vntruth To your question S. Antoninus (u) Part. 3 â—is 21. c. 2. seqq hath answeared who treating of the schisme which happened in time of Vrban the sixth against whom the French Cardinalls â—earing his seuerity and flying to Anagnia created a new Pope calling him Clement the seauenth prescribeth this rule that in time of Schisme when two or more at the same time hold themselues to be true Popes it is not necessary for saluation to belieue any one of them determinatly to be the true Pope but disiunctiuely him that hath bene Canonically assumpted And which of them determinatly that is faythfull people are not bound to know but may follow the iudgment of their Prelates and Superiors To which Gerson (x) De modo hab se temp Schism addeth that in this case it is temerarious iniutious and scandalous to hold as excommunicated or out of the state of saluation those that adhere to either part or that carry themselues noutrally and that it is lawfull to communicate with either party and to obey either of those Popes as occasion shall serue while the right of neither is certainely knowne And this he confirmeth by the answere which S. Ambrose gaue to S. Augustine concerning the lawfulnesse of fasting or not fasting on Saturdaies according to the diuersity of times places and persons I conclude therfore that your so often repeating as an article of our fayth that for saluation it is necessary to belieue that this determinat man is true Pope and true Head of the Church if you speake of belieuing it with diuine fayth you confesse the contrary to be held by many of our learned Diuines and that their opinion hath neuer bene censured by the Church But if you speake of belieuing it at least with morall certainty it is granted by all Catholike Diuines when there is but one determinat person whom the whole Church receaueth and obiecteth as her vndoubted Head and as the Vicar of Christ vpon earth But yet neither that is necessary in time of Schisme when of two or three it is doubtfull which is the true Pope for then it is sufficient to belieue him to be true Pope which is Canonically chosen without determining any of them in particular as S. Antoninus and Gerson haue taught instructing you how to carry your selfe in such a case But I feare you haue no desire to learne SECT VI. Whether the Roman Church be doubtfully headed TO proue that the Roman Church is doubtfully headed you alleage (y) Pag. 354.355.356 that after 1600. yeares it is not yet determined whether the supreme Iudge in our Church be the Roman Pope or a Councell collecting from thence that the Roman Church should not take vpon her to determine Controuersies of fayth against Protestants before she haue satisfied Protestants in this one whether Pope or Councell be indeed the supreme Iudge So you as you are wont for you are not ignorant that this diuision is inadequate since beside the Pope alone without a Councell and a Councell alone without the Pope there is a third member which is the Pope together with a Councell whose iudgment in matters of fayth all Catholikes hold to be infallible Nor did any euer defend that a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope can erre either in definitions of fayth or manners This is the sense and meaning of Catholike Doctors when they say The Church cannot erre for by the Church they vnderstand not the Pope alone without a Councell nor a Councell alone without the Pope but both of them together as they make one whole Church consisting of the Pope as Head and of the Councell as the representatiue body therof This is that supreme Iudge which
condemned the Arians in the Councell of Nice the Macedonians in the first of Constantinople the Nestorians in that of Ephesus and the Eutychians at Chalcedon And the same hath condemned you in the Councell of Trent and in others formerly in which some of your Protestant Tenets haue bene censured as hereticall To the sentence of this Iudge all Christians are bound to submit our Blessed Sauiour hauing commanded (z) Math. 1â— 17. that whosoeuer heareth not the Church that is to say the Prelates of the Church for so the Fathers expound be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican But you cunningly diuert from this which is certaine and out of dispute to another question whether the Pope be aboue a Councell or a Councell aboue the Pope And although you had said aboue (a) Pag. 115. fin that to hold the Pope to be aboue a Councell is a flat heresy long since condemned by our Councells of Constance and Basil because then that was best for your purpose yet here (b) Pag. 355. fin 356. because the contrary fitteth you better you say It is no matter of fayth but a thing disputable on both sides among vs you make a pitifull complaint that so principall a case as this after 1600. yeares should not be resolued by the Church And why is all this your solicitude mary to the end you may take occasion to traduce Stapleton whom you will haue (c) Pag. 356. to be our fore-man and to speake for vs all saying that although this case haue not bene decided by any absolute Decree yet it is defined by the tacit and secret consent of the Doctors of the Church scarce any one Diuine holding any other opinion herin then that which before that of late this controuersy was moued was anciently in force namely that the Pope is aboue a Councell as the Head is aboue the Body As if he should say Sirs if the question be whether Iohn an Oake or Iohn a Stile be heire to that land because the witnesses conceale their meaning without question they by a tacit consent are for the Complainant that Iohn an Oake must cary the land O Quack-saluer So you who whiles you striue to play vpon Stapleton make your selfe ridiculous for you cite those words out of Stapleton Doctr. prâ—â— l. 13. c. 15. who in that worke hath no more but twelue bookes in all Wherfore the words are either coined by you or if they be Stapletons he is not only miscited but egregiously abused by you for doth he not say in expresse words that among Catholike Diuines scarcely any one is of another opinion then that the Pope is aboue a Councell as the Head is about the Body What els is this to say but that Catholike Diuines in their bookes published to the view of the world haue expressed themselues and vnanimously declared that the Pope is aboue a Councell And this their accord expressed in their writings Stapleton with great reason calls A tacit definition that is to say an expression and accord equiualent to a definition euen as he who should tell a man that he speakes often vntruly as you in your Grand Imposture do should tacitly or virtually tell him that he were not a silent witnesse nor a dumbe Iudge against you so nether are the Diuines alleaged by Stapleton silent witnesses or dumbe Iudges in the question proposed I conclude therfore that Doctor Stapleton is not the Quack-saluer but Doctor Morton your Argument so poore that Iohn an Oake or Iohn a Stile might easily haue framed a better SECT VII Of the Councell of Constance defining a Councell to be aboue the Pope TO proue that a Councell is aboue the Pope in matters of direction of fayth and manners you obiect (d) Pag. 356.357 the fourth Canon of the Councell of Constance which Councell say you was expresly confirmed by Pope Martin to be held inuiolabia in matters of fayth True But your dealing is not true for as Turrecremata Campegius Sanders (e) Apud Bell. l. 1. de Pont. c. 19. Caietan (f) Opusc de autho Papae Conc. and Canus (g) L. 5. c. 6. §. Ad octau haue obserued the Councell when that decree was made was not a generall but a particular Councell and the decree it selfe was not vniuersall for all times but only for that time of schisme when it was vncertaine which of three that actually pretended right to the See of S. Peter was true Pope or indeed whether any of the three were true Pope or no. And were it granted that in a case of vncertainty as this was whether there were any true Pope in the Church a Councell is superior to the doubtfull Popes and hath authority to depose them and prouide a certaine and vndoubted Head for the Church it would not follow that when an vndoubted Head is chosen the Councell is superior to him for he hath not his authority from the Councell but from Christ Againe wheras no decree of any Councell can be of force if it be not confirmed by the See Apostolike (h) See aboue Chap. 17. sect 6. this was not only not confirmed but reiected and as you know Bellarmine (i) L. 1. de Concil c. 7. Binius (k) In not ad hoc Concil haue noted absolutely condemned by the Councels of Florence and Lateran And lastly it was inualid because the Bishops that adhered to two of the three which held theÌ„selues to be Popes consented not to it (l) Bellar. ibid. The decrees of faith which Martin Pope coÌ„firmed were only those the Councell made against the heresies of Iohn Wiclef Iohn Hus Hierome of Prage Saints of your Protestant Kalender (m) See Pâ—xe Ian. 1. May 2. Iune 1. as appeareth out of his Bull of confirmation annexed to the Councell in which this decree of the Councels superiority to the Pope is not mentioned much lesse confirmed But you obiect (n) Pag. 357. sin when the Councell of Constance fayth The Councell hath its authority immediatly from Christ the meaning is as you are taught that the Popes authority is not of diuine but of humane institution This is your comment false in it selfe (o) See aboueâ— Chap. 19. sect 9. and directly contrary to the meaning of the Councell of Constance which setteth downe this your proposition (p) Sess 1â— as the ninth article of Iohn Hus and condemneth it as hereticall together with other articles in which Protestants agree with him And in like manner it defineth (q) Sess 8. against the articles 37. and 41. of Wiklef that the Pope is immediate Vicar of Christ and that for saluation it is necessary to belieue his authority ouer all Churches and that the Roman Church is the chiefe of all others In which condemnation whether Protestants holding the same errors be not inuolued I leaue to your iudgment Finally the same Councell as you reade in the last session was dissolued by
therfore to be contemned as being admitted but of late which is not only a false translation but a manifest peruerting of the sense for Castro speaketh not of the doctrine or lawfulnesse of granting indulgences but de earum vsu of the vse of them which therfore in your english you cunningly omit that ouâ— of him you may proue the doctrine of them to be new Yea and concerning the very vse of them he proueth it to be most ancient by the same arguments Roffensis before him had done concluding that you and all others which contemne a thing practised so many hundreds of yeares by the Catholike Church and established by generall Councels are iustly accounted heretikes So farre is Castro from fauoring Luthers cause The third Author is Bellarmine out of whom you cite these words (n) Pag. 385. Thesaurus Ecclesiae spiritualis est fundamentum indulgentiarum Which words you english Thus The ground of indulgences is the spirituall treasury of workes consisting in the satisfactory and meritorious workes of supererogation done by the faithfull Which treasury to haue bene anciently wanting you proue also out of Bellarmine setting downe these words as his Hoc caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Louanienses This your Doctors of Louaine and some Scholemen as you know affirme was anciently wanting in the Church So you and then you tell vs (o) Ibid. out of Suarez who those Schole men were namely Mayzo and Durandus In this short passage of yours there are almost as many vntruthes and falsifications as words For first the Latin words are not Bellarmines but your owne fathered on him And so also are the English which neuerthelesse you set downe in a different character as his not only disagree from the Latin but containe false doctrine repugnant to all Catholike Diuines and in particular to Bellarmine who in that very place (p) L. 1. de Indulg c. 2. proposit 2. teacheth that meritorious workes as such cannot be applied to others nor belong to the treasure of the Church but only as satisfactory 3. You falsify making Bellarmine to limit the spirituall treasure of the Church to workes of supererogation only which is ignorantly spoken and not taught by Bellarmine nor any Catholike Diuine 4. You father on him falsly those last words Hoc thesauro caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Louanienses for they are not his nor doth he attribute any such doctrine to the Deuines of Louain nor so much as once name them in all that Chapter Is it not then great perfidiousnesse so to abuse and falsify both him and them Nor is your dealing better with Suarez for to omit that in the place you cite he treateth of no such matter nether he nor Bellarmine euer say that Duraud denied this treasure of the Church but only that he held it to consist of the satisfactions of Christ and not of the Saints Which yet he speaketh by way of doubt Theologicall dispute rather then affirmatiuely for coming to deliuer his owne opinion he sayth plainly and resolutely (q) 4. Dist 20. q. 3. Est in Ecclesia c. There is in the Church a spirituall treasure of the passion of Christ and his Saints who suffered farre greater torments then their sinnes deserued And therfore the Church out of this treasure may communicate to one or more so much as may suffice to make satisfaction for their sinnes either in part or in whole according as the Church shall please to communicate this treasure more or lesse which is nothing els but the sufferings of Christ and his Saints communicated to vs to satisfy for our sinnes Wherfore indulgences auaile by way of payment for so much as by Christ his Saints the paine to which we are lyable is paied But if he had held that the spirituall treasure of the Church consisteth of the satisfactions of Christ only that would auaile you nothing for he defendeth Indulgences which you deny and if he erred in any thing he errred not with obstinacy as you do but submitted all his workes to the correction of the holy Catholike Roman Church as you haue read in Bellarmine but conceale it I conclude therfore that the great cloud of witnesses which you haue brought to iustify Luthers doctrin against indulgences is either of Heretikes or of Catholikes in workes prohibited by the Church or if not prohibited abused and falsified by you SECT X. The causes giuen by Doctor Morton in excuse of Luthers departure from the Roman Church THe causes you haue deuised to iustify Luthers departure from the Roman Church are partly impious partly false and imposterous Impious as your excepting against the Masse (r) Pag. 387. to which Luther was persuaded by the Diuell calling it Idolatry as you do And not vnlike to this is your example of Firmilianus (s) Pag. 388. who being for the time an obstinate mantainer of Rebaptization was excommunicated by Stephen a holy Pope and notwithstanding that Stephens sentence was imbraced by all the Catholikes of the world and the doctrine of Firmilianus condemned by the holy Councell of Nice and euer since esteemed hereticall not only by Catholikes but also by Protestants you shame not to iustify Firmilianus (t) Ibid. and all the rest that followed the same heresy with him to condemne Pope Stephen as a Schismatike for excommunicating him Such examples I confesse you may find to defend Luthers departure from the Roman Church The rest of the causes which you alleage (u) Pag. 387. are false and imposterous as that the Roman Church mantaineth new articles of fayth and Satanicall doctrines that she blasphemeth the truth and tyrannically forceth men to subscribe which as they are false and slanderous accusations so you vtter them gratis and without any proofe at all and say nothing to iustify Luther but what a Donatist an Arian or any other heretike neuer so blasphemous will say for himselfe may with as good ground as Luther or you for him But you alleage (x) Pag. 389. Cassander whom you call our Cassander notwithstanding that heretofore you haue had a double admonition (y) See aboue Chap. 2. that he was a wicked heretike Prima classis whose workes being condemned and prohibited by the Church are of no more authority with vs then your Grand Imposture And not vnlike to this is your other example of Stephen Gardiner B. of Winchester as already hath bene shewed (z) Ibid. And as little to your purpose is another example which here you adde (a) Pag. 392. of an Epistle of Robert Grosthead B. of Lincolne taken out of the history of Mathew Paris which was set forth corruptedly by English Protestants and then by the Tigurine Lutherans who haue added many things both in their marginall notes and in the text in selfe against the authority of the Roman Church (b) See Bellar. l. de Scriptor Out of this Epistle of Grosthead to Innocentius the fourth you obiect a long
here by the way I must aduertise you of a sleight which you often vse and it is that when in the explication of any point of Doctrine you finde diuersity of opinions among Catholike Diuines some speaking more probably or properly and others lesse you conceale the former and set downe the latter as here you do calling it the accordance of our owne Doctors and from thence frame arguments against vs as from a ground which we are not to deny But who seeth not this manner of arguing to be fraududulent For by denying that opinion or manner of speech as any Catholike may do such arguments need no solutions but of themselues fall to the ground For example I may refuse to allow the opinioÌ„ of those Diuines which say sinners are not members but partes of the Church I may also reiect Costerus his manner of speach tearming them superfluous humors and therby it will appeare that your obiecting these authors to proue that sinners are not members of the Church is an argument of no force especially since they differ not from other Diuines which hould wicked men and reprobats to be members of the Church really but only in manner of speach as hath bene shewed To the testimonies of Scripture you adde (m) Pag. 1â— some Fathers who so expresly condeÌ„ne your doctrine that no man but your selfe could be so inconsiderate as to make them patrons of it S. Ambrose teacheth and proueth out of S. Paul (n) 1. Tim. 2.20 that as in a great house there are some vessels of siluer and gold and some of wood and earth so in the Church there are some good and perfect signified by the siluer and gold and some bad and reprobate signified by the vessels of wood and earth And of this truth saith he I thinke no man to doubt The same Doctrine he like wise expresseth in other his workes S. Augustine whom in the second place you obiect condemneth your Doctrine in these words (o) Tract 6. in Ioan. We confesse that in the Catholike Church there are both good and bad the good are corne the bad chaffe The Church hath in her strong men and weake she hath iust and iniust (p) Serm. 107. de temp In the Church there are many reprobates mingled with the good and both of them are gathered as into a net and swimme together in this world without difference vntill they come to the shore where the euill shall be seuered from (q) De Ciuit. Deil. 18 c. 49. the good With S. Augustine accordeth S. Bernard prouing out of the same parable of the Net contayning good and bad fishes that in the Church militant there are iust men and sinners elect and (r) Serm de conuers ad cleriâ—os c. 17. eoist 11. reprobate S. Gregory sayth (s) Hom. 11. in Euangel That the holy Church on earth is rightly compared to ten Virgins of which some are wise and some foolish because in her the good are mingled with the wicked the elect with the reprobate These testimonies conuince that wheras you here confesse (t) Pag. 13. your Doctrine in this poynt to be one of the Tenents for which Iohn Husse was burned in the Councell of Constance you by making the Fathers guilty of the same Tenet do what you can to cast them into the same fier with him that so they may be burnt for heresy as he was The accusations you being against them to proue them guilty of Iohn Husse his heresy are First because S. Ambroses words say you are (u) Pag. 12. All that are in the Church fight for Christ intimating that the wicked fight against Christ. Why do you wrest S. Ambroses words to a false sense his words are Omnes qui sunt in Ecclesia Deo militant which signify nothing els but that all which are in the Church are Gods soldiars and fight vnder his colours But all that fight vnder Gods colours fight not as good soldiars many suffer themselues to be ouercome and lose that crowne which no man shall gaine but he that ouercometh These are the reprobats of whom it is true that albeit for the present many of them be in gods campe which is his Church yet before their death they shall runne away as Iudas did and be damned with him Out of S. Augustins worke de Genesi ad literam c. 2. you obiect these words (x) Pag. 12. The Catholike Church is so called because it is in euery part perfect But S. Augustine in that place hath no such words And you are very forgetfull for a litle before you told (y) Pag. 9. vs out of S. Augustine that to hold the Catholike Church here vpon earth to consist of them that are perfect was the heresy of the Pelagians And yet now speaking of the same Church you set downe as S. Augustins words that the Catholike Church is so called because it is in euery part perfect which is to make S. Augustine say and vnsay as you doe but the truth is that these later words are not his but yours and so the contradiction must rest vpon you not vpon him In like manner you say (z) Pag. 12. that the Church of Christ consisteth only of the predestinate and sanctified elect of God But els where you tell vs (a) Pag 340. that the Aegyptians Aethiopians Armenians Russians and others among whom there are some guilty of some fundament all heresies are partes of the Catholike Church and in state of saluation And againe both in this Grand Imposture (b) Pag. 330. and in your Treatise of the kingdome of Israel in the Tract of the Church (c) Sect. 4. pag. 8. your Tenet is that those who professe Iesus Christ to be the Sauiour of the world although they do indirectly by wickednesse of life or heresy in doctrine deny their owne profession yet are they to be accounted Christians true members of the Church consist only of the predestinate and sanctified elect of God how can it be verified that heretikes are true members of the Catholike Church since it is the constant Doctrine of S. Augustine and all the fathers that heretikes are wholy out of the Church and neither sanctified nor predestinate but miscreant reprobates and out of the state of saluation Your doctrine therfore is that the Church consisteth of the sanctified and predestinate only and yet withall that it consisteth also of Arians and other heretikes who are damnable reprobates Reconcile these two Againe you Protestants esteeme your selues to be all true members of the Church yet among you there are some drunkards adulterers vsurers and theeues If therfore you be all in the number of the sanctified and elect of God some of you be strange Saints But to returne to your obiections out of S. Augustine the other two testimonies which you (e) Pag. 12. lit 0. bring are nothing to your purpose for he only sayth that the predestinate cannot be seduded nor diuided