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
the Muscouits and Russians though they be of a different nation and haue their seruice in a different tongue are yet esteemed and said to be of the Greeke Church because they imbrace her Doctrine and communion And what more vsual to Protestants themselues then to call Catholikes in what parte of the world soeuer they liue Romanists And lastly to coÌ„firme this manner of speach with secular aswell as with Ecclesiasticall examples who knoweth not that according to the phrase of all writers by the name of the Roman Empire is not vnderstood the Citty and territories of Rome only but also whatsoeuer other Prouinces subiect to the Roman Emperors though neuer so distant from Rome And so in like manner when we say that out of the Roman Church there is no hope of saluation by the Roman Church we vnderstand not the particuler Dioces of Rome but all the Churches of the world which make one Catholike or vniuersall Church of which the Roman is head and the rest members subiect to her And because the Bishop of Rome is head of all Bishops the particuler Church of the Roman Dioces is the mother and mistresse of all Churches In regard whereof she may in a sense not improper be called the Catholike Church as in a fleete of Galleys the chief Galley which hath commaund ouer the rest though it be a particuler Galley is called the Generall and in an army of men though the chiefe commaunder be a particuler man and as a Captaine haue a particuler company of his owne yet he is rightly called the Generall And as none can be a Souldier of that fleete of Galleys vnlesse he be in the chief Galley or in some of the rest subordinate to her nor a souldier of that Army vnlesse he be of the Generalls particuler company or of some of the rest subiect to him so none can be a membâ—r of the Catholike Church vnlesse he be of the particuler Church of Rome or of some other subiect to her And from hence it is that albeit euery Orthodoxe Church may be called a Catholike Church and euery Orthodoxe man a Catholike man yet this denomination agreeth to the Bishop and Church of Rome causally and originally and to other men and Câ—urches participatiuely In regard whereof S. Cyprim (*) L. 4. ep 8. â—alleth the Roman Church The roote and Mother of the Catholâ—ke Church and the originall of Sacerdotall vnity from whence also it followeth that as euery particuler person that is in communion with the Church of Rome is rightly styled Catholike so all others that are not of her communion are Schismatiks or Heretikes SECT III. That in the language of Antiquity The Catholike Church and the Roman Church were two names signifying one and the same thing IT hath euer beene the constant beliefe of all Orthodoxe Fathers and people aswell of the primitiue as of the successiue ages since Christ that the Roman Church is the Catholike Church as hath beene declared and that out of her there is no hope of saluation The whole scope of your Grand Imposture is to impugne this truth and the whole drift and subiect of this Apology shall be to maintayne defend the same truth And that the reader may haue some little taste or prelibatioÌ„ of what shal be more largely proued in the ensuing Chapters I haue thought good to set downe in the frontispice of this worke the beliefe of some of the most famous and renowned Fathers of Gods Church not in myne but in their owne cleare expresse and vnanswerable words First therefore Tertullian speaking of Marcion who had presented a great summe of money to the Church of Rome sayth (*) Cont. Marcio l. 4. c. 4. Marcion gaue his money to the Catholike Church which reiected both it and him when he fell into heresy The same appeareth by that ancient learned Bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa S. Cyprian (a) L. 4. ep 2. who expresseth to Antonianus how great ioy he conceaued to vnderstand that forsaking the Nouatians he wholly agreed with the Catholike Church adhering to Cornelius Pope And againe (b) Ibid. You writ sayth he to Antonianus that I would send a copie of your letters to Cornelius to the end he might vnderstand that you communicate with him that is to say with the Catholike Church And speaking to Cornelius himself (c) L. 4. ep 8. and calling the Roman Church The roote and originall of the Catholike Church he sayth It seemed good to vs that letters should be sent to all our Colleagues at Rome that they should firmely imbrace your communion that is to say the vnity and charity of the Catholike Church Hereby it appeares that in S. Cyprians language and beliefe to communicate with the Roman Church and to communicate with the Catholike Church was one and the selfe same thing And the same appeareth by those Africans whome Nouatus had seduced to forsake Cornelius the true Pâ—pe and adhere to Nouatian the Anti-pope for perceauing that by falling from Cornelius they were fallen from the Catholike Church and become Schismatiks they acknowledged their error and made their recantation in these words reported and commended by S. Cyprian (d) Ep. 46. We acknowledge Cornelius to be Bishop of the most holy Catholike Church chosen by Almighty God and our Lord Iesus Christ We confesse our error we haue beene seduced we haue beene circumuented by perfidiousnes captious loquacity for although we did seeme to haue communication with a man Nouatian the Anti-pope that was a Schismatike and an heretike yet our mind was alwayes sincere in the Church for we are not ignorant that there is one God and one Lord Christ whom we haue confessed and one holy Ghost and that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholike Church In these words S. Cyprian as you see together with those his Africans calleth the Bishop of the Roman Church the Bishop of the Catholike Church and pâ—ofesseth that to be diuided from him is to be diuided from the Catholique Church The same appeares by Cornelius himselfe who speaking of Nouatus that had set vp Nouatian an Anti-pope in opposition to him sayth (e) Apud Euseb l. 6. hist c. 35. Nouatus forsooth would haue vs to think that he had forgotten there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholike Church where by the Catholike Church he vnderstands the Roman Church as the head and Mother of all others The same appeares by S. Ambrose (f) De obitu fratris Satyri who reporting how his holy Brother Satyrus in his returne out of Africa being cast by shipwrack on the Island of Sardinia which he knew to be infected with the Schisme of the Luciferians and desiring to communicate with none but Catholikes called for the Bishop of that place and enquired of him whether he agreed with the Catholike Bishops that is sayth S. Ambrose with the Roman Church And S. Augustine hauing alleaged a sentence of S.
suppositorum And so likewise the Church consisteth essentially of the persons that belieue as of matter and of fayth as of forme and by reason of her matter is visible as man is by his body and Christ by his humanity Now wheras to proue that the Church in her essentiall state is inuisible you alleage the whole tenor of the Apostles Creed (n) Pag 11. affirming that the obiect of euery article of that Symbol from beliefe in God vnto beliefe of life euerlasting is vnto vs inuisible and so far as it is belieued is without compasse of sense you speake vntruly and ignorantly for was not the natiuity of Christ visible to corporall eyes did he not visibly suffer in his body when he was whipped crowned with thornes and buffeted Was he not visibly crucified Did he not visibly dye Was he not visibly buried Did he not visibly ascend into heauen the Astpoles beholding (o) Act. 1.9.10.11 him And is he not to come agayne visibly to iudge the quick the dead The example which you alleage of S. Thomas is against your selfe for not only the Diuinity of Christ is the obiect of fayth which S. Thomas belieued but also his humanity and he that belieueth not his humanity aswell as his Diuinity is an heretike To what end I pray you when the Apostles thought that Christ after his resurrection appearing to them was not a man but a Spirit did he shew them his hands and (p) Luc. 24.39.40 syde and bid them feele and see that so they might belieue him not to be a Spirit because said he a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me to haue And to what end did he (q) Ioan. 20.27 bid Thomas put his finger and hand into his wounds but that by feeling them he might belieue the bodie he touched to be the same that he had seene suffer on the Crosse Nor do you bring any thing of moment to disproue this for the definition of fayth which the Apostle giues saying (r) Heb. 11.1 Fayth is an argument of things not appearing is sufficiently verified in these obiectes It sufficeth that fayth be either of things wholly inuisible or els of things visible apprehended vnder inuifible conditions proprieties as those are vnder which we apprehend Christ when we belieue him to be both man and God and those vnder which we apprehend the Scripture when we say it is the word of God or the Church when we belieue her to be the spouse of Christ the house of fayth the temple of God the mansion of the holy Ghost the gate of heauen the treasuresse of spirituall graces And who knoweth not that the Sacrament of baptisme whether we confider the matter which is water or the forme which are words is the obiect of sense and the very essentiall definition of a Sacrament is to be A visible signe of iuuisible (s) Magist in 4. d 1. S. Tho. 3. part q. 60. a 2. 3. corp grace and yet to belieue one Baptisme in remission of sinnes is an article of the Creed expressed in the Councell of Gonstantinople And this discouereth the weaknesse of your argument taken from the predestinat to approue the inuisibility of the Church for though predestination be inuisible as fayth is yet neither the predestinat nor the faithfull are inuisible and therfore if I should grant for argument sake that the Church consisteth of the predestinate only it would not follow that she is inuisible But to proue her inuisibility you (t) Pag. 11. say Diuine Scripture in positine doctrine doth manifest thus much in that speach of Christ to S. Peter Mat 16.19 Vpon this Rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it where the word Church by the iudgment of S. Augustine and the accordance of your owne Doctors doth signify Only the number of predestinat But let vs see how you make good this your charge Our Doctors which you name are Caietan Ferus Stella and Salmeron But Stella in that place neither explicates those words of Christ nor makes any mention of them nor of S. Peter nor of the Church but speakes of particular men prouing out of other words of Christ recorded by S. Luke (u) Luc. 6.47.48.49 that they which haue fayth without good works build their house vpon loose earth which therfore wanting foundation by winds and stormes of tentations is easily ouerthowne wheras they that haue both fayth good works build vpon a firme Rock which is Christ and from thence he inferreth that your Lutheran Brethren teaching that fayth cannot be without good workes build not on Christ the Rock but vpon sand This is Stellas discourse which to be imposterously alleaged by you to proue that the Church consisteth only of predestinat or that she is inuisible no man can deny And no lesse imposterous is your obiection out of Salmeron who speaketh in the same sense that Stella doth is so far from teaching that the Church is inuisible that in the very same disputation which you (x) In 1. Timoth 3. disp 22. q. Porro to 15. obiect he proueth that the house of God which is his Church is visible and conspicuous in her Head or gouernor the Bishop of Rome in her members the faithfull in the word of God which she is commanded to heare in the profession of her fayth which she is commanded to make openly and in her Sacraments wherwith she is sanctified all these being obiects of sense And (y) Tom. 7. tract 6.12.38 â—e furthermore she weth that the church in holy writ is compared to a field that hath wheat and cockle to a floare that hath corne and chaffe to a net that contaynes good and bad fishes to a vine that hath some branches bearing fruit and some that beare none to a body of which some members are liuing and some dead to a fold in which there are both sheep kids to a great house in which there are not only vessels of gold and siluer but also of wood and earth and to the Arke of Noe in which there were liuing creatures both cleane and vncleane And from these parables as also out of other testimonies of holy Scripture he inferreth against your Confession of Augusta as also against the Pelagians the Donatists and all other sectaries that the Catholike Church in this life consisteth both of good bad of predestinate reprobate I know not therfore with what conscience you produce him as a patron of your Doctrine so contrary to his owne Caietan and Ferus I haue not seene but I feare you deale with them as you do with Stella and Salmeron Besides Ferus is a prohibited author Your second obiection is proposed in these (z) Pag. 11. sin 12. words The same may be said of the Church as it is called the flock of Christ Ioh. 10. My sheep heare my voyce where by Sheep are only meant the sanctified
Successor and so much the holy Councels haue declared He that hath the See of Rome sayth the Councell of Nice (b) Can. 39. ex Graecis Arab. is Head and Prince of all Patriarkes for as Peter was so he is the chiefe to whom power is giuen ouer all Christian Princes and all their people as one that is the Vicar of Christour Lord ouer all people and ouer the whole Christian Church And the generall Councell of Lions (c) In Sâ—xt Decret Cap. Vbi periculum calleth the Pope the Vicar of Iesus Christ the Successor of Peter the Gouernor of the Vniuersall Church the guyde of our Lords slock And in the same sense S. Bernard (d) L. 2. de Confid said Peter walking vpon the water like our Lord shewed himselfe to be the only Vicar of Christ that was to gouerne not one nation but all for many waters are many people By this you see that when we call the Pope The Vicar of Christ we take the name of Vicar antonomastice for him that beareth the person and holdeth the place of Christ as vniuersall Pastor and Gouernor of the whole Church In which sense neither Tertullian attributed that name to S. Paul as Genebrard obserueth in that very place in which you cite him for the contrary (e) Chrou l. 3. pag. 479. â—80 nor doth it in that sense agree to any other Bishop but only to S. Peter and his Successors in the See of Rome which Genebrard also testifieth against you in these words Christ hath no Successors because he still liueth but he hath Vicars and Ministers on earth among which Peter and the Bishops of Rome his Successors haue the Soueraignty as all antiquity without exception hath belieued and therfore with great reason we reckon their Succession which is to continue till the worlds end as one of the markes that hold vs in the lap of the Catholike Church S. Ignatius and Eusebius Pope you likewise abuse for although Deacons be in their degree Ministers and Vicars of Christ yet S. Ignatius sayth it not but only commandeth the Trallians to whom he writeth to reuerence them as our Lord Iesus Christ and as guardians of that place and so much his owne words set downe by you (f) Pag. 242. n. 15. in Greeke declare The testimony of Eusebius you falsify He sayth Caput Ecclesiae Christus est Christ is Head of the Church You corruptly translate There is one Head of the Church Christ to signify that there is no one Head thereof vnder Christ as his chiefe Lieutenant and Vicar on earth which is contrary to the Doctrine of Eusebius in the same Epistle both before and after the words which you obiect And to this you add an other corruption for where Eusebius sayth Priests are Vicars of Christ you in your English leaue out the word Priests for the good will you beare to that name and function Whose Vicar may he be thought to be that deales so imposterously But you obiect (h) Pag. 82. S. Paul to auoyd Schismes among the people will not haue them adhere to any one man no more to Cephas that is Peter then to Paul or Apollos wheras your Roman Cephas would haue taught S. Paul a contrary lesson saying that they who adhere vnto Cephas cannot be called Schismatikes as those who hold of Apollos because Cephas was the Rock whereupon the Church was built Answere That Cephas was the ministeriall Rock on which Christ built his Church is a truth asserted by Christ and by all the Orthodoxall writers that haue liued in the Church therfore with great reason they haue pronounced him that separates himselfe from the communion of the Bishop and Church of Rome to be a sinner a Schismatike an Heretike and not to be of Christ but of Antichrist Their words I need not repeate you haue heard them already (i) Chap. 1. sect 4. And tell vs now did those Fathers teach S. Paul a lesson contrary to our Doctrine So you say but misunderstand S. Paul for S. Augustine and S. Gregory expound him to speake these words against them that contemning Christ did not build their fayth vpon him but vpon men as vpon Heads not subordinate to him (k) L. 4. ep 38 or to vse S. Gregories words extra Christum out of Christ. Paul the Apostle sayth S. Augustine (l) Serm. 13. de verb. Dom. knowing himselfe to be chosen and Christ to be contemned said What is Christ diuided was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of Paul In like manner expound S. Anselme and S. Thomas (m) In eum loc saying that the Apostle speaketh against those that made many Christs and many Authors of grace What force then hath this Scripture against vs who hold S. Peter and his Successors to be Vicars of Christ and reuerence and obey them because they are his Vicars so farre we are from contemning him or setting vp another Head different from him as the false Apostles and some of the Corinthians seduced by them did for which the Apostle reprehendeth them You might with more truth haue proued out of these words with S. Chrysostome (n) In hunc locum that Paul acknowledged S. Peter to be his Superiour because he spake ascending by gradation that so he might place Peter aboue himselfe and next to Christ SECT III. Whether S. Paul reckoning the Ecclesiasticall Orders gaue the Pope any place among them IF S. Paul say you (o) Pag. 82. had bene of our sayth to belieue that the Pope of Rome as Successor of S. Peter is the visible Head of the Church whereas he alleageth the Ecclesiasticall orders twice first Apostles then Prophets after Doctors and againe Some Apostles and some Prophets and some Euangelists he should haue alleaged Peter among them and the vnion with the Bishop of Rome as a true note of the Church Syr you may be pleased to take for an answer the fearfull example which Doctor Sanders (p) Vifib Monarch l. 7. pag. 690. related of one Wright a Doctor of law and Archdeacon of Oxford who after the change of Religion in England being loath to loose his place falling one day in a Sermon on these words of S. Paul said Here you find not one word of the Pope Which when he had vttered being presently strucken with a vehement disease as it were suddainly become dumbe he was carried from the pulpit not to dinner as he had intended but to bed where the eight day after he ended his life I feare that this answer howbeit it is from God will not please you S. Damascen will giue you another For with him I desire to know of you who to flatter Secular Princes grant them the chiefest place of gouerment in the Church making them Heads therof where among the Ecclesiasticall Orders reckoned by S. Paul you with all your wisdome can sind any place for secular Princes or Magistrates or any mention
(x) Visib Monarch l. 7. à n. 433. ad 541. addeth much more of the same kind out of S. Gregories owne workes and in his owne words as that the See Apostolike by the authority of God is preferred before all Churches That all Bishops if any fault be found in them are subiect to the See Apostolike That she is the Head of fayth of all the faythfull members That if any of the foure Patriarkes had done against the Popesletters that which was done by the Bishop Salona so great a disobedience could not haue passed without a most grieuous scandall That the See Apostolike is the head of all Churches That the Roman Church by the words which Christ spake to Peter was made the Head of all Churches That no scruple nor doubt ought to be made of the fayth of the See Apostolike that all those things are false which are taught contrary to the Doctrine of the Roman Church That to returne from Schisme to the Catholike Church is to returne to the communion of the Bishop of Rome That he which will not haue S. Peter to whom the keyes of heauen were committed to shut him out from the entrance of lyfe must not in this world be separated from his See That they are peruerse men which refuse to obey the commands of the See Apostolike I conclude therfore with Doctor Sanders that he which readeth all these particulars and more of the same kinde that are to be found in the workes of S. Gregory and yet with a brasen forehead feareth not to interpret that which he writ against the name of Vniuersall Bishop so as if he could not abide that any one Bishop should haue the chiefe seate and supreme gouerment of the whole militant Church that man sayth he seemes to me either to haue cast of all vnderstanding and sense of a man or els to haue put on the obstinat peruersnesse of the Diuell How comes it then to passe that you are not ashamed to vrge here and els where so often in this your grand Imposture S. Gregories refusing the name of vniuersall Bishop as an argument to disproue his authority and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church especially since it hath bene so often and so fully answered by vs But because here you insist so much theron I will for the readers satisfaction briefly declare in what sense Pelagius and S. Gregory refused that title and how to better your argument you abuse and falsify our Authors The title of Vniuersalis Episcopus Vniuersall Bishop may be taken two wayes first for a Bishop that challengeth an vniuersall power ouer all other Bishops clayming to himselfe a right of hearing and determing all Ecclesiasticall causes in his owne and their Diocesses leauing them no other right to exercise any Episcopall iurisdiction power but only such as they shall receaue frō him as his Vicars In this sense S. Gregory conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to stile himselfe Vniuersall Bishop as it appeareth out of his plaine and expresse words in diuers of his Epistles (z) L. 4. ep 32.34 36.38 l. 7. ep 70. to which the margent will direct you And in this sense he calleth the name of vniuersall Bishop A prophane and Antichristian title 2. It may be taken in the same signification with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae so that it signify a Bishop to whom belongeth the gouerment of the vniuersall Church and the determining of all such causes as appertaine to her in generall without taking away or hindering the ordinary power and right of other Bishops and leauing each of them in their seuerall places degrees with full power and authority to iudge and determine all Causes Ecclesiasticall belonging to their Diocesses and within them In this sense the tytle of Vniuersall Bishop is not condemned by S. Gregory as new or prophane or any way vnlawfull but agreeth to the Pope no lesse then the title of Bishop of the vniuersall Church And therfore as S. Gregory (a) Ep. ad omnes Episc stileth himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church so likewise when Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria writing to him (b) L. 4. ep 36. gaue him the title of vniuersall Bishop he acknowledged (c) L. 4. ep 36. that in this sense he might lawfully accept therof and that the Councell of Chalcedon and the following Fathers had giuen it to his predecessors But yet he refused it out of his great humility as also he denied himselfe to be a Priest (d) L. 4. ep 31. and as S. Paul called himselfe the greatest of sinners (e) 1. Tim. 1.15 and thought himselfe vnworthy to be called Apostle (f) 1. Cor. 15. ◠And chiefly lest he might be thought to accept of it in the former sense vnlawfull iniurious to other Bishops in which he conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to vsurpe it And finally that therby he might better represse his insolency This doctrine is deliuered by Baronius and Bellarmine of whom because they declare Vniuersalis Episcopus in this second sense to be all one with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae you say (g) Pag. 94. They would gladly confound these two titles therby to proue their Popes to be proper Monarkes ouer the whole Church because some predecessors of S. Gregory haue bene called Bishops of the vniuersall Church which is their peruerse error refuted by one of their learned Iesuits But you must pardon me if I tell you that this is a shamefull vntruth for Baronius and Bellarmine deliuer the same double acception of Vniuersalis Episcopus which I haue declared and likewise affirme that in one of them it may be attributed to the Pope but not in the other which is not to confound but to distinguish that confusion and mistake may be auoyded And the thing it selfe is euident for if the title of Vniuersalis Episcopus might not be taken in a sense vnlawfull S. Gregory would not haue condemned it in Iohn of Constantinople as a new prophane Antichristian title And againe if it might not be taken in a sense lawfull neither the Councell of Chalcedon nor the following Fathers (h) Apud S. Greg. l. 4. ep 36. would haue giuen it to the Bishops of Rome The former sense is vnlawfull because it taketh away all ordinary power and iurisdiction due to other Bishops in their Diocesses The second is lawfull because it leaueth to them their ordinary power and iurisdiction From whence it followeth that as S. Gregory in this second sense did instile himselfe Episcopum Vniuersalis Ecclesiae (i) Ep. ad omnes Episcop so if Vniuersalis Episcopus be taken in the same sense it is also lawfull and due to the Bishops of Rome and in this sense he taketh it when he sayth that the Councell of Chalcedon and the following Fathers gaue it to his predecessors But the former sense he condemned as prophane and Antichristian reprehended in Iohn of Constantinople And Salmeron for
meanes like a prudent and solicitous Pastor to worke both partes to an accord and establish peace in the Church But finding the Emperor and the Easterne Bishops violent in the prosecution of their decree and that the Bishops of Venice and the regions adioyning as also those of Ireland following his opinion relying on his authority had condemned this Councell of Constantinople and that the Church therby was in danger to be rent in sunder with Schisme and on the other syde considering that the subiect of that Contention was no matter of fayth and neither the one part nor the other any way repugnant to the Councell of Chalcedon as S. Gregory hath noted (y) L. 3. ep 37. but a thing of it selfe indifferent he altered his opinion and yelded to confirme this decree purchasing to himselfe that commendation which S. Augustine (z) Ep. 162. giues to the most famous Gouernors of Gods people both in the old new Testament which is that They tolerate for the good of vnity that which they hate for the loue of equity and imitating the example of S. Leo the great who testifies of himselfe (a) Ep. 14. that for the loue of peace he yelded to confirme the ordination of Maximus B. of Antioch which Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople without any example against the Canons had presumptuously vsurped to himselfe Nor can Vigilius herein be argued of leuity for if he altered his mind he did it vpon iust causes for the auoyding of Schisme and following the example of S. Paul who hauing first giuen his voyce for the abolishing of circumcision (b) Act. 15.11 afterwards vpon iust cause circumcised Timothy (c) Act. 16.3 and yet againe reprehended Peter that by his dissimulation he induced the Gentiles to circumcision and other Iewish ceremonies (d) Gal. 2.11 14. You to proue the no-necessity of subiection to the Pope obiect the standing out of the Easterne Bishops against Vigilius (e) Pag 123. 124. But you might by the like Argument proue that subiects are not bound to obey their Prince because some of them stand out in rebellion against him And as litle to the purpose is your telling vs (f) Pag 123. fin that those Bishops condemned all them that defended the Three Chapters for contrarily we tell you that the Bishops of the West in their Councell at Aquileia condemned all those Bishops and their Councell at Constantinople and had more right to do it then the Easterne Bishops to condemne them for they did it in defence of the Popes authority whose opinion they followed Your vrging (g) Pag. 123. the persecution which Iustinian raised against Vigilius to bring him to confirme the decree of the Easterne Bishops maketh wholly against you for why did both he and the Bishops themselues vrge Vigilius so â—uch to confirme their decree but because they knew that no decree of any Councell can be of force vnlesse it be approued by the See Apostolike (h) See this proued aboue Chap. 17. sect 6. Finally the Popes authority 〈◊〉 effectually proued out of this Councell for as much as by vertue of Vigilius his confirmation it hath obtained the force of a lawfull Councell and deserued the title of the fifth generall wheras without his confirmation it would not haue bene receaued by the Church more then that of Ariminum or the second of Ephesus which the See Apostolike hath reiected And the same is confirmed by Eutichius Patriarke of Constantinople who though he prefided in this Councell yet acknowledged the right of presiding not to belong to himselfe but to Vigilius when inuiting him to the Councell he sayd (i) Ep. ad Vigil in quinta Syn. Collat. 1. Our desire is to haue the Three Chapters examined your Blessednesse presiding ouer vs. SECT IV. Doctor Mortons glosse vpon the Word Obedience TO conclude your discourse of the fifth generall Councell as vntruly ignorantly as you began you say (k) Pag. 124. Idle and vaine is your obiection out of that Synod from one word Obedience which they professed to the Catholike See by not discerning betwene a logicall and a morall obedience for they promised obedience to that See in all her orthodoxe and reasonable perswasions but not to her peremptory commands and conclusions for you may obey S. Augustine by subscribing to his iudgment without submitting to his iurisdiction So you where first you ignorantly make this profession of obedience to the Roman Church to be of the fiâ—â—h generall Councell and alleage Bellarmine for your author who expresly sayth that they are words of the Synod held vnder Menas before the fifth generall Councell 2. Your glosse vpon the word Obedience is idle and false for you wrest it to an improper signification I deny not but that the words of Obedience and Command may be taken improperly as if when your equall or inferior requests you to do a fauor for him or perswades you to your owne good you answeare I will obey your commands vnderstanding by his Commands his requests and persuasions But that the B. of Rome as being gouernor of the vniuersall Church hath true power and authority to Command according to the most first and proper signification of the word and that the greatest Bishops Councels haue acknowledged in themselues obligation to obey in the same sense hath bene already proued (d) Chap. 18. sect 1. False therfore is you glosse that this Councell acknowledged not in themselues obligation to obey the B. of Rome nor in him authority to command but only to persuade You defend an ill cause which vpon no other ground but only to excuse your disobedience to the See Apostolike inforceth you to wrest the words of the Councell to an improper signification And as your glosse vpon the word Obedience is false so is it repugnant euen to common sense for let a generall Councell be called of all the Orthodox Bishops in the world let them condemne an Arius an Eutyches or a Pelagius if your glosse may be allowed any of these heretikes or any other neuer so impious may refuse to submit himselfe and obey their decrees saying He will obey them in all their Orthodoxe and reasonable persuasions but not in their peremptory commands and conclusions and so obey them in nothing at all For what heretike will not say that the decrees of a generall Councell against his heresy are not Orthodoxe and reasonable persuasions but peremptory commands and conclusions Cold this euasion iustify Arius his disobedience or excuse him from heresy No and so neither can your glosse iustify your cause or satisfy any man of iudgment And as your glosse is false so is your dealing imposterous for the words of the Councell truly alleaged by Bellarmine out of whom you cite them are Apostolicam Sedem sequimur obedimus ipsius communicatores communicatores habemus condemnatos ab ipsa nos condemnamus We follow and obey the See Apostolike
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 Pastor of the sheepe not of one City nor of one Countrey but of all the sheep of Christ without any exception or limitation (g) See all this proued aboue Chap. 14. sect In this sense the
Charity only this euery Bishop and euery Christian is bound to haue according to the measure of his ability Or it may be of Iustice and such is the care or charge which euery Bishop hath of his owne Dioces and the Pope of the Vniuersall Church for to him by reason of his office of supreme Pastor belongeth not only a charitable care but the rule gouerment of the vniuersall Church (r) See this proued Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. In this sense Acacius spake when he said (s) Ep. ad Simplic Simplicius Pope had the care of all Churches And the Fathers euermore speake in this sense when they say that to Peter and his Successors in the See of Rome was committed the care of the vniuersal Church In this sense S. Chrysostome said (t) Hom. 87. in Ioan. The care of the whole world was committed to Peter and what he meaneth by Care he explicateth saying (u) Hom. 80. ad pop The gouerment of the Church throughout the whole world was committed to Peter Euthymius (x) Ad c. 21. Ioan. Christ committed to Peter pascendi curam gubernationem the care of feeding and gouerning his flock So Sozomenus (y) L. 3. c. 7. Iulius Pope restored to their seates Athanasius and other Bishops banished by the Arians because the care of all belonged to him by reason of the dignity of his See S. Leo speaking to Anastasius B. of Thessalonica (z) Ep. 84. and making him his Vicar in the East To the end sayth he thou maiest supply the place of my gouerment and help me in that care which by diuine institution I owe to all Churches and in person visit those Prouinces remote from the See Apostolike And to Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople (a) Ep. 46. If they who haue so grieuously offended against Flauianus offer satisfaction let relation therof be made to the See Apostolike that our solicitude may ordayne what is to be obserued S. Gregory (b) L. 4. ep 32. To all that know the Ghospell it is manifest that by the voyce of our Lord the Care and Princedome of the whole Church was committed to Peter Prince of the Apostles And againe (c) L. 7. ep 70. indict 2. By the care of our vndertaken gouerment we are enforced to extend with vigilancy the solicitude of our office S. Bernard (d) Serm. 3. de 7. misericord frag Witnesse Peter to whom the Pastorall care of the whole Church was committed These and a thousand more testimonies conuince that when the ancient Fathers speake of the care of all Churches committed to the B of Rome by Care they vnderstand the Pastorall charge and obligation of ruling and gouerning the Vniuersall Church and therby condemne you of falsity who to the testimony of Victor Vâ—iconsis calling the Roman Church the Head of all Churches answeare (e) Pag. 271. that he calls it not Head of all Churches in power and iurisdiction and that we could neuer proue this out of any ancient Father for you haue heard it proued by their most expresse and vnanswearable words (f) Aboue Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. Yf the fore to expresse this vniuersall authority and iurisdiction of the Pope ouer all Churches they vse somtimes the word Care rather then Gouerment it is because as S. Chrysostome (g) Hom. 3. in Act. speaking of the Pastorall authority of S. Peter ouer the other Apostles hath noted Eminency of spirituall power is a care of subiects not a Lord-like dominion And this sheweth the wrong you do to Costerus (h) Pag. 235. when to disproue the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction you alleage him calling it Care for with what conscience could you possesse your reader that by Care he vnderstands not power and iurisdiction but only a charitable solicitude knowing as you do that in the same Chapter (i) Eâ—chirid Tract de Pont. solut 7. he proueth out of Scripture and Fathers the Pastorall charge of ruling and gouerning the vniuersall Church committed by Christ to S. Peter and his Successors He that readeth this in Costerus and alleageth him for the contrary what can his intention be but to deceaue his readers You (1) Pag. 262. obiect Acacius his deedes full of pride and arrogancy against the Roman Church so that Baronius for his defending Peter Mogg by him established in the Bishopricke of Alexandria against the will of the same Pope Simplicius calleth him a Francirke man violently opposite vnto the Bishop of Rome I answere that Acacius so long as he continued Catholike did both by word and deed acknowledge the supreme authority of the Roman Bishop but it is grosse ignorance in you not to know that afterward he fell to be (2) Euagr. lib. 3. c. 20. Liberatus in Breu. c 18. Niceph. l. 16. c. 17. Spondom An. 484.488 a stiffe mantayner of the Entychian Heretikes namely of Peter Mogg in those dayes the chiefe defender pillar and Patriarke of that damnable Sect for which cause he was excommunicated by the Pope dying obstinate in his sinne his name was blotted out of the Dyptiches euen (3) Spond An. 51â— with the consent of the Bishops of Constantinople his successors wherby we learne this lesson that men so longe as they be Orthodoxe Christians still honor obey the Pope and Roman Church so they are no sooner blasted with the spirit of heresy but they become Frantike opposers therof as your Luther was And wheras to make men belieue that this Acacius was of great authority and esteeme euen in the Latin Church you bid vs remember (4) Pag. 263. that the two Patriarkes Cyrill and Acacius were they that sent the Copies of the Canons of Nice vnto the African Bishops by which our Popes were conuinced of fraude c. We can remember no such matters but wonder how a man so learned as you would be thought could be so childishly mistaken seing Acacius was made Patriarke in the yeare 472. that is fourty eight yeares after the sending of the Nicen CanoÌ„s to the African Bishops the Copies wherof sent by Atticus not by Acacius to haue been imperfect wherein many Canons were wanting we haue already demonstrated As for the decree and sanction of Leo Emperour in behalfe of the Church of Constantinople and Acacius the then Patriarke thereof wherein he termeth the Church of Constantinople the mother of all Christians of the Orthodox Religion whatsoeuer might be the meaning of these wordes in Acacius who moued the Emperour to make that decree his ambitious conceits which Baronius censureth yet according to the mind of the Godly Emperour they import no more then Mother of all Orthodoxe Christians in the Church of Constantinople as is cleere by the text Mother sayth he vnto our Piety and vnto all Orthodoxe Christians and of this Royall Citty the most sacred See You make the Emperor say (5) Pag. 263. the Mother of all Orthodoxall Churches
the Church and confesse how little constant Errour is to it selfe That Innocency from Lust which so many of your Writers affirme impossible to preserue your owne single and I hope incorrupt life hath approued possible for vnlesse you will endanger your selfe to a Censure in the high Commission you must acknowledge flesh and bloud may be kept in order by the spirit But what discouers the bodies of all Churches which oppose the Catholike most misshapen is the diuision among your selues now and euer so apparent that I dare confidently auerre were there a Councell called of all those you reckon yours his Holinesse might suspend his Censure each one of you prepar'd to pronounce the other Heretike And for your Lo. p though reputed most Orthodoxall vnlesse you quit that most reuerend Title which is your honor to make good I suspect you would by the Maior voyce be condemned without the guilt of any other crime though Truth and all Antiquity teach vs that Episcopall dignity hath euer bene most eminent and necessary in the Church and ought to be held in veneration where lawfully conferred not vsurped But I feare I keep no good time when I strike on this harsh string I will not therfore further afflict your eare Let me only intreat and if possible preuaile with your Lo. p to cast vp the accompt of those many yeares you haue numbred heere on earth And if you haue prouided a Marble hereafter to inclose your dust looke not on the flattering Epitaph which betrayes the Reader but listen to the silent sad Oratory in which it pleads to you your condition It tells you that euery path of life how crooked soeuer in mans purposes leads streight to death That all the pompe of wealth and honour for acquisition of which he doubts not often to stake a Soule is but an euening shadow soone to be lost in an euerlasting darknesse That youth doth oftentimes breake promise when it proposeth length of life but that age is frantick if it hope long to hold out against the assault of death It therfore imports your Lo. p who opprest with yeares bow downward to the graue seriously to looke inward turne your sight frō those vanities which haue hitherto bewicht you For pardon me if to pride vanity I ascribe a long continuance in error and that I want credulity to thinke an able Scholler can belieue Vntruth though for the designes of his owne Ambition he obtrude it to the world May your Lop. take courage and gaine an entire Conquest ouer Sense by subscribing to that Church in which only is safty and which your many vnlucky Labors haue slaundered not iniured So signall a Conuersion will add◠ioy and triumph to the Angells and make me who haue bene hitherto your Aduersary not Enemy hereafter Your true Admirer and humble Seruant I. S. TO THE READER GOOD READER The Author of the Grand Imposture in his first Epistle dedicated to his Maiesty sets only forth in generall the heads of that doctrine he afterwards endeauors though vnluckily to make good But Error without apparence of proofe confutes it selfe And it would anticipate the designe of my study if here I should labor thy satisfaction since the whole ensuing Treatise discouers euery of his mistakes in particuler which at the first entrance to his Booke he affirmes in grosse Yet could I wish that only truth should dare to approach the throne of Maiesty and that a conscience guilty of deceipt should not be able to pretend the confidence of the innocent for the falsest doctrine may easily winne beliefe vpon the Laity whom either much busines diuerts from the search of truth or an vnwillingnesse to be disturbed encourageth to follow that easy path they from their infancy haue beaten especially when it appeares in publike asseuered by them who haue their large stipend and high honor only on condition to be sincere in what they teach But howeuer he may flatter himselfe that hs Reader will neuer arriue to patience inough to trauaile beyond his Epistles or that his authority will be sufficient though his proofes are defectiue I hope he will find his comfort to haue betrayd him for the businesse which here we controuert being of value far beyond the whole world beside I meane the soule of man and the Church in which only that can expect safety I doubt not good Reader but thou wilt be so charitable to thy selfe as to reade distinguish and then reiect error how plausible soeuer it may appeare to sense Nor though his reputation may haue gained heretofore much vpon thee wilt thou belieue that Truth is by couenant bound to christen all the abortiues of his Opinion And wheras in his second Epistle directed to all Romish Priests whether Iesuits or others he seemes by a Rhethoricall figure to heare them censuring his charging the Church of Rome with Imposture the bold assumption or rather impudent and impious presumption of an Heretike I cannot but commend the iudgment he instructs them to pronounce for how could the wit of Iustice inuent a more proper or seuerer Or to speake more truly how could Mercy vse a gentler And though in that single word Heretike all Impiety is comprehended yet how can he deserue any other sentence who hath dared to defame thy innocency O thou Immaculate Spouse of our great Redeemer Who hath termed thy doctrine which threw downe the Statues of the Heathens and rooted vp all false worship Idolatrous Sacrilegious Thy doctrine which planted the fayth of Christ with the bloud of Martyrs and tyed vp the common enemy of man Satanicall and Antichristian Thy doctrine which is the only safety of the soule Execrable and Pernicious which teacheth the true adoration of God Blasphemous Impious which neuer varied in the least article from the truth Schismaticall and Hereticall But how farre vnable are these weake calumnies to wound thy strength which hath triumpht ouer all the opposition of heresy and hell Thou art built vpon a Rock of Diamond which yields the brightest lustre when impure slander raifeth the blackest night A Rock which neuer moued since Christ designed it as a foundation for his greatest worke on earth A rock against which her many Aduersaries haue battered with continuall tempests but still ended in froth and noise But all these fowle aspersions might be interpreted the wild expressions of an extrauagant zeale and perhaps challenge that pitty we throw away vpon the franticke Neither can any man be enraged with such infamous language who considers it is that spirit which possest the first professors of this pretended reformation who created a Religion in contempt of iurisdiction And as euery where they derogated from the spirituall so spared they not the temporall where feare of punishment restraind not their tongues to modesty But what euen amazeth my Vnderstanding is that so well practis'd a man in controuersy so iealous of honor and such a pretender to integrity should fall into that deceitfull
and I may say fatall crime of the writers of his Coate false citation and misinterpretation of Authors What iniury hath he done the dead whose soules are blessed in heauen and whose ashes are reuerenced on earth to make them defend a doctrine in opposition to which they emptied euery veine in their most acred bodies What cruelty to the liuing by a pretended obedience to the authority of the primitiue times to inforce them to belieue the errors of the present Doth he hope his Volumes shall fall only into the hands of the ignorant or els of the negligent so far that any doctrine shall posse for currant which his fancy hath bene pleased to coyne Did he intrust others to make scrutiny into Authors for his purpose so aduenture his reputation to the world on an vncertaine and perhaps vnfaythfull euidence Or did he belieue according to the rule of the worst Statesmen any allegation how iniurious soeuer most iust if it serued the aduancement of his designe For certainly he hath giuen the world an example of such a courage that no good Writer will euer follow in daring thus to be disproued by any Reader who hath the benefit of a Library and the patience to compare truth with falshood For without giuing credit to the testimonies I here alleage if any man will search into the Authors themselues he shall find them mangled as that (*) Procrustes apud Plutarch in Theseo Tyrant did his ghests who with most barbarous torment shortned or lengthned their bodies according to the proportion of his bed No man writes short of his sense but is extended on the rack no man beyond but is mutilated without mercy This discouery of his vnhappy practise I wish may beget his conuersion not confusion But should he be so enamoured on his error as not to be remoued by the most forcible Arguments of Truth I hope Reader in thee to reape some fruit of my labor The Almighty in distribution of his benefits will not be directed by humane iudgment Let his diuine wisdome therfore bestow the fruit of my study where on whom he pleaseth for to his glory I must consecrate that with whatsoeuer I am Only Curious Reader I must beg thy pardon that in endeauouring to write busines I haue neglected language which like that musick Poets ascribe to the Syrens hath bene often treacherous to the hearer Elegancy of speach is a gift in which the wicked share equally with the good and the most sacred tongue that euer spake disdained to adulterate truth with any fallacy of an artificiall Phrase The policy of some Republikes hath expeld their Orators as subiects whom the power of eloquence rendred formidable the multitude being easy to receaue any impression through the eare and Oratory being a weapon as sharpe to destroy as defend the State Nor doe I value the cunning of language worthy the industry of the serious It may be of consequence where well directed but truth needs not borrow any ornament of language to make it selfe more amiable That which I aime at is thy satisfaction and that the Church of God which is on earth no other but the Roman may shine vnclouded in the sight of men as it hath euer bene most pure in the eye of God And that all mankind whom error hath misled may re-vnite themselues into her fayth guided by which the innocent can only hope for perseurance to glory and the repentant a way to mercy An Addition COurteous Reader I had almost forgotten to aduertise thee that wheras Doctor Morton hath made two Editions of his Grand Imposture the Edition which I shall cite in this Apology is the second reuised and supplied and printed at London by George Miller for Robert Milbourne 1628. A table of the Chapters and Sections of this Booke CHAP. I. GEnerall principles premised for the better vnderstanding of this Apology Pag. 1. The importance of the subiect Sect. 1. ib. Whether the Roman Church be truly called the Catholike Church and in what sense Sect. 2. pag. 4. That in the language of antiquity the Catholike Church and the Roman Church were two names signifying one and the same thing Sect. 3. pag. 7. That whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church is out of the state of saluation Sect. 4. pag. 13. CHAP. II. Of Doctor Mortons manner of alleaging Authors in generall pag. 27. CHAP. III. Whether the now Roman Church hath composed a new Creed pag. 36. CHAP. IV. Whether the now Roman Church haue added any new Articles to the Creed of the Apostles pag. 38. CHAP. V. That the word Roman is no deprauation but a true declaration of the article of the Catholike Church pag. 40. Doctor Mortons first Argument against the precedent doctrine answeared Sect. 1. ibid. His second Argument answeared Sect. 2. pag. 43. His third Argument answeared Sect. 3. pag. 52. His fourth Argument answeared Sect. 4. pag. 54. His fifth Argument answeared Sect. 5. pag. 56. His sixth Argument answeared Sect. 6. pag. 58. His seauenth Argument answeared Sect. 7. pag. 59. His eight Argument answeared Sect 8. pag. 60. CHAP. VI. That the Roman Church is the Head and mother of all Churches pag. 61. CHAP. VII S. Peters primacy defended pag. 72. CHAP. VIII Abuses and wronges offered by Doctor Morton to the ancient Fathers and other Catholike writers pag. 81. CHAP. IX S. Peter exercised his authority and iurisdiction of supreme Pastor and Gouernor ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church pag. 88. CHAP. X. Doctor Mortons Arguments against the former doctrine answeared pag. 93. CHAP. XI Sleights and falsifications of Doctor Morton to shift of the testimonies of ancient Fathers teaching S. Peters supremacy pag. 107. CHAP. XII The authority of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth proued to be infallible pag. 117. Our first Argument Sect. 1. pag. ibid. Our second Argument Sect. 2.125 S. Pauls subiection to S. Peter and his acknowledgment therof Sect. 3. pag. 132. Other Arguments of Doctor Morton answeared Sect. 4. pag. 140. Priuiledges granted to other of the Apostles and not to S. Peter obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 5. pag. 143. What estimation S. Paul had of the Roman Church Sect. 6. pag. 152. Why S. Paul did not entitle his Epistles Catholike Epistles Sect. 7. pag. 159. Other Arguments out of S. Paul and other Catholike Authors answeared Sect. 8 pag. 162. CHAP. XIII Whether S. Iohn the Euangelist conceaued himselfe subiect to the Roman Church pag. 166. Whether Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist Sect. 1. ibid. Whether S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter were subiect to the B. of Rome S. Peters Successor Sect. 2. pag. 173. CHAP. XIV Why the Epistles of S. Iames Iohn and Iude are intituled Catholike Epistles pag. 177. Of the name Catholike Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the title of Vicar of Christ belong to the Pope and in what sense Sect. 2. pag. 180. Whether S. Paul reckoning the Ecclesiasticall orders gaue the Pope any place among
Doctor Mortons late Sermon preached in the Cathedrall Church of Durham answeared pag. 495. The sense of S. Pauls words which Doctor Morton tooke for his text declared Sect. 1. pag. 496. Ancient Popes obiected and falfified by Doctor Morton Sect. 2 pag. 501. Other Fathers and Catholike authors obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 3. pag. 507. Doctor Morton slaundereth Vrban Pope and with him all Catholikes Sect. 4. pag. 510. Doctor Morton obiecteth the Bull of Maundy-thursday Sect. 5. pag. 512. Other slanderous accusations of Doctor Morton answeared Sect. 6. pag. 514. The same matter prosecuted Sect. 7. pag. 517. CHAP. XXXIV Doctor Mortons doctrine condemneth the Saints and Martyrs of God pag. 522. S. Policarpe obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 1. ibid. S. Cyprian obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 2. pag. 523. S. Athanasius obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 3. pag. 525. S. Basils beliefe of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome proued and Doctor Mortons obiections answeared Sect. 4. pag. 528. Whether S. Hilary excommunicated the Pope Sect. 5. p. 533. S. Hieroms iudgment concerning the necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof Sect. 6. pag. 536. S. Ambrose his iudgment concerning the necessity of Vnion and subiection to the Bishop and Church of Rome Sect. 7. pag. 545. S. Augustines iudgment concerning the necessity of Vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof Sect. 8 pag. 552. S. Hilary B. of Aries acknowledged himselfe subiect to the B. of Rome Sect. 9. pag. 558. CHAP. XXXV Of titles attributed to the Pope p. 561. CHAP. XXXVI The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of ancient Fathers discouered pa. 571. Some of his answeares examined Sect. 1. ibid. Others of Doctor Mortons answeares to the Ancient Fathers examined Sect. 2. pag. 574 Doctor Mortons answeare to the testimony of Acacius examined Sect. 3. pag. 577. Doctor Mortons answeare to Vincentius Lyrinensis confuted Sect. 4. pag. 581. Doctor Morton in his answeare to Optatus contradicteth himselfe Sect. 5. pag. 582. Other vntruthes of Doctor Morton discouered his cauilling against the title of Holinesse giuen to the Pope Sect. 6. pag. 583. CHAP. XXXVII Of the authority of the Epistles of ancient Popes pag. 587. Of the Epistles of Popes liuing within the first 300. yeares after Christ Sect. 1. pag. 588. The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of Popes that liued in the second 300. yeares after Christ Sect. 2. pag. 592. CHAP. XXXVIII The vniuersall iurisdiction of the B. of Rome proued by the exercise of his authority ouer other Bishops pag. 600. The Popes vniuersall authority proued by the institution confirmation of Bishops And of the vse and signification of the Pall or mantle granted to Archbishops Sect. 1. p. 601. A shift of Doctor Morton reiected Sect. 2. pag. 604. The Popes power of instituting and confirming Bishops proued by examples Sect. 3 pag. 605. The Popes power of deposing Bishops without a Councell proued by examples Sect. 4. pag. 608. The Popes power of restoring Bishops without a Councell Sect. 5. pag. 611. Doctor Morton to Crosse the Popes authority in restoring Bishops deposed takes part with the Arians and iustifies their impious proceedings against S. Athanasius other Catholike Bishops Sect. 6. pag. 612. Other passages of Doctor Morton examined Sect. 7. pa. 618. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning excommunication And of Heretikes excommunicating the Pope Sect. 8. p. 621. Adrian and Nicolas Popes obiected by Doctor Morton Sect. 9. pag. 623. Of the deposition of Flauianns Patriarke of Antioch Sect. 10. pag. 624. Doctor Morton in defence of his doctrine chargeth ancient Bishops which exercising Acts of authority out of the limits of their owne iurisdiction Sect. 11. pag. 631. CHAP. XXXIX Of Appeales to Rome decreed in the Councell of Sardica pag. 635. Whether the Councell of Sardica were a generall Councell Sect. 1. ibid. Other obiections of Doctor Morton against Appeales to Rome answeared Sect. 2. pag. 637. Examples of innocent Appellants Sect. 3. pag. 638. Doctor Mortons ignorance concerning the antiquity of appealing to Rome from remote nations Sect. 4. pag. 639. That S. Athanasius appealed to Iulius Pope and Theodoret to Leo as to absolute Iudges and that by their authority both of them were restored to their Churches Sect. 5. p. 641. That S. Chrysoftome appealed to Innocentius Pope as to an absolute Iudge and by his authority was restored to his Church of Constantinople Sect. 6. pag. 643. That Flauianus appealed to Leo Pope as to an absolute Iudge Sect. 7. pag. 648. Of Nilus equalling the B. of Constantinople with the Pope in his right of Appeales Sect. 8. pag. 650. The rest of Doctor Mortons Arguments against Appeales to Rome Sect. 9. pag. 653. CHAP. XL. Whether the Easterne Churches be at this day accordant in Communion with Protestants pag. 654. The state of the question Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Grecians of the primitiue and successiue times agreed in Fayth and Communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome and particularly at the Councell of Florence Sect. 2. pag. 655. That many of the Grecians at this day are of the Roman Communion and professe subiection to the B. of Rome Sect. 3. pag. 662. Of the Aegyptians Sect. 4. pag. 663. Of the Aethiopians Sect. 5. pag. 664. Of the Armenians Sect. 6. pag. 665. Of the Russians Sect. 7. pag. 666. Of the Aslyrians Sect. 8. ibid. Of the Antiochians Sect. 9 pag. 668. Of the Africans Sect. 10 pag. 669. Of the Asians Sect. 11. ibid. CHAP. XXXXI That in the forenamed countries there are no Christians that agree in fayth Communion with Protestants pag. 669. The Grecians which are not of the Roman communion are absolute Heretikes And Doctor Morton falsifieth Catholike Authors to excuse them Sect. 1. pag. 670. Of the Lutherans of Germany writing to Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople to be admitted into the communion of the Greeke Church and his answeare to them Sect. 2. pag. 674. A particular instance of Ignatius Patriarke of Constantinople produced by Doctor Morton to proue that he dissented from the Roman Church examined Sect. 3. pag. 678. The Aegyptians Aethiopians Armenians Russians Melchites Africans and Asians which call themselues Christians and be not of the Roman communion are absolute Heretikes Sect. 4. pag. 679. CHAP. XXXXII. Doctor Mortons plea for his Protestant Church pag. 683. The small extent of the Protestant Church proueth her not to be the Catholike Church Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Protestant Church be free from error in doctrine Sect. 2. pag. 686. Doctor Mortons pretended purity of manners in his Protestant Church ect 3. pag. 687. That Protestants by Schisme haue diuided themselues from the Catholike Church Sect. 4. pag. 688. CHAP. XXXXIII Of the Head of the Roman Church compared to the body therof pag. 691. Whether it be matter of fayth that the Pope is aboue a Councell Sect. 1. ibid. Whether it be matter of fayth that this
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
Elect of God as the testimonies of your owne Iesuites the iudgment of S. Augustine and S. Chrysostome do confirme This then is your argument Suarez Tolet and Bellarmine for those are the Iesuites you name S. Chrysostome S. Augustine by sheep in the words of Christ obiected vnderstand only the sanctified Elect of God Ergo the Church consisteth only of predestinat An absurd consequence and falsly fathered on these authors who teach that the name of sheep in holy writ is taken sometimes for the elect and sometymes for the reprobate In this text of S. Iohn which you obiect it is taken for the elect for Christ speakes of those sheep to whom he will giue euerlasting life and which therfore no man shall pluck out of his (a) Ioan. 10.28 hand as Suarez rightly (b) L. 3. de auxil grat c. 16. â—â— 18 obserueth but other sheep there are which the infernall wolfe shall deuour such was Iudas and such are all reprobate Christians And if it were true that by sheep in Scripture were vnderstood the elect only yet your consequence is false and the Doctrine contained in it hereticall and such it is held to be by those very authors which you alleage to patronize it Suarez sheweth (*) De tripl virt Theol. part 1. disp 9. 〈◊〉 6. seqq that the Church is a fold contayning both sheep and kids that is both predestinate and reprobate as Christ himselfe hath (c) Math. 25.33 declared And treating there of the sense of this very place of S. Iohn he prooueth that some wolues are in the Church and some sheep out of the Church this I say he proueth out of the words of S. Augustine whom you alleage for the contrary saying (d) Tract 45. in Ioan. According to prescience and predestination how many sheep are without and how many wolues within how many liue wantonly now that will become Christians how many blaspheme Christ who shall belieue in Christ c. And how many prayse God within who will blaspheme him are chast and will become wantons stand now and will fall And he concludeth that these later notwithstanding they be actually in the Church are reprobat and the former though they be actually out of the Church are predestinate All this and much more to the same effect is alleaged by Bellarmine (e) L. 3. de Eocles c. 7. 9. out of Scriptures and Fathers And the same is deliuered by Tolet in that very place which you cite for the (f) Ad c. 10. Ioan. Aunotat 16. contrary for he sayth that as some who did not as yet belieue were sheep and elect so contrarily some that did actually belieue and were sheep were notwithstanding reprobats as Iudas And lastly S. Chrysostome is so far from holding with you that the Church containes only the sanctified Elect of God that he writeth (g) In Psal 39. thus The whole Church consisteth not of perfect men but hath also those that giue themselues to idlenesse and slouth that lead easy and dissolute liues and willingly serue their pleasures And that in the net of the Apostles which is the Church are contayned good and bad (h) Hom. 45. in cap. 12. Math. fishes Which Doctrine he like wise deliuereth in other places of his workes I conclude therfore that you haue wronged Suarez Tolet Bellarmine S. Augustine and Chrysostome fathering your false Doctrine on them But you proceed (i) Pag. 12. saying A third Scripture we find Rom. 1.9 where the Apostle sayth He that hath not the spirit of Christ the same is not his which sheweth that none is truly a Christian but as he is regenerated by the spirit of Christ. But we find this Scripture to make nothing at all for you for you for who euer is regenerated in the Sacrament of Baptisme receiueth some gifts of the holy Ghost which is the Spirit of Christ And as he is truly a man that is borne of Adam by naturall propagation so is he truly a Christian that is borne of Christ in Baptisme by spirituall regeneration for as therby he receaueth fayth so he is inrolled in the number of Christians and made a member of the mysticall body of Christ which is his Church True it is that all members of the Church are not alike those that with fayth haue sanctifiing grace which is the life of our soules are liuing members they that haue fayth without grace are according to diuers opinions tearmed diuersly some say they are dead members some that because they are dead they are not members properly but improperly or equiuocally and therfore rather to be called partes of the Church then members Others say that they are neither members nor partes but as superfluous or corrupt humors in the body of man These opinions though they differ in words yet they agree in this that fayth being the essentiall forme of the Church all the faythfull be they Saints or sinners predestinat or reprobat are contained in the precincts therof euen as all whether members parts or humors of man are contained in the body of man And as for this different manner of speach Turrecremata Canus and others cited by them and here alleaged by you out of Bellarmine for out of him you tooke them call sinners partes of the Church and not members but only equiuocally because as Suarez rightly (*) De trip virtute Theol. p. 1. d. 9. n. 12. obserueth by members they vnderstand only such partes as liue wheras the name of partes may also agree to those that liue not Wherfore they differ only in the names vnderstanding by partes the very same that the holy Councell of Trent and other Diuines do by members And doubtlesse this manner of speach vsed by the Councell is more proper because sinners hauing fayth hope are not voyd of all motion of spirituall life for as fayth is the beginning of iustification so it vniteth the belieuer in some sort vnto Christ Nor doth Costerus whom here you obiect differ from this opinion for that he denyes not sinners to be dead partes or members of the Church he declareth (k) Enchir iâ— contro 6.2 prope fin when speaking of the Bishops of Sardis and Laodicea that were reprehended the one that he was dead in Spirit the other that he was nether cold nor boat but luke-warme wretched miserable poore blind and naked he affirmeth that notwithstanding this they were both still acknowledged to be Bishops and heads of their Churches And a litle after where he sayth (l) Solut. ad obiect Haerâ—t that sinners are in the Church as humors in the body he sayth withall that they are as wythered bowes on the tree Wherfore vnlesse you will haue the Head to be no member of the body and the wythered bowes no partes of the tree you must consesse that your obiecting of Costerus to proue that sinners and reprobates are no partes of the Church is a grand Imposture And
here by the way I must aduertise you of a sleight which you often vse and it is that when in the explication of any point of Doctrine you finde diuersity of opinions among Catholike Diuines some speaking more probably or properly and others lesse you conceale the former and set downe the latter as here you do calling it the accordance of our owne Doctors and from thence frame arguments against vs as from a ground which we are not to deny But who seeth not this manner of arguing to be fraududulent For by denying that opinion or manner of speech as any Catholike may do such arguments need no solutions but of themselues fall to the ground For example I may refuse to allow the opinioÌ„ of those Diuines which say sinners are not members but partes of the Church I may also reiect Costerus his manner of speach tearming them superfluous humors and therby it will appeare that your obiecting these authors to proue that sinners are not members of the Church is an argument of no force especially since they differ not from other Diuines which hould wicked men and reprobats to be members of the Church really but only in manner of speach as hath bene shewed To the testimonies of Scripture you adde (m) Pag. 1â— some Fathers who so expresly condeÌ„ne your doctrine that no man but your selfe could be so inconsiderate as to make them patrons of it S. Ambrose teacheth and proueth out of S. Paul (n) 1. Tim. 2.20 that as in a great house there are some vessels of siluer and gold and some of wood and earth so in the Church there are some good and perfect signified by the siluer and gold and some bad and reprobate signified by the vessels of wood and earth And of this truth saith he I thinke no man to doubt The same Doctrine he like wise expresseth in other his workes S. Augustine whom in the second place you obiect condemneth your Doctrine in these words (o) Tract 6. in Ioan. We confesse that in the Catholike Church there are both good and bad the good are corne the bad chaffe The Church hath in her strong men and weake she hath iust and iniust (p) Serm. 107. de temp In the Church there are many reprobates mingled with the good and both of them are gathered as into a net and swimme together in this world without difference vntill they come to the shore where the euill shall be seuered from (q) De Ciuit. Deil. 18 c. 49. the good With S. Augustine accordeth S. Bernard prouing out of the same parable of the Net contayning good and bad fishes that in the Church militant there are iust men and sinners elect and (r) Serm de conuers ad cleriâ—os c. 17. eoist 11. reprobate S. Gregory sayth (s) Hom. 11. in Euangel That the holy Church on earth is rightly compared to ten Virgins of which some are wise and some foolish because in her the good are mingled with the wicked the elect with the reprobate These testimonies conuince that wheras you here confesse (t) Pag. 13. your Doctrine in this poynt to be one of the Tenents for which Iohn Husse was burned in the Councell of Constance you by making the Fathers guilty of the same Tenet do what you can to cast them into the same fier with him that so they may be burnt for heresy as he was The accusations you being against them to proue them guilty of Iohn Husse his heresy are First because S. Ambroses words say you are (u) Pag. 12. All that are in the Church fight for Christ intimating that the wicked fight against Christ. Why do you wrest S. Ambroses words to a false sense his words are Omnes qui sunt in Ecclesia Deo militant which signify nothing els but that all which are in the Church are Gods soldiars and fight vnder his colours But all that fight vnder Gods colours fight not as good soldiars many suffer themselues to be ouercome and lose that crowne which no man shall gaine but he that ouercometh These are the reprobats of whom it is true that albeit for the present many of them be in gods campe which is his Church yet before their death they shall runne away as Iudas did and be damned with him Out of S. Augustins worke de Genesi ad literam c. 2. you obiect these words (x) Pag. 12. The Catholike Church is so called because it is in euery part perfect But S. Augustine in that place hath no such words And you are very forgetfull for a litle before you told (y) Pag. 9. vs out of S. Augustine that to hold the Catholike Church here vpon earth to consist of them that are perfect was the heresy of the Pelagians And yet now speaking of the same Church you set downe as S. Augustins words that the Catholike Church is so called because it is in euery part perfect which is to make S. Augustine say and vnsay as you doe but the truth is that these later words are not his but yours and so the contradiction must rest vpon you not vpon him In like manner you say (z) Pag. 12. that the Church of Christ consisteth only of the predestinate and sanctified elect of God But els where you tell vs (a) Pag 340. that the Aegyptians Aethiopians Armenians Russians and others among whom there are some guilty of some fundament all heresies are partes of the Catholike Church and in state of saluation And againe both in this Grand Imposture (b) Pag. 330. and in your Treatise of the kingdome of Israel in the Tract of the Church (c) Sect. 4. pag. 8. your Tenet is that those who professe Iesus Christ to be the Sauiour of the world although they do indirectly by wickednesse of life or heresy in doctrine deny their owne profession yet are they to be accounted Christians true members of the Church consist only of the predestinate and sanctified elect of God how can it be verified that heretikes are true members of the Catholike Church since it is the constant Doctrine of S. Augustine and all the fathers that heretikes are wholy out of the Church and neither sanctified nor predestinate but miscreant reprobates and out of the state of saluation Your doctrine therfore is that the Church consisteth of the sanctified and predestinate only and yet withall that it consisteth also of Arians and other heretikes who are damnable reprobates Reconcile these two Againe you Protestants esteeme your selues to be all true members of the Church yet among you there are some drunkards adulterers vsurers and theeues If therfore you be all in the number of the sanctified and elect of God some of you be strange Saints But to returne to your obiections out of S. Augustine the other two testimonies which you (e) Pag. 12. lit 0. bring are nothing to your purpose for he only sayth that the predestinate cannot be seduded nor diuided
from the Church which is true for before the end of their life they shall become members of Gods Church and perseuere in her vntill death But how proues this that none but predestinate are in the Church Nor doth it import that he giues to the predestinate the name of Church for that name sometimes doth not signify the vniuersall Church but a particular company of the faythfull as when we say The Church of the Corinthians or of the Ephesians and when S. Paul (f) Rom. 16.3 sayth Salute Prisca and Aquila and their domesticall Church And (g) 1. Cor. 16.19 againe Aquila and Prisca with their domesticall Church salute you In the same sense the name of Church is taken by Clemens Alexandrinus S. Gregory and S. Bernard whom heere you (h) Pag. 12. obiect for they all giue that name to the iust and predestinate by reason they are the principall partes of the Church SECT III. Your third Argument YOv (i) Pag. 16. say Though all agree in this as your selues confesse that without the Catholike Church there is no saluation yet haue you confessed two sorts of Christian professors namely Excommunicates and Catechumenists to be actually saued albeit no members of your Roman Church So you inferring that the Roman Church is not the Catholike Church Syr you know that Bellarmine whom here you cite expresly (k) L. 3 de Eccles milit c. 6. declareth that when we say none can be saued out of the Church we speake only of such as neither are in the Church really nor intentionally by desire but that if they be in the Catholike Church either really or at least by desire as Catechumenists and some Excommunicats are they may be saued Which Doctrine both he other Catholike Diuines approue And it is so certaine that you know not how to disproue it but by (l) Pag. 16. that as for being saued only by desire or vow of being in the Church is but a wild and extrauagant peece of learning in the iudgment of your owne Iesuit Suarez Pardon me Syr. This is not Suarez his censure but an vntruth of yours for Suarez speaking of excommunicats (m) De trio virt d. 9. sect 1. n. 14. sayth that those Diuines which hold them not to be in the Church really but only by desire differ not from him in the substance of their Doctrine but only in manner of speech Now he defends that both excommunicats Catechumenists are in the Church actually and really which also Valentia holdeth of (n) Tom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. punct 7. §. 14. 15. excommunicats on whom therfore you (o) Pag. 15. marg lit d. saying that the Church Catholike is compared by S. Peter to the Arke of Noah from whence you inferre that as in the tyme of the deluge all which were within the arke were saued and all without it were drowned although they desired neuer so much to be admitted into the arke so whosoeuer are essentiall members of the Catholike Church cannot possibly perish and contrarily whosoeuer is not a reall and vitall member therin cannot but perish So you reason the matter misvnderstanding S. Peter for he compares not the Arke of Noe to the Church but to the Sacrament of Baptisme wherin your argument holdeth not for though in the deluge none were saued but only they which actually were in the arke yet it is certaine that in the law of grace some are saued which neuer receaued the Sacrament of Baptisme as diuers Martyrs that were baptized in their owne bloud you acknowledge the same of Valentinian the Emperor who dyed vnbaptized But admitting the arke of Noe to be a type of the Catholike Church for so it is often taken by the ancient Fathers yet your argument proues nothing for similitudes hold not in all things Wherfore I answere with S. Augustine (q) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 28. that albeit none that were in the arke perished in the deluge and all perished that were out of the arke yet it falleth out otherwise in the Catholike Church represented by the arke for ill Catholikes notwithstanding they be in the Church not only by desire but corporally and really perish because they make bad vse of their baptisme and contrarily others that belieue aright and liue accordingly though they be not in the Church really but only in hart and desire as being yet vnbaptized are saued From whence S. Augustine concludeth that what is said of being in or without the arke in order to saluation is to be vnderstood of being in or without the Church corde non corpore that is to say not corporally and really but in hart and desire Which Doctrine as it is all Catholike Diuines so it is contrary to yours and sheweth your simplicity in calling it a wild and extrauagant peece of learning The things in which the Church is like to the arke witnes S. (r) Aduers Lucifer Hierome are that as the arke was visible so is the Church as in the arke there were Creatures cleane and vncleane so in the Church there are good and bad and as in the arke there were predestinate and also Cham a reprobate so in the Church there are both predestinate and reprobate Wherfore this comparison which you haue brought of the arke destroyes your owne doctrine SECT IV. Your fourth Argument YOur fourth Argument to proue the Roman Church not to be the Catholike Church is (t) Pag. 17. because say you our Diuines that speake more ingeniously freely graunt that the Pontificall dignity Roman as it is Roman is not from Diuine authority because only from the fact of Peter And they that are more affectionate to the Roman See although they attribute it to the institution of Christ yet dare they not say that this is to be belieued vpon certainty of fayth but only as a matter probable and coniecturall If you should argue thus An Aethyopian as he is black is not a man Ergo an Aethyopian is not a man your argument were a sophisme and so is that which heere you make against the Roman Church for as an Aethyopian though he be not a man reduplicatiue and formaliter as he is black yet he is a man as he is a rationall creature so like wise though it be no matter of fayth that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè as Roman is the Catholike Church yet it is matter of fayth that S. Peter by diuine institution was created supreme Pastor and Gouernor the whole Church that the same power descendeth from him to his Successors And it is also matter of fayth that S. Peter fixed his See at Rome and died there and that the Bishop of Rome succedeth him in his See and supreme authority of Prince and Gouernor of the whole Church of Christ nor was this euer questioned by any but heretikes That which some Catholike writers dispute is whether S. Peter had any command from Christ to place his See at Rome and
she is but Antioch Nor should she then haue any priuiledge of not erring in fayth as now Antioch hath not since the remouall of S. Peters See from thence But therfore to inferre that the now Roman Church against which you write this Grand Imposture being at this present the See of S. Peter or whiles hereafter she shall remaine the See of S. Peter may erre in fayth is to argue à sensu diuiso ad sensum compositum and to infer that such things as perhaps are possible but neuer shall be are already in being If I should argue thus It may possibly come to passe though it be improbable that the Metropolitan See of England may be remoued from Canterbury to Carlile Ergo the Church of Canterbury is not now the Metropolitan Church of England were not this a sophisme And so is yours Some of our Diuines grant that the See of S. Peter which maketh the Church of Rome the Mother Mistresse of all Churches and secureth her from all error in fayth may be remoued from Rome though there appeare no likelihood therof Ergo inferre you in the opinion of some of your Diuines the now Roman Church is not the Mistresse and mother Church of the world but may now fall from the fayth euen whiles she is the See of S. Peter no lesse then she might if his See were already remoued from thence Who seeth not this Argument to be sophisticall And to sophistry you ioyne fraud for to proue that the Successor of S. Peter hath not his See at Rome by diuine ordinance but only by humane election you (d) Pag. 21. alleage Suarez (e) De trip virt Theol. disp 10. sect 3. n. 10. saying that before the ascension of Christ nothing appeareth of any such ordinance either in Scripture or from tradition Here you breake of leauing out the rest of Suarez words and concealing his Doctrine for in the very same place both before and after these his words which you cull out he expresly affirmeth that it is more pious and probable that Christ after his ascension appearing to S. Peter commanded him to place his See at Rome which he ptoueth by the testimonies of many ancient Fathers and by other Arguments all which you conceale and cite him for the contrary opinion The same abuse you offer to Valentia Bellarmine and Azor. For all these prooue with many testimonies of antiquity and other forcible Arguments that it is of Diuine institution holding it for certaine and the contrary opinion not to be safe though not expresly de fide SECT VII Your seauenth Argument THAT the Successor of S. Peter in the Roman See canonically chosen is Head of the vniuersall Church all Catholikes beleeue as vndoubted matter of fayth But that this indiuiduall person v. g. Vrban the Eight is true Pope and true Head of the Church though the more probable opinion of Diuines hold it also to be of fayth yet diuers others defend that it is only of morall certaynty You not knowing how to solue the arguments of the first opinion otherwise then by rayling against it (f) Pag. 23. fine calling it a Iesuiticall fayth both grosly false wickedly blasphemous assume the second as granted which I with the authors of the first opinion do not grant but deny For the Church proposing vnto vs this indiuiduall man Vrban the eight as true Pope it is not only morally but absolutely and infallibly certayne that in the person of Vrban the eight are found all the conditions of true Baptisme Ordination Election and whatsoeuer els requisite for a true Pope and true head of the Church for as the Church being assisted by the holy Ghost cannot erre in proposing other Verities of fayth so nether in proposing this man to be the true head and lawfull gouernor of the vniuersall Church wherfore our beleefe that this man is true Pope is not humane morall and fallible but diuine and infallible vnlesse you will question the authority of the holy Ghost making it humane and fallible Yea euen in the other opinion though it be no matter of fayth that this indiuiduall man is true Pope yet the Authors thereof hold it to be a Theologicall conclusion so certayne that whosoeuer shall deny it is worthy of flames SECT VIII Your eight Argument YOVR eight argument (g) Pag. 25. 26. 27. is nothing but a repetition of what you haue sayd in the former sections without any addition of new proofes vnlesse to proue your Doctrine be to rayle against ours calling it new false scandalous pernicious hereticall blasphemous and vs periured persons all which being nothing but an empty froath of iniurious words deserue no other answere but contempt CHAP. VI. The Roman Church is the Head and Mother of all Churches IN this matter you wholly mistake the state of the question for when we demand which Church is the Head the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches the question is not which Church was first founded If you speake of priority of tyme or antiquity and call those Churches Mothers of all such as were founded after them we grant that in this sense the Church of Hierusalem is the Mother Church of all Churches and the Roman in the same sense a daughter both to the Church of Hierusalem of Antioch and all others that were founded before her And in this sense the Bishops which had bene present at the first Councell of Constantinople call the Church of Hierusalem the Mother of all other Churches (h) Theodor. l. 5. histor c. 9. But this is not the question for you know and set it downe as our Doctrine (i) Pag. 29. 38. that the Roman Church is called the Mother Church of all Churches because S. Peter was constituted by Christ the ordinary Pastor of the whole Church By which it appeares you know right well that the mother-hood which we attribute to the Roman Church is not priority of tyme but of authority and iurisdiction grounded on the supremacy of S. Peter for as by reason of his transcendent authority ouer the whole flock of Christ which is his Church he was and in his successors is the Father and Head of all Bishops so the Roman Church in which sayth S. Chrysologus (*) Epist. ad Eutych Peter still liueth and gouerneth is the Head and mother of all Churches and vnto which sayth S. (k) L. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus all Churches are necessarily to agree by reason of her more mighty Principality that is to say by reason of the soueraignty and supreme authority of the See Apostolike And in this sense she is called by S. Irenaeus (l) Ibid. and Origen (m) Apud Euseb l. 6. hist c. 12. The most ancient Church and by S. Cyprian (n) De simplicit Praelat The Root the fountayne and head of Episcopall power and The principall Church from whence Priestly vnity began (o) L. 1. ep 3. And from the same ground
before there was any Church at all in Britaine and most especially because she begot and founded the Brittish Church Wherfore with great reason K. Henry the eight confesseth (o) Lib. de 7. Sacram. contra Luther art 2. that all the Churches of the faythfull acknowledge and reuerence the most holy See of Rome for their Mother And our late Soueraigne K. Iames of famous memory in the Summe of the conference before his Maiesty affirmeth (p) Pag. 75. that the Roman Church was once the Mother Church and consequently that as well the Church of Brittaine as all others were her daughters which right she being once possessed of cold neuer lose vnlesse you will make false the words of Christ who promised that the gates of hell which are false and hereticall Doctrines shall neuer preuaile against her Lastly I will not omit to put you in minde of two other slâ—ights The one is that wheras you know all antiquity to haue belieued and left expressed in their workes that the Roman Church is The head and Mother of all Churches and that it were not difficult if needfull to set downe their testimonies in their owne words you mention no other authority for our beliefe of that truth but the late Councell of Trent The other is that you runne on in your owne mistake calling it in vs a mad point of genealogizing to conclude that Rome must be mother to those Daughters of S. Peter which were begotten 7. yeares before she was borne and which therfore you call (q) Pag. 31. 36. Mothers grand-mothers and Aunts to her If by motherhood you vnderstand antiquity of tyme though it were indeed a mad point of Genealogizing to call the Roman Church Mother in respect of any Church that was founded before her yet in this very sense of Motherhood it is false that the Roman Church is a daughter to the Brittish for the Brittish was founded after the Roman But you know that by Motherhood we vnderstand superiority and iurisdiction and therfore as it were a mad manner of arguing to inferre that Caesarea in Palestine is not Superior in iurisdiction and mother to the Church of Hierusalem after which she was founded so it is in you to inferre that the Roman Church is not superior in iurisdiction and Mother to all Churches because she was founded after some of them CHAP. VII S. Peters Primacy defended TO proue that S. Peter was not of the now Roman fayth coÌ„cerning his owne primacy you (r) Pag. 38. seqq obiect those words of our Sauiour Mat. 16. vpon this Rocke for in them say you (s) Pag. 38. the fayth of S. Peter did not conceiue any Monarchicall or supreme iurisdiction promised vnto himselfe by Christ The natiue obuious and true sense of these words of Christ deliuered by the agreeing coÌ„sent of ancient Fathers Councels and all Orthodoxe writers is that Christ spake them to Peter in reward of that admirable confession of his fayth wherby he proclamed Christ to be The Sonne of the liuing God made him an impregnable Rock and promised to build his Church vpon him as vpon a foundation so firme and immoueable that the gates of hell which are errors and heresies should neuer preuaile against it This sense you cannot disgest therfore seek to elude it by abusing and falsifying the Fathers and other expositors For the better vnderstanding hereof it is to be noted that wheras you alleage some Fathers affirming that the rock on which Christ promised to build his Church is the fayth and confession of Peter and others saying that it is Christ himselfe these their expositions are no way contrary either in themselues or to our Doctrine for as Bellarmine (t) L. 1. de Pont. c. 10. §. Nemo dubitat obserueth no man doubts but that Christ is the chiefe foundation of the Church and that so much may be gathered out of these his words for if Peter be a secondary foundation supplying the place of Christ on earth it followeth that Christ himselfe is the first and chiefe foundation or as S. Augustine (u) In Psal 86. and S. Gregory (x) L. 28 Moral c. 9. call him Fundamentum fundamentorum The foundation of foundations Agayne they are not to be vnderstood of the person of Christ abstracting from the Confession of Peter but including it as the obiect confessed nor of Peters confession abstracting from Peter himselfe but including him as the person that confesseth Wherfore the sense is that Christ promised to build his Church vpon himselfe confessed by Peter or which is all one vpon Peter confessing Christ and for the confession he made of Christ Which to speake in the Schoole language is to say that Christ built his Church causally vpon Peters confession and formally vpon his person because that excellent confession of Peter was the cause which moued Christ to chose Peters person for the foundation of his Church The confession of Peter sayth S. Hilary (y) Cau. 16. in Mathaeum hath receaued a worthy reward declaring what reward it was he addeth O in the title of a new name happy foundation of the Church and worthy stone of her edifice O blessed Porter of Heauen c. And againe (z) Lib. e. de Trim. This is he that in the silence of all the other Apostles beyond the capacity of humane infirmity acknowledging the sonne of God by the reuelation of the Father merited by the Confession of his fayth a supereminent place 2. S. Basil (a) L. 2. Cont. Eunom Because Peter excelled in fayth he receaued the building of the Church on himselfe 3. S. Ambrose (b) Serm. 47. Peter for his deuotion is called a rock and our Lord is called a Rock for his strength he rightly deserueth to be a partaker in the name that is partaker in the worke for Peter layd the foundation in the house 4. S. Hierome (c) In cap. 16. Math. Because thou Simon hast said to me Thou art Christ the Sonne of God I also say to thee not with a vayne or idle speach that hath no effect for my saying is doing therfore I say to thee Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And againe (d) Ibid. He rewardeth the Apostle for the testimony he had giuen of him Peter had said Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God His true confession receaued a reward c. 5. S. Chrysostome (e) In psal 50. Heâ—re what he sayth to Peter that Pillar that foundation and therfore called Peter as being made a Rock by fayth 6. Theophilact (f) Ad cap. 1â— Math. Our Lord rewardeth Peter bestowing on him a singular fauour which is that he built his Church vpon him By these testimonies of Fathers it appeares that to say Christ built his Church vpon the confession of Peter is not to deny that he built it on the person of Peter but to expresse the cause for
which he built it on his person Euen as when we say The valor of a Captaine got the victory we say it not to signify that his valor in abstracto got the victory without his person but to expresse the meanes wherby he got it And in like manner when S. Hierome and S. Ambrose (g) Ep. 61. Ad Pamma aduers error Ioâ—n Hierosol S. Ambros l. de fide resurrect said Not Peter but his fayth walked vpon the waters it was not to deny that his person truly and formally walked on them but to declare that the cause which made him walke on them was not the naturall vertue or actiuity of his body but the fayth he had giuen to the words of Christ And so likewise it is in our case for as these two propositions The fayth of Peter walked on the waters and Peter walked on the waters are both true but in a different sense for the fayth of Peter walked on them causally as being the cause why Peter walked and the person of Peter walked on them truly properly and formally So likewise are these two both iointly true though in a different sense The Church is built vpon the person of Peter and The Church is built on the fayth or confession of Peter because the primacy of Peters fayth confession was the cause which moued Christ to choose Peter for the fouÌ„dation of his Church rather then any of the other Apostles to that end he gaue him the name and solidity of a Rock that the gates of hell might neuer preuaile against the Church built on him In like manner when S. Augustine and other expositors teach that Christ is the Rock or foundation on which the Church is built their exposition differeth not from the former in substance but only in manner of speach for as Salmeron (h) Tom. 4. part 3. Tract 2. and Suarez (i) Defens fid l. 3. c. 11. n. 11. haue well obserued their meaning cannot be that the Rock on which Christ promiseth to build his Church for the future is his owne person formally considered as in himselfe both because on him it was already built from the tyme of his incarnation as also because he speaketh not to himselfe but to Peter saying Thou art Peter c. And therefore as when in the words immediatly preceding he called Peter by his owne name Simon the Sonne of Iohn he spake to Peter in particular so likewise he did when immediatly he added and I say to thee that thou art Peter that is a Rock and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And the same is yet made more euident by other profes which Bellarmine (k) L. 1 de Pont. c. 10. §. Primo pronomen alleageth Wherfore the sense is that Christ promiseth to build his Church on himselfe obiectiuely that is to say as confessed by Peter which exposition differeth not from the former and is expressly deliuered by S. Ambrose (l) In c. 3.1 ad Cor. in these words The true and approued sense is that the Church is built by God vpon Christ but yet as confessed by Peter and not by any other which is as if it were said vpon thee confessing Christ and vpon the confession which Peter made of Christ or vpon Christ confessed by Peter So S. Ambrose and so also S. Augustine saying (m) L. 1. Retract c. 21. Afterwards I expounded thus these words of our Lord Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church that it should be vnderstood to be built vpon him whom Peter confessed saying thou art Christ c. And that by this exposition S. Augustine intendeth not to deny the Rock meant by Christ in those words to be S. Peter is a truth that may not be denyed both because in that very place he sayth that This sense is celebrated by many in the verses of S. Ambrose saying The Cock crowing the Rock of the Church washed out his offence as also because he there affirmeth that in other places of his workes he had expounded those words not of Christ but of Peter as the rest of the Fathers do which exposition he recalleth not but leaueth to the readers discretion to choose which of the two he liketh best Let the reader chose sayth he (n) Ibid. which of these two senses is the more probable From whence it must needes follow that albeit he doubted whether of those two senses agreeth best to the words of Christ in that place yet of the truth to the thing it selfe to wit that Peter is the Rock on which Christ built his Church he neuer doubted If he had thought that to be a false sense he had done very absurdly in not recalling it but leauing to the readers choyce to follow eyther that or the other for it had bene to leaue it in his choyce to follow a true sense or a false an orthodoxe verity or an hereticall error which though you do yet none but such as you will presume S. Augustine to haue done By this it appeares that all those testimonies of Fathers Popes and other authors which you to make a florish heap vp in the foure first Sections of your fourth Chapter to proue that the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church is not Peter but the Confession of Peter or Christ for either of both will serue your turne so that Peter be excluded are impertinently alleaged for the meaning of them is that the Church is not built vpon Peter meerely as he was a weake man and abstracting from his confession of Christ but vpon him as confessing Christ and for his confession and in reward therof And so likewise it is built vpon Christ not excluding Peters confession but vpon him as confessed by Peter All which is euident out of those very Fathers and expositors which you produce for the contrary For they so fully and so vnanswerably auouch Peter to be the Rock on which Christ built his Church and you so certainly know it to be true that much against your will you are inforced vpon the rack of truth to confesse so much though you do it mincingly saying (o) Pag 42. We may not dissemble thus much that some Fathers doe expound by Rock Peter You should haue said All Fathers and all Councels which treat of that subiect and all Catholike expositors And I must intreat the reader here in prudence to consider how vnaduisedly you alleage Catholike approued authors against this truth which no vnderstanding Protestant will in his iudgment beleeue that any of them euer denyed it being a mayne and euen the greatest point of difference betweene vs and you and which being decided the rest would easily follow Wherfore it caÌ„not be but that you wrong the Catholike authors which you cite in fauor of your doctrine and the like you do to the ancient Fathers To examine euery particular were an endlesse labour for your falsifications for the most part consist
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
affirmeth that Christ to reward his fayth built his Church vpon him 9. And no lesse deceiptfully you alleage (k) Pag. 39. g. the RomaÌ„ glosse (l) Gloss Decret part 1. d. 10. in Cap. Dominus no fler to proue that not Peter but his confession without any relation to his person is the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church for the glosse sayth Christ would haue his owne name of Petra a Rocke giuen to Peter c. therfore called him Petrus And the Chapter on which this glosse is made is taken out of an Epistle of S. Leo in which he not only affirme (m) Ep. 83. Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built but addeth that whosoeuer denyeth this truth is impiously presumptuous and plungeth himselfe into Hell To these and otherlike obiections out of the Fathers and other Catholike authors you ad some confirmations of your owne The first is None say you (n) Pag. 41. will deny but that there was meant in Peters Confession that matter which he confessed but Peter confessed not himselfe but Christ saying Then art the Sonne of the lyuing God Ergo his confession had relation to Christ and not to himselfe A false and senslesse consequence for euery confession hath relation not only to the matter as to the obiect or thing confessed but also to him that coÌ„fesseth as to the agent from which it proceedeth and therfore to inferre that when Christ answering Peter and rewarding his confession sayd vnto him Thou art Peter c. he meant not Peter but himselfe to be the Rock is as senslesse an inference as to say that when Thomas cryed out vnto Christ (o) Ioan. 20.28 My Lord my God and Christ in reward of his confession sayd (p) Ibid. vers 29. Blessed art thou Thomas he pronounced not Thomas blessed but himselfe which was the matter Thomas beleeued 2. You obiect (q) Pag. 42. fin 43. All the Apostles and Prophets are called foundations wherby is not meant their persons or dominions but their doctrines I grant that Christ S. Peter the rest of the Apostles and Prophets are foundations on which the Church is built Christ is the chiefe and primary foundation by his owne power and strength Of him the Apostle sayth (r) 1. Cor. 3.11 Other foundation no man can lay besyde that which is layd which is Christ Iesus whome therfore S. Augustine (s) In Psal 86. and S. Gregory (t) L. 28. Moral c. 9. call Fundamentum fundamentorum The foundation of foundations Besydes Christ the Apostles and Prophets are also secondary foundations of the Church for the Prophets by fore-telling Christ and the Apostles by preaching his sayth and doctrine vphold the body of the Church to wit the faythfull who therfore are called (u) Ephes 2.20 Domostikes of God built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner-stone and for this cause the wall of the Citty of the Church is sayd (x) Apoc. 1.24 to haue 12. foundations and in them the 12. names of the 12. Apostles Among these secondary foundations Peter hath the first and chiefest place The rest of the faythfull in respect of him are ordinary stones he an impregnable Rock as being built immediatly vpon Christ and the rest by meanes of him in regard wherof it was sayd to him alone and to no other of the faythfull or Apostles Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church And therfore S. Augustine sayth (y) Serm. 15. de Sanct. Our Lord called Peter the foundation of the Church for which cause the Church with reason worshippeth this foundation vpon which the height of the ecclesiafticall edifice is raysed 3. You say (z) Pag. 42. that when the Fathers expound by Rock Peter they meane ether a primacy of order or honor or els a priority of Confession in Peter not of Authority and Dominion and the same you repeate afterwards saying (a) Pag. 110. The similitude of head and members hath no colour of superiority but of priority of place or of voyce And this reason you alleage (b) Pag. 41. why though the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake yet he alone answered as being the mouth of the rest I grant that Peter spake in the name of the rest but to inferre that therfore Christ when he answered Peter saying Thou art Peter made him not a Rock or promised not to make him the foundation of his Church is a Non sequitur I grant also that the other Apostles beleeued before Peter spake that he answered as the mouth of the rest not because he had any Commission from them but because out of his great feruor he preuented the rest and spake for them as their head and Superiour as Christ somtimes did for all his Apostles (c) Math. 9.11 Luc. 6.2 and as the Rector is wont to answere in the name of the whole Colledge So sayth S. Cyrill of Alexandria (d) L. 4. in Ioan. c. 18. They all answere by one that was their Superiour And againe (e) Ibid. l. 12. cap. 64. when our Sauiour asked his Disciples whom doe you say that I am Peter as being Prince and head of therest first cryed out Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God So S. Cyrill of Hierusalem (f) Catech. â—â— All the Apostles being silent for this doctrine was aboue their strength Peter Prince of the Apostles and the chiefe preacher of the Church sayth vnto him Thou art Christ c. And in the same sense S. Cyprian (g) L. 1. ep 3. sayth Peter on whom our Lord built his Church speaketh for all in the voyce of the Church And S. Augustine (h) Serm. 31. de verb. Apost c. 1. Peter bearing the figure of the Church most feruent in the loue of Christ chiefe in the order of Apostles and holding the Princedome of the Apostleship often answers one for all And againe (i) Tract 124. in Ioan. That in his answere he bare the person of the Church for the primacy of his Apostleship and for the primacy which he had among the Disciples And whereas you to elude this exposition of the Fathers say (k) Pag. 42. 110. that when they expound by Rock Peter or pronounce him to be the head and Captaine of the rest they meane not primacy of authority and iurisdiction but of order or honor is a distinction that caries with it its owne confutation and shall be effectually disproued (l) Chap. 17. sect 1. hereafter CHAP. IX S. Peter exercised his Authority and Iurisdiction of supreme Pastor and Gouernor ouer the other Apostles and ouer the whole Church TO disproue S. Peters authority ouer the other Apostles you obiect first (a) Pag. 45.46 that S. Gregory vpon those words of the Apostle (b) Rom. 9.12 I will magnify my office in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentils
leg c. 3. n. 23. from whom Salas learned his Doctrine de legibus call's it A reall priuiledge which he confirmeth with the example of a priuiledge that being granted to a certaine Bishop in the Canon law with expression of his name is notwithstanding supposed to passe to his Successors Now that this prayer of Christ was not made for Peter as for a priuate but as for a publike person that was supreme Head and Gouern or of the Church and consequently for the common good and benefit of the Church that therfore by vertue therof the Popes his Successors haue an infallible prerogatiue of not erring in their publike definitions of fayth to the seducing of others is the agreeing consent of the ancient Fathers in their expositions of this passage of S. Luke And 1. three holy Popes in their epistles Lucius the first to the Bishops of Spayne and France Felix the first to Benignus and Marke to S. Athanasius out of this prayer of Christ made for S. Peter gather the infallibility of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth But because Protestants hold for suspected the authority of these epistles I omit them and passe to such as by Protestants are granted to be vndoubtedly of those Popes to whom they are attributed 2. Therfore Agatho a most holy Pope and whom God graced with Miracles in his Epistle to the Emperor (q) Extat Act. 4. Apud Bin. to 3. pag. 12. Constantine Pogonat which was read in the sixt generall Councell and approued (r) Act. 8. 18. as the suggestion of the holy Ghoâ—t dictated by the mouth of the holy and most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles speaking by Agatho sayth Our Lord promised that the fayth of Peter should not faile and commanded him to strengthen his brethren which that the Popes my Apostolicall predecessors haue euer performed is a thing notorious to all This testimony sheweth that not only Agatho but all the Fathers of that Councell belieued this priuiledge of not erring in sayth and confirming others to haue bene obtained by Christ not only for S. Peter but for all his Successors and that this is a truth suggested by the holy Ghost and dictated by S. Peter speaking by Agatho 3. S. Gregory (s) L. 6. ep 37. Who is ignorant that the holy Church is strengthned by the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles who in his name receaued the constancy of his mind being called Peter of a Rock to whom by the voyce of truth it is said Confirme thy Brethren And els where (t) L. 4. ep 3. he proueth against Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople the authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer the vniuersall Church by the Commission giuen to S. Peter his predecessor It is manifest to all such as know the Ghospell that the charge of the whole Church is committed to the Apostle Peter Prince of all the Apostles for to him it is said Feed my sheepe And so him it is said I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth fayle not thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren Which testimony conuinceth thaâ— Christ prayed not for S. Peter as for a priuate person buâ— as for the Head of his Church and consequently for his Successors in him 4. S. Leo the great (u) Serm. 2. de Natali Apost Petri Pauli The danger of tentation was common to all the Apostles they all equally needed the protection of Gods help but our Lord taketh a speciall care of Peter and prayeth peculiarly for his fayth that the state of all the rest might be more secure if the mind of the Chiefe were not corquered The strength then of all is fortified in Peter God so dispensing the ayde of his grace that the assurance and strength which Christ gaue to Peter might by him redound to the Apostles And he addeth that as Peâ—er confirmed the Apostles so it is not to be doubted but that still he affordeth his help to his Successors in the Roman chayre and as a pious Pastor confirmeth them with his admonitions and ceaseth not to pray for them c. 5. Leo the ninth (x) Ep. ad Michael Imper. c. 7. The false deuises of all heretikes haue bene reproued confuted and condemned by the See of the Prince of the Apostles which it the Roman Church and the hartes of the Brethren strengthned in the fayth of Peter which hath not fayled hitherto nor shall euer fayle hereafter And the same sense of these words of Christ is deliuered by Nicolas the first (y) Ep. ad Michael Imp. and Innocentius the third (z) In Cap. Maior de Bap. If you answere that these testimonies are of Popes speaking in their owne cause I reply that they speake in the cause of God and his Church and are worthy of all credit both because they were men most eminent in learning sanctity as also because in this exposition they agree with the Fathers both of the sixth generall Councell and the rest for S. Ambrose sayth (a) Ad ca. 22. Luc. Behold what our Lord said and vnderstand it Peter is sifted he fall's into tentations but after his tentation is made Gouernor of the Church and therfore our Sauiour before hand signifieth why afterwards he chose him to be Pastor of his flock for he said vnto him And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren You see then that in S. Ambrose his iudgment Christ prayed for Peter as for the Pastor of his flock and that for Peter to confirme his brethren is to performe the office of Pastor and Gouernor of the Church which office as it was no lesse necessary afterwards then in S. Peters tyme so it descended from him to his Successors A truth which Theodorus Studites with other his brethren being pressed with the outragious persecutions of â—eretikes professe in their epistle to Paschalis Pope in these words (b) Apud Baron anno 817. Heare O Apostolicall Head made by God Pastor of his sheep porter of the kingdome of Heauen and Rock of the fayth vpon whom the Catholike Church is built for thou art Peter adorning and gouerning the See of Peter Christ our God said to thee And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren Behold now the tyme behold the place ayde vs c. Thou hast power from God because thou art Prince of all fright away the hereticall wild beasts c. And Theophilact (c) Ad cap. 22. Luc. expounding the same words The plaine sense of them is this because I hold thee as Prince of my Disciples when thou after thou hast denied me shalt weep and come to repentance confirme the rest for this becometh thee that next to me art the Rock and fortresse of the Church And we may vnderstand it not to be spoken of the Apostles only but of all the faythfull that shall be till the end of the world Which addition of Theophilact sheweth that this priuiledge giuen to Peter of not
the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles who with his name receaued the constancy of his minde being called Peter of a Rock to whom by the voyce of truth it is said I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen S. Maximus a famous Martyr the greatest Diuine of his age and a stout Champion of the Church against the Monothelites (k) Epist. ad Marin Diac. Apud Spond Anno 657. n. 2. All the Churches of Christians had their beginning and surest foundation from the Roman Church against which the gates of hell shall no way preuaile according to the promise of our Sauiour himselfe that she should haue the keyes of Orthodoxe fayth and confession and open to them that come to her religiously seeking true piety and contrarily shut and stop all hereticall mouthes that breath out iniquity against heauen Theodorus Studites a man very famous for his learning and constancy in defending the Catholike fayth writing togeather with other his Colleagues to Paschalis Pope (l) Ep. ad Pashal ep ad Naucrat calleth him Porter of the kingdome of Heauen and Rock of the fayth vpon whom the Catholike Churches built And the Roman See The supreme throne in which Christ hath placed the keyes of fayth against whom the gates of hell which are the mouthes of Heretikes haue neuer preuailed nor shall euer preuaile according to the promise of our Lord which cannot faile To these testimonies I adde others of Theodoret and Gelasius alleaged by Bellarmine (m) L. 4. de Pont. c. 3. which make vp more then a full Iury to pronounce you guilty of a solemne vntruth in denying (n) Pag. 55. that what was here spoken to Peter doth accordingly belong to the Pope by the right of Succession for you haue heard the Fathers teaching the contrary Their exposition I embrace and follow as the true sense of holy Scripture detest yours who haue nothing to say against it but to outface it by calling it An error to obiect against it the comment of Abulensis who say you (o) Pag. 55. teacheth that by those words Blessed art thou Simon there was granted to S. Peter an infallible certainty of his soules eternall blessednes which is an excellent priuiledge but no promise of authority made vnto him If Abulensis comment so his comment makes nothing to your purpose for he denies not the Church to be built vpon Peter nor grants that the gates of hell which are heresies shall preuaile against her Againe if he say for I haue not seene him that Christ by saying Blessed art thou Simon granted to S. Peter an infallible assurance of his eternall happines it followeth not that the same assurance passeth to his Successors as the office of Foundation Head and Gouernor of the Church doth for the assurance of eternall happinesse was for his owne peculiat good and therfore granted to him alone and not to his Successors But the office of Head and Gouernor of the Church was promised to him for the good of the whole Church and therfore to passe to his Successors according to the nature of priuiledges which is that when a prerogatiue is granted to a Gouernor for the good of the Community of which he is Gouernor as the office of Head and foundation of the Church was to S. Peter it dieth not with him but still liueth in his Successors Againe that comment of Abulensis if it be his I approue not for it is disproued out of the words themselues which being of the present tense import nothing els but a present blessednes in hauing so great a fauor bestowed on him as by the speciall reuelation of Almighty God to know the Diuinity of Christ and to be the first that made so illustrious a confession therof and as S. Basill (p) Orat. 3. de peccato in proem de iudicio Dei expoundeth to haue his confession rewarded with a promise of building the Church on him and of hauing the keyes of the kingdome of heauen committed to him which sayth he was a far greater blessednes then the other Apostles obtained And in the same sense expound S. Hierome (q) Ad c. 16. Math. and S. Augustine (r) Serm. 10. de verb. Do. serm 31. de verb. Apost But wheras out of the comment of Abulensis be it his or whose you please you charge vs (r) Pag. 56 with lack both of conscience and modesty in violating the sacred writ vnlesse to make good the iurisdiction of our Popes deriuatiuely from S. Peter we can shew that all of them by vertue of their succession from him are so blessed now in their hopes as to be infallibly persuaded that no temptation of Satan shall preuaile against their persons but that they shall be blessed euerlastingly you cannot be excused from fraud folly fraud in changing the state of the question for our assertion is that out of these words of Christ S. Peter and his Successors are secured from erring in their publike decrees and definitions of fayth But that Popes may not erre in manners to the damnation of their soules we neither deduce out of this nor any other place of holy writ nor is it true nor asserted by any Catholike nor necessary for the defence of their iurisdiction or priuiledge of not erring ex cathedra for Christ sayth S. Augustin (s) Ep. 166. hath placed in the chaire of Vnity the doctrine of Verity and secured his people that for ill Prelates they forsake not the Chayre of holsome Doctrine in which chayre euen ill men are inforced to speake good things And els where (t) Ep. 165. hauing reckoned all the Popes from S. Peter to Anastasius who then possessed his chayre he addeth If in all this tyme any traytor had come in by surreption it cold not breed any preiudice to the Church nor to innocent Christians for whom our Lord making prouision sayth of euill Prelates What they say do yee but what they doe do it not for they say and do not And as it is fraud in you to change the state of the question so is it folly to inferre that because Popes may be vicious in their liues they may erre in their publike definitions of fayth or manners to the seduction of others S. Augustine (u) Ep. 137. obserueth it to be an old tricke of Heretikes because they cannot calumniate the Scripture in which they find the Church commended to calumniate those by whom she is defended gouerned to make them odious And Tertullian long before (x) L. de Praescrip obserued the same in the heretikes of his tyme to whom he answered that what they obiected were vitia conuersationis non pradicationis faults of manners not of Doctrine and for this S. Augustine reprehendeth Petilianus the Donatist saying (y) Cont. lit Petil. l. 2. c. 51. Why dost thou call the Apostolike See the chayre of pestilence if for men whom thou thinkest to professe
their Bishop with the multitude of Saints being departed out of it shall be consumed with fire before the reigne of Antichrist or in the very beginning therof as (r) Riber a cap. 17 n. 20. in vers 16. Ex hoc quod nunc ait Apostolus intelligitur Roman euertendam antequam Antichristus regnare incipiat vel certè ipso initio regni eius Ribera and (s) Viegas in cap 17. n. 5. Viegas reach In this supposition why may not the Pope with that multitude of holy Christian Romans be truly and verily the Bishop and Church of Rome Why should that multitude of Roman Christian and Saints be titulus sine re and not a very glorious and venerable Church Why should the Pope then cease to be Bishop more then the Bishop of Canterbury should in case Canterbury should be destroyed into ashes Will you say vpon this contingent that the Bishop of Canterbury shall be the man in the moone the sheepheard of Vtopia to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You might haue learned from Cusanus (t) Epist 2. ad Bohemos whome you cite often and highly commend that if by any accident the Citty of Rome should fayle the truth of the Church shall remaine there where the Principality and seat of Peter shal be Nor is your example of the Emperor of Rome (u) Pag. 77. any helpe to your Argument For albeit the Roman Empyre be now in part decayed or weakned in respect of that power and greatnesse which anciently it had yet it still remayneth so that the name succession of the Roman Emperors at this day is famous in the world els why did our late Soueraigne King Iames inscribe his Monitory Prefation Sacratissimo atque inuictissimo Principi ac Domino Rodulpho secundo Romanorum Imperatori semper Augusto c. And why els doth the Church of Rome in her Office (x) In die Parasceues Sabbatho Sancto pray for the Roman Emperor Nor the Authors which you alledge for the contrary do say ought els though you falsify Salmeron to make his words found otherwise for wheras he speaking of the Roman Empire as it anciently was sayth Imperium illud Romanum iamdiu euersum est that Empire of Rome to wit with that ancient splendor maiesty and power which once it had is long since destroyed you leaue out illud and make him say absolutely The Roman Empire is long since destroyed wheras in the words next following he expresly affirmeth that there is still a Roman Emperor and that he is so called although what now be possesseth be but a very small shadow of the ancient Empire Lastly I will not omit to put you in minde of your weake manner of arguing throughout all this Section for how doth it follow that because Ribera and Viegas hold that Babylon out of which the faythfull are commanded to depart is the City of Rome as she shall be idolatrous in the end of the world you may now lawfully reuolt from the Church of Rome Againe who obligeth me to allow of their exposition I might retort your Argument vpon your selfe and tell you that Babylon signifies not Rome but Geneua and proue it by the testimony of Castalio a prime brother of yours who liued there and was a speciall friend of Beza They sayth he speaking of the Geneuian brethren (y) Apud Rescium pag. 54. are proud puft vp with glory and reuenge We may with lesse danger offend Princes then exasperate these fiery Caluinists their life is infamous and villanous they are Maisters of art in reproches lyes cruelty treachery and insufferable arrogancy They name their Geneua The holy City and their assembly Hierusalem but in very truth we should call it O Babylon Babylon O infamous Sodome and children of Gomorrha If you like not this exposition yet I know no reason why if you will belieue Ribera and Viegas expounding Babylon in the Apocalyps to be Rome you may not as well belieue your brethren Vdalricus Velenus (z) Lib. de hac r◠and Henricus Buntingus (a) It iner de it iner Petri. denying it and so much the more because S. Augustine Tyconius Bede Arethas Primasius Ansbertus Haymo S. Anselme and S. Thomas (b) Apud Riber in vers 8. cap. 14. Apoc by Babylon vnderstand not Rome but the society of all the wicked in generall from whose vices the faithfull are commanded to depart (c) S. August Breuic Collat. collat 3. Others vnderstand Paganisme which because it adoreth a confused multitude of Gods is rightly named Babylon that signifies Confusion others Mahometisme the mother of fornication and all filthinesse Others Constantinople the Metropolitan of Turcisme And others the chiefe City of the Chaldaeans which is properly called Babylon These expositions with their Authors and reasons you may read in Cornelius à Lapide (d) Ade 17. Apoc. Suarez (e) Defens fid l. 5. c. 7. and Peron (f) Replic Chapit 15. But the truth is that all these senses as likewise that of Ribera being purely allegoricall afford no solid foundation to build matter of fayth vpon but are merely coniecturall And therfore if S. August say (g) Ep. 48. Who dares with an vnbridled licence produce for himselfe that which is couched in an allegory vnlesse he haue places more cleare by whose light to illustrate that which is obscure we may with iust reason reproue you for grounding your departure from the Roman Church vpon the allegoricall sense of those words of the Apocalyps Get forth of Babylon my people and so much the more because the Authors whose exposition you take for your ground admonish you that by Babylon is not vnderstood the Church of Rome but the City that not as it is Christian but as it was idolatrous in S. Iohns tyme and shal be againe in the end of the world But any thing will serue your turne be it true or false if by sleights you can wrest it against the Pope and Church of Rome SECT II. Whether S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter were subiect to the Bishop of Rome S. Peters Successor SVarez treating of the authority of S. Peter and his Successors moueth this question (h) De trip virtute disp 10. sect 1. Whether the Apostles that suruiued S. Peter were subiect to S. Peters successor in the See of Rome His answeare is I remember not that I haue read any thing of this point in Authors but it seemes to me to follow out of what hath bene said that they were inferior in iurisdiction and consequently subiect therin to the Bishop of Rome although in other excellencies and prerogatiues they were superior to him For the same power and iurisdiction that was in S. Peter descended to his Successours who therfore in three things surpassed the Apostles there liuing 1. In the obiect of their power for the charge and gouerment of the whole Church belongeth primarily to the Successor of S. Peter which as I haue
it selfe but one Church gouerneth another as the Metropolitan doth the Suffragans the Roman Church as being the Head and Mother Church ruleth all others of the world Nor is this explication of lesse force becauss he sayth that she gouerneth in the region of the Romans for he sayth it not to limit her gouerment but to expresse the place in which she is seated and from whence she gouerneth all other Churches I conclude therfore that by calling her the Church that gouerneth and not limiting her gouerment to anyone Church or nuÌ„ber of Churches he declareth her to be Head Gouernesse absolutely of all Churches for as S. Bernard speaking of this subiect sayth (m) L. 2. de consider at Where there is no limitation nothing is excepted And in this sense Theodoret long before had said (n) Ep. ad Leon. The Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the whole world This to be the genume sense of S. Ignatius his words Casaubon and you peraduenture did see and therfore to giue an expedite solution you reiect the whole Epistle saying (o) Pag. 100. marg No man skilfull in Greeke would belieue it to be written by S. â—gnatius But this solution is exploded by Euscbius (p) L. 3. hist. c. 30. and S. Hierome (q) L. de Scriptor who might be Casaubons and your Maysters in Greeke and yet affirme S. Ignatius to be the Author of this Epistle and transcribe a part therof yeÌ„t to be found in it as also doth S. Irenaeus (r) L. 4. aduers haeres apud Baron anno 109. to shew the admirable spirit and feruor of that holy Bishop Hauing proposed these arguments of Casaubon you obiect out of your owne obseruations (s) Pag. 100. that S. Ignatius exhorting the Trallians vnto obedience to Bishops instanceth equally in Timothy S. Pauls scholler as in Anacletus Successor to S. Peter Answere You may by the like argument proue that S. Ignatius equalleth Priests in authority with Bishops for exhorting the Trallians to obedience he instanceth as well in Priests as in the Bishop Obey sayth he (*) Ep. ad Trallianos the Bishop the Priests Who then seeth not your argument to be a childish Sophisme SECT VI. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church I Renaeus say you (t) Pag. 100. for direction in the right of Traditions referreth as well to Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna as to Linus Bishop of Rome Tertullian also to secure Christians in the Doctrine of the Apostles prescribeth vnto them that they consult with the Mother Churches immediatly founded by the Apostles naming as well Ephesus in Asia and Corinth in Achaia as Rome in Italy and for the persons mentioning as well Polycarpe ordayned by S. Iohn as Clemens by Peter The like argumeÌ„t you make out of Vincentius Lyrinensis But all of them imposterously and against your selfe And first to begin with S. Irenaeus these words Discite ab Apostolicis Ecclesijs Habetis Romae Linum which you alleage as of S. Irenaeus (u) L. 2. c. 3. I find not in him It is true that both he and Tertullian teaching the Christians of their tyme to auoyd heresy warned them that the true fayth was to be learned from the Apostolicall Churches that is from the Churches founded by the Apostles themselues or by Apostolicall men as Timothy Polycarpe and other their disciples that preached the same fayth they learned from the Apostles their Maysters But withall they taught them that the chiefe Church they were to adhere vnto and by whose authority they were to confound all Heretikes was the Roman Church All men sayth S. Irenaeus (x) L. 3. c. 3. may behold the tradition of the Apostles that is the fayth deliuered by them to their Successors in euery Church if they be desirous to heare the truth and we can number the Bishops that were made by the Apostles in Churches and their Successors euen vnto vs who neither taught nor knew any such thinge as rauing heretikes do broach c. But because it were a long businesse to number the Successions of all Churches we declare the tradition of the most great most ancient and most knowne Church founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which tradition and fayth it hath from the Apostles coÌ„ming to vs by Succession of Bishops and thereby we confound all them that any way ether by euill complacence of themselues or vaine-glory or blindnesse or ill opinion do gather otherwise then they ought Lo here how Catholikes in S. Irenaeus tyme did confound all heretikes by the fayth of the Roman Church and by the Succession of Bishops in that See And he yeldeth the reason saying (y) Ibid. for to this Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality all Churches must necessarily agree that is to say all the faythfull of what place soeuer in which Church the tradition and fayth of the Apostles hath bene alwayes conserued And in confirmation of this he reckoneth by name all the Popes from S. Peter to Eleutherius who at that tyme gouerned the Church (z) Ibid. And by that orderly and neuer-interrupted Succession he proueth the Roman Church to haue conserued vnto his daies the fayth pure and entyre as it was preached by the Apostles By this Succession that Doctrine and truth which the Apostles preached in the Church hath come to vs And this is a demonstration conuicing that it is one and the same quickening fayth which from the Apostles tyme vntill this day is conserued and delinered in truth And againe relating to this place and speaking of the same Succession of Bishops in the Roman Church which he calleth the principall Succession he declareth all those that withdraw themselues from it to be Schismatikes or heretikes They that are in the Church sayth he (a) L. 4. c. 41. ought to obey those Priests which haue their Succession from the Apostles which togeather with the Succession of their Bishoprikes haue receaued the assured grace of truth according to the good will of the heauenly Father And we ought to hold suspected all others that withdraw themselues from the like Principall Succession and ioyne togeather in some other place We ought I say to hold them as heretikes of a peruerse iudgment or as Schismatikes and selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes or els as Hypocrites that worke for lucre and vaine-glory If then S. Irenaeus in his dayes thought it an argument sufficient to conuince all Heretikes that they had fallen from the true fayth preached by the Apostles because they had fallen from the Succession of Bishops in Peters See to which all the Churches and faythfull of the world must necessarly agree how much more conuincing is the same Argument against Protestants to whom we shew not the Succession of twelue Popes in S. Peters See as S. Irenaeus did to the heretikes of his tyme but almost of 240. You were not ignorant of the force
of Alexandria and other Easterne Bishops which had bene personally present at the Councell of Nice being soone after cast out of their Seates by the Arians did fly to Rome and appeale to Pope Iulius for redresse as to their lawfull Superior and Iudge Or if this Canon do limit the iurisdiction of the Pope to the Patriarkeship of the West as it doth that of the B. of Alexandria to the prouinces named in the canon how comes it to passe that as Socrates (b) L. 2. c. 1â— Sozomen (c) L. 3. c. 7. and Nicephorus (d) L. 9. c. 8. report Iulius by the ancient dignity and prerogatiue of his See and because the care of them all belonged to him restored each of them to their Churches and rebuking the Arians for their iniust proceedings threatned to punish them vnlesse they desisted to innouate and cited Athanasius and some of the chiefe of the Arians to make their appearance at Rome on a set day and answere for themselues in iudgment and that Athanasius obeying transported himselfe in all diligence to Rome And how comes it to passe that when the Arians in their mock-Councell of Philippopolis required the Fathers assembled at Sardica to absteyne from the communion of Athanasius the other Bishops whom they had deposed those Fathers representing all the Catholikes of the world answered (e) Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. that they neuer had nor would now abstaine from their communion and principally because Iulius B. of Rome hauing examined their cause had not condemned them And how comes it to passe that Peter Successor to S. Athanasius in the See of Alexandria whom Theodosius and Gratian (f) Cod. Tit. 1. l. 1. call A man of Apostolicall sanctity being in like manner deposed by the Arians appealed to Rome as to the safest hauen of communion (g) S. Hieron Ep. 16. and relying on the authority of Pope Damasus his letters returned to Alexandria (h) L. 4. c. 30. and by vertue of them recouered his Seat expelled Lucius the Arian intruder Doth not all this shew that the authority of the Roman Church was not limited by the Nicen Councell to the Patriarkship of the West vnlesse you will haue vs belieue that you vnderstand the sense and meaning of the Councell better then S. Athanasius and other holy Bishops which were present at it and at the Councell of Sardica and better then Peter that renowned Patriarke of Alexandria that liued soone after these Councells In confirmation of this I adde that the Councell of Nice ordeyneth (i) Can. 6. that the ancient custome goe on Now the ancient custome was that all Churches should resort to the Roman Church by reason of her more mighty principality (k) Iren. l. 3. c. 3. and because she is the Chayre of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued (l) Cyp. ep 55. ad Cornel. and because in her the principality of the Apostolike Chayre hath alwayes florished (m) S Aug. ep 162. And if we come to the Patriarkes of Alexandria of whom this Canon particularly speaketh they did alwayes euen before the Councell of Nice acknowledge themselues subiect to the B. of Rome as appeareth by the example of Dionysius Patriarke of that Citty who being fallen into suspicion of heresy long before the Councell of Nice the Catholikes of Alexandria had not recourse to the Synods of their owne prouinces nor to any other Patriarke of the East but went to Rome to accuse him before Dionysius Pope They went vp to Rome sayth S. Athanasius (n) De sent Dionys to accuse him before the B. of Rome being of his owne name And a litle after (o) Ibid. And the B. of Rome sent to Dionysins to cleare himselfe of those things whereof they had accused him and suddenly he answered sending his bookes of defence and apology And againe (p) De Syn. Arim. Soleu Some hauing accused the B. of Alexandria before the B. of Rome to hold the Sonne for a creature the Synod of Rome that is the Popes Consistory consisting of the neighbour Bishops and the principall Church-men of Rome without whose aduice he iudgeth nothing of importance was offended with him the B of Rome writ to him the opinion of all the Assistants and he for his iustification addressed to him a Booke of defence and apology This playnely sheweth that the custome before the Councell of Nice was that the Bishop and people of Alexandria did acknowledge the Pope of Rome to be their Superior which custome therefore the Councell will haue to goe on But that the true meaning of this Canon may the better be vnderstood it is to be noted that the entire Acts of the Councell of Nice being lost that which remayneth of them in the vulgar copies is but fragments Among the rest this very Canon hath not passed without mutilation for the beginning of it as it is related by Dionysius Abbas an author of 1000. yeares standing is Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum The Roman Church hath alwayes had the primacy This beginning troubleth your patience and to refute it you say (q) Pag. 108. They shame not to preferre one vulgar booke before all other Greeke and Latine Copies False For that beginning of the Canon is in like manner extant in an ancient Manuscript of the famous Monastery of S. Vedastus in Atras written aboue 800. yeares since (r) Of this see Pamelius in Annot. ad lib. Cyp. de Vnit Eccles n. 16. and which taketh away all occasion of doubt it is so read in the famous Councell of Chalcedon (s) Act. 16. True say you (t) Pag. 108. but by the Popes Legates But what Were not the Popes Legates reuerend Bishops and Presidents of that Councell And when they read this beginning of the Canon did the Fathers of that Councell except against it as you do Nay after they had read and considered it did they not say (u) Act. 16. Ex his quae gesta vel ab vnoquoque deposita sunt perpendimus omnem primatum honorem praecipuum secundum canones antiquae Romae Deo amantissmo Archiepiscopo conseruari By those things which haue bene done and the proofes which haue bene produced on both sydes we find that according to the Canons all primacy and chiefe honor is preserued to the most beloued of God the Archbishop of old Rome Then which words none can be more effectuall to declare the primacy of the Pope to be Primacy of authority and iurisdiction and not of order only as you falsely comment both because primacy of order is not all primacy nor is it the chiefe honor for the honor due to superiority of gouerment and iurisdiction is farre aboue it Besides that as I haue already shewed (x) Aboue Chap. 12. and shall in the next Chapter proue (y) Sect. 2. this your shift of Primacy of Order to which you often
Paulus Diaconus (s) L. 6. e. 4. and other historians testify and you may read in Baronius (t) Anno 692 Bellarmine (u) L. 1. de Binius (x) Tom. 3. pag. 152. and Canus (y) L. 5. de loc c. vlt. who rightly obserue that as not by the Pope so neither by any of the Patriarkes of the East nor by any authority of antiquity it hath bene receaued as a true Councell but held to be and so Bede (z) Loco cis calls it Erratica Synodus An erring Synod in so much that the Greeke Historians Theophanes Zonaras Cedrenus Glycas and others thought best to bury it in silence neuer reckoning it among the Councells nor making any mention at all of it And with great reason for how Almighty God punished both the wicked Patriarke Calinicus and the Emperor who pleaseth may read in Baronius (a) Anno 691. All which being true as it is it must follow that you shew great ignorance or els lack of Conscience in attributing to the eight generall Councell a decree of this impious Conuenticle and obiecting it against a religious custome of the Saturday fast in Lent piously obserued by the Roman Church from the Apostles tyme. If it be an abuse why did not the seauen first Oecumenicall Councels take notice of it Do not the Greeke authors with one voyce cry out that in thinges of this nature which are not repugnant to fayth or good manners the variety of ancient customes vsed in diuers Churches is to be obserued And did not S. Hierome being consulted about this very custome of the Saturday fast long before the Trullan Synod answeare (b) Ep. 28. Let euery countrey abound in their owne sense and reuerence the precepts of their Fore-fathers as Apostolicall lawes And did not S. Ambrose (c) Spond anno 384. n. 6. in this very particular aduise Monica S. Augustines Mother to obserue the custome of whatsoeuer place she was in And do not both he and S. Augustine (d) Apud S. Aug. ep 86. professedly proue against you and such as you are that wheras the Easterne Church from the tyme of the Apostles fasted not but feasted on Saturdayes contrary to the custome of the Westerne Church both of them did it vpon good and pious considerations declared by the ancient Fathers (e) Apud Baro. an 692. And doth not S. Augustine (f) Loco cit shew that variety to be a singular ornament to the Church And do not the Councells of Agatha (g) C. 22. and Eliberis (h) C. 26. subscribe to that custome of the Roman other Westerne Churches What authority then had those Trullan Bishops to make themselues Iudges of the Roman Church and of all the Churches of the West ouer whom they had no authority as your selfe well knoweth And hereby is discouered your folly that not contenting your selfe with proposing heere this Argument so impertinent and friuolous you repeate it afterwards againe saying (i) Pag. 220. 221. that S. Augustine approuing the custome of the Easterne Church wounds the Papacy and signifies that the Roman Church had not then any peremptory authority to determine all causes for the Roman Church then did and still doth allowe variety of Customes in diuers Churches though sometimes contrary to her owne when they are not repugnant to fayth or good manners Such was the Easterne custome of not obseruing the Saturday-fast which therfore she allowed How then doth S. Augustine wound the Papacy in allowing the Orientalâ—s to obserue their custome since the Roman Church agreeth with him in allowing the same To proue out of S. Augustine that the Roman Church had not then authority to determine all Ecclesiasticall causes you should haue shewed that he held endlesse and indeterminable any cause which she had once determined or that he allowed what she had once condemned which whiles you do not you spend your breath in vaine Finally wheras you aske (k) Pag. 127. Whether the Church of Rome would at this day swallow and disgest such an hoat morsell as the Trull an decree was you insinuate that then she could and did swallow that morsell which how false it is you haue heard since neither Sergius Pope nor any of his successors could euer be brought to confirme that deceee or the Synod that made it which alone sheweth the transcendent authority of the Roman Church in those dayes for want of whose allowance and confirmation that Synod was then and euer since hath bene reproued as an impious Assembly whose decrees therfore you are ill aduised to obiect in fauor of your cause against the Roman Church CHAP XXIII Doctor Morton defendeth the hereticall custome of the Asian Bishops against Victor Pope BELLARMINE and other Catholike writers to proue the authority and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome practised ouer the Easterne Church in the first ages after Christ among other examples alleage the sentence of excommunication pronounced by Victor Pope against Polycrates and many other Asian Bishops for not celebrating the feast of Easter vpon the Sunday as the Roman Church did but according to the Iewish computation at the full moone of March on what day soeuer it sell wheras witnesse Eusebius (l) Lib. 5. hist c. 22. the rest of the Churches throughout the whole world insisting in the Apostolicall tradition and custome did neuer obserue their Easter on any other day then that on which our Lord arose from death which was on Sunday And so it was decreed to be kept by the Councells of Palestine of Rome of Pontus of France of Osraena of Achaia and of other Bishops almost Innumerable (m) Euseb Ibid. To which I adde out of Tertullian (n) De praescrip c. 53. that Blastus by persuading the obseruation of that Iewish custome did endeauour to bring Iudaisme againe into the Church which also Eusebius testifieth saying (o) L. 5. hish c. 14. Blastus hauing drawne many into error did labor to bring in a new Sect for the destruction of truth Vpon these grounds Victor excommunicated him and the Asian Bishops for their obstinate defence of that custome which Pius his predecessor had forbidden You obiect (p) Pag. 130. that the Asian Bishops stood out a long time against Victor and contemned his excommunication and that Polycrates pleading their cause in his Epistle to Pope Victor alleaged that they had receaued their custome from S. Iohn who leaned an our Lords brest that it was practised by Philip the Apostle and continued by Polycarp Thraseas and Sagonius all of them Bishops and Martyrs and that Polycrates himselfe hauing liued 65. yeares in the communion of the faythfull was nothing moued with those terrors meaning of excommunication which were vrged against him and the rest And you adde (q) Pag. 131. out of Eusebius that this Act of Victor did not please all other Bishops who did greatly reproue him for troubling the peace of the Church
Cyprian in his anger spread against Stephen I will not suffer to passe vnder my pen. But as C ham (t) Gen. 9.22 delighted to lay open the shamefull parts of his Father so you glory in publishing the faultes of the Saintes when you can espy any error or frailty in them though afterwards they repented themselues as Cyprian did for S. Augustine reporteth as most credible (u) L. 2. de Bapt. c. 4. ep 48. ad Vincent that he changed his opinion before his death and as absolutely certaine that by his glorious Martyrdome he washed out with his bloud the blemish which he had contracted by defending that error 3. In making this Argument you shew great folly it being so far from disprouing the Popes authority that it is an vnanswerable proofe therof as that ancient and learned Father Vincentius Lyrinensis in his golden Treatise against the prophane nouelties of heresies conuinceth in these words (x) Cap. 9.10.11 In tymes past Agrippinus of venerable memory Bishop of Carthage the first of all mortall men maintained this assertion against the diuine Scripture against the rule of the vniuersall Church against the minde of all the Priests of his tyme against the custome and tradition of his fore Fathers that Rebaptization was to be admitted and put in practise Which presumption of his procured so great domage to the Church that not only it gaue a paterne of sacriledge to all beretikes but also ministred occasion of error to some Catholikes When therfore all men euery where exclaimed against the Nouelty of that doctrine and all Priests in all places each one according to his zeale did repugne then Pope Stephen of blessed memory Bishop of the Apostolike See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops but yet more then the rest thinking it as I suppose reason so much to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth as he was superior to them in authority of place To conclude in his Epistle which then was sent to Africa he decreed the same in these words Let nothing be innouated but that obserued which came by tradition c. What then was the end of this whole businesse what els but common and vsuall Antiquity was retained nouelty abandoned But perhaps that new inuention wanted patrons and defenders To which I say on the contrary that it had such pregnant wits such eloquent tongues such number of defendants such shew of truth such testimonies of Scripture but glosed after a new and naughty fashion that all that conspiracy schisme should haue seemed to me inuincible had not the very profession of nouelty it selfe so taken in hand vnder that name defended with that title recommended ouerthrowne the very ground of so great a schisme To conclude what force had the Councell or decree of Africa By Gods prouidence none but all things there agreed vpon were abolished annulled abrogated as dreames as fables as superfluous And O strange mutation of things the authors of that opinion are iudged to be Catholikes and the followers accounted heretikes the maisters discharged and the schollers condemned the writers of those bookes shall be children of the kingdome of heauen and the maintainers of them shall burne in bell All this is of Vincentius Lyrinensis who tels you that albeit Cyprian and other his Colleagues authors of that doctrine be Saintes in heauen yet they that maintaine it now after it hath bene condemned by the vniuersall Church as you do iustifying Cyprian in his defence therof against Stephen Pope shall burne for euer in hell which I wish you to looke to in tyme to obserue how properly you are discribed by Vincentius a litle after comparing such as you are to Cham and expressing liuely your imposterous dealing in theirs 4. As in this obiection you shew folly arguing against your selfe so you cannot be excused from fraud for wheras we answeare that Firmilianus and Cyprian with the other Bishops that assented to them when they saw their doctrine reproued and condemned by the Church acknowledged their error retracted the same by a new decree contrary to that which before they had made in their Councell of Carthage you shift it of saying (y) Pag. 138. I passe it ouer as a vaine presumption and so it is proued to be By whom forsooth by your Reuitius a man of as much credit as your selfe His answere set downe by you in Latin in your margent as also what he bringeth out of Dionysius Alexandrinus and S. Basil you may see confuted by Baronius (a) Apud Bisciol anno 258. pag. 148. S. Hierome and other ancient Fathers The blessed Cyprian sayth S. Hierome (b) Aduers Lucifer stroue to auoid the miry lakes not to drinke of strange waters and vpon this subiect addressed the Synod of Carthage to Stephen B. of Rome who was the twenty sixth after S. Peter but his strife was in vaine And in the end they which had decreed that such as were baptized by heretikes must be rebaptized returning to the ancient custome set forth a new decree saying What do we So it hath bene deliuered to them by their ancestors and ours And Venerable Bede (c) L. quaest q. 5. Cyprian with his Bishops in Africa made a decree contrary to the custome of the Church that heretikes should be rebaptized but because in his sense which he conceaued to be right he endeauored to enrich himselfe with good workes he deserued to be soone reformed and by the instruction of spirituall men to be reduced to the vniuersall custome of holy Church And S. Augustine testifieth (d) L. 3. cont Crescon c. 3. that The orientall Bishops which had met at Icomium and Synnada reuoked their decree and corrected their iudgment And finally Dionysius Alexandrinus certified Pope Stephen (e) Ep. ad Stephan apud Euseb l. 7. hist c. 4. Nicephor l. 6. c. 7. that the same was done not only by the Orientall but also by other forraine Churches euery where Wherfore your obiecting of Firmilianus and Cyprian as opposing the Pope in this conuouersy and inferring that you may likewise oppose him in your Protestant Tenents is as if you should proue out of S. Peters deniall of Christ that it is lawfull for you to deny him for as S. Peter repented his fall so did those Bishops retract their error And hereby also appeares the fraud of your Reuitius seeking to limit this retraction of Firmilianus and other Bishops to those of the East only for you haue heard S. Hierome Bede S. Augustine Eusebius and Nicephorus testify that S. Cyprian with his African Bishops and all others vbique locorum in all place were reconcileds and this not only among themselues as Reuitius ridiculously glosseth for they dissented not among themselues but also with Stephe Pope returning to the ancient custome practise of the Church as he had commanded Wherevpon Dionysius Patriarke of Alexandria writ to him a congratulatory letter (f) Extat
Catholike Bishop then they did when they were heretikes from the lawes of the Emperors This was the cause why S. Augustine and this sixth Councell of Carthage beseeched Celestine not to grant Clerkes executors to all Appellants And this conuinceth you of an vntruth in saying (b) Pag. 145. fin 151. that the African Fathers call that Papall presumption of Appeales a smoaky secular arrogancy which they will not indure for it is not the Popes clayme of appeales that they qualify with the name of typhe or smoaky secular arrogancy but partly the vexation and insolence of Apiarius and other Priests despising and shaking off the yoake of Episcopall discipline and partly the force military Violence which the executors sent from Rome did somtimes vse in executing the iudgments of the See Apostolike For speaking to Boniface Pope of the insolency of Apiarius they say (c) Conc. Afric c. 101. But we hope by the help of Gods mercy that your Holinesse gouerning in the Roman See we shall no longer suffer this typhe And because the executors did somtimes make vse of secular forces they beseech Celestine (d) Ibid. c. 105. not to grant Clerkes executors to all that demand thē lest the typhe of the world be introduced into the Church Which is agreeable to the decree of the Councell of Ephesus forbidding Iohn Patriarke of Antioch to make vse of any military power to hinder the Bishops of Cyprus from electing to themselues an Archbishop without his consent lest sayth the Councell vnder pretence of executing sacred things the typhe of secular power be introduced into the Church And in the same sense the Author (*) Cap. 26. of S. Fulgentius his life said that Fulgentius commanded nothing with the typhe of secular dominion And no lesse vntruly (e) Pag. 145. fin you make the Africans say in their Epistle to Celestine that they will not indure the Papal presumtion of appeales there being no such thing to be read in that Epistle For what they speake of not induring hath no relation to Appeales but to the crimes of Apiarius As for the wretched Apiarius say they he hauing bene already cast out of the Church of Christ for his infamous crimes by our brother Faustinus we are no more in care for as much as by the meanes of the approbation and moderation of your Holinesse Africa will no longer indure him 5. You say (f) Pag. 155. This Councell denounced excommunication to all that thinke it lawfull to appeale beyond the seas This is another vntruth for the Councell speakes not of Bishops but of Priests and inferior Clerkes only so much you contradicting your selfe had acknowledged a little before setting downe the very words of the Councell thus (g) Pag. 146. If any Priest shall thinke that he ought to appeale beyond the sea meaning to Rome let him not be receaued any longer into the communion of the Church of Africke You reply (h) Pag. 155. that this answeare is a sophistry confuted by the consequence of the Councell for if inferior Clergy were prohibited much more was the same prouision made in behalfe of Bishops This consequence we deny as false sophistry for albeit they proposed this among their requests to Pope Celestine yet they made no decree nor prouision therof nor if they had cold it haue bene of force as being directly contradictory to the Canons of the two famous Councels of Nice and Sardica (i) See aboue Chap. 26. and also to the beliefe of S. Augustine saying (k) Ep. 162. that Cecilian might haue appealed beyond the sea because he was not of the number of Priests or other inferior Clerkes but of Bishops And moreouer he represented to Celestine Pope (l) Ep. 261. that wheras Antony B. of Fussala being depriued of his Bishoprick by the Bishops of Africa and left only with the bare title of Bishop had appealed to Boniface his predecessor he would be pleased to confirme the sentence of the Bishops of Africa because sayth he there had bene many like sentences in Africa euen the See Apostolike pronouncing the iudgmēt or confirming the iudgment of others as of Priscus Victor and Lawrence Bishops of the Cesarian Prouince SECT V. Whether this Controuersy of Appeales wrought in the Africans any separation of Communion from the Roman Church TO make your argument more plausible you say (m) Pag. 148. that by reason of this controuersy between the Africans and the Bishops of Rome Aurelius B. of Carthage his fellow Bishops of Africk with whom S. Augustine did consent were for the space of an hundred yeares separated frō the Church of Rome Of all the vntruths vttered in this your discourse of the sixt Councell of Carthage this is the greatest which therfore you haue reserued to the last place Finis coronat opus For that the African Fathers euen of this sixth Councell of Charthage during the very tyme of this controuersy remained still vnited to the See of Rome is proued 1. By the clause of their Epistle written to Pope Celestine in the end of this controuersy (n) Apud Bin. to 1. pag. 646. Our Lord keepe your Holinesse many yeares praying for vs Lord and Brother which were the very worlds of peace and communion vsed in Formed letters that were neuer giuen to any but to Catholikes of the same communion (o) Aug. ep 162.163 2. Out of S. Augustine who in the current of this difference writing to Boniface Pope dedicating one of his chiefest workes vnto him sayd (p) Cont. duas ep Pelag. ad Bonifa l. 1. Thou disdainest not thou who art not high minded though thou presidest higher to be a friend of the humble 3. Out of the testimony which Pope Celestine gaue of S. Augustine after his death (q) Ep. ad Epise Galliae c. 2. Augustine a man of holy memory for his lyfe merits we haue had alwaies in our communion nor hath the rumor of any sinister suspicion euer so much as touched him which Epistle of Celestine to the French is alleaged by Pettus Diaconus (r) L. de incarn grat and by Prosper (s) Cont. Collat c. 42. to iustify S. Augustines doctrine against the Pelagians 4. And the same Prosper (t) L. de promiss predict par 3. c. 38. calles Aurelius Archbishop of Carthage vnder whom the African Councell was held after his death A Father and Bishop of worthy memory and a Citizen of the heauenly country which praise he would not haue giuen him if he had died out of the communion of the Roman Church for Prosper in that very booke (u) Part. 4. c. 5. sayth that a Christian communicating with that Church is a Catholike but if he be separated from it he is an heretike and Antichrist 5. Capreolus immediat successor to Aurelius writing to the Bishops assembled in the Councell of Ephesus (x) Act. Conc. Ephes to 2. c. 9. Wee pray you
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
of Baronius saying that herein he is iustly reproued by many as one inuading vpon and intruding into the office of diuine Causes He is indeed reproued by diuers that thinke him to haue made ecclesiasticall lawes by his owne authority But by others he is iustly excused and in particular by Baronius (r) Anno 528. alleaging for his iustification as you confesse (s) Pag. 166. that he being a man wholly illiterate his Ecclesiasticall Constitutions were made by Epiphanius and Menas Patriarkes of Constantinople but publised in his name to the end they might be better obserued which was no way hurtful but profitable to the Church whose lawes were neglected and contemned by vicious Emperors and hereticall Prelates and people which at that tyme abounded in the East and especially by the Patriarkes of Constantinople many of them hauing bene infected with heresy This is apparent out of the expresse testimonies of Iustinian himselfe who not once but often professeth (t) Nou. 1 de Monast monach Nou. 81.123.133.137 that concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires he decreed nothing but according to the prescript of the holy Canons and therfore Iohn the second Pope of that name in an Epistle to him (u) Extat apud Baron anno 534. approueth and confirmeth his Lawes being informed by two Bishops Hypatius and Demetrius his Legates that they were made by the interuention and consent of Bishops according to the Doctrine of the See Apostolike decrees of the holy Fathers Wherfore Iustinian in those constitutions did nothing but what a Catholike and religious Prince might lawfully do without preiudice to the authority of the See Apostolike or inuesting himselfe in any part of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction Moreouer that by his Lawes he intended not to derogate any thing from the authority of the Bishop or Church of Rome his Lawes themselues beare witnesse We preserue sayth he in his law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (x) Cod. tit 1. L. 7. the estate of the vnity of the most holy Churches in all things with the most holy Pope of old Rome to whom we haue also written the like for we will not suffer any thing to passe concerning the affaires of the Church which shall not be referred to his Blessednesse because he is the Head of all the holy Prelates of God And in the Law Inter claras (y) Cod. tit 1. L. 8. into which is inserted that famous Epistle which he sent by Hypatius and Demetrius with a solemne Embassage to Pope Iohn against Cyrus and Eulogius Legates of the Acemites he sayth Yielding honor to the Apostolike See and to your Holynesse which is and euer hath bene our desire and honoring your Blessednesse as it becometh vs to honor our Father we haue speedily giuen notice to your Holynesse of all things that belong to the ecclesiasticall state for we haue had great care to preserue the Vnity of your Apostolike See and the state of the holy Churches of God c. And thersore we haue made hast to subiect and vnite all the Priestes of the East partes to the See of your Holynesse nor do we suffer that any thing belonging to the state of the Churches be is neuer so cleare and vndoubted be vnknowne to your Holynesse who are the Head of all the holy Churches To these restimonies of Iustinian you haue deuised diuers answers 1. With some petty Protestant Lawier you cauill at his Epistle to the Pope and the Popes answere to him as fictitious (z) Pag. 256. But this to be a calumny is learnedly proued by the two famous lawiers Alciatus (a) Parerg. l. 4. c. 24. and Cuias (b) Obseru l. 12. c. 16. 2. By Liberatus a writer of the same tyme (c) In Breu. c. 20. who reportes Iustinians embassage sent to the Pope by Hypatius and Demetrius and the Popes answeare to him which are extant in the same Law 3. By the testimony which Iustinian himselfe giues therof in his Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (d) Cod. tit 1. L. 7. and in his Epistle to Agapet Pope 4. By Leunclauius a Protestant Lawier who hath translated and printed Iustinians Epistle to the Pope and the Popes answeare to him as the eight Law of the Code 2. Wheras Iustinian call's the Pope The chief and Head of all Bishops and the Roman Church The Head of all Churches you answeare (e) Pag. 256. that we haue heard how common the word Caput hath bene without any sense of Monarchy We haue indeed heard you say (f) Pag. 50. 110. that the similitude of Head and Members implieth no superiority of iurisdiction but only of order that is of priority of place of voyce and the like But you also haue heard (g) Chap 11. Chap. 17. sect 2. how vntrue and repugnant not only to the beliefe of antiquity but euen to common sense this is 3. You obiect (h) Pag. 256. If this Rescript of Iustinian be taken so rigidly as we would haue it it is contradictory to another Constitution of his in which he grants the chiefe right in ecclesiasticall causes to belong to the Gouernor of euery Prouince We know that as while Iustinian was Catholike he made no Lawes but with the consent of Bishops and confirmation of Popes so if after he fell into heresy and contemned the authority of the Church he made lawes repugnant to the Catholike fayth and discipline of the Church t' is no wonder That proueth against you that heretikes are they which make lawes contrary to the fayth and discipline of the Roman Church and that if Iustinian had still remained a Catholike he would haue made no such lawes as he did not before he fell into heresy 4. You obiect (i) Pag. 166. Iustinian before he fell into heresy banished two Popes Siluerius and Vigilius To proue that he banished Siluerius you set downe these words as of Baronius Siluerium Papam mittit in exilium Iustinian sendeth Siluerius Pope into banishment But you abuse Baronius He hath no such words nor attributes the banishment of Siluerius to the Emperor but sayth he was sent into exile by Bellisarius and Antonina his wife partly at the instigation of the hereticall Empresse Theodora offended with him because he would not replace in the See of Constantinople Anthymus an Eutychian heretike and an inuader of that See whom therfore Agapet Pope had iustly deposed and partly for certaine crimes forged against him by her and Vigilius Yea Baronius (k) Anno 538. witnesseth that the Bishop of Patara comming to the Emperor and shewing him how displeasing it was to God that the Pope who is ouer the Church of the whole world to whom no King in the world is comparable should be driuen from his See he presently commanded him to be recalled from the place of banishment to Rome that the accusations against him of Treason might be examined But if Baronius had said that Iustinian
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.
in like manner answere you that as you haue followed some wicked Clergy-men of his Church in their disobedience to the See Apostolike so follow them in their repentance and both he and they would condemne you of great perfidiousnesse in proclaiming their sinne and concealing their amendment 5. You obiect (i) Pag. 214.215 that S. Ambrose refused to follow the Church of Rome in the custome of washing the feet of infants is baptized which say you the Church of Rome iudged to be superfluous but contrariwise Ambrose and the Church of Milan held to be necessary Your custome is to borrow Arguments from Catholike writers and suppresse their solutions This you borow from Bellarmine (k) L. 2. de Pont. c. 16. as you do many others In him read the answere It shall suffife me to tell you that the Roman Church obligeth not other Churches to vse or omit all the rites and ceremonies which she vseth or omitteth in administration of the Sacraments or other Ecclesiasticall offices In such as are of themselues indifferent she commandeth nothing as you haue heard (l) ChaÌ„p 2â— sect 3. but leaueth freedome to other Churches to follow their owne customes Such was the ceremony of washing the feet of infantes baptized which though she practized not she condemned not and therfore it was free for the Church of Milan to vse it without any disobedience at all to the Church of Rome If you had not bene minded to trifle you should haue proued that S. Ambrose disobeyed the Roman Church in matter of fayth as you do This you cannot proue both because S. Augustine hath testified (m) Cont. Iulia Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. that in the workes of Blessed Ambrose the Roman fayth greatly shineth also because he himselfe defineth a Catholike Bishop to be one that a greeth with the Roman Church (n) Orat. de obitu Satyri and protesteth to Siricius (o) L. 10. ep 81. that whom the Roman Church condemneth he following her iudgment holdeth in like manner condemned of which number you are one SECT VIII S. Augustines iudgment concerning the necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome and subiection to the Bishop therof S. Augustines iudgment was that the Roman Church is the Head of all Churches which he professed saying (p) Ep. 162. In her hath alwaies florished the Princedome of the See Apostolike Princedome I say not only Principality of Order as you comment but of true power and authority ouer all the Churches of the world as hath bene effectually proued (q) Chap. 17. sect 2. and the ensuing testimonies of S. Augustine shall further confirme For heerein he declared his iudgment when together with all the Fathers of the Mileuitan Councell to which he was Secretary he writ to Innocentius Pope (r) Ep. â—2 For as much as God by the gift of his principall grace hath placed you in the Apostolike See and granted you to be such in our dayes as we ought rather to feare that it should be imputed to vs for a crime of negligence if we should conceale from your Reuerence those things which for the Church ought to be represented to you then to imagine that you can receaue them disdainefully or negligently we beseech you to apply your Pastorall diligence to the great perills of the weake members of Christ. You deny not but that S. Augustine with the whole Councell in these words requireth the Popes Pastorall diligence for the repressing of the Pelagian heresy in Palestine and Africk but your answere is (s) Pag. 218. that Iohn the first writing to an Arch-bishop granteth that the charge of the Church for the helpe of all in repressing of heresies was committed to him as well as to himselfe that euery Patriarke hath a Principality and height of a Pastorall watch-tower aboue all Metropolitans and Bishops and yet haue they not ouer all Bishops power of iurisdiction But these euasions I haue already proued to be vaine and not without Imposture (t) See aboue Chap. 19. sect 3. That euery Bishop ought to concurre to the help of all in repressing of heresy we deny not but we deny that euery Bishop hath a watch-tower of pastorall authority to iudge and condemne heretikes whersoeuer out of his owne Dioces as S. Augustine and the Mileuitan Fathers acknowledge the Pope to haue out of his Dioces and Patriarkship of Rome requiring him to condemne by his pastorall authority the Pelagians in Africk Palestine And that the Popes power herein exceedeth the iurisdiction of all other Bishops S. Augustine professeth writing to Boniface Pope (u) Cont. duas Epist. Palag l. 1. c. 1. Thou disdainest not to be afrend of the humble though thou be placed in a higher gouerment And againe (x) Ibid. The pastorall watch is common to vs all that haue the office of Bishops but thou art supereminent in a higher degree And yet further he declareth this supereminent power and iurisdiction of the Pope to extend it selfe ouer all the world writing to Optatus (y) Ep. 157. Pelagius and Celestius by the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councels with the helpe of God who vndertakes the protection of his Church haue bene condemned in the extent of the whole world by two reuerend Prelats of the Apostolike See Pope Innocentius and Pope Sozimus If then S. Augustine belieued aright the Pope hath Pastorall power to represse and condemne heretikes throughout the whole world which other Bishops haue not their pastorall power being confined to the limits of their owne Diocesses Your obiections against this are 1. (z) Pag. 219.210 That S. Augustine speaking of Stephen B. of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage calleth theÌ„ Two Bishops of most eminent Churches Ergo the B. of Rome hath not iurisdiction ouer the B. of Carthage for there cannot be Two most Eminents Your consequence is vntrue and such you must confesse it to be for the B. of Rome being Patriarke of all the West the B. of Carthage is subiect vnto him as you forgetting your selfe afterwards acknowledge (a) Pag. 2â—9 Wherefore S. Augustine calling Stephen and Cyprian two Bishops of two most eminent Churches intended not to deny the subordination of Cyprian to StepheÌ„ nor of the Church of Carthage to that of Rome but only to signify that as the Roman Church is most eminent by reason of her Patriarchall power ouer the West and her Primacy ouer the whole world so the Church of Carthage is also most eminent though in an inferior degree by reason of her Primacy ouer all Africa And in this sense both those Churches â—â—e most-Eminent the one ouer all Africa and the other ouer all the world Your second obiection of the Saturday-fast (b) Pag. 220. your third of the deniall of Appeales out of Africa to Rome (c) Pag. 221. your fourth concerning the cause of Cecilian (d) Ibid. your fifth of the Epistle to the Hebrues whether in S. Augustines
name of Pastor was neuer giuen to any other Apostle or Bishop but only to S. Peter and his successors The rest of the Apostles sayth S. Bernard (h) L. 2. de confideras obtayned each of them their peculiar flocks Iames contented with Hierusalem yieldes the vniuer sality to Peter And long before him Eucherius that famous and learned Bishop of Lions (i) Hom. in Vigil S. Pe◠Christ first committed to Peter his Lambes and then his sheepe because he made him not only a Pastor but Pastor of Pastors Peter therfore feedeth the Lambes and the sheepe he feedeth the yong ones and the dammes he gouerneth the subiects and the Prelates and is therfore Pastor of all for besides Lambes and sheep there is nothing in the Church Your euasion (k) Pag. 243. n. 20. that if by Pastor we vnderstand curam studium care and study towards the good of the vniuersall Church in this all other Bishops are Pastors as well as the Pope is impertinent for charity obligeth not only Bishops but euery Christian man and woman to haue a care and study towards the good of the vniuersall Church according to their abilities But the Pope is not only bound to a charitable care and study as all others are but by reason of his Pastorall office and function is the guide and Gouernor of the vniuerfall Church throughout the whole world And vntill you can shew the like Pastorall power and iurisdiction attributed to any other Bishop you must confesse his title of Pastor to be without parallell The like hath bene proued (l) Aboue Chap. 14. sect 3. of his titles of Doctor of Pope (m) Chap. 23. of Vicar of Christ (n) Chap. 14. sect 2. of Apostolicall man (o) Chap. 14. sect 3. and Apostolate applied to his person and function and of Apostolicall See to the Roman Church Nor is it hard to proue the same of all the other titles mentioned by Bellarmine He is called Father of Fathers and Prince of Priests which titles though they may in a true sense be giuen to euery Patriark and Archbishop in respect of other Bishops subiect to them and to euery Bishop in respect of the inferior Pastors of his Dioces yet not in the same sense in which they are giuen to the Pope In like manner the name of Pontifex and Summus Pontifex are sometimes giuen to other Bishops but not as to the Pope for he is called by the foure Primats of Africa (p) See Spond anno 646. n. 1. their Synods Pater Patrum Summus omnium Praesulum Pontifex the Father of Fathers and the chiefe Bishop of all Bishops And Venerable Bede (q) L. 1. hist Angl. c. 1. sayth of S. Gregory that in toto orbe gerebat Pontificatum that his Episcopall power was ouer the whole world which S. Anselm◠also expressed dedicating his booke De incarnatione to Vrbanus Pope with this inscription Domino Patri vniuersae Ecclesiae in terra peregrinantis Summo Pontifici Vrbano To the chiefe Bishop Vrbanus Lord Father of the vniuersall Church militant on earth Where do you find any parallell to this title of the Pope The like I say of the title of Rector domus Dei Ruler or Gouernor of the house of God for albeit each of the Apostles were Rulers and Gouernors of the Church and so S. Andrew is so called in the Collect vsed on his festiuall day yet the ordinary Episcopall authority and iurisdiction of none of them nor of any other Bishop whatsoeuer but only of S. Peter and his successors extends to the rule Gouerment of the vniuersall Church For which cause Valentinian the third intituleth the Pope Rector of the Vniuersality of Churches And both he and Theodosius say (s) Constit. Nouell Tit. 24. So the peace of the Church shall be conserued by all if the Vniuersality acknowledge her Rector And Theodoret being deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus appealed to Leo Pope because sayth he (t) Ep. ad Renat The holy Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the world Where do you find the title of Ruler or Gouernor of the Church attributed to any other Apostle or Bishop in this sense The same I say of the title of Head of the Church for in the Nicen Councell (u) Can. 39. ex Graec. Arab the B. of Rome is called Head and Prince of all Patriarkes The Councell of Sardica (x) Insert in fragment Hilar citatur expresseth the same in their Epistle to Pope Iulius à Nicol. c. i◠Ep. ad Episc Gal. It is very good fit that from all the Prouinces the Bishops haue reference to their Head that is to the See of the Apostle Peter In the Councell of Ephesus (y) Part. 2. Act. 2. when the Legates of Celestine Pope arriued thither they gaue thankes to the Fathers there assembled that by their holy and religious voices they had shewed themselues holy members to the blessed Pope their holy Head The Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon (z) In relat ad Leon. call Leo Pope their Head themselues his members and acknowledge him (a) Ibid. to rule ouer them as the Head doth ouer the members And his Legates in the same Councell said (b) Act. 1. We haue the commands of the Pope of Rome who is the Head of all Churches and the Councell contradicted not but presently obeyed his commands S. Prosper sayth (c) L. De ingrat c. 2. Rome the See of Peter is made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world possessing by religion what it doth not by force of armes which S. Leo also expresseth saying (d) Serm. 1. in Nata Apost Petri Pauli Rome by the sacred See of Peter being made Head of the world hath a larger extent of gouerment by diuine religion then by earthly dominion Eugenius B. of Carthage (e) Vict. Vticen l. ◠calls the Roman Church The Head of all Churches S. Fulgentius (f) De incarn grat c. 11. The Top of the world And Ennodius sayth (g) Lib de Synod sub Symmacho habit The dignity of the See Apostolike is Venerable throughout the whole world whiles all the faithfull are subiect vnto it as being the Head of the whole body Iustinian intituleth the Pope (h) Cod. Tit. 1. L. 7. The Head of all the holy Prelates of God and the Head of all Churches And the Bishops of the lower Maesia (i) Apud Bin. to 2. pag 154. professe Leo B. of Rome to be Truly the Head of all Churches You answere first (k) Pag. 242. that S. Basil calls Athanasius Top or crowne of the head of all S. Basill
meanes not that Athanasius was the top or head of all but omnium nostrum of vs all as the Latine translation hath that is to say of all the Orthodoxe Pastors which in those Easterne parts applied themselues to remedy the calamities of that distracted Church 2. You say (l) Ibid. Cyrill in a Councell the first of Ephesus is called The Head of the assembly True he presided in that Councell as Vicar to Pope Celestine whom therfore Cyrill and the whole Councell acknowledged to be their Head (m) See aboue Chap. 18. sect 1 3. You say (n) Pag. 243. S. Chrysestome calls Antioch The head City of the whole world S. Chrysostome by the whole world vnderstandeth not all the nations vnder heauen but the East only as a litle before he had declared speaking of Flauianus He knew well that the busines of his embassy to the Empetor was not for one City but for all the East for of all the cities seated in the East our City is the Head and mother If you can shew that the Fathers and Councells when they call the Roman Church The head of all Churches and the B. of Rome The Head of all the holy Prelates of God explicate themselues to speake of the West only or of any part of the world your answeare shall be accepted but vntill then it shall stand for sophistry as it is and you well know it to be The rest of your answeares to the titles giuen to Popes by the ancient Fathers are of the same straine but to dwell in the examination of euery patticular is a superfluous labor especially the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome being vnanswearably proued by the Titles which I haue declared But you obiect (n) Pag. 258. that of later times blasphemous titles are giuen to the Popes by their Parasites and swallowed vp by them as their spirit and vitall breath I cannot but meruaile that a man of your learning yeares and calling should make such obiections in good earnest which consist merely in your owne violent wresting of words contrary to the sense meaning of them that spake them and contrary I dare say to your owne knowledge for you cannot be so simple as to thinke that those titles were euer giuen to any Pope in that sense in which you misconstrue them But your good will to the Bishop and Church of Rome is such that so you may make them hateful to your readers you regard not how you delude them nor how you wronge our Authors First then the Pope is called Sponsus Ecclesiae The bridegroome of the Church This title you except against (o) Pag. 246.251 as blasphemous because the Church (p) Ioan. 3.29 is called The Spouse of Christ But why may not the name of Bridegroome which is one of the titles of Christ without blasphemy and without wrong to Christ be giuen to his Vicar on earth in an inferior degree as the name of Light of the world another of his titles is without blasphemy or wrong to him giuen to his Apostles (q) Math. 5.14 Shall we thinke that 500. Reuerend Bishops in the second Generall Councell of Lions (r) C. vbi peric De elect in 6. blasphemed when they approued that title vnto the Pope Shall Doctor Morton now after 350. yeares come to controle them and teach them how to speake But you aske (s) Pag. 246. how S. Bernard did like of this diuinity He say you writing vnto Pope Eugenius admonisheth him not to call himselfe the Bridegroome of the Church which is the spouse of Christ for sayth he Nemo committit sponsam suam Vicario No man will commit his spouse to his Vicar Can there be a more wilfull falsification S. Bernard hath no such words They are yours and directly contrary to S. Bernards words and Doctrine who in that very Epistle (t) Ep. 237. sayth to Eugenius Tibi commissa est Domini tui sponsa The spouse of thy Lord is committed to thee And to Innocentius Pope (u) Ep. 191. To thee is committed the spouse of Christ thou art a friend of the Bridegroome It belongs to thee to present a chast Virgin to one man Christ. In what sense therfore S. Bernard admonished Eugenius (x) Ep. 237. to call the beloued spouse of Christ Princesse not my Princesse these passages of his giue sufficiently to be vnderstood and our authors haue declared (y) See Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. c. 31. Nor can this diuinity seeme strange to any man that is a Diuinor for although there be but one chiefe Bridegroome of the Church which is Christ and in respect of him all Bishops are but Paranymphes friends of the Bridegroome yet who knoweth not what Demetrius B. of Bulgaria writing to Constantinus Cabasilas hath rightly obserued that as in carnall marriage the Bridegroome by a ring weddeth himselfe to his Bride so a Bishop hath a ring giuen vnto him to signify the spirituall mariage betweene him his Church And as euery particular Bishop without any wrōg to Christ is a Bridegroome of his particular Church vnder Christ cooperating extrinsecally with him to beget children vnto him by preaching his word administring his Sacraments so likewise in the same sense the Pope is Bridegroome of the vniuersall Church and she his spouse without any wrong to Christ 2. You obiect (z) Pag. 251. out of Bzouius Innocentius the eight was called by Abrahamus Polonus Regno vnctione Christus prae participibus sui◠In Royalty and vnction Christ aboue his fellowes This title also you will haue to be blasphemous because S. Paul (a) Heb. 1.9 giues that name to Christ But what then say you to S. Bernard who (b) L. 2. de consider at calls Eugenius Pope Peter in power in Vnction Christ Did he not know how to speake Did he blaspheme And if he did not why do you misinterpret Polonus his words who spake in the same sense S. Bernard did 3. You obiect (d) Pag. 251. The Orator of the Venetians called Paul the second Celestiall Maiesty But what say you to Bassianus B. of Ephesus who in his petition to the Emperors Valentinian and Martian (e) In Conc. Chalced. Act. 11. sayth I cast my selfe at your Diuine feet quatenus dignetur Vestra caelestis Potestas c. that your celestiall Power may vouchsafe to write to the Councell c. Et vestram Diuinitatem exoro And I beseech your Diuinity c. What to that learned Doctor Theodorus Studites and his fellow Regulars saying (f) In Ep. ad Michael Imper to Michael the Emperor If your diuine Magnificence seeme to doubt of any thing or not to belieue the declaration is piously to be required from the Pope What to the Bishops of the Councell of Mopsuestia saying (g) Ep. ad Vigil to Vigilius Pope The things which concerne the state of the Churches are to be referred to your Diuinely
honored Blessednesse Did not these men know how to speake Or will you presume to charge them with blasphemy Wherfore as they by Celestiall power by Diuinity and Diuine Magnificence did not vnderstand the increated power and Maiesty of Almighty God but the great dignity and power giuen by him to Emperors and Popes vpon earth so if you had not bene minded to cauill and spend paper in obiecting silly sophismes insteed of solid Arguments you might haue knowne that the Venetian Orator by the title of Celestiall Maiesty giuen to the Pope vnderstood nothing els but the great power and dignity of supreme Gouernor of Gods Church giuen him from heauen 4. You obiect (h) Pag. 251. Galbus Embassador of France called Pius the fourth The voyce and oracle of Truth proper to Christ who sayth I am the truth So likewise Christ sayth (i) Ioan. 9.6 I am the light of the world doth he therfore blaspheme that calls the Apostles and Doctors of the Church lights of the world This Syr is not to argue but to trifle If it be blasphemy to call the Roman Church or the definitions of the B. of Rome The oracle of truth what thinke you of 289. Bishops assembled in the sixt Councell generall (k) Act. 8. 18. calling the Epistle of Agatho Pope The suggestion of the holy Ghost dictated by the mouth of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles And what of the Bishops of France who speaking to Leo Pope of the instructions of fayth which he had sent them said (l) Inter Ep. Leonis post Ep. 51. From the See Apostolike spring forth still the Oracles of the Apostolicall spirit which what are they but Oracles of truth for the Apostles were pen-men of the holy Ghost and guided by the spirit of truth And why did the Councell of Mileuis say (m) Aug. Ep. 92. that God ruleth the Pope in his consultations of fayth And why S. Augustine speaking of the Roman chaire (n) Ep. 166◠that Christ in the chaire of vnity hath placed the doctrine of Verity And why did Christ assure S. Peter that his successors shall not faile in their definitions of fayth (o) See this proued aboue Chap. 12. sect 1. 2. but because the definitions of the See Apostolike are of truth 5. If an orator of Portugall speaking of the dignity of the B. of Rome called it A dignity aboue all Principalities and Powers why may not you vnderstand that he vseth that manner of speach to professe that so great a dignity hath not bene conferred on any other either Man or Angell Which if to you it be Blasphemy is to Orthodoxall people a certaine Truth for to be the supreme Vicar of Christ on earth and gouern or of the vniuersall Church is a dignity that hath bene giuen to no man nor Angell but only to S. Peter and his successors 6. If Bellarmine (p) Cont. de Rom. Pont. Praefat. called Sixtus Quintus The Corner-stone in Sion proued precious and chiefe foundation what was it els to say but as Christ sayd to S. Peter in him to his successors that he was the Rocke and foundation of the Church signified by Sion and that wheras the rest of the Apostles are secondary foundations Peter his successors are in that ranck the chiefest and next vnto Christ and therfore in a secondary sense participate with him and as his Vicars the title of Corner-stone in Sion 7. You bid vs stop our eares (q) Pag. 25◠that we may not heare Stapleton call Gregory the thirteenth Supremum in terris Numen which you english Power Might and Maiesty of God on earth But you must be put to your Grammer againe to learne that Numen doth not only signify the increated power and Maiesty of God but any great earthly Power why els did Cicero say (r) Philip. 3. Magna est vis magnum Numen vnum idem sentientis Senatus And why did Iustinian say (s) Authen ad Ioan. Pap. Vt Eccles Rom. Necessarium duximus fontem Sacerdotij speciali nostri Numinis lege sancire Stapleton therfore blasphemes not but you falsify obtruding for his sense your owne ignorance of grammer or which is worse your wilfull misconstruction of his words 8. You obiect (t) Pag. 252. that the Glosse calls the Pope Our Lord God the Pope This is a malicious cauill for the word Deus God is not in the Roman copy not in the ancient edition of Paris anno 1522. by Thielman Keruer Printer to that famous Vniuersity nor in the edition of Turin per Nicolaum Beuilaquam anno 1520. Only I finde it in the Parisian edition of the yeare 1585. which hath no name of printer and therfore giues cause of suspicion that it is of an hereticall printer or if he were a Catholike why may it not be thought to be an error in the print or that wheras the Pope is somtimes called Dominus Dominus noster Papa in the second place Dominus for breuity sake is wont to be expressed only by the letter D the Printer thinking that Dominus was not to be repeated twice for Dominus in the second place said Deus But to giue you your greatest aduantage let the edition be Catholike let the words be as you obiect them must you presently cry blasphemy and bid vs stop our eares Doth not Deus often signify an earthly dignity Did not Dauid (u) Psal 81.1 call Magistrates Gods when he said God stood in the assembly of Gods and in the middest iudgath Gods Did not God himselfe (x) Exod. 7.1 call Moyses the God of Pharao Did not Christ say (y) Ioan. 10.35 to all that are his children by grace You are all Gods Did not Constantine the Great (z) L. 1. hist c. 2. speaking to the Bishops of the Nicen Councell say You are constituted Gods by the true God and therfore end your strefes among your selues for it is not fit that Gods should be iudged vs vs And did not S. Gregory (a) L. 4. ep 31. alleaging this testimony of Constantine adde vnto it that God himselfe in the holy Scripture hath honored Priests with the name of Gods And did not our late Soueraigne King Iames say (b) Praefat. monit that Kings are Gods vpon earth Did he or any of the other heere named blaspheme I suppose you will not presume to lay so foule an aspersion on thē or if you do we shal make bold to tel you that you blaspheme whiles in your late Sermon preached at Durham before his Maiesty you call Kings Mortall Gods Yf then the name of God may not only without blasphemy but in a true Catholike and pious sense be giuen to all Kings to all Magistrates to all Bishops to all Priests to all Gods adoptiue Children shall it be blasphemy only to giue it to the chiefe of all Priests to the Bishop of Bishops Did S. Bernard blaspheme (c) L. 2. de
confiderat when he called Eugenius Pope The God of Pharao as God called Moyses Did Ladislaus that famous King of Hungary blaspheme when he called Nicolas the fifth A God vpon earth (d) Orat. ad Nicol. 5. Acknowledge then that this your obiection is an imposterous cauill against the Bishop and Church of Rome or rather a calumny inuented to mantaine a bad cause which with other Arguments you cannot vphold CHAP. XXXVI The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of ancient Fathers discouered SECT I. Some of his Answeares examined WHAT hath bene produced hitherto out of antiquity conuincingly proueth the vniuersall Authority and Iurisdiction of the B. of Rome to haue bene acknowledged from the beginning by all the Catholikes of the world Here you vndertake to answeare the testimonies of ancient Fathers alleaged by Bellarmine but performe it not Some of them you passe ouer not only without answeare but without any mention of them as of Valentinian the Emperor Venerable Bede S. Anselme Hugo de S. Victore and S. Bernard whom yet Caluin (e) L. 4. instit c. 7. §. 22. cites for himselfe acknowledgeth to be a Saint 2. To the testimonies of S. Ignatius and Irenaeus you answeare but satisfy not as hath bene proued (f) Chap. 15. sect 5. 6. And the like hath bene shewed of your answeares to the testimonies of S. Basil (g) Chap. 34. sect 4. and Iustinian (h) Chap. 30. sect 5. the Emperor 3. Of S. Prosper you say (i) Pag. 270. fin 271. init His meaning might haue bene better knowne if he had written in prose and not assumed vnto him the liberty of a Poet. But who seeth not this to be a mere shift void of truth for as in verse he sayd (k) L. De ingrat c. 2. Now Rome the great Apostle Peters seat Head of Pastorall Honour here below Hath by fayths Empire made her selfe more great then she by all her armed powers could grow So likewise he said in prose (l) De vocat gentium c. 16. The soueraignty of the Apostolicall Priesthood hath made Rome greater by the Tribunall of religion then by the Throne of Power Bellarmine alleageth both the one and the other as well in prose as in verse But because both of them are vnanswerable you vnder colour that the one is in verse reiect S. Prosper as fabulous in both for the liberty which Poets assume vnto them is to report fables insteed of truthes This is the reuerence you beare to that holy and renowned Father and such the solutions wherwith you shift off the testimonies of antiquity and yet beare your Readers in hand that you belieue as they belieued 4. The B. of Patara in Licia (m) Liberat. in Breu. c. 22. vpon the banishment of Pope Siluerius represented to the Emperor Iustinian the iudgment of God vpon the expulsion of the Bishop of so great a Seate saying There are many Kings in the world but not one of them as the Pope who is Head ouer the Church of the whole world You answeare (n) Pag. 156. Liberatus who reported this history was an author deceaued by heretikes belieued not himselfe what he reported for the Pope Giue vs any one author that excepted against this relation of Liberatus before your selfe or that sayd he himselfe beliued not what he reported for the Pope If it shall be lawfull for you to reiect testimonies of antiquity vpon no other ground but because they are against your selfe what authority may not with such answeares be eluded You know this not to satisfy and therfore haue inuented another that this Greeke Author must be taken in the Greeke sense of Primacy of order This satisfieth as litle as the former for the B. of Patara compares the spirituall authority of the Pope with the temporall of Kings protesting that no King hath temporall power ouer all the Kingdoms of the earth as the Pope hath spirituall ouer the Church of the wholeworld Againe that the Popes Primacy in the Greeke sense is not Primacy of iurisdiction but of Order only is said gratis and vntruly The Greeke Fathers in the Councell of Chalcedon spake in the Greeke sense yet they acknowledged (o) In relat ad Leon. the Pope to be their Head and to rule ouer them at the Head doth ouer the members Theodoret spake in the Greeke sense when he said (p) In Ep. â—â— Renat The See of Rome hath the sterne of gouernment ouer all the Churches of the world Theodosius spake in the Greeke sense (q) Const. â— Nouel The 24. when he called the Pope Rector of the vniuersality of Churches This therefore is the Greeke sense and in this sense the B. of Patara spake to Iustinian 5. S. Epiphanius (r) Haeres 58. reporteth that Vrsacius Valens Bishops chiefe sticklers of the Arians touched with remorse for their treachery against Athanasius went vp to Rome and presenting libels of pennance to Iulius Pope craued pardon for their offence and promised to stand to his iudgment which sheweth that they acknowledged him to be the Head and Iudge of Bishops This testimony though set downe in your Latine margent curtalled (s) Pag. 254. yet in your English you make no mention of it but pretending to answeare by a similitude tell vs a tale of a tubbe of A. R. in the County of Suffolke crauing pardon of the Sheriffe of Middelsex for a notorius offence done vnto him But to omit that hereby the English reader can haue no notice at all of the force of this testimony your answeare is nether similitude nor solution but petitio principij a false supposition that Vrsacius and Valens asked pardon of Iulius for a notorious offence done vnto him Their offence was not against Iulius but against Athanasius and yet of this offence they asked pardon of Iulius because they knew that to him as to the Head of the Church it belonged to remedy the disorders of the Church and that as he had power to punish them for their offence so he had also to pardon them vpon their submission and promise of amendment which to that end they made 6. No lesse impertinent is the other flimflam which you adde (t) Pag. 254. as an answeare to the testimony of Dionysius Alexandrinus of two Gentlemen the one being a Iustice of peace agreeing to haue their difference to be ordered by another Iustice of peace for when Dionysius Patriarke of Alexandria was fallen into suspicion of heresy (u) Athanas de sent Dion Et de Sin Arim Seleuc the Catholikes of Alexandria went vp to Rome to accuse him before the Pope The Pope admonished him to cleare himselfe and he obeying presently sent vp a booke of defence and apology which sheweth that both the people Patriarke of Alexandria acknowledged that the cause of Bishops and of fayth were to be tried at the Popes tribunall and that the Pope knew himselfe to haue
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
against this Epistle to be of no force 3. You except (r) pag. 28â— against the Epistle of Pius because you will not belieue him to haue commanded that if any drops were shed out of the Chalice in the Eucharist they should be licked vp and the board scraped You belieue not this because you belieue not the reall presence of the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist but thinke it reuerence inough if your Clerke take home your bread that remaines and crimble it into his potage and drinke vp the wine merily with his guests at dinner and yet some of you tell the people it is the body and bloud of Christ Howsoeuer your Argument is wholly from the matter for this command of Pius is not in his first Epistle which you deceiptfully cite in your margent nor in any of his Epistles but in his decrees which the Church approueth (s) Breuiar Roman Iul. 11. from whence to inferre that his Epistles are apocryphall is a consequence which I suppose you will not grant I am sure euery one will see to be absurd The error which out of Baronius you mention (t) Pag. 282. in two of Pius his Epistles might easily creepe into the copies by negligence or mistake of the Scribe and therfore is no sufficient Argument to disauthorize them and much lesse the rest in which there is no such mistake 4. You reiect (u) Ibid. the Epistles of Soter and Alexander because you cannot thinke the vse of Incense at the Altar nor the expiation of small offences by holy water to be so ancient For your better instruction coÌ„cerning the ancient vse of incense at the altar I remit you to (x) L. 1. de ritib Eccles c. 9. DuraÌ„tius who sheweth how foolishly it is relected by heretikes to Bellarmine (y) L. 2. de Missa c. 15. and Brereley in his Liturgy of the Masse (z) Pag. 40. n. 12 pag. 94. lit D. Concerning the antiquity of holy-water for the expiation of small offences casting out of Diuels and other great miracles wrought by sprinkeling therof read Baronius (a) Spoud Indic V. Aquae Beâ—ed antiq vsus Bellarmine (b) L. 3. de Eccles triumph c. 7. l. 2. de Missa c. 15. Durantius (c) L. 1. de rit c. 21. and Brereley (d) Liturg. pag. 64. lit u. x. pag. 94. l. b. c. They will certify you that both these ceremonies are Apostolicall traditions vsed in the Church from the beginning shew your reiecting of those ancient Epistles because they are mentioned in them to be cauilling without ground 5. Because Cooks findeth in some of those Epistles a word or a phrase which some one Author thinkes not to be so ancient in that sense or forsooth not so elegant and Ciceronian you are pleased to call them all horrid and barbarous (e) Pag. 279. to help out the matter you exemplisy in Caius which is none of the fourteene alleaged by Bellarmine But you consider not that diuers of those Epistles were written in Greeke and that the Latine phrase is not of the authors but of the translators And as Nicolas the first (f) Ep. 8. apud Bin to 3. pag. 682. speaking to the vngodly Emperor Michaell of Latin translated into Greeke sayth If it beget barbarismes the fault is not in the Latin tongue but in the Translators striuing not only to keep the sense but vsing force to render word by word so I say to you if in the Epistles of ancient Popes you find some words or manners of speach not so vsuall the fault is not in the Epistles but in the Translators striuing to render them word by word And to go no further for the confutation of this cauill you obiect against vs (g) Pag. 291. out of an Epistle of Adrian the first that liued almost 800. yeares after Christ these words Consecrationes Episcoporum Archiepiscoporum sicut olitana constat traditio nostra dioecosis existentes in which whether you regard the word olitana or the phrases sicut olitana constat traditio consecrationesnostrae dioecesis existentes you may vnder colour that the phrase of this Epistle is horrid and barbarous reiect it with as much ground as you do the Epistles of Popes that liued in the first 300. yeares after Christ The truth therfore is that you reiect those because they make wholly against you and receaue this because you find something in it which may serue you for an Argument against vs though without ground for Adrian in that Epistle most effectually proueth the authority of the Roman See wherof something hath bene spoken already (h) Chap. 33. sect 2. SECT II. The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of Popes that liued in the second 300. yeares after Christ THere is no stronger Argument then that which is drawne from the confession of the Aduersaries for as Tertullian obserueth (i) In Apologet No man lieth to his owne shame and therfore he is soner to belieued that confesseth against himselfe then he that denieth in his owne behalfe Which truth the Father of the Roman eloquence vnderstood by the light of nature saying (k) Orat. P. Qui. Thy testimony which in another mans cause is litle to be regarded when it is against thy selfe is of great weight And you acknowledge (l) Answere to the Prot. Apol. Epist. Dedicat. that the testimony of the aduersary is the greatest reason of satisfaction Let vs then see whether you wil not beare witnesse for vs against your selues that the Popes of the first 600. yeares after Christ acknowledged and exercised their authority and iurisdiction ouer all the Churches of the world and this chiefly in their Epistles for of most of them there are no other writings extant Their testimonies in this behalfe are plentifully alleaged by Maister Brereley (m) Protest Apologâ—tra 1. sect 3. subdiu 10. sect 7. subd 5. and in particular concerning the Popes of the second 300. yeares of whom our question here is he sayth They Protestant writers consesse and say that in the fifth age the Roman Bishops applied themselues to get and establish dominion ouer other Churches To this end they vsurped to themselues the right of granting priuiledges and ornaments to other Archbishops they confirmed Archbishops in their Sees deposed excommunicated and absolued others arrogating also to themselues power of citing Archbishops to declare their causes before them and that against a Bishop appealing to the Roman See nothing should be determined but what the B. of Rome censured That they appointed Legats in remote Prouinces which were somtimes no meaner men then some one or other of the Patriarkes That they challenged authority to heare and determine all vprising controuersies especially in questions of fayth That they tooke vpon them power of appointing generall Councells and to be Presidents in them and euen by their Deputies when
proceeds from the Father alone which error of the Greekes is also testified and learnedly confuted by that famous Cardinall Bessarion and by Gennadius Scholarius in two speciall Treatises of this subiect and before them by S. Thomas of Aquine (d) Opusc contr error Graec. against whom writ Nicolaus Cabasilas whose booke is extant in the Vatican was soone after confuted by Demetrius Cidoinus a Greeke Catholike And to omit other Protestant writers Thomas Rogers in his booke of the 39. Articles perused by the authority of the Church of England allowed to be publike sayth (e) Art 3. propos 3. pag. 25. This discouereth all them to be impious to erre from the way of truth which hold and affirme that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father but not from the Sonne as this day the Grecians the Russians the Muscouites mantaine and in proofe therof he alleageth other Authors Finally the same is testified by Kekerman (f) Sistem Theolog. pag. 63. and Doctor White (g) Way Ep. Ded. n. 8. affirming that the Latin Greeke Churches brake vpon the Controuersy of the proceeding of the holy Ghost From hence it followeth that the Greekes which are not of the Roman Communion are absolute Heretikes and erre fundamentally for what error can be more fundamentall then that which is immediatly against the blessed Trinity God himselfe This you could not be ignorant of but that you may not seeme to be absurd in professing that Protestants are accordant in communion with heretikes you seeke to free the Grecians from heresy which you haue no other meanes to performe but by falsifying Catholike Authors 1. Therfore to this end you alleage (h) Pag. 334. lit q. marg these words as of Cardinall Tolet Gracus intelligens dicit Spiritum sanctum procedere per Filium quod non aliud significat quà m quod nos dicimus And in your text you english them thus The vnderstanding Greekes saying that the holy Ghost proceedeth by the Sonne signify therby nothing but what we our selues professe O egregious imposture Tolet there explicating these words of S. Iohn qui à Patre procedit expresly condemneth the Greekes of error in that point and proueth out of S. Cyrill that these words of S. Iohn confute their error Locus prasens c. This present passage sayth he (i) In caput 15. Ioan. Annot 25. doth no way fauor the error of the Grecians but rather confuteth and ouerthroweth the same for out of these words it is plaine that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne and the Father which Cyrill though an vnderstanding Grecian confesseth saying that the holy Ghost is of the Sonne and of the Father and that he proceedeth from the Father but by the Sonne Which signifieth nothing els but what we say These are Tolers words in which you see he chargeth the Greekes with error in their beliefe of the holy Ghost and therby conuinceth you of an vntruth in saying (k) Pag. 334. that Tolet freeth them from heresy in this point But to make good this vntruth you corrupt his words for whereas he speaking not of the later Greekes but only of that ancient and Orthodoxe Father S. Cyrill sayth Cyrillus Graecus intelligens c. Cyrill an vnderstanding Grecian sayth in this point no other thing but what we professe you both in your Latin and English leaue out Cyrillus as if Tolet had not mentioned him and translate Graecus intelligens in the plurall number The vnderstanding Greekes which you do purposely to perswade your reader that Tolet speaketh not of S. Cyrill nor of any particular man but in generall of the Later Grecians and freeth them from that error of the holy Ghost with which you haue heard him so expresly charge them Can there be a more wilful falfication then this 2. But your dealing with others is no better You cite (l) Pag 331. lit a. Castro to proue that the Greeks haue bene diuided many hundreds of yeares from the Latines But because you would haue your Reader conceaue that Castro holds them not to be heretikes and out of the state of saluation you set downe these words as his Per multas annorum centurias Graci à Latinis diuisi with is a plaine falsification for Castro's words are Duodecima haeresis est quae negat Spiritum sanctum procedere à Patre à filio Hanc haeresim docuerunt tutati sunt Graeci per multas annorum centurias itae vt haec fuerit vna ex praecipuis causis propter quas à Romana Catholica Ecclesia diuisi sint The twelth heresy is that which denieth the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Sonne This heresy the Greekes haue taught and mansained many hundreds of yeares in so much that this is one of the chiefest causes for which they are diuided from the Roman and Catholike Church Here therfore you māgle Castro's words And to mantaine your vndertaken falsity that the Greekes notwithstanding their diuision from the Roman Church are partes of the Church Catholike and in state of saluation you conceale that he affirmeth them to be heretikes and that the chiefe cause of their diuision from the Roman Church is their heresy concerning the holy Ghoast 3. With like preiudice of conscience you cite (m) Pag. 335. Azor who in that very place (n) Instit. l. moral part 1. l. 8. c. 20. §. Decimo directly affirmeth the Greekes to be heretikes and that although some thinke that concerning their beliefe of the fire of Purgatory and some other few points of fayth they differ not from the doctrine of the Roman Church really and in sense but only in words and in that respect are not heretikes but schismatikes yet he concludeth that whatsoeuer their beliefe concerning these articles is they are Heretikes and perhaps in these very points because they erre culpably in them but that wee often call them Schismatikes because we retaine the ancient manner of speach for first the Greekes diuided themselues often from the Church by schisme and in progresse of time brought heresies into the Church 4. You cite (o) Pag. 334. Suarez saying that the Greekes are schismatikes because they erre in those things which belong to the vnity of the Church though indeed they be heretikes also because they deny the vnity of the Head And immediatly before he had alleaged out of S. Hierome that all Schismatikes feigne to themselues some heresy to the end they may seeme not to haue departed from the Church without cause Agayne he expresly sayth (p) De Deo trino vno l. 10. c. 1. n. 2. that the Greeks erre in holding the holy Ghoast not to proceed from the sonne and that for this error among many others the Greeke Church hath diuided it selfe from the Roman Church denying obedience to the Pope These are the Authors which you produce to saue the Greekes from the infamous note of heresy wherin you
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
aboue the little hills vnto which all nations shall flow (a) Isa 2.2 to a Tabernacle seated in the sunne (b) Psal 28.6 of which S. Augustine speaking sayth (c) In â—um Psal He placed his tabernacle in the sunne that is to say his Church in manifestation or open view not in a corner not such as is hidden as if it were couered c. In the sunne he placed his tabernacle what doest thou meane O Heretike to fly into darknesse To a light that is not hidden vnder a bushell but set vpon a candelstick Which if Protestants see not How sayth S. Augustine (d) Tract 2. in 1. Ep. Ioan. can I call them other then blinde that see not so great a mountaine and shut their eyes against the Lampe set vpon the candelstick But what meruaile for sayth he (e) L. 2â— coâ—â— Parm. c. 3. it is the condition of all heretikes not to see the thing which in the world is most cleare constituted in the light of all nations out of the vnity wherof whatsoeuer they do can no more warrant them from the wrath of God than the spiders web from the extremity of cold Finally we belieue with S. Augustine (f) Cont. lit Petil. l. 2. c. 104. that the Catholike Church hath this certaine marke that she cannot be hidden This is the doctrine and beliefe of all Catholikes Do you herein accord with vs Do you hold the Catholike Church to be alwaies visible and alwaies as conspicuous as a lampâ— vpon a Candelstick as a city vpon a mountaine as a tabernacle in the sunne Why then do you say that she was so many yeares latent and inuisible that she could not be shewad that she was vnknowne and vnheard of that she was no where externall and visible that she was wholly destroied With what modesty then can you say that Protestants hold not any greater inuisibility or rather obscurity of the Church Catholike then that which the Romanists are forced to confesse But in proofe of this Thesis and in opposition to the holy Scripture and S. Augustine you say to vs (g) Pag. 367. fin you regard not that the Church of Christ as it is somtime in lustre glorious as the sunne so againe it is according to the iudgement of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose somtimes as the moone which hath her increases and decreases Yes we regard it well and you ought to haue regarded that although S. Augustine compare the Church to the moone in this respect that her externall lustre is somtimes diminished by persecutions and her glory obscured by the ill liues of some of her children yet he frequently compareth her to the sunne and belieueth with the Prophet (h) Isa 60.29 that her sunne shall neuer set and her moone shall not be diminished and (i) Ep. 48. that when by scandalls her light is most obscured etiam tunc in suis fortissimis eminent euen then she is eminent in her most steedfast Champions and in them remaineth resplendent and glorious displaying beames of light ouer the whole earth So farre is S. Augustine from your absurd paradoxe of the inuisibility totall decay of the Church And in what sense S. Ambrose compareth her to the moone he declareth saying (k) L. 4. Hexam c. 2. The Church hath her times of persecution and of peace she seemeth to decay as the moone but decaieth not She may be shadowed she cannot perish because she is diminished by the fall of some in persecutions to the end she may be filled with the confessions of Martyrs and that being illustrated with trophies of the bloud shed for Christ she may diffuse greater light of her deuotion and fayth throughout the whole world If Costerus Castro Lindanus and Stapleton affirme that the Arian heresy in a short time infected almost all the Churches of the world so haue Lutheranisme Caluinianisme Zuing lianisme with other new Sects sprung from them in these later times infected many prouinces of Europe But therfore is the Catholike Church in those Prouinces inuisible How then do you see Catholikes to persecute them to imprison them And euen so much more when the Arian heresy was in the greatest ruffe the Catholike Church was euery where still eminently visible as that very passage of Liberius proueth which here you produce for the contrary for Constantius the Arian Emperor hauing by threats drawne many Bishops especially of the East to subscribe to the condemnation of Athanasius and as Theodoret out of his Apology reporteth (l) L. 2. histor c. 15. the rest that refused to subscribe either concealing themselues for feare or being sent into banishment he called Liberius vnto him and vrged him not to communicate with Athanasius saying he was condemned by the whole world and defended by none but by him Liberius answeared (m) Theod. l. 2. hist. c. 16. Esto quod solus sim c. Be it that I am alone the cause of the fayth is not therfore the worse for there was a time when there were but three Children to resist the Kings commandment These three Children were brought by Nabuchodosor out of Iury into Babylon As then there were none in Babylon to defend Gods cause but only those three so sayth Liberius and out of him Salmeron here obiected by you be it that I am now left here alone to desend the cause of Athanasius the cause of the fayth is not therfore the worse This you bring to proue that the Church was then or may somtimes be brought to so low an ebbe that there be but three yea only one Orthodoxe man remaining But it is an ignorant mistake for albeit there were then in Babylon three only Children to resist Nabuchodonosor yet in Iury there was remaining a numerous Church of Orthodoxe people And so likewise though there was then no other Bishop present to withstand Constantius yet there were in the Church of God at that time many Catholike Bishops renowned for their learning and constancy and diuers of them then actually in banishment whose restitution to their Churches Liberius in that very Dialogue often demanded of Constantius And who knoweth not that beside many Catholike Bishops reckoned by S. Athanasius (n) Apud Theod. l. 2. hist. c. 14.15.16 there liued at the same time other most eminent Prelates and Doctors as Saint Hilary Pacianus Didymus Titus Bostrensis S. Cyrill of Hierusalem Optatus Eusebius Vercellensis S. Ephrem S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Epiphanius S. Basil S. Gregory Nyssen S. Ambrose and many others And as there were many Catholike Pastors so were there Catholike people gouerned by them Yea who knoweth not that both the Roman and all the Westerne Church at that time was full of Orthodoxe Pastors people in so much that after the Roman MatroÌ„s by aduice of their Husbands (o) Theod. ibid. c. 17. had presented themselues before Constantius and obteyned Liberius his returne from exile the Bishops of the East sent Legates vnto
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
it in that sense in which the Iewes did not receaue it to wit as sufficient to decide controuersies of fayth And in confirmation herof he numbreth this booke among other canonicall scriptures saying (m) Ep. ad Principiam Ruth Hester Iudith were of so great renowne that they gaue names to sacred volumes And in other his workes he often citeth it as diuine scripture (n) Ep. 9. ad Salu. Ep. 22. ad Bustoch in Isa c. 14. But to proue that he held it apocryphall you obiect Stapleton (o) Pag. 303. Salmeron Lindanus Acosta whom you call our lesse precipitant Authors Stapleton you falsify citing him l. 2. de authorit Script cap. 4. for he hath no booke so intituled and much lesse any such words as you set downe for his Yea he is so far from saying that S. Hierome denieth this booke to be canonicall that he sayth directly the contrary for discoursing (p) De princip doct l. 9. c. 6. how some bookes of scripture which before the definition of the Church had bene held apocryphall or doubtfull were afterwards by her authority certainly beleeued to be canonicall he exemplifieth in this of Iudith which saith he S. Hierome moued by the authority of the Councell of Nice held to be Canonicall hauing formerly accounted it to be apocryphall This is Stapletons doctrine Are you not ashamed to produce him as a witnesse for the contrary And as little truth hath your citation of Salmeron for he alleageth S. Hieromes words expresly declaring that the rule to distinguish Canonicall Scriptures from apocryphall is the authority of the Church Wherupon Salmeron truly sayth that if S. Hierome should deny this booke to be Canonicall his authority alone could not be preualent against the whole streame of Ancient Fathers holding the contrary Their testimonies you may read in Iodocus Coccius Lindanus and Acosta I haue not seene but you that haue dealt so with Stapleton and Salmeron may be presumed to deale no better with them SECT VII S. Ambrose his iudgment concerning the necessity of Vnion and subiection to the Bishop and Church of Rome S. Ambrose declared his iudgment when reporting (q) Orat. de obitu Satyri how his holy brother Satyrus in his returne out of Africa was cast by ship wrack vpon the isle of Sardinia infected with schisme he said Satyrus not esteeming any fauor to be true but that of the true fayth called vnto him the Bishop of that place and asked him whether he agreed with the Catholike Bishops that is sayth S. Ambrose with the Roman Church This sheweth that S. Ambrose and Satyrus belieued the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church and all that were not in her Communion to be schismatikes You answeare (r) Pag. 213. that the reason why Satyrus would not communicate with any Bishop that agreed not with the Roman Church was because Sardinia was then diuided into diuers schismes by hereticall spirits No maruell therfore though Satyrus asked of a Bishop whose fayth he suspected whether he belieued as that Church did whose fayth was known to be truly Catholike euen as if in tyme of rebellion the Citizens of some one City for example Yorke were more generally knowne to professe loyalty to their Soueraigne an honest man comming into the kingdome might aske the inhabitants whether they agreed with the City of Yorke therby to know whether they were loyall subiects and yet it would not follow that therfore Yorke is the head of the kingdome This your answeare framed to puzzell an ignorant reader is easely reiected Satyrus did well know and it was generally knowne both in the East and West that at that time not only the Church of Rome but also that of Milan of which Ambrose his owne brother was then actually Bishop and famous ouer all the world was sound in fayth and truly Catholike Why then did not Satyrus to informe himselfe whether that Sardinian Bishop were Catholike aske him whether he agreed with the Bishop and Church of Milan but because he knew that neither the Church of Milan nor any other but the Roman was the head of Catholike Communion as S. Ambrose himselfe teacheth saying (s) L. 1. Ep. 4. ad Imperat. From the Roman Church the rights of Venerable Communion do flow to all And why els did he say this but because he knew that neither to the Church of Milan nor to any other but the Roman Christ hath promised that her fayth shall not faile (t) Luc. 22.31 and that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her (u) Math. 16.18 In regard wherof it is said that not to the Church of Milan but to her all Churches and all the faithfull from all places must haue recourse (x) Iren. l. 3. c. 3. And vnlesse you can shew that Yorke hath an especiall Priuiledge from God not to faile in her loyalty as the Roman Church hath not to faile in the Catholike fayth and profession therof your example is impertinent Yorke may faile in loyalty and therfore to be a citizen of Yorke and to be a good subiect are not termes conuertible But the Roman Church can neither faile in the Catholike fayth nor in the profession therof and therfore to be a Catholike and to agree with the Roman Church as in themselues they are so were they held by S. Ambrose by his brother Satyrus and by the generall accord of antiquity to be all one (y) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 3. 2. S. Ambrose declared his iudgment when he called Damasus Pope Rector of the house of God which is his Church (z) In cap. 3. prioris ad Tâ—moth You answeare that we mistake the words respectiuely spoken to one person Pope Damasus and circumstantially for one tyme as if they were absolutely so meant for the persons of all Popes at all times This answeare is not respectiuely but absolutely insufficient for what dignity superiority or power of gouerment had Damasus ouer the whole Church in his person and for his tyme which euery Pope hath not had in his person and for his time The power of Ruler Gouernor of the whole Church which Damasus had was by his Popedome And as he by the right of his Popedome was so all his predecessors and successors in that See haue by the same title and right bene Rectors and Gouernors of the whole Church This is so certaine that you passing lightly ouer this first answeare fly to a second (a) Pag. 212.213 that the title of Rector or Gouernor of the whole Church argueth not Damasus to be Head of the Church because Athanasius Basil Gregory Nazianzen haue receaued titles equiualent if not more excellent as of Prop and Buttresse of the Church and fayth Eye of the world and others in which ascriptions say you there is not any acknowledgment of authority but a commendation of their care and diligence iudgment and directions in behalfe of the whole Church In the