those monstrous Titles wherewith you slaunder our Doctrine most fitly agree to your owne deliuered in your Grand Imposture But before I come to ioyne issue with you concerning the particulers it will not be amisse to examine briefly in generall whether the ancient Fathers and Doctors of Gods Church whom you acknowledge to haue liued vpon earth in the true fayth and now to be most glorious Saints in heauen were of your beliefe concerning the Roman Church or of ours for they being lights of the world (x) Math. 5.15 whom God hath raised in all ages and placed on the candlesticke of his Church to enlighten our wayes and deliuer vnto vs the true sense and meaning of his holy word that we may not be like children wauering and caried away with euery blast of heretical (y) Ephef 4.14 Doctrine I suppose that as there is no wiseman who will not desire to be rancked among them in the next world and to stand with them at the later day so there is none that will not desire to be in this world a member of the same Church and a professor of the same fayth which brought them to that happines especially knowing as we doe that there is bur one Church in which and one fayth by which meÌ„ may be saued for to thinke that so many men so eminently learned and that vsed so great meanes both of study and prayer to attaine to the knowledge of truth and of the right way to heauen haue all erred not liuing in the true Church which leades to saluation but in an erring Synagogue that leades to euerlasting ruine and damnation is a conceipt that I thinke no Christian and I am sure no prudent man can harbour in his brest which yet he must doe that will credit your Doctrine as the ensuing proofes will declare SECT II. Whether the Roman Church be truly called the Catholike Church and in what sense ALthough the Name of Catholike Church whether we regard the etimology or the most proper and vsuall acception of the word Catholike signify not any particuler Church but the Vniuersall spread ouer the whole world yet with-all it is true that euery particuler Church may in some sense be called Catholike for as euery particuler Orthodoxe man hath the denomination of a Catholike man because he professeth the Catholike fayth and is a member of the Vniuersall Church so for the same reason and in the same sense both the particuler Church of Rome and all others orthodoxall may be called Catholike Churches In this sense the Christians of Smyrna writing to the Churches of Pontus (z) Euseb l. 4. histor c. 14. addresse their Epistle To the Church of God at Philomelium and to all other the holy Catholike Churches throughout the world In the same sense Constantine (a) In Apolog 2. Athaâ—asij the Emperour calleth the Church of Athanasius The Catholike Church of Alexandria by reason of the Catholike fayth which it preserued entire whiles many other Churches of Aegypt were infected with Arianisme And so likewise (b) Cont. ep Fund c 4. S. Augustine with whom agree (c) Epist. 1. Pacianus and Cyrill of Hierusalem (d) Cateches 18. sayth that if a stranger come into a Citty infected with Heresy and enquire for the Catholike Church euen the Heretiks themselues will not direct him to any Church of theirs but to a Church in which Catholikes meete to serue God In this sense as other particuler Churches so also the Roman euen as she is a particuler Church limited to the Dioces of Rome may haue the name of A Catholike Church But when we say No man can be saued that is not a member of the Roman Church we speake not of the Roman Church in this sense for Catholikes of other Dioceses may be saued aswell as of the Roman but by the Roman Church we vnderstand the Vniuersall Church comprehending both that of the Roman Dioces and all other particuler Churches that professe subiection to her follow her Doctrine and imbrace her communion for all these by adherence to her and vnion with her make one mysticall body of Christ and one holy Catholike or vniuersall Church of which she is the Head and the rest members For the better vnderstanding of this we are to consider seuerall dignities vnited in the person of the Bishop of Rome He is Bishop Arch-bishop Patriarke and Pope As he is Bishop his iurisdiction is confined to the Citty of Rome and other townes within her territories of which the Roman Dioces consisteth As he is Archbishop he hath subiect vnto him some few others the chiefest of which is the Bishop of Ostia As he is Patriarke the extent of his authority is ouer all the Westerne or Latin Church And finally as he is Pope that is to say the Successor of S. Peter and the chiefe Vicar or Lieutenant of Christ vpon earth he is the supreme Pastor Gouernor of the whole Church of God which is vniuersally spread ouer the face of the earth wheresoeuer the name of Christ is known which therfore is absolutely and without limitation called the Catholike Church In regard of this transcendent authority of the Bishop of Rome he is rightly stiled Bishop of the Vniuersall or Catholike Church to whom therefore all the members of the Church aswell Pastors as people by the institution of Christ owe subiection and obedience And as he is the head and Father of all Bishops so the particular Church of the Roman Dioces is the head and Mother of all Churches Now that not only the particuler Church of the Roman Dioces but also the whole body of the Catholike or vniuersall Church consisting of the Roman as head and the rest as members is likewise rightly and in a true and proper sense stiled the Roman Church I proue out of S. Augustine saying (e) De percato orig l. 2. c. 17. that against the Pelagians not only the Councels of Bishops and the See Apostolike but also vniuersam Romanam Ecclesiam the whole Roman Church and the Roman Empire were most iustly incensed where by the Roman Church he vnderstands the vniuersall or Catholike Church spread ouer the world as by the Roman Empire he vnderstands the Empire of the Romans spread ouer the world And the same I proue by examples For when we speake of the Iewish people or the Iewish Church we vnderstand not the tribe of Iuda only but all the rest of the tribes that were ioyned therwith S. Iohn Baptist was of the tribe of Leui S. Paul of the tribe of Beniamin and that holy widow Anna mentioned by S. Luke (d) Cap. 2.36 of the tribe of Aser and yet they all are rightly called Iewes parts of the Iewish people and members of the Iewish Church by reason of their adherence to and communion with the principall tribe which was that of Iuda Likewise vnder the name of the Greeke Church are not comprehended the naturall Greeks only for
that presume to bring in nouelties wherby the Churches are fallen into heresy Wherfore O beloued brethren you as Phisitians cure our soules c. So S. Basil freeing the Westerne Churches especially the Roman to which he chiefly writ both from pride and error Wherfore when you obiect (m) Pag. 197. that S. Basil expressing his griefe said The Westerne Bishops neither knew the truth themselues nor would learne it he taxeth them not of error or ignorance in the true fayth as you falsly interpret but that being ignorant of the Asian affaires they were not carefull to vnderstand them from him and other Catholike Bishops that might rightly informe them but gaue to much credit to the lying reportes of heretikes who slandered him falsly as you haue heard SECT V. Whether S. Hilary excommunicated the Pope TO persuade that S. Hilary B. of Poictou so you write him he being not Bishop of Poictou which is a Prouince of France but of Poictiers the chiefe Citty of that prouince held it not necessary to be in the communion of the B. of Rome you say (n) Pag. 199. S. Hilary no sooner vnderstood that Pope Liberius as your Cardinall hath confessed had subscribed to haue communion with the Arian heretikes but he made bold to excommunicate the Pope out of his communion and fellowship saying I anathematize thee O Liberius and thy fellowes And you adde that Hilary had iust cause to do this (o) Pag. 199. sin 200. because it was alwaies lawfull for any Catholike Bishop to excommunicate any hereticall Bishop that is to abandon his fellowship and communion Here you shew great ignorance in the ordinary principles of Diuinity for to excommunicate a Bishop or any other person is not only to abandon his fellowship and communion els euery man yea euery woman may excommunicate her Bishop or any other person whatsoeuer for she may abandon his fellowship and communion denouncing Anathema vnto him There are two kindes of Anathema the one iudiciary that is to say an Ecclesiasticall Censure pronounced by an Ecclesiasticall Superior against them ouer whom he hath lawfull power and iurisdiction wherby he abandoneth their fellowship and communion and commandeth all others to do the like and withall depriueth them of the benefite of the Sacraments and seruice of the Church This Anathema is an Excommunication And this is so certaine that howbeit euery Protestant Minister may at his pleasure abandon the fellowship and communion of any other man and in that sense denounce Anathema vnto him yet neuer any was so absurdly ignorant as to thinke he could excommunicate any one ouer whom he had not Ecclesiasticall power and iurisdiction And who knoweth not that when you excommunicate Catholikes or others you do not only deny them your owne fellowship and communion but by vertue therof forbid all others to haue commerce and communication with them In this sense the Councell of Nice pronounced Anathema against the Arians in these words (p) Socrat. l. â— hist. c. 5. They that say there was a time when the Sonne was not the Catholike Church anathematizeth them that is depriueth them of the vse of the Sacraments and commandeth all men to renounce their fellowship and communion In this sense S. Hilary neither did nor was so ignorant as to thinke he could denounce Anathema to Liberius being not his Superior and therfore neither did nor could excommunicate him Another kind of Anathema there is which is not iudiciary but only executory wherby euery particular person ecclesiastick or laick man or woman protesteth and declareth to hold for Anathema such as are excommunicated by the Church In this sense S. Hilary pronounced Anathema to Liberius for hauing subscribed to the banishment of Athanasius and therby entred into Communion with the Arians The iudiciary Anathema that is the sentence of excommunication had bene pronounced before by the Councells of Nice and Sardica against the Arians in generall into whose communion Liberius was entred There was no need of pronouncing a new sentence of Anathema against him but of applying the sentence of the Councells vnto him by abiuring and abhorring him as one fallen into the sentence which the Councels had pronounced against the Arians And therfore S. Hilary addes to his Anathema these words For my part saying For my part Anathema to thee O Liberius to shew that he spake not with a iudiciary but with an abiuratory Anathema In this sense Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople (q) Ep. â—ad Hormisd anathematized Timothy the parricide surnamed Aelurus whom Felix Pope excommunicated And In the same sense Iustine the Emperor (r) Euagr. l. 5. c. 4. denounced Anathema to all heretikes condemned by the Church who yet being a secular Prince had not power to excommunicate any I conclude therfore that you confound these two Anathema's and because S. Hilary pronounced an abiuratory Anathema against Liberius inferre ignorantly that he excommunicated him But if for arguments sake I should grant that the Anathema pronounced by S. Hilary was indiciary and that he excommunicated Liberius it would make nothing for you against the Pope for when Hilary pronounced this Anathema Liberius was not Pope but fallen from his Papacy and Felix substituted Pope in his place This I haue said not questioning but supposing Liberius his subscription to the condemnation of Athanasius which yet some haue denied (s) See Bellar. l. 4. de Pontif c 9. But be it true it followeth not that he was therfore a formall heretike in his iudgement belieuing the blasphemous doctrine of the Arians but only interpretatiuè for so much as signing with them the condemnation of Athanasius and out wardly communicating with them he gaue to some that iudged of him by his outward actions occasion to thinke he belieued their doctrine And in this sense only it is in which some Catholike writers condemne him of heresy and in no other For the very Arians themselues neuer pretended that Athanasius agreed in fayth with them but condemned him only for other crimes which they had maliciously composed against him wherin though Liberius for a tyme yeilded outwardly to them yet he was euer most constant in the Catholike fayth as you may see testified by antiquity (t) Apud Iodoc Cocci to 1. l. 7. art 11. Lastly I must aduertise you that wheras you often repeate as an article of our fayth that out of the Roman Church there is no saluarion here (u) Pag. 199. and afterwards (x) Pag. 345. againe you say part of that our article is to belieue that in matters of fayth the iudgment of the Pope is infallible This you proue by imposing on Bellarmine your owne fictions His opinion is that the Popes iudgment in matters of fayth is infallible and that the contrary is erroneous and neere to heresy but he is so farre from affirming this his opinion to be anarticle of fayth or the contrary to be hereticall that he directly sayth (y) L. 4.
apud Author cit that he with them all might reioyce in the peace restored to the Church by his meanes And in another to Xistus his successor (g) Apud Euseb l. 5. hist c. 4. he declareth the Popes authority ouer all those Bishops beseeching him to pardon their offence restore them to his communion I writ to Stephen sayth he an Epistle for all those Bishops To conclude you adde another falshood saying (h) Pag. 135. that we grant Stephen Pope to haue excommunicated not only Firmilianus with other Eastern Bishops but also S. Cyprian and you proue it by the testimony of Cassander and hereticall and prohibited Author whome you contrary to your owne knowledge cite as a Catholike writer that so you may haue some colour to call his lies our Confessions as here you doe And indeed what man of common sense can persuade himselfe that the Roman Church would honor S. Cyprian as a glorious Saint and Martyr as she doth if he had died out of her communion and especially if he had contemned her excommunication Lastly I must aduertise you of another absurdity whiles you tell vs (i) Pag. 138. that we should aduise in this case rather with Firmilianus a Bishop liuing in the dayes of S. Cyprian then with S. Augustine who came 150. yeares after for this is to tell vs that we must rather belieue Firmilianus a party and for a tyme guilty both of the heresy of the Quarta decimans of Rebaptization then S. Augustine an Orthodox Doctor and an impartiall witnesse But yet if we aduise with Firmilianus he will condemne you 1. Because he retracted his errors before his death returning to the communion of the Roman Church and witnesse S. Basil (k) De Spir. S. ad Amphil. c. 29. was admitted among the Catholike Bishops in the Councell of Antioch held against Paulus Samosatenus And 2. because in his Epistle to Cyprian he acknowledgeth Stephen to be successor of S. Peter on whom the foundations of the Church were layd And the reason which he yeldeth for his not obeying Stephen is that he must rather obey God then man (l) Extat apud Pamel pag. 198. which is a reason not to be giuen but by one that knowes himselfe bound to obey him that commands if his command be not contrary to the commandment of God as he thought Stephens to be though erroneously as you haue heard CHAP. XXV Other Arguments of Doctor Morton our of S. Cyprian answeared FRom this your mayne Argument of the opposition of Firmilianus and S. Cyprian you passe to other obiections shewing as you say (m) Pag. 134. in tit sect 4. the full opposition of S. Cyprian and other Bishops against Stephen B. of Rome But seeing you acknowledge (n) Pag. 291. alibi the Roman Church to haue bene pure and free from error for the space of 600. yeares and the Popes that liued in S. Cyprians time to be glorious Saints and Martyrs of Christ (o) Pag 172.178.181.287 with what conscience do you make S. Cyprian fully opposite to them and to differ in masters of fayth from them for what els is that but to make S. Cyprian an heretike that so he may seeme to be like to your selfe Now to your obiections of the full opposition of S. Cyprian to Pope Stephen The first is (p) Pag. 134. that S. Cyprian impugned the Popes pretended power of appeales to Rome in proofe wherof you produce ignorantly the examples of Fortunatus and Felicissimus for they appealed not to Pope Stephen but to Cornelius betwene whom and Stephen sate Lucius another Pope Againe the obiection is impertinent for the definitions of Councells confirmed by the Popes and the decrees of the Popes themselues ordeyne that maior causes that is to say of fayth and of Bishops be referred to the See Apostolike but that minor causes that is of the liues manners of Priests and inferior clerkes be finally sentenced ended in their owne prouinces by their Bishops and Metropolitans or by the Councells of their Prouince This is declared by S. Augustine who speaking of Cecilianus B. of Carthage that had bene condemned in Africa by a Councell of 70. Bishops sayth (q) Ep. 162 There was no question then of Priests or Deacons or other Clerkes of the inferior order but of the Colleagues that is so say of Bishops who might reserue their causes intire to the iudgment of the other Colleagues and principally of the Churches Apostolike and therfore that Cecilian might haue contemned the multitude of his enemies conspiring against him for as much as he saw himselfe vnited by communicatory letters with the Roman Church in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike had alwayes florished This sheweth the futility of your obiection For Fortunatus and Felicissimus were not Bishops but simple Priests who hauing bene iudged by their owne Bishops ought not to haue appealed to Rome and therfore Cornelius reiected their appeale and excommunicated them as S. Cyprian declares in that very Epistle which you obiect and returned Felicissimus back into Africa with other his associates sent by Fortunatus for Fortunatus himselfe went not in person to Rome as you mistake but sent Felicissimus with other Schismatikes like himselfe And that S. Cyprian by complaining to Pope Cornelius of these rebellious sugitiâ—â—s did not deny his power of appeales not the subiection of the African Churches to the See of Rome his words in that very Epistle (r) Ep. 55. three lines before to goe no further plainly declare when speaking of these Schismatikes he sayth They presume to saile to the Chaire of Peter and the principall Church from whence sacerdotall Vnity is deriued and to carry betters from schismaticall and prophane persons not hauing in mind that the Romans are they whose fayth was praised by the mouth of the Apostle and to whome vnfaithfulnes can haue no accesse Your second obiection is (s) Pag. 134. that the Councell of Carthage did deny to any whomsoeuer the title of Bishop of Bishops This is an vntruth for the words are not of the Councell but of S. Cyprian who speaketh only of his fellow Bishops of Africa assembled with him in that Councell and to them only he directs his speach wishing them to deliuer their opinion freely without regard to the authority which he as their Primate had ouer them But in what sense soeuer you take the words they are of no force as being vttered in an erroneous Councell which the Church hath condemned which S. Augustine (t) L. 6. de Baptism per tot hath confuted from which S. Cyprian himselfe afterwards disclaymed retracting his error Your third is (u) Pag. 134. that S. Cyprian would not acknowledge the name of Pope per antonomasiam to be proper to the B. of Rome as we teach because at the tyme of his Martyrdome being demanded of the Proconsull Art thou he whom the Christians call their Pope He answeared
and practised the same authority 7. Not vnlike to these are the answeares you giue to S. Athanasius (x) Pag. 254. S. Chrysostome (y) Pag. 255. and Theodoret who being iniustly deposed from their Bishoprickes appealed to to Iulius Innocentius and Leo Popes with manifest acknowledgment of their authority ouer all Bishops and Churches of the world as shall be proued SECT II. Others of Doctour Mortons Answeares to the ancient Fathers examined SOme Easterne Bishops who with great scandall of the Church and perturbation of the people refused to insert the name of Chrysostome into the Dyptikes or tables of publike records were for that cause excommunicated by Innocentius with command that they should not be admitted into the peace and communion of the Roman Church vntill they restored him This though it be an Argument of the supreme power of the B. of Rome you wrest it to a contrary sense Among them that refused to restore the name of Chrysostome were Alexander Patriarke of Antioch and Acacius Bishop of Beroë but these two to the end they might be admitted into the Communion of the Roman Church restored his name and performed what els Innocentius in ioyned them (a) Spond anno 408. n. 11. Of these two you are silent they were not for your purpose But because some others stood out for a time you lay hold on them who vpon due examination will proue as litle to your purpose as the two you conceale Your first example (b) Pag. 258.259 is of Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria who stood out vntill the end of his life But God that would not haue a man so well deseruing of his Church to die in the state of excommunication ordained by his prouidence that the soule of Theophilus could not depart out of his body vntill an Image of S. Chrysostome being brought vnto him he adored it doing pennance for his former error and by that meanes restored himselfe to the peace of the Church This his recantation is reported by Isidorus Diaconus and out of him by S. Iohn Damascen (c) L. 3. de imag prope fin Wherfore your deniall of it is a falsity framed without ground by your selfe out a desire that Theophilus should haue died out of the Communion of the Roman Church as you liue Your second example (d) Pag. 257. is of Atticus Patriarke of Constantinople who being excommunicated for the same cause persisted sometime in his error but at length moued by the example of Theophilus and Maximianus a Bishop of Macedonia making intercession for him (e) Baron anno 408. Innocentius yeilded to absolue him prouided that he would himselfe aske absolution and restore the name of Chrysostome Hereupon Atticus witnesse Theodoret (f) L. 5. hist. c. 34. sent many embassages to Rome to obtaine the communion of Innocentius but could neuer obteine it vntill partly by perswasion of the Emperor and partly fearing a tumult of the people he restored the name of Chrysostome and writ letters to Cyrill B. of Alexandria persuading him to do the like Wherfore Baronius truly sayth (g) Anno 425. that Atticus restored Chrysostome by the command and compulsion of Innocentius and not by the distraction and tumultuosnesse of the people only as you comment for if he feared the tumult of the people it was in regard the people were incensed against him for not restoring Chrysostome as Innocentius had commanded And if as you obiect (h) Pag. 258. he called two Bishops that had died in the communion of the Roman Church Schismatikes he spake in passion seing himselfe excōmunicated by the B. of Rome and knew as you also do that he spake vntruly for if it were thought Schisme to be in the communion of the Roman Church as you say he did why did he so earnestly desire and send so many Embassages to be admitted into her communion Was is to make himselfe a Schismatike Nay was it not to free himselfe from schisme Why do not you imitate him Your third example (i) Pag. 259.260.261 is of Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria who if for a tyme he obeyed not Innocentius in restoring the name of Chrysostome it was because he iudged the command of Innocentius to be against the Canons witnesse his owne words alleaged by your selfe (k) Pag. 259. fin But his iudgment was erroneous and because what he did was out of a pious zeale as he conceaued God reduced him by a miraculous Vision wherin he saw himselfe cast out of the Church by Chrysostome and a troupe of Saints that assisted him therin but that the Blessed Virgin Mary did make intercession for him as one that had defended her honor against Nestorius Cyrill moued with this vision condemning his owne iudgment concerning Chrysostome and calling a Prouinciall Synod restored his name to the sacred records as the other Patriarkes had done To this you make two replies first (l) Pag. 261. you call this A tale of Nicephorus a fabulous Author that liued 800. yeares after Cyrills death But you wrong Nicephorus for he reportes it out of Nicetas that liued almost 500. yeares nearer Cyrills tyme then himselfe and out of other ancient historians Hoc sayth he (m) L. 14. c. 28. in arcana Nicetae Philosophi historia apud alios inueni 2. You reply (n) Pag. 261. that Cyrills restoring Chrysostome cannot any whit serue our turne because he did not simply by submission to the Popes decree but by vertue of a Vision in a dreame Surely you seeme to haue bene in a dreame when you deuised this answeare for there cannot be a greater Argument of the Popes authority then that God by a miraculous vision should notify to Cyril that by reason of his resistance made to the decree of Innocentius he was out of the Church And in how great Veneration did Cyrill hold the B. of Rome he I say that being greatly exasperated against other Bishops for the name of Chrysostome yet neuer let slip from his mouth any the least irreuerent word against Innocentius And who can be ignorant that he firmely belieued the supreme authority of the Roman See when he presided in the Councell of Ephesus as Vicar to Celestine Pope (o) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 1. Without whose order as he durst not depart from the Communion of Nestorius so he executed on his person punctually what Celestine commanded And finally his beliefe was that saluation cannot be had out of the Roman Church (p) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 4. SECT III. Doctor Mortons Answere to the testimony of Acacius examined A Cacius Patriarke of Constantinople writing to Simplicius Pope professed that the care of all Churches belonged to him You answeare (q) Pag. 161. fin 162. The vniuersall care of all Churches was applied to S. Paul in the dayes of Peter and to other Bishop in whom there was no Monarchicall Popedome This satisfieth not for the vniuersall care of all Churches may be of
Nilus Faber Cornelius Agrippa Erasmus Aenaas Siluius Cusanus and Polydore Virgill M. Brierley in the Aduertisement prefixed before his Protestant Apology hath giuen you in particular and by name speciall warning not to obiect them in your future wrytings against vs as being prohibited authors whose testimonies are of no more authority with vs then your owne Grand imposture or then the testimonies of diuers other Protestants whom in the same worke you alleage against vs. This may serue to giue the reader a taste of your manner of wryting in generall which how vnfitting a man of your place yeares and learning it is the ensuing Chapters will better declare CHAP. III. Whether the now Roman Church hath composed a new Creed Num. 8 YOVR first charge is a that the Roman Church in her Councell of Trent (q Pag. 3. by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth set forth for the confirmation of the same Councell hath composed a new Creed cōsisting of more then twenty articles of the now Roman fayth These your words contayne two vntruthes for neither hath the Councell of Trent composed any new Creed nor is there mention of any such Creed or articles in the bull of Pius set forth for the confirmation of that Councell Among other Bulls of his commonly annexed to the Coūcell there is extant a profession of the Catholike fayth to be made by all Ecclesiasticall persons that haue charge of soules and by all Doctors and professors of whatsoeuer Artand faculty of learning in which they oblige themselues by oath to obserue all the decrees of the Councell of Trent and of all other Oecumenicall that haue bene held in the Church of God and to anathematize all heresies condemned by them This profession you are pleased to call a new Roman Creed of more then twenty articles But if that be a Creed which consisteth of Articles you that haue composed and sweare to a new beliefe which your selues call The 39. articles are chargeable with a new Creed of your diuising But that we call the bull of Pius the fourth a Creed or the profession of our fayth contained in it Articles you cannot shew and therfore your tearmyng it a new Creed is a silly conceypt voyd of truth and a fit foundation for a Grand Imposture And no lesse vntruly you charge vs with adding in our Creed to the article of the Catholike Church the word Roman For that article of our Creed I belieue the holy Catholike Church is set downe without any such addition in all our Missals Breuiaries Primers and Catechismes And that which most of all declareth your cauilling is that in this very profession of our fayth set downe in two different bulls of Pius the 4. the Creed vsed by the Roman Church is read without any addition of the word Roman It is true that out of the Symbol of Creed when we explicate which is the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed we say it is the Roman Church which to be true appeareth euidently by the testimonies of antiquity out of which I haue already proued The Catholike Church and the Roman Church to be tearmes conuertible CHAP. IV. Whether the now Roman Church haue added any new articles to the Creed of the Apostles Num. 9 YOV say (a) Pag. 7. It is a doctrine acknowledged in our owne schooles that the Church hath no power to create new articles of fayth yet afterwards you set downe as our doctrine (b) Pag. 383. out of Philiarchus that the Church hath power to create new articles of fayth and that the contrary is one of Luthers Heresies These two propositions of yours I know not well how to saue from contradiction that I leaue to you In the thing it selfe there is neither difficulty nor difference of opinions among Catholikes for if by new articles of fayth you vnderstand doctrines newly reuealed as none but God can be the author of diuine reuelation so none but God can make articles of fayth and in this sense all Catholike Diuines agree But if by articles of fayth you vnderstand not new reuelations but such Verities as are contayned implicitly and virtually in the word of God but not as yet explicitly declared vnto vs so likewise all Catholike Diuines agree that the Church hath power to make articles of fayth that is to explicate and declare vnto vs some verities of fayth which before were not so clearly deliuered nor vniuersally receaued as such So she hath declared the epistle to the Hebrewes and that of S. Iames to be canoicall and as our learned Roffensis hath well (c) Ad articul 18. Lutheri obserued there are many things of which no question was made in the primitiue Church which yet doubts arising against them are now accleared by the diligence of posterity So in the first Councell of Constantinople the holy Ghost was explicitly declared to proceed from the Father and the Sonne So the three Creeds of Nice of Constantinople S. Athanasius adde by way of declaration many Verities which are not expresly but implicitly or virtually contained in the Creed of the Apostles And so likewise neither the celebration of Easter after the manner of the Roman Church nor the validity of Baptisme ministred by heretikes were of necessary beliefe vntill the Councell of Nice had declared them to be such In this sense the Canonicall law (d) Gloss in Extrau d◠Verb. signif tit 14. c. 4. expresseth that the Church hath power to make articles of fayth to wit by confirming and declaring them to the faithfull This power Luther denied to the Church and Pope Leo the X. in his bull against him condemned him for it But you to iustify Luther falsify Leo. Luthers assertion is this (e) Apud Bin. to 4. pag. 654. Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus non esse statuere articùlos fidei imò nec leges morum seu bonorum operum It is certaine that it is no way in the power of the Church or the Pope to appoint articles of fayth nor lawes of manners or good workes You to iustify Luther and traduce the Pope for condemning this his assertion leaue out the later part of Luthers article adde nouos in the middest and omit prorsus setting it downe thus (f) Pag. 383. Certum est ait non esse in manu Ecclesiae statuere nouos asticulos fidei Luther maintaynes as certaine that it is not in the power of the Church to ordayne new articles of fayth You cut of the later part of his article to conceale the impiety of his Doctrine denying the Church all power of making lawes either to reforme abuses or refrayne men from sinne by the practise of good workes And so likewise your leauing out of prorsus and putting in of nouos is to persuade your reader that the Pope condemned Luther for denying the Church power to coyne new articles of fayth that is to broach new reuelations which is an vntruth
wholly on falshood imposture as likewise is your affirming that the Africans from the time of Celestine Pope to Boniface the second were separated from the communion of the Roman Church for setting aside all other Arguments since you cannot deny that she in her Kalendar of Saints placeth many most glorious African Martyrs and Confessors of that time what man euen of common sense can persuade himselfe that she would honor them as Saints if they had died out of her Communion and obedience CHAP. XXIX Of the great Reuerence of ancient Christian Emperors and Kings to the Pope BELLARMINE (f) De officio Principis Christia l. 1. c. 4. 5. proueth that Emperors and Kings owe subiection to Bishops in sprirituall affaires as to their Pastors and especially to the Pope as to the supreme Couernor of the vniuersall Church and Father of all Christians And lest he might seeme by this Doctrine to derogate from the Maiesty of Emperors or Kings or any way to lessen the reuerence due to their persons and dignity he proueth by the vndoubted testimonies of Scripture of S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Gregory and other learned Fathers as also by the acknowledgment of the most godly Christian Emperors and Kings themselues that the Episcopall and Sacerdotall dignity excelleth the Imperial as farre as gold surpasseth lead and the Soule the body that not only Constantine the great but God himselfe honoreth Bishops and Priests with the name of Angells and Gods that the Bishop is the Father the Doctor Pastor aswell of the Prince as of the people and that Christian Princes when they speake of the B. of Rome or write to him expresse their acknowledgment of his supreme dignity by giuing him the title of Holy Father and Most Blessed Father From whence it must follow that as Disciples owe obedience to their Doctor Children to their Father sheepe to their Pastor so Christian Princes in the affaires of their soules owe obedience to their Prelates and Pastors and especially to the Pope who is the Father the Archpastor chiefe Doctor of all Christians Vpon this ground S. Gregory Nazianzen for his profound learning surnamed The Deuine feared not to say to the Emperor (g) Orat. ad ciues suos timo percul Princip irascent Will you heare me with patience to speake my mind freely vnto you which truly you ought to do for so much as the law of Christ hath made you subiect to my power and to my tribunall for we Bishops haue an Empire also and that more perfect then yours vnlesse you will plead that the spirit is inferior to the flesh and heauenly things to earthly But I doubt not but that you will take in good part this my freedome of speach you being a sacred sheepe of my holy flock and a Disciple of the Grand Pastor rightly instructed by the holy Ghost euen from your yong yeares And vpon the same ground it was that holy S. Bernard gaue this admonition to Conradus the Emperor (h) Ep. 183. I haue read Let euery soule he subiect to higher powers and he that resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God Which sentence I greatly desire and by all meanes admonish you to obserue in yelding reuerence to the soueraigne and Apostolike See and to the Vicar of blessed Peter as you will haue it exhibited to you by the whole Empire These learned Fathers did vnderstand right well the honor due to Emperors and Kinges that by reason of their dignity they are to be held in great Veneration and yet neuerthelesse conceaued it no vilifiyng of their Maiesty nor abasing of their Persons to require from them obedience in spirituall affaires to their Bishops and Pastors especially to the Successor of S. Peter the supreme Bishop of Bishops and Pastor of all Pastors This is Bellarmines Doctrine and the summe of his discourse which puts you so farre out of patience that not being able to confute what he hath so solidly proued you begin to raile at the Pope (i) Pag. 160.164 for permitting his feete to be kissed as tasting rankly of Luciferian pride Which though it be no Argument either against the fayth or supremacy of the Pope and Church of Rome but a friuolous cauill no way pertinent to the question in hand hath bene already satisfied to the full (k) Chap. 10. 2. You goe on in the same streame telling vs (l) Pag. 160. that we make a barbarous boast our Popes in not admitting of two Emperors Henry the fourth and Frederick Barbarossa to their presence without aâ—â—â—â—â—â—me kind of subuission the one by appoathing vpon his bare seet the other by subiecting his neck vnto the Popes feet while as the Popes one may brag of more fauor then the first and his asse thou the second So you but your scoffes rebound vpon your owne head and turne to your shame for Henry the fourth a most flagitious Emperor was excommunicated by Gregory the seauenth moued and solicited therto by the many complaints and extreme importunity of all the Princes Ecclesiasticall and secular of Germany Henry seeing himselfe for saken by them all and fearing least they would depriue him of his Empire vnlesse he reconciled himselfe to the Church and procured absolution from the excommunication he had incurred came of his owne accord to the Pope and presented himselfe vnto him in a penitentiall habit and bare-foot crauing absolution which after three dayes instance the Pope granted him hauing inuited him to dinner courteously dismissed him This in briefe is the story related more at large by Baronius (m) Anno 1077. who hauing proued that this pennance was no way extorted by the Pope but freely done by the Emperor conuinceth Ben no that affirmed the contrary of a most impudent lye told reclamantibus omnibus Authoribus against the agreeing consent of all Authors Wherfore you in alleaging Baronius for your author that we make a barbarous boast of the Popes not admitting this Emperor without approaching on his bare feet impose falsly on Baronius as Benno did on the Pope And as litle truth do I find in that your other tale of Fredericus Barbarossa for we are so farre from making any boast therof that we know it to be a mere fable in proofe wherof you bring nothing but the bare testimony of Massonius who whether he report it or no I know not nor is it worth the examining for you know him to be a moderne fabulous and forbidden Author (n) In indice lib. prohib and that this fable of his is disproued by Baronius (o) Anno 1177. n. 86.87 and Bellarmine (p) in Apol. c. 16. out of the testimonies of Roger Houeden an historian of that time Romualdus Archbishop of Salernum who being present and an eye witnesse of all that passed writeth that Frederick falling downe prostrate at the Popes feet the Pope with teares did most courteously lift him vp in his armes But
Church had no true visible Head such as we require because of him it could not be said This is the B. of Rome This obiection you borowed from Baronius (m) Anno 955. who though he acknowledge that the electâ—on of Iohn was void because no true forme was obserued in it yet you passe ouer what he addeth as not being for your purpose namely that the Church afterwards consented to his election wherby the defects that interuened in his former election were supplied and he receaued and reuerenced as true Pope by the whole Church And wheras you say that this Pope was for his life monstrous it hath bene proued (n) Abouâ— Chap. 12. sect 2. that the ill liues of Popes or other Bishops are not Arguments to disproue their authority God is able to teach by Balaams Asse and the Euangelist tells you (o) Ioâ—â— 11.49 that notwithstanding Caiphas was a wicked man yet because he was high Priest he prophesied or rather God by him And our Blessed Sauiour foreseeing that Cauillers would arise hath by S. Augustine (p) Ep. 165. long since answered this your Argument to a wrangling Donatist and in him to you saying If any traitor in those dayes had by surreption crept into that ranck of Bishops which is deduced from S. Peter himselfe euen to Anastasius or Vrbanus who at this present sitteth in that chaire it could worke no preiudice to the Church and to innocent Christians for whom our Lord prouideth saying of wicked Prelates Do yee what they say but what they doe doe it not for they say and do not c. And speaking to Petilianus another Donatist after he had reprehended him for separating himselfe from the Roman Church with sacrilegious fury he addeth (q) Cont. lit Petil. l. 2. c. 51. Why dost thou call the Apostolike See the chaire of pestilence If in respect of the men whom thou thinkest to speake the Law and not to fulfill is did our Lord Iesus Christ for the Pharisees of whom he sayth they say and do not any way wrong the chaire in which they sate Nay did he not commend that chaire of Moyses and reprehend them preseruing entire the honor of the Chaire If you would thinke vpon these things you would not for the men whom you defame blaspheme the Apostolike Chaire with which you do not communicate So S. Augustine to Petilianus and so we to you SECT V. Whether the Roman Church at any time be diuided into many Heads HOw ill aduised you are to obiect either the multitude or the long continuance of Schismes which haue bene in the Roman Church you haue heard (r) See aboue Chap. 7. prope sin Chap. 12. sect 7. But because in time of Schisme when there are two or three that pretend right to the chaire of S. Peter the faithfull cannot certainly know which of them is true Pope you aske (s) Pag. 352. What resolution our Church can haue in such a case adding moreouer (t) Pag. 353. that our article of belieuing this only singular Roman Pope without which fayth none can be saued damneth two of the three parts of our Roman Church at that time Your question is a doubt springing from ignorance and your addition an vntruth To your question S. Antoninus (u) Part. 3 â—is 21. c. 2. seqq hath answeared who treating of the schisme which happened in time of Vrban the sixth against whom the French Cardinalls â—earing his seuerity and flying to Anagnia created a new Pope calling him Clement the seauenth prescribeth this rule that in time of Schisme when two or more at the same time hold themselues to be true Popes it is not necessary for saluation to belieue any one of them determinatly to be the true Pope but disiunctiuely him that hath bene Canonically assumpted And which of them determinatly that is faythfull people are not bound to know but may follow the iudgment of their Prelates and Superiors To which Gerson (x) De modo hab se temp Schism addeth that in this case it is temerarious iniutious and scandalous to hold as excommunicated or out of the state of saluation those that adhere to either part or that carry themselues noutrally and that it is lawfull to communicate with either party and to obey either of those Popes as occasion shall serue while the right of neither is certainely knowne And this he confirmeth by the answere which S. Ambrose gaue to S. Augustine concerning the lawfulnesse of fasting or not fasting on Saturdaies according to the diuersity of times places and persons I conclude therfore that your so often repeating as an article of our fayth that for saluation it is necessary to belieue that this determinat man is true Pope and true Head of the Church if you speake of belieuing it with diuine fayth you confesse the contrary to be held by many of our learned Diuines and that their opinion hath neuer bene censured by the Church But if you speake of belieuing it at least with morall certainty it is granted by all Catholike Diuines when there is but one determinat person whom the whole Church receaueth and obiecteth as her vndoubted Head and as the Vicar of Christ vpon earth But yet neither that is necessary in time of Schisme when of two or three it is doubtfull which is the true Pope for then it is sufficient to belieue him to be true Pope which is Canonically chosen without determining any of them in particular as S. Antoninus and Gerson haue taught instructing you how to carry your selfe in such a case But I feare you haue no desire to learne SECT VI. Whether the Roman Church be doubtfully headed TO proue that the Roman Church is doubtfully headed you alleage (y) Pag. 354.355.356 that after 1600. yeares it is not yet determined whether the supreme Iudge in our Church be the Roman Pope or a Councell collecting from thence that the Roman Church should not take vpon her to determine Controuersies of fayth against Protestants before she haue satisfied Protestants in this one whether Pope or Councell be indeed the supreme Iudge So you as you are wont for you are not ignorant that this diuision is inadequate since beside the Pope alone without a Councell and a Councell alone without the Pope there is a third member which is the Pope together with a Councell whose iudgment in matters of fayth all Catholikes hold to be infallible Nor did any euer defend that a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope can erre either in definitions of fayth or manners This is the sense and meaning of Catholike Doctors when they say The Church cannot erre for by the Church they vnderstand not the Pope alone without a Councell nor a Councell alone without the Pope but both of them together as they make one whole Church consisting of the Pope as Head and of the Councell as the representatiue body therof This is that supreme Iudge which