indulgences we know not for all his actions are not written We know that S. Paul did excommunicat the incestuous Corinthian (b) 1. Cor. 5.5 and afterwards when he repented at the intercession of Timothy Titus as Theodoret (c) In 1. Cor. 2.10 expoundeth granted him a pardon or Indulgence in the person of Christ that is to say by the power he had receaued from Christ to that end Nor is it to be doubted but that S. Peter who as ordinary Pastor had power ouer the whole Church did exercise the same power if the like occasion were offered 4. In those primitiue times the Canonization of Saints was not performed with so great solemnity nor with such exact inquiry into all particulars nor with the deposition of so many witnesses as in these later ages it is If then the Church did with vnanimous consent reuerence any one that had died for Christ as the Martyrs did or that liued died holily as did the Confessors he was by publike voyce and consent of the Church reuerenced as a Saint the See Apostolike either expresly or taciâ—ly approuing the same and therby canonized In this manner were Canonized S. Stephen and others that died before S. Peter without whose approbation neither S. Stephen nor any one els was then reuerenced by the whole Church as a Saint not any since that time without the approbation of his Successors 5. To make good S. Peters iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles you require vs (d) Pag. 46. fin to shew that he pardoned Simony and almost an 100. the like sinnes which is to say that vnlesse we shew that the other Apostles committed Simony and almost an 100. the like sinnes and that S. Peter pardoned them we must not belieue S. Peter to haue had power and iurisdiction ouer them That S. Peter euer pardoned Simony we read not but that he punished it we proue by the power he shewed ouer Simon Magus (e) See aboue Nu. 24. And how far the Successors of S. Peter are from pardoning or any way conniuing at Simony yea how seuere they are and euer haue bene in the punishment therof the decrees and constitutions of diuers Popes extant in the Canon Law giue abundant witnesse against such men as you are who out of their hatred to the Roman See are wont to slander S. Peter in his Successors falsly with pardoning Simony and almost an 100. the like sinnes as here you do without any proofe at all 6. With no lesse folly you require vs (f) Pag. 46. 47. to shew that S. Peter was distinguished from the other Apostles by some one note and character of Imperial eminency and authority as by his guard or coyne or habit or command or constitutions as euery temporall Monarch is distinguished from his Nobles Can there be greater simplicity then to require vs to shew that S. Peter like an Emperor had Princely robes a guard and a peculiar coyne as kings Emperors haue when he was no temporall Monarch and when not only he but as you forgetting your selfe (g) Pag. 283. confesse the holy Popes his Successors in those primitiue time were alas daily in danger of banishments imprisonments torments death Is it not then ridiculous to bid vs shew S. Peters guard and his coyne his commands we shew for Oecumenius sayth (h) In cap 1 â—ct The Apostles were committed to the gouerment of Peter and presently at his command appointed two whom they thought worthiest to be chosen in place of Iudas which Doctrine is also deliuered by S. Chrysostome (i) Hom 3. in Act. Of the Constitutions of the Apostles which were peculiarly of S. Peter as their Head and set forth by Clement his Disciple and Successor we know that albeit they are of no great reckoning among many of the Latines as hauing some things inserted into them by heretikes yet they are greatly esteemed by the Greekes and both cited and commended by S. Epiphanius (k) Hâ—â—r 45. ser 70. and other Greeke Fathers To which I add that they are learnedly defended by Turrianus (l) Proem in lib. Clem. Ro. and Genebrard (m) L. de Liturg Apostol c. 5 fol. 21.22 affirmes them to haue bene receaued by all antiquity Your last argument to proue as you call it (n) Pag. 47. the no domination of S. Peter ouer the other Apostles is that meeting together at Hierusalem they sent Peter and Iohn into Samaria which proueth Peter to haue no superiority ouer the rest by whom he was sent or if it doe it must needs imply in Iohn an equality with Peter for as Iohn was not sent as Superior to the other Apostles so neither was Peter This inference we wholly deny 1. because in a Corporation or Colledge as that of the Apostles was the Superior may out of his owne desire be sent in the name of the whole Community the Maior in name of the Citty and the Deane in name of the Chapter 2. The authority of the whole Colledge together which includeth both the head the members differeth from the Head alone to vse the phrase of Metaphysicks tanquam includens ab incluso and is at least extensiue of greater authority then the Head alone and therfore the Head alone may be sent by authority of the whole Colledge 3. And if we take a community for the inferiors not including their Superior though he cannot be sent by their command he may by their in treaty So S. Chrysostome (*) In cap 11 ep ad Gal. sayth Paul was sent to Hierusalem by the Christians of Antioch who yet were not his Superiors So the Deane is sometymes sent by the Canons and the Rector by the Collegialls So was Pope Piâ—â— the second sent by the Colledge of Cardinals about an expedition intended against the Turkes and as Bozius obserneth (o) De fig. Eccles to 2. l. 18. c. 2. §. Quocirca the Roman Emperors were often sent by the Senate Nor doth such a mission any way extenuate but rather manifest the authority of such Missionants for persons of greatest quality are fittest to be employed vpon weighty affaires especially when they import the publike good as this Mission of Peter and Iohn did for Philip the Deacon hauing conuerted the Samaritans to Christ these two great Apostles were sent to oppose the wicked practises of Simon Magus by whom the Samaritans had bene long seduced and to confirme them in their fayth giuing them the holy Ghost by imposition of hands a thing which Philip though otherwise a most perfect man and full of the holy Ghost yet being no Bishop was not able to doe that being a function proper to Bishops To this you haue no other reply to make then tell vs that a iourney vndertakeâ— by a Gouernor at the desire and request of his inferiors cannot be called a mission but a profection and going An answere that serues for nothing but to discouer your ignorance for the
S. Augustins but of an hereticall Author Bellarmine I grant confesseth the booke not to be S. Augustines and therfore he citeth it not as of S. Augustine he granteth also that the author erred in some particulars which he expresseth but because in this matter of S. Peters Supremacy he was neuer taxed of error but agreeth with the rest of the Fathers his testimony was not to be contemned especially being so forcible as you (z) Pag. 52. confesse it to be But be it whose you will with what face can you reiect it For do you not produce against vs two other testimonies of the same booke affirming (a) Pag. 30. 286. S. Augustine himselfe to be the author of them This Dilemma wil discouer your dealing either the book is S. Augustins or it is not If it be not S. Augustines why do you in other places vrge it against vs as of S. Augustine If it be S. Augustines why do you here deny it to be his and reiect it as hereticall when we vrge it against you Is not this shufling Shall it be S. Augustines and of force when you vrge it against vs shall it not only not be S. Augustines but hereticall when we vrge it against you but such dealing suiteth best with a Grand Imposture The third testimony which Bellarmine alleageth of S. Augustine is out of his second booke of Baptisme against the Donatists where hauing said that the primacy of the Apostles doth singularly excell in Peter he addeth I thinke that Cyprian Bishop without any affront is compared to Peter the Apostle for as much as concernes the glory of Martyrdome but I rather ought to feare lest I be contumelious to Peter for who knoweth not that that Princedome of Apostleship is to be preferred before whatsoeuer Bishoprick To this you answere (b) Pag. 49. marg fin That Primatus Apostolorum signifieth nothing els but Munus Apostolicum the Apostolicall function and that is most illustrious in Peter But your answere is deficient for to say that the primacy of the Apostleship singularly excelled in Peter is not only to say that Peter was an Apostle but that he was Primate and Prince of the Apostles and that his primacy contained a singular preeminence of dignity belonging to him which was not in any of the other Apostles and this dignity it was that made him more illustrious then the rest Againe wheras S. Augustine said he had cause to feare lest he might affront S. Peter in comparing Cyprian the Martyr vnto him because that Princedome of Apostleship which was in Peter exceeded all Bishopricks you answere (c) Pag. 50. marg that in these words there is only a comparison betweene Peters Apostleship and Cyprians Bishoprick and that no Protestant will deny that the Apostleship though of Barnabas was more excellent then the Bishoprick although of Linus This answere is not to the purpose for S. Augustine compares not the Apostleship in generall with Cyprians Bishoprick but in particular illum Apostolatus principatum that Princedome or Soueraignty of the Apostleship which was peculiar to Peter as to Head and Prince of all the Apostles Nor is it true that S. Augustine only compareth Peters Apostleship with Cyprians Bishoprick he compares Peters Bishoprick with Cyprians Bishopprick Peters Chayre with Cyprians Chayre which you cunningly leaue out both in your english and Latin acknowledgeth that distal cathâ—drarum gratia etsi vna sit Martyrum gloria that albeit the glory of Martyrdome be alike in them both yet there is distance betwene the Dignity of their chayres and by reason of this distance S. Augustine sayth he hath cause to feare lest he wrong Peter in making any comparison betwene Cyprians chayre and his chayre for though Cyprian were Primate of all Africa yet Peter was Bishop and Gouernor of the Vniuersall Church a dignity no way belonging to Cyprian or any other Bishop or Apostle whatsoeuer With shifts not vnlike to these you elude the testimonies of S. Cyprian S. Hierome and other Fathers who as you confesse (d) Pag. 50. iâ—it call Peter sometymes Prince Head and Captayne of all the Apostles somtymes Chiefe Priest of the Christians Captayne of Gods hoast Pastor and foundation of the whole Church and One to whom the guydance and presidence of the vniuersall Church is committed To these their testimonies you answere (e) Pag. 50. med that they argue not any primacy of authority and iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles or ouer the whole Church but of Order only This distinction you often vse to shift of the authorities of Fathers when you are pressed with them By Primacy of Order you vnderstand priority of place and of voyce as afterwards (*) Pag. 110. you declare But whatsoeuer you vnderstand sure I am that ancient Fathers by the primacy of Peter vnderstand not only priority of place and of voyce but true power and iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church and so it is apparent by the very names which they vse to expresse his primacy as of Prince Head and Captayne of all the Apostles Pastor and President of the vniuersall Church for hath not the Prince in his territories authority and iurisdiction hath he not power to commaÌ„d his subiects to make lawes to punish offendors In a City hath not the Head which is the Magistrate power and authority ouer the Citizens Hath not a Captayne the command of his soldiers and the Pastor power to rule his flock wherfore since with the Fathers you confesse that Peter is Prince Head and Captayne of all the Apostles Pastor and foundation of the whole Church and that the guydance and presidence of the vniuersall Church is committed to him either you vnderstand not what you say or els you grant that Peter hath not only primacy of Order but of authority power coÌ„mand ouer the Apostles ouer the whole Church as a Prince hath ouer his subiects a Captaine ouer his souldiers a Maior ouer the Citizens and a shepheard ouer his flock And what els is it that S. Chrysostome teacheth saying (f) Hom. in B. Ignat. that Peter was the Superintendent of the whole world that to him Christ consigned the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen and committed the disposition of all things And (h) Orat. 5. aduers Iud. that Peter was made chiefe of the Apostles and had the whole world in subiection and (i) Hom. 80. ad pop Autioch that Christ deliuered to him the gouerment of the Church throughout the whole world What els did S. Maximus meane when he said (k) Hom. 3. in Natali Apost Pet. Pauli Peter was of so great merit in the sight of Christ that after the rowing of a small boat the gouerment of the whole Church was put into his hands What Arnobius (l) Ad Psal 138. pronouncing that Peter is Bishop of Bishops and that Christ gaue to him and to no other of the Apostles
the law and not to fulfill it did our Lord Iesus Christ for the Pharisies of whom he sayth that they say and do not do any wrong to the chayre in which they did sit Did he not commend that chayre of Moyses and reprehend them preseruing the honor of the chayre Wherfore you in carping at the vices of some Popes shew your self to be like to the Donatists who sayth S. Augustine (z) Ibid. had with wicked fury separated themselues from the Roman Church And as no vices of Popes could iustify their separation so neither can it yours I denie not but that histories mention sinnes and scandals of some Popes but yet of few in comparison of the great number of most holy and learned Bishops that haue possessed that Seat for whose excellent vertues and great labors in defending and propagating the Catholike faith you ought rather to commend the Bishops of Rome then for the vices of a few to defame both them and their Seat Though all the Popes haue not bene holy like Sem and Iaphet yet as S. Gregory admonisheth (a) L. 25. Mor. c. 22. l. 3. Pastoral c. 1. it is not lawfull for you to imitate wicked Cham in laying open their faults It is no maruell if among so many good there haue bene some few bad for among the twelue Apostles there was a Iudas whose wickednesse as it was no defamation to the Apostolicall function so nether are they faults of a few bad Popes to the dignity of the Roman See But what if there had bene many Could their euill life excuse your euill fayth Shall their falling from God by frailty for a tyme iustify your departing for euer from Gods Church by contempt and obstinate rebellion If the ill liues of Prelates be a sufficient cause to forsake the Church how can you remaine in your Protestant Congregation For Luther whom your brother Klebitius in his booke against the Saxonicall Popedome tearmeth The Pope of Wittemberg was a Iewd Apostata and had conuersation with the Diuell Caluin a stigmaticall Sodomite Beza an especiall paterne of wantonnesse and lust And if you looke nearer home Cranmer and other chief Heads in your English Church haue not bene very great Saints Wherfore since you cannot but know that the ill liues of some Popes is a Non sequitur to proue that they may erre in their definitions of fayth you cannot be so simple as to alleage it to that end but only to ease your stomake of some parte of that venime wherwith it is charged against the authority of the Roman Church And yet not this without imposture for of the authors which you bringe Massonius is a fabulous Historian and forbidden by the Church (b) In indic lè prohib Costerus as in that very place he confesseth that Popes may be wicked in their liues (c) Enchir. c. 3. §. Patemur so he proueth that they cannot propose to the Church any heresy or error which is the thing you ought to disproue but cannot therfore diuert from it to rayle at the ill liues of Popes that haue bene or may be Baronius and Genebraed speake only of such Popes as were intruded partly by the tyranny of Emperors partly by the Marquis of Thuscia partly by the Nobility of Rome and Princes of Etruria This you ought to haue obserued with Baronius and with him to haue put your reader in mind of the singular care and prouidence wherwith Christ protecteth the Roman Church for notwithstanding she suffered greater calamities by the tyranny of these Christian Princes thē she had euer done vnder any heathenish persecutors yet it cannot be shewed that any of those Princes euer doubted of the infallibility of the Roman Church or that any of the aforesaid Popes albeit they came in by intrusion euer taught any thing repugnant to fayth SECT III. S. Pauls subiection to S. Peter and his acknowledgment therof TO proue that S. Paul belieued not the domination of S. Peter for so you call it (d) Pag. 57. and consequently of the Pope or the vniuersall power of the Roman Church aboue all others or yet the absolute continuance therof in the fayth of Christ you spend many arguments throughout six whole Sections from the eight to the fourteenth all which make against your selfe It is frequent with you to call the supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction of S. Peter and his successors their dominion If by dominion you vnderstand a dominiering power wherwith some temporall Princes gouerne their subiectes S. Peter forbiddeth that to all ecclesiasticall Prelates (e) 1. Pet. 5.3 commanding them not to dominiere in the Clergy But if by dominion you vnderstand a Fatherly gouerment and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church and their infallible assurance in their definitions of fayth that S. Peter and his successors haue such a power and iurisdiction hath bene already proued will be more confirmed by the answere to your arguments against S. Peters supremacy out of sundry passages of S. Paul to the Galathians (f) Pag. 58. seqq The first is Paul some tyme after the exercise of his Apostleship would not goe to Hierusalem to Peter or any of the Apostles lest he might haue seemed to haue bene authorized by them yet three yeares after that he taketh a iourney thither of see Peter doubtlesse for honor sake as one in order of Apostleship most eminent but this be did voluntarily in discretion brotherly communion not in subiection as the Context sheweth So you but the Context sheweth no such matter and the sacred Expositors teach directly the contrary S. Ambrose (g) In eum locum It was fit that Paul should desire to see Peter to whom our Sauiour had committed the charge of the Churches S. Hierome (h) Ep. 89. quae est 11. inter epist. August Peter was of so great authority that Paul writeth in his epistle Then after three yeares I came to Hierusalem to see Peter And againe (i) In c. 1. ad Gal. He went to see him to the end he might yeild honor vnto him Theodoret (k) In cap. 1. ad Gal. he went to yeild vnto Peter as to the Prince of the Apostles that honor which was fitting And shewing that S. Paul held Peter to be the supreme iudge to whom all doubts of fayth ought to be referred he sayth (l) In ep ad Leon. Paul the preacher of truth and the trumpet of the holy Ghost ranne to the great Peter for a resolution of such doubts as rising about the obseruation of the Law did minister occasion of strife to them that were at Antioch Oecumenius (m) In cap. 1. ad Gal. He went to see him as one greater then himselfe and stayed with him to honor him with his presence S. Chrysostome (n) Hom. 87. in Ioan. He went to see him aboue others because he was the mouth and Prince of the Apostles and the Head of the whole company
of the East and many of the West it is a manifest signe so much the more euident the greater the persecutions and the more and longer the schismes haue bene that she is the impregnable Rock which the proud gates of hell cannot ouerthrow SECT VIII Other Arguments out of S. Paul and other Catholike Authors answered S. Paul writing to the Romans sayth (x) Rom. 1.13 I haue often purposed to come vnto you that I may haue some fruite in you as also in the other Gentils Tolet (y) in eum loc Annot. 22. vpon these words obserueth that the Ghospell is indifferent to all and that howbeit the Romans were more eminent then other nations and had the primacy yet in preaching of the Ghospell and busines belonging to saluation the Apostle equalleth others with them These words of Tolet you obiect (z) Pag 70. but to what end I know not for Tolet declareth the reasoÌ„ why S. Paul equalleth other nations with the Romans in preaching to them the doctrine of Christ and procuring their saluation to be because as Christ found all sinners and dyed for all so he calleth all and receaueth them from whence soeuer they come If you had set downe these words of Tolet you had discouered that to inferre either from his or S. Pauls words the equality of other Churches with the Roman in matter of iurisdiction is a senselesse illation for by the same consequence you may inferre that all Diocesans in spiritual iurisdiction are equall with their Bishops and all subiects in temporall power with their Princes because Christ hauing shed his bloud equally for all the soules of all are equally deare to him and their saluation ought with all indifferency to be procured by preaching the Ghospell to all aswell to the least as to the greatest to the poorest as to the richest 2. No lesse impertinently you obiect other words of the same Apostle (a) Rom. 11.19 in which as you confesse he exhorteth not the Romans in particular but all the conuerted Gentils in generall not to be ouer-wise but to feare lest they also be broken off by infidelity as the Iewes were For these words shew that no man hath certainty of fayth that he shall be saued as Protestants vaynly presume themselues to haue but that all ought to liue in feare lest they fall into infidelity or other sinnes which feare the Bishop of Rome and the Romans ought to haue as well as other nations But to inferre from thence that the Bishop of Rome may teach hereticall Doctrine ex Cathedra or that the whole Roman Church may fall from the fayth which is the poynt in controuersy nether is it S. Pauls meaning nor any Interpreter euer expounded so 3. As little to your purpose it is that S. Paul sayth (b) Rom. 1.11 to the Romans I desire to see you that I may impart vnto you some spirituall grace to confirme you for therby as S. Hierome or whosoeuer is the author of those Commentaries Theodoret S. Chrysostome and S. Thomas expound (c) In eum locum he sheweth that they had receaued the fayth already from S. Peter Because sayth Theodoret the great Peter had already declared to them the Euangelicall Doctrine therfore S. Paul necessarily addes To confirme you And S. Hierome Paul sayth he will confirme the Romans already belleeuing not that they had not receaued the fayth by the preaching of Peter but that their fayth might be strengthned by the witnesse and doctrine of two Apostles Wherfore S. Paul desired to see them to confirme them that is as he himselfe declareth to the end both he they might receaue mutuall comfort from each other they by his fayth and he by theyrs What makes this against the primacy of S. Peter or of the Roman Church 4. You obiect (d) Pag. 72 Bellarmine confessing that S. Peter Paul were Co-sounders of the Roman Church He doth so it is true but yet so that S. Peter first planted that Church S. Paul came not to Rome till many yeares after to assist him for which cause the conuersion of the Romans and the planting of Christian religion there is absolutely attributed to S. Peter Our will is say the godly Emperors Theodosius and Gratian (e) Cod. tit 1. l. 1. that all the people ruled by the Empire of our clemency shall liue in the same religion which the diuine Apostle Peter gaue to the Romans as the religion insinuated by him vntill this present witnesseth and which it is manifest that the high Priest Damasus followeth Wherfore when Bellarmine sayth that S. Peter and Paul were Co-founders of the Roman Church he sayth it not to equall them in the foundation and much lesse in authority for in that very place (f) L. 1. de Pout c. 27. he learnedly proueth that in authority S. Peter farre exceeded S. Paul 5. You obiect (g) Pag. 72. out of Lorinus that S. Epiphanius calleth both Peter and Paul Bishops of Rome True but S. Pauls Episcopall authority was only transient he had no Episcopall Chayre at Rome as S. Peter had and therfore Lorinus sayth that S. Epiphanius called S. Paul Bishop of Rome in no other sense then because he exercised the Episcopall functions there as he might doe in any other place of the world This explication contents you not and therfore you say (h) Pag. 72. marg it is confuted in the next testimony and in the Challenge following but you breake promise for there you nether confute it nor mentioÌ„ it And as for the thing it selfe it is manifest for no man euer sayd that S. Paul had an Episcopall Chayre at Rome as S. Peter had no do S. Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius Optatus S. Augustine S. Epiphanius whome you obiect making catalogues of all the Roman Bishops from S. Peter till their tyme nor any other writers reckon S. Paul as one of them 6. You obiect (i) Pag. 72. that the authority of both is cited in the Popes Breues for confirmation of Papall ordinances that both haue their images ingrauen in the Popes bulls and that in such sort that Paul somtime hath the right hand of Peter as well as other while Peter of Paul You often borrow arguments out of Catholike authors and conceale their answeres This you borrowed out of Bellarmine (k) L. 1. de Poâ—t c. 27. who largely and learnedly answereth giuing three different solutions vnto it To him I remit the Reader Only I will tell you that the wordes which you set down in a different character as of Peterius are not his but your owne for thogh he proue out of Scripture out of a place of Virgil that apud homines among men the right hand is the better and more honorable yet he sayth not that it is so among all people sauing the Persians as you by adding to his words this particle All make him to say for he acknowledgeth and Bellarmine out of
the vniuersall Church hauing no right therunto A most vngodly comparison for these two Popes were of the most holy learned and renowned Prelates that euer sate in the Chayre of S. Peter since his tyme whose sanctity God hath testified with most illustrious miracles and whom all posterity hath iustly honored with the surname of Great S. Leo is he that with great care and vigilancy suppressed the Manichees that came flying out of the Africa to Rome other places of Italy that vsed singular industry to roote out the Donatists in Africa the Pelagians in France the Priscilianists in Spaine writing to the Bishops of greatest learning and fame that were then liuing in those Countries to be watchfull and assemble Councells for the condemning and extirpating those heresies and like wise he himselfe against the errors of Nestorius Eutyches Dioscorus assembled in the East that famous Councell of 630. Bishops at Chalcedon who all acknowledged him to be their Head and themselues his members and children and that to him the gouerment of the Church was committed by our Sauiour (k) In relat ad Leon. and who esteemed his words as the words of S. Peter and his iudgments as oracles of God crying out all which one voyce (l) Act. 1. Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo Leo hath iudged the iudgment of God Nor was S. Gregory of lesse renowne for to omit the admirable humility wherwith he refused the dignity of supreme Pastor the conuersion of our English nation and other great workes which he performed for the good of the Church the excellent bookes he writ for which he hath deserued the title of Doctor of the Church and the many famous miracles wherwith God declared his sanctity who is ignorant of the admirable Elogies wherwith ancient writers haue celebrated his prayses Among others that famous Archbishop of Toledo and Primate of Spayne S. Hildephonsus writeth of him (m) In lib. de viris illust that in sanctity he surpassed Antony in eloquence Cyprian in wisdome Augustine by the grace of the holy Ghost was endowed with so great light of humane science that in former ages none had bene equall vnto him And Petrus Diaconus testifieth (n) Vit. S. Greg. that he saw the holy Ghost in forme of a doue at his care inspiring him whiles he was writing which alone might haue made you forbeare the traducing of so admirable a man But returning to our question this very euasion of yours to wit that the testimonies of Popes are no sufficient argument to conclude a Papall authority because they speake in their owne cause sufficiently conuinceth that you know them to haue acknowledged such authority in themselues and that when you deny it you speake without all ground of truth for who can think that S. Leo S. Gregory and many other Popes renowned Martyrs and glorious Confessors most eminent in humility and all kind of vertue and to whose sanctity God added the seale of diuine miracles should with a Luciferian pride arrogate to themselues Pastorall authority power ouer the Church of God throughout the whole world if that dignity had not bene giuen by Christ to S. Peter and in him to them I deny therfore that when they maintayne their authority they speake in their owne cause They speake in the cause of God as witnes your selfe (o) Pag. 4◠S. Paul did when he said (p) Rom. 11. I will magnify myne office in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentiles And the like did S. Gregory when vpon that text he collected a generall lesson for the defence of his owne iurisdiction against such as you are saying (q) L. 4. ep 36. The Apostle teacheth vs so to carry humility in our hart that we do keep and preserue the dignity of that order wherunto we are called Wherfore as if a Vice-Roy should defend maintaine the dignity of his place for the seruice of the King his Maister and the repression of seditious persons he that should oppose him and resist his authority vnder color that he speaketh in his owne cause would be accounted no better then a rebell so no other reckoning is to be made of him that reiects the testimonies of Popes the Vicars and Lieutenants of Christ on earth because they defend their authority for they do it to defend the honor of Christ their Maister to magnify their office with S. Paul and with S. Gregory to preserue the dignity of that order wherunto they are called which dignity S. Augustine (r) Ep. 92. and the whole Councell of Mileuis acknowledge to be taken out of the authority of holy Scriptures But here by the way I desire to be resolued of a doubt You confesse (s) Pag. 301. that power of appeales if it be right and proper is a most certaine argument of dominion Againe you cōfesse (t) Pag. 303. marg fin n. 8. that S. Gregory excommunicated Iohn a Greeke Bishop of the first Iustinianaea because he had presumed to iudge Adrian Bishop of Thebes after he had appealed to the See Apostolike which conuinceth S. Gregory to haue belieued that the Bishops of the Greeke Church might lawfully appeale from their owne Metropolitans and from their Patriarke of Constantinople to the See Apostolike that the same See had true and proper right to admit their appeales and re-iudge their causes which it could not haue if the Pope had not true proper authority ouer the Greeke Church How then can you deny that S. Gregory belieued himselfe to haue that authority or that he practised the same Yea that he had power and iurisdiction not only ouer the Greeke Church but also ouer the vniuersall Church practised the same is a thing so certaine that your Protestant brethren Friccius Peter Martyr Carion Philippus Nicolai the Centurists and Osiander (u) Apud Brier Protest Apol. Tract 1. sect 7. subdiu 9. à n. 11. ad 29. shew out of his writings these particulars That the Roman Church appointeth her watch ouer the whole world that the Apostolike See is the Head of all Churches that the Bishop of Constantinople is subiect to the Apostolike See that S. Gregory challenged to himselfe power to command Arch-bishops to ordayne or depose Bishops that he assumed to himselfe right for citing Arch-bishops to declare their causes before him when they were accused and also to excommunicate depose them giuing commission to their neighbour Bishops to proceed against them that in their prouinces he placed his Legates to examine and end the causes of such as appealed to the Roman See that he vsurped power of appointing Synods in their prouinces and required Arch-bishops that if any cause of great importance happened they should referre the same to him appointing in prouinces his Vicars ouer the Churches to end smaller matters and to reserue the greater causes to himselfe All this is testified by your owne brethren to which Doctor Sanders
certainly allowed and decreed by it 5. The same is confirmed out of the Councell of Sardica which being held soone after that of Nice made three decrees concerning Appeales The first (i) Cap. 3. that if in the cause of a Bishop who conceaues himselfe to be wronged a new iudgement be required the Bishop of Rome is to giue the Iudges The second (k) Cap. 4. that if a Bishop deposed by the next Bishops say his cause ought to be iudged againe none is to be installed in his See vntill the Bishop of Rome haue pronounced vpon it The third (l) Cap. 5. that a Bishop accused may haue recourse to Rome by way of appeale These Canons of Sardica sufficiently declare the beleefe of the Nicen councell touching the authority of the Bishop of Rome for as Harmen opulus writeth (m) In Epit. Can. By the aduice of the Emperor and of the Bishop of Rome the Synod if Sardica was assembled consisting of 341. Fathers which confirmed the fayth of the Councell of Nice and published the Canons Wherfore these canons touching appeales extant in the Councell of Sardica are either the very Nicen canons inserted into that of Sardica or declarations of them for the Sardican Councell consisting for the most part of the same Bishops that the Nicen did it is a senselesse thing to say that when those Bishops in their Councell at Sardica so expresly and so effectually declare the Bishop of Rome to be the supreme iudge of all Bishops they professe a new doctrine contrary to that which a litle before they had professed in the Councell of Nice 6. The authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer the whole Church is yet further declared in the Nicen Councell decreeing thus (n) Can. 39. ex 80. Graec. Arab. A Patriarke is so ouer all those that are vnder his power as he that hath the See of Rome is Head and Prince of all Patriarkes for he is the chiefest as Peter was to whom power was giuen ouer all Christian Princes and all their subiectes as being the Vicar of our Lord ouer all people and ouer the vniuer sall Church 7. The same is proued by the order of subscribing in the Councell for Victor and Vincentius being not Bishops but simple Priests because they were Legates to the Pope presided in the Councell togeather with Osius B. of Corduba and subscribed in the first place before all the Bishops and Patriarkes which they could not haue done but only in regard they represented his person who was Superior to all Bishops and Patriarkes 8. Though Constantine the Emperor was a great cause of the Bishops meeting in the Councell of Nice both because he persuaded that meanes of Concord as also because he defrayed their charges and by his letters called them together yet he called them not by his owne authority but as Ruffinus sayth (o) L. 1. c. 1. fin apud Spond Anno 325. n. 5. ex Sacerdotum sententia by the determination or decree of the Priests as in like manner he called an other Councell of 275 Bishops at Rome at the same time in which it is said Siluester gathered the whole Councell with the aduice of the Emperor The same is testified by Damasus in Syluesters life and by the sixt generall Councell saying (p) Act. 18. Constantine and Syluester worthy of prayse called the famous Councell of Nice And how can it be thought that it was called by any other authority then of the Pope seeing S. Athanasius and the Bishops of Aegypt in their Councell at Alexandria witnesse (q) Ep. Synod ad Felic that the Nicen Councell made a decree that no generall Councells should be held without the allowance of the B. of Rome and this decree it is which Iulius Pope the next but one to Syluester alleaged against the Arians (r) Ep. ad Orientales rebuking thē sharply that they had infringed it by calling their Councell at Antioch without his allowance which is also testified by Socrates Sozomen and Theodoret as you haue heard 9. And as this Councell was called by Syluester Pope so that it required confirmation from him we are certified by the Roman Councell vnder Felix the third (s) In ep Synod Felic c. 3. and by the Councell of Nice it selfe saying (t) In summ Conc. Nice Placuit c. It hath seemed good that all these Acts and decrees be sent to Syluester B. of Rome And in their letter to Syluester (u) Apud Baron An. 325. ex collect Crescon Whatsoeuer is determined in the Nicen Councell we beseech you that it may be seconded with the confirmation of your mouth And that Syluester accordingly confirmed their decrees we may learne from a Councell of the Bishops of Italy held at Rome in which he presiding sayd (x) Apud Bar. An. 325. Bin. to 1. pag. 382. Whatsoeuer is determined by the 318. holy Priests at Nice in Bithinia for the strength of the holy Catholike and Apostolike Church we with our mouth accordingly confirme and all those that shall dare to dissolue the definition of the holy and great Councell assembled at Nice in the presence of the most religious and venerable Prince Constantine the Emperor we anathematize them And all answeared So be it SECT I. Doctor Mortons Obiections against the precedent Doctrine answeared THough you either could not or would not find any thing of all that which hath bene alleaged out of the Councell of Nice in proofe of the Popes authority yet you cold find two argumēts to obiect against it The first is (y) Pag. 105. seqq The Councell of Nice decreeth that the ancient custome goe on to wit that the Patriarke of Alexandria haue power ouer Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis because the B. of Rome hath so accustomed To this argument Bellarmine hath answeared (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. that the Canon speakes of the Patriarke of Alexandria with restriction assigning to him the Prouinces of Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis and of the Pope without restriction not prescribing any lymits to his iurisdiction nor ordeyning any thing concerning the authority of the Roman Church but making her a rule and patterne for the gouerment of other Churches commanding that the B. of Alexandria haue power ouer those three prouinces because the B. of Rome hath accustomed so to allow or permit And this canon is so explicated by Nicolas the first (a) Ep. ad Michael Imper that liued almost 800. yeares since and for his learning and sanctity hath deserued the surname of Great And the same explication is confirmed by the practise both of the Roman and of the Alexandrian Church For if according to your construction the Roman Church by this canon be proued to haue no superiority of iurisdiction ouer the Church of Alexandria or other Easterne Churches but only ouer those which are within the Patriarkeship of the west how comes it to passe that S. Athanasius Patriarke
ruleth the whole body And therfore your answere is no lesse contrary to reason then if you should tell vs that in a politicall body as in a Colledge the Rector which is Head of the house hath no other superiority ouer his fellow-Collegials but only priority of place or of voyce nor the Gouernor of a City ouer the Citizens nor the Vice-Roy ouer the inferior officers of the kingdome And so much the more reprehēsible is this your sophistry because you know that the holy Councell of Chalcedon speaking to Leo Pope sayth (z) Inrelat ad Leon. You rule ouer vs as the Head doth ouer the members And (a) Ibide We beseech you to honor our iudgment with your decrees and that as in what concernes the weale we haue had correspondency to our Head so your Soueraignty would fulfill to your Children what concernes decency Do not these Fathers here expresly acknowledge Leo to be the ruler and Gouernor of the Vniuersall Church and beseech him to confirme and authorize their decrees If he had not power and authority ouer the whole Church why did S. Ambrose one of the Bishops to whom these Orientals addressed their letter as the inscription (b) Apud Theodoret. l. 5. hist c. 9. declareth speaking of this very Pope Damasus say (c) In cap. 3. prior ad Timoth Though all the world be Gods yet the Church is called his house wherof at this day Damasus is Gouernor If the Pope haue not iurisdiction ouer all Bishops euen the greatest Patriarkes of the East and power to annuall their decrees and the decrees of their Councells why did S. Chrysostome (d) Ep. 1. ad Innocent when he was deposed from the See of Constantinople in a Councell held by Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria write to Innocentius Pope beseeching him to annull the Acts of that Councell and punish them that had so iniustly condemned him Why did Theodoret Bishop of Cyre deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus appeale to Pope Leo (e) Ep. ad Renat ep ad Leo. acknowledging that the holy Roman See hath the sterne of gouernment ouer all the Churches of the world If the rule and gouerment of the vniuersall Church belong not to the Pope why did the Bishop of Patara in Lycia vpon the expulsion of Pope Siluerius from his See (f) Liberat. in Breui c. 12. represent vnto Iustinian the indignity of that fact saying that albeit there be many Kings and Princes in the world yet none of them ouer all the earth as the Pope is ouer the Church of all the world If the gouerment of the vniuersall Church belong not to him why did the Emperor Valentinian the third (g) Cod. l. 7. 8. instile him Rector of the vniuersaloty of Churches Why doth the same Emperor and Theodosius decree (h) Constit. Nouel tit 24. that all those things shall be lawes which haue beue or shall be ordayned by the Pope of the eternall Citty and that presumption attempt nothing against his authority for so say thoy the peace of the Church shall be maintayned by all if the vniuersality acknowledge her Rector If the Pope haue no superiority ouer other Bishops but only priority of place or of voyce why did Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria Paul of Constantinople with many others of the East in their wrongs appeale to Iulius Pope as to their Iudge (i) Socrat. l. 2. c. 11. how came he to replace them in their seates but (k) Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. by the soueraignty of his Church and (l) Nicepho l. 9. c. 8. because the charge of all belonged to him But to returne to the Councell of Constantinople Those Fathers in their letter to Damasus made sufficient acknowledgment of his authority ouer them (m) Apud Theodoret. l 5. c. 9. when they demanded from him the confirmation of their decrees of fayth and in particular that of the deposition of Timothy Patriarke of Alexandria condemned for heresy All these things say they being lawfully decreed according to the Canons of the Church we beseech your Holiness to approue them To which petition Damasus answeared (n) Apud Theodoret. ibid. c. 10. Wheras your charity most honoured children yeldeth due reuerence to the Apostolike See it shall turne you to great honor c. But what need was there to require from one the deposition of Timothy seeing he was long since deposed here with his Maister Apollinarius by the iudgment of the See Apostolike and in the presence of Peter Bishop of Alexandria SECT III. Whether the name of Brother Colleague and fellow-Minister which the Pope giueth to other Bishops and they to him argue them to be of equall authority and iurisdiction with him YOu obiect (o) Pag 110.111 that the Fathers of this second Councell generall write not to the Pope alone but to him with other Bishops of the Roman Synod whome they acknowledge to be their Colleagues and fellow members and therby cut the Roman Head into so many peeces as there were Bishops to whom they inscribed their Epistle It is a prime Argument of yours which you often repeate and strongly insist on (p) Pag 63. fin 64.83.84.110.111.116.141.268 that because Bishops are ioyned in society with the Pope or because they call him Brother Colleague and fellow-Minister as also because he writing to them calleth them his Brethren Colleagues there is no inequality of power betweene the Pope and them but that they are all equall with him Whiles you giue to the Pope say you (q) Pag. 63. fin 64. an absolute iurisdiction cum plenitudine potestatis ouer all Bishops how can you suffer him to be mated or equaled with others Bishops as Paul did Peter by ioyning in society with him Iames and Iohn 2. Here (r) Pag. 110.111 you inferre that because the Orientall Bishops that had bene present at the second Councell generall writing to Damasus Pope and other Bishops assembled at Rome call both him and them their Brethren and Colleagues they acknowledge not any authority or iurisdiction in the Pope more then in themselues or in the other Bishops to whom they write 3. You frame the like Argument (s) Pag. 116. out of the Councell of Ephesus because it calles Celestine B. of Rome Fellow-Minister 4. And out of S. Epiphanius (t) Pag. 241. who called Pope Hormisdas Brother 5. And out of S. Cyprian you tell vs (u) Pag. 268. that he neuer calleth the Pope Bishop of Bishops Father of Fathers High Priest of Christ and Monarke of the vniuersall Church as he would haue done if he had belieued his Monarchy but contrariwise in all his Epistles saluteth Pope Cornelius with only Charissime frater Most deare Brother taketh his Vale with the same Most deare brother farewell And when in his Epistles to others he falleth into mention of him he exceedeth not these Epithets Ourfellow brother Cornelius Our Colleague or fellow
professe by acknowledging (c) Ibid. that he ruled ouer them as the Head doth ouer the members and therfore beseeching him to confirme their decrees with his authority they adde (d) Ibid. We pray you to honor our iudgment with your decrees and that as in what concernes the Weale we haue held correspondence to our Head so your Soueraignty wold fulfill vnto your Children what is fit and conuenient These testimonies so cleare and pregnant cannot but conuince the vnderstanding of any impartiall reader that the Councell of Chalcedon beleeued the vniuersall authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome whom therefore the same Councell often calleth (e) Act. 1.2.3 Bishop of the vniuersall Church SECT III. Whether the title of Vniuersall Bishop which the Councell of Chalcedon gaue to the Pope argue in him no more but a generall care of the good of the Church such as belonges to euery Bishop and to euery Christian. OF all the proofes hereunto alleaged you take no notice two only excepted namely of the title of Vninersall Bishop and of the metaphor of a Vine by which the Councell expresseth the vniuersall Church saying (f) In relat ad Leon. that the custody therof is by Christ our Sauiour committed to the Pope These two you call Two postes to support the ruinous Monarchy of the B. of Rome And your answeare to them here (g) Pag. 117.118 and afterwards againe (h) Pag. 236. is that these attributes import no vniuersall power of iurisdiction in the Pope but of prouidence and care which euery Bishop shold haue in wishing and to his power endeauoring the vniuersall good of the whole Church But if the words of the Councell import no more it will follow that the custody of the vniuersall Church that is the gouerment therof was by Christ committed not only to euery Bishop but also to euery Christian man and woman who should wish and to their power procure the vniuersall good of the whole Church But you obiect (i) Pag. 116.117 236. that Eleutherius Pope writing to the Bishops of France sayth The vniuersall Church of Christ is committed to you that you may labor for all men and that according to Binius his exposition the meaning of Eleutherius is that for as much as heretikes oppugne the Catholike and vniuersall Church is belongeth to euery Bishop to haue an vniuersall care to defend and support it And this say you is a true answere indeed But you speake vntruly and interprete falsly for Binius hath no such word as Vniuersall care nor doth he speake of Bishops only but sayth that a care solicitude of defending the vniuersall Church against heretikes belongeth not only to Bishops but to euery Christian for as much as we are commanded by God Eccl. c. 4. to fight fortruth and iustice vntill death How do these words of Binius proue that the Pope hath not or that the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledged him not to haue authority and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church but only a charitable care of her good as S. Paul had and as euery Bishop and euery Christian man and woman according to their power are bound to haue for did not that Councel giue to Pope Leo the title of Vniuersall Archbishop and Patriarke or as you set it downe (k) Pag. 235. of Bishop of the vniuersall Church but these words say you (l) Ibid. were not the words of the Councell but of two Deacons writing to the Councell and of Paschasinus the Popes Legate False for it was giuen to him (m) Act. 3. in foure different petitions of Theodorus and Ischyrion Deacons of Alexandria of Athanasius a Priest of the same City and of Sophronius And the Councell approuing thereof commanded theyr petitions to be registred in the Acts. Moreouer the same title was giuen him by Paschasinus who though he were his legate was a Reuerend Bishop as also by Martian the Emperor the Councell no way excepting therat And did not S. Gregory and after him the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas testify that the whole Councell of Chalcedon with the following Fathers gaue the same title to Leo Pope And did not Leo a man of admirable sanctity learning instyle himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church And did not the Regulars of Constantinople and of Syria and the Bishops of the Patriarkships of Antioch and Hierusalem giue the same tytle to Agapetus Pope in the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas (n) See all this proued aboue Chap. 15. sect 3. Againe did not the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledge in Leo power to restore Theodoret to his Bishoprick of Cyre bordering vpon Persia from which he had bene deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus (o) Act. â— Did it not acknowledge in him authority to depose Dioscorus the greatest Patriarch of the East (p) Act. 3. Did not all those Fathers being the representatiue body of the Vniuersall Church professe (q) In relat ad Leon. that Leo Pope did preside rule ouer them as the Head ouer the members Is this Authority common to euery Bishop Or did Eleutherius or the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledge any such thing But he that will see how imposterously you wrest the testimony of Eleutherius against the vniuersall power and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome and against the meaning of the Councell of Chalcedon let him read the epistle and he shall finde that Eleutherius a litle before the words which you obiect declareth that althought it be lawfull to examine the accusations and crimes obiected against Bishops either before their Metropolitans or before the Bishops of their owne Prouince yet that it is not lawfull to end them there for as much as it hath bene decreed by the Apostles their Successors that the finall decision of Bishops causes is to be referred to the See Apostolike and no others substituted in their places vntill their iudgments be ended at Rome Can there be a more full expression of the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church then to professe him to be the sole supreme Iudge of all Bishops Or can there be a greater imposture then to obiect this epistle of Eleutherius for the contrary SECT IV. Whether the Councell of Chalcedon did giue to the B. of Constantinople priuiledges equall with the B. of Rome YOu obiect heere (r) Pag. 118. and often repeate that the Fathers of Chalcedon did giue priuiledges to the Patriarke of Constantinople equall with the Church of Rome Answeare The Fathers of Chalcedon in absence of the Popes Legates of the Patriarke of Alexandria and of all the Bishopes of Aegypt at the suggestion of Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople renewed the decree of the 150. Fathers made in the first generall Councell of that City which was that the B. of Constantinople shold haue the second place of honor after the B. of Rome And to this decree was added that he should haue equall priuiledges
Charity only this euery Bishop and euery Christian is bound to haue according to the measure of his ability Or it may be of Iustice and such is the care or charge which euery Bishop hath of his owne Dioces and the Pope of the Vniuersall Church for to him by reason of his office of supreme Pastor belongeth not only a charitable care but the rule gouerment of the vniuersall Church (r) See this proued Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. In this sense Acacius spake when he said (s) Ep. ad Simplic Simplicius Pope had the care of all Churches And the Fathers euermore speake in this sense when they say that to Peter and his Successors in the See of Rome was committed the care of the vniuersal Church In this sense S. Chrysostome said (t) Hom. 87. in Ioan. The care of the whole world was committed to Peter and what he meaneth by Care he explicateth saying (u) Hom. 80. ad pop The gouerment of the Church throughout the whole world was committed to Peter Euthymius (x) Ad c. 21. Ioan. Christ committed to Peter pascendi curam gubernationem the care of feeding and gouerning his flock So Sozomenus (y) L. 3. c. 7. Iulius Pope restored to their seates Athanasius and other Bishops banished by the Arians because the care of all belonged to him by reason of the dignity of his See S. Leo speaking to Anastasius B. of Thessalonica (z) Ep. 84. and making him his Vicar in the East To the end sayth he thou maiest supply the place of my gouerment and help me in that care which by diuine institution I owe to all Churches and in person visit those Prouinces remote from the See Apostolike And to Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople (a) Ep. 46. If they who haue so grieuously offended against Flauianus offer satisfaction let relation therof be made to the See Apostolike that our solicitude may ordayne what is to be obserued S. Gregory (b) L. 4. ep 32. To all that know the Ghospell it is manifest that by the voyce of our Lord the Care and Princedome of the whole Church was committed to Peter Prince of the Apostles And againe (c) L. 7. ep 70. indict 2. By the care of our vndertaken gouerment we are enforced to extend with vigilancy the solicitude of our office S. Bernard (d) Serm. 3. de 7. misericord frag Witnesse Peter to whom the Pastorall care of the whole Church was committed These and a thousand more testimonies conuince that when the ancient Fathers speake of the care of all Churches committed to the B of Rome by Care they vnderstand the Pastorall charge and obligation of ruling and gouerning the Vniuersall Church and therby condemne you of falsity who to the testimony of Victor Vâ—iconsis calling the Roman Church the Head of all Churches answeare (e) Pag. 271. that he calls it not Head of all Churches in power and iurisdiction and that we could neuer proue this out of any ancient Father for you haue heard it proued by their most expresse and vnanswearable words (f) Aboue Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. Yf the fore to expresse this vniuersall authority and iurisdiction of the Pope ouer all Churches they vse somtimes the word Care rather then Gouerment it is because as S. Chrysostome (g) Hom. 3. in Act. speaking of the Pastorall authority of S. Peter ouer the other Apostles hath noted Eminency of spirituall power is a care of subiects not a Lord-like dominion And this sheweth the wrong you do to Costerus (h) Pag. 235. when to disproue the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction you alleage him calling it Care for with what conscience could you possesse your reader that by Care he vnderstands not power and iurisdiction but only a charitable solicitude knowing as you do that in the same Chapter (i) Eâ—chirid Tract de Pont. solut 7. he proueth out of Scripture and Fathers the Pastorall charge of ruling and gouerning the vniuersall Church committed by Christ to S. Peter and his Successors He that readeth this in Costerus and alleageth him for the contrary what can his intention be but to deceaue his readers You (1) Pag. 262. obiect Acacius his deedes full of pride and arrogancy against the Roman Church so that Baronius for his defending Peter Mogg by him established in the Bishopricke of Alexandria against the will of the same Pope Simplicius calleth him a Francirke man violently opposite vnto the Bishop of Rome I answere that Acacius so long as he continued Catholike did both by word and deed acknowledge the supreme authority of the Roman Bishop but it is grosse ignorance in you not to know that afterward he fell to be (2) Euagr. lib. 3. c. 20. Liberatus in Breu. c 18. Niceph. l. 16. c. 17. Spondom An. 484.488 a stiffe mantayner of the Entychian Heretikes namely of Peter Mogg in those dayes the chiefe defender pillar and Patriarke of that damnable Sect for which cause he was excommunicated by the Pope dying obstinate in his sinne his name was blotted out of the Dyptiches euen (3) Spond An. 51â— with the consent of the Bishops of Constantinople his successors wherby we learne this lesson that men so longe as they be Orthodoxe Christians still honor obey the Pope and Roman Church so they are no sooner blasted with the spirit of heresy but they become Frantike opposers therof as your Luther was And wheras to make men belieue that this Acacius was of great authority and esteeme euen in the Latin Church you bid vs remember (4) Pag. 263. that the two Patriarkes Cyrill and Acacius were they that sent the Copies of the Canons of Nice vnto the African Bishops by which our Popes were conuinced of fraude c. We can remember no such matters but wonder how a man so learned as you would be thought could be so childishly mistaken seing Acacius was made Patriarke in the yeare 472. that is fourty eight yeares after the sending of the Nicen CanoÌ„s to the African Bishops the Copies wherof sent by Atticus not by Acacius to haue been imperfect wherein many Canons were wanting we haue already demonstrated As for the decree and sanction of Leo Emperour in behalfe of the Church of Constantinople and Acacius the then Patriarke thereof wherein he termeth the Church of Constantinople the mother of all Christians of the Orthodox Religion whatsoeuer might be the meaning of these wordes in Acacius who moued the Emperour to make that decree his ambitious conceits which Baronius censureth yet according to the mind of the Godly Emperour they import no more then Mother of all Orthodoxe Christians in the Church of Constantinople as is cleere by the text Mother sayth he vnto our Piety and vnto all Orthodoxe Christians and of this Royall Citty the most sacred See You make the Emperor say (5) Pag. 263. the Mother of all Orthodoxall Churches
whole body of his Church to the end that whosoeuer should be so bold as to depart from the solidity of that See might know himself to be no way partaker of the diuine mysteries And (e) Ibid. that whosoeuer goeth about to diminish the power of the Bishop of Rome endeauoreth with most impious presumption to viâ—late the most sacred strength of the Rock Peter framed by the hand of God And speaking against Hilary Bishop of Arles and all such as are refractary and disobedient to the Successors of Peter and in them to Peter himselfe he (f) Ibid. addeth To whom whosoeuer thinketh the primacy to be denied can no way diminish their authority but puffed vp with the spirit of pride plungeth himselfe headlong into hell And (g) Epist 75. that he who dare oppose the Roman Church built by the voyce of our Sauiour vpon the most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles as vpon a rock is either Antichrist or a Diuel All these sayings of so learned a Doctor and so great a Saint I wish the Protestant reader duly to consider So teacheth the holy Councell of Chalcedon (h) Act. 3. affirming Peter the Apostle to be the rock and head of the Catholike Church and foundation of the true Fayth From whence it followeth that whosoeuer buildeth not vpon the foundation of Peters See is not in the Catholike Church nor in the true fayth without which no man can be saued So teacheth S. Gregory the Great who writing to Bonifacius (i) L. 3. ep 41. sayth I admonish you that whiles you haue tyme of lyfe remayning your soule be not found diuided from the Church of blessed Peter to whome the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen were committed and the power of binding and losing giuen lest his fauour be contemned here he there exclude you from the entrance into lyfe So teacheth S. I sidore a learned Doctor and Archbishop of Seuill (k) Ep. vltima ad Eugenium Episcop Toletanum saying that albeit the Episcopall dignity and power descend from S. Peter to all Catholike Bishops yet especially and by a fingular priuiledge it remayneth for euer to the Bishop of Rome as to a Head higher then the rest of the members whosoeuer therfore sayth he yelds not obedience reuerently to him is separated from the head and makes himself guilty of the schisme of the Acephalists that is of certain heretikes who acknowledged no one particular Head And he addes that the Church belieues this as the Creed of S. Athanasius and as an article of fayth and that whosoeuer belieues it not cannot be saued So teacheth S. Maximus Martyr the greatest Diuine of his age that writ learnedly against the Monothelites pestilent Heretikes that held but one will and operation in Christ and were anathematized in the sixth generall Councell He among other Elogies of the Roman Church hath (l) Epist ad Marinum Diac. this All the bounds of the earth and whosoeuer in any place of the world do confesse Christ our Lord with a pure hart and Orthodox fayth looke vpon the most holy Roman Church and her confession and fayth attentiuely as vpon a Sunne of euerlasting light receauing from her the shining light of spirituall and holy Doctrines c. For from the first comming of the Word Incarnate all the Churches of Christians throughout the world haue had from her their beginning their only and surest foundation against which the gates of hell shall no way preuaile according to the promise of our Sauiour himself that she shold haue the Keyes of Orthodoxall fayth and Confession and open to them that religiously come to the same Roman Church seeking true reall and only piety and contrariwise shut and stop euery hereticall mouth that speaks iniquity against heauen So teacheth S. Aldelmus an ancient Bishop of the Scots whom Venerable Bede highly commendeth for his eloquence for his great knowledge of humane literature of Scripture and Ecclesiasticall rites Among other his works which Bede reckoneth he writ an excellent booke against the error of the Britans who at that tyme differed from the Roman Church in the celebration of Easter And of the same subiect he writ an epistle to Geruntius in which he sheweth the Britans by reason of that their separation from the Roman Church to be in error (m) Epist ad Gerunt If sayth he the keyes of the heauenly kingdome were by Christ giuen to Peter of whom the Poet sayth He is the Porter of heauen that opens the gate to the stars who is he that despising the principall statutes of that Church and condemning the Doctrine which she commands to be obserued can enter into the gate of heauenly paradise And if Peter by a happy lot and a peculiar priuiledge deserued to receyue the power monarchy of binding both in heauen and earth who refusing to obserue the Roman rite of Easter can thinke that he is not rather to be straitly tied with in soluble bonds then any way to be absolued And the same he further proueth out of the priuiledge of not erring granted to the Roman Church when Christ promised to build his Church vpon Peter as vpon an impregnable rock So teacheth Venerable Bede (n) Homil. in die Apost Petri Pauli saying Therfore the blessed Peter confessing Christ with true fayth and following him with true loue receaued specially the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the soueraignty of iudiciall power that all the faythfull throughout the world might vnderstand that whosoeuer do any way separate themselues from the Vnity of his fayth and society can neither be losed from the bonds of their sins nor come within the gate of the heauenly kingdome And speaking of a conference held betwene Colmannus an Abbot and Wilfridus a learned Priest concerning the celebration of Easter Colmannus defending the Iewish rite and Wilfridus the custome of the Roman Church Wilfridus said (o) Beda in histor gent. Ang. l. 3. c. 25. If you disdaine to follow the decrees of the See Apostolike yea and of the vniuersall Church they being confirmed by the holy Scriptures without all doubt you sinne for be it that your Columba was a holy man and of Christ likewise your Fathers yet is their smal number in a corner of a remote Iland to be preferred before the vniuersall Church of Christ And hauing in proofe of the Authority of the Roman Church alleaged the words of Christ promising to build his Church vpon Peter and to giue him the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen Of win king that was present at the conference demanded of the disputants whether both of them agreed in this that those words of our Sauiour were principally spoken to Peter and whether the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to him And they answering Yes the king (p) Ibid. concluded And I say to you that because Peter is that porter I will not gainsay him but so far forth as I
Nilus Faber Cornelius Agrippa Erasmus Aenaas Siluius Cusanus and Polydore Virgill M. Brierley in the Aduertisement prefixed before his Protestant Apology hath giuen you in particular and by name speciall warning not to obiect them in your future wrytings against vs as being prohibited authors whose testimonies are of no more authority with vs then your owne Grand imposture or then the testimonies of diuers other Protestants whom in the same worke you alleage against vs. This may serue to giue the reader a taste of your manner of wryting in generall which how vnfitting a man of your place yeares and learning it is the ensuing Chapters will better declare CHAP. III. Whether the now Roman Church hath composed a new Creed Num. 8 YOVR first charge is a that the Roman Church in her Councell of Trent (q Pag. 3. by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth set forth for the confirmation of the same Councell hath composed a new Creed cōsisting of more then twenty articles of the now Roman fayth These your words contayne two vntruthes for neither hath the Councell of Trent composed any new Creed nor is there mention of any such Creed or articles in the bull of Pius set forth for the confirmation of that Councell Among other Bulls of his commonly annexed to the Coūcell there is extant a profession of the Catholike fayth to be made by all Ecclesiasticall persons that haue charge of soules and by all Doctors and professors of whatsoeuer Artand faculty of learning in which they oblige themselues by oath to obserue all the decrees of the Councell of Trent and of all other Oecumenicall that haue bene held in the Church of God and to anathematize all heresies condemned by them This profession you are pleased to call a new Roman Creed of more then twenty articles But if that be a Creed which consisteth of Articles you that haue composed and sweare to a new beliefe which your selues call The 39. articles are chargeable with a new Creed of your diuising But that we call the bull of Pius the fourth a Creed or the profession of our fayth contained in it Articles you cannot shew and therfore your tearmyng it a new Creed is a silly conceypt voyd of truth and a fit foundation for a Grand Imposture And no lesse vntruly you charge vs with adding in our Creed to the article of the Catholike Church the word Roman For that article of our Creed I belieue the holy Catholike Church is set downe without any such addition in all our Missals Breuiaries Primers and Catechismes And that which most of all declareth your cauilling is that in this very profession of our fayth set downe in two different bulls of Pius the 4. the Creed vsed by the Roman Church is read without any addition of the word Roman It is true that out of the Symbol of Creed when we explicate which is the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed we say it is the Roman Church which to be true appeareth euidently by the testimonies of antiquity out of which I haue already proued The Catholike Church and the Roman Church to be tearmes conuertible CHAP. IV. Whether the now Roman Church haue added any new articles to the Creed of the Apostles Num. 9 YOV say (a) Pag. 7. It is a doctrine acknowledged in our owne schooles that the Church hath no power to create new articles of fayth yet afterwards you set downe as our doctrine (b) Pag. 383. out of Philiarchus that the Church hath power to create new articles of fayth and that the contrary is one of Luthers Heresies These two propositions of yours I know not well how to saue from contradiction that I leaue to you In the thing it selfe there is neither difficulty nor difference of opinions among Catholikes for if by new articles of fayth you vnderstand doctrines newly reuealed as none but God can be the author of diuine reuelation so none but God can make articles of fayth and in this sense all Catholike Diuines agree But if by articles of fayth you vnderstand not new reuelations but such Verities as are contayned implicitly and virtually in the word of God but not as yet explicitly declared vnto vs so likewise all Catholike Diuines agree that the Church hath power to make articles of fayth that is to explicate and declare vnto vs some verities of fayth which before were not so clearly deliuered nor vniuersally receaued as such So she hath declared the epistle to the Hebrewes and that of S. Iames to be canoicall and as our learned Roffensis hath well (c) Ad articul 18. Lutheri obserued there are many things of which no question was made in the primitiue Church which yet doubts arising against them are now accleared by the diligence of posterity So in the first Councell of Constantinople the holy Ghost was explicitly declared to proceed from the Father and the Sonne So the three Creeds of Nice of Constantinople S. Athanasius adde by way of declaration many Verities which are not expresly but implicitly or virtually contained in the Creed of the Apostles And so likewise neither the celebration of Easter after the manner of the Roman Church nor the validity of Baptisme ministred by heretikes were of necessary beliefe vntill the Councell of Nice had declared them to be such In this sense the Canonicall law (d) Gloss in Extrau d◠Verb. signif tit 14. c. 4. expresseth that the Church hath power to make articles of fayth to wit by confirming and declaring them to the faithfull This power Luther denied to the Church and Pope Leo the X. in his bull against him condemned him for it But you to iustify Luther falsify Leo. Luthers assertion is this (e) Apud Bin. to 4. pag. 654. Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus non esse statuere articùlos fidei imò nec leges morum seu bonorum operum It is certaine that it is no way in the power of the Church or the Pope to appoint articles of fayth nor lawes of manners or good workes You to iustify Luther and traduce the Pope for condemning this his assertion leaue out the later part of Luthers article adde nouos in the middest and omit prorsus setting it downe thus (f) Pag. 383. Certum est ait non esse in manu Ecclesiae statuere nouos asticulos fidei Luther maintaynes as certaine that it is not in the power of the Church to ordayne new articles of fayth You cut of the later part of his article to conceale the impiety of his Doctrine denying the Church all power of making lawes either to reforme abuses or refrayne men from sinne by the practise of good workes And so likewise your leauing out of prorsus and putting in of nouos is to persuade your reader that the Pope condemned Luther for denying the Church power to coyne new articles of fayth that is to broach new reuelations which is an vntruth
for if Luther had said nothing els Leo would not haue condemned him And to the same end you corrupt Philiarchus who say you will hâ—ue vs to take head of the heresies of Luther teaching that the Church hath no power to create new articles of fayth That word new is an addition of your owne to Philiarchus his text as his Latin words in your margeÌ„t conuince but what wonder since your worke is a Grand Imposture CHAP. V. That the word Roman is no deprauation but a true declaration of the article of the Catholike Church TO declare which is the catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed we say it is the holy Apostolike Roman Church Against this you (g) Pag. 8. 9. 10. obiect that the word Roman is no true exposition and declaration but a notorious alteration and deprauation of the article of the Catholike Church This you proue with eight seuerall arguments set downe in so many sections SECT I. Your first Argument YOVR first is (h) Pag. 9. that because the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed by the accordance of S. Augustine and other our Diuines comprehendeth both the triumphant and the militant Church the word Roman which caÌ„not be a declaration of the Catholike Church as she is triumphant but only as she is militant can no way be a declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed So you forgetting your selfe for heere you hold that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed comprehendeth both the triumphant Church and the militant but els where contradicting your (i) Pag. 365. selfe you define the Church properly Catholike set downe in the Symbolor Creed of the Apostles to be the Church militant videlicet the multitude of Christian belieuers whensoeuer and wheresoeuer dispersed throughout the world and the congregation of Christians assembled in a generall Synod to be the representatiue body of the Church in the Symbol properly called Catholike From whence it followeth against your selfe that the word Roman may be a true declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed which by your owne definition is the multitude of all Christian belieuers dispersed throughout the world for this definition can no way agree to the Church triumphant where the cleare vision of the diuine essence excludeth fayth but to the militant only consisting of all Christian belieuers And because true Christian beliefe is to be found only in the Roman Church it followeth that the woro Roman is a true declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed 2. Be it that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed taken in her whole latitude comprehendeth both the militant and the triumphant yet in your argument you mistake the state of the question for when we declare the Catholike Church to be the Roman Church we speake not of her taken in her whole latitude but only as she is militant And this you know right well for whiles in this Imposture you so often rayle at vs for holding the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church out of which there is no hope of saluation you sufficiently declare that you know vs to speake of the Catholike Church as she is militant only for she only is in hope of saluation the triumphant already enioyeth it I conclude therfore that your argument is grounded on a wilfull mistake of the question which as you cannot defend without contradicting your selfe so neither without wronging S. Augustine for when he sayth that the Catholike Church comprehendeth both the militant and the triumphant he speaketh of her taken in her whole latitude but that the may and euen in the Apostles Creed be taken for the militant only he expresly declareth in his explication of the same Creed where teaching the Catechumenists which is the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed he (k) De Symb. ad Catechum l. 1. c. 6. sayth We belieue the Catholike Church She is the holy Church one Church the true Church the Catholike Church fighting against all heresies she may be opposed but she caÌ„not be ouerthrowne All heresies are gone eut from her as vnprofitable branches cut of from the Vine but she remaynes in her roote in her Vine in her charity the gates of hell shall neuer ouercome her In these words S. Augustine teacheth the catechumenists to belieue that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed is the Church militant built vpon S. Peters Chayre as vpon a rock against which the gates of hell can not preuaile And the same he declareth when speaking to the Donatists he denounceth vnto them that because they were out of the Roman Church they were out of the Catholike Church and out of the state of Saluation Be yee ingrafted sayth (*) Psal cont part Donati he on the Vine It grieueth vs to see you lye so cut of Number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranke of Fathers who succeeded ech other That is the rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not That Church therfore in which there is a neuer interrupted succession of Bishops from S. Peter is in S. Augustines beliefe the Catholike Church Do not you then abuse S. Augustine producing his authority to proue that the catholike church mentioned in the Creed cannot be the Church militant since he so expresly teacheth the contrary yea and not only that she is the militant Church but in particular that she is the Roman Church built vpon S. Peter and his successors and that whosoeuer is diuided from her is an vnprofitable branch cut of from the Vine which is Christ our Lord and therfore no lesse deuoyd of spirituall life then the dead branch is of naturall SECT II. Your second argument YOur second argument (l) Pag. 10 1â—.12 is grounded on a false principle with is that the Catholike Church in her essentiall state is inuisible We know that the essentiall forme of the Church which is Fayth is inuisible to corporall eyes But the Church as you (m) Pag. 36â— confesse is the multitude of all Christian belieuers whensoeuer and whersoeuer dispersed throughout the world and that the congregation of Christians assembled in a generall Synod is the representatiue body therof Wherfore as it were ridiculous to affirme that a multitude of men ioyned in one Common-wealth or the representatiue body therof assembled in Parliament is essentially inuisible because their soules are inuisible or that Christ liuing on earth was inuisible because his Diuinity was inuisible so it is no lesse ridiculous to affirme that the Church in her essence is inuisible because fayth is inuisible for fayth is not the Church but the essentiall forme of the Church as the soule of man is not man but the essentiall forme of man Man consisteth essentially of body aswell as of soule and by reason of his body he is visible for according to the axiome of Philosophers Actiones passiones sunt
from the Church which is true for before the end of their life they shall become members of Gods Church and perseuere in her vntill death But how proues this that none but predestinate are in the Church Nor doth it import that he giues to the predestinate the name of Church for that name sometimes doth not signify the vniuersall Church but a particular company of the faythfull as when we say The Church of the Corinthians or of the Ephesians and when S. Paul (f) Rom. 16.3 sayth Salute Prisca and Aquila and their domesticall Church And (g) 1. Cor. 16.19 againe Aquila and Prisca with their domesticall Church salute you In the same sense the name of Church is taken by Clemens Alexandrinus S. Gregory and S. Bernard whom heere you (h) Pag. 12. obiect for they all giue that name to the iust and predestinate by reason they are the principall partes of the Church SECT III. Your third Argument YOv (i) Pag. 16. say Though all agree in this as your selues confesse that without the Catholike Church there is no saluation yet haue you confessed two sorts of Christian professors namely Excommunicates and Catechumenists to be actually saued albeit no members of your Roman Church So you inferring that the Roman Church is not the Catholike Church Syr you know that Bellarmine whom here you cite expresly (k) L. 3 de Eccles milit c. 6. declareth that when we say none can be saued out of the Church we speake only of such as neither are in the Church really nor intentionally by desire but that if they be in the Catholike Church either really or at least by desire as Catechumenists and some Excommunicats are they may be saued Which Doctrine both he other Catholike Diuines approue And it is so certaine that you know not how to disproue it but by (l) Pag. 16. that as for being saued only by desire or vow of being in the Church is but a wild and extrauagant peece of learning in the iudgment of your owne Iesuit Suarez Pardon me Syr. This is not Suarez his censure but an vntruth of yours for Suarez speaking of excommunicats (m) De trio virt d. 9. sect 1. n. 14. sayth that those Diuines which hold them not to be in the Church really but only by desire differ not from him in the substance of their Doctrine but only in manner of speech Now he defends that both excommunicats Catechumenists are in the Church actually and really which also Valentia holdeth of (n) Tom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. punct 7. §. 14. 15. excommunicats on whom therfore you (o) Pag. 15. marg lit d. saying that the Church Catholike is compared by S. Peter to the Arke of Noah from whence you inferre that as in the tyme of the deluge all which were within the arke were saued and all without it were drowned although they desired neuer so much to be admitted into the arke so whosoeuer are essentiall members of the Catholike Church cannot possibly perish and contrarily whosoeuer is not a reall and vitall member therin cannot but perish So you reason the matter misvnderstanding S. Peter for he compares not the Arke of Noe to the Church but to the Sacrament of Baptisme wherin your argument holdeth not for though in the deluge none were saued but only they which actually were in the arke yet it is certaine that in the law of grace some are saued which neuer receaued the Sacrament of Baptisme as diuers Martyrs that were baptized in their owne bloud you acknowledge the same of Valentinian the Emperor who dyed vnbaptized But admitting the arke of Noe to be a type of the Catholike Church for so it is often taken by the ancient Fathers yet your argument proues nothing for similitudes hold not in all things Wherfore I answere with S. Augustine (q) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 28. that albeit none that were in the arke perished in the deluge and all perished that were out of the arke yet it falleth out otherwise in the Catholike Church represented by the arke for ill Catholikes notwithstanding they be in the Church not only by desire but corporally and really perish because they make bad vse of their baptisme and contrarily others that belieue aright and liue accordingly though they be not in the Church really but only in hart and desire as being yet vnbaptized are saued From whence S. Augustine concludeth that what is said of being in or without the arke in order to saluation is to be vnderstood of being in or without the Church corde non corpore that is to say not corporally and really but in hart and desire Which Doctrine as it is all Catholike Diuines so it is contrary to yours and sheweth your simplicity in calling it a wild and extrauagant peece of learning The things in which the Church is like to the arke witnes S. (r) Aduers Lucifer Hierome are that as the arke was visible so is the Church as in the arke there were Creatures cleane and vncleane so in the Church there are good and bad and as in the arke there were predestinate and also Cham a reprobate so in the Church there are both predestinate and reprobate Wherfore this comparison which you haue brought of the arke destroyes your owne doctrine SECT IV. Your fourth Argument YOur fourth Argument to proue the Roman Church not to be the Catholike Church is (t) Pag. 17. because say you our Diuines that speake more ingeniously freely graunt that the Pontificall dignity Roman as it is Roman is not from Diuine authority because only from the fact of Peter And they that are more affectionate to the Roman See although they attribute it to the institution of Christ yet dare they not say that this is to be belieued vpon certainty of fayth but only as a matter probable and coniecturall If you should argue thus An Aethyopian as he is black is not a man Ergo an Aethyopian is not a man your argument were a sophisme and so is that which heere you make against the Roman Church for as an Aethyopian though he be not a man reduplicatiue and formaliter as he is black yet he is a man as he is a rationall creature so like wise though it be no matter of fayth that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman is the Catholike Church yet it is matter of fayth that S. Peter by diuine institution was created supreme Pastor and Gouernor the whole Church that the same power descendeth from him to his Successors And it is also matter of fayth that S. Peter fixed his See at Rome and died there and that the Bishop of Rome succedeth him in his See and supreme authority of Prince and Gouernor of the whole Church of Christ nor was this euer questioned by any but heretikes That which some Catholike writers dispute is whether S. Peter had any command from Christ to place his See at Rome and
she is but Antioch Nor should she then haue any priuiledge of not erring in fayth as now Antioch hath not since the remouall of S. Peters See from thence But therfore to inferre that the now Roman Church against which you write this Grand Imposture being at this present the See of S. Peter or whiles hereafter she shall remaine the See of S. Peter may erre in fayth is to argue à sensu diuiso ad sensum compositum and to infer that such things as perhaps are possible but neuer shall be are already in being If I should argue thus It may possibly come to passe though it be improbable that the Metropolitan See of England may be remoued from Canterbury to Carlile Ergo the Church of Canterbury is not now the Metropolitan Church of England were not this a sophisme And so is yours Some of our Diuines grant that the See of S. Peter which maketh the Church of Rome the Mother Mistresse of all Churches and secureth her from all error in fayth may be remoued from Rome though there appeare no likelihood therof Ergo inferre you in the opinion of some of your Diuines the now Roman Church is not the Mistresse and mother Church of the world but may now fall from the fayth euen whiles she is the See of S. Peter no lesse then she might if his See were already remoued from thence Who seeth not this Argument to be sophisticall And to sophistry you ioyne fraud for to proue that the Successor of S. Peter hath not his See at Rome by diuine ordinance but only by humane election you (d) Pag. 21. alleage Suarez (e) De trip virt Theol. disp 10. sect 3. n. 10. saying that before the ascension of Christ nothing appeareth of any such ordinance either in Scripture or from tradition Here you breake of leauing out the rest of Suarez words and concealing his Doctrine for in the very same place both before and after these his words which you cull out he expresly affirmeth that it is more pious and probable that Christ after his ascension appearing to S. Peter commanded him to place his See at Rome which he ptoueth by the testimonies of many ancient Fathers and by other Arguments all which you conceale and cite him for the contrary opinion The same abuse you offer to Valentia Bellarmine and Azor. For all these prooue with many testimonies of antiquity and other forcible Arguments that it is of Diuine institution holding it for certaine and the contrary opinion not to be safe though not expresly de fide SECT VII Your seauenth Argument THAT the Successor of S. Peter in the Roman See canonically chosen is Head of the vniuersall Church all Catholikes beleeue as vndoubted matter of fayth But that this indiuiduall person v. g. Vrban the Eight is true Pope and true Head of the Church though the more probable opinion of Diuines hold it also to be of fayth yet diuers others defend that it is only of morall certaynty You not knowing how to solue the arguments of the first opinion otherwise then by rayling against it (f) Pag. 23. fine calling it a Iesuiticall fayth both grosly false wickedly blasphemous assume the second as granted which I with the authors of the first opinion do not grant but deny For the Church proposing vnto vs this indiuiduall man Vrban the eight as true Pope it is not only morally but absolutely and infallibly certayne that in the person of Vrban the eight are found all the conditions of true Baptisme Ordination Election and whatsoeuer els requisite for a true Pope and true head of the Church for as the Church being assisted by the holy Ghost cannot erre in proposing other Verities of fayth so nether in proposing this man to be the true head and lawfull gouernor of the vniuersall Church wherfore our beleefe that this man is true Pope is not humane morall and fallible but diuine and infallible vnlesse you will question the authority of the holy Ghost making it humane and fallible Yea euen in the other opinion though it be no matter of fayth that this indiuiduall man is true Pope yet the Authors thereof hold it to be a Theologicall conclusion so certayne that whosoeuer shall deny it is worthy of flames SECT VIII Your eight Argument YOVR eight argument (g) Pag. 25. 26. 27. is nothing but a repetition of what you haue sayd in the former sections without any addition of new proofes vnlesse to proue your Doctrine be to rayle against ours calling it new false scandalous pernicious hereticall blasphemous and vs periured persons all which being nothing but an empty froath of iniurious words deserue no other answere but contempt CHAP. VI. The Roman Church is the Head and Mother of all Churches IN this matter you wholly mistake the state of the question for when we demand which Church is the Head the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches the question is not which Church was first founded If you speake of priority of tyme or antiquity and call those Churches Mothers of all such as were founded after them we grant that in this sense the Church of Hierusalem is the Mother Church of all Churches and the Roman in the same sense a daughter both to the Church of Hierusalem of Antioch and all others that were founded before her And in this sense the Bishops which had bene present at the first Councell of Constantinople call the Church of Hierusalem the Mother of all other Churches (h) Theodor. l. 5. histor c. 9. But this is not the question for you know and set it downe as our Doctrine (i) Pag. 29. 38. that the Roman Church is called the Mother Church of all Churches because S. Peter was constituted by Christ the ordinary Pastor of the whole Church By which it appeares you know right well that the mother-hood which we attribute to the Roman Church is not priority of tyme but of authority and iurisdiction grounded on the supremacy of S. Peter for as by reason of his transcendent authority ouer the whole flock of Christ which is his Church he was and in his successors is the Father and Head of all Bishops so the Roman Church in which sayth S. Chrysologus (*) Epist. ad Eutych Peter still liueth and gouerneth is the Head and mother of all Churches and vnto which sayth S. (k) L. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus all Churches are necessarily to agree by reason of her more mighty Principality that is to say by reason of the soueraignty and supreme authority of the See Apostolike And in this sense she is called by S. Irenaeus (l) Ibid. and Origen (m) Apud Euseb l. 6. hist c. 12. The most ancient Church and by S. Cyprian (n) De simplicit Praelat The Root the fountayne and head of Episcopall power and The principall Church from whence Priestly vnity began (o) L. 1. ep 3. And from the same ground
was the 35. yeare of Christ before S. Peter founded either the Church of Rome or of Antioch is your addition falsly imposed on them For though according to the computation of Baronius Lazarus with his sisters Mary and Martha were driuen out of Hierusalem in the 35. yeare of Christ and together with Ioseph of Arimathia by the prouidence of God came to Marsils in France yet nether Baronius nor Suarez nor any one of the authors ancient or moderne which you obiect sayth that Ioseph planted that yeare a Church in Brittaine You name Gildas but he neither mentioneth Ioseph of Arimathia nor saith that Christian religion was planted in Brittaine in the tyme of Tiberius Caesar as you by misplacing his words make him say but speaketh of the great calamities and desolation of that Iland caused by the warres which the Romans made vpon the Brittans not in the tyme of Tiberius nor of Caius for in their tymes the Romans had no warres with the Brittans but of Claudius in the third yeare of whose Empire those warres began and continued 40. yeares togeather vntill the tyme of Domitian Interea c. In the meane tyme sayth (y) In epist de excidia Britan c. 6. Gildas that is during those warres there appeared and imparted it selfe to this cold Iland more remote from the visible sunne then other Nations that true and inuisible sunne which in the tyme of Tiberius Caesar had manifested himselfe by the fame of his preaching and miracles to the whole world I meane Christ vouchsafed to impart his precepts Gildas then is wholly against you for although he say that in the tyme of Tiberius Caesar Christ manifested himselfe and imparted his precepts to the world yet he discribeth the first planting of Christian Religion in Brittaine not in the tyme of Tiberius but of the Roman warres in tyme of Claudius by occasion wherof there was continuall going and comming from Rome to Brittaine and as Christian Religion was then planted did daily increase in Rome so from thence it was also kindled in Brittaine especially there being many Brittains at that tyme inhabiting in Rome some for their pleasure some to flye the warres and vnquiet state of their owne Countrey and some taken by force and caried thither for hostages as Caractacus King of the Silures and much Nobility with him as Cornelius Tacitus reporteth (z) Annal. l. 12. And from hence it is that Holin shead (a) In descrip Britan. to 1. c. 9. and Cambden (b) In sua Britan. p. 162. Protestant historians affirme that one Claudia Ruffina a noble Brittish Lady wyfe to Pudens the Senator and the first hostesse of S. Peter in Rome sent from thence diuers bookes and messages to her frendes in Brittaine and was therby a great helpe to their conuersion To which I add that S. Peter being come to Rome in the second yeare of Claudius to teach and conuert the Western parts of the world when all the Iewes were by publike proclamation banished from Rome he tooke that occasion to goe into France and preached the Ghospell to the French and from thence passing into Brittaine as Metaphrastes (c) Apud Sur. die 23. Iun. pag. 862. out of Greeke antiquities recordeth preached founded Churches and ordained Priests Deacons there which is also testified by that famous holy Pope Innocentius the first saying (d) In epist. ad Decen The first Churches of Italy France Spayne Affrica Sicily and the bordering Ilands were founded by S. Peter or by his Schollers or successors Which caused Guilielmus Eysengrenius (e) Cent. 1 p. 7. d. 8. to affime that the first Christian Churches of England were founded by S. Peter And finally S. Peter himselfe appearing to a holy man in the tyme of King Edward the Confessor shewed him how he had preached in England and the care he had of that Church and Nation as Alredus Rhieuallis (f) Apud Sur. 5. Ianuar. pag. 131. left written 500. yeares since And from that care it proceeded that as Dorotheus (g) In Synopsi Mirmanus (h) In theâ—â—ro de conuers gent. pag. 4â— and Baronius (i) Martyrol 15. Martij out of the Greeke Martyrologe affirme Aristobulus his disciple and a knowne Christian in Rome was sent by him into Brittaine and there made Bishop By all which it appeares that the Brittish Church was not first founded by Ioseph of Arimathia the 35. yeare of Christ in the raigne of Tiberius but by S. Peter in the time of Claudius after he had founded the Church of Rome placed his seat there and consequently that the Church of Rome is most truly and properly Mother of the Church of Brittaine not only by reason of the second conuersion of our nation by Fugatius and Damianus sent by Eleutherius the 13. Pope after S. Peter and also of the third conuersion by S. Augustine and his companions sent by S. Gregory the Great whom therfore Bede calleth the Apostle of England but also in respect of the first preaching and founding of a Christian Church in this Iland it hauing bene wrought by S. Peter his disciples other Roman Christians cooperating therto And so much the more if it be true that S. Paul assisted S. Peter therin going from Rome into Brittaine to preach as Theodoret (k) In psal 106. l. 5. de curandis Graec. affect Sophronius (l) Serm. de Natali Apost Venantius Fortunatus (m) In carm and others affirme As for Ioseph of Arimathia his comming into England I grant it to be true though it be not affirmed by any ancient writer but only by Capgrauius Polydore Virgil other late historians Tradition is sufficient to confirme me in the beliefe therof Yet withall it is certain that he came not the yeare of Christ 35. as you without any proofe at all suppose but hauing come out of Iury into France with S. Mary Magdalen and her company after he had liued there sometime and seene her great austerity of contemplatiue and solitary life and rigor of pennance which she vsed went ouer into Brittaine either sent by S. Peter or by his owne free election And though it be likely that by preaching the Ghospell he increased the number of Christians in the Brittish Church yet the chiefe intention of his comming was to begin that kind of solitary and heremiticall life which he had seene practised by S. Magdalene in France as Cambden (n) In descrip Brit. pa. 162. obserueth Ioseph sayth he and his companie did take vpon them a solitary life that with more tranquillity they might attend to holy learning and with a seuere kind of conuersation exercise themselues to the bearing of Christs Crosse From hence it followeth that the Roman Church is Mother to that of Brittaine not only by reason of the supereminent authority and power which she hath ouer her aswell as ouer all other Churches of the world but also in antiquity she being planted
affirmeth that Christ to reward his fayth built his Church vpon him 9. And no lesse deceiptfully you alleage (k) Pag. 39. g. the RomaÌ„ glosse (l) Gloss Decret part 1. d. 10. in Cap. Dominus no fler to proue that not Peter but his confession without any relation to his person is the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church for the glosse sayth Christ would haue his owne name of Petra a Rocke giuen to Peter c. therfore called him Petrus And the Chapter on which this glosse is made is taken out of an Epistle of S. Leo in which he not only affirme (m) Ep. 83. Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built but addeth that whosoeuer denyeth this truth is impiously presumptuous and plungeth himselfe into Hell To these and otherlike obiections out of the Fathers and other Catholike authors you ad some confirmations of your owne The first is None say you (n) Pag. 41. will deny but that there was meant in Peters Confession that matter which he confessed but Peter confessed not himselfe but Christ saying Then art the Sonne of the lyuing God Ergo his confession had relation to Christ and not to himselfe A false and senslesse consequence for euery confession hath relation not only to the matter as to the obiect or thing confessed but also to him that coÌ„fesseth as to the agent from which it proceedeth and therfore to inferre that when Christ answering Peter and rewarding his confession sayd vnto him Thou art Peter c. he meant not Peter but himselfe to be the Rock is as senslesse an inference as to say that when Thomas cryed out vnto Christ (o) Ioan. 20.28 My Lord my God and Christ in reward of his confession sayd (p) Ibid. vers 29. Blessed art thou Thomas he pronounced not Thomas blessed but himselfe which was the matter Thomas beleeued 2. You obiect (q) Pag. 42. fin 43. All the Apostles and Prophets are called foundations wherby is not meant their persons or dominions but their doctrines I grant that Christ S. Peter the rest of the Apostles and Prophets are foundations on which the Church is built Christ is the chiefe and primary foundation by his owne power and strength Of him the Apostle sayth (r) 1. Cor. 3.11 Other foundation no man can lay besyde that which is layd which is Christ Iesus whome therfore S. Augustine (s) In Psal 86. and S. Gregory (t) L. 28. Moral c. 9. call Fundamentum fundamentorum The foundation of foundations Besydes Christ the Apostles and Prophets are also secondary foundations of the Church for the Prophets by fore-telling Christ and the Apostles by preaching his sayth and doctrine vphold the body of the Church to wit the faythfull who therfore are called (u) Ephes 2.20 Domostikes of God built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner-stone and for this cause the wall of the Citty of the Church is sayd (x) Apoc. 1.24 to haue 12. foundations and in them the 12. names of the 12. Apostles Among these secondary foundations Peter hath the first and chiefest place The rest of the faythfull in respect of him are ordinary stones he an impregnable Rock as being built immediatly vpon Christ and the rest by meanes of him in regard wherof it was sayd to him alone and to no other of the faythfull or Apostles Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And therfore S. Augustine sayth (y) Serm. 15. de Sanct. Our Lord called Peter the foundation of the Church for which cause the Church with reason worshippeth this foundation vpon which the height of the ecclesiafticall edifice is raysed 3. You say (z) Pag. 42. that when the Fathers expound by Rock Peter they meane ether a primacy of order or honor or els a priority of Confession in Peter not of Authority and Dominion and the same you repeate afterwards saying (a) Pag. 110. The similitude of head and members hath no colour of superiority but of priority of place or of voyce And this reason you alleage (b) Pag. 41. why though the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake yet he alone answered as being the mouth of the rest I grant that Peter spake in the name of the rest but to inferre that therfore Christ when he answered Peter saying Thou art Peter made him not a Rock or promised not to make him the foundation of his Church is a Non sequitur I grant also that the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake that he answered as the mouth of the rest not because he had any Commission from them but because out of his great feruor he preuented the rest and spake for them as their head and Superiour as Christ somtimes did for all his Apostles (c) Math. 9.11 Luc. 6.2 and as the Rector is wont to answere in the name of the whole Colledge So sayth S. Cyrill of Alexandria (d) L. 4. in Ioan. c. 18. They all answere by one that was their Superiour And againe (e) Ibid. l. 12. cap. 64. when our Sauiour asked his Disciples whom doe you say that I am Peter as being Prince and head of therest first cryed out Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God So S. Cyrill of Hierusalem (f) Catech. â—â— All the Apostles being silent for this doctrine was aboue their strength Peter Prince of the Apostles and the chiefe preacher of the Church sayth vnto him Thou art Christ c. And in the same sense S. Cyprian (g) L. 1. ep 3. sayth Peter on whom our Lord built his Church speaketh for all in the voyce of the Church And S. Augustine (h) Serm. 31. de verb. Apost c. 1. Peter bearing the figure of the Church most feruent in the loue of Christ chiefe in the order of Apostles and holding the Princedome of the Apostleship often answers one for all And againe (i) Tract 124. in Ioan. That in his answere he bare the person of the Church for the primacy of his Apostleship and for the primacy which he had among the Disciples And whereas you to elude this exposition of the Fathers say (k) Pag. 42. 110. that when they expound by Rock Peter or pronounce him to be the head and Captaine of the rest they meane not primacy of authority and iurisdiction but of order or honor is a distinction that caries with it its owne confutation and shall be effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 1. hereafter CHAP. IX S. Peter exercised his Authority and Iurisdiction of supreme Pastor and Gouernor ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church TO disproue S. Peters authority ouer the other Apostles you obiect first (a) Pag. 45.46 that S. Gregory vpon those words of the Apostle (b) Rom. 9.12 I will magnify my office in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentils
sayth (c) L. 4. ep 36. The Apostle teacheth vs so to carry humility in our hart that we do keep and preserue the diguity of that order wherunto we are called but S. Peter as Salmeron testifieth though he were Head and Iudge ouer the other Apostles so behaued himselfe among them that he might seeme in a manner to haue neglected his Pastorship by carrying himselfe as a Brother and equall with them and not as either Head or Rector ouer them So you out of Salmeron whose words make wholly against you for in them he acknowledgeth the Pastorship of S. Peter ouer the other Apostles that he was their Iudge their Head their Rector If therfore he say that S. Peter carried himselfe with so great humility that in some sort he may seeme to haue neglected his Pastorship he sayth it not to deny his Pastorall power but to shew that in the exercise therof he caried himselfe rather like a Brother and equall then as a Superior or Iudge which Salmeron might haue said of Christ who sayth of himselfe (*) Ioan. 13.13 You call me Mayster and Lord and you say well for I am so and yet he carried himselfe not as a Maister but as a seruant washing his Disciples feete It is the property of the Spyder to draw poyson from the same flower out of which the Bee sucketh hony so out of the singular modesty and humility of S. Peter in the exercise of his Pastorall power which Salmeron alleageth to his great commendation you draw an argument to disproue his authority to which S. Gregory hath answered longe since Peter sayth he (d) L. 9. cp 38. the chiefe of the Apostles answered the complaint of the faythfull not by his power but by reason for if when he was blamed by the faythfull he had regarded the charge which he had receaued ouer the holy Church he might haue answered that the sheep should not dare to reprehend their Pastor to whose care they were committed But if in the complaint of the faythfull he should haue said any thing of his owne power surely he had not bene the Doctor of meekenesse Wherfore Peter exercised his power but yet with meekenesse and humility after the example of Christ who being Lord and Maister was in the middest of his Disciples as one that ministred (e) Luc. 22.27 His example Peter followed shewing himselfe to be meeke and humble of hart (f) Math. 11.29 practising that lesson which he had learned from him The Princes of nations dominiere ouer them but you not so (g) Luc. 22.25 but he that is the greater let him become as the yonger and he that is the elder as the wayter Yet neuerthelesse as humility hindred not Christ from shewing his power and authority when and where it was sitting so neither did it hinder Peter from exercising his iurisdiction as often as occasion required for as Philip a reuerend Priest and Legate of the See Apostolike in the famous Councell of Ephesus truly said (h) Concil Ephes to 2. c. 10. It is out of doubt and notorious to all ages that the holy and most blessed Peter Prince and Head of the Apostles pillar of the fayth and foundation of the Catholike Church receaued from Iesus Christ our Lord our Sauiour redeemer of mankind the keyes of the heauenly kingdome and exercised the power of binding and losing which he had receaued and that in his Successors he still liueth vntill this day Some of the particulars in which he exercised his power are expressed in holy Scripture We read in the Acts of the Apostles (i) Cap. 1.15 seqq that immediatly after the Ascension of Christ Peter rising vp proposed to the brethren the substituting of an other Apostle insteed of Iudas exercising his authority therin Peter sayth S. Chrysostome (k) Hom. 3. in Acta rising vp in the middest of the Disciples said c. Behold how feruent Peter is how he owneth the flock committed to him by Christ how he sheweth himselfe Prince of this assembly See likewise the modesty of Iames he had bene made Bishop of Hierusalem and yet sayth not a word Consider also the singular modesty of the other Disciples how they yeld the throne to Peter not debating for it among themselues as formerly they had done And further shewing how Peter in this affayre exercised his authority before and aboue the rest he sayth (l) Ibid. Why doth he communicate this businesse with them might he not haue made the election alone He might without doubt but did not lest he might seeme partiall to any And againe (m) Ibid. This was the wisdome and foresight of this Doctor He said not We alone are sufficient to teach and although he had right to appoint an Apostle as much as all they had yet this doing it with aduice was agreeable to the Vertue of the man And because eminency in spiritual power is not an honor but a care of subiects yet worthily doth he first before them all exercise authority in the busines qui omnes habebat in manu who had all the rest at his disposition and will for this is he to whom our Lord sayd And thou being conuerted confirme thy brethren So Chrysostome And no lesse plainly Oecumenius Not Iames sayth he (n) Ade 1 Act. but Peter ryseth to whom the gouerment of the Disciples was committed Nor did any of them make reply to Peters words but presently at his command they appointed two whom they thought worthiest of that dignity that God himselfe might designe one of them Can any Catholike at this day more fully or in more significant words expresse the exercise of S. Peters iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles and his power to command them then these two ancient Fathers haue done To whom also I adioyne another like testimony of Leo the ninth a learned holy Pope (o) Epist. ad Michael c. 1. Silly therfore is your shift whiles you reduce the force of this argument to Peters deposing of Iudas from his Bishoprick for it insisteth not on his deposition but on the election of Mathias in his place which you conceale not so much as mentioning it because you know it to be vnanswerable 2. No lesse cunningly you shift of S. Peters giuing sentence of death vpon Ananias and Saphyra (p) Act. 5.5.10 for their fraud and hypocrisy It was say you (q) Pag. 48. no act of ordinary Magistracy but an extraordinary act of Miracle as Pauls striking of Elimas starke blind was But S. Augustine or whosoeuer is author of the worke De mirabilibus sacrae scripturae teacheth you another lesson saying (r) L. 3. cap. vlt. Peter punished thē to shew how great his Apostolicall authority was and how great their sinne and that their chastisment might be an example to others And S. Gregory treating of the Pastorall function and shewing how great benignity it requireth towards those that do well
and how great seuerity and zeale of iustice towards those that offend giues this fact of Peter as an example (s) L. 1. ep 24. From whence it is sayth he that Peter by authority from God hauing the Principality of the holy Church refused to be ouermuch reuerenced by Cornelius that did well but when he found the fault of Ananias and Saphyra he presently shewed how farre he was growne in power aboue the rest for he tooke away their liues with a word and shewed himselfe to be the chiefest in the Church against sinne And he addeth that Peters zeale in punishing declared the force of his power The same is deliuered by S. Bernard (t) Epist â—â—8 who speaking to Eugenius Pope of his power ouer the whole Church and in particular to depose Bishops when they deserue it sayth He that holds the place of Peter can with one blow kill Ananias and Simon Magus with another and to speake more plainly it belongs only to the Bishop of Rome to pronounce a peremptory sentence for the deposing of Bishops because though others be called to a part of solicitude yet he only hath the fulnesse of power c. How thinke you Doctor Morton whether is it fit that we belieue these renowned Doctors of Gods Church teaching vs that the sentence of death pronounced by S. Peter against Ananias and Saphyra was an act of his ordinary power and iurisdiction or you denying it 3. He exercised his authority vpon Simon Magus who witnes (u) L. 1. c. 2. l. 3. initio S. Irenaeus was the Prince and father of all heretikes The holy Apostle detected his wickednesse first at Samaria and excommunicated him (x) Act. 8.18 seqq and afterwards as S. Hierome (y) In catal script in Simone Petro. and Theodoret (z) Haeret. Fabul l 1. report went to Rome to oppose him and there condemned his Doctrine The Doctrine of Simons sorcery seruing the Angels sayth Tertullian (a) L. de Praescrip was reckoned among Idolatries and condemned by Peter the Apostle in Simon himselfe And S. Augustine (b) L. de haeres haer 1. At Rome the blessed Apostle Peter killed Simon the Magician by the true power of almighty God And Marianus with all the Regulars of Syria in their petition presented to the Councell of Constantinople vnder Menas (c) Act. 1. God sent Agapete Pope of old Rome to Constantinople for the deposition of Anthymus and the fore-named heretikes as hereofore he sent great Peter to the Romans for the destruction of the sorcery of Simon And S. Bernard (d) Serm. 1. in die Potri Pauli What more powerfull then Peter who with the breath of his mouth ouertoke Simon Magus in the ayre and receaued the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen in so singular a manner that his sentence goes before the sentence of heauen And to declare that the power of Peter still liueth in his Successors he sayth (e) Epist. 138. He that holds the place of Peter can at one blow kill Simon Magus Nor was it voyd of mystery that the first Arch-heretike with his heresy shold be condemned at Rome by Peter where all the heretikes and heresies of ensuing ages were to be condemned by S. Peters Successors 4. He shewed himselfe to be Head and Prince of the Apostles in asking and answearing often-times in the name of them all When Christ exhorted the Apostles to perfection Peter answered for all (f) Math. 19.27 Behold we haue left all things and followed thee what therefore shall we haue And when some of the Disciples forsaking Christ he asked the rest will you also be gone Peter as representing the person of them all answered (g) Ioan. 6.58 O Lord to whom shall wee goe thou hast the words of eternall life Vpon which passage S. Cyrill writeth (h) L. 4. in Ioan. c. 28. It was not fitting they should answeare confusedly and therfore giuing example of wisdome and modesty to future ages they answere by one that was gouernor and greater then the rest And to another question of our Sauiour Peter answered sayth S. Cyrill (i) L. 12. in Ioan. c. 64. as Prince and Head of the rest The same is testified by S. Cyprian by S. Cyrill of Hierusalem and S. Augustine (k) See aboue nu 23. Now that Peters answering for all was an act declaratiue of his iurisdiction is proued by the example of Christ our Lord for as oftentimes the Deane because he is Head and Superior of the Chapter answereth for all the Canons and in name of them all so Christ because he was Head Mayster of all the Apostles in diuers occasioÌ„s answered for them The Pharisees demanded of them (l) Math. 9.11.12 Why doth your Mayster eat with Publicans and sinners Christ answered for them They that are in health need not a Physitian but they that are ill at ease And when the same Pharisees saw the Apostles plucking eares of corne on the sabboth day and asked them (m) Luc. 6.2 why they did so Christ answered for them defending their fact by the example of Dauid Wherfore as Christs answering for all the Apostles shewed him to be their Head and Mayster so Peters answering for the other Apostles declared him to be Mayster and Rector of the Apostolicall Colledge 5. Among the Christians newly conuerted at Antioch there arose a dispute whether the law of Moyses were to be obserued or no for decision of this doubt Paul Barnaby and some others went vp to Hierusalem to the Apostles and Priests and chiefly to S. Peter to whom as to the Head of the Church and supreme Iudge of Controuersies the resolution of that doubt chiefly belonged Wherupon S. Paul himselfe speaking of this his iorney sayth (n) Gal. 2.2 I went vp to Hierusalem c. And Theodoret (o) Epist ad Leon. Paul the preacher of truth and the trumpet of the holy Ghost ranne to great Peter to bring from him a resolution of such doubts as arising about the obseruation of the Law did minister occasion of strife to them that were at Antioch How much more need then haue we that are weake and contemptible to runne to your Apostolicall seat to fetch salues for the sores of the Church And S. Chrysostome (p) Hom. 87. in Ioan. sayth Paul went to Peter prae alijs aboue others and that by reason of his authority as S. Hierome expresseth (q) Ep. 11. ad Augustinum And S. Ambrose (r) In cap. 1. ad Gal. because our Sauiour had committed to him the charge of the Churches Nor did S. Pauls going to Peter and the other Apostles and Priests togeather with him any way derogate from this supreme authority as the bringing of a suite to the Parliament derogateth not from the supreme Authority of the King who is Head of the Parliament Wherfore Peter as Head of the Church for the determination of that doubt assembled a Synod
this purpose where withall he sheweth that Caluin to auoyd the force of the former corrupteth the facred text The like is also gathered out of the other words of the same Prophet (n) Cap. 60.14 speaking of the great power and maiesty of the kingdome of Christ on earth which is his Church where he mentioneth this promise made vnto it The Children of them that humbled thee shall come crouching to thee and all that detracted from thee shall adore the steps of thy feet in which words is plainly foretold the adoration of the Church and of her visible head on earth an honor which Caluin vpon this very place confesseth not to exceed that which is due to the Church because it is giuen to Christ who is adored in the Church and Leo de Castro vpon the same text out of a very ancient record of the order of S. Benedict concerning the customes of the Catholike Church reporteth that Kings in ancient tymes going to the Synods of Bishops did prostrate themselues before them and kisse the ground not rising vntill the Bishops descending from their seats did take them vp in their armes and place them in thrones answerable to their Princely dignity To this purpose also make the testimonies of S. Hierome (o) Ep. ad Pammach aduers error Ioan. Hieroso who speaking of S. Epiphanius sayth A great number of all ages and sexes did flock vnto him offering their little ones and kissing his feet and of S. Chrysostome (p) Hom. 14. in priorem ad Timoth exhorting the people to prostrate themselues at the feet of the monkes kisse them Draw neare touch their holy feet for it is a far greater honor to touch their feet then to touch the heads of other men It was therfore in the puter tymes of the Church no disparagement to the greatest Princes to prostrate themselues either to the Pope or to Bishops or to other holy seruants of Christ and to kisse the hemms of their garments and their feet because as Alexander the great (q) Apud Ioseph do antiq l. â—1 〈◊〉 vlt. adoring Iaddus the high Priest of the Iewes knew and testified that he did in him exhibite that honor to God whose Priest he was so Christian Emperors and Kings when they adore the Pope kissing his feete do it to honor Christ in him to whome that honor redoundeth euen as the honor done to an Embassador redounds to the king his Mayster And as Princes by exhibiting this honor to the Vicar of Christ no way disparage their royall greatnesse so neither is the acceptance therof any note of pride in the Pope for he accepts it not for his owne sanctity or for any other personall quality as he is a priuat man but only for the publike authority and spirituall power which he receaueth from Christ and which properly and principally is of Christ who is honored and adored in his Vicar as Tertullian noteth saying (r) Vbi sup cap. 10. When thou castest thy selfe downe at the feet of thy brethren thou touchest Christ thou adorest Christ And therfore the Pope hath on his shooe a Crosse which the faythfull kisse to signify that they exhibite not that honor to him but in him to Christ whose person he representeth And finally wheras you obiect (s) Pag. 46 that S. Peter abhorred this pride when Cornelius prostrated himselfe vnto him I answere with S. Hierome (t) L. Aduers Vigilant that Cornelius conceaued Peter to be some God as the Lycaonians thought of Paul Barnaby and therfore prostrated himselfe to honor him with the supreme adoration of Latria due to God alone as it appeareth out of S. Peters answer to him (u) Act. 10.26 Arise for I also am a man This kind of adoration if any man should offer to the Pope he would admonish and forbid him as S. Peter did Cornelius But yet if it be granted that as some Fathers expound Cornelius adored not S. Peter as a God but as a man yet S. Peter with great reason forbid him for he adored him not in respect of Christ whose Vicar he was but in respect of himselfe and in like case the Pope would also forbid any man to adore him but he knoweth and so do you that the cause why Catholikes exhibit that honor to him is the excellent power giuen him by Christ or rather Christ himselfe gouerning his Church in his Vicar which adoration is good and pleasing to God both as it is exhibited by the faythfull and as it is admitted by the Pope Your fourth Obiection is (x) Pag. 46. that S. Peter had no Canon to direct the Apostles Syr the Apostles being guided by the holy Ghost needed no humane Canons nor constitutions for their owne direction But for the direction of all ecclefiasticall Pastors they made Ecclesiasticall Canons which S. Peter as their Head confirmed and deliuered by word of mouth to S. Clement his Disciple and Successor in the Roman See he committing them to writing left them to posterity as Canons of the Apostles I know that your Magdeburgian Centurists cauil against them as false suppositious but withall I know that diuers of those Canons are alleaged by many ancient Fathers by many Councells and confirmed by later Canons of the Church and inserted word by word into them as Franciscus Turrianus hath learnedly demonstrated x (y) L. 1. pro Canon Apostol vindicated them from the Magdeburgian calumnies Your fifth and sixth Arguments are (z) Pag. 46. that S. Peter made no clayme nor yet admittance of any appeale from the other Apostles no reseruation of any great case as by speciall prerogatiue due to himselfe to wit of admitting any out of the Dioces of another absoluing those that are excommunicated by another of Canonizing Saints of confirming Synods of granting plenary Indulgences c. Who seeth not the futility of these obiections For first the Apostles being confirmed in grace neither did nor could wrong their subiects in which case only Appeales are lawfull 2. I haue already shewed (a) Chap. â— that the resolution of that great case concerning the obseruation of the law of Moyses was reserued to S. Peter and that he resolued the same in the Synod of Hierusalem presiding in it and when the Pope personally presideth in a Councell there needeth no other confirmation 3. When Christ made Peter Head of his whole Church he gaue him power to bind lose throughout the whole world and therby power to excommunicate delinquents in whatsoeuer Dioces of other Bishops and likewise to absolue them from the guilt of sinne in the Sacrament of pennance as also to binde by excommunication and absolue from the same and finally to release the penalty due to sinnes by Indulgences out of the Sacrament for the power of binding and losing which he gaue to Peter he limited not to the Sacrament of Penance only But whether Peter exercised this power of excommunicating and pardoning by
his owne name of Shepheard and togeather which the name that power which he alone had to to wit of being Pastor of his whole flock what els S. Cyril saying (m) In l. thesau apud S. Thom. Opuse 1. that as Christ receaued of his Father the scepter of the Church ouer all Princedome and most full power ouer all that all be subiect vnto him so also he committed the same power to Peter and his Successors and that what was his he fully committed to Pâ—ter and to none els but to him alone what S. Leo affirming (n) Serâ—â— 3. dâ— Assamp sua that albeit in Gods people there be many Priests and many Pastors yet Peter gouerneth them all as Christ also doth principally rule them what Euthymius and Theophilact (o) In c. 21. Ioan. that Christ committed to Peter the charge and gouerment of his flock throughout the whole world what Oecumenius (p) Adc. 1. Act. that the gouerment of the Disciples was committed to Peter what S. Bernard (q) L. 2. de confiderat that euery one of the other Apostles receaued their seuerall ships but that Peter receaued the gouerment of the whole world and that to him was committed grandissima nauis that maruelous great ship to wit the vniuersall Church spread ouer the whole world and that to him the pastorall charge of the whole Church was committed Finally and what S. Eucherius that ancient Bishop of Lyons saying (r) In vigil S. Pet. Extat in Bibliothee Pat. edit Colon to 5. par 1 pag. 712. that Christ first committed to Peter his lambes and then his sheep because he made him not only a Pastor but Pastor of Pastors Peter therfore sayth he feedeth the lambes and the sheep he feedeth the yong ones and the dammes he gouerneth the subiects and the Prelates and is therfore Pastor of all for besyde lambes and sheep there is nothing in the Church What thinke you Doctor Morton do these Fathers acknowledge in Peter no other primacy but of order Can there be any thing more cleare then that they belieue him to haue authority power and iurisdiction ouer the whole Church as President and Gouernor therof were these men of your beliefe But you obiect (s) Pag. 51. Iames and Iohn whom S. Paulcalleth chiefe Apostles S. Chrysostome interpreteth Princes Oecumenius Heads Ergo they were also Gouernors ouer the other Apostles and Monarkes ouer the whole Church or els Peter was not How followeth this In the Empyre there are many Princes Ferdinand the Emperor and many others Ergo they are all equall to Ferdinand and all Emperors or els Ferdinand is no Emperor In the kingdome of Naples there are many Heads the Viceroy and the Gouernors of diuers Prouinces and Cities ergo these Heads are all equall in authority haue power ouer the whole kingdome or els the Viceroy hath not These consequences are absurd and yours is no lesse It is true that ech of the Apostles are Princes ouer the whole earth by reason of their Apostolicall power but as Bishops they are only Heads of their seuerall flocks and therfore in iurisdiction not equall to Peter Paul Andrew and Iohn sayth S. Gregory (t) L. 4. epist. 38. what are they but Heads of seuerall flocks but Peter is the chiefe member of the holy and vniuersall Church And S. Bernard (u) L. 2. de considerat Iames contented with the Bishopricke of Hierusalem yeldes the vniuersality to Peter And againe speaking to Eugenius Pope of his authority receaued from S. Peter (x) Ibid. Thou alone art Pastor of all Pastors Dost thou aske how I proue this By the words of our Lord for to which I will not say of the Bishops but euen of the Apostles were all the sheep so absolutely and without exception committed If thou louest me Peter feed my sheep what sheep the people of this or that City or countrey or kingdome he sayth My sheep who seeth not manifestly that he designed not some but assigned all Nothing is excepted where no distinction is made And so likewise the other title Prince of all the Apostles is an attribute which agreeth not to Iames nor to Iohn nor to any other of the Apostles for though Iames Iohn be chiefe Apostles and Princes in respect of that transcendent authority which as Apostles they had from Christ to preach and ordaine Bishops throughout the whole world yet neither the one nor the other is nor euer is called seuerally by himselfe Prince of all the Apostles as Peter is And so likewise when Peter and Paul togeather are called Principes Apostolorum Princes of the Apostles it is not in respect of any authority and iurisdiction common to them both ouer all the other Apostles but in respect of their great labors in preaching and propagating the fayth of Christ for when there is speach of the extent of their authority and iurisdiction Paul seuerally by himselfe is neuer called Prince of the Apostles as Peter is All the Apostles being silent sayth (y) Cathâ—c 11. S. Cyril of Hierusalem Peter Prince of the Apostles sayth c. And S. Ephrem (z) Serm. de Transfigu Dom. As Moyses by the commandment of God was Prince of the congregation of the Hebrewes so is Peter of the Church of the Christians And as Moyses was Prince of the old testament so is Peter of the new And Cassianus (a) L. 3. de Incarnat c. 12. Let vs aske that chiefe Disciple amongst the Disciples and Mayster amongst Maysters which gouerning the Roman Church as he had the Princedome of fayth so likewise of Priesthood Speake therfore and tell vs O Peter Prince of the Apostles c. In which words Peter is called Prince of the Apostles because he was the chiefe among them and had the soueraignty of Episcopall and Sacerdotall dignity aboue the rest But by the way I must aduertise you of your abusing S. Ambrose and S. Cyprian In your Margen (b) Pag. 10 you obiect certaine words of S. Ambrose in Latine and comming to english them in your text you set downe in lieu of them others of your owne in a different character as of S. Ambrose which neither are his nor of the same sense with his as the iudicious reader will perceaue if he compare S. Ambrose his Latin with your English With S. Cyprian you deale in the same manner for you make him say that Christ before his resurrection did build his Church vpon Peter An ignorance of which S. Cyprian was not guilty He sayth that Christ speaking to Peter said vpon this Rock I will build my Church which words he spake before his resurrection and they containe no more but a promise of building his Church vpon Peter for the future which promise he fulfilled not vntill after his resurrection when he gaue to Peter the actuall charge of feeding his lambes and his sheep (c) Ioan. 21.16.17 Nor doth S. Cyprian contradict this in the
leg c. 3. n. 23. from whom Salas learned his Doctrine de legibus call's it A reall priuiledge which he confirmeth with the example of a priuiledge that being granted to a certaine Bishop in the Canon law with expression of his name is notwithstanding supposed to passe to his Successors Now that this prayer of Christ was not made for Peter as for a priuate but as for a publike person that was supreme Head and Gouern or of the Church and consequently for the common good and benefit of the Church that therfore by vertue therof the Popes his Successors haue an infallible prerogatiue of not erring in their publike definitions of fayth to the seducing of others is the agreeing consent of the ancient Fathers in their expositions of this passage of S. Luke And 1. three holy Popes in their epistles Lucius the first to the Bishops of Spayne and France Felix the first to Benignus and Marke to S. Athanasius out of this prayer of Christ made for S. Peter gather the infallibility of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth But because Protestants hold for suspected the authority of these epistles I omit them and passe to such as by Protestants are granted to be vndoubtedly of those Popes to whom they are attributed 2. Therfore Agatho a most holy Pope and whom God graced with Miracles in his Epistle to the Emperor (q) Extat Act. 4. Apud Bin. to 3. pag. 12. Constantine Pogonat which was read in the sixt generall Councell and approued (r) Act. 8. 18. as the suggestion of the holy Ghoâ—t dictated by the mouth of the holy and most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles speaking by Agatho sayth Our Lord promised that the fayth of Peter should not faile and commanded him to strengthen his brethren which that the Popes my Apostolicall predecessors haue euer performed is a thing notorious to all This testimony sheweth that not only Agatho but all the Fathers of that Councell belieued this priuiledge of not erring in sayth and confirming others to haue bene obtained by Christ not only for S. Peter but for all his Successors and that this is a truth suggested by the holy Ghost and dictated by S. Peter speaking by Agatho 3. S. Gregory (s) L. 6. ep 37. Who is ignorant that the holy Church is strengthned by the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles who in his name receaued the constancy of his mind being called Peter of a Rock to whom by the voyce of truth it is said Confirme thy Brethren And els where (t) L. 4. ep 3. he proueth against Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople the authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer the vniuersall Church by the Commission giuen to S. Peter his predecessor It is manifest to all such as know the Ghospell that the charge of the whole Church is committed to the Apostle Peter Prince of all the Apostles for to him it is said Feed my sheepe And so him it is said I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth fayle not thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren Which testimony conuinceth thaâ— Christ prayed not for S. Peter as for a priuate person buâ— as for the Head of his Church and consequently for his Successors in him 4. S. Leo the great (u) Serm. 2. de Natali Apost Petri Pauli The danger of tentation was common to all the Apostles they all equally needed the protection of Gods help but our Lord taketh a speciall care of Peter and prayeth peculiarly for his fayth that the state of all the rest might be more secure if the mind of the Chiefe were not corquered The strength then of all is fortified in Peter God so dispensing the ayde of his grace that the assurance and strength which Christ gaue to Peter might by him redound to the Apostles And he addeth that as Peâ—er confirmed the Apostles so it is not to be doubted but that still he affordeth his help to his Successors in the Roman chayre and as a pious Pastor confirmeth them with his admonitions and ceaseth not to pray for them c. 5. Leo the ninth (x) Ep. ad Michael Imper. c. 7. The false deuises of all heretikes haue bene reproued confuted and condemned by the See of the Prince of the Apostles which it the Roman Church and the hartes of the Brethren strengthned in the fayth of Peter which hath not fayled hitherto nor shall euer fayle hereafter And the same sense of these words of Christ is deliuered by Nicolas the first (y) Ep. ad Michael Imp. and Innocentius the third (z) In Cap. Maior de Bap. If you answere that these testimonies are of Popes speaking in their owne cause I reply that they speake in the cause of God and his Church and are worthy of all credit both because they were men most eminent in learning sanctity as also because in this exposition they agree with the Fathers both of the sixth generall Councell and the rest for S. Ambrose sayth (a) Ad ca. 22. Luc. Behold what our Lord said and vnderstand it Peter is sifted he fall's into tentations but after his tentation is made Gouernor of the Church and therfore our Sauiour before hand signifieth why afterwards he chose him to be Pastor of his flock for he said vnto him And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren You see then that in S. Ambrose his iudgment Christ prayed for Peter as for the Pastor of his flock and that for Peter to confirme his brethren is to performe the office of Pastor and Gouernor of the Church which office as it was no lesse necessary afterwards then in S. Peters tyme so it descended from him to his Successors A truth which Theodorus Studites with other his brethren being pressed with the outragious persecutions of â—eretikes professe in their epistle to Paschalis Pope in these words (b) Apud Baron anno 817. Heare O Apostolicall Head made by God Pastor of his sheep porter of the kingdome of Heauen and Rock of the fayth vpon whom the Catholike Church is built for thou art Peter adorning and gouerning the See of Peter Christ our God said to thee And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren Behold now the tyme behold the place ayde vs c. Thou hast power from God because thou art Prince of all fright away the hereticall wild beasts c. And Theophilact (c) Ad cap. 22. Luc. expounding the same words The plaine sense of them is this because I hold thee as Prince of my Disciples when thou after thou hast denied me shalt weep and come to repentance confirme the rest for this becometh thee that next to me art the Rock and fortresse of the Church And we may vnderstand it not to be spoken of the Apostles only but of all the faythfull that shall be till the end of the world Which addition of Theophilact sheweth that this priuiledge giuen to Peter of not
cleare that it is great impiety for a Christian to doubt therof S. Fulgentius sayth (s) De incarnat grat c. 11. that what the Roman Church teacheth the Christian world without hesitation belieues to iustice and doubts not to confesse to saluation S. Peter surnamed Chrysologus exhorteth Eutyches the arch-heretike thus (t) Ep. ad Eutych prafixa Act is Concil Chalced. We exhort thee reuerend brother to lend an obedient eare to the letters of the most holy Pope of the Citty of Rome for as much as the blessed Peter who liues and rules in his owne seate exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it I omit other testimonies no lesse cleare of S. Cyrill of Iohn and Maximianus Patriarkes of Constantinople of Venerable Bede S. Maximus Martyr Theodorus Studites Rabanus and others formerly alleaged (*) Chap. 1. sect 4. From this infallibility of the Roman Church it proceeded that the ancient Fathers and Councels for the decision of all doubts of fayth had euer recourse to the See of Rome and that many learned and holy Doctors haue sent their writings to the Popes of their tyme to be examined by them and approued if their Doctrine were found to be Orthodoxall or reproued if it were erroneous So did S. Augustine to Zozimus the 4. Primates of Africa to Theodorus the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to Innocentius S. Cyril to Celestine Theodoret and the Councell of Chalcedon to Leo the great S. Anselme to Vrbanus S. Bernard to Innocentius Other particulars I omit hauing dwelled long in this point already SECT II. Our second Argument AN other place of Scripture wherwith we proue the Roman Churches indefectibility in fayth are the words of Christ Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I wil build my Church the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it By the gates of hell Origen S. Epiphanius S. Hierome S. Cyril Rabanus and all other expositors vnderstand Heresies and Arch-heretikes by whom as by gates men descend into hell And contrarily by Rock they vnderstand S. Peter and his Successors in the Roman See against which heresies and whatsoeuer persecutions raised by them haue no more power to preuaile then the furious waues of raging tempests against a Rock firmely seated in the middest of the sea They may beate and breake themselues against it but destroy it they cannot And so experience teacheth for howbeit the Heathnish persecutors and other enemies of Christ haue tried their forces against it and all the other Patriarchall Sees haue fallen into heresy yet against the Roman Church God protecting it no persecutions no errors haue preuailed nor euer shall preuaile for she sayth S. Augustine (u) Psal cont part Donati is the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not Neither against the Rockon which Christ builded his Church sayth Origen (x) Tract 1. in Math. nor against the Church it selfe the gates of hell shall preuaile Vpon this Rock sayth S. Hierome (y) Ep. 57. speaking of the Roman See to Damasus I know the Church to be built he that gathereth els where scattereth Our Lord sayth S. Epiphanius (z) In Ancorato made Peter the chiefe of the Apostles a strong Rock vpon whom the Church of God is built and the gates of hell which are heresies and Arch-heretikes shall not preuaile against it for the fayth is euery way fortified in him S. Chrysostome sayth (a) Hom. 55. in Math. Our Sauiour promised to Peter power to forgiue sinnes that the Church hauing for her Pastor and Head a poore fisherman shold amongst the assalts of so many raging flouds remaine immoueable and more firmely fixed and setled then the strongest Rock S. Cyril explicating the same words of our Sauiour sayth (b) Apud S. Thom. in Catena ad c. 16. Math. According to this promise of our Lord the Apostolicall Church of Peter perseuereth in her Bishops pure and free from all seduction and circumuention aboue all Prelates and Bishops and aboue all Primates of Churches and people in the fayth and authority of Peter And wheras other Churches haue bene stayned with the errors of some she alone remaines established firmely and vnconquerably silencing and stopping the mouthes of all heretikes Possessor a famous African Bishop and banished by the Arians consulting Hormisdas Pope about the Doctrine of Faustus Rhegiensis yeldeth this reason (c) Extat Epistola apud Baron Anno 520. It is expedient to haue recourse to the head as often as the health of the members is treated of for who hath a more solicitous care of his subiects or from whom is the resolution of fayth when it is questioned to be required but from the President of that See whose first Rector heard from Christ Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it S. Leo the great (d) Serm. 2. de sua assump The solidity of that fayth which was praysed in the prince of the Apostles is perpetuall and as that remaines which Peter belieued so remaineth that also which Christ instituted in Peter Wherfore the disposition of truth remaineth and Peter perseuering in the strength of a Rock hath not left the gouerment of the Church which he once vndertooke S. Maximianus an ancient Patriarke of Constantinople higly commended by Celestine Pope (e) Ep. ad Theodosium and others (f) Apud Spond anno 431. n. 22. writeth to the Orientalls All the bounds of the earth haue sincerely acknowledged our Lord and Catholikes throughout the whole world professing the true fayth looke vpon the power of the B. of Rome as vpon the Sunne And then speaking of the reward which our Sauiour gaue to Peter for that excellent confession of his fayth he addeth For the Creator of the world amongst all men of the world chose S. Peter to whome he gaue the chayre of Doctor to be principally possessed by a perpetuall right of priuiledge to the end that whosoeuer is desirous to know any diuine and profound thing may haue recourse to the oracle and doctrine of this instruction Iustinian the Emperor maketh this profession of his fayth to Bonifacius Pope (g) Extat inter decreta Bonif. Papae The beginning of saluation is to conserue the rule of right fayth no way to swarue from the tradition of our fore-Fathers because the words of our Lord cannot faile saying Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock c. And the proofes of deeds haue made good those words because in the See Apostolike the Catholike Religion is always conserued inuiolable And the same profession was made by Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to Hormisdas Pope (h) In epist ad Hormisd abiuring the memory of all such as dye out of the Communion of the Roman Church or agree not in all things fully with her S. Gregory (i) L. 6. ep 37. Who knoweth not that the holy Church is strengthned by
their Bishop with the multitude of Saints being departed out of it shall be consumed with fire before the reigne of Antichrist or in the very beginning therof as (r) Riber a cap. 17 n. 20. in vers 16. Ex hoc quod nunc ait Apostolus intelligitur Roman euertendam antequam Antichristus regnare incipiat vel certè ipso initio regni eius Ribera and (s) Viegas in cap 17. n. 5. Viegas reach In this supposition why may not the Pope with that multitude of holy Christian Romans be truly and verily the Bishop and Church of Rome Why should that multitude of Roman Christian and Saints be titulus sine re and not a very glorious and venerable Church Why should the Pope then cease to be Bishop more then the Bishop of Canterbury should in case Canterbury should be destroyed into ashes Will you say vpon this contingent that the Bishop of Canterbury shall be the man in the moone the sheepheard of Vtopia to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You might haue learned from Cusanus (t) Epist 2. ad Bohemos whome you cite often and highly commend that if by any accident the Citty of Rome should fayle the truth of the Church shall remaine there where the Principality and seat of Peter shal be Nor is your example of the Emperor of Rome (u) Pag. 77. any helpe to your Argument For albeit the Roman Empyre be now in part decayed or weakned in respect of that power and greatnesse which anciently it had yet it still remayneth so that the name succession of the Roman Emperors at this day is famous in the world els why did our late Soueraigne King Iames inscribe his Monitory Prefation Sacratissimo atque inuictissimo Principi ac Domino Rodulpho secundo Romanorum Imperatori semper Augusto c. And why els doth the Church of Rome in her Office (x) In die Parasceues Sabbatho Sancto pray for the Roman Emperor Nor the Authors which you alledge for the contrary do say ought els though you falsify Salmeron to make his words found otherwise for wheras he speaking of the Roman Empire as it anciently was sayth Imperium illud Romanum iamdiu euersum est that Empire of Rome to wit with that ancient splendor maiesty and power which once it had is long since destroyed you leaue out illud and make him say absolutely The Roman Empire is long since destroyed wheras in the words next following he expresly affirmeth that there is still a Roman Emperor and that he is so called although what now be possesseth be but a very small shadow of the ancient Empire Lastly I will not omit to put you in minde of your weake manner of arguing throughout all this Section for how doth it follow that because Ribera and Viegas hold that Babylon out of which the faythfull are commanded to depart is the City of Rome as she shall be idolatrous in the end of the world you may now lawfully reuolt from the Church of Rome Againe who obligeth me to allow of their exposition I might retort your Argument vpon your selfe and tell you that Babylon signifies not Rome but Geneua and proue it by the testimony of Castalio a prime brother of yours who liued there and was a speciall friend of Beza They sayth he speaking of the Geneuian brethren (y) Apud Rescium pag. 54. are proud puft vp with glory and reuenge We may with lesse danger offend Princes then exasperate these fiery Caluinists their life is infamous and villanous they are Maisters of art in reproches lyes cruelty treachery and insufferable arrogancy They name their Geneua The holy City and their assembly Hierusalem but in very truth we should call it O Babylon Babylon O infamous Sodome and children of Gomorrha If you like not this exposition yet I know no reason why if you will belieue Ribera and Viegas expounding Babylon in the Apocalyps to be Rome you may not as well belieue your brethren Vdalricus Velenus (z) Lib. de hac r◠and Henricus Buntingus (a) It iner de it iner Petri. denying it and so much the more because S. Augustine Tyconius Bede Arethas Primasius Ansbertus Haymo S. Anselme and S. Thomas (b) Apud Riber in vers 8. cap. 14. Apoc by Babylon vnderstand not Rome but the society of all the wicked in generall from whose vices the faithfull are commanded to depart (c) S. August Breuic Collat. collat 3. Others vnderstand Paganisme which because it adoreth a confused multitude of Gods is rightly named Babylon that signifies Confusion others Mahometisme the mother of fornication and all filthinesse Others Constantinople the Metropolitan of Turcisme And others the chiefe City of the Chaldaeans which is properly called Babylon These expositions with their Authors and reasons you may read in Cornelius à Lapide (d) Ade 17. Apoc. Suarez (e) Defens fid l. 5. c. 7. and Peron (f) Replic Chapit 15. But the truth is that all these senses as likewise that of Ribera being purely allegoricall afford no solid foundation to build matter of fayth vpon but are merely coniecturall And therfore if S. August say (g) Ep. 48. Who dares with an vnbridled licence produce for himselfe that which is couched in an allegory vnlesse he haue places more cleare by whose light to illustrate that which is obscure we may with iust reason reproue you for grounding your departure from the Roman Church vpon the allegoricall sense of those words of the Apocalyps Get forth of Babylon my people and so much the more because the Authors whose exposition you take for your ground admonish you that by Babylon is not vnderstood the Church of Rome but the City that not as it is Christian but as it was idolatrous in S. Iohns tyme and shal be againe in the end of the world But any thing will serue your turne be it true or false if by sleights you can wrest it against the Pope and Church of Rome SECT II. Whether S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter were subiect to the Bishop of Rome S. Peters Successor SVarez treating of the authority of S. Peter and his Successors moueth this question (h) De trip virtute disp 10. sect 1. Whether the Apostles that suruiued S. Peter were subiect to S. Peters successor in the See of Rome His answeare is I remember not that I haue read any thing of this point in Authors but it seemes to me to follow out of what hath bene said that they were inferior in iurisdiction and consequently subiect therin to the Bishop of Rome although in other excellencies and prerogatiues they were superior to him For the same power and iurisdiction that was in S. Peter descended to his Successours who therfore in three things surpassed the Apostles there liuing 1. In the obiect of their power for the charge and gouerment of the whole Church belongeth primarily to the Successor of S. Peter which as I haue
as a certaine note or marke wherby Orthodoxall people are distinguished from Heretikes as you haue already heard (b) Chap. 2. sect 2. out of Pacianus S. Cyrill of Hierusalem and S. Augustine and contrariwise that they who to expresse their fayth haue taken new names as the Arians of Arius the Marcionists of Marcion the Pelagians of Pelagius the Donatists of Donatus the like witnesse S. Irenaeus (c) L. 1. c. 20. S. Iustine (d) In Triphone Lactantius (e) Diuin institut l. 4.30 S. Athanasius (t) Serm. 1. cont Arian and S. Hierome (g) Cont. Lucifer fine haue bene knowne therby as by an vndoubted marke to be Heretikes who haue bene inforced to take new names knowing that the ancient name of Catholike cold not agree to them And for the same cause you knowing your selues not to be Catholikes that you shall neuer be esteemed such haue bene inforced to call your selues by a new name of Protestants to distinguish your selues from those who in all ages haue bene and are still knowne by the name of Catholikes by which neither we nor you vnderstand any other then those which professe the Roman fayth and are in the communion of the Roman Church Catholike and Roman being termes conuertible as hath bene proued (h) Chap. 1. sect 3. And this is the reason why Protestāts speaking not only to vs but euen among themselues euer call themselues Protestants as knowing that by Catholikes no man vnderstands any other but them that before Luther began were and are still knowne by that name and can neuer loose the possession of it This was a thing well knowne to ancient Heretikes who therfore abhorred the name Catholike So did Gaudentius the Donatist calling it (i) Apud S. Aug. l. 1. cont Gaudent c. 23. a humane fiction So did other heretikes who speaking in the Lutheran language said (k) Praefat. in nouum Testam anni 1565. Come O yee fooles and silly wretches that are commonly called Catholikes and learne the true fayth which lay hid many ages heretofore but is now reuealed and shewed of late With these iumpe our Protestants for Beza k call's it A vayne word Doctor Humphrey (l) In vita Iuelli p. 113. An empty tearme Mayster Sutcliffe (m) Challenge pag. 1. A fruitlesse name and others of you scoffe at the word (n) Doctor Bristow Motiues pag. 7. nicknaming vs Cacolikes and Cartholikes And this is the reason why the Lutherans reiected an allegation out of Luther because said they (o) In Colloq Altemburg anno 1568. pag. 154. Is is not a phrase of Luther that any thing ought to be vnderstood Catholikely And for this cause as Lindanus (p) In Dubitant obserueth Luther and other your new reformers in hatred of that name haue corrupted the Creed of the Apostles saying in their Catechismes insteed of I belieue the holy Catholike Church I belieue the Christian Church And you english Protestants insisting in their steps for the good will you beare to that name haue left it out of your Bibles for whereas Eusebius (q) L. 2. histo c. 12. reporteth that the Epistles of Iames Peter Iohn and Iude were knowne in antiquity by the name of Catholike Epistles and therfore the Catholike Church so instiles them in her Bibles you in yours of the yeares 1562. and 1577. which are yet currant among you hauing neuer bene forbidden haue wholy left out that name And though since that tyme you haue bene admonished of your bad dealing therin yet still in all your later Bibles you commit the same fault vsing the prophane signification of the word Catholike in lieu of the Ecclesiasticall and in styling the Catholike Epistles The generall Epistles saying The generall Epistle of Iames of Peter c. Who seeth not the absurdity of this translation For it is as ridiculous to translate Catholike Generall as if when S. Hierome said (r) L. 1. Apol aduers Ruffin If Ruffinus call his fayth that which the Roman Church professeth then are we Catholikes you should translate Then are we Generalls or whom S. Augustine (s) Contra ep Fundam c. 4. reporteth that Catholikes trauailing among Heretikes to distinguish their owne Churches from hereticall conuenticless aske qua itur ad Catholicam which is the way to the Catholike Church you should translate which is the way to the Generall All this sheweth that you know your selues not to be Catholikes since you seeke as far forth as you can to suppresse the name How therfore can you aske why the Epistles of Iames Iohn and Iude were called Catholike as well as the two Epistles of Peter I say you that call none of them Catholike but in a prophane manner Generall Epistles And that very improperly if not also falsly for some of them as the two last of S. Iohn were not written to all the faythfull in generall but to particular persons The reason why the Catholike Church instileth the Epistles of Iames Iohn and Iude Catholike Epistles as well as the two Epistles of Peter is because they were written in defence of the Catholike fayth against heretikes as well as the Epistles of S. Peter were So it hath bene already shewed out of S. Augustine (t) Chap. 12. sect 8. Your second question is (u) Pag. 81. why S. Paul was so sole as of himselfe to anathematize the false Apostles I answere that not only S. Peter but each of the Apostles had power to excommunicate or anathematize offenders for their Apostolicall iurisdiction was vniuersall ouer all the faythfull but yet not ordinary at S. Peters was and therfore not to descend to their successors SECT II. Whether the title of Vicar of Christ belong to the Pope and in what sense YOur third question is (x) Pag. 82. why S. Paul did absolue the incestuous Corinthian as the Vicar of Christ if as Bellarmine pretendeth that title wholly belong to the Pope as an Argument of his succession from S. Peter in the Monarchy of the whole Church This argumēt you vrge again afterwards (y) Pag. 242. as of principal note and confirme with the testimonies of S. Ignatius of Eusebius Pope and Genebrard who obserues that Tertullian calleth Paul Vicar of Christ Answere The name of Vicar may be giuen to any one that supplieth the place of another Kings are Vicars of God in things belonging to Ciuill gouerment Bishops are Vicars of Christ in spirituall and ecclesiasticall affayres because the holy Ghost hath placed them to rule the Church of God (z) Act. 20.28 All the Apostles were Vicars of Christ because they were Legates God as it were exhorting by them (a) 2. Cor. 5.20 and thereby S. Paul had power to absolue the incestuous Corinthian in the person of Christ or as his Vicar as the Rhemists expound But the supreme Vicar and chiefe Lieutenant of Christ on earth as S. Peter was so now is the Bishop of Rome his
at all of them It belonges not to Kings sayth S. Damascen (q) Orat. 2. de Imagin to giue lawes to the Church for consider what the Apostle sayth and whom he hath placed in the Church first Apostles after Prophets then Pastors and Doctors in the constitution of the Church he placed not Kings And againe (r) Ibid. Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them for they watch as being to render accompt of your soules And remember your Prelates which haue spoken the word of God to you Kings are not they which haue spoken the word but Apostles and Prophets and Pastors and Doctors The ciuill gouerment belongs to Kings but the Ecilesiasticall constitution to Pastors and Doctors So Damascen whose Doctrine if it please you not you may learne the same lesson from your Grand-maister Caluin teaching that the chiefest place of gouerment in Christs Church belonged to the Apostles and so to Bishops and Priests their Successors And lest you might thinke that there is so much as one word in S. Paul which may argue him to grant vnto secular powers any place of gouerment in the Church Caluin (*) L. 4. Instit c. 3. sect 5. cap. 11. sect 1. specially noteth that by gubernationes gouerments which S. Paul after Apostles and Doctors reckoneth in the seauenth place are not vnderstood ciuill officers but such men as were ioyned to the Preachers for better order in spirituall gouerment But though you in neither of these places where the Apostle speaketh of the Ecclesiasticall dignities can finde any place for secular Princes and Magistrates the Fathers of the Church haue found in both of them a place for the Pope for S. Hierome obserueth (s) In Psal 44. that in the Church Bishops succeed in place of the Apostles and therefore Tertullian (t) L. de praescrip c. 2â— 32. and S. Augustine (u) Ep. 162. haue noted that their Churches were called Apostolicall so long as they continued in the fayth receaued from the Apostles as likewise all others that being afterwards founded agreed with them in Doctrine or as Tertullian speaketh propter consanguinitatem doctrinae Now as S. Peter was Head and Prince of the Apostles so the Roman Church in which he placed his Episcopall Chayre and into which sayth Tertullian (x) L. de praser c. 36. both he and S. Paul powred all their Doctrina togeather with their bloud was and is still by a speciall prerogatiue called The See Apostolike in so much that when the See Apostolike is named without any addition the Roman See is alwayes vnderstood In this language speake S. Hierome (y) L. 2. Apol aduers Ruffin when he said Ironicè to Ruffinus I wonder how the Bishops haue receâ—â—ed that which the See Apostolike hath condemned In this spake S. Augustine (z) Ep. 106. saying Relations concerning this busines were sent by the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the See Apostolike And els where (a) Ep. 162. In the Roman Church hath alwayes florished the Principality of the See Apostolike In the same language spake the Councell of Chalcedon (b) Act. 1. calling Paschasinus the Popes legate The Vicar of the See Apostolike And the Bishops of Dardania in their Epistle to Gelasius (c) Extâ—â— inter epist. Gelasij It is our desire to obey all your commands and to keep inuiolate the ordinations of the See Apostolike as from our Fathers we haue learned to do And S. Bernard (d) L. 2 de Considerat vpon those words of S. Paul He that resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God sayth to Conradus the Emperor This sentence I wish and by all meanes admonish you to keep in yelding reuerence to the chiefe and Apostolicall See From hence it also proceedeth that as S. Hierome (e) Ep. 58. said to Damasus The Bishop of Rome followeth the Apostles in honor and therfore he aboue all other Bishops is called Apostolicus Apostolicall So was S. Leo called in the Councell of Chalcedon (f) Act. 1. The most blessed and Apostolicall man Pope of old Rome which is the Head of all Churches And the Bishops of France (g) Inter op Leonis â—â—to 52. salute him with the title of The most blessed Pope to be reuerenced with Apostolicall honor And Rupertus (h) De diuiâ—â— offic l. 1.27 The Successors of the other Apostles are called Patriarkes but the Successor of Peter for the excellency of the Prince of the Apostles Apostolicus nominatur hath the name of Apostolicall And Hugo Victorinus (i) L. 1. Erud Theol. de sacram Eccles c. 43. The Pope is called Apostolicall because he hath the place of the Prince of the Apostles From hence also his Episcopall dignity is by a speciall prerogatiue called Apostolatus Apostolate or Apostleship So Paschacinus in the Councell of Chalcedon said of Pope Leo (k) Act. 1. His Apostleship hath vouch safed to command that Dioscorus sit not in the Councell So the Bishops of France writing to the same Leo beseech his Apostleship to pardon their slownesse (l) Iuter ep Leon. ante 52. Honorius the Emperor beseecheth Pope Bonifacius (m) Ep. ad Bonifac. that his Apostolate would offer vp prayers to God for the good of his Empire S. Bernard sayth to Innocentius (n) Ep. 190. It is fitting that whatsoeuer dangers or scandals arise in the kingdome of God be referred to your Apostleship All this sheweth that vnder the name of Apostles to whom S. Paul allotteth the first and chiefest place among Ecclesiasticall gouernors are vnderstood S. Peter and his Succcessors who haue the first and chiefest place of gouermentin the Church And this the Fathers Councels haue sufficiently declared by giuing the Pope the title of Apostolicall by calling his place Apostleship and his Church absolutely Apostolicall See This you could not see so dimme sighted you are in beholding any light that shewes the Authority of the Bishop or Church of Rome And this also is thereason why you could not see that S. Paul comprehendeth Peter and the Popes his Successors vnder the name of Pastors for Christ made Peter Pastor of his flock the same dignity remayneth to his Suecessors for why els did the Mileuitan Councell in tyme of the Pelagian heresy beseech Innocentius Pope (o) Aug. ep â—2 to apply his Pastorall diligence to the great perills of the weake members of the Church why did S. Hierome (p) Ep. 57. liuing in Palestine fly to Damasus Pope for resolution of his doubts as a sheep to his Pastor Why did S. Chrysostome say (q) L. 2. de Sacordot that Christ committed to Peter and his Successors the charge of those sheep for which he shed his bloud Why did S. Ambrose (r) Ep. 81. call Siricius Pope a good and rigilant Pastor that with pious solicitude keepes the flock of Christ Why did S. Prosper say (s) l. de ingrat c. 2. that Rome by
(x) Visib Monarch l. 7. à n. 433. ad 541. addeth much more of the same kind out of S. Gregories owne workes and in his owne words as that the See Apostolike by the authority of God is preferred before all Churches That all Bishops if any fault be found in them are subiect to the See Apostolike That she is the Head of fayth of all the faythfull members That if any of the foure Patriarkes had done against the Popesletters that which was done by the Bishop Salona so great a disobedience could not haue passed without a most grieuous scandall That the See Apostolike is the head of all Churches That the Roman Church by the words which Christ spake to Peter was made the Head of all Churches That no scruple nor doubt ought to be made of the fayth of the See Apostolike that all those things are false which are taught contrary to the Doctrine of the Roman Church That to returne from Schisme to the Catholike Church is to returne to the communion of the Bishop of Rome That he which will not haue S. Peter to whom the keyes of heauen were committed to shut him out from the entrance of lyfe must not in this world be separated from his See That they are peruerse men which refuse to obey the commands of the See Apostolike I conclude therfore with Doctor Sanders that he which readeth all these particulars and more of the same kinde that are to be found in the workes of S. Gregory and yet with a brasen forehead feareth not to interpret that which he writ against the name of Vniuersall Bishop so as if he could not abide that any one Bishop should haue the chiefe seate and supreme gouerment of the whole militant Church that man sayth he seemes to me either to haue cast of all vnderstanding and sense of a man or els to haue put on the obstinat peruersnesse of the Diuell How comes it then to passe that you are not ashamed to vrge here and els where so often in this your grand Imposture S. Gregories refusing the name of vniuersall Bishop as an argument to disproue his authority and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church especially since it hath bene so often and so fully answered by vs But because here you insist so much theron I will for the readers satisfaction briefly declare in what sense Pelagius and S. Gregory refused that title and how to better your argument you abuse and falsify our Authors The title of Vniuersalis Episcopus Vniuersall Bishop may be taken two wayes first for a Bishop that challengeth an vniuersall power ouer all other Bishops clayming to himselfe a right of hearing and determing all Ecclesiasticall causes in his owne and their Diocesses leauing them no other right to exercise any Episcopall iurisdiction power but only such as they shall receaue frō him as his Vicars In this sense S. Gregory conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to stile himselfe Vniuersall Bishop as it appeareth out of his plaine and expresse words in diuers of his Epistles (z) L. 4. ep 32.34 36.38 l. 7. ep 70. to which the margent will direct you And in this sense he calleth the name of vniuersall Bishop A prophane and Antichristian title 2. It may be taken in the same signification with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae so that it signify a Bishop to whom belongeth the gouerment of the vniuersall Church and the determining of all such causes as appertaine to her in generall without taking away or hindering the ordinary power and right of other Bishops and leauing each of them in their seuerall places degrees with full power and authority to iudge and determine all Causes Ecclesiasticall belonging to their Diocesses and within them In this sense the tytle of Vniuersall Bishop is not condemned by S. Gregory as new or prophane or any way vnlawfull but agreeth to the Pope no lesse then the title of Bishop of the vniuersall Church And therfore as S. Gregory (a) Ep. ad omnes Episc stileth himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church so likewise when Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria writing to him (b) L. 4. ep 36. gaue him the title of vniuersall Bishop he acknowledged (c) L. 4. ep 36. that in this sense he might lawfully accept therof and that the Councell of Chalcedon and the following Fathers had giuen it to his predecessors But yet he refused it out of his great humility as also he denied himselfe to be a Priest (d) L. 4. ep 31. and as S. Paul called himselfe the greatest of sinners (e) 1. Tim. 1.15 and thought himselfe vnworthy to be called Apostle (f) 1. Cor. 15. ◠And chiefly lest he might be thought to accept of it in the former sense vnlawfull iniurious to other Bishops in which he conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to vsurpe it And finally that therby he might better represse his insolency This doctrine is deliuered by Baronius and Bellarmine of whom because they declare Vniuersalis Episcopus in this second sense to be all one with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae you say (g) Pag. 94. They would gladly confound these two titles therby to proue their Popes to be proper Monarkes ouer the whole Church because some predecessors of S. Gregory haue bene called Bishops of the vniuersall Church which is their peruerse error refuted by one of their learned Iesuits But you must pardon me if I tell you that this is a shamefull vntruth for Baronius and Bellarmine deliuer the same double acception of Vniuersalis Episcopus which I haue declared and likewise affirme that in one of them it may be attributed to the Pope but not in the other which is not to confound but to distinguish that confusion and mistake may be auoyded And the thing it selfe is euident for if the title of Vniuersalis Episcopus might not be taken in a sense vnlawfull S. Gregory would not haue condemned it in Iohn of Constantinople as a new prophane Antichristian title And againe if it might not be taken in a sense lawfull neither the Councell of Chalcedon nor the following Fathers (h) Apud S. Greg. l. 4. ep 36. would haue giuen it to the Bishops of Rome The former sense is vnlawfull because it taketh away all ordinary power and iurisdiction due to other Bishops in their Diocesses The second is lawfull because it leaueth to them their ordinary power and iurisdiction From whence it followeth that as S. Gregory in this second sense did instile himselfe Episcopum Vniuersalis Ecclesiae (i) Ep. ad omnes Episcop so if Vniuersalis Episcopus be taken in the same sense it is also lawfull and due to the Bishops of Rome and in this sense he taketh it when he sayth that the Councell of Chalcedon and the following Fathers gaue it to his predecessors But the former sense he condemned as prophane and Antichristian reprehended in Iohn of Constantinople And Salmeron for
of these testimonies of S. Irenaeus and therfore lest you might seeme to passe them ouer without answere you say (b) Pag. 100. marg fine As for the words Propter Principalitatem they are answered hereafter How are they answered first you bid vs (c) Pag. 253. marg remember that Irenaeus was he which consented with the Asian Bishops that were excommunicated by Pope Victor But wee know this to be an vntruth and wish you to remember that you acknowledge so much contradict your selfe saying (d) Pag. 131. Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops These then are your propositions Irenaus consented with the Asian Bishops Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops Reconcile them 2. Wheras S. Iraeneus sayth (e) L. 3. c. 3. It is necessary that all Churches haue recourse to the Roman Church by reason of her more mighty principality you answere (f) Pag. 253. This might haue bene spoken of the Imperiall power of that City to which the subiects of the Roman Empire were bound to resort for paying of tributes and the Gouernors of Prouinces to yield an account of their offices But the very words of S. Irenaeus shew the falshood of this answeare for he mentioneth not the City but the Church of Rome Ad hanc Ecclesiam c. To this Church sayth he all Churches must of necessity resort Againe they which were to resort to the City of Rome for the discharge of their offices and paymēt of tributes were the subiects of the Roman Empire only But S. Irenaeus tels you that omnes vndique fideles that is All the faythfull and all the Churches not only of the Roman Empire but of all the world are necessarily to repaire to the Church of Rome shewing therby that her authority and command is of larger extent then that of the Roman Empire for as Prosper truly sayd (g) De ingrat c 2. de vocat gent. l. 2. c. 6. Rome the See of Peter is greater by the fortresse of Religion then by the throne of temporall power and being made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world possesseth by religion what she doth not by force of armes 3. You answeare (h) Pag. 253.254 Be it Ecclesiasticall power yet was not the necessity of recourse vnto it absolute and perpetuall but occasionall for that tyme. This is as vntrue as the rest for the necessity of resorting to the Roman Church sayth S. Irenaeus (i) L. 3. c. 3. is by reason of her more mighty principality or which is all one by reason of the great dignity of the See Apostolike which sayth S. Augustine (k) Ep. 162. hath alwaies florished in her and which maketh her the Mother Church of the world And therfore so long as she shall be S. Peters See which shall be till the end of the world so long the necessity of all other Churches resorting to her and agreeing in fayth and communion with her shall still continue SECT VII Tertullian his Iudgment of the Roman Church TErtullian agreeth with S. Irenaeus in pressing against all heretikes the same argument of the neuer interrupted succession of Bishops in the Roman See (l) L. 3. Carm. cont Marcio c. vltimo recknoning all the Popes by name vntill his tyme against Marcion and all heretikes to proue thē to be such It is manifest saith he (m) Praescrip c. 21. that all Doctrine which agreeth with those Mother and originall Churches founded by the Apostles is true and to be held as certayne being that the Churches receaued it from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God and that whatsoeuer is contrary to this is to be accounted false and erroneous And speaking of heretikes (n) Ibid. c. 32. If there be any of them that darevent their Doctrine for Apostolicall let them shew the originall of their Churches let them vnfold the order of their Bishops in such sorte that by a Succession deriued from the beginning they proue their first Bishop to haue bene some one of the Apostoles or of the Apostolicall men that perseuered with the Apostles vnto the end This Tertullian sayth the Smyrnaeans in his dayes could do shewing that Polycarpe their Bishop was placed there by S. Iohn and that the Roman Church could do the like shewing Clement ordeyned by S. Peter And the same she can do at this day shewing that all her Bishops vnto Vrbā the eight which now possesseth that Chayre had S. Peter the Apostle for their predecessor and first Bishop in that See and that from him they can lineally deriue their pedigree wheras no heretikes could euer shew any such descent as Protestants at this day cannot And therefore Tertullian bringeth in the Catholike Church vpbrayding them and all heretikes in this manner (o) Ibid. c. 37. Who in Gods name are you When and from whence came you hither What do you among myne being none of myne By what right O Marcion dost thou cut downe my woods What leaue hast thou O Valantine to turne my streames and fountaynes another way By what authority doest thou remooue my bounds O Apelles O Luther O Caluin O Zuinglius The possession is mine I haue it of old I enioyed it before you I can deriue my pedigree from the very first Authors to whom the thing did properly belong I am the right beyre to the Apostles According to their will and testament according to their trust and charge giuen my Tenure standeth As for you they alwayes disinherited you and reiected you as aliens yea and as enemies In this very manner may Catholikes with great reason vpbrayd you who as you cannot shew any Succession of your Bishops continued from the Apostles so you are therby conuinced not to be their heires but strangers and enemies to them and to the Churches founded by them Againe Tertullian prescribing a rule for you to finde out the true fayth doctrine deliuered by the Apostles saith (p) Ibid. c. 36. Goe to If thou wilt be curiously exact in the affaire of thy saluation repaire to the Apostolicall Churches c. If thou be a neighbour to Italy thou hast Rome from whence we also haue authority O happy Church into which the Apostles powred all their Doctrine togeather with their bloud where Peter is equalled to our Sauiours passion where Paul is crowned with Iohn Baptists lot where Iohn the Apostle being plunged into boyling oyle and yet not hurt therwith was banished into an iland Let vs obserue what this Church hath learned what she hath taught Tertullian was an African a Priest of the Church of Carthage and yet speaking of the Roman Church sayth From whence we that is as Macerus expoundeth all the African Churches or all Catholikes haue authority at hand for our defence Wherfore out of this place of Tertullian Quintinus rightly inferreth that the Roman Church euen from her first foundation had great authority aboue all Churches of the world and
that all men are to learne from her the Doctrine of fayth deliuered vnto her by the blessed Apostles And this is the reason why Tertullian speaking of Marcion and Valentinus (q) Ibid. c. 30. proueth them to be heretikes because they had fallen from the faith into which they had beleeued in the Roman Church Nam constat c. For sayth he and his words no lesse agree to Luther and Caluin then to Marcion and Valentinus it is manifest that they first beleeued the Catholike Doctrine in the Roman Church vntill in the tyme of the blessed Bishop Eleutherius for their turbulent spirit of nouelty wherwith they did also peruert their Brethren they were often excommunicated and at length cast out for euer to perpetuall ruine By this it appeareth that the Roman fayth was then held to be the Catholike fayth and the Roman Church which Tertullian calleth The Catholike Church (r) L. 4. cont Marcio c. 4. the Head and Mistresse of all Churches in the world for Marcion was borne at Sinope in Pontus and for his heresy and lewdnesse of lyfe excommunicated by his owne Father a holy Bishop who refusing to absolue him he went to Rome to seeke absolution but his Father opposing obteyned it not ValeÌ„tine was as Aegyptian borne and hauing fallen into heresy in Cyprus came to Rome in the tyme of Higinius Pope and feigning himselfe to be a Catholike was receaued into the Communion of the Roman Church but falling often backe into heresy as a dog returning to his vomit was finally cast out of the Church by the blessed Pope Elutherius as you haue heard Tertullian report And why did these heretikes as also Cerdon at the same tyme when they sought absolution from heresy come from so remote countreyes subiect to other Patriarkes and why from all the Easterne Church and why all of them to the Church of Rome in particular but because they knew her to be the Head Mistres of all Churches that had power to absolue all those which had bene excommunicated by any other Bishops whatsoeuer and to be the originall and center of Catholike Communion and that so long as they remayned out of her bosome they nether were nor should be esteemed Catholikes nor to be in state of saluation Herby it appeares how little reason you had to say out of Beatus Rhenaus (s) Pag. 131 1â—â— though Tertullian giue an honorable testimony to the Church of Rome yet be did not esteeme her so highly as wee see her accounted of at this day And since you acknowledge that Rhenanus his mouth for that and other his inconsiderat speeches is gagged by the Index expurgatorius you shew litle iudgment in obiecting his authority against vs. SECT VIII Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church VVHat hath bene sayd sheweth the futility of your argument out of Vincentius Lyrinensis which is like to the two former out of S. Iraeneus and Tertullian And how little support you haue for your cause in the authority of this ancient and learned Father he will testify for himselfe for when the Doctrine of rebaptizing Heretikes at their returne to the Catholike Church defended by Firmilianus Bishop of Cefarea Agrippinus S. Cyprian Bishops of Carthage and many others wrought so great inconueniences that it gaue a paterne of sacriledge to all heretikes and occasion of error to some Catholikes Vincentius declareth how Stephen then Pope of Rome suppressed it by his authority When sayth he (t) L. cont propha haeres nouat c. â— all men euery where exclamed against the nouelty of that Doctrine all Priests in all places ech one according to his zeale did opppse then Pope Stephen of blessed memory Bishop of the Apostolike See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops but yet more then the rest thinking it as I suppose reason so much to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth as he did surmount them in the authority of his place To conclude in his epistle which then was sent to Africa he decreed the same in these words Let nothing be innouated but that which comes by tradition be obserued And (u) Ibid. c. 10. notwithstanding that the contrary doctrine had sayth he such pregnant wits such eloquent tongues such a number of Patrons such shew of truth such testimonies of Scripture but glosed after a new and naughty fashion and that it was decreed in an African Councell yet the authority of the Pope declaring it a nouelty was of so great force that after he had condemned it all those things were abolished were disanulled were abrogated as dreames as fables as superfluous And afterwards (x) Ibid. c. 43. he alleageth as witnesses of his Doctrine diuers Greeke Fathers and addeth to them the authority of S. Felix Martyr and S. Iulius both Bishops of the Roman Church whom to declare their soueraigne authority he calleth The Head of the world And he concludeth Ibid. c. 45. Least in such plenty of proofes any thing should be wanting wee haue added for a conclusion a double authority of the See Apostolike the one of S. Sixtus a venerable man that now honoresh the Church of Rome the other of Pope Celestine of blessed menory his predecessor And their decrees he calleth Apostolicall and Catholike decrees SECT IX Other Obseruations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity answeared YOur obseruations are (y) Pag 101. seqq that S. Athanasius S. Augustine the Councels of Constantinople of Aegypt and of Cauthage reckoning diuers Bishops to shew their agreement in fayth with them name not only the Pope but other Bishops and write both to him them and consult with him and them as with their fellow Bishops which you say is to giue the Bishop of Rome so many mates and to equalize other Bishops with him But who seeth not what poore stuffe these your obseruations are For if one concerning matters of fayth should consult with his parish Priest and his Bishop would it follow that he equalizeth the parish Priest with the Bishop and maketh him his mate Or if you writing to the King and his Counsell I should lay to your charge that by consulting with his Maiesty and his Counsell you giue his Maiesty so many mantes as he hath Counsellors and equalize them in power and dominion with him would you not thinke mâ— a trifling and indeed a childish opponent how then shall wee thinke otherwise of you that by like consequence go about to equalize other Bishops with the Pope among themselues CHAP. XVI The iudgment of the Councell of Nice concerning the authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome THAT the Councell of Nice acknowledged the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ouer all Bishops is proued 1. Because Iulius a most holy Pope in his third Epistle which S. Athanesius hath inserted into his second Apology writing to the Arians and declaring vnto them the right of the Roman See to haue the
Argument is of no force both because neither this Canon nor any other of what Councell soeuer is powerfull to limit his authority nor hath force further then it is confirmed by him as hath bene proued as also because he is not only Bishop of the Roman Dioces in particular but of the vniuersall Church Other Bishops sayth S. Bernard (s) L. 2. de Confider c. 9. according to the Canons are called to a part of solicitude he to the fullnesse of power the power of other Bishops is confined to certaine limits his is extended also to them that haue receaued power ouer others He if there because can shut Heauen to a Bishop and depose him from his Bishoprick He can erect new Bishopricks (t) S. Bernar. ep 131. where they were not He of Bishopes can make Archbishops and contrarywise of Archbishops Bishops if reason so dictate vnto him Wherfore albeit as considered in the quality of a particular Bishop of the Roman Dioces he cannot ordaine Bishops out of that Dioces more then other Bishops can out of theirs yet as he is Pastor and Bishop of the vniuersall Church he can depose and ordaine Bishops in other Dioceses as Agapet deposed Anthymus Patriarke of Constantinople and ordeyned Menas in his place And the Ecclesiasticall histories are full of examples of the same nature which therfore conuince that the Councell of Ephesus by that decree intended not to prescribe any limits of iurisdiction to the Pope but only to command all particular Bishops not to entrench vpon the liberties of others which decree Celestine Pope confirmed with all the rest of that Councell (u) Ep. 2. ad Syn. Ephes as no way contrary to his Vniuersall authority SECT IV. Whether it may be gathered out of the Councell of Ephesus that the authority of the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell YOu say (x) Pag. 115. If the Councell could not depose Nestorius without the Popes mandate nor durst depose Iohn Patriarke of Antioch but reserued the cause to the iudgment of the Pope the issue must be directly this that the Pope is absolutely aboue a generall Councell And was not this say you (y) Pag 116. more then holdnesse in your Cardinall Bellarmine to inferre this supreme authority out of this Councell O egregious imposture Bellarmine only relateth what passed in the Councell namely that those Fathers durst not pronounce a definitiue and vltimate sentence against the two Patriarkes but reserued it to Celestine Pope as to the supreme Iudge of all Bishops Your guilty conscience telling you that the issue therof directly must be that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell you make that inference out of the Councell against your selfe and falsly father it on Bellarmine for though els where he defend that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell yet neither there nor here he makes any such inference out of this Councell of Ephesus And no lesse imposterous is your alleaging the Councells of Constance and Basil against that Doctrine of Bellarmine for the Councell of Basil is a damned Conuenticle and that of Constance when it defined a Councell to be aboue the Pope was not a generall Councell nor speaketh of him that is certainly known to be true Pope but of three Popes in tyme of Schisme when it was doubtfull which of them or indeed whether any of them were true Pope Nor was that decree euer confirmed but expresly condemned by the Councells of Florence and Lateran as you know Binius (z) To. 1. Not. ad Concil Constan. pag. 1662. and Bellarmine (a) L. 2. de Conc. c. 17. haue obserued But to proue that the Pope is not aboue a Councell you vrge (b) Pag. 116. out of Stapleton that the contrary was neuer expresly decreed in any Councell But in this you are as false as in the rest for you cite Stapleton in his thirteenth booke De principijs doctrinalibus wheras in that worke he hath but twelue bookes in all But be the proposition his or whose you please and be it that no Councell hath expresly defined that the Pope is aboue a Councell doth it therfore follow that the Doctrine is not true Is nothing true but what is defined in Councells Who seeth not how inconsequent this your consequence is CHAP. XIX The Councell of Chalcedon belieued the supreme authority of the B. of Rome SECT 1. That Leo Pope called the Councell of Chalcedon by his Authority and presided in it by his Legates OVT of the famous Councell of Chalcedon one of the foure which S. Gregory (c) L. 1. ep 24. reuerenced as the 4. Ghospells the supreme authority of the B. of Rome ouer the whole Church is proued many wayes 1. Because this Councell was called by his authority If it please your Holinesse sayth Martian the Emperor to Leo Pope (d) Extat in Ep. preamb. Conc. Chalced. that a Synod he held vouchsafe to signify so much by your letters that I may direct mine into all the East into Thracia and Illyria to the end that all the most holy Bishops may meete at a set place where your Holinesse shall please to appoint and by their wisdome declare those things which may be profitable for Christian Religion and the Catholike fayth as your Holinesse according to the Ecclesiasticall rules shall define And Pulcheria the Empresse writing to the same Pope (e) Extat epist. ibid. Your Reuerence vouchsafe to signify according as you haue ordeyned that all the Bishops of the East of Thracia and Illyria may come together into one Citty and by your authority determine there in a holy Councell what the Christian fayth and your Piety require concerning the Catholike profession and the Bishops which haue bone excommunicated And the Bishops of the second Maesia in their Epistle to Leo the Emperor (f) Apud Biâ— to 2. pag. 154. Maâ—y holy Bishops were assembled in the Citty of Chalcedon by the commandment of Leo B. of Rome who is truly the Head of all Bishops And Gelasius Pope 40. yeares after the Councell of Chalcedon (g) De Anathem vinculo The See Apostolike delegated the Councell of Chalcedon to be held for the common fayth and the Catholike and Apostolike truth And againe (h) Ibid. The Pope alone ordeyned that by his authority the Councell of Chalcedon should be held 2. And as by his authority he called this Councell so by his Legates he presided in it My Brethren sayth he speaking of this Councell (i) Ep. 94. presided in my steed in the Orientall Synod And writing to the Councell it selfe (k) Ep. 47. Your brotherhood is to conceaue that in these my brethren Paschasinus and Lucentius Bishops Bonifacius and Basill Priests which are sent by the See Apostolike I preside in your Synod And be confident that I am not absent from you who am present in these my Vicars And to Pulcheria the Empresse he sayth (l) Ep. 5â— that by those his brethren
with the B. of Rome after him But this addition to the Canon of equall priuiledges was surreptitiously made by the vsurpation of Anatolius to augment his power for the Fathers of Chalcedon neuer owned it as it appeares in this that when they beseeched Leo Pope to confirme their decree they made to him no mention of Equall priuiledges but only said (s) In relat ad Leon. We haue confirmed the rule of the 150. Fathers assembled at Constantinople which ordeyned that after your most holy and Apostolike See that of Constantinople should haue the second place of honor which is to say that as the B. of Rome had the Primacy absolutely ouer all the Patriarkes so the B. of Constantinople should haue it after him ouer all the other Patriarkes So this Canon is reported by Euagrius It was decreed sayth he (t) L. 2. c. 4. fin that the See of new Rome by reason she held the second place after the ancient Rome should haue the primacy before the other Sees In which sense and in no other Socrates (u) L. 5. c. 8. testifieth this decree to haue bene made in the Councell of Constantinople which was the source of all this pretence And Iustinian the Emperor speaking of both these Councells sayth (x) Noueâ— 131. that in them it was decreed that as the holy Pope of old Rome is the first of all Prelates so the Archbishop of Constantinople new Rome should haue the second place after the See Apostolike of old Rome and be preferred before all the other Sees And long after that time the Emperor Basilius the yonger and Eustathius Patriarke of Constantinople (y) Glaber Rodulph hist l. 4. c. 1. desired that it might be lawfull for them to obteyne with the consent of the Pope that the Church of Constantinople might be called Vniuersall in the compasse therof as the Pope of Rome was in the compasse of the whole world By this appeares that although the Fathers of those two Councells contrary to the decrees of Nice endeauored by this Canon to make the B. of Constantinople the first and chiefest Patriarke of the East and to conferre on him after vnder the Pope an vniuersal iurisdiction ouer the other Patriarkes yet they neuer intended therby to put any limitation to the Vniuersall Iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church nor any way to exempt themselues or the Patriarkes of Constantinople from his subiection and obedience Which is also further proued 1. By the testimonies of Zonaras and Nilus both of them Greeke Schismatikes and enemies to the Roman Church Zonaras sayth (z) In Conc. Constantin 1. c. 3. that wheras the Councell of Constantinople ordeyned that the Bishop of that Citty should be the second after the Pope of Rome some thinke that the Preposition after importeth not inferiority and submission but only posteriority of tyme and in proofe of this their opinion they make vse of the 28. Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon which ordaynes that new Rome shold be honored with the same ecclesiasticall prerogatiues as old Rome and should be preferred in honor before all the other Churches being the second after her But this sayth he is refuted by the 130. Nouell of Iustinian inserted into the third title of the fifth booke of the Basilikes which giues the Canon to be otherwise vnderstood And therfore he concludeth saying (a) Ibid. From hence it appeares manifestly that the Preposition after signifies submission and inferiority And Nilus B. of Thessalonica (b) De primatu Pâ—pae l. 1. We are not separated from peace for attributing to our selues the primacy nor for refusing to hold the second place after the principality of Rome for we neuer contested for primacy with the Roman Church 2. The same is proued for the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the deposition of Eutyches and Dioscorus in the restitution of Theodoret to his Bishoprick (c) See aboue sect praeced in confessing (d) In relat ad Leon. themselues to be his members and him to be their Head in submitting to him their decrees to be confirmed and in particular this made in fauour of the B. of Constantinople We haue say they (e) Ibid. confirmed the decree of the 150. Fathers confiding that the beame Apostolike raigning amidst you and you by your ordinary gouerment spreading it to the Church of Constantinople you may cause it to shine into these partes because you are wont without enuy to enrich those of your linage with the participation of your goods Againe if we speake of Anatolius in particular who to augment his owne power was the proiecter of this decree how can it be thought that he did not acknowledge himselfe to be a spirituall subiect of the Pope he I say who being made Patriarke of Constantinople by Dioscorus in the false Councell of Ephesus had no right to that See but only by the confirmation of Leo Pope which afterwards he obteyned in regard wherof Leo writing to Martian the Emperor against this attempt of Anatolius said (f) Ep. 54. It shold haue sufficed him that by the help of your Piety and by the consent of my fauor he hath obteined the Bishoprick of so great a Citty And what els did Anatolius himselfe signify when speaking of the Acts of the second Councell of Ephesus in which Maximus was chosen Bishop of Antioch he said (g) Cone Chalced. Act. 10. My verdict is that none of the things ordeyned in the pretended Councell of Ephesus remaine firme but that which was done for Maximus B. of great Antioch for as much as the most holy Archbishop of Rome Leo receauing him into his communion hath iudged that he is to rule the Church of Antioch 3. Because the Fathers of Chalcedon knowing that without the Popes confirmation their decree could be of no force had recourse to Leo beseeching him to confirme it We beseech you say they (h) In relat ad Leon. to honor our decrees with your iudgment and that as we haue held correspondence with our Head for matters of weale so your Soueraingty will yeld to your Children in things of decency for in so doing the religious Emperor shall be gratified To this their petition Leo assented not but wholy annulled and abrogated their decree The Piety of your fayth being ioyned with vs sayth he to Pulcheria the Emperesse (i) Ep. 55. we annull the plots of the Bishops repugnant to the rules of the holy Canons established at Nice and by vertue of the authority of the Blessed Apostle Peter we wholly abrogate them by a generall sentence Another Epistle of the same tenor he addressed to the whole Councell of Chalcedon (k) Ep. 61. And to Anatolius himselfe he likewise writ (l) Ep. 53. Neuer may my conscience consent that so depraued a couetousnesse be furthered by my fauor but rather that it be suppressed by me by them that allow not
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
These Syr are not Eusebius his words but yours He sayth that they did earnestly exhort Victor to peace to a diligent care of charity towards his neighbours and bitterly reproued him as prouiding vnprofitably for the good of the Church So indeed Eusebius sayth according to the translation of Ruffinus And both of them being Heretikes shew their malice against the See Apostolike in saying that other Bishops did bitterly reproue Victor for comming to giue an example of this bitternesse they bring for their paterne the wordes of S. Irenaeus in all which there is not one bitter word but a gentle remonstrance full of submission to the person of Victor and to the authority of his See for he sayth not that Victor could not but that he should not haue cut off from the body of the Church so many prouinces for so small a cause which is not to argue him of want of power but for vsing his power indiscreetly Irenaeus sayth Eusebius (r) L. 5. hist c. 24. did fitly exhort Pope Victor that he would not vtterly cut off so many Churches from the body of the vniuersall Church of Christ. And wheras you (s) Pag. 132. traduce Christopherson our learned Bishop of Chichester for this translation of Eusebius it is a cauill sprung out of your ignorance for the Greeke verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Eusebius vseth fignifieth to cut off from the whole masse or body and so it is proued out of Ruffinus who translateth thus Irenaus reproued Victor for not doing well in cutting off from the vnity of the body so many and so great Churches And so likewise translateth your learned Protestant-brother Ioannes Iacobus Grynaeus in his Basilean edition of Eusebius And in the same manner translateth Nicephorus (t) L. 4. c. 38. all of them as well skilled in Greeke as your selfe to say no more And indeed how could Irenaeus reproue Victor for exceeding the limits of his power he that crieth out (u) L. 3. c. 3. To the Roman Church all Churches and all the faythfull from all places must necessarily haue recourse by reason of her more powerfull principality Wherfore it was not want of Power that Irenaeus reproued in Victor but indiscreet vsing of his power But that euen in this he was instaken and that Victor failed not euen in point of prudence nor vsed ouer-much rigor appeareth in this that hereby he repressed the Heresy of Blastus by which many were seduced as also because the famous Councell of