betake your selfe as to your last refuge when you are pressed with vnanswearable arguments is a mere shift inuented to delude ignorant readers with empty words voyd of truth And by this canon it is in like manner euident that the primacy was not then first giuen to the Church of Rome but preserued vnto it according to the canons Your second Argument (z) Pag. 107. to proue that the later Roman Councells are bastardly and illegitimate and that we haue little regard to the Councell of Nice is taken out of Theodoret writing that Constantine the Great required in that Synod that because the bookes of the Apostles do plainly instruct vs in diuine matters therfore we ought to make our determinations vpon questions from words which are diuinely inspired And then you tell vs that Bellarmine answeareth thus Coâ—stantine was a great Emperor indeed but no great Doctor of the Church who was yet vnbaptized and therfore vnderstood not the mysteries of religion Thus say you doth this your Cardinall twite and taunt the iudgment of that godly Emperor and as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth from his reader that which followeth in Theodoret namely that the greater part of that Councell of Nice obeyed the voyce of Constantine So you as you are wonâ— for first you falsify Bellarmine who sayth not that Constantine was yet vnbaptized but that that is the opinion of you Protestants and the old Arians from whence he argueth ad hominem against you that this testimony of Constantine is not of so great weight as Caluin and Kemnitius make it for if he were vnbaptized he could then be no great Doctor of the Church as being a Neophyte and therfore not so well skilled in the mysteries of Christian Religion What twiting or taunting of that godly Emperor your find in this answere of Bellarmine I know not but I know that you in holding Constantine to be then vnbaptized both seeke to disgrace that godly Emperor and withall to vphold the authority and credit of the Arian heretikes who to make him a Patron of their heresy gaue out that he was not baptized vntill a litle before his death and that then he receaued his baptisme from Eusebius B. of Nicomedia the chiefe ringleader of the Arian faction But that your dealing may the better appeare it is to be noted that Bellarmine is so farre from twiting or taunting that godly Emperor that he admitteth of his testimony Admitting sayth he (a) L. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. §. Admissâ— the authority of Constantine I say that in all those doctrines which concerne the nature of God there are extant testimomes in Scripture out of which if they be rightly vnderstood we may be fully and plainly instructed but the true sense of the Scriptures dependeth on the vnwritten tradition of the Church Wherfore the same Theodoret that reporteth this speach of Constantine declareth in the next Chapter that in the Councell of Nice Scriptures were produced on both sydes but the Arians were not conuinced with them because they expounded them otherwise then the Catholikes and therfore were condemned by the vnwritten tradition of the Church piously vnderstood to which condemnation no man euer doubted but that Constantine assented So Bellarmine And hereby it appeares that when you say Bellarmine citeth Theodoret yet as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth that which followeth in him namely that the greater part of the Councell obeyed the voyce of Constantine you wrong Bellarmine and a buse Theodoret who in those words relateth not to the determining of controuersies by Scriptures but to Constantines exhortation made to the Bishops of peace and concord among themselues which sayth Theodoret the greatest part of the Councell obeyed imbracing mutuall concord and true doctrine though diuers Arians disagreed some of whose names he there expresseth This you iniustly conceale like the ill Steward in the Ghospell that you may pick a quarrell with Bellarmine In confirmation of this I might adde that as S. Augustine (b) L. 5. de Baptism c. 23. and Vincentius Lyrinensis (c) Cont. haer c. 9. 10. haue testified the heresy of Rebaptization could not be disproued by Scripture but was condemned by Tradition And finally I might aske you why you like the bad Steward conceale what Theodoret writeth in that very place namely that what Constantine said he spake not to the Bishops as their Head but as a sonne that loued peace offered vp his words to the Priests as to his Fathers and that he would not enter into the Councell but after them all nor sit downe but with their leaue and in a low chayre Did he trow you belieue himselfe to be Head of the Church CHAP. XVII The second Generall Councell held at Constantinople belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome SECT I. By what authority this Councell was called BELLARMINE in proofe of the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction alleageth that the Fathers of the first generall Councell of Constantinople which was the second generall of the whole Church in their Epistle to Pope Damasus say They were gathered by his Mandate and confesse that the Church of Rome is the Head and they the members This say you (d) Pag. 109. is all that is obiected but vpon a mistake What then is the mistake Because Bellarmine in the Recognition of his workes afterwards obserued that it was not the Epistle of the second generall Synod but of the Bishops which had bene present at the Synod and met againe the next yeare after at Constantinople But if this Epistle were not of the Synod why do you speaking of it not without contradiction say (e) Pag. 10â— The generall Councell of Constantinople do endite an Epistle (f) Pag. 110. margin and inscribe it thus And why do you mentioning the inscription of the same Epistle call it Synodicae Epistolae inscriptio The inscription of the Synodicall Epistle And why doth Theodoret (h) L. 5. hist. c. 9. stile it Libellus Synodicus à Concilio Constantinopolitano missus A Synodicall writ sent by the Councell of Constantinople c But howsoeuer you alleaging that Bellarmine acknowledgeth his owne mistake is a mere cauill nothing auailing your cause for be it that those Bishops writ not their Epistle whiles they were assembled in Councell but when they met the next yeare after at Constantinople yet you must acknowledge the truth of what Bellarmine alleageth out of their Epistle vnlesse you will make them all lyers But let vs goe on Bellarmine sayth (i) Recogn pag. 46. in hoc Concil it is sufficiently proued out of the sixth generall Councell that this of Constantinople was called by the commaund of Pope Damasus you answeare (k) Pag. 109. that in proofe therof he referreth himselfe to another Councell against the vniuersall current of histories which with generall consent set downe the Mandates of Emperors as the supreme and first compulsary causes for
Peter And againe those letters were not of Orthodoxe Bishops but of the Arians assembled in their false Councell at Antioch who with an hereticall pride stomaked at the Authority of the Bishop of Rome because as Sozomene there reporteth by the dignity and prerogatiue of his See he had restored to their Church Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria Paul of Constantinople and other Catholike Bishops whom they had deposed and rebuked them sharply for their vniust proceedings against them But yet their writing was more tolerable then yours for though to magnify themselues they alleaged that the Doctors of Christian Religion came first from the East to Rome yet withall they acknowledged (m) Sozom. ibid. that the Roman Church obtayned the prize of honour from them all as hauing bene from the beginning the Metropolitan of Religion A truth which you here conceale and euery where deny But you tell vs (n) Pag. 29. 30. that Bellarmine groundeth the motherhood of the Roman Church on a false principle taken out of the counterfeit epistles of Anacletus which is that all the Apostles had their Episcopall ordination of Pastorship from Peter which principle is denyed by Azor and Suarez Heere you speake vntruly and contradict your selfe for as you confesse (o) Pag. 38. Bellarmine groundeth the monarchie of S. Peter vpon those words of our Sauiour Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock will I build my Church c. And on the same passage as also vpon those other words Iohn 21. feed my lambes feed my sheepe by which Christ made him Pastor of his whole flock not only Bellarmine but all Catholikes with the ancient Fathers ground their beleefe of the Monarchy of S. Peter and of the vniuersall authority and motherhood of the Roman Church Wherfore Bellarmine here alleaged by you out of those passages of Scripture supposeth the supremacy of the Roman Church as vndoubted matter of fayth and from thence inferreth probablie as a singular priuiledge of S. Peter that all the Apostles had theyr Episcopall ordination from him and proueth the same not only out of the epistle of Anacletus which you are pleased (p) Pag. 29. 34. to call counterfeit and bastardly grounding your selfe on the testimony of Cusanus in a prohibited worke and which you know he himselfe hath retracted but out of the expresse testimonies of S. Cyprian of Innocentius the first in his epistles to the two Councels of Carthage and Mileuis of Iulius the first and Leo the Great all which you imposterously conceale This deduction of Bellarmine though it follow probably yet not so necessarily that the authority of the Roman Church any way dependeth theron And therefore other learned Diuines and in particular Azor and Suarez who no lesse firmely beleeued the Roman Church to be the mother of all Churches then Bellarmine did are herein of a different opinion from him holding that the Apostles were not ordayned Bishops by Peter but immediatly by Christ himselfe which say you (q) Pag. 29. 31. they mantayne vpon the oracles of God out of direct Scriptures accompanied with the consent of S. Augustine and many other Diuines And because you would haue vs beleeue that in their opinion none of the Apostles were ordayned by Peter you set downe in a different letter these words as theirs (r) Pag. 30. mitio Mathias had his ordination to the Bishoprick which Iudas lost not by the hands of Peter but by lot immediatly from God and S. Paul his not by S. Peter but by a voyce from Heauen euen immediatly from Christ. But your dealing is insufferable for these words are not theirs but feigned by your selfe and falsly fathered on them And as the words are not theirs so nether is the Doctrine for when they say The Apostles were ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ they speake not of Mathias and Paul but only of those twelue which Christ called and conuersed with in his life tyme as Suarez expressly declareth (s) De trip virt Theol. disp 10 sect 1. n. 7. prouing withall that both Mathias and Paul were not ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ but by the Apostles s their imposition of hands which also for as much as concerneth S. Paul he confirmeth with the testimonies of S. Chrysostome and S. Leo. Againe whereas you say they mantayne that the Apostles were ordayned Bishops immediatly by Christ out of direct Scriptures accompanied with the consent of S. Augustine you cannot be excused from an vntruth for albeit Suarez in proofe of his opinion alleage the glosse vpon those words of the Apostle God placed in his Church first Apostles c. yet he neither vrgeth these words of S. Paul nor any other text of Scripture to that purpose nor any testimony of S. Augustine sauing one out of the booke of Questions of the old and new Testament which you ought not to regard because when it is alleaged against you you reiect it with contempt (t) Pag. 50. marg as hereticall contrary to S. Augustine but because you conceaue that here it makes for your purpose you will haue it to be S. Augustines So inconstant and contradictorious are you to your selfe And I must here also aduertise you of your absurd manner of arguing whiles you frame a syllogisme (u) Pag. 30. fin 31. assuming for your Maior proposition out of Bellarmine that all the other Apostles were ordayned Bishops by S. Peter and out of Suarez Azor for your Minor that all the other Apostles were not ordayned by S. Peter which being two contradictories as there is no man so senselesse that wil defend two opinions playnly contradictory so there is no man so foolish that will grant both the premises of this your syllogisme which yet he must do that will allow your argument to be good He that will defend Bellarmines opinion will deny your Minor and he that will hold with Azor and Suarez will deny your Maior and so your consequent in both the opinions is false for what els can a consequent be that is inferred out of two premises contradictory to themselues Moreouer you say (x) Pag. 34. fine 35. The nation of Brittayne by our owne accounts receaued the Ghospell Cardinall Baronius and Suarez acknowledging thus much out of most ancient records by the preaching of Ioseph of Arimathia in the 35. yeare of Christ two yeares before Peter did found the Church of Antioch where he was seated 7. yeares before he founded the Church of Rome that is to say in Brittany was planted a Church nine yeares before there was any Church in Rome and hereby so much her elder sister So you not without ignorance and falsehood for you set downe this acknowledgment in a different character as the words of Baronius and Suarez which yet are not theirs nor of any of the other authors whom you name but your owne fiction They indeed acknowledge that Ioseph of Arimathia came into Brittany but that his coming
Pag. 42. r. out S. Hierome these words Petrus nominatur à Petra to signify that Petrus doth not signify a Rock but is a deriuatiue of Petra as Christianus of Christus But S. Hierome hath no such Doctrine but directly the contrary His words are vpon this Rock our Lord founded his Church from this Rock the Apostle Peter tooke his name to wit of a Rock And that this is the true sense of S. Hierome it is plaine out of his Comment vpon Mat. 16 where professedly declaring the words of Christ he sayth that they were not vaine and without effect but that by calling the Apostle Petrus he made him a Rock and that as Christ himselfe being the light granted to his Disciples that they shold be called the light of the world so to Simon which had belieued in Christ the Rock he gaue the name of Petrus and according to the metaphore of a Rock it is truly said to him I will build my Church vpon thee 4. You obiect (q) Pag. 42. c. S. Hilary to proue that not Peter but Christ himselfe is the Rock on which he promised to build his Church The words you bring are Vna hac fidei petra Petri ore confessa Tues Christus filius Dei viui I finde no such words in S. Hilary nor is it likely that he would vse confessa passiuely as in these words you doe But how imposterously you alleage him to proue that S. Peter is not the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church S. Hilary himselfe shall be the iudge O sayth (r) Can. 16. in Math. he in the title of a new name happy foundation of the Church and worthy stone of her Edifice O blessed Porter of Heauen to whose arbitrement are committed the keyes of the eternall kingdome whose iudgments haue authority to preiudge in heauen And els where (s) In Psal 131. he calleth Peter the first Confessor of the sonne of God the foundation of the Church And in that very place which you obiect (t) L. 6. de Trin. that after his confession subiacet he is layd vnder the building of the Church and receaues the Keyes of the heauenly kingdome 5. You obiect (u) Pag. 42.1 S. Epiphanius alleaging out of him these words (x) Haeres 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Rock of faith which shew that Peter is the firme Rock on which the Church is so strongly built that she shall neuer fayle in fayth But he that wil see your vnsincere dealing if he read S. Epiphanius his contexture shall find that in that very place which you cite for the contrary (y) Haeres 59. he affirmeth in most expresse words not once but thrice that Peter is the Rock on which Christ hath built his Church that he is the foundation of the Church and that Christ hath committed to him the charge of feeding his flock The same he teacheth in his Ancoratus (z) Propè inâ—t adding that all questions of fayth are in Peter Wherby is not only signified his supremacy which twice he there expresseth but also his authority to resolue all doubts of sayth and condemne all heresies which he expoundeth to be the gates of hell that shall neuer preuaile against the Church built vpon Peter 6. You say (a) Pag 40. Gregory surnamed the Great speaking of the foundation of the Church hath defined that whensoeuer the word Foundation is in the Scripture vsed in the singular number no other then Christ is signisied therby from whence you inferre that out of the Scripture Peter cannot be proued to be the foundation of the Church But you shall be iudged out of your owne mouth for you confesse (b) Ibid. that Petra a Rock is taken as all one with foundation you also grant (c) Pag. 42. that some of the Fathers vnderstand by Peter Rock you should haue said all for as Maldonate whom you cite (d) Pag. 39. f. marg noteth (e) In c. 16. Math. n. 16. prope fin none but heretikes euer denied it from whence it must follow that since the name of Rock which is all one with foundation is giuen him in Scripture it is all one as if the name of foundation had bene giuen him in Scripture And therfore Clemens Romanus Origen S. Hilary the Councell of Chalcedon Isidorus Pelusiota and others giue him the name of Foundation aswell as of Rock (f) Apud Iod. Cocc to 1. l. 7. art 4. 7. To S. Gregory the Great you ioyne Gregory the seauenth a most holy and learned Pope whom you traduce saying (g) Pag. 40. Hildebrand who in his owne opinion was greater then Gregory the Great and the greatest Dictator that euer possessed the Papall See Anno 1077. inuited Rodulph Duke of Sueuia to rebell against his Liege Lord and Emperor Henry the 4. and sent vnto the same Rodulph a Crowne with this inscription Petra dedit Petro Romam tibi Papa coronam Syr you haue bene formerly admonished by P. R. in his Treatise tending to mitigation against the seditious writings of Thomas Morton Minister of your tradueing and falsly slandering this holy Pope of whose admirable vertnes I may haue occasion to speake hereafter But you are still the same man and tel vs this fable which Baronius (h) Anno 1077. n. 7. apud Spond setteth downe as related by Albertus Stadenfis and Helmoldus two late writers whom he conuinceth of falshood shewing that the Princes of Germany who cold no longer endure the execrable wickednes insolency and oppressions of Henry and being greatly incensed against him for his sacrilegious practises against the See Apostolike wholly renounced him and chose in his place Rodulph Duke of Sueuia without either the aduice or knowledge of Gregory and brought him to Mentz where he was consecrated by Sigefridus Bishop of that Citty So vntrue it is that Gregory either Crowned him or sent any Crowne vnto him or any way incited him against Henry And it is to be noted that wheras you call Henry Rodulphs Liege Lord and Emperor he was neuer Crowned but only by Guibertus an Antipope set vp by himselfe to that end and consecrated by Bishops that were actually excommunicated and deposed But any thing wil serue your turne to make an argument against the Pope be it true or false 8. You obiect (i) Pag. 41. marg these words of Theophylact Confessio ipsa fundameÌ„tam But why do you mangle his words which are Our Lord rewardeth Peter bestowing a great fauour on him which is that vpon him he built the Church for because Peter confessed him to be the sonne of God he said that this Confession which he made shall be a foundation to them that belieue c. Can there be a more grosse falsification then to obiect three words of Theophilact to proue Peter not to be the foundation of the Church and leaue out the former part of the sentence in which he so expresly
Apostleship after them all yet in the dignity and function of an Apostle in preaching and in working of miracles he was not inferior to them And to shew how imposterously you bring this his testimony against S. Peters primacy he addeth that Though Andrew followed our Sauiour before Peter yet Andrew receaued not the primacy but Peter 2. You obiect (d) Pag. 60. fin S. Maximus saying Whether Paul or Peter is to be preferred is vncertaine Here againe you falsify For to insinuat that S. Maximus preferred Paul before Peter you peruert the order of his words placing Peter after Paul which S. Maximus doth not but contrarily Paul after Peter Againe he compares them not in authority but only in sanctity of life and merits Howbeit sayth he all the most blessed Apostles obtaine equall grace of sanctity in the sight of God yet I know not how Peter and Paul by a peculiar prerogatiue of fayth in our Sauiour surpasse the rest c. But which of the two is to be preferred is vncertaine for I thinke them to be equall in merits because they are equall in their death You make no mention of merits to persuade your reader that S. Maximus compares them in authority and so much the more you are to be blamed because in that very place he sayth that Paul hath the key of knowledge to preach and teach but Peter the key of power which is to say that Paul excelled in knowledge but Peter in authority And therfore els where he sayth (e) Hom. 3. in Nat. Apost Pet. Paul Peter was of so great merit in the sight of our Lord that after the rowing of a small boat the gouerment of the whole Church was committed to him and that (f) Hom. 1. de eisdem As Christ was a Rock so be made Peter a Rock and built his Church vpon him and gaue him charge of feeding his sheep and lambes which out of his mercy he had redeemed Wherfore as certaine as it is that S. Maximus held S. Paul to be a member of Christs Church and one of the sheepe which he redeemed so certaine it is that he held him subiect to S. Peter as to his Head and Pastor 3. You obiect (g) Pag. 60. fin out of S. Chrysostome Paul that I say no more was equall to Peter You still falsify S. Chrysostome sayth Paul was equall to Peter in honor to wit of an Apostle for of that he speaketh you leaue out in honor to inferre that he equaleth Paul with Peter in authority and iurisdiction which cannot be excused from imposture for one thing it is to be equall with Peter in the honor of Apostleship in which all the Apostles were equall vnto him and another to be equall to him in authority which none of the Apostles were Among the most blessed Apostles sayth S. Leo (h) Ep. 48 in the likenesse of honor there was difference of power and though the election of them all were a like yet it was granted to one that be should surpasse the rest from whence as from a patterne hath proceeded the distinction of Bishops The same is declared by S. Maximus (i) Serm. vlt. de Apost Pet. Paul yea and by S. Chrysostome himselfe in this very place which you obiect saying (k) In ep ad Gal. 1.18 Paul went to Peter as to one greater and elder then himselfe And (l) Hom. 87. Ioan. he went to see him because he was the mouth and Prince of the Apostles and head of the whole company These testimonies as they demonstrate Chrysostome to haue belieued that S. Peter surpassed Paul in authority so they conuince you of imposture in putting on him the contrary 4. You attribute (n) Pag. 60. fin to S. Hierome (o) In Psal 44. these words The titles of these two Apostles are equall they are Chiefes of the Church But S. Hierome vpon that Psalme hath no such words nor maketh any comparison between Peter and Paul nor any mention at all of them 5. You obiect (p) Pag. 61. init out of S. Basils epistles but at randome naming none in particular that S. Peter and Paul are Pillars of the Church And what of that As among many great one may be greater then another so of two Pillars one may be higher then another By those 7. Pillars mentioned in the Prouerbes (q) Prou. 9.1 some of the Expositors vnderstand the 7. Sacraments which yet are not all equall for Baptisme exceedeth the rest in necessity and the Eucharist in Excellency Others vnderstand the Doctors of the Church whom Daniel compareth to starres (r) Dan. 13.3 which yet witnesse S. Paul (s) 1. Cor. 15.42 are vnequall in their light And hereby is shewed the futility of your argument that S. Paul held Iames and Iohn to be equall in iurisdiction with Peter because speaking of them three he cals them all Pillars 6. You obiect (t) Pag. 61. init out of Casaubon that Eucherius calleth Peter and Paul Two Princes of the Christians But S. Hierome (u) In Psal 44. calleth all Bishops Princes of the Church and yet all Bishops are not equall in iurisdiction for Bishops are subiect to Archbishops Archbishops to Patriarkes Patriarkes to the Pope and so was Paul to Peter But let Eutherius speake for himselfe Christ sayth he (x) In vigil S. Pet. first committed to Peter his lambes and then his sheep because he made him not only a Pastor but Pastor of Pastors Peter therfore feedeth the Lambes 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 So Eucherius shewing how Casaubon and you abuse him and that if Paul be a sheep of Christs flock he is subiect to Peters pastotall authority A fourth text of Scripture you obiect (z) Pag. 59. which are those words of S. Paul They saw that the Ghospell of the vncircumcision was committed to me as the Ghospell of the circumcision vnto Peter Your glosse is that the ordinary ministration of these two Apostles was distinct Peter hauing for his Diocesse the Iewes and Paul the Gentiles which was of infinit extent larger But by the like argument you might inferre that S. Paul by calling Christ The minister of Circumcision (a) Rom. 15.8 and himselfe Doctor of the Gentiles (b) 1. Tim. 2.7 signified that himselfe had a distinct ordinary ministration from Christ a Dioces of farre larger extent then his Wherfore this clause implyes not any diuision of the authority of their ordinary Ministery nor yet that the Diocesse of Peter was confined to the Iewes or of Paul to the Gentiles for both of them preached to Iewes Gentiles It cōtaines nothing els but a speciall testimony of the blessing of God vpon S. Peter to persuade the Iewes and vpon S. Paul to persuade the Gentiles and yet not
interuene that could not without much difficulty passe the seas for the debility of sexe or of age or other impediments In regard wherof they requested the Pope not to be facill in admitting appeales of that nature 2. You obiect (z) Pag. 146.151 If it were granted that the Canons for appeales were to be found in the Councell of Sardica yet the Popes Monarchy would stil stand vpon but humane authority for the grant of appeales made in that Synod to Iulius Pope was but vpon fauor not vpon duty not an old custome but a new constitution If it please you say they so much to honor the memory of Peter let vs write to Iulius B. of Rome c. And againe If you all be pleased c. From these words you inferre that the graÌ„t of appeales to Rome is no more but ad placitum and that if the Pope for his pretension could haue drawne a two edged sword ex iure diuino he would not haue fought with this wodden dagger of humane Constitution This wodden Argument you thinke to be of such moment that for want of better you repeate it afterwards againe (a) Pag. 302.303 Your reasoÌ„ I know not for the very words which you obiect shew that the Councell of Sardica did not ground appeales to Rome vpon humane Constitution but vpon diuine right for what is it to honor in the Pope the memory of Peter but to acknowledge him to be S. Peters Successor and consequently Head of the Church And therfore what in their Canon they expresse in these words That we may honor the memory of Peter let it be written to Iulius B. of Rome c. they declare in their Epistle to the same Iulius saying It is very good and fit that from all Prouinces the Bishops haue reference to their head that is to the See of the Apostle Peter Wherfore as the dignity of Head of the Church had belonged to the See of S. Peter from all antiquity by diuine institution as the African Fathers in the Councel of Mileuis haue declared (b) Aug. ep 92. professing the Popes authority to be taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures so likewise had the right of Appeales implicitly conteined in that dignity And on this right was grounded the custome of appealing to Rome from all antiquity as it appeareth out of the Epistle of Iulius Pope (c) Apud Athan. Apolog 2. written to the Arians before the Councell of Sardica Are you ignorant sayth he that the custome is that we be first written to that from hence may proceed the iust decision of things and therfore if there were any suspicion conceaued against the Bishops there you should haue written to vs. And by this right it is that Athanasius Paul and other Bishops of the East being driuen from their seates by the Arians appealed to Iulius Pope before the Councell of Sardica and he restored to each of them their Churches by the prerogatiue of his See and because the charge of all belonged to him (d) Socra l. 2. c. 12. Sozom. l. â— c. 7. Wherfore the Councell of Sardica did not then first institute appeales to Rome as you pretend but only reduce into a written law that which had belonged to the See of Rome by diuine right and had bene formerly practised by custome only And this written Law it is which Osius proposed to be made saying If is please your Charity that we honor the memory of Peter c. In which sense Nicolas the first truly said (e) Ep. ad Michael Imper. The priuiledges of the Roman See were giuen by Christ our Lord celebrated and honored by the Councels but not giuen by them And before him Gelasius an African and scholler to S. Augustine with a Councell of 70. Bishops (f) In Decret de Apocryph Scriptur The holy Roman Church hath not bene preferred before others by any constitutions of Synods but hath obtained the primacy by the voyce of our Lord and Sauiour in the Ghospell saying Thou art Peter c. And the same truth had bene professed long before that tyme by Iulius Pope in his first Epistle to the Easterne Bishops in the cause of Athanasius (g) Extat apud Bin. to 1. pag. 399. Nor is it new for a Councell to make a written decree for the presetuation and obseruance of that which formerly had bene practised in the Church by custome only why els did the first Councell of Constantinople speaking of the ordination of Bishops by their Metropolitans say (h) Apud Theodoreâ— l. 5. hist c. 9. It is as you know a law both grounded on custome and on the decision of the Councell of Nice The example of a King wherwith you conclude this point is against your selfe for although she dignity of a King include a supreme right of appeales to be made vnto him yet it is no derogation to his Royall dignity to haue a written law enacted in Parliament for the preseruation of that right against all such as shall either iniustly deny the same or at least shall thinke the practise of them to be inconuenient 3. You say (i) Pag. 146. Antiquity hath denied that any Canon for appeales was to be found in the Councell of Sardica This is an vntruth sufficiently refuted by what hath bene said (k) Sect. 2. 3. and by your owne Confession pretending that the right of Appeales is not by diuine institution but by humane because the decree which the Councell of Sardica made in fauor of them was a humane constitution But that you may not seeme â—o speake without ground you falsify Salmeron (l) Pag. 147. He speaking of the reseruation of cases in the inward court of conscience that is in the Sacrament of pennance sayth (m) In 1. part 5. disp 8. In S. Cyprians tyme non erant casus peculiares conscientiae ipsi Pontifici reseruati No peculiar cases of conscience were reserued to the Pope You to make him speake of the contentions Court to deny that any Appeales were anciently reserued to the Pope peruert his words thus Tempore Cypriani non erant casus peculiares reseruati conscientiae Pontificis In the tyme of Cyprian there were no peculiar cases reserued to the conscience of the Pope or as you english In the dayes of S. Cyprian there was no reseruation of any such cases namely of appeales in vse for of them you speake Answere now Is it all one to say non erant casus peculiares conscientiae ipsi Pontifici reseruati as Salmeron sayth to say non erant casus peculiares reseruati conscientiae Pontificis as you say No there cannot be a more wilfull falsification For 1. you misplace Salmerons words 2. You turne Pontifici into Pontificis And 3 you put conscientiae into the construction of the datiue case which Salmeron hath in the genitiue How can this iuggling be excused 4. You say (n) Pag. 144. The African
dayes the Roman Church held it canonicall (e) Pag. 222. are all repetitions of your former Arguments which in their due places haue bene answeared (f) Chap. 22. sect 3. Chap. 25.26 tot Chap. 30. sect 1. Chap. 34. sect 6. But to them you adde here a Consideration of your iudicious Casaubon (g) Pag. 223. requiring vs who accompt the only note of Schisme to be diuided from the Roman Church and Pope thereof to answeare Why S. Augustine who in seauen Bookes besides many other places confuted the Schismaticall Donatists yet neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope or of the infallibility of his iudgement whereby to reduce them to the vnity of the Church and truth Your iudicious Casaubon shewed great lack of iudgment in making this Argument and that he had not read S. Augustine or if he had that he did not vnderstand him or if he had read did vnderstand him then you know what he sheweth in concealing the truth For throughout all those seauen Bookes against the Donatists there is nothing which S. Augustine so often obiecteth nor so much vrgeth against them as their separation from the Roman Church repeating the same not once or twice but almost in euery Chapter of some of those bookes For when the Donatists did striue to defend their heresy of rebaptization by the authority of S. Cyprian S. Augustine answeared (h) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18.19 l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9 Contra Crescon l. ◠c. 32. l. 2. c. 3. alibi saepè that Cyprians patronage could not auaile them because they were out of the Communion of the Roman Church in which S. Cyprian liued died And doth he not in other his writings against the Donatists often vrge the succession of Bishops in the Roman Church If sayth (i) Ep. 165. he the order and succession of Bishops be to be obserued how much more assuredly and safely indeed do we begin our accompt from S. Peter himselfe to whom as he represented the whole Church our Lord sayd (k) Math. 16.18 Vpon this Rock I will build my Church For Linus succeoded to Peter Cletus to Linus c. And so reckoning all the Popes vnto Anastasius who then sate in the chaire of S. Peter he concludeth against the Donatists In this order of succession there is not one Donatist to be found to which I adde no nor yet one Protestant And reckoning the motiues that held him in the Church among them he setteth downe the succession of Bishops in the See of Rome There are sayth he (l) Cont Ep. Fundam c. 4. many thinges which with greatest reason hold me in this Catholike Church 1. The vniforme consent of people and nations which is not to be found in the Protestant Church confined to a few Northern countreyes in a corner of the world 2. A certaine authority begun by miracles which Protestants confesse themselues not to haue 3. The succession of Priests euen from S. Peter vntill this present Bishop Wherfore since that Church in which there is a continued succession of Bishops from S. Peter cannot be the Protestan Church which hath no such succession but the Roman it followeth that S. Augustine held the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church And therefore expressing to the Donatists how much he grieued to see them ly cut of from this Church he said (m) Psal cont part Donati It greeueth vs to see you ly so cut of Number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranck of Fathers who succeeded whom That 's the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not Here againe S. Augustine sheweth the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church built vpon Peter and his successors as vpon a rock against which heresies schismes which are the proud gates of hell shall neuer preuaile and all that are out of her communion to be as branches out of from the Vine and deuoid of all spirituall life And as he held all that are out of the Roman Church to be in miserable state so contrarily he held all that liue in her Communion to be most hapy and secure from error in fayth for so he deemed Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage to be notwithstanding all the plots and conspiracies of the Donatists against him He might sayth S. Augustine (n) Ep. 162. contemne the conspiring multitude of his enemies because he knew himselfe to be vnited by communicatory letters both to the Church of Rome in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike hath alwaies florished and to other Countries from whence the Ghospell came first into Africa These few passages among many others shew that your iudicious Casaubon failed much in iudgment and truth when he aduentured to say that S. Augustine in his workes against the Donatists neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope nor of the infallibility of his iudgment wherby to reduce them to the vnity of the Church and truth And as he vrged the authority of the See Apostolike against the Donatists so hath he testified that by the same authority taken from the authority of holy Scriptures (o) Aug. Ep. 91. the Pelagians were condemned who therfore seeing themselues esteemed as Heretikes throughout all the Westerne Church in which they liued sought to the Churches of the East hoping to be admitted into their Communion as the Protestants of Germany writing to Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople did (p) See Iustus Caluinus Apol. pro Eccl. Rom. pag. 10. whom therfore we may check with S. Augustines words written against Iulian a chiese mantainer of the Pelagian heresy I thinke sayth he (q) Cont. Iulia l. 1. c. 4. that part of the world ought to suffice thee in which our Lord would haue the chiefe of the Apostles to be crowned with a most glorious Martyrdome To the Gouernor of which Church Blessed Innocentius if thou woldst haue giuen care thou hadst ere this freed thy dangerous youth from the Pelagian snares for what answeare could that holy man giue to the African Councells but that which from ancient times the Roman Church with all others perseuerantly holdeth And els where he noteth (r) L. 2. de grat Christi pecc orig c. 8. that albeit Pelagius had drawne others into error he could neuer deceaue the Roman Church for the most Blessed Pope Sozimus considered what opinion his predecessor worthy to be imitated had of his proceedings and what iudgment the fayth of the Romans to be commended in our Lord had made of him But you obiect (s) Pag. 225. It is mere sophistry to inferre a necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome to be professed of all Christians at all times because the Fathers required it in their times By this Argument a Pelagian a Donatist an Eutychian or any other Heretike may iustify his departure from the Roman Church pretending as you do that the necessity of vnion with her was not for all times
confirmed by the B. of Rome (b) Ibid. l. 3. c. 5.8 30. that all former Councells haue required their doctrines to be confirmed and authorized by him Why do you then produce him as a witnesse for the contrary Gerson and Canus are both falsified by you for Gerson in the place you cite hath no such doctrine but the contrary which els where he expresseth (c) To. 1. in Consider de paâ—â— Consid 1. saying Constat quod in materijs fidei terminandis error non cadit in Concilio generali c. It is manifest that in deciding controuersies of fayth a generall Councell cannot erre And the Doctors yeild the reason because of the speciall assistence of the holy Ghost and of Christ gouerning the Church and not permitting it to erre in those things which it cannot attaine by humane industry Canus sayth that generall Councells lawfully gathered may erre in fayth as the second of Ephesus did This is his second conclusion which you lay hold of concealing that in his third conclusion which he presently addeth he sayth That a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope cannot erre and condemneth your doctrine as absolutely hereticall Is it not then extreme perfidiousnesse to Father on him the contrary and to make Catholike Doctors Patrons of your Errors But to declare what is necessary that a generall Councell may not erre you adde (d) Pag. â—66 fin 367. The difference betweene the Roman Church and the Church of the Protestants is no more but this that the Romanists say that all generall Councells may erre except they be confirmed and authorized by the Pope but Protestants say that all generall Councells may erre except they be directed by the spirit of Gods word This indeed you say and yet leaue the question vnansweared for we likewise say that euery Councell which is not directed by the spirit of Gods word may erre The question is how it may be knowne when a Councell defineth according to Gods word and when not for Gods word may be misinterpreted Wherof Tertullian speaking truly said (e) L. de praescrip An adulterate glosse doth as much outrage to the truth as a false pen. And S. Hilary (f) L. 2 de Triâ— init There haue bene many who haue interpreted the heauenly words otherwayâ—â— then the truth did require according to the sense of their own will not for the establishing of truth for heresy is not in the writing but in the vnderstanding the fault is not in the word but in the sense And doth not S. Hierome likewise say (g) In Ep. ad Gal. c. 1. The Ghospell is not in the words but in the sense And doth not S. Augustine cry out (i) In Ioan. tract 13. Heresies and peruerse doctrine which entangle soules cast them headlong into hell haue their birth nowhere but from good Scriptures ill vndeestood And againe (k) De Gen. ad lit l. 7. c. 9. Heretikes were not heretikes but that misunderstanding the Scripture they defend obstinatly their owne false opinions against the truth therof And in another place (l) Ep. 2â—â— All heretikes which receaue the Scriptures thinke they follow them when they follow their owne Errors Of the same subiect Lyrinensis discourseth largely and learnedly (m) Chap. 1â— 30.37 shewing that the Diuel alleaged Scriptures against Christ that all Heretikes alleage them against the Church in defence of their errors which made S. Hierome say (n) In Ep. ad Gal. c. 1. that there is great daÌ„ger in speaking in the Church for feare lest by a wrong interpretation the Ghospell of Christ be made the Ghospell of man or which is worse the Ghospell of the Diuell And speaking of the Luciferians (o) Aduers Lucifer versus fin who boasted of the Scriptures as Protestants doe Let them not statter themselues to much because they seeme to haue Scripture for what they affirme for euen the Diuell hath alleaged Scriptures which consist not in reading but in vnderstanding Wherfore it is not sufficient to alleage Scriptures We alleage them and you alleage them but we disagree concerning the true sense and meaning of them from whom shall we learne it If Luther may as your fore-man speake for you all you and none but you and that by your priuate spirit must deliuer the true sense of them We sayth Luther (p) L. de serâ—â— arbit receaue nothing but the Scriptures and them so also that we our selues only haue certaine authority to expound them As we vnderstand them so was the meaning of the Holy Ghost what others bring be they neuer so great neuer so many preceedeth from the spirit of Sathan and from a mad and alimated mind So Luther And as he challenged to himselfe this priuiledge of deliuering the true sense of Scripture so his disciples haue challenged the same to themselues This spirit it is which hath hatched so many viperous sects no lesse disagreeing among themselues then all of them straying from the truth And yet you all boast of Scripture and all proclaime that you follow the word of God And no maruaile for the Diuell sayth Lyrinensis (q) Cap. 37 3â— knoweth right well that when wicked errors are to be broached the readiest way to deceaue is to alleage stifly the authority of diuine Scripture What then shall Catholike men Children of our Mother the Church do Let them interpret the diuine Canon according to the tradition of the vniuersall Church The truth of Scripture sayth S. Augustine (r) Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 33. is held by vs when we do that which pleaseth the vniuersall Church whom the authority of the same Scriptures recommendeth And againe (s) Ibid. c. 31. Whosoeuer feareth to be deceaued through the obscurity of this question let him consult with that Church which the holy Scripture hath designed without any ambiguity This Church it is of which God pronounced by the mouth of Isay (t) Isa 54.17 Thou shalt iudge euery tongue that resisteth thee in iudgment Of this Christ hath promised (u) Math. 16.18 that the gates of hell which are Errors shall not preuâ—ile against her Of this he hath said (x) Math. 18.17 that whosoeuer heares her not is to be held as a Heathen a Publican In this he hath placed (y) Ad Ephes 4.11 17. Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastors and Doctors c. that we may not be litle Children wauering and carried away with euery blast of doctrine This Church these Pastors these Doctors all Christians must heare and imbrace their exposition of Scripture as the true meaning of the holy Ghost Christ himselfe hauing said (z) Luc. 10.6 that who heareth them heareth him and S. Iohn (a) â— Ioan. 4.6 by this marke distinguisheth Orthodoxe people from Heretikes that the Orthodoxe heare and obey the Pastors and Doctors of Gods Church which heretikes refuse to do We are sayth he of God he that knoweth God heareth vs He
that is not of God heareth vs not In this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of Error And if at all times the Pastors of Gods Church are to be heard then surely most of all when they are assembled in a generall Councell Christ professing himselfe to be then in the middest of them (b) Math. 18.20 By their authority the sayth is maintained and heresy condemned When Firmilianus and Cyprian with many other Bishops defended the Error of Rebaptization by testimonies of Scripture but as Lyrinensis noteth (c) Cap. 10. glossed after a new and naughty fashion by what authority was that error condemned but by the custome and tradition of the Church the prohibition of Pope Stephen chiefly cooperating therto for as S. Augustine truly sayth (d) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 23. the Apostles had deliuered nothing in writing concerning that point And when the Arians in the Councell of Nice alleaged and misinterpreted Scriptures in proofe of their heresy by what meanes were they confuted and condemned but by the tradition of the Church deliuered by the Venerable Bishops assembled in that Councell (e) Seâ— aboue Chap. 16. chiefly by the authority of the B. of Rome by whom that Councell was called and confirmed (f) Ibid. and without whose confirmation no Canon of any Councell can be of force (g) Sâ—e aboue Chap. 17. seâ—t 6. And from hence it hath proceeded that as all the generall Councells which the B. of Rome hath confirmed are held by the whole Church to be of infallible authority no one Father or Doctor euer doubting therof so contrarily the Councell of Ariminum the second of Ephesus and all others which he hath reproued haue bene euer reputed spurious assemblies and of no authority And with great reason for his authority in defining controuersies of fayth Christ himselfe declared to be infallible (h) See aboue Chap. â—â— sect 1. 2. when he prayed for him that his fayth might not faile commanded him to confirme his brethren and likewise when he promised that heresies which are the gates of hell shall not prouaile against the Church built vpon him I conclude therfore that you mistake the state of the question We agree with you that a Councell which is not directed by the spirit of Gods word may erre but the difference betweene vs is who is to be the Iudge whether a Councell proceed according to the direction of Gods word or no. Luther and you his disciples casting of the yoke of obedience to your lawfull Pastors and refusing to heare them will haue no other Iudges but your selues to the end that if a generall Councell condemne your doctrine as that of Trent hath done you may reiect it vpon pretence that it hath not bene directed by the spirit of Gods word which is an excuse common to all Heretikes for what heretike will not and may not with as faire colour as you pleade that the Councells which condemned him were not directed by the shirit of Gods word Vpon this pretence the Arians that of Ephesus the Eutychians that of Chalcedon the Monothelites the sixth Councell the Image-breakers the seauenth Vpon the same pretence you reiect the Councell of Trent and make profession to reiect all Councells whatsoeuer that shall not allow you to be the only Iudges of the sense of Gods word and grant vnto euery one of you that infallible authority to expound it which you deny to a whole generall Councell When Councells haue defined sayth Luther (i) Art 11â— then will we be Iudges whether they be to be accepted or not And the same is the doctrine of Caluin (k) L. 4. instit c. 9. tot We contrarily insisting in the steps of all Orthodoxe antiquity whose testimonies are plentifully alleaged by Coccius (l) To. 1. l. 7. art 21. acknowledge that the Pastors which are the representatiue body of the Church assembled together with the B. of Rome as their Head is an infallible Iudge of the true sense of Gods word and that what they define in matters of fayth is of vnâ—oâ—â—â—â—â—d authority to be reuerenced as the Ghospells of Christ for so antiquity reuerenced the generall Councels which haue beene held before their time (m) See Coce 〈…〉 and so we reuerence the rest that haue beene held since their time all of them being assembled and confirmed by the same authority of the See Apostolike and directed by the same Spirit of truth that the first Councells were And who seeth not that you denying this authority take away all the vse of Councells in the Church making controue sies of sayth indeterminable and arguing Christ of lack of wisdome and prouidence in not leauing any certaine meanes to end dissentions and preserue Vnity in his Church SECT III. Whecher Protestants hold the Church of Christ to be inuisible YOur fourth Thesis is (n) Pag. 167.368.369.370 Protestants hold not any greater inuisibility or rather obscurity of the Church Catholike then that which the Romanists are forced to confesse This Thesis is manifestly false for you haue heard your grand Maister Caluin other your brethren (o) Here aboue sect 1. confessing that before Luthers time the Church was wholly destroyed euen as mans life is when his throat is cut that it is ridiculous to thinke there were any true belieuers when Luther began that not a part but the whole body of the Church was fallen away by Apostacy And you cannot be ignorant that other ProtestaÌ„ts haue testified (p) Brereley Prot. Apol. tract 2. c. 2. sect 11. sub dict 3. that she was not only obscured as in the time of the Arians but inuisible and could not be shewed Iuell (q) Ibid. that the truth was vnknowne at that time and vnheard of Perkins (r) Ibid. that aâ— vniuersall Apostacy ouerspread the whole face of the earth and that your Church was not then Visible to the world Milius (s) Ibid. that if there had bene any right belieuers before Luther there had bene no need of a Lutheran reformation Francus (t) Brerel Ibid. tract 2. c. 1. sect 4. that for 1400. yeares the Church of Christ was no where externall and visible Napper (u) Ibid. that for 1260. yeares Gods true Church was most certainly latent and inuisible These are the confessions of your brethren conuincing you to speake vntruly when you say Protestants hold not any greater inuisibility or rather obscurity of the Church Catholike then that which the Romanists are forced to confesse for our Tenets which we haue learned from the holy Scripture are that the Church of Christ is a magnificent throne as resplendent as the sunne (x) Psal 88.38 A lofty City placed vpon a mountaine (y) Math. 5.14 which sayth S. Augustine (z) Cont. Parm. l. 3. c. 5. cannot be hid but shal be knowne to all the coastes of the earth To a mountaine prepared in the top of mountaines eleuated
from error in their definitions of fayth hath bene the beliefe of all Orthodoxe antiquity (m) See aboue Chap. 12. sect 1. 2. Nor do you produce here any thing to the contrary which hath not bene proued to be imposterous excepting only that here you charge the new Church of Rome for so you call it with belieuing the conclusion of the Pope in matters of fayth to be infallible albeit he vse no diligence at all for the directing of his iudgment which is say you the strong breath of an Anabaptisticall and Enthusiasticall spirit We are well assured what spirit guydeth your pen. Do you find this doctrine authorized by the Church of Rome In what Councell By what Pope In your margent you cite Valentia in the seauenth Chapter of his Analysis which is to cite at randome and falsly for that worke of Valentia consisteth of eight bookes you specify none of them nor are the words you obiect to be found in the seauenth Chapter of any one of those eight bookes I find some such in the third Chapter of his last booke where as also afterwards againe (n) Analy l. 8. c. 10. he professedly disputeth what meanes the Pope is bound to vse in his definitions of fayth and whether the infallibility of his iudgment depend vpon those meanes In which question Valentia teacheth nothing but what is the most receaued opinion of Deuines and most agreeable to truth There seemeth to be some disagreement in this point among the Schoole-Doctors some saying that the Pope cannot erre if he proceed maturely hearing the counsell of Pastors and Learned men Others of which number Valentia is affirming that he cannot erre though he define alone without deliberation and consultation But these two opinions differ in words only not in reality of truth for when the authors of the former opinion say that to define the Pope is bound to proceed maturely taking the aduice of a Councell or of men wise learned and skilfull in the matter which is to be determined to the end he may not erre they say not this to signify that the infallibility of his definition consisteth in or proceedeth from the wisdome and learning of his Counsellors but only to shew that he is bound to proceed prudently and maturely And so likewise when Valentia and authors of the second opinion say that if the Pope should define alone without a Councell of Bishops or aduice of other learned men he could not erre they say it not to deny that he is bound to vse such meanes but to signify that the infallibility of his definition consisteth not in them but in his owne authority and warrant which he hath from Christ of not erring And this is the meaning of Valentia as in that very place he expresly declareth Nor do I see what you can find therin either absurd or vntrue But if you curiously demand Whether the Pope may erre in case he proceed to define inconsideratly and rashly Valentia and all Catholike Doctors will answeare that your Question implieth a Condition impossible for the Pope in his definitions cannot proceed immaturely The Philosophers say Qui dat formam dat consequentia ad formam He that giues the forme giues also the dispositions necessary for the forme And he that giueth the end giueth also such meanes as are necessary for the attaining of the end Wherfore Christ hauing made promise to the See Apostolike that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her and that the successors of S Peter shall not faile in confirming their brethren it belongeth to his diuine prouidence so to direct gouerne and assist him that he proceed not to define without sufficient deliberation and maturity If sayth S. Augustine (o) De vtil ered c. 10. the prouidence of God be not the Gouernesse of humane affaires no regard is to be bad of religion But if all this variety of Creatures do I know not with what interior knowledge mooue vs to seeke God and to serue God surely we ought not to be diffident but that there is some authority constituted by the same God wheron we relying as vpon a certaine step may ascend vnto God SECT VII Whether there be in the Scripture any Prophesy that the Church of Rome shall fall from the fayth THat Christ hath prophesied of the Church of Rome that she shall neuer fall from the fayth hath bene alredy proued (p) Chap 12. sect 1. 2. Your third Thesis to the contrary is that there is not in all the Scripture any prophesy of the fall of any Church Christian from the fayth Pag. 377. but only of the Church of Rome from which it may somtime be necessary to depart Which is in effect to say that there is in the Scripture a prophesy that the Church of Rome shall fall from the fayth In proofe of this you remit vs to the testimony of two Iesuits Ribera and Viegas that the city of Rome shall in the end of the world be the seat of Antichrist which is not their doctrine but a calumnious slander of yours They hold with the ancient Fathers that not Rome but Hierusalem shall be the Seat of Antichrist The Euangelist sayth Ribera (r) Ad cap. 11. Apocalyp n. 20. fin 21. init calling Hierusalem a great city signifieth not obscurely that she shall be great at that time in power and in number of Citizens to wit when Antichrist shall raigne in her being receaued of the Iewes and honored as the true Messias This city both because she killed our Lord and because then she shal be the Court of Antichrist full of all wickednesse and impiety he calleth Sodome and Aegypt c. for what sinne and impiety will she not be guilty of Antichrist raigning in her So Ribera from whom Viegas dissenteth not Say now Can there be a more shamfull imposture then to impute to these learned Authors your owne falsities theron to ground your calūnies against the Church of Rome as vpon truthes asserted by them Such Arguments are indeed fit proofes to iustify your departure from her But were it true that the City of Rome in the end of the world shall be the Seat of Antichrist doth that any way iustify your present departure from the Roman Church Looke back vpon what hath bene sayd you shall find how little those words Goe out of Babilon my people make for you and that euen according to your Protestant Expositors they are wholly against you In your fourth Thesis (s) Pag. 378. which is That the Church of Rome hath long bene and still is the most schismaticall Church of all other Churches Christian that carry in them a visible face of a Church you bring nothing but what hath bene already answeared point by point SECT VIII Whether Luther were iustly excommunicaeed TO proue that he was iniustly excōmunicated you say (t) Pag. 381. Luthers excommunication by Pope Leo must haue bene either for manners or
words which you obiect to wit that Christ after his resurrection gaue equall power to all the Apostles saying As my Father sent me so I send you receaue yee the holy Ghost c. For by these words he gaue to them all equall authority to preach throughout the world to reueale matters of fayth assurance of infallibility to make canonicall Scriptures to institute the first mission of Pastors to remit sinnes to giue the holy Ghost and the like In this sense he sayth The Apostles were the same that Peter endowed with like fellowship of honor and power to wit in the exercise of these Apostolicall functions ouer the faythfull to whom he sent them But S. Cyprian sayth not that Christ made all the Apostles equall among themselues exempting them from the iurisdiction of S. Peter in the manner of exercising this power Nor is it true for he gaue it theÌ„ with subordination to him as to their Superior Peter sayth S. Leo (d) Serm. â— in Aâ—niuers suae Assumpt is preferred before all the Apostles if Christ would haue them to haue any thing common with him he gaue it them not but by him And this is declared and the reason therof yelded by Optatus S. Hierome and by S. Cyprian himselfe in that very place which you obiect for the contrary In the Episcopall chayre sayth Optatus (e) L. â— cont Parmâ—n was set the Head of all the Apostles Peter from whence he was also called Cephas to the end that in this only chayre Vnity might be preserued in all and that the other Apostles might not challenge to themselues ech one a seuerall chayre but that he might be a Schismatike and a sinner that against this only Chayre should erect another The Church sayth S. Hierome (f) L. 1. aduers louin c. 14. is built vpon Peter though els where it be also built vpon the rest yet among the twelue one is chosen to the end that a Head being made occasion of Schisme might be taken away And S. Cyprian (g) L. de vnit Eccles Christ to manifest vnity constituted one chayre and ordayned the originall of Vnity beginning from one giuing the primacy to Peter that so one Church of Christ and one chayre might be manifested And then declaring you that haue forsaken this originall of Vnity S. Peters Chayre on which the Church is built to haue lost the fayth and to be out of the Church he addoth He that keepeth not this vnity of the Church doth he belieue himselfe to hold the fayth he that resisteth the Church he that forsaketh the chaire of Peter on which the Church is built doth he thinke himselfe to be in the Church So S. Cyprian equalling you with the Nouatians for your disclayming from the Church of Peter CHAP. XII The authority of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth proued to be infallible HAVING in vayne shot your darts at S. Peter to dethrone him from the height of Authority in which Christ hath placed him you come now to try their force against the Bishop of Rome his Successor whose authority in his definitions of fayth you hold to be fallible SECT I. Our first Argument THat the authority of the Bishop of Rome in his definitions of fayth is infallible we proue out of the words of Christ spoken to S. Peter (h) Luc. 12.32 I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth faile not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren There is no man so voyd of vnderstanding sayth Leo the 9. speaking (i) Ep. ad Michael Impâ—r of this prayer that can thinke Christs prayer whose will is his power to haue bene inefficacious which the Apostle allso teacheth saying (k) Heb. 5.7 he was heard for his reuerence And for this prayer in particular Christ himselfe signifieth so much saying I haue prayed for thee for what would his prayer haue auayled Peter if he had not obtayned for him what he asked Or how cold his brethren haue any assurance of their confirmation in fayth from Peter if Peter could haue error proposing vnto them falshood for truth Againe that Christ in these words prayed not in mediatly for the whole Church nor for all the Apostles but for Peter alone appeareth in this that he expressed one singular person saying Simon Sâ—mon for in the Greeke it is twice repeated and added the pronounce of the second person I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth fayle not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren That Christ prayed not for the other Apostles you grant (l) Pag. 53. and take this for a ground to proue that he prayed for Peter only and not for Clement Vrban or any other of his Successors in the Roman See But your argument proueth nothing for Christ had formerly obtayned the personall perseuerance of Peter and the rest when he said (m) Ioan. 17.9 seqq for them I do pray c. Holy Father keep them in my name c. I pray not that thou take them out of the world but that thou preserue them from euill And therfore this prayer for Peters not fayling in fayth was not made for him in the person of a priuat man and without relation to his office of Supreme Pastor but as for a publike person that is as for the Head of the Apostles and Gouernor of the whole Church and consequently for his See and all his Successors in the same See for as that supreme dignity of Head Gouernor of the vniuersall Church was not to dye with Peter but to descend by him to his Successors so the effect of this prayer of Christ being a prerogatiue obtayned for Peter by reason of his office was to descend to Clement to Vrban and to whosoeuer hath hitherto or shall hereafter succeed him in the same office euen as whatsoeuer prerogatiue is granted to a Vice-Roy as Vice-Roy and as belonging to his office is consequently granted to all his Successors in the same office But you obiect (n) Pag. 54. that this priuiledge cannot agree to Peters Successors because Salas the Iesuit teacheth that a personall and singular priuiledge is that which is granted to an indiuiduall person with expression of his name and therfore doth not extend to any other but dyeth with the person to whom it is granted You vnderstand not Salas for he calleth a personall priuiledge that which is granted to an indiuiduall person as he is a piuat person only for his owne particular good not by reason of any publike office for the good and benefit of the community for if it be granted to him as to a publike person by reason of his office as this was to S. Peter as to the Head of the Church and for the common good of the Church though his name be neuer so much expressed in it it is not a personall but a common (o) See Bonacina Compend v. Priuileg or as Suarez (p) L. 7. de
failing in fayth and confirming his brethren was not personall but belonging to his office and descending with it to his Successors for Peter in his owne person was not to liue till the end of the world and therfore not by himselfe but by his Successors to confirme the faythfull vntill the end of the world The same truth is further proued out of an ancient Treatise intituled A dispute between the Church and the Synagogue written by a learned Author aboue 700. yeares since in which it is said (d) Cap. 19. art 4. Christ seemeth to haue defined that the fayth of the Roman Church shall neuer faile saying to Peter I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth faile not for he foresaw that Peter whose fayth he promised shold neuer faile was to be Bishop of the Roman Church and there to end his lyfe by Martyrdome And what I beseech you are we to thinke him to haue signified to vs but that that Church especially whose Bishop Peter the Head of all Churches after Christ was to be shold alwayes remaine in the confession of one true fayth To these I adde the testimony of Georgius Trapezuntius a learned Grecian who explicating the same words of Christ sayth (*) In illud Ioan. Si eum volo manere c. In them two great Mysteries are plainly expressed the first that only the fayth of Peter his Successors that is to say of the Roman Church shall not fayle The other that the fayth of the rest shall sometimes fayle Wherefore sayth Christ thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren He said Once to shew that the Apostles being confirmed with the grace of the Holy Ghost none of them should erre but that their Successors should for whose confirmation Peter that is to say his Successors are commanded to be conuerted which hath byn effectually performed for the rest of the Churches of the world haue byn often confirmed by the Roman but She neuer by others Finally S. Bernard writing to Pope Innocentius and requiring him to condemne the heresies of Abailardus subscribeth to the same exposition saying (e) Ep. 190. It is fit that all dangers scandals arising in the kingdome of God and chiefly those that concerne fayth should be referred to your Apostleship for I thinke it iust that the ruines of fayth shold be repared there where fayth cannot fayle for that is the prerogatiue of your See for to what other was it euer said I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth faile not and therfore what followeth is required from Peters Successor And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren It is tyme therfore most â—ouing Father that you show your zeale repressing the corruptors of â—ayth Out of these testimonies I inferre against you that whatsoeuer Bellarmine in his Controuersies holdeth to the contrary (f) L. 4. de Pont. c. 3. these words of Christ I haue prayed for thee Peter c. containe no priuiledge of Peter peculiar to his person but a publike prerogatiue belonging to his office and descending to his Successors as Bellarmine in a later worke (g) Apol. c. 14. §. Neque solum expresly declareth And therfore though out of them it cannot be proued but that his Successors in their priuate Doctrine or writing may erre and fall into heresy yet it followeth that they neuer shall nor can erre ex cathedra that is iudicially in their Councels Consistories publike decrees or definitions of fayth made for the whole Church for S. Augustine (h) Epist 16â— truly sayth The heauenly Mayster in the chayre of Vnity hath placed the Doctrine of verity and secured his people that for euill Prelates they forsake not the chayre of holsome Doctrine in which chayre euen they that are ill men are inforced to speake good things There is then in the Church a chayre of holsome Doctrine which is not the chaire in which Christ now sitteth in Heauen for in that there sit no ill men nor any other but himselfe Nor is this Chayre the chayre of euery Bishop for euery Bishop is not inforced to speake truth many haue bene heretikes and inuentors of heresies Wherfore S. Augustine himselfe declareth this chayre of Vnity to be that in which sitteth one Pastor in whom all Pastors of the earth are one I find sayth he (i) L. de Pastor c. 13. all good Pastors in one for surely good Pastors are not wanting but they are in one They that are diuided are many here one is praysed because vnity is commended This one chayre is none els but that of S. Peter There is one chayre sayth S. Cyprian (k) L. 1. ep 8. founded vpon the Rock by the voyce of our Lord. and againe (l) Lib. de Vnit Eccles Christ to manifest vnity constituted one chayre and ordained the originall of this vnity beginning from one giuing the primacy to Peter that so one Church of Christ and one chayre might be manifested c. He that keeps not this vnity doth he thinke himselfe to hold the fayth In the Episcopall chayre sayth Optatus (m) L. 2. contra Parmen was set Peter the Head of all the Apostles to the end that in this only chayre vnity might be preserued to all From this priuiledge obtayned by Christ for S. Peter his chayre it proceedeth that the ancient Fathers haue not doubted to belieue and teach the infallibility of the Roman Church in matters of fayth as also from other grounds of Scripture to be declared hereafter S. Cyprian speaking against the Nouatians sayth (n) L. 1. Ep. 3. They presumed to carry letters from Schismatikes and heretikes to the chayre of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praysed by the mouth of the Apostle and to whom misbeliefe can haue no accesse S. Basil writeth to Damasus Pope (o) Epist. 69. per Sabinum Diac. Surely that which is giuen by our Lord to your Holynesse is worthy of that most excellent voyce which proclamed you Blessed to wit that you may discerne betweene what is counterfeit and what is lawfull and pure and that you may without any diminution preach the fayth of our ancestors S. Ambrose writeth to Siricius Pope (p) L. 10. ep 31. Whom your Holinesse hath condemned know that we also hold them condemned according to your iudgment S. Hierome sayth to Ruffinus (q) L. 1. Apol aduers Ruffin Know thou that the Roman fayth commended by the voyce of the Apostle admitteth no such delusions and that being fensed by S. Pauls authority it cannot be altered though an Angell should teach otherwise S. Augustine writing against the Pelagians and hauing professed that the Bishop of Rome hath from the holy Scriptures authority to declare the true fayth and condemne heresies addeth (r) Epist 157. The Catholike fayth expressed in these words of the Apostolike See is so ancient so grounded so certaine
Peter And the sacred Expositors teach you the same lesson for when a new Apostle was to be chosen in place of Iudas S. Chrysostome noteth (t) Hom. 3. in Act. that albeit Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem yet he acknowledged the superiority not to belong to himselfe but to Peter that therfore not he but Peter shewed his authority in the cariage of that busines Behold sayth Chrysostome the modesty of Iames He had receaued the office of Bishop of Hierusalem and yet speakes â—ot a word but yelds the throne to Peter And Oecuâ—â—e niâ—â— (s) Ad cap. 1. Act. Iames riseth nâ—â— out Peter be being the man to whom the gouerment of the Disciples was committed And Chrysostome further declaring that the Episcopall authority which christ gaue to Peter was as farre aboue that of Iames as the Bishop of the whole world surpasseth in authority the Bishop of one particular See sayth (t) Hom. vlt. in Ioan. If any one demaund how Iames obtained the See of Hierusalem I answere he was made by Peter Maister of the whole world which difference betweene the authority of Peter and Iames Euthymius (u) Ad c. 21. Ioan. hath also expressed in the same words And no lesse S. Bernard saying (x) L. 2. de considerat c. 9. The other Apostles obtayned ech of them their peculiar stocks Iames contented with Hierusalem yelds the vniuersality to Peter I conclude therfore that if S. Paul once named Iames before Peter which is yet doubtfull it is a non sequitur to collect from thence that he held Iames superior or equall in authority to Peter You shew your selfe to be one of those men of whom S. Peter (y) 1. Pet. 3.16 sayth that reading S. Paules epistles they depraue them and the rest of the Scriptures to their owne perdition Not vnlike to this is the argument you make (z) Pag. 62. fin 63. to proue that S. Paul forsooth butteth and excopteth against Peters authority because he sayth (a) Gal. 1.18 I went to Hierusalem to see Peter and tarried with him 15. dayes but other of the Apostles I saw none saue Iames the brother of our Lord. Your inference is that Paul going vp to stop the mouths of false Apostles who obiected that he had not sufficient commission to preach as not hauing bene authorized by the other Apostles if the spirit of Popery had reigned in those dayes his Aduersaries might haue replyed that Peter being the Vicar of Christ and the Ordinary and vniuersall Pastor of his Church was alone sufficient and All in All to authorize him because the Gouernor of all others without exception So you but falsly and ignorantly for Paul went not then to Hierusalem to haue his Ghospell approued but only for honors sake to see and reuerence Peter his Superior as the expositors with one accord declare Their words you haue already heard His iourney to Hierusalem to vindicate his calling and haue his Ghospell approued by S. Peter and the other Apostles was 14. yeares after when he tooke Barnabas Titus with him as in the second Chapter to the Galathians he declareth But you are contented to confound the former iourney with this such mistakes are the engines of Arguments wherewith you But at the Popes authority SECT V. Priuiledges granted to other of the Apostles and not to S. Peter obiected by Doctor Morton TO the former obiections you adde others concerning some priuiledges granted to other Apostles and not to S. Peter which I will briefly touch The first is (c) Pag. 64. Peter gaue not sentence in the Apostolicall Synod but Iames in his presence This is an vntruth and such I haue proued it to be The second (e) Pag. 64. Peter leaned not on Christs brest as Iohn did True but Christ made Peter the foundation of his Church and Pastor of his flock a far greater dignity then to leane on his brest and which implies Iohns subiection to him The third is (f) Pag. 64. Peter solicited Iohn to aske a question of scorecy He did so but how ill aduised you are to obiect this against Peters Primacy the Fathers will informe you Cassiodorus (g) L. de amicit c. Quasi diceret benefac sint amici Surely our Lord preferred Peter before Iohn and bestowing the Princedome on Peter did not therfore withdraw his affection from the disciple whom he loued He gaue to Peter the keyes of the kingdome of heauen that he might open and shut heauen to Iohn he gaue a facility of opening vnto vs the secrets of his brest To Peter he gaue the charge and gouerment of his Church to Iohn the care and custody of his Mother Peter durst not aske of our Lord who was to betray him Iohn at Peters instance asked confidently what the Prince of the Apostles durst not in quire S. Chrysostome (h) Hom. vlt. in Ioan. Why doth Iohn mention his leaning on Christs brest Not without cause but to shew the confidence of Peter after his deniall for he that durst not then aske but did is by another after the charge of his brethren was giuen to him committeth is not to another but himselfe asketh the Maister and Iohn is silens He speakes and shewes his loue to Iohn c. For when Christ had communicated great matters to Peter and giuen him charge of the whole world he being desirous to haue Iohn for his partner and colleague said And this man what And as he not daring to aske at the last supper did it by Iohn so now doth he the like for Iohn thinking that he was desirous to aske but durst not And againe (i) Hom. 66. in Math. Marke how this same Iohn that lately made such demands after wholly yelds the primacy to Peter and prefers him in all things before himselfe S. Hierome (k) L. 1. aduers Iouin Among the twelue Apostles one is chosen that a Head being appointed occasion of Schisme might be taken away And declaring (l) Ibid. why the dignity of Head was not giuen to Iohn but to Peter he yeldeth this reason because Peter was the elder and lest if Christ had bestowed that dignity on a yong man whom he loued he might seeme to minister occasion of enuie to the rest That famous Emperor Leo surnamed The wise hauing declared (m) Serm. de S. Petro. that Christ male Peter Prince of pastors and required of him the care of feeding his flock as a returne of his loue addeth Peter knowing that to be a great Princedome and how great strength it requireth seing Iohn following whom Iesus greatly loued said And this man what wilt thou haue me to be placed as Head ouer the disciples what then dost thou commaund him to doe Our Lord answered as it were checking Peter So I will haue him to remayne till I come what 's that to thee follow thou me that is follow me with this pastorall staffe and as whiles I was with you I did
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
blessed memory as of all our predecessers we command your Dilection to keepe so that if any one contemne them he may know that pardon shall be denied him And to the Bishops of Maurirania (i) Ep. 8â— We command that the cause of Lupicinus Bishop be heard there whom we haue restored to our communion he himselfe earnestly and often desiring it These few testimonies of holy and renowned Popes that liued before S. Gregory are sufficient to shew how ignorantly you affirme that it was not the style of Popes in the ancient and primitiue tymes to Command And as the ancient Popes commanded when it was necessary for them to shew their authority so the Bishops euen the greatest Patriarkes acknowledged in them authority to command and in themselues subiection and obligation to obey For did not S. Athanasius vpon Pope Iulius his citation obey taking his iourney from Aegypt to Rome (k) Theoder l. 2. hist c. 4. and doth he not professe his subiection to Marcus Pope (l) Ep. ad Marc. when he sayth We are yours and with all that are committed to our charge are and will euer be obedient to you And do not the African Fathers writing to Bonifacius Pope promise to obey his Mandates vntill a more diligent inquisition of the Nicen Canons And do not the Fathers of the Mileuitan Councell beseech Innocentius the first to shew his authority against the Pelagians Many say they (m) Ep. ad Innocent oppose against them in defence of Grace and the truth of the Catholike fayth c. But we belieue that with the helpe of the mercy of our Lord Iesus Christ they that hold these opinions so peruerse and pernicious will more easily yeld to the authority of your Holinesse drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures And when Paschasinus B. of Lilibaea Lucentius of Ascoli Legates of Leo pope said to the Councell of Chalcedon (n) Conc. Chalced. Act. 1. We haue in our hands the Commands of the blessed and Apostolike Prelate of the Citty of Rome wherby he hath vouchsafed to ordaine that Dioscorus sit not in the Councell and that if he offer to do it he be cast out because hauing no right to do the office of a Iudge he attempted it and presumed to hold a Synod without the authority of the See Apostolike which neuer was lawfull nor hath euer benedone And did not the Councell obey the Popes command causing Dioscorus not to sit among the Bishops as a Iudge but as a person guilty to stand in the midest of the place to yeld account of hid proceedings And did not the Bishops of Dardania in their Epistle to Gelasius acknowledge that they had receaued his commands with due reuerence and thanke him that he had vouchsafed to visit them with his Pastorall admonitions And did not the Bishops of France in the second Councell of Tours say (o) Can. 21. Our Fathers haue alwayes obserued what the authority of the See Apostolike hath commanded And when Chrysostome was deposed by a Councell of Bishops at Constantinople did he not appeale to Innocentius Pope and petition him in these wordes (p) Ep. 1. ad Innocent Vouchsafe to command that these things so wickedly done we being absent and not refusing iudgment may not be valide as in truth they are not and that they which haue caried themselues so iniustly may be submitted to the punishment of the Ecclesiasticall lawes And when Theodoret B. of Cyre was deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus did he not write to Leo Pope (q) Ep. ad Leon. I attend the sentence of your Apostolike Throne and beseech your Holinesse to succour me appealing to your right and iust iudgment to command that I transport my selfe to you and verify that my Doctrine followes the Apostolike steps And finally did not the Emperors Theodosius Valentinian (r) Nouel Theod. tit 24. publish a law which ordeynes that to all Bishops those thinges shall be lawes which haue bene or shall be ordeyned by the Apostolike See in such sorte that whatsoeuer Bishop being called by the Pope shall refuse to appeare shall be constrayned therunto by the Gouernor of the Prouince These and a thousand more examples which may be alleaged conuince that it was the stile of ancient Popes before S. Gregories tyme to command when necessity required it and that all Bishops and generally all Christians acknowledged this power in the Popes and in themselues obligation to obey And as for S. Gregory in particular who say you vtterly abhorred the word Command as he was a man of admirable humility so his gouerment was not dominiering in the Clergy but according to the commandment of Christ (s) Lue. 2â— 27 and of S. Peter his predecessor (t) 1. Pet. 5.2 with great meekenesse and humility and therfore writing to Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria he wisheth him L. 7. ep â—5 not to mention any command of his for when crimes exact it not sayth he all Bishops according to the condition of humility are equall And in many places of his workes he teacheth (x) L. 4. ep 38. l. 2. Pasto. c. 7. Hom. 18. in Ezechiel that the Ecclesiasticall Gouernor ought to make himselfe a companion and equall to his subiects and whiles they do well to preferre himselfe before them in nothing but yet so that if they offend he shew his power and authority in correcting them This therfore is the reason why in his Epistle to Eulogius which you obiect he beseecheth him not to say that he commanded for being he writ not to him to taxe him of any crime or offence committed though by the authority of his place he knew himselfe to be his Superior yet by humility he made himselfe his equall and wished him not to say that he commanded for sayth he I commanded not but endeauored to signify those things which are profitable All which notwithstanding the same S. Gregory to shew that in authority and iurisdiction he was Superior to Eulogius and all other Bishops and had power to command and punish them when they ossended sayth (y) L. 7. ep 64. For wheras the Patriarke of Constantinople confesseth himselfe subiect to the See Apostolike I know no Bishop that is not subiect to it And what he professed in words he practised in deedes commanding and exercising his iurisdiction ouer the Bishops of all Christian nations as out of his writings and the confessions of our owne more learned brethren I haue formerly proued (z) Chap. 15. sect 3. But because you so boldly auerre that he vtterly abhorred the word Command (a) Pag. 114. I will briefly shew how ignorantly and vntruly you speake for to Anthemius he writeth (b) L. 11. ep 35. Because notice hath bene giuen vs that the Bishops of Campania are negligent c. therfore with this authority we command you to call them together and by vertue of our Command to giue them a strict
the proud but consent with the humble Wherfore this Canon first made in the Councell of Constantinople and afterwards renewed in the Councell of Chalcedon was neuer confirmed but still resisted by the See Apostolike and therfore hath alwayes remained inualid That sayth Gelasius (m) De Anathem vinculo which the See Apostolike consented not to the Emperor imposed it not nor Anatolius vsurped it but all was put into the hands of the See Apostolike and therfore what the See Apostolike confirmed of the Councell of Chalcedon hath remained valid and what that See hath reiected could neuer obteyne any force and she hath annulled that only which the Synodicall assembly adiudged to be vsurped against order It resteth therfore that albeit this decree haue many other nullities yet this one of the want of confirmation from the See Apostolike abundantly conuinceth the inualidity therof as hath bene already proued And because Anatolius knew that if it were once vnderstood that this Canon was resisted and condemned by the See Apostolike it would be condemned by the iudgment of all Catholikes in the world he craftily suppressed the letters of condemnation as Leo in his answere to the Emperor Martian testifieth (n) Ep. 59. I writ to your Glory and to the B. of Constantinople letters which euidently shewed that I approued those things which had bene defined in the Councell of Chalcedon concerning the Catholike fayth But because by the same letters I reproued those things which by occasion of the Synod had bene vnlawfully attempted he Anatolius rather chose to conceale my applause then to publish his owne ambition And to Pulcheria the Empresse (o) Ep. 60. Wheras the most religious Emperor hath willed me to write letters to all the Bishops which assisted at the Councell of Chalcedon to confirme what was there defined concerning the rule of fayth I haue willingly performed it lest the deceipt full dissimulation of some might breed any doubt of my sentence although by meanes of the B. of Constantinople to whom I had largely testified my ioy what I had written might haue come to the knowledge of all if he had not rather chosen to conceale my contentment then to publish the rebuke of his owne ambition Wherfore it is euident that as this Decree when it was first made in the Councell of Constantinople remayned inualid for want of Confirmation from the See Apostolike (p) See aboue Chap. 17. sect 5. 6. so for the same want it tooke no effect when it was renewed in the Councell of Chalcedon in so much that Anatolius was enforced to desist from his clayme and excuse the attempt he had made laying the blame on others as it is cleare out of these words of Leo to him (q) Ep. 7â— This thy fault which to augment thy power thou hast committed as thou sayest by the persuasion of others thy Charity had blotted out better and more sincerely if thou hadst not imputed wholly to the Counsell of thy Clergy that which could not be attempted without thy allowance c. But deare Brother I am glad that thy Charity protesteth thou art now displeased with that which euen then ought not to haue pleased thee The profession of thy loue and the testimony of the Christian Prince is sufficient to re-admit thee into common grace nor doth thy amendment seems late that hath gotten so reuerend a surety This recantation of Anatolius sheweth that his attempt of hauing the second place after the Pope and enioying the like priuiledges after him was vnlawfull and proceeded merely from his ambition SECT V. Falsifications and vntruthes of Doctor Morton discouered and his Arguments answeared VVHat you produce in defence of this Canon are either falsifications vntruthes or friuolous cauills for first you falsify Azor (r) Pag. 118. His words are The Canons and decrees of Councells which are either of fayth or of the law of God or of nature the Pope can neither annull nor alter but if the decrees and Canons be of those things which belong to human right he may annull them or alter them in whole or in part And this sayth he is the common opinion of Diuines and Canonists You very honestly mangle his words not mentioning the first part of them in which he sayth The Pope can neither annull nor alter the decrees of Councells which are of matters of fayth or of things commanded by the law of God or nature And wheras he addes that the Pope can annull or alter the Decrees of Councells which are of human right you in your english leaue out those words which are of human right to persuade your Reader that Azor sayth and that our Diuines and Canonistes with common consent allow the Pope power to change the Decrees of fayth and annull the precepts of God and of nature whereas he speaketh only of lawes that concerne Ecclesiasticall discipline which according to diuers occasions and circumstances may be altered for the good of the Church If this be not an imposture what is 2. You obiect (s) Pag. 12 1â—9 The Fathers of Chalcedon thought that the Church of Rome got the primacy not by diuine but by humane right to wit because Rome was the chiefe Impâ—riall seat Answere There are two causes of the primacy of the Roman Church the one immediate the other mediate The immediate cause is the dignity of S. Peter wherwith Christ honored him when he made him the foundation of his Church (t) Math. 16.18 and the Pastor of his flock (u) Ioan. 21. vers 15.16.17 And so much the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledged when they called the Popes Epistle The speach of the See of S. Peter (x) In alloquut ad Imperat and when they said to Leo (y) In relat ad Leon. Dioscorus hath extended his phrensy against him to whom the custody of the Vine which is the Catholike Church was committed by our Sauiour that is to say against your Apostolike Holinesse The same truth the Mileuitan Councell in which S. Augustine was Secretary had professed not long before acknowledging the Popes authority to be of diuine right when speaking to Innocentius they said (z) Aug. ep 92. that his authority was taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures And Gelasius with a Councell of 70. Bishops (a) In decreto de lib. Apocryph The Roman Church hath not bene preferred before other Churches by the constitutions of Synods but hath obtained the primacy by the voyce of our Lord and Sauiour in the Ghospell And as the same Gelasius rightly obserueth (b) Ep. ad Episc Dardan Milan Rauenna Sirmium Treuers and Nicomedia were for a long tyme seates of the Empire and yet the Fathers neuer thought that any Primacy was therfore due to the Bishops of those Cities Neuerthelesse it may be said in a true sense that the mediate and remote cause of the Primacy of the Roman Church that is to say the cause which moued S. Peter
be directed to the holy and Venerable Pope Innocentius And we likewise had written from the Councell of Mileuis in Numidia to the same Apostolike See And what did they write We hope sayth the Councell (k) Aug. ep 92. these men which hold so peruerse pernicious opinions will sooner yeld to the authority of your Holinesse drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures by help of the mercy of our Lord Iesus-Christ who vouchsafeth to gouerne you consulting with him and to heare you praying vnto him To this Epistle of the Councell Innocentius answeared (l) Aug. ep 93. You prouide diligently and worthily for the Apostolike honor c. following in the consultation of difficult things the forme of the ancient rule which you know as well as I to haue bene alwayes obserued by the whole world But I omit this for I thinke it is not vnknowne to your wisdome for why els did you confirme this by your deeds but because you know that answeres do alwayes flow from the Apostolicall fountaine throughout all Countries to those that aske them And especially as often as matter of fayth is in question I conceiue that all our brethren and fellow-Bishops ought not to referre what may be profitable in common to all Churches to any but to Peter that is to the author of their name and dignity as your Dilection hath done If you answeare that Innocentius writ this but spake vntruly in his owne cause S. Augustine will satisfy you who highly prayseth both these answeares of his Vpon this affaire sayth S. Augustine (m) Ep. 106. relations were sent from the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the Apostolicall See c. And besides the relations of the Councells we writ also priuate letters to Pope Innocentius of blessed memory in which we discoursed more largely of the same subiect And he answeared vs to euery point as it was conuenient and fitting the Prelate of the Apostolike See should answeare And againe (n) Ep. 157. Pelagius and Celestius hauing bene the authors or most violent promotors of this new Heresy they also by meanes of the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councells with the help of God who vndertakes the protection of his Church haue bene condemned in the extent of the whole world by two reuerend Prelates of the Apostolike See Pope Innocentius and Pope Zozimus vnlesse they reforme themselues and do pennance Out of this it is euident 1. That it was the ancient tradition and custome that Councels should send their decrees to the Pope to be confirmed by his authority 2. And that it is so ordeyned not by humane but by diuine sentence 3. That all other Churches of the world compared to the Roman are as streames that flow from their mother source and are to imbrace as pure whatsoeuer doctrine she deliuereth and reiect whatsoeuer she condemneth 4. That the Fathers of both these Councels did acknowledg the Pope to be their Pastor 5. And that they did belieue his authority to be takē out of the holy Scriptures 6. That Christ guideth him in his consultations and decrees of fayth 7. That the custome ancient rule beareth that in doubts especially of fayth the See Apostolike is to be consulted and nothing determined vntill answeare had from thence Now to your obiection (o) Pag. 141. seqq that the Councell of Mileuis denied any right of Appeales from Africa to the Church of Rome which in your eyes is so forcible that you repeat it afterwards againe (p) Pag. 321.322 seqq and descant on it at large against Bellarmine who sheweth (q) L. 2. de Pont. c. 24. it to be wholly impertinent and from the matter for the question of appeales to the B. of Rome is not of Priests and inferior Clerkes of whom only the Councell of Mileuis speaketh but of Bishops for the Councell of Sardica which hath declared (r) Can. 4. 7. that Bishops may appeale to the Pope hath withall decreed (s) Can. 27. that Priests and inferior Clerkes are to be iudged by their owne Bishops that if they conceiue themselues to be wronged by them they appeale to other Bishops of the same prouince And the same had bene ordeyned not long before by the Councell of Nice (t) Iulius ep 1.2.3 apud Bin. to 1. pag. 399. seqq and afterwards by S. Leo (u) Ep. 84. ad Anastas Thessal S. Gregory (x) L. 2. indict 11. ep 6. ordeyning that maior causes be iudged in the first instance by a Councell of Bishops of the same prouince by way of appeale by the See Apostolike And to goe no further the same was answeared by the holy Pope Innocentius to whom the Councell of Mileuis sent their decrees to be confirmed (y) Aug. ep 92. For when Victricius B. of Rhoan desiring to order the gouerment of his Church according to the Roman discipline required instructions from him he (z) Ep. 2. addressed vnto him diuers rules to be obserued of which the third is that If dissentions arise betweene Priests or other Clerkes of the inferior order they are to be iudged ended by the Bishops of the same Prouince as the Councell of Nice hath determined And for the causes of Bishops he addeth (a) Ibid. If they be maior causes that are in question let them after the Episcopall iudgment be referred to the See Apostolike as the Synod of Nice and the ancient customes ordeyne This Epistle of Innocentius was cited by the Bishops of France in the second Councell of Tours 700. yeares since And his very words concerning the appeales of Bishops to the See Apostolike are inserted in forme of a Law into the Capitulary of Charlemaine And Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes in his epistle to Nicolas Pope (b) Erodoard histor Eccles Rhem. lib. 3. repeating the same decree of Innocentius sayth We Metropolitans trauilling in our prouinciall Councels haue care after iudgment to referre the maior causes that is of fayth and of maior persons that is of Bishops to the determination of the soueraigne See And speaking of Priests and inferior Clerkes Let it not please God that we thould depise the priuiledge of the first and supreme See of the holy Roman Church as to weary your soueraigne Authority with all the controuersies and quarrels of the Clergy as well of the superior as of the inferior order which the canons of the Nicen Councell and the decrees of Innocentius and other Popes of the holy See of Rome command to be determined in their owne Prouinces From hence it followeth that the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis which you obiect against appeales to Rome makes nothing at all for your purpose your peremptory conclusion is (c) Pag. 141. that the Councell of Mileuis denieth any right of appeales from Africk to the Church of Rome To make this good you should haue shewed that the Councell of Mileuis forbids the appeales of Bishops
that any such Canons were extant in the Councell of Sardica I cannot but meruaile at so great boldnesse for that those Canons were extant in the Councell of Sardica is a truth proued not only by all editions of the Councells and all Catholike writers but auerred by the Magdeburgians by Osiander Peter Martyr and Iohn Caluin (i) Brereley Protest Apolog tract 1. sect 7. subdia â— It is true that Caluin accuseth Zozimus of hainous impudency and fraud in citing the Councell of Sardica for that of Nice But his accusation hath no other ground then his hatred to the See of Rome for were it true as it is not that the Canons which Zozimus sent were not of the Councell of Nice but of Sardica and that he had sent them as Canons of Nice it had not bene fraud or forgery in him as it was not in S. Mathew (k) Cap. 27. â— to cite Hieremy for Zachary because it was the same Spirit of God that spake in both those Prophets And so likewise the Councell of Sardica was of no lesse authority then that of Nice Againe the Councell of Sardica consisted in great part of the same Fathers that the Nicen Councell did and was an explication and confirmation therof Wherfore the Sardican Canons might not vnfitly beare the name of Nicen Canons as the Constantinopolitan Creed because it is an explication and confirmation of the Nicen beares the name of the Nicen Creed Moreouer the ancient Fathers numbring the Councells after that of Nice euer reckon immediatly the first of Constantinople which they do vpon no other ground then because they repute the Councell of Sardica to be an Appendix of the Councell of Nice and therfore as all one with it For these reasons Zozimus might without any forgery or falshood haue cited the Canons of the Councell of Sardica vnder the title of Nicen Canons as it is the custome of the Greekes to cite the Trullan Canons vnder the title of the Canons of the sixth generall Councell because they pretend the Trullan Councell to be an Apendix and supplement of the sixth Councell generall And so in like manner S. Gregory of Tours (l) De gâ—st Fran. l. 9. c. 33. citing a Canon of the Councall of Grangres without either fraud or forgery calls it a Canon of the Nicen Councell because the Councell of Gangres was a branch and slip of the Councell of Nice Finally and if these Canons were not indeed of the Councell of Nice but of Sardica how can Zozimus be thought to haue vsed any fraud or forgery in alleaging them as the Councell of Nice since it had bene more aduantagious for his purpose against the Africans to haue alleaged them as Canons of the Councell of Sardica for as much as the fifth generall Councell beareth witnesse (m) Act. â— that in the Councell of Nice there was no other B. of Africa but only Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage wheras in the Councell of Sardica were present and subscribed 30. African Bishops who are all named in particular by S. Athanasius (n) Apol. 2. which might haue bene a great motiue to the Africans to submit to those Canons as being approued and signed by so many Bishops of their owne nation But the truth is that albeit the Africans had notice of a Councell held at Sardica yet as Peron learnedly proueth (o) Repliq. l. 1. Chap. 49. the Donatists had suppressed in Africa the copies of the true Councell of Sardica and those which the Africans had in the tyme of S. Augustine and the sixth Councell of Carthage were copies of the Anti-councell which Sozomen mentioneth (p) L. 3. c. 10. held by the Arians at Philippopolis neere to Sardica which they to gaine credit to it and to their cause called The Councell of Sardica and published it in Africa vnder that name And this is the reason why S. Augustine professeth (q) Ep 163. Conâ— Cresâ—on l. 3. c. 34. that he knew no other Councell of Sardica but that of the Arians in which S. Athanasius was condemned wheras the true Councell of Sardica iustified S. Athanasius and confirmed the Councell of Nice This true Councell of Sardica you acknowledge to haue bene a generall Councell of the whole Church (r) Pag. 144. fin 14â— This the Centurists haue copied out and inserted into their fourth Century And this it is in which as well they as also Caluin Peter Martyr and Osiander acknowledge the Canons for appealing to Rome to haue ben made wherof if the African Fathers had notice they would not haue replied to Pope Celestine (s) Ep. ad Celestin We find it not to haue bene determined by the Fathers in any Synod that Legates should be sent from your Holinesse to order matters heere for it is expresly decreed in the Councell of Sardica (t) Can. 7. that if it shall seeme good to the B. of Rome he may send Legates to iudge the causes of Appellants in their owne Prouinces This sheweth how vntruly you deny that in the Councell of Sardica were extant any Canons for Appeales to Rome And since your owne brethren acknowledge them with what conscience do you iustify the Africans in their deniall of them or blame the Pope for defending his right against them especially since you confesse (u) Pag. 289. 304. that the Africans were subiect to the Pope as to their Patriarke SECT IV. Vntruthes and falsifications of Doctor Morton discouered and his Obiections answeared FIrst you obiect (x) Pag. 145. that 217. African Bishops S Augustine being a principall one shew that the Popes claime of Appeales had no patronage from the Councell of Nice but rather that there was in that Councell another Canon to controle it and that maketh much against such appeales by determining that Popes being so far remote from Africk could not be so competent iudges in such causes Except say they some will thinke that God will inspire one singular man with iustice and deny that grace to innumerable persons assembled togeather in a Synod These words Syr are not of the Councell of Nice but of the African Fathers in their Epistle to Celestine Pope Is it not then a mere delusion to obiect them as a Canon of the Nicen Councell to controle appeales to Rome They speake not of matters of fayth for the same Fathers a little before had sent to Innocentius Pope to confirme with his authority the sentence of Condemnation which they had pronounced against Pelagius and Celestius in the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis acknowledging (y) Aug. ep â—2 that God did guide him in his consultations of fayth and therfore hoping that those Heretikes would more easily yield to his authority drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures then to the authority of their Councells Wherfore in the words obiected they speake only of particular and personall causes of fact ciuill and criminall in which as those Fathers declare witnesses were to
5. Martin the first praying the Emperor to vouchsafe to read his letters The Epistle is not of Martin alone but of the whole Roman Synod which hauing condemned the Monothelites sent their decrees to Constans the Emperor desiring and exhorting him for his confirmation in the Catholike fayth to read them attentiuely by his Lawes condemne and publikely declare the Monothelites to be heretikes Can there be a more childish illation then to inferre from hence that Martin acknowledged himselfe subiect to the Emperor If a Prouinciall Synod gathered by the Archbishop of Canterbury should send the like instruction to a Peere of this Realme his spirituall subiect exhorting him to read it would it therfore follow that the Archbishop did acknowledge himselfe subiect to that Peere Who then seeth not your arguing to be trifeling 8. You say (e) Impost pag. 179. serm pag. 5. Adrian the first deuoted himselfe to the Emperor by letters as one in supplication fallen downe prostrate at the soales of his feet O Imposture Adrian writ that Epistle to Constantine and Irene his Mother against the Image-breakers heretikes of that time whose heyres you are And hauing proued effectually out of Scriptures and Fathers the veneration due to sacred Images with all loue as if he were at Constantinople present with them and prostrate at their feet beseecheth and requireth them before God and coniureth them for so are his words which you alter and mangle that renouncing and detesting the craft of those wicked heretikes they would cause the sacred Images to be restored and set vp againe in the Churches of Constantinople and of all Greece to the end they might be receaued into the vnity of the holy Catholike Apostolike and irreprehensible Roman Church But that it may appeare how you abuse your readers and hearers inferring from hence that Adrian acknowledged subiection to the Emperor it is to be obserued that in that very Epistle he often calleth Constantine and Irene His belieued children and exhorteth them by the examples of Constantine the great Helena his Mother and the rest of the Orthodoxe Emperors to exalt honor and reuerence the holy Catholike Apostolike Roman Church as their spirituall Mother from which all Churches haue receaued the documents of Fayth to embrace her doctrine to admit of her censure to loue honor and reuerence the Successor of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles to whom our Sauiour gaue the keyes of heauen with power to bind and loose on earth And as he hauing receaued from Christ the principality of the Apostleship and pastorall charge sate first in the Apostolike See so by commandment from God he left it with all the power and authority that Christ had giuen to him to his Successors for euer and therfore that the sacred Scripture declareth of how great dignity that chiefe See is and how great Veneration is due vnto it from all faithfull throughout the world So Adrian as if he had written purposely to shew your lack of iudgment and honesty that would aduenture to produce his Epistle as a selected Argument against the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome and vent it for such both in your Imposture and againe in your late Sermon before his Maiesty And not vnlike to this is an other obiection you make (f) Impost pag. 179. serm pag. 5. out of an Epistle of Agatho Pope to Constantine in the sixth Councell generall 9. You cull certaine Latin words out of two Epistles of S. Gregory the great and patching them vp into one English sentence adding to them these two adiectiues of your owne Vestris and Vestrae you make him say As for me I performe obedience vnto your commands wherunto I am subiect Both the Epistles out of which you botch vp this sentence are written to Mauritius who though he were a Catholike Emperor yet S. Gregory sticketh not to compare him to Nero and Dioclesian and reprehendeth him sharpely for his tyrannizing ouer the Roman Church the Head of all Churches and seeking to subiect her to his earthly power against the commandment of Christ who committed his Church to S. Peter when he gaue him the keyes of the kingdome of heauen The one of those Epistles he writeth against the arrogancy of Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople styling himselfe Vniuersall Bishop And as he praiseth Mauritius for desiring the peace of the Church to hinder the garboiles of warres and in the procuring therof professeth himselfe ready to obey his commands so he reprehendeth him for not repressing the pride of Iohn wherby not he alone but the peace of the whole Church was disturbed And if in the other he also professed obedience to the same Emperor it was only in temporall affaires and because with humble and submissiue words he sought to worke him to his owne good whom he cold not dissuade nor otherwise hinder from publishing an iniust Law wherby he prohibited soldiers and all such as had bene employed in publike accompts of the Common wealth to become Monkes And therfore in one of the Epistles which you obiect (g) Pag. 179. 234. he declareth to the Emperor that he vsed not his Episcopall authority nor speaketh in the right of the Common wealth but writeth as a priuat person yet adding that he stood greatly astonished at such a Law because it did shut vp the way to heauen vnto many Wherfore he dealt earnestly with him to abrogate the Law or els permit it to be moderated so that it might stand without preiudice to Christian liberty Wherunto the Emperor at length yielded as S. Gregory declareth saying (h) L. 7. ep 11. indict 1. Qua de re Serenissimus Christiantssimus Imperator omnimodò placatur concerning which matter our most Clement and most Christian Emperor is wholly pleased And therfore S. Gregory hauing corrected the Law and reduced it to a reasonable lawfulnesse and temperate moderation to wit that they which had borne offices of charge in the Common wealth and desired to become Monkes should not be receaued vntill they had giuen vp their accompts and obtained publike discharge for the same and that soldiers should not be admitted to Monasticall habit vntill they had ended three yeares of probation in their secular apparell Wherfore though S. Gregory yielded to publish the Law yet withall he shewed his Pastorall power and care in limiting and moderating the Emperors law according to the law of God Which if you had not concealed the futility of your obiection wold haue bene apparent to euery reader But you say (i) Impost pag. 179. Heere wee are arrested by your Cardinall in the name of this Pope Gregory from his Deeree concerning the Monastery of Medardus enioyning that whatsoeuer secular Prince should violate that same Decree should forthwith he depriued of his honor As if this one Act of this only Pope were so authentike and of so suffecient authority in it selfe as to be made a Precedene for euer vnto all Popes of succeeding
the charge of feeding his sheep and lambes (u) Ioan. â—1 15 16. gaue him an vniuersall Pastorall power and iurisdiction ouer his whole flock throughout the world which power and iurisdiction therfore S. Augustine and the whole Councell of Mileuis (x) Apud Aug. ep 92. acknowledge Innocentius Pope to haue from the authority of the holy Scriptures that is by diuine Law from the mouth of Christ himselfe Your sixth obiection is (y) Pag. 208.209 that S. Hierome disagreed from the Roman Church in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine You told vs euen now (z) Pag. 205. that the Church of Rome was then sound in fayth If therfore S. Hierome disagreed from her in matter of necessary and Catholike Doctrine S. Hierome was an heretike for all doctrine contrary to the Catholike fayth is heresy But you regard not what you say of that renowned Doctor if you may make him like to your selfe in disagreeing from the Church of Rome in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine But let vs heare in what he disagreed Because S. Hierome sayth that although formerly all other Churches in the East did account S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall yet it was not receaued as Canonicall in the Latine or Roman Church From whence you tooke these words I know not for no such are to be found in his Epistle to Euagrius out of which you alleage them Part of them I find in his Commentary vpon Isaias and in his Epistle to Dardanus where he saith The Epistle to the Hebrewes is receaued as Canonicall by all the Greeke Churches though the custome of the Latines receaue it not But that the Roman Church receaues it not is an imposterous addition of yours to S. Hieromes text for when he sayth The custome of the Latines receaues it not that by the custome of the Latines he vnderstands not all the Latine or Roman Church he declareth saying (a) Ep. ad Euag. All the Greekes receaue the Epistle to the Hebrewes nonnulli Latinorum and many of the Latines Yea when he infinuateth that some of the Latines receaued it not he speaketh not of the Latines of his time but of some that liued before him as Tertullian S. Cyprian Lactantius Arnobius who in their workes are not found to alleage this Epistle But since the tyme of Lactantius the Latine Fathers haue bene so far from making any doubt that it is Canonicall that Philastrius (b) In Catal. haeres a Latine Father and Bishop of Bressa in Italy more ancient then S. Hierome ranketh them among heretikes that deny it to be Canonicall And in S. Hieromes time Innocentius Pope (c) Eup. ad Exuper and soone after him Gelasius with a Councell of 70. Bishops (d) Decret de lib. sacr Eccles reckon the Epistle to the Hebrewes in the number of Canonicall Scriptures If therfore Gelasius Pope with a Councell of 70. Bishops and Innocentius belieued it to be Canonicall with what forehead do you say that the Roman Church denied it to be Canonicall or how can it be thought that S. Hierome differed in any point of Catholike beliefe from the Church of Rome he that prescribeth to Demetrias (e) Ep. 8. ad Demetriad as a secure way to auoid the snares of heresy that she hold fast the fayth of S. Innocentius Pope And finally how cold he dissent from the Roman Church in this or any other point of necessary and Catholike doctrine he I say that so often commendeth and recommendeth (f) Ep. 6.8.68 the Roman fayth and defineth him to be a Catholike that holds the fayth of the Roman Church (g) Aduers Ruffi l. 1. What followeth of this you know namely that by affirming S. Hierome to disagree from the Roman Church in matter of necessarie and Catholike doctrine you make him an heretike Is not then your Argument a Grand Imposture And no lesse it is that the Councell of Trent hauing defined the bookes of Hester Daniel Baruch Ecclesiasticus Wisdome Iudith Tobias and the two bookes of the Machabies with all their parts as they are in the vulgar edition to be canonicall you (h) Pag. 209. in disproofe therof obiect these words as of Bellarmine S. Hierome sayd of these bookes that they were not within the canon of scriptures for Bellarmine in that place maketh no mention of Hester Daniel Baruch And though he grant S. Hierome to haue bene of opinion that the other bookes mentioned were not canonicall yet why do you conceale his reason which is that S. Hierome was of that opinion because the Church had not then defined the contrary in any generall Councel And how do you proue that S. Hierome in that his opinion disagreed from the Roman Church in matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine since it was no matter of necessary and Catholike doctrine to belieue these bookes to be Canonicall vntill the Church had defined it in a generall Councell as in S. Hieromes time she had not done sauing only of the booke of Iudith which afterwards he receaued vnderstanding that the Councell of Nice had so declared But from hence you take occasion (i) Pag. 302. fin 303. to inueigh against Bellarmine and other our Doctors for imputing to the Councell of Nice a decree wherby they condemne Protestants as sacrilegious persons for not admitting the booke of Iudith into the number of Canonicall scriptures and alleaging S. Hierome as a witnesse to proue that which he neuer spake and for profe of a doctrine which himselfe doth vtterly abandon In this charge you are twice reproueable first for saying that we falsly impute that constitution to the Councell of Nice for that the CouÌ„cell did make such a Constitution S. Hierome witnesseth saying (k) Praefat. in Iudith Librum Iudith Nicena Synodus in numero sanctarum scripturarum legitur computasse The Nicen Councell is read to haue reckoned the booke of Iudith in the number of holy scriptures The same is testified by Rupertus (l) De diuin offic l. 12. c. 25. who repeating S. Hieromes doctrine concerning this booke and almost his words sayth Hoc volumen c. This booke is not canonicall among the Hebrewes but by the authority of the Councell of Nice it is receaued for the instruction of holy Church Secondly you are reproueable in preteÌ„ding that S. Hierome in these words declareth not that booke to be canonicall for being requested to translate it out of the Chaldean tongue in which it was written into Latin he sayth The Iewes reckoned this booke among the hagiographes whose authority is sufficient to decide controuersies And theÌ„ opposing against them the authority of the Nicen Councell he addeth But because the Councell of Nice is read to haue registred this booke in the number of holy scriptures I haue yeilded to your request In these words he plainly she weth the Church to be of a different beliefe from the Iewes touching this booke to receaue
Capella your fellow-Nouellist sayth (q) Pag. 225. The Imperiall Rescript is either forged by some Gnatho of Pope Leo or els forced from the Emperor by the importanity of Leo himself Good God! If the asseueration of a faythlesse man vttered merely vpon splene and hatred to the See Apostolike may be belieued what may not be called in question what though neuer so false may not be desended what neuer so true may not be denied Your answeare that when all is done this Rescript is but a humane Constitution cannot auaile you for Valentinian performing the duty of a godly Emperor made this humane Constitution to defend and mantaine that authority which by diuine institution was giuen to S. Peter and his successors and which witnesse the Councell of Mileuis (r) Aug. Ep. 91. is taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures But you say (s) Pag. 225. Hilary notwithstanding the displeasure of Pope Leo was worthy for singular sanctity to be registred in the Roman Martyrologe of Saints True King Dauid also is a Saint but not for his adultery committed with Bethsabee nor for his murthering of Vrias He is a Saint for his vertuous life before and his great pennance after the committing of those siunes So like wise Hilary is a glorious Saint canonized not for transgressing the limits of his iurisdiction but sayth Baronius (t) Anno 445. for his zeale in the Catholike fayth for his great labors against the Pelagians for his pious liberality to the poore other his excellent vertues and finally because though for a tyme defending as he supposed the right of his See he exceeded the limits of his iurisdiction yet that serued him for a spurre to returne to himselfe with greater courage feruor and humility And I cannot but maruaile at your sharpe sight that in this history can espy any thing to argue in S. Hilary disobedience to the Pope of Rome Was his entrenching vpon the priuiledges of other Bishops done to oppose his authority No. It was as he supposed to defend the rights of his owne Church When he was cōplained of to the Pope did he deny his authority Nay did he not of his owne accord goe to Rome to giue account of his proceedings to him as to his lawfull Superior And when he was conuinced of his error did he shew himselfe refractary Did he not presently returne to Arles desisting from his claime neuer so much as once opening his mouth to make any the least complaint against Leo If therfore a mist of hatred to the See Apostolike had not obscured your eyes you would haue seene that as this history of S. Hilary doth no way infringe but many wayes confirme the authority of the Pope so it doth also shew your inconsideration who to disgrace S. Hilary report his offence but conceale his repentance yea deny it that so he may seeme to haue died impenitent because that fitteth your purpose and suiteth best with your spirit which whether it be good let the reader iudge for what spirit can that be which teacheth you to publish the imperfections of the Saints and deny their vertues CHAP. XXXV Of Titles attributed to the Pope THE Titles giuen to Popes by the ancient Fathers and Councells shew that their vniuersall iurisdiction was belieued acknowledged in the primitiue tymes of the Church Concerning the titles giuen them by Councels you say nothing but what hath bene already answeared One only testimony you adde here (u) Pag. 237. of the Coūcell of Constantinople vnder Menas calling not only the Pope but also Menas Patriarke of Constantinople Oecumenicall Patriarke (x) Act. 5. that is to say Vniuersall True but that Title was neuer giuen to him nor to any other Patriarke of Constantinople in the West but in the East only and that not in regard of any vniuersall iurisdiction which those Patriarkes had equall with the Pope but vnder the Pope and in respect of the Patriarkes of the East only as hath bene proued (y) See aboue Chap. 19. sect 4. And the same appeares out of the seauenth Law of the Code where Iustinian calls Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople Oecumenicall Patriarke and yet in the same Law he calls the Pope Head of all the holy Prelates of God And Constantine Pogonate in the sixt Councell (z) Ep. ad Synod Apost in 6. Syn. Act. 18. intitles the Pope Vniuersall Arch-Pastor and Protothrone of all Patriarkes and the rest of the Patriarkes Synthrones to the Pope The testimony of S. Gregory Nazianzen which here you obiect (a) Pag. 236. as aboue also you had done (b) Pag. 140. is borowed out of Salmeron whose discourse whoeuer pleaseth to read will soone find your dealing to be imposterous and that you curtall Nazianzens words to your owne aduaritage leauing out the later part of them The Titles attributed by ancient Fathers to the Pope you seeke to elude by parallells of equall titles giuen to other Bishops But in vaine 1. For albeit some of the titles which anciently were are still giuen to the Pope if you regard the sound of the words only may haue bene giuen in some occasion to other Bishops yet you proue them not to parallell the Popes titles vnlesse you can shew that they were giuen to any other Bishop in the same sense in which they haue bene alwaies giuen to the Pope Christ said of himselfe (c) Ioan. 9.6 I am the light of the world And the same title he gaue to his Apostles saying to them (d) Math. 5.14 You are the light of the world Againe he is called a Rock (e) 1. Cor. 10.4 the same title he gaue to S. Peter (f) Math. 16.18 Loe here parallells like to yours Behold the same titles in words giuen to Christ and his Apostles But doth this proue that the titles of Rock and Light of the world do equally and in the same sense agree to Christ and his Apostles Do they import the same excellency and dignity in the Apostles that they do in Christ No therfore your disprouing the Popes supremacy by parallelles of titles like in words giuen to the Pope and to other Bishops is mere sophistry for as the titles of Rock and Light of the world if you regard the sense import a far greater dignity in Christ then in his Apostles so like wise though some titles giuen to the Pope and to other Bishops may be equiualent in words yet not in sense for they importe a far greater dignity in the Pope then in any other Bishop The title of Pastor may be giuen to other Bishops and Priests but in a degree far inferior then to the Pope He is called The chiefe Pastor Prince of Pastors Vniuersall Arch-Pastor Pastor of all the sheepe for which Christ shed his bloud Pastor that feeds the flock of Christ committed to him throughout the whole world Pastor of our Lords flock and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church