betake your selfe as to your last refuge when you are pressed with vnanswearable arguments is a mere shift inuented to delude ignorant readers with empty words voyd of truth And by this canon it is in like manner euident that the primacy was not then first giuen to the Church of Rome but preserued vnto it according to the canons Your second Argument (z) Pag. 107. to proue that the later Roman Councells are bastardly and illegitimate and that we haue little regard to the Councell of Nice is taken out of Theodoret writing that Constantine the Great required in that Synod that because the bookes of the Apostles do plainly instruct vs in diuine matters therfore we ought to make our determinations vpon questions from words which are diuinely inspired And then you tell vs that Bellarmine answeareth thus Coâ—stantine was a great Emperor indeed but no great Doctor of the Church who was yet vnbaptized and therfore vnderstood not the mysteries of religion Thus say you doth this your Cardinall twite and taunt the iudgment of that godly Emperor and as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth from his reader that which followeth in Theodoret namely that the greater part of that Councell of Nice obeyed the voyce of Constantine So you as you are wonâ— for first you falsify Bellarmine who sayth not that Constantine was yet vnbaptized but that that is the opinion of you Protestants and the old Arians from whence he argueth ad hominem against you that this testimony of Constantine is not of so great weight as Caluin and Kemnitius make it for if he were vnbaptized he could then be no great Doctor of the Church as being a Neophyte and therfore not so well skilled in the mysteries of Christian Religion What twiting or taunting of that godly Emperor your find in this answere of Bellarmine I know not but I know that you in holding Constantine to be then vnbaptized both seeke to disgrace that godly Emperor and withall to vphold the authority and credit of the Arian heretikes who to make him a Patron of their heresy gaue out that he was not baptized vntill a litle before his death and that then he receaued his baptisme from Eusebius B. of Nicomedia the chiefe ringleader of the Arian faction But that your dealing may the better appeare it is to be noted that Bellarmine is so farre from twiting or taunting that godly Emperor that he admitteth of his testimony Admitting sayth he (a) L. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. §. Admissâ— the authority of Constantine I say that in all those doctrines which concerne the nature of God there are extant testimomes in Scripture out of which if they be rightly vnderstood we may be fully and plainly instructed but the true sense of the Scriptures dependeth on the vnwritten tradition of the Church Wherfore the same Theodoret that reporteth this speach of Constantine declareth in the next Chapter that in the Councell of Nice Scriptures were produced on both sydes but the Arians were not conuinced with them because they expounded them otherwise then the Catholikes and therfore were condemned by the vnwritten tradition of the Church piously vnderstood to which condemnation no man euer doubted but that Constantine assented So Bellarmine And hereby it appeares that when you say Bellarmine citeth Theodoret yet as the Steward in the Ghospell iniustly concealeth that which followeth in him namely that the greater part of the Councell obeyed the voyce of Constantine you wrong Bellarmine and a buse Theodoret who in those words relateth not to the determining of controuersies by Scriptures but to Constantines exhortation made to the Bishops of peace and concord among themselues which sayth Theodoret the greatest part of the Councell obeyed imbracing mutuall concord and true doctrine though diuers Arians disagreed some of whose names he there expresseth This you iniustly conceale like the ill Steward in the Ghospell that you may pick a quarrell with Bellarmine In confirmation of this I might adde that as S. Augustine (b) L. 5. de Baptism c. 23. and Vincentius Lyrinensis (c) Cont. haer c. 9. 10. haue testified the heresy of Rebaptization could not be disproued by Scripture but was condemned by Tradition And finally I might aske you why you like the bad Steward conceale what Theodoret writeth in that very place namely that what Constantine said he spake not to the Bishops as their Head but as a sonne that loued peace offered vp his words to the Priests as to his Fathers and that he would not enter into the Councell but after them all nor sit downe but with their leaue and in a low chayre Did he trow you belieue himselfe to be Head of the Church CHAP. XVII The second Generall Councell held at Constantinople belieued the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome SECT I. By what authority this Councell was called BELLARMINE in proofe of the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction alleageth that the Fathers of the first generall Councell of Constantinople which was the second generall of the whole Church in their Epistle to Pope Damasus say They were gathered by his Mandate and confesse that the Church of Rome is the Head and they the members This say you (d) Pag. 109. is all that is obiected but vpon a mistake What then is the mistake Because Bellarmine in the Recognition of his workes afterwards obserued that it was not the Epistle of the second generall Synod but of the Bishops which had bene present at the Synod and met againe the next yeare after at Constantinople But if this Epistle were not of the Synod why do you speaking of it not without contradiction say (e) Pag. 10â— The generall Councell of Constantinople do endite an Epistle (f) Pag. 110. margin and inscribe it thus And why do you mentioning the inscription of the same Epistle call it Synodicae Epistolae inscriptio The inscription of the Synodicall Epistle And why doth Theodoret (h) L. 5. hist. c. 9. stile it Libellus Synodicus à Concilio Constantinopolitano missus A Synodicall writ sent by the Councell of Constantinople c But howsoeuer you alleaging that Bellarmine acknowledgeth his owne mistake is a mere cauill nothing auailing your cause for be it that those Bishops writ not their Epistle whiles they were assembled in Councell but when they met the next yeare after at Constantinople yet you must acknowledge the truth of what Bellarmine alleageth out of their Epistle vnlesse you will make them all lyers But let vs goe on Bellarmine sayth (i) Recogn pag. 46. in hoc Concil it is sufficiently proued out of the sixth generall Councell that this of Constantinople was called by the commaund of Pope Damasus you answeare (k) Pag. 109. that in proofe therof he referreth himselfe to another Councell against the vniuersall current of histories which with generall consent set downe the Mandates of Emperors as the supreme and first compulsary causes for
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
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
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
(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
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.
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