confirmed by the B. of Rome (b) Ibid. l. 3. c. 5.8 30. that all former Councells haue required their doctrines to be confirmed and authorized by him Why do you then produce him as a witnesse for the contrary Gerson and Canus are both falsified by you for Gerson in the place you cite hath no such doctrine but the contrary which els where he expresseth (c) To. 1. in Consider de paâ—â— Consid 1. saying Constat quod in materijs fidei terminandis error non cadit in Concilio generali c. It is manifest that in deciding controuersies of fayth a generall Councell cannot erre And the Doctors yeild the reason because of the speciall assistence of the holy Ghost and of Christ gouerning the Church and not permitting it to erre in those things which it cannot attaine by humane industry Canus sayth that generall Councells lawfully gathered may erre in fayth as the second of Ephesus did This is his second conclusion which you lay hold of concealing that in his third conclusion which he presently addeth he sayth That a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope cannot erre and condemneth your doctrine as absolutely hereticall Is it not then extreme perfidiousnesse to Father on him the contrary and to make Catholike Doctors Patrons of your Errors But to declare what is necessary that a generall Councell may not erre you adde (d) Pag. â—66 fin 367. The difference betweene the Roman Church and the Church of the Protestants is no more but this that the Romanists say that all generall Councells may erre except they be confirmed and authorized by the Pope but Protestants say that all generall Councells may erre except they be directed by the spirit of Gods word This indeed you say and yet leaue the question vnansweared for we likewise say that euery Councell which is not directed by the spirit of Gods word may erre The question is how it may be knowne when a Councell defineth according to Gods word and when not for Gods word may be misinterpreted Wherof Tertullian speaking truly said (e) L. de praescrip An adulterate glosse doth as much outrage to the truth as a false pen. And S. Hilary (f) L. 2 de Triâ— init There haue bene many who haue interpreted the heauenly words otherwayâ—â— then the truth did require according to the sense of their own will not for the establishing of truth for heresy is not in the writing but in the vnderstanding the fault is not in the word but in the sense And doth not S. Hierome likewise say (g) In Ep. ad Gal. c. 1. The Ghospell is not in the words but in the sense And doth not S. Augustine cry out (i) In Ioan. tract 13. Heresies and peruerse doctrine which entangle soules cast them headlong into hell haue their birth nowhere but from good Scriptures ill vndeestood And againe (k) De Gen. ad lit l. 7. c. 9. Heretikes were not heretikes but that misunderstanding the Scripture they defend obstinatly their owne false opinions against the truth therof And in another place (l) Ep. 2â—â— All heretikes which receaue the Scriptures thinke they follow them when they follow their owne Errors Of the same subiect Lyrinensis discourseth largely and learnedly (m) Chap. 1â— 30.37 shewing that the Diuel alleaged Scriptures against Christ that all Heretikes alleage them against the Church in defence of their errors which made S. Hierome say (n) In Ep. ad Gal. c. 1. that there is great daÌ„ger in speaking in the Church for feare lest by a wrong interpretation the Ghospell of Christ be made the Ghospell of man or which is worse the Ghospell of the Diuell And speaking of the Luciferians (o) Aduers Lucifer versus fin who boasted of the Scriptures as Protestants doe Let them not statter themselues to much because they seeme to haue Scripture for what they affirme for euen the Diuell hath alleaged Scriptures which consist not in reading but in vnderstanding Wherfore it is not sufficient to alleage Scriptures We alleage them and you alleage them but we disagree concerning the true sense and meaning of them from whom shall we learne it If Luther may as your fore-man speake for you all you and none but you and that by your priuate spirit must deliuer the true sense of them We sayth Luther (p) L. de serâ—â— arbit receaue nothing but the Scriptures and them so also that we our selues only haue certaine authority to expound them As we vnderstand them so was the meaning of the Holy Ghost what others bring be they neuer so great neuer so many preceedeth from the spirit of Sathan and from a mad and alimated mind So Luther And as he challenged to himselfe this priuiledge of deliuering the true sense of Scripture so his disciples haue challenged the same to themselues This spirit it is which hath hatched so many viperous sects no lesse disagreeing among themselues then all of them straying from the truth And yet you all boast of Scripture and all proclaime that you follow the word of God And no maruaile for the Diuell sayth Lyrinensis (q) Cap. 37 3â— knoweth right well that when wicked errors are to be broached the readiest way to deceaue is to alleage stifly the authority of diuine Scripture What then shall Catholike men Children of our Mother the Church do Let them interpret the diuine Canon according to the tradition of the vniuersall Church The truth of Scripture sayth S. Augustine (r) Cont. Crescon l. 1. c. 33. is held by vs when we do that which pleaseth the vniuersall Church whom the authority of the same Scriptures recommendeth And againe (s) Ibid. c. 31. Whosoeuer feareth to be deceaued through the obscurity of this question let him consult with that Church which the holy Scripture hath designed without any ambiguity This Church it is of which God pronounced by the mouth of Isay (t) Isa 54.17 Thou shalt iudge euery tongue that resisteth thee in iudgment Of this Christ hath promised (u) Math. 16.18 that the gates of hell which are Errors shall not preuâ—ile against her Of this he hath said (x) Math. 18.17 that whosoeuer heares her not is to be held as a Heathen a Publican In this he hath placed (y) Ad Ephes 4.11 17. Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastors and Doctors c. that we may not be litle Children wauering and carried away with euery blast of doctrine This Church these Pastors these Doctors all Christians must heare and imbrace their exposition of Scripture as the true meaning of the holy Ghost Christ himselfe hauing said (z) Luc. 10.6 that who heareth them heareth him and S. Iohn (a) â— Ioan. 4.6 by this marke distinguisheth Orthodoxe people from Heretikes that the Orthodoxe heare and obey the Pastors and Doctors of Gods Church which heretikes refuse to do We are sayth he of God he that knoweth God heareth vs He
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
was the definitiue sentence pronounced by blessed Melchlades how entire how prudent how peaceable in so much that S. Augustine greatly commendeth him for it saying (h) Ibid. O blessed man O sonne of Christian peace and Father of Christian people Neuerthelesse those rebellious Donatists rested not but from the iudgement of the Pope appealed againe to the Emperor which he so much misliked that he called it (i) Ep. ad Episc Cathol ad calc gest purgat Cecil Felic A great phrensy incredible arrogancy a thing not fit to be spoken or heard a mad impudency of fury a recourse to a secular iudgement from an heauenly and a contempt of Christes authority And yet out of a great desire he had to gaine them yelding to their importunity or as S. Augustine sayth (k) Ep. 166. giuing way to their peruersnesse and hoping that what he did would be auowed by the See Apostolike he granted them another Councell of 200. Bishops at Arles which hauing duely examined their cause confirmed the Popes sentence therfore gaue them no more satisfaction then the Roman Councell had done Wherfore from this Councell they had recourse againe to the Emperor beseeching him to take the examination of the cause into his owne hands which he did but yet A sanctis antistitibus postea veniam petiturus (l) S. Aug. ep 162. with intention to aske pardon afterwards of the holy Bishops for medling in a cause that belonged not to his Court but to theirs But what did Constantines iudgement appease the fury of those obstinat heretikes No The Emperor sayth S. Augustine (m) Ibid. is chosen Iudge the Emperors iudgement is despised But no wonder for what els could be expected from such rebellious spirits but that as they had refused to stand to the sentence of the Church so also they should contemne the iudgement of the Emperor Who is there then that seeth not how far this history is from prouing that Constantine acknowledged in himselfe any authority to meddle in Ecclesiasticall causes since he durst not iudge the cause of a Bishop and charged the Donatists with neuer heard of impudency arrogancy impiety fury pernersnesse porensy and contemp of Christs authority in flying from the iudgement of the Church to his secular tribunall And that if in this cause he did any way assume to himselfe the person of a Iudge it was with protestation to aske pardon of the holy Bishops and in hope it would be auowed by them for as much as what he did was out of a desire to quiet the Donatists and reduce them to the peace and communion of the Catholike Church And how far this example of the Donatists is from helping your cause or hurting ours S. Augustine will yet better informe you (n) Cont. lic Petil. l. 2. c. 92. Ep. 166. for as when they were condemned by the Church they fled to Cōstantine so when they were repulsed and condemned by him they despised his iudgement and appealed to Iulian an Apostata from Christian religion and a professed enemy to Christ beseeching him to restore vnto them the Churches which Catholike Princes had taken from them and to that end honored him with this Elogy (o) Ep. 166. That in him alone all iustice remained which gaue S. Augustine cause to say vnto them (p) Ibid. If it were in your power you would not now call against vs Constantine a Christian Emperor because he defended the truth but you would rather raise Iulian the Apostata from hell How far these words of S. Augustine may touch you for producing this example of the sacrilegious Donatists as a precedent of your doctrine and Constantine as a paterne for secular Princes to meddle in Ecclesiasticall iudgments I leaue to the readers censure for if as you pretend this example of the Donatists flying from the iudgment of the Church to Constantine be of force to proue that the Popes iudgement will suffer an higher appeale why shall it not also be of force to proue that the iudgement of Constantine will suffer an higher appeale to Iulian the Apostata for the example of these Donatists is a precedent for the one as well as for the other A second history which you obiect (q) Pag. 16◠to proue that the Popes iudgement will suffer an higher appeale is that in the case of Athanasius Constantine chargeth all the Bishops of the Prouince of Tyre to appeare before him without delay and to shew how sincerely and truly the had giuen their iudgements The case is this Diuers hereticall Bishops of the East Arians Meletians and Colluthians assembled themselues at Tyre to accuse Athanasius of many crimes which themselues had maliciously forged and suborned false witnesses to testify against him that so they might seeme to haue iust occasion to abstaine from his communion condemne him Constantine being informed therof at the intreaty of Athanasius call's them to him to yeld accompt of their proceeding Ergo say you the Popes iudgment will suffer an higher appeale A false consequence for S. Athanasius fled from the said Councell of Tyrus vnto Constantine not as to his competent Iudge but as to the Protector of Innocency and of the Church to be maintayned in the possession of his Bishopricke honor life against which his Arian aduersaries were with such violent and insuperable malignity bent as he had no meanes to auoyd so great mischiefs tending to the ouerthrow of Catholike Religion but by imploring the ayde of the supreme secular Power That in this case Clergymen and Bishops may haue recourse vnto the arme of temporal Princes S. Paul (1) Act. 28. Coactus sum appellare Caesarem shewed by his example as (2) Athanas Apolog. 2. ad Constantium S. Athanasius and (3) August Epist 48.50 204. S. Augustine and out of them Suarez (4) Suarez defensio fidei lib. 4. c. 10. n. 5. obserueth Lastly you obiect (r) Pag. 161. fin 162. that When the cause Ecclesiasticall requireth Constantine proceedeth to denounce punishment by his owne authority against whomsoeuer that shall honor the memory of those Bishops Theognis and Eusebius These two Bishops were Arians and great fyrebrands of that blasphemous sect which had bene condemned an athematized by the holy Councell of Nice and moreouer had committed many other most enormous crimes some of which Constantine hauing mentioned in his Epistle to the people of Nicomedia addeth (s) Theod. l. 1. hist. c. 20. If any one shall be so temerarious and audacious as to goe about to praise and honor the memory of those plagues of the Church Theognis and Eusebius he shall presently be punished by me for his folly These words of Constantine shew that he did not threaten punishment to any Ecclesiasticall person but to the people of Nicomedia if they should audaciously presume to honor those Heretikes whom the Church had condemned which was not to assume any Ecclesiasticall authority to
Doctor Morton for you not only maintaine erroneous Tenets in matter of fayth but are so wilfully obstinate therin that hauing bene heretofore often admonished and euidently conuinced by Catholike writers of your shamefull ouer-lashing as also of your corrupting the Fathers Councells other writers in proofe of those your Tenets you still hold on the same course in your Grand Imposture and other your later writings to your owne shame and the great discredit of your cause which if it were good needed not such iugling to defend it But the greatest part of Protestants either wanting learning or meanes to examine the truth of points in controuersy and thinking you not to be only learned but also sincere in deliuering the truth vnto them which I know you not to be simply giue credit to you and such as you are and thinke they may safely embrace your doctrine and rely vpon your word They I say are not Heretikes but men deceaued and misled by heretikes or to vse S. Augustines phrase (e) De vtil creden c. â— Credentes haereticis men that bâ—lieue heretikes and therfore are not comprehended in the excommunication of Bulla cana which is pronounced against such only as by reason of their wilfull obstinacy are true and formall heretikes or as S. Paul sayth (f) Tit. 3.11 that sinne being subuerted and condemned by their owne iudgment I deny not but that many of these men being of excellent iudgement and vnderstanding may by what they haue heard or read haue iust reason to doubt of the truth of Protestancy and therfore if such out of slouth and carelesnesse or for feare of dishonor and disesteeme in the eyes of the world or of temporall lostes and troubles they see Catholikes exposed vnto omit to examine the truth I know not how to excuse them from culpable negligence in the most important affaire of their saluation which without true fayth cannot be atchieued SECT VI. Other slanderous accusations of Doctor Morton answeared YOur good will to Catholikes makes you rake vp in your Sermon and Imposture all the examples you can call to mind to make them hatefull to Protestant Princes and people To this end you so often mention the Powder treason (g) Serm. pag. 29. Impost pag. 177. 405. of which some vnaduised headlong gentlemen were guilty yet other Catholikes were freed from the guilt therof by the long and exquisite search of Iustice made for the discouery of all partakers therin as also by the confessions of those vnfortunate gentlemen themselues who being strictly seuerally and often examined constantly professed that no man els was guilty of their designe nor priuy to their intentions but they only whose names were already giuen vp to the State And finally the Protestant Minister Author of the booke intituled Triplici node triplex cuneus testifieth (h) Pag. 2. that our late Soueraigne King Iames of famous memory by whose allowance or rather appointment that booke was written did not hold other Catholikes guilty of that damnable plot as indeed they were not The equity of his Maiesty sayth he is such as he professed in his Proclamation and Parliament speach that he would not vse other Catholikes the worse for that which sheweth that he held them guiltlesse All this being true as it is how comes it to passe that you make no end of vp brayding and defaming all Catholikes with this action of exprobrating to an infinite number of innocent that of which a few nocent were guilty of slandering them with this designe that had no part in it many of them being not borne when the thing passed or if borne not capable of such designes or if capable yet abhorred the same as much if not more then your selfe If I were disposed to deale with you by the art of Retorsion which manner of Argument you often vse against vs in this your Grand Imposture I could tell you of your Protestant brethren that in our dayes at Antwerp they placed a whole barke of gun-powder in the vaulted great street of that City to blow vp the Prince of Parma with his Nobility and commanders of warre being to passe that way I cold tell you of another zealous brother in Hage that would haue blowne vp the State-house with the whole Counsell of Holland vpon priuat reuenge And I could tell you that at Edenbrough in Scotland the like traine of powder was layd for the cruell murther of our gracious Maiesties Grand-Father which not succeeding hindeath was archieued by another no lesse bloudy and barbarous violence Would you thinke it reason or conscience in me if I should impute these temerarious actions of a few Protestants to you all If I should exprobrate them to the innocent as well as to the nocent Pardon me therfore if I impute to you lack of that equity and conscience science which ought to shine in a man of your ranke as in a patterne not only of morall honesty but also of ciuill courteous behauiour With like preiudice of conscience you vpbraid vs with the Massacre of Paris (i) Impost pag. 405. to which not we but your good Brethren the Huguenors of France by their Traiterous plots gaue occasion and therfore are iustly censured as the true Authors therof In the yeare 1572. August 23. Colligni the Admirall of France a most wicked man and fyrebrand of the Huguenots in that kingdome being wounded in both his hands and one of his armes with a Musquet discharged out of a house in Paris Charles the ninth then King of France being greatly offended therat vsed all diligence to finde out the malefactor and not only sent often messengers to the Admirall to vnderstand of his health but went himselfe in person with the Queene his wife his Mother and his brethren to visit comfort him promising to punish the malefactor seuerely according to his deserts if he could be discouered Neuerthelesse the Admirall suspecting without ground that he had bene wounded by the Kings appointment entred into priuate Counsell with the King of Nâ—uarre then newly married to Margaret sister to the French King with Prince CondeÌ„ and other his confederates plotting traiterously with them to kill the King the Queene his wife his Mother and brethren and so at one blow to cut of the whole family and proclame the King of Nauarre King of France appointing withall what Nauarre himselfe what CondeÌ„ what Captaine Pilie and what Montgomery his associates were to do and what passages to take for the effecting of this his treacherous designe Which being disclosed by some that were priuy vnto it the King out of hand called to him the King of Nauarre and CondeÌ„ who confessing the plot and asking pardon obtained it But because delaies were dangerous in a case wherin the life of the King and of many other Princes with the destruction and ruine of the whole Kingdome did run so great hazard the Admirall by his command was killed the next day in his
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
words which you obiect to wit that Christ after his resurrection gaue equall power to all the Apostles saying As my Father sent me so I send you receaue yee the holy Ghost c. For by these words he gaue to them all equall authority to preach throughout the world to reueale matters of fayth assurance of infallibility to make canonicall Scriptures to institute the first mission of Pastors to remit sinnes to giue the holy Ghost and the like In this sense he sayth The Apostles were the same that Peter endowed with like fellowship of honor and power to wit in the exercise of these Apostolicall functions ouer the faythfull to whom he sent them But S. Cyprian sayth not that Christ made all the Apostles equall among themselues exempting them from the iurisdiction of S. Peter in the manner of exercising this power Nor is it true for he gaue it theÌ„ with subordination to him as to their Superior Peter sayth S. Leo (d) Serm. â— in Aâ—niuers suae Assumpt is preferred before all the Apostles if Christ would haue them to haue any thing common with him he gaue it them not but by him And this is declared and the reason therof yelded by Optatus S. Hierome and by S. Cyprian himselfe in that very place which you obiect for the contrary In the Episcopall chayre sayth Optatus (e) L. â— cont Parmâ—n was set the Head of all the Apostles Peter from whence he was also called Cephas to the end that in this only chayre Vnity might be preserued in all and that the other Apostles might not challenge to themselues ech one a seuerall chayre but that he might be a Schismatike and a sinner that against this only Chayre should erect another The Church sayth S. Hierome (f) L. 1. aduers louin c. 14. is built vpon Peter though els where it be also built vpon the rest yet among the twelue one is chosen to the end that a Head being made occasion of Schisme might be taken away And S. Cyprian (g) L. de vnit Eccles Christ to manifest vnity constituted one chayre and ordayned the originall of Vnity beginning from one giuing the primacy to Peter that so one Church of Christ and one chayre might be manifested And then declaring you that haue forsaken this originall of Vnity S. Peters Chayre on which the Church is built to haue lost the fayth and to be out of the Church he addoth He that keepeth not this vnity of the Church doth he belieue himselfe to hold the fayth he that resisteth the Church he that forsaketh the chaire of Peter on which the Church is built doth he thinke himselfe to be in the Church So S. Cyprian equalling you with the Nouatians for your disclayming from the Church of Peter CHAP. XII The authority of the Roman Church in her definitions of fayth proued to be infallible HAVING in vayne shot your darts at S. Peter to dethrone him from the height of Authority in which Christ hath placed him you come now to try their force against the Bishop of Rome his Successor whose authority in his definitions of fayth you hold to be fallible SECT I. Our first Argument THat the authority of the Bishop of Rome in his definitions of fayth is infallible we proue out of the words of Christ spoken to S. Peter (h) Luc. 12.32 I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth faile not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy Brethren There is no man so voyd of vnderstanding sayth Leo the 9. speaking (i) Ep. ad Michael Impâ—r of this prayer that can thinke Christs prayer whose will is his power to haue bene inefficacious which the Apostle allso teacheth saying (k) Heb. 5.7 he was heard for his reuerence And for this prayer in particular Christ himselfe signifieth so much saying I haue prayed for thee for what would his prayer haue auayled Peter if he had not obtayned for him what he asked Or how cold his brethren haue any assurance of their confirmation in fayth from Peter if Peter could haue error proposing vnto them falshood for truth Againe that Christ in these words prayed not in mediatly for the whole Church nor for all the Apostles but for Peter alone appeareth in this that he expressed one singular person saying Simon Sâ—mon for in the Greeke it is twice repeated and added the pronounce of the second person I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth fayle not and thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren That Christ prayed not for the other Apostles you grant (l) Pag. 53. and take this for a ground to proue that he prayed for Peter only and not for Clement Vrban or any other of his Successors in the Roman See But your argument proueth nothing for Christ had formerly obtayned the personall perseuerance of Peter and the rest when he said (m) Ioan. 17.9 seqq for them I do pray c. Holy Father keep them in my name c. I pray not that thou take them out of the world but that thou preserue them from euill And therfore this prayer for Peters not fayling in fayth was not made for him in the person of a priuat man and without relation to his office of Supreme Pastor but as for a publike person that is as for the Head of the Apostles and Gouernor of the whole Church and consequently for his See and all his Successors in the same See for as that supreme dignity of Head Gouernor of the vniuersall Church was not to dye with Peter but to descend by him to his Successors so the effect of this prayer of Christ being a prerogatiue obtayned for Peter by reason of his office was to descend to Clement to Vrban and to whosoeuer hath hitherto or shall hereafter succeed him in the same office euen as whatsoeuer prerogatiue is granted to a Vice-Roy as Vice-Roy and as belonging to his office is consequently granted to all his Successors in the same office But you obiect (n) Pag. 54. that this priuiledge cannot agree to Peters Successors because Salas the Iesuit teacheth that a personall and singular priuiledge is that which is granted to an indiuiduall person with expression of his name and therfore doth not extend to any other but dyeth with the person to whom it is granted You vnderstand not Salas for he calleth a personall priuiledge that which is granted to an indiuiduall person as he is a piuat person only for his owne particular good not by reason of any publike office for the good and benefit of the community for if it be granted to him as to a publike person by reason of his office as this was to S. Peter as to the Head of the Church and for the common good of the Church though his name be neuer so much expressed in it it is not a personall but a common (o) See Bonacina Compend v. Priuileg or as Suarez (p) L. 7. de
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
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
him I am And I answere you that this is a friuolous obiection for as Onuphrius hath noted (x) Tract voc obscur Eccles the name of Pope anciently vntill after the tyme of S. Gregory was common to all Bishops of great Cities as of Rome Carthage Alexandria Antioch Hierusalem and the like and you afterwards shewing the futility of your obiection proue the same (y) Pag. 241. Wherfore S. Cyprian acknowledging that the Christians of Africa of whome only both he and the Proconsull spake did call him Their Pope and that he was so did not acknowledge himselfe to be Pope per antonomasiam for in that sense the name of Pope was not then vsed but to be B. of Carthage that is to say the chiefe Father and Primate of all the Christians of Africa How then proueth this that the name of Pope being from the tyme of S. Gregory appropriated to the B. of Rome to signify his supreme authority doth not since that appropriation declare him to be Pope per antonomasiam For words signify ad placitum that which according to the common vse and acception of men they import And finally that the name of Pope when it is applied to the B. of Rome importeth a singular dignity proper to him alone is conuinced by the Epithets which ancient Fathers speaking to him adde to that name as when they call him Vniuersall Pope for so he is styled by the Councell of Cyprus (z) Ep. Synod ad Theodor. Pap. by S. Athanasius and all the Bishops of Aegypt (a) Ep. ad Marc. Pap. CHAP. XXVI The Councells of Carthage and Mileuis acknowledged the supreme Authority of the B. of Rome AGAINST the prerogatiue of appeales to Rome you obiect (b) Pag. 141. the Councell of Mileuis held Anno 402. And yet afterwards you say that the same Councell was held in the yeare 416. and cite Binius as your Author for both Binius speaketh of two different Councells held at Mileuis in those seuerall yeares and vnder different Consuls and you confound them taking them both for one and father your ignorance on Binius And with like ignorance you affirme (c) Ibid. the decree touching appeales to haue bene made by the Councell of Mileuis Anno 402. for the Councell held that yeare was the first of Mileuis in which the decree concerning appeales was not made but in the second Anno 416. 2. You must remember that when Bellarmine in proofe of the Popes vniuersall authority among other arguments produceth examples of African Bishops instituted or deposed by him as also the ancient custome of appealing to him out of Africa you answeare (d) Pag. 289. 304. that the Africans are within the Popes Patriarkeship which you call his Dioces and therfore rather subiect to him then to others If then the Africans were within the Popes Dioces they were subiect to him as to their lawfull Iudge and had right to appeale to him and he to admit their appeales and iudge their causes Wherfore if in the Mileuitan or any other Councell or occasion whatsoeuer the Africans inhibited appeales out of Africa to the Pope their inhibition was an act of disobedience and rebellion against their lawfull Superior and no lesse a crime then if the subiects of a temporall Monarke should forbid appeales to their Soueraigne With what face then can you iustify them therin But the truth is that you slaunder them iniustly for as there is nothing more euident then that the Councell of Carthage and this of Mileuis held in the cause of Pelagius and Celestius did fully acknowledge the supreme authority of the Pope and professed their obedience to him both in words and deeds so there is nothing more certaine then that they denied not his prerogatiue of Appeales without which his authority cannot consist If the African Bishops did not belieue the soueraigne power of the See Apostolike why did S. Cyprian addresse his Councell held in fauor of Rebaptization to Stephen Pope (e) S Hierom. aduers Lucifer And why did the Councell of Carthage held against Pelagius and Celestius send their decrees to Innocentius Pope to be confirmed by his authority saying (*) Aug. ep 92. This our proceeding holy Lord and Brother we conceaued we ought to represent to your Charity that to the statutes of our mediocrity might be added the authority of the See Apostolike for the defence of many mens saluation also for the correction of some mens frowardnesse Nor do they require this of Innocentius by way of charity only but require him as their Pastor to take compassion on them Pastoralibus visceribus with the bowels of mercy which he as their Pastor oweth to them as to his sheep And hauing rehearsed the opinions of Pelagius and Celestius they conclude What other things soeuer are obiected by them we doubt not but that your Reuerence when you haue examined the decrees of the Bishops which are said to be made vpon this occasion in the East will frame such a iudgment wherat we all may reioyce in the mercy of God Innocentius hauing receaued this Epistle praised the Fathers of the Councell (f) Aug. ep 91. that Antiquae traditionis exempla sequentes following the examples of ancient tradition and knowing what is due to the See Apostolike they had sent their decrees to be approued by his iudgment for as much sayth he as we all that sit in this place desire to follow the Apostle himselfe from whom the Episcopall office and the authority of this name hath proceeded the which Apostle we following do now as well know how to condemne euil things as to approue those which are worthy of prayse And then declaring what that is which the ancient tradition hath deliuered he addeth (g) Ibid. The Fathers haue ordeyned not by humane but by diuine sentence that they should not account any thing that is treated in prouinces distant and far of to be ended vntill first it were come to the knowledge of the See Apostolike to the end that the sentence which should be found iust might be confirmed by the authority of the same See and that from thence all other Churches as streames flowing from their Mother source and running with the purity of their originall through the diuers regions of the whole world might take what they ought to ordeyne and what to auoide In like manner the Councell of Mileuis writ to the same Pope as to their Pastor (h) Aug. ep 92. Because our Lord by the guift of his speciall grace hath placed you in the Apostolike See vouchsafe we beseech you to apply your pastorall diligence to the great dangers of the weake members of Christ And S. Augustine who was present at this Councell and Secretary therof writ to Hilary of the same subiect (i) Ep. 94. When I did write these things we knew that a decree had bene made against them Pelagius and Celestius in the Church of Carthage to
pag. 367. and Eudaemon Ioan. Paralell Torti ac Tortoris c. 5 pag. 224. seqq This they proue out of the holy Scripture out of S. Augustine out of the practise of the Catholike Church and that with solid and forcible reasons (g) See Valent in 212 d. 5. q. 8. punct 3. But you tell vs (h) Serm. pag. 24. of a principle of ours That subiects must obey whiles they cannot resist In proofe of this you alleage (i) Serm. p. 35. Alane In his moderate defence but you neither mention any words of his nor any Chapter in particular and with good reason for Alane hath no such doctrine You produce (k) Serm. pag. 24. Creswell in his Philopater and Bellarmine The one you slander falsly The other you vnderstand not or els which I feare wittingly misconstrue his meaning For Creswell Eudaemon Ioannes (l) Apol. pro Henr. Garn. c. 3. pag. 58. hath made answeare long since to Syr Edward Cooke who cited Creswell in his Philopater as you do borrowing your obiection from him The answeare is and of certaine knowledge I know it to be true that you temerariously vent the fictions of your owne braine for truthes Philopater was not Creswell He neuer writ any such booke And who-euer Philopater was the booke is of a competent bulke and you cite out of it some nine or ten words cut off from the frame of their contexture diuided into two different sentences and this also at randome for the booke being diuided into Chapters and the Chapters into numbers you neither specify Chapter nor number which if you had done Philopater might haue spoken for himselfe and shewed the wrong you do him And no lesse is the iniury you offer to Bellarmine (m) Serm. pag. 24. His opinion is that the Church had authority to depose Nero Dioclesian or other heathenish Tyrants that persecuted Christ but did prudently abstaine from the vse therof for wanting forces the vse of her authority could no way auaile Christians but giue occasion of raising greater stormes of persecution against them Which opinion of his canot quit you from accusing slandering him wrongfully for doth he euer say or insinuate that those Emperors were not lawfull Princes or that they being so it was lawfull for Christians or any other their subiects to rebell against them This is the Doctrine you impute to him and this you should haue proued to be his but cannot therfore change the state of the Question to father on him the seditious Doctrine of your Lutheran and Caluinian brethren and to suggest to his Maiesty that the Scots haue learned the Principles of their rebellion from vs which by their owne confession (n) Serm pag. 38. they professe to haue learned from Luther Caluin and Beza Lastly as I haue admonished you of slandering Vrbane Pope and other Catholikes so must I aduertise you of the like wrong done to Garnet the Iesuit whom say you (o) Serm. Ibid. I knew at his arraignement to confesse that he heard of the powder-treason out of Confession Belike you knew it by hear-say from some one that was deafe or if he were not deafe made no scruple of lying for no man that was present and had his hearing would be so shamelesse as to say he heard him confesse that which it is certaine he neuer spake but directly the contrary and toke it vpon his death which may yet be proued by the attestation of so many and such witnesses that if it were as free for Garnets friends and kinsfolkes to sue you with an action of slander as it is free for you with controlement to write your pleasure against them that haue not freedome to answeare for themselues your accusation of Garnet wold proue aswell to your cost as to your shame you cōfesse (p) Ibid. that at his death he publikely exhorted the Romish professors to auoid all acts of treason And it is no lesse certaine that in his life time he neuer taught other Doctrine that when he heard of that damnable plot in Confession he enioyned him of whom he heard it to vse his vttermost endeauor to diswade and hinder it yea moreouer as Eudaemon Ioannes (q) Apol. pro Henr. Garn. c. 1. pag. 8. 9. reporteth from relation of them that had best meanes to know the truth the very hearing of it in Confession was so great a torment to his mind that he could not sleep nor take any rest for many dayes and that with prayers and sacrifices he did beg of the diuine goodnesse most earnestly to prouide some remedy for so execrable a designe which he could not disclose to the Magistrates without violating the seule of Sacramentall secrecy which Christ himselfe hath commanded to be kept inuiolable I conclude therfore that Garnet Cardinall Alane Bellarmine Creswell and other Catholikes whom you defame with false accusations are in the number of them of whom our Sauiour said (r) Math. 5.11.12 Blessed are yee when they shall reuile you and persecute you and speake all that naught is against you vntruly for my sake be glad and reioice for your reward is very great in heauen CHAP. XXXIV Doctor Mortons doctrine condemneth the Saintes and Martyrs of God HAVING now gone through your Sermon preached to his Maiesty out of your grand Imposture I returne to the continuance of my answere to the same Imposture You had before obiected some Fathers and hauing parted with them lōg since now after many Chapters you come to scrape acquaintance with some of them againe But their Doctrine is to ancient to haue any commerce with your Nouelties SECT I. S. Polycarpe obiected by Doctor Morton YOu beginne your twelth Chapter opposing (s) Pag. 183. that S. Polycarpe going to Rome in tyme of Anicetus Pope to consult with him about the celebration of Easter would not yeild to forsake the Asian custome contrary to that of the Roman Church and yet neuerthelesse Anicetus and Polycarpe did still communicate with ech other True but if the Asian custome had bene then condemned by the Church and the mantayners therof anathematized as heretikes as afterwards they were by Victor Pope and the holy Councell of Nice Anicetus would not haue held Polycarpe in his communion vnlesse he had forsaken the Asian custome and conformed himselfe to the Roman practised by all other Churches in the world Nor would Polycarpe haue stood out in defence of the Asian custome had he not seene that Anicetus though he misliked it yet did not condemne it but permit him still the practise therof vntill the Church defined otherwise Which Anicetus did being desirous to giue him all content for the great reuerence due vnto him as well for his yeares as also because he had bene disciple to S. Iohn Euangelist and was then actually Bishop of Smyrna a principall Church of Asia But how great reuerence Polycarpe bare to Anicetus and to the Church of Rome appeareth in this that being
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
dayes the Roman Church held it canonicall (e) Pag. 222. are all repetitions of your former Arguments which in their due places haue bene answeared (f) Chap. 22. sect 3. Chap. 25.26 tot Chap. 30. sect 1. Chap. 34. sect 6. But to them you adde here a Consideration of your iudicious Casaubon (g) Pag. 223. requiring vs who accompt the only note of Schisme to be diuided from the Roman Church and Pope thereof to answeare Why S. Augustine who in seauen Bookes besides many other places confuted the Schismaticall Donatists yet neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope or of the infallibility of his iudgement whereby to reduce them to the vnity of the Church and truth Your iudicious Casaubon shewed great lack of iudgment in making this Argument and that he had not read S. Augustine or if he had that he did not vnderstand him or if he had read did vnderstand him then you know what he sheweth in concealing the truth For throughout all those seauen Bookes against the Donatists there is nothing which S. Augustine so often obiecteth nor so much vrgeth against them as their separation from the Roman Church repeating the same not once or twice but almost in euery Chapter of some of those bookes For when the Donatists did striue to defend their heresy of rebaptization by the authority of S. Cyprian S. Augustine answeared (h) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18.19 l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9 Contra Crescon l. ◠c. 32. l. 2. c. 3. alibi saepè that Cyprians patronage could not auaile them because they were out of the Communion of the Roman Church in which S. Cyprian liued died And doth he not in other his writings against the Donatists often vrge the succession of Bishops in the Roman Church If sayth (i) Ep. 165. he the order and succession of Bishops be to be obserued how much more assuredly and safely indeed do we begin our accompt from S. Peter himselfe to whom as he represented the whole Church our Lord sayd (k) Math. 16.18 Vpon this Rock I will build my Church For Linus succeoded to Peter Cletus to Linus c. And so reckoning all the Popes vnto Anastasius who then sate in the chaire of S. Peter he concludeth against the Donatists In this order of succession there is not one Donatist to be found to which I adde no nor yet one Protestant And reckoning the motiues that held him in the Church among them he setteth downe the succession of Bishops in the See of Rome There are sayth he (l) Cont Ep. Fundam c. 4. many thinges which with greatest reason hold me in this Catholike Church 1. The vniforme consent of people and nations which is not to be found in the Protestant Church confined to a few Northern countreyes in a corner of the world 2. A certaine authority begun by miracles which Protestants confesse themselues not to haue 3. The succession of Priests euen from S. Peter vntill this present Bishop Wherfore since that Church in which there is a continued succession of Bishops from S. Peter cannot be the Protestan Church which hath no such succession but the Roman it followeth that S. Augustine held the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church And therefore expressing to the Donatists how much he grieued to see them ly cut of from this Church he said (m) Psal cont part Donati It greeueth vs to see you ly so cut of Number the Priests euen from the See of Peter and consider in that ranck of Fathers who succeeded whom That 's the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not Here againe S. Augustine sheweth the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church built vpon Peter and his successors as vpon a rock against which heresies schismes which are the proud gates of hell shall neuer preuaile and all that are out of her communion to be as branches out of from the Vine and deuoid of all spirituall life And as he held all that are out of the Roman Church to be in miserable state so contrarily he held all that liue in her Communion to be most hapy and secure from error in fayth for so he deemed Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage to be notwithstanding all the plots and conspiracies of the Donatists against him He might sayth S. Augustine (n) Ep. 162. contemne the conspiring multitude of his enemies because he knew himselfe to be vnited by communicatory letters both to the Church of Rome in which the soueraignty of the See Apostolike hath alwaies florished and to other Countries from whence the Ghospell came first into Africa These few passages among many others shew that your iudicious Casaubon failed much in iudgment and truth when he aduentured to say that S. Augustine in his workes against the Donatists neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope nor of the infallibility of his iudgment wherby to reduce them to the vnity of the Church and truth And as he vrged the authority of the See Apostolike against the Donatists so hath he testified that by the same authority taken from the authority of holy Scriptures (o) Aug. Ep. 91. the Pelagians were condemned who therfore seeing themselues esteemed as Heretikes throughout all the Westerne Church in which they liued sought to the Churches of the East hoping to be admitted into their Communion as the Protestants of Germany writing to Hieremy Patriarke of Constantinople did (p) See Iustus Caluinus Apol. pro Eccl. Rom. pag. 10. whom therfore we may check with S. Augustines words written against Iulian a chiese mantainer of the Pelagian heresy I thinke sayth he (q) Cont. Iulia l. 1. c. 4. that part of the world ought to suffice thee in which our Lord would haue the chiefe of the Apostles to be crowned with a most glorious Martyrdome To the Gouernor of which Church Blessed Innocentius if thou woldst haue giuen care thou hadst ere this freed thy dangerous youth from the Pelagian snares for what answeare could that holy man giue to the African Councells but that which from ancient times the Roman Church with all others perseuerantly holdeth And els where he noteth (r) L. 2. de grat Christi pecc orig c. 8. that albeit Pelagius had drawne others into error he could neuer deceaue the Roman Church for the most Blessed Pope Sozimus considered what opinion his predecessor worthy to be imitated had of his proceedings and what iudgment the fayth of the Romans to be commended in our Lord had made of him But you obiect (s) Pag. 225. It is mere sophistry to inferre a necessity of vnion with the Church of Rome to be professed of all Christians at all times because the Fathers required it in their times By this Argument a Pelagian a Donatist an Eutychian or any other Heretike may iustify his departure from the Roman Church pretending as you do that the necessity of vnion with her was not for all times
Bishops I know not what Bishop is not subiect vnto it Doth not this testimony immediatly follow in Bellarmine Yes and it is so euident that Caluin (h) L. 4. Iust. c. 7. § 1â— on the rack of truth is inforced to confesse that S Gregory in no place of his workes vanteth more of the greatnesse of his See then in these very words and that in them he attributeth to himselfe the right of punishing Bishops when they offend Is it not then imposterous to conceale this so cleare an euidence and others brought in by Bellarmine and reiect them all because you haue found a way to cauill at one especially since not only out of S. Gregories workes and the testimonies of your Protestant Brethren it is a truth not to be denyed that he belieued himselfe to haue and practised iurisdiction ouer all Bishops whatsoeuer But you say (k) Pag. 285. If Gregory in some tearmes seeme to speake somwhat loud as though he were very Great yet be confined himselfe to the Constitution of Iustinian He resolueth according to the constitution of Iustinian that the triall of Bishops causes in the first instance belongs to their Metropolitan as the cause of the Metropolitan doth to his Patriarke But withall he teacheth (l) L. 2. ep 6. that they may appeale to the See Apostolike and furthermore addeth (m) L. 11. ep 56. that If a Bishop haue no Metropolitan nor Patriarke ouer him then sayth he his cause is to be heard decided by the See Apostolike which is the head of all Churches And this is agreeable to the profession which Iustinian himselfe made in the Law Inter claras (n) Cod. tit â— l. 8. and in the Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constantinople (o) Cod. t is 1. l. 7. In the rest of this Section (p) Pag. 284. you tell vs that â—â—n of those Popes eited by Bellarmine call the Church of Rome and Bishop therof Head of all Churches or one that hath the care of all Churches or one hauing principality They do so and withall so vnanswearably affirme the Vniuersall iurisdiction of the Roman Church that you thought best not to mention their words but to put them off saying The like attributes haue bene anciently ascribed to other Churches and Bishops which how false it is you haue already heard (q) Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. Chap. 35. Chap. 36 sect 3. To giue a good farewell you conclude thus (r) Pag. 285. fin 280. There are diuers other testimonies out of Leo Gelasius and other Popes who breathed out many sentences full of ostentation of their owne greatnesse Hitherto you haue held vs in hand that the primitiue Popes did not challenge any iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church but now you say that S. Gregory in some termes seemes to speake somwhat loud as though he were very Great and that Leo Gelasius and other Popes breathed out many sentences full of ostentation of their owne greatnesse but whatsoeuer they vented out it was typhus saecularis and a swelling impostume which was lanced that it bled withall by the Councell of Carthage vnder S. Cyprian and the Councell of Africke vnder S. Augustine and that selfe-loue bewitching many Popes of the more primitiue tymes they boasted themselues to be the only Vicars of Christ and have bene taxed for their great arrogancy by the ancient Fathers of their owne tymes And afterwards (s) Pag. 303. fin 304. you compare S. Leo and S. Gregory to Adonias that sought traiterously to pull the crowne from his Fathers head and make himselfe King to which he had right This forsooth is the reuerence you beare to the primitiue Popes whom antiquity hath had in so great veneration as of S. Leo and S. Gregory in particular you haue heard (t) Chap. 15. sect 3. Truth which enforceth testimony from her enemies compelleth you to confesse (u) Pag. 172.178.182.287 that the Primitiue Popes were Holy Popes Holy Fathers excellently goodly learned and that many of them are glorious Martyrs and Saints whose memory is blessed And yet the same truth enforceth you heere to confesse that those Popes acknowledged themselues to be the only Vicars of Christ on earth to haue an vniuersall authority and to haue practised the same for which albeit you taxe them with great arrogancy yet in adding that the ancient Fathers of their owne time did the like you passe the limits of modesty and truth And who seeth not the absurd manner of arguing which in proofe hereof you vse Your words are (x) Pag. 286. in titulo sect 13. Our generall discouery of the vanity of your proofes of Papall Monarchy from the mouthes of Popes themselues who haue bene anciently noted of pride Your assumpt then is to disproue the Papall Monarchy from the mouthes of Popes themselues But you produce not any one testimony nor any one word of any one Pope but make a briefe repetition of your Arguments which in their seuerall places haue bene proued to be partly impertinent partly false and partly hereticall Impertinent as of Tertullian False as of the African Councell S. Cyrill S. Basil S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine Hereticall as of Polycrates resisting Victor and of the Arians whom to conceale that they were heretikes you call The Orientalls And finally part of them of such as for a time defended the false doctrine of Rebaptization as S. Cyprian and his Councell of Carthage which though S. Augustine haue answeared (y) L. 6. de Baptism per tot and confuted word by word you take no notice therof but vrge it as currant and of authority against the B. of Rome yet that all may not seeme to be repetitions you bring forth one new Argument (z) Pag. 286. as drawne from the mouthes of Popes themselues which is that one Flaccidius relying on the greatnesse of the Citty of Rome equalled the Deacons of Rome with Priests This you obiect as the testimony of S. Augustine himselfe pointing at the vaine boasting of Rome wheras it is not S. Augustines but of the Author quaestionum noui veteris Testamenti whom heretofore (a) Pag. 52. when he was not for your purpose you reiected as an hereticall author but now his words are of S. Augustine himselfe and an Argument drawne from the very mouthes of ancient and holy Popes Necessity enforceth you to such absurdities for better Arguments are not to be found in such a cause The blindnesse of your zeale permitted you not to see the inconsequence contrariety of your doctrine whiles you professe (b) Pag. 287. that the primitiue Popes were Holy men and yet that they were proud arrogant and challenged dominion aboue others beyond the limits of their owne iurisdiction Yes say you (c) Ibid. why not They were holy Disciples of Christ who ambitiously wished that they might sit the one on the right hand of Christ and on the other on
the iudgment of a Councell for in case of an appeale two things are necessary the first is to iudge whether the cause be lawfull if it be to admit of the appeale to annull the sentence pronounced against the Appellant and restore the cause to the same state in which it was before his condemnation This Innocentius performed in the cause of Chrysostome He admitted his appeale he absolued him he annulled the Councell that condemned him he excommunicated the Emperor and the Empresse by whose procurement he had bene condemned and vpon their repentance absolued them All this he did without a Councell shewing that he acknowledged not insufficiency in himselfe nor thought the only remedy to be in a Councell The second thing required in case of an Appeale is to proceed to a new iudgment naming Iudges either of Bishops of the adioyning Prouinces or els by sending Legates from Rome with authority to iudge the cause together with the Bishops of the Prouinces adioining or if the weight of the cause require it to call a general Councell in which it may be determined with satisfaction of the whole Church as the Councell of Nice hath prescribed (a) Leo Ep. 25. This also was exactly performed by Innocentius Pope in the appeale of Chrysostome Innocent sayth Palladius (b) In vit Chrysost hauing receaued both parties into his Communion determined that the iudgment of Theophilus should be abrogated and annulled saying They should hold another Synod irreprouable of the Prelates of the West and East This was Innocentius his desire which as Sozomen reporteth he proposed by fiue Bishops (c) L. 8. c. 28. and two Priests of the Roman Church to Honorius and Arcadius wishing them to appoint a time and place for the Councell but could not effect it not for want of Ecclesiasticall authority to call the Bishops as you misinterpret but because as Sozomen declareth (d) Ibid. the enemies of Chrysostome opposed it being supported by the temporall power of Arcadius and Eudoxia without whose consent a Councell could not be held the cities in which it should be held being subiect to them and at their command Wherfore Innocentius did not acknowledge any Ecclesiasticall authority in the Emperor to call a Councell as you comment but only requested him as being Lord of the Empire to appoint a time and place when and where in some City of his the Councell might be held which he by his spirituall power intended to call It resteth therfore that whatsoeuer you haue obiected out of this history of Chrysostome against the Popes authority is nothing but vntruthes and ignorant mistakes among which I will score vp one other which is that in this matter of Appeales to Rome you say (e) Pag. 307. m. both your Cardinalls Baronius and Bellarmine giue for instance the example of Chrysostome B. of Antioch Those Cardinalls were not so ignorant as to call Chrysostome B. of Antioch that 's your mistake fathered on them He was a Priest of the Church of Antioch and after the death of Nectarius Patriarke of Constantinople by a Councell of Bishops chosen Patriarke of that Imperiall City and by meanes of the Emperor Arcadius brought from Antioch thither and there consecrated Bishop SECT VII That Flauianus appealed to Leo Pope as to an absolute Iudge AN other example of appealing to Rome is of Flauianus to which you answere two things shewing ignorance in the one and falshood in the other Ignorance in saying (f) Pag. 308. fin 309. iuit that of this same Flauianus you haue said inough already You haue indeed already spoken of Flauianus inough to the discredit of your cause (g) Pag. 296.297 but not of this same Flauianus for Flauianus of which there you spake was B. of Antioch and liued in tyme of Damasus Pope But Flauianus of which now you speake was B. of Constantinople and liued in time of Leo the Great 70. yeares after the other Is it not then too great a mistake in a man that professeth so much learning to shift of what we alleage in proofe of Appeales from the example of the one by what you haue said of the other especially their cases being farre different To ignorance you adde falshood saying (h) Pag. 308. fin It will be a hard matter for you out of the example of Flauianus to collect a right of appeale to the Pope from his appeale to a Synod To proue that Flauianus appealed not to the Pope but to a Synod you rehearse in your margen a Latin sentence of Leo writing to Theodosius the Empetor which you English not because Leo sayth not that Flauianus appealed to a Synod that 's your false comment but expresly affirmeth that he put vp a petition of Appeale to his Legates which was not to appeale to them but to him whose person the Legates represented Yea the very words of Leo which you recite directly testify that he which required a Councell was not Flauianus but Leo himselfe yielding for his reason the Nicen Canons which command that after the putting in of appeale in causes of such weight the calling of a generall Councell is necessary Moreouer that Flauianus appealed and not to a Synod but to the Pope is a truth declared not only by the words of Leo but testified also by other writers Flauianus sayth Liberatus (i) Cap. 1â— appealed to the Apostolick See by petition presented to his Legates And the Emperor Valentinian the third writing to Theodosius the second Emperor of the East (k) In eppraeambul Concil Châ—lced We ought in our dayes to preserue to the Blessed Apostle Peter the dignity of reuerence proper to him inuiolate that the Blessed Bishop of the City of Rome to whom antiquity hath yeilded the Priestood ouer all may haue way to iudge of Bishops and of fayth for therfore Flauianus B. of Constantinople following the custome of Councells hath appealed to him by petition in the contention moued concerning fayth And if you belieue not these witnesses belieue the Centurists who testify against you (l) Cent. 5. col 778. that somtimes Bishops condemned in Synods appealed to the See of Rome as did Flauianus in the Councell of Ephesus What testimonies more expresse then these Is it not manifest out of Liberatus out of Valentinian out of the Centurists yea and out of the very words of Leo which you produce for the contrary that Flauianus appealed not to a Synod but to him Who but Doctor Morton could deny so inuincible a truth And no lesse apparent it is that antiquity acknowledged in the Pope authority to iudge of Bishops and of fayth and that appeales vnto him were ordained by the ancient Councells for why els did Valentinian say to Theodosius his Father-in-Law that Flanianus appealed to the See Apostolike according to the custome of Councells SECT VIII Of Nilus equalling the B. of Constantinople with the Pope in his right of Appeales NIlus an hereticall Bishops of Thessalonica