failing in fayth and confirming his brethren was not personall but belonging to his office and descending with it to his Successors for Peter in his owne person was not to liue till the end of the world and therfore not by himselfe but by his Successors to confirme the faythfull vntill the end of the world The same truth is further proued out of an ancient Treatise intituled A dispute between the Church and the Synagogue written by a learned Author aboue 700. yeares since in which it is said (d) Cap. 19. art 4. Christ seemeth to haue defined that the fayth of the Roman Church shall neuer faile saying to Peter I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth faile not for he foresaw that Peter whose fayth he promised shold neuer faile was to be Bishop of the Roman Church and there to end his lyfe by Martyrdome And what I beseech you are we to thinke him to haue signified to vs but that that Church especially whose Bishop Peter the Head of all Churches after Christ was to be shold alwayes remaine in the confession of one true fayth To these I adde the testimony of Georgius Trapezuntius a learned Grecian who explicating the same words of Christ sayth (*) In illud Ioan. Si eum volo manere c. In them two great Mysteries are plainly expressed the first that only the fayth of Peter his Successors that is to say of the Roman Church shall not fayle The other that the fayth of the rest shall sometimes fayle Wherefore sayth Christ thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren He said Once to shew that the Apostles being confirmed with the grace of the Holy Ghost none of them should erre but that their Successors should for whose confirmation Peter that is to say his Successors are commanded to be conuerted which hath byn effectually performed for the rest of the Churches of the world haue byn often confirmed by the Roman but She neuer by others Finally S. Bernard writing to Pope Innocentius and requiring him to condemne the heresies of Abailardus subscribeth to the same exposition saying (e) Ep. 190. It is fit that all dangers scandals arising in the kingdome of God and chiefly those that concerne fayth should be referred to your Apostleship for I thinke it iust that the ruines of fayth shold be repared there where fayth cannot fayle for that is the prerogatiue of your See for to what other was it euer said I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth faile not and therfore what followeth is required from Peters Successor And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren It is tyme therfore most â—ouing Father that you show your zeale repressing the corruptors of â—ayth Out of these testimonies I inferre against you that whatsoeuer Bellarmine in his Controuersies holdeth to the contrary (f) L. 4. de Pont. c. 3. these words of Christ I haue prayed for thee Peter c. containe no priuiledge of Peter peculiar to his person but a publike prerogatiue belonging to his office and descending to his Successors as Bellarmine in a later worke (g) Apol. c. 14. §. Neque solum expresly declareth And therfore though out of them it cannot be proued but that his Successors in their priuate Doctrine or writing may erre and fall into heresy yet it followeth that they neuer shall nor can erre ex cathedra that is iudicially in their Councels Consistories publike decrees or definitions of fayth made for the whole Church for S. Augustine (h) Epist 16â— truly sayth The heauenly Mayster in the chayre of Vnity hath placed the Doctrine of verity and secured his people that for euill Prelates they forsake not the chayre of holsome Doctrine in which chayre euen they that are ill men are inforced to speake good things There is then in the Church a chayre of holsome Doctrine which is not the chaire in which Christ now sitteth in Heauen for in that there sit no ill men nor any other but himselfe Nor is this Chayre the chayre of euery Bishop for euery Bishop is not inforced to speake truth many haue bene heretikes and inuentors of heresies Wherfore S. Augustine himselfe declareth this chayre of Vnity to be that in which sitteth one Pastor in whom all Pastors of the earth are one I find sayth he (i) L. de Pastor c. 13. all good Pastors in one for surely good Pastors are not wanting but they are in one They that are diuided are many here one is praysed because vnity is commended This one chayre is none els but that of S. Peter There is one chayre sayth S. Cyprian (k) L. 1. ep 8. founded vpon the Rock by the voyce of our Lord. and againe (l) Lib. de Vnit Eccles Christ to manifest vnity constituted one chayre and ordained the originall of this vnity beginning from one giuing the primacy to Peter that so one Church of Christ and one chayre might be manifested c. He that keeps not this vnity doth he thinke himselfe to hold the fayth In the Episcopall chayre sayth Optatus (m) L. 2. contra Parmen was set Peter the Head of all the Apostles to the end that in this only chayre vnity might be preserued to all From this priuiledge obtayned by Christ for S. Peter his chayre it proceedeth that the ancient Fathers haue not doubted to belieue and teach the infallibility of the Roman Church in matters of fayth as also from other grounds of Scripture to be declared hereafter S. Cyprian speaking against the Nouatians sayth (n) L. 1. Ep. 3. They presumed to carry letters from Schismatikes and heretikes to the chayre of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praysed by the mouth of the Apostle and to whom misbeliefe can haue no accesse S. Basil writeth to Damasus Pope (o) Epist. 69. per Sabinum Diac. Surely that which is giuen by our Lord to your Holynesse is worthy of that most excellent voyce which proclamed you Blessed to wit that you may discerne betweene what is counterfeit and what is lawfull and pure and that you may without any diminution preach the fayth of our ancestors S. Ambrose writeth to Siricius Pope (p) L. 10. ep 31. Whom your Holinesse hath condemned know that we also hold them condemned according to your iudgment S. Hierome sayth to Ruffinus (q) L. 1. Apol aduers Ruffin Know thou that the Roman fayth commended by the voyce of the Apostle admitteth no such delusions and that being fensed by S. Pauls authority it cannot be altered though an Angell should teach otherwise S. Augustine writing against the Pelagians and hauing professed that the Bishop of Rome hath from the holy Scriptures authority to declare the true fayth and condemne heresies addeth (r) Epist 157. The Catholike fayth expressed in these words of the Apostolike See is so ancient so grounded so certaine
noting the wordes in a distinct letter as the very phrase of his Sanction manifestly against his meaning For in that very Sanction or Decree he declareth that the cause that moued him to publish it was to disanull the attentats and Innonations against the Venerable Churches aswell those wherof the Patriarke Acacius hath the Priesthood as those placed in other sundry Prouinces which second part about other Churchs and Prouinces you (6) Pag. 26â— leaue out in your Marginal Latin to deceiue the Reader in making him to thinke that Constantinople is stiled absolutely Mother of all Orthodoxall Churches that thereby you may more colourably elude the like Titles attributed vnto the Roman Church So as nothing is related or alleaged by you without fraudulency and falshood SECT IV. Doctor Mortons Answeare to Vincentius Lyrinensis confuted VIncentius to proue that the Latine Churches agreed in Doctrine with the Churches of the East produceth as witnesses Felix and Iulius Popes calling them the Head of the world and S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose The sides of the world You to put off this testimony offer violence to Vincentius his words (k) Pag. 271. interpreting him to meane by Head of the world not the Bishop but the City of Rome But knowing this to be a false comment you adde as a second answeare (l) Ibid. that if he vnderstood the B. of Rome to be the Head of the Catholike Church we must also belieue that Cyprian of Carthage and Ambrose of Milan were alwayes to continue the sides of the Catholike Church This we deny for the Churches of Charthage and Milan haue no promise from Christ that the gates of Hell shall not preuaile against them nor that their fayth shall not faile as the Roman hath (m) See aboue Chap. 1. sect 1. 2. But to bolster vp one falsity with another you say (n) Pag. 271. If Lyrinensis by Head of the world vnderstood the Ecclesiasticall Orbe he cold meane no more then that the Pope is Head of the Westerne part therof But this hath bene already disproued (o) See Chap. 17. sect 2. Chap. 19. sect 3. Chap. 3â— by the testimonies of Councells and Fathers Greeke and Latine directly affirming that the B. of Rome is Head of all Churches and faythfull whatsoeuer throughouth the whole world and that his spirituall power extends euen to them whom the temporall forces of Rome could neuer subdue And to goe no further for proofes Lyrinensis himselfe declared this (p) Cap. 9.10.11 when he said that all Priests in all places made resistance to the doctrine of Rebaptization defended by Agrippinus Cyprian but Stephen B of Rome more then the rest thinking it reason to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth so much as he was superior to them in the authority of his place And what els doth he throughout that whole Treatise but declame against you who haue brought nouelties into the Church contrary to that ancient truth which you found in it when Luther began and when as Caluin professeth you made a separation from the whole world SECT V. Doctor Morton in his Answeare to Optatus contradicteth himselfe OPtatus proueth the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church by the succession of Bishops in the chaire of Rome numbring them all from S. Peter to Siricius that liued in his time (r) L. 2. cont Parmen and defineth all them to be schismatikes and sinners that are separated from the communion of that only singular chaire You answeare (s) Pag. 269. that Optatus by One chaire meant not the particular chaire of Rome but the whole vniuersall Church But the contrary is euident for he reckoneth not the succession of Bishops in any other Church but only in the Roman and sayth (t) L. 2. cont Parmen that the Episcopall chaire was set vp in Rome for Peter to the end that in that chaire vnity might be preserued to all and that he might be a schismatike and a sinner that against this only chaire should set vp another What expression can be more effectuall to proue you to be a schismatike and a sinner then these words of Optatus who condemned the Donatists (u) Ibid. of bold and sacrilegious presumption for fighting against this Chaire of Peter as you do But you reply (x) Pag. 269. The particular Church of Rome is but a portion of the vniuersall Church and therfore Optatus obiecteth against the Donatists their want of vnion with the Churches of Asia commended by S. Iohn in the Reuelation as well as with Rome This you repeate afterwards againe (y) Pag. 273. and had obiected the same before (z) Pag. 100. 101. 229. 230. Your answere you haue receaued already (a) Chap. 15. sect 9. Chap. 34. sect 8. to which I adde that as he who should obiect to rebells their want of vnion with their Prince his loyall subiects doth not therby deny the supreme authority of the Prince ouer all the subiects of his dominions so Optatus obiecting to the rebellious Donatists the want of vnion with the Roman Church and other Orthodoxall Churches of Asia subiect to her doth not therby deny her authority ouer all the Churches of the world But you say (b) Pag. 270. Rome hauing departed from the sincerity of the Apostolicall profession as Asia hath done the departure from that must dissolue necessity of Vnion with Rome You grant then that the Asians haue fallen from the Apostolicall profession as Rome hath done and Rome if we belieue you hath fallen so far that her doctrine is false impious hereticall blasphemous damnable sacrilegious Antichristian Satanicall c. Ergo the Asians hauing fallen from the Apostolicall profession as Rome hath done their doctrine is also damnable hereticall blasphemous Satanicall c. And yet afterwards you say (c) Pag. 407. the Asians haue continued visible partes of the Catholike Church and Protestants stand in Christian vnity with them I conclude therfore that when it is for your purpose the Asians are truly professed Christians and partes of the Catholike Church and Protestants stand in Christian Vnion with them and when it is not for your purpose they haue fallen from the sincerity of the Apostolicall profession as Rome hath done from whence it must follow that it is as vnlawfull to be in vnion with them as with Rome whose doctrine to you is Hereticall blasphemous c. SECT VI. Other vntruthes of Doctor Morton discouered his cauilling against the Title of Holinesse giuen to the Pope YOu set downe (d) Pag. 273. this Thesis as of Bellarmine When the Fathers say that the Church of Rome cannot erre the word cannot is not to be taken absolutely and simply but with this cantion so long as the Apostolicall See continueth at Rome This is not a Thesis of Bellarmine but of a few other Deuines who hold that S. Peter fixed his See at Rome not by diuine ordination but by his owne
being wronged by the false Councell of Ephesus had presented a libell of appeale to his Legates he would command a generall Councell to be held within Italy for the Nicen Canons require this necessarily to be done after the putting in of an Appeale To these I adde Theodoret testifying in expresse words that he appealed to Leo Pope These witnesses shew that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations was not very vncouth but very familiar in the dayes of Theodoret and in former ages and that the right of appealing to the Roman See was acknowledged and testified by holy Popes of the primitiue times by generall Councells by Emperors by Bishops and by all ancient writers And the same might be proued by other examples if these were not sufficient to shew your ignorance in denying if not rather your boldnesse in out-facing so knowne a truth SECT V. That S. Athanasius appealed to Iulius Pope and Theodoret to Leo as absolute Iudges and that by their authority both of them were restored to their Churches THat S. Athanasius appealed to Iulius Pope and by his authority was restored to his seat hath bene effectually proued (r) Chap. 38. sect 6. And to what there was said I adde here the testimony of Liberatus who speaking of Iohn Patriarke of Alexandria deposed by the Emperor Zeno sayth (s) In Breuia c. 18. He appealed to the B. of Rome as also Blessed Athanasius did And that Theodoret appealed to Leo as to an absolute Iudge that had power to command him and sentence his cause he himselfe witnesseth as you haue heard (t) Sect. praeced init Neuerthelesse you taking vpon you to know what passed in Theodorets cause better then Theodoret himselfe say (u) Pag. 304. He addressed his requests to the B. of Rome not as to a peremptory Iudge but as to a Patron and arbitrary dais-man one vpon whose authority he depending acknowledgeth in expresse words his reason to wit the integrity of the fayth of the Pope and promising to abide his award with the assistance of others And before you had said (x) Pag. 255. marg lit m. The euent sheweth that there was in this busines no iuridicall proceeding at all Only Theodoret vpon his confession of his Orthodoxe fayth was receaued into communion with Leo as Leo might haue ben with Iohn of Constantinople in like case These are your words to proue that Theodoret appealed not to the Pope as to an absolute Iudge that had authority to annull the sentence of the Councell that deposed him and restore him to his See but only as to an Arbitrator by reason of the integrity of his fayth when as he contrarily in expresse words beseecheth Renatus (y) Ep ad Renat to perswade the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of Rome to vse his Apostolicall authority and command him to appeare before his Councell that is his Consistory because that holy See hath the guidance and gouerment of all the Churches of the world And writing to Pope Leo he sayth (z) In Ep. ad Leon. I attend the sentence of your Apostolike throne and beseech your Holinesse to succour me appealing to your right and iust iudgment and to command that I be brought before you c. And I promise to stand to your iudgment contenting my selfe with that which you shall determine what euer it be And I beseech you that I may be iudged according to my writings If Theodoret had studied to expresse the Popes iudiciall authority to sentence his cause could he haue done it in more cleare and effectuall words then these It is true that as he acknowledgeth the Roman Church to be priuiledged aboue others for many causes so especially for that she hath remained free from all blemish of heresy none hauing euer possessed that See which hath held any thing contrary to truth or which hath not kept the Apostolicall grace entyre and without blemish The reason why he mentioneth the purity of fayth alwayes preserued in the Roman Church is because he had bene accused and deposed as guilty of heresy in his writings And therfore he appealeth confidently to the Pope as to one whose iudgment in matters of fayth is is infallible and to whom the decision of all such Controuersies belongeth acknowledging withall as you haue heard the Roman Church to be the Head of all Churches and the Pope to be his absolute Superior and Iudge with authority to command him and sentence his cause And Leo Pope accordingly vsing the authority of a Iudge declared him free from heresy and restored him to his See wherupon the Senators that assisted at the Councell of Chalcedon said with the approbation of the whole Councell (a) Act. 1. Let the most Reuerend Bishop Theodoret come in because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his See Who then seeth not the insufficiency of your answeare that Theodoret appealed not to the Pope as to an absolute Iudge but made his requests vnto him as to an arbitrary Dais-man for appeales are not made to Arbitrators but to absolute Iudges An Arbitator is he to whom the determination of a controuersy is remitted by agreement of both parties which in Theodorets cause can haue no place for his aduersaries neuer agreed to haue his cause remitted to the Pope If therfore the Pope had not bene an absolute Iudge Theodorets appealing to him had bene in vaine nor could he haue recouered his seat by the Popes sentence for a sentence pronounced without authority is of no effect And though after the Councell of Chalcedon had admitted Theodoret vpon the Popes restitution to take his place amongst the Bishops some of them doubting of his fayth because he had written against Cyrill of Alexandria in fauor of Nestorius and therfore fearing the Pope might haue restored him vpon misinformation vrged him to anathematize Nestorius againe yet that no way helpeth your cause nor derogateth from the Popes authority for when Theodoret had anathematized Nestorius the Councell proceeded not to a new sentence of restitution but subscribing to that of Leo cried out all with one voyce (b) Act. 2. Long liue Archbishop Leo Leo hath iudged the iudgment of God SECT VI. That S. Chrysostome appealed to Innocentius Pope as to an absolute Iudge and by his authority was restored to his Church of Constantinople S. Chrysostome being deposed from his Patriarchall See at the procurement of Eudoxia the Empresse wife to Arcadius Emperor of the East by a Councell of Bishops vnder Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria had recourse by letters of appeale to Innocentius Pope This you deny saying (b) Pag. 307. n. that wheras Bellarmine and Baronius referre you to the story it selfe you can finde nothing lesse in it then the matter of Appeale for say you Chrysostome made his requests not to the Pope alone but to the other Reuerend Bishops within the Roman Prouince together with him But this is a mistake proceeding
Can. pag. 199. The same appeares by the testimony which Venerable Bede giues of Oswin King of Northumberland who by meanes of a famous disputation held between Colman a Scottish Abbot and Wilfrid a learned Priest of the Britans for the decision of certaine points of Religion wherein the Britans and Scots at that tyme disagreed was conuerted to the Roman Church and thereupon with the aduice of Egbert king of Kent sent Wigandus a Priest to Rome to be ordained Archbishop there to the end that returning he might ordayne Bishops throughout all Britany for sayth Bede Oswin though brought vp by the Scots (y) L. 3. hist. Angl. c. 29. had rightly vnderstood that the Roman Church is the Catholike and Apostolike Church These testimonies sufficiently proue that the most holy and learned Fathers as also the Orthodox Christians of former ages did belieue that the Roman Church was the Catholike Church and that to be deuided from the Roman Church was to be no Catholike but a Schismatike And that it may appeare how like you that deny this truth are to the Arian Heretikes it will not be amisse to shew that they knew Catholike and Roman to be all one and that because they would not grace Catholikes with the name of Catholikes they called them Romans or Romanists as at this day you call vs shewing your selues to be of the same spirit with the Arians Victor that famous African Bishop of Vrica writeth to this (z) L. 2. de persecut Vandal purpose that Iocundus an Arian speaking to king Theodoricus sayd Thou maiest make an end of Armogastus with diuers afflictions for if thou put him to death by the sword the Romanists will proclayme him a Martyr And of another Martyr he reporteth (a) Ibid. that being questioned by the Arians concerning his fayth he professed himself to be a Catholike saying Romanus sum I am a Roman (b) Apud Baron amo 471. In like manner Ermodius reporteth of the Nobility of the Ligures that proposing to Ricimer an Arian Goth a man fit to sollicite a peace they said Si Catholicus est Romanus if he be a Catholike then is he a Romanist And S. Gregory of Tours reporteth of an Arian Prince (c) De glor Mars c. 25. that thinking within himself be sayd It is the fashion of the Romans so they call men of our religion to attribute it to chance and not to the power of God And againe he reporteth this speach of one Arian to â—n (d) Ibid. c. 361 other If thou wilt but harken to my Counsell we will this day make our selues merry laughing hartily at this Romish Priest And speaking of the Arians that were in France (e) Ibid. c. 79. what thinke you sayd one of them will these Romanists now say And what thinke you now Doctor Morton what will you say Do not these testimonies conuince that in the language and beliefe of antiquity Catholike and Roman did signify the same Church the same fayth and the same Orthodoxall people Or what may we thinke of you that either are so ignorant as not to know this Or if you know it so malicious as to deny it to call it an insultation of ours and to censure it as Schismaticall hereticall temerarious impious sacrilegious Antichristian c. SECT IV. That whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church is out of the state of Saluation THis truth is euidently deduced out of the premises already proued by this syllogisticall argument Whosoeuer is out of the Catholike Church is out of the state of Saluation This maior Proposition you grant and it hath beene already proued (f) Hoc cap. sect 1. But whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church is out of the Catholike Church This also hath bene (g) Hoc cap. sect 3. and shall be throughout this whole Apology effectually proued The consequent then is euident in Barbara Ergo whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church is out of the state of Saluation But yet in further confirmation of this consequent it will not be amisse to heare the ancient Fathers themselues speake and testify the truth therof in their owne language For so teacheth that ancient and learned Bishop S. Irenaeus who liued soone after the Apostles and was Disciple to their Disciples He prescribing a certaine rule to know and distinguish the Catholike Church from the conuenticles of Heretikes sayth (h) L. 3. c. 3. that All Churches and all the faithfull from all places must necessarily agree with the Roman Church by reason of her more powerfull principality that is by reason of the soueraignety of the See Apostolike and the neuer-interrupted succession of Bishops in that See which succession sayth he is (i) Ibid. a conuincing demonstration that the same fayth which was preached by the Apostles is still conserued in that Church and therefore (k) L. 4. c. 43. that all such as withdrawe themselues from this principall succession we ought sayth he to hold them as Heretikes of a peruerse iudgement or as Schismatikes and selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes And as S. IrenÄ™us alleaged this neuer interrupted succession of twelue Bishops vntill his tyme in the Roman Church as in the head Church of the world which therfore he calleth the principall succession if I say he alleaged this against the heretikes of those primitiue tymes as a conuincing demonstration to proue that they hauing departed from the Roman Church in which that principall succession was to be found had therby departed from the Catholike Church and forsaken true fayth deliuered by the Apostles far greater reason had Tertullian (l) De praescrip Eusebius (m) L. 5. hist. c. 6. S. Epiphanius (n) Haeres 27. S. Ierome (o) Dial. cont Lucifer Optatus S. Augustine (p) Lib. 2. cont Parm. and other Fathers of after ages to all eage the same succession of longer Continuance against the Heretikes of their tymes to conuince them to be such And (q) Ep. 165. Psal contra part Donati â—f diuers of these Fathers as Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius S. Epiphanius Optatus and S. Augustine haue reckoned vp by name all the Bishops of the Roman Church against the Heretikes of their tymes we may now iustly reckon a â—ar greater number of them coÌ„tinued vntill these our dayes â—gainst Protestants to proue them to be out of the true Church in which only this neuer interrupted succession is to be found and wish them as S. Augustine (r) Psal contra part Donati did the Donatists not to lye cut of from this succession that being â—he Rock against which the proud gates of hell preuaile â—ot So teacheth S. Cyprian saying (s) L. 1. ep 8. There is one God and â—ne Christ. one chayre built vpon Peter out of which whosoeuer gathereth scattereth that is maketh a Schisme in the Church â—s the Nouatians did against whom he writeth And why did he reioyce (t) L. 4. ep â— to heare that Antonianus
same iorney is both a going and a mission a going as it is performed by him that vndertakes the iorney and a mission as it proceeds from those that sent him euen as the same lesson is both doctrina and disciplina doctrina as it is deliuered by the Maister that teacheth and disciplina as it is receaued by the Scholler that learneth and as in Philosophy the same production is called Actio as it proceeds from the Agent Passio as it is receaued in the subiect And to say that the sending of Iohn with Peter argueth Iohn to be equall in authority with Peter is a great Non sequitur as if you should argue a Chanon to be of equall authority with the Deane or a Cardinall with the Pope if they be sent togeather CHAP. XI Sleights and falsifications of Doctor Morton to shift off the testimonies of Ancient Fathers teaching S. Peters supremacy BELLARMINE to proue S. Peters primacy ouer the other Apostles produceth conuincing testimonies of many Fathers both Greeke and Latin (p) L. 1 de Pont. c. 25. These you vndertake to answer or rather to elude by diuers sleights Some of them as being so cleare that you knew not how to deuise any answer vnto them you wholly omit without any mention of them as of S. Prosper Arator and Aetherianus Others you mention as of S. Leo the great of S. Gregory of Venerable Bede and S. Bernard but put them of with deuises We pretermit say (q) Pag. 50. marg n. 20. you the testimony of Pope Leo wherof reason is giuen hereafter but wheras Bellarmine alleageth two vnanswerable testimonies of S. Leo you are so far from giuing any reason of them that for ought I can find you neuer after mention eyther of them The testimonies of Bede and S. Bernard you reiect as not truly ancient wheras Bede liued almost 1000. and S. Bernard aboue 500. yeares since But the true reason indeed why you reiect them is not want of antiquity but because they clearely conuince your Doctrine of falshood For when S. Bernard the later of these two hath any thing which by misinterpreting his meaning or falsifying you can wrest to your purpose as afterwards you do (r) Pag. 170. 182. S. Bernard is ancient inough S. Gregory you shift of promising to speake of him largely afterwards S. Gregory did disclaime from the title of Vniuersall Bishop in that sense in which Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople did arrogate the same to himselfe Of this indeed you treate at large (s) Pag. 92. seqq but his testimonie which Bellarmine vrgeth in proofe of S. Peters pastorall power ouer the whole Church you neither answere nor so much as mention afterwards 3. Bellarmine citeth out of Eusebius his Chronicon these words Petrus natione Galilaeus Christianorum Pontifex primus Peter a Galilean borne the first chiefe Bishop of Christians He sayth not Peter the first Bishop of the Romans as in the same place he sayth Iames the first of Hierusalem and Euodius the first Bishop of Antioch but Peter the first chief Bishop of Christians which differēce of expression she weth that wheras Iames and Euodius were Bishops of two particular Dioceses Peter was the Bishop of all Christians This is one of the testimonies of Eusebius alleaged by Bellarmine which you conceale without giuing any answer vnto it though you name the place out of which he alleageth it The second is out of Eusebius his history which you are contented to mention that you may pick a quarrell against Bellarmine for you say (t) Pag. 49. marg he miscites the Chapter the 14. for the 13. But by desiring to carpe you discouer your ignorance for in the different versions of Eusebius the Chapters are differently diuided and though the passage which Bellarmine citeth be in the 13. Chapter according to the version of Christophorson yet in that of Ruffinus which he followeth it is in the 14. as he cites it And wheras Eusebius there calleth Peter Reliquorum omnium Apostolorum Principem The Prince of all the other Apostles you answere That it is with this restriction omitted by Bellarmine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his singular vertues sake But what doth this omission auaile your cause or hurt ours The Fathers agree in this that when Christ promised to make Peter the foundation of his Church it was for that excellent confession of his Diuinity and in reward therof as hath bene proued (*) Aboue Nu 11. and so likewise when he actually conferred on him the dignity of supreme Pastor it was a reward of his feruent loue But doth it follow that because this supereminent dignity was promised to Peter and conferred on him for his singular vertues it was nor therfore a primacy of Magistracy and iurisdiction but of order only Is not the office of Pastor of Christs flock an office of Magistracy and iurisdiction but such are the answers which you giue to insoluble arguments yet shame not to charge Bellarmine with vnconscionable dealing in vrging this place of Eusebius against you 4. He vrgeth S. Gregory Nazianzen saying Vides c. You see how among the Disciples of Christ all truly great and high and worthy to be chosen this to wit Peter is called a Rock and hath the foundations of the Church committed to his charge And he that is Iohn is loued more and reposeth on the brest of our Lord and the other-disciples did not take it in ill part that these were preferred before them These are the words of Nazianzen and these very words Bellarmine truly and punctually setteth downe whom therfore you vniustly traduce (u) Pag. 49. marg as deprauing Nazianzen whose words as he corrupteth not so neither doth he peruert his sense for out of them it is euident that as Christ preferred Iohn by louing him more then the rest so in far higher degree he preferred Peter before them and before Iohn also For who seeth not that Nazianzen acknowledgeth a far greater dignity in Peter then in Iohn or any other of the Apostles when he sayth that Christ called Peter a Rock and committed to his charge the foundations of the Church for that is to say that he made him Head and Gouernor therof it being a knowne truth that the foundation in a building is the same that the Head in a politicall body from whence it is that the famous Councell of Chalcedon (x) Act. 3. calleth Peter The foundation of true fayth and the rock and top of the Catholike Church which is a far greater dignity then to leane on Christs brest or any other that was conferred on Iohn or any of the other Apostles 5. Bellarmine (y) L. 1. de Pont. c. 25. vrgeth 3. testimonies out of S. Augustines workes The second you passe ouer without any answer to it or mention of it The third you reiect as taken out of a booke which Bellarmine himselfe and others acknowledge not to be
what the most holy and learned Doctors of Gods Church from tyme to tyme haue done And as out of this passage of S. Paul we shew you that the fayth of the Roman Church was pure in the Apostles tyme so we require of you as S. Augustine (f) L. de vnto Eccles c. 12. 13. did of the Donatists to shew vs out of Scripture that after 600. yeares she was to fall from the true fayth as you pretend her to haue done Let them sayth S. Augustine reade vs this in the Scripture and we yeild but if they reade not this in the Scripture but seeke to persuade it by their contentions wrangling I belieue those things which are read in the holy Scriptures but I belieue not those which are affirmed by vaine heretikes And in requiring this at your hands we require no other prose for the truth of your Protestant Church fayth but what we are able to shew for ours for that the Roman Church cannot erre in sayth I haue already proued (g) Hoc cap. sect 1. 2. out of Scriptures and Fathers which therfore conuince her to be the true Catholike Church in which the spirit of truth dwelleth for euer (h) Ioan. 14.16 And that the Catholike Church the Roman Church are termes conuertible denoting one and the same thing hath also bene proued (i) Aboue Chap. 1. sect 3. But because you seeme to thinke that out of this text of S. Paul it cannot be proued that the fayth which S. Peter deliuered to the Romans is hereditary to the Church of Rome or that the Catholike fayth and the Romen fayth are all one it will not be amisse to let you heare what the ancient Fathers the best interpreters of Scripture haue belieued in this point That holy and renowned Martyr S. Cyprian (k) L. 1. ep 3. out of this text proueth that the Roman Church cannot fall from that fayth which she once receaued They to wit the Nouatian heretikes hauing set vp a false Bishop presume to carry letters from Schismatikes and heretikes to the chayre of Peter and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praysed by the mouth of the Apostle and to whom vnfaithfulnes can haue no accesse If vnfaithfulnes can haue no accesse to the RomaÌ„ Church it followeth that she retaineth still the same fayth which was commended by S. Paul and that whosoeuer belieueth at this day as she belieues is free from all error in fayth The same is confirmed by an other testimony of the same Father who writing to Cornelius Pope and diuers of the Romans suffering banishment in the persecution of Decius and praysing their constancy and fayth sayth (l) Ep. 57. It was fore-seene in spirit and prophetically foretold by the Apostle My dearest brethren whiles you are of one hart and one voyce it is the confession of all the Roman Church that fayth hath shined in you which the Apostle praysed He did euen then foresee in spirit this prayse of your vertue and strength of your constancy and by prediction of future things gaue testimony of your desertes and commâ—nding the parents incouraged their Children With S. Cyprian accordeth S. Hierome When sayth he to Demetrias (m) Ep. 8. thou wast litle and the Bishop Anastasius of happy and holy memory gouerned the Roman Church a cruell tempest of heretikes risen out of the Easterne parts attempted to pollute and corrupt the sincerity of that fayth which had bene commended by the mouth of the Apostle but this personage Pope Anastasius rich in a most plentifull pouerty and in an Apostolicall care brake the pestilent head and stopped the hissing mouth of that Hydra And because I feare yea haue heard say that the buds of this most renemous plant do still liuâ— and spring vp in some I thought it my duety to admonish thee in a deuout zeale of Charity that thou keepe fast the fayth of S. Innocentius his sonne and successor in the Apostolicall chayre And writing to Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria (n) Ep. 68. Know that we haue nothing in greater recommendation then to conserue the statutes of Christ and not to transgresse the bounds of our Fathers and alwayes to haue in mynde the Roman fayth praysed by the mouth of the Apostle wherof the Church of Alexandria glories to partake And impugning Ruffinus his errors as being contrary to the Catholike fayth (o) Lib. 1. Apol aduers Ruffin Know thou that the Roman fayth commended by the Apostle receaues not such delusions though an Angell should denounce otherwise then it hath hene once preached it cannot be altered being fensed by Pauls authority If therfore S. Hierome be to be credited the Roman fayth in his tyme was conserued pure as it was preached and cannot be altered as you pretend it to haue bene since that tyme. And therfore as it were speaking to you (p) Ep. 6. ad Pammach Ocean he further sayth Who-euer thou art that auouchest new sects I pray thee haue respect to the Roman eares spare the fayth which was commended by the voyce of the Apostle And to Paula and Eustochium (q) Proem lib Comment in ep ad Galat. Will you know how the Apostle hath noted euery prouince with their proprieties the fayth of the people of Rome is praysed where is so great concourse to Churches and to Martyrs sepulchers c. Not that the Romans haue any other fayth then the rest of the christian Churches but that in them there is more deuotion and simplicity of fayth To which place of S. Hierome the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas alluding sayth (r) In vers 8. cap. 1. ad Rom. The Romans are commended for their fayth because they receaued it easily and perseuered in it constantly from whence it is that to this day are shewed very many signes of their fayth in the visitation of holy places as S. Hierome sayth vpon the Epistle to the Galathians And a litle after The Apostle reioyceth and giueth thankes to God for their fayth not only for their sake but for the profit that followed therof because they being Lords of nations other countreys were moued to belieue by their example for as the Glosse sayth The inferior doth readily what he sees done by his Superior which last words are also of S. Ambrose And S. Augustine speaking of Pelagius the Arch-heretike (s) L. 2. de peccat orig cont Pelag. c. 8. sayth He deceaued the Palestine Councell and therfore seemeth to haue bene absolued there But he was not able to deceaue the Roman Church though be endeauored to do is because the most blessed Pope Zozimus called to minde what opinion Innocentius his predecessor worthy to be imitated had of his proceeding and be considered likewise what iudgment the fayth of the Romans worthy of prayse in our Lord did make of him for he perceaued them with vnited endeauors to
striue earnestly against his error for the Catholike truth The reason therfore why Pelagius after he had deceaued the Councell of Palestine endeauored also to deceaue the Roman Church by a feigned profession of his fayth sent to Innocentius Pope was because it was the constant beliefe of all Christians in those dayes that the Roman Church as being heyre of the fayth commended by S. Paul could not approue any doctrine but what was truly orthodoxall and Catholike as Pelagius in that his profession acknowledgeth saying (t) In fin Symb. ad Dâ—â—â— apud Hieron to 4. Baron anno 417 This o most blessed Pope is the fayth which I haue learned in the Catholike Church and which I haue alwayes held and do bold Wherin if I haue said any thing ignorantly or vnwarily I desire to be corrected by you that hold the fayth and chayre of Peter If this my confession be approued by the iudgment of your Apostleship whosoeuer layes an aspersion on me shall shew himselfe to be ignorant or malicious or els not to be a Catholike but he shall not proue me to be an heretike With this profession Pelagius sought to deceaue the Roman Church but could not because Zozimus sayth S. Augustine (u) Proximè cit considered what iudgment the fayth of the Romans commended by the Apostle had made of him in the tyme of Innocentius his predecessor For which cause Procopius truly said (x) L. 1. de bello Goth. If euer any surely the Romans chiefly are they that haue had the Christian fayth in veneration I conclude therfore that if the holy Fathers haue vnderstood the Scriptures aright the fayth of the Roman Church is proued to be infallible not only by the Scriptures formerly alleaged (y) Supra hoc â—ap but by this very passage of the Apostle Nor do Tolet or Sà whome heere you obiect (z) Pag. 66. say ought to the contrary for if they obserue that when the Apostle sayth to the Romans your fayth is published euery where it is an hyperbole because the sense is not that the fayth which they belieued was then actually preached throughout the whole world but that is was a thing knowne and published throughout the whole world that they had belieued they say nothing but what is true for the Apostle cold not say that the Roman fayth which was the fayth of Christ was then actually preached in all partes of the world as neither it is yet at this day but that it was publikely knowne throughout all the world that the Romans had receaued the fayth of Christ because in common speach and morall reputation that which is diffused ouer a great part of the world and famously knowne is said to be euery where And this publike fame was of great moment for the conuersion of other nations for Rome being the Head of the world whither all sorts of people vnder that vast Empyre had recourse for discharg of their tributes and accompts of their offices they cold not but haue knowledge that the Romans belieued in Christ And as Tolet noteth out of S. Chrysostome but you to detract from the Romans what prayse you can conceale it this publike same and knowledg of their beliefe was an example and a great motiue for other nations to receaue the fayth of Christ Now wheras you adde (a) Pag. 60. It is an obiection now a dayes breathed into the mouth of euery vulgar Papist that at that day Catholike and Roman were all one the testimonies of antiquity which I haue formerly brought in profe therof shew that none but he which is not so much as vulgarly read in Ecclesiasticall history can be ignorant of so certaine a truth Wherfore you speake vntruly when you say it is an insultation of ours easily checked with a paralell of the like if not of a larger commendation of the Church of Thessalonica by the same Apostle 1. Thessal 1.2 We giue thankes alwayes to God for you all making mention of you in our prayers remembring without ceasing your worke of fayth And againe v. 8. From you sayth he sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia but also in euery place your fayth to Godward is spread abroad c. This is your paralell which is easily disparalelled for as Baronius obserueth (c) Anno 58. out of S. Chrysostome the Romans being Head of the world their fayth was a forcible motiue to bring other nations to belieue in Christ And therfore S. Leo (d) Serm. 1. in Nat. Apost Pet. Paul had reason to say that S. Peter Prince of the Apostles not by humane counsell but by diuine ordination came from Antioch to Rome to preach the Ghospell and fixe his chayre in that Citty that so the chiefe seat of religion might be where the Head of superstition had bene and that the fayth from thence as from the top of the Empyre might be diffused throughout the world And S. Anselme (e) â—n c. 1. ad Rom. that S. Paulgiuing thankes to God for the fayth of the Romans sayth I giue thanks to God for all the faithfull in the first place for all you because you are the chiefest the Roman Church hauing the primacy among all Churches And wheras the Apostle sayth The fayth of the Romans is published throughout the whole world the same S. Anselme noteth (f) In c. 1. ad Thessal that he sayth not so to the Thessalonians but You are made a paterne to all that belieue in Macedonia and Achaia and from you the word of our Lord was bruted not only in Macedonia and Achaia but also in â—uery place that is sayth he in euery place neare to you And hereby it appeareth that the Romans for the example of their fayth and the profit that redounded therby to others were preferred by S. Paul before the Thessalonians as farre as the whole world ouer which the conuersion of Rome was quickly spread exceedeth Macedonia Achaia with a few bordering Prouinces which only had notice of the Thessalonians And therfore S. Paul giueth a further prayse to the Romans (g) Rom. 15.15 I am assured of you that you are also full of loue replenished with all knowledge so that you are able to admonish one another And againe (h) Rom. 16.19 Your obedience is published into euery place none of which prayses he gaue to the Thessalonians But lest we should gather any preeminence of the Roman Church because the Epistle to the Romans among all S. Pauls epistles hath the first place you preoccupate this obiection telling vs (i) Pag. 67. that the epistle to the Thessalonians and others were written before that to the Romans Be it so but we aduertise you with S. Anselme (k) Praefat. in ep ad Rom. It is to be belieued that they which collected S. Pauls epistles into one body iudged that the epistle to the Romans ought to haue the first place because it was
addressed to that Citty which was then Head of the whole world and because the Roman Church still vntill this day hath the soueraignty of all Churches And in his commentary of the eight verse of the first Chapter Here againe sayth he it is manifest that the â—pistle to the Romans ought to be placed first because the Romans among all the faythfull are the chiefest because the Roman Church hath the soueraignty among all Churches SECT VII Why S. Paul did not intitle his Epistles Catholike Epistles THat S. Paul in his epistle to the Romans hath giuen sufficient testimony of the preeminency of the Roman Church aboue all others is a thing manifest if not you but the ancient Fathers may be the iudges Them you must giue vs leaue to follow and forsake you fighting against S. Paul and them Against this truth you frame yet two Arguments more The first is (l) Pag. â—â— that whereas the epistles of S. Iames Peter Iude and Iohn are intituled Catholike epistleâ— if S. Paul had bene possessed with the spirit of the now Bishop of Rome he would haue intituled the Church of Rome the Catholike Church and at least inscribed his epistle Catholike The second is (m) Ibid. that he giueth not to the Roman Church so much as the title of a Church which yet in his prefaces to the Corinthians Galathiâ—ns and Thessalonians he giues to those Churches To the first I answere that the Apostles themselues did not giue to any of their epistles the name of Catholike epistles That title is prefixed to the epistles of Iames Peter Iohn Iude by the Church for diuers reasons which you may reade in Salmeron (n) Disp 1. in Ep. S. Iacobi and chiefly because as S. Augustine (o) De fide oper c. 14. witnesseth they were written against the heresy of Simon Magus defending Iustification by only fayth wherin Protestants are his heires And for that cause their epistles insist so much on good workes and the keeping of Gods Commandements and shew that fayth without charity is dead and fruitlesse And for the same cause S. Iohn (p) Ep. 1. vers 24. 27. admonisheth the faythfull to abide in that Doctrine which they haue heard from the beginning because many seducers are gone out into the world And S. Iude (q) Vers 4.8 seqq exhorteth them to stand to their old fayth shewing them by examples that it is damnable not to be constant in it To your second Argument I might answere with 8. Chrysostome that they which were but a small number newly conuerted and weake S. Paul salutes them by the name of a Church to comfort them but not those that were more in number and of longer standing as the Romans were when he writ vnto them For this reason I say that as S. Paul did not salute the Ephesians Philippians Colossians by the name of a Church in expresse words so neither did he the Romans but only virtually and implicitly saying (r) Rom. 1.7 To all that are at Rome the beloued of God called Saints which title cannot agree to any congregation but to a true Church of Christ as (s) Tom. 13. disp 7. in ep ad Rom. Salmeron learnedly proueth and you contradicting your selfe acknowledge saying (t) Pag. 7â— sin S. Paul to shew that the Church rather doth consist in the professors then in the place omitteth the name of a Church and mentioneth only the persons saying To the Saints at Colosse To them at Rome beloued of God called Saints But because you mention Salmerons solution I will giue the reader notice how fouly you abuse and fallify him He giues three solutions to this Argument The first he most approueth and this you wholly pretermit to persuade your reader that he giues not three but only the two later and therfore wheras he begins the second thus Posset secundò commode dici you leaue out fecundo that this may seeme not to be his second solution but his first and to the same end you say allata alia solutione ad hunc redit that hauing brought another solution he returnes to this saying but the first solution in my iudgment is more soâ—de which words containe a most notorious falsification for he returnes not to this which you make the first by leauing out secundò but to the first of the three which you neuer mention And wheras he sayth that the first solution is in his iudgment the more solide you by falsifying apply this his saying to the second against which because you can make a shift to cauill you would haue your reader thinke it is Salmerons first solution and that he thought it to be the most solide of all the three But of what import to your cause is this iugling Marry that because in the second solution Salmeron mentioneth the factions that were then in Rome betweene the Iewes and Gentiles you may inferre that S. Paul did thinke Rome to be as other Churches subiect to the alteration of Schismes and factions and in proofe therof you say (u) Pag. 69. that not only our Professors among themselues but also Popes and Antipopes were distracted into diuers Schismes and factions c. One of our deuout Doctors reckoning the number of these Schismes to haue ben twenty an other accounting the continuance of one of them to haue endured fifty yeares Our Deuout Doctor whom you mention to proue that there hath ben twenty schismes in the Roman Church is Stapleton The place in which you cite him is his thirteenth booke De princip Doctrin Cap. 15. wheras in that worke he hath but twelue bookes in all But be it that there haue ben twenty Schismes in the Roman Church Schisme is not a sinne against fayth but against Charity If then Antipopes or other professors of the Roman Church haue broken the bond of charity was it therfore lawfull for you to renounce the fayth of the Roman Church If Schismes be a lawfull cause of departure who can stay in your Protestant congregation diuided subdiuided into Lutherans Caluinists Zwinglians Brownists and a thousand other Sects vnder these new ones daily arising among you as Separatists and Socinians all which are diuided not only in poynt of charity but in the very substance of fayth And surely you are ill aduised to obiect the Schismes of the Roman Church in iustification of your departure from her for since as our Authors haue aduertised nether the persecutions of heathen Emperors nor the Gothes and Vandals nor the Turke nor any sacks or massacres by Alaricus Gensericus Attila Borbon and others nor the emulation of secular Princes were they Kings or Emperors nor the many Schismes and diuisions betweene the lawfull Popes and Antipopes nor the manifold difficulties dangers in their elections nor the great vices which haue bene noted in some of their persons nor any scandall haue had power to ouerthrow the Roman Church as they haue done the Churches
it selfe but one Church gouerneth another as the Metropolitan doth the Suffragans the Roman Church as being the Head and Mother Church ruleth all others of the world Nor is this explication of lesse force becauss he sayth that she gouerneth in the region of the Romans for he sayth it not to limit her gouerment but to expresse the place in which she is seated and from whence she gouerneth all other Churches I conclude therfore that by calling her the Church that gouerneth and not limiting her gouerment to anyone Church or nuÌ„ber of Churches he declareth her to be Head Gouernesse absolutely of all Churches for as S. Bernard speaking of this subiect sayth (m) L. 2. de consider at Where there is no limitation nothing is excepted And in this sense Theodoret long before had said (n) Ep. ad Leon. The Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the whole world This to be the genume sense of S. Ignatius his words Casaubon and you peraduenture did see and therfore to giue an expedite solution you reiect the whole Epistle saying (o) Pag. 100. marg No man skilfull in Greeke would belieue it to be written by S. â—gnatius But this solution is exploded by Euscbius (p) L. 3. hist. c. 30. and S. Hierome (q) L. de Scriptor who might be Casaubons and your Maysters in Greeke and yet affirme S. Ignatius to be the Author of this Epistle and transcribe a part therof yeÌ„t to be found in it as also doth S. Irenaeus (r) L. 4. aduers haeres apud Baron anno 109. to shew the admirable spirit and feruor of that holy Bishop Hauing proposed these arguments of Casaubon you obiect out of your owne obseruations (s) Pag. 100. that S. Ignatius exhorting the Trallians vnto obedience to Bishops instanceth equally in Timothy S. Pauls scholler as in Anacletus Successor to S. Peter Answere You may by the like argument proue that S. Ignatius equalleth Priests in authority with Bishops for exhorting the Trallians to obedience he instanceth as well in Priests as in the Bishop Obey sayth he (*) Ep. ad Trallianos the Bishop the Priests Who then seeth not your argument to be a childish Sophisme SECT VI. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church I Renaeus say you (t) Pag. 100. for direction in the right of Traditions referreth as well to Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna as to Linus Bishop of Rome Tertullian also to secure Christians in the Doctrine of the Apostles prescribeth vnto them that they consult with the Mother Churches immediatly founded by the Apostles naming as well Ephesus in Asia and Corinth in Achaia as Rome in Italy and for the persons mentioning as well Polycarpe ordayned by S. Iohn as Clemens by Peter The like argumeÌ„t you make out of Vincentius Lyrinensis But all of them imposterously and against your selfe And first to begin with S. Irenaeus these words Discite ab Apostolicis Ecclesijs Habetis Romae Linum which you alleage as of S. Irenaeus (u) L. 2. c. 3. I find not in him It is true that both he and Tertullian teaching the Christians of their tyme to auoyd heresy warned them that the true fayth was to be learned from the Apostolicall Churches that is from the Churches founded by the Apostles themselues or by Apostolicall men as Timothy Polycarpe and other their disciples that preached the same fayth they learned from the Apostles their Maysters But withall they taught them that the chiefe Church they were to adhere vnto and by whose authority they were to confound all Heretikes was the Roman Church All men sayth S. Irenaeus (x) L. 3. c. 3. may behold the tradition of the Apostles that is the fayth deliuered by them to their Successors in euery Church if they be desirous to heare the truth and we can number the Bishops that were made by the Apostles in Churches and their Successors euen vnto vs who neither taught nor knew any such thinge as rauing heretikes do broach c. But because it were a long businesse to number the Successions of all Churches we declare the tradition of the most great most ancient and most knowne Church founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which tradition and fayth it hath from the Apostles coÌ„ming to vs by Succession of Bishops and thereby we confound all them that any way ether by euill complacence of themselues or vaine-glory or blindnesse or ill opinion do gather otherwise then they ought Lo here how Catholikes in S. Irenaeus tyme did confound all heretikes by the fayth of the Roman Church and by the Succession of Bishops in that See And he yeldeth the reason saying (y) Ibid. for to this Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality all Churches must necessarily agree that is to say all the faythfull of what place soeuer in which Church the tradition and fayth of the Apostles hath bene alwayes conserued And in confirmation of this he reckoneth by name all the Popes from S. Peter to Eleutherius who at that tyme gouerned the Church (z) Ibid. And by that orderly and neuer-interrupted Succession he proueth the Roman Church to haue conserued vnto his daies the fayth pure and entyre as it was preached by the Apostles By this Succession that Doctrine and truth which the Apostles preached in the Church hath come to vs And this is a demonstration conuicing that it is one and the same quickening fayth which from the Apostles tyme vntill this day is conserued and delinered in truth And againe relating to this place and speaking of the same Succession of Bishops in the Roman Church which he calleth the principall Succession he declareth all those that withdraw themselues from it to be Schismatikes or heretikes They that are in the Church sayth he (a) L. 4. c. 41. ought to obey those Priests which haue their Succession from the Apostles which togeather with the Succession of their Bishoprikes haue receaued the assured grace of truth according to the good will of the heauenly Father And we ought to hold suspected all others that withdraw themselues from the like Principall Succession and ioyne togeather in some other place We ought I say to hold them as heretikes of a peruerse iudgment or as Schismatikes and selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes or els as Hypocrites that worke for lucre and vaine-glory If then S. Irenaeus in his dayes thought it an argument sufficient to conuince all Heretikes that they had fallen from the true fayth preached by the Apostles because they had fallen from the Succession of Bishops in Peters See to which all the Churches and faythfull of the world must necessarly agree how much more conuincing is the same Argument against Protestants to whom we shew not the Succession of twelue Popes in S. Peters See as S. Irenaeus did to the heretikes of his tyme but almost of 240. You were not ignorant of the force
in any thing he had erred and acknowledgeth in the Pope authority of a Iudge We are ready sayth he to be iudged by you prouided that they which slander vs may appeare face to face with vs before your Reuerence Doth all this import nothing but a request of louing and brotherly visitation or consideration Could S. Basil in more effectuall words expresse the Popes power and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church then by requesting him to send his Legates with authority to annull the Acts of a generall Councell as that of Arimin was No they are testimonies so forcible that with no glosse can be eluded But you reply (u) Pag. 194. against Bellarmine that he will needes haue S. Basil to desire the Popes Decree wheras Baronius readeth Counsell or Aduice Here againe you cauill for the Greeke word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by interpretation of Budaeus signifieth voluntatem sententiam iudicium Why then was it not lawfull for Bellarmine to say S. Basil desired the Popes decree for to desire him to giue his sentence and iudgement what was it els but to acknowledge in him the authority of a Iudge with power to sentence to iudge to decree Ecclesiasticall causes in the East Which power he also declareth in other places of his workes for do not both he (x) Ep. 73. al. 74. and S. Gregory Nazianzen (y) Epist ad Clede testify that Eustathius B. of Sebaste by vertue of Liberius his letters presented to the Easterne Bishops in the Councell of Tyana and by vertue of his command intimated in them was receaued into the communion of the whole Easterne Church and restored to his See Eustathius sayth S. Basil to the Bishops of the West hauing bene cast out of his Bishoprick because he was deposed in the Synod of Melitine aduised himselfe to find meanes to be restored trauailing to you Of the things that were proposed to him by the most Blessed Bishop Liberius and what submission be made we know not Only he brought a letter that restored him which being shewed to the Councell of Tyana he was reestablished in his Bishops seat Againe doth not S. Basil (z) Ep. 77. compare the Church to a body wherof the Westerne part by reason of the Roman See is the Head and the Eastern the Feet And doth he not from this very Metaphor denominate the B. of Rome Head of the vniuersall Church and all other Bishops fellow-members of the same body (a) Ep. 70. ad Episc transmar edit Paris an 1603. Againe doth he not beseech Pope Damasus (c) Ibid. to send Legates with order to examine the accusations laid to his charge and to appoint a place for him to meet them that his cause might be iudged by them and he punished if he were found guilty And doth he not require the same Pope (d) Ep. 74. to giue order by his letters to all the Easterne Churches that they admit into their communion all such as hauing departed from the Catholike truth shall disclaime from their Errors and to renounce the Communion of them that shall persist obstinatly in their nouelties And lastly declaring the Popes authority in determining all doubts and controuersies of fayth he sayth In very deed that which was giuen by our Lord to your Piety is worthy of that most excellent voyce which proclamed you blessed to wit that you may discerne betweene that which is counterfeit and that which is lawfull and pure and without any diminution may preach the fayth of our Ancestors I conclude therfore that if S. Basil beleeued aright the Pope hath authority to restore Bishops deposed to their Sees to send Legates with power to dissolue the Acts of generall Councels to condemne hereticall doctrines to iudge the causes of Bishops to punish delinquents And is this nothing els but charitable aduice but perswasion but counsell Is it not to vse authority to exercise iurisdiction But you obiect (f) Pag. 1â—6 that S. Basil in his owne name and in the name of his fellow Bishops in the East hauing written often to Pope Damasus and other Westerne Bishops and sent to Rome foure seuerall legations requiring helpe and comfort from them in their afflictions could not receaue any answeare in so much that S. Basil taxeth them with supercilious pride haughtinesse and that they did neither know the truth nor would learne it This you obiect out of Baronius from whom you might haue taken the solution which is that S. Basil was oppressed and as it were ouerwhelmed with waues of sorow and affliction not only for the common calamity of the Orientall Church but also for his owne particular for as much as by Eustathius B. of Sebaste and others who hiding the venime of their heresy feigned themselues to be Catholikes he was accused and defamed of heresy in the East and brought into suspition euen with his owne Monkes and his dearely beloued Neocaesarians And this made him likewise not to be well thought of in the West in so much that Damasus Pope for a time desisted from that familiar communication by letters which Basil expected and differred the sending of Legates to examine his cause and cleare the truth which he had required greatly desired Yet as you (g) Pag. 198. confesse was he then a member of the Catholike Church and held communion with the Church of Rome both in fayth and charity Nor was Damasus so wholly wanting to his comfort but that euen then when he was suspected of heresy vpon his letters he called a Councell at Rome in which he condemned Apollinarius Vitalis and Timotheus (h) Baron anno 373. Sozo l. 6. c. 25. called Vitalis to Rome and excommunicated Timotheus as he testifieth in his Epistle to the Easterne Bishops (i) Apud Theodo l. 5. histor c. 11. expressing withall the profession which they had made to him of their beliefe of the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome Now if S. Basil in these afflictions and grieuing at the intermission of such communicatory letters from the Westerne Bishops and chiefly from Damasus as he expected let fall from his mouth some hasty words as other holy men whom Baronius (k) An. 373. nameth in like occasions haue done is that by you to be reproached vnto him or is it any argument of his deniall of the Supremacy of the B. of Rome which he hath taught so clearely so constantly so effectually in so many places of his workes Yea albeit S. Basil gaue a litle way to the motions of nature yet by vertue he soone recalled himselfe retracting what he had said as his letters full of humility written soone after to Damasus the other Westerne Bishops expresse You sayth (l) Ep. 1. in addiâ— he are praised by all mortall men that you remaine pure and without blemish in fayth keeping entire the doctrine taught you by the Apostles It is not so with vs among whom there are some
indiuiduall person v. g. Vrban the eight is true Pope and true Head of the Church Sect. 2. pag. 692. Whether the Church of Rome be at any time a body headlesse Sect. 3. pag. 693. Whether the Roman Church haue at any time a false Head Sect. 4. pag. 696. Whether the Roman Church at any time be diuided into many Heades Sect. 5. pag. 700. Whether the Roman Church be doubtfully headed Sect. 6. pag. 702. Of the Councell of Constance defining a Councell to be aboue the Pope Sect. 7. pag. 704. The same matter prosecuted out of the Councell of Basil Sect. 8. pag. 706. Doctor Mortons instances of France and England to proue the no-necessity of Vnion with the Church of Rome Sect. 9. pag. 709. CHAP. XXXXIV Whether Luther his followers had any iust cause to separate themselues from the Roman Church pag. 711. Whether any Protestants haue held that the Catholike Church before Luthers fall was wholly extinguished Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Catholike Church assembled in a generall Councell may erre in her definitions of fayth Sect. 2. p. 714. Whether Protestants hold the Church of Christ to be inuisible Sect. 3. pag. 720. What causes may suffice to depart from the communion of a particular Church Sect. 4. pag. 725. Of Luthers excommunication and his conference with the Diuell Sect. 5. pag. 731. Whether the Roman Church be as subiect to Errors as any other Church Sect. 6. pag. 735. Whether there be in the Scripture any Prophesy that the Church of Rome shall fall from the fayth Sect. 7. pag. 740. Whether Luther were iustly excommunicated Sect. 8. p. 741. Of the first occasion of Luthers reuolt from the Church And that Doctor Morton to defend his doctrine against Indulgences falsifieth sundry Authors Sect. 9. pag. 744. The causes giuen by Doctor Morton in excuse of Luthers departure from the Roman Church Sect. 10. pag. 749. Whether Protestants had any professors of their fayth before Luther Sect. 11. pag. 751. That all changes of fayth haue bene noted in the persons times and places of their beginnings Sect. 12. pag. 757. The lineall succession of Bishops in the See of Rome is a true and certaine marke of the Catholike Church Sect. 13. pag. 760. Of the conformity of Protestants and Donatists in their separation from the Catholike Church Sect. 14. pag. 763. That the fayth of the now Roman Church is acknowledged by Protestants to be sufficient for saluation Sect. 15. pag. 765. CHAP. I. GENERALL PRINCIPLES PREMISED for the better vnderstanding of the ensuing Apology SECT I. The importance of the Subiect THOVGH there be many questions in Religion controuerted betweene Protestants and vs yet none more important or more necessary to be knowne then that of the Church Protestants agree with vs so far as to belieue that there is shall be to the end of the world extant on earth One Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church which is the (a) 1. Tim. 3.15 Pillar and touchstone of truth which all men that will not be as Heathens and Publicanes must heare and (b) Math. 18.17 obey which is the second Eue framed out of the side of our second Adam Christ whome whosoeuer will not acknowledge to be his Mother cannot haue him to be his (c) S. Aug. de Symb. l. 4. c. 10. Father She is the mysticall body of our (d) Ephes 5.23 Lord out of which sayth S. Augustine (e) Ep. 50. ad 〈◊〉 the holy Ghost imparteth life to no man She is the Vineyard (f) Math. 20.1 seqq in which he that laboureth not shall not receiue the wages of euerlasting life She the Arke of Noe (g) S. Hiero. ep 57 S. Gaudent tract 2. de lect Euang in which whosoeuer is not or out of which whosoeuer departeth shall perish She is the wellspring of truth (h) Lactant. 4 diuin iustit â— vlt. Orig. hom 15. in Math. Theod in c. 2.2 ad Thessal the House of fayth the Temple of God in which mens prayers are heard and their sacrifices accepted all other congregations being Synagogues of Sathan denns of Diuels She is the garden of God (i) Cant. 4.12.13.15 in which whosoeuer groweth not is not a flower planted by the hand of Christ but a weed to be plucked vp and cast into hell fire Finally she is the kingdome of Christ (k) 2. Reg 7.12 1 Paralip 17.11 Psal 44.7 Luc. 1.33 Colosâ— 1.13 in which whosoeuer is not is none of Christs people Whosoeuer sayth (l) Eb. 152. ad popul fact Donas cont ep Parmen l. 2. c. 3. S Augustine is diuided from the Catholike Church although he thinke himselfe to liuâ— neuer so laudably for this only crime that he is diuided from the vnity of Christ the wrath of God abideth on him And speaking of Emeritus an hereticall (m) Serm. super gestis cum Emerito post med Bishop He cannot haue saluation but in the Catholike Church Out of the Church he may haue all things but saluation he may haue honour he may haue Sacraments he may sing Alleluia he may answere Amen he may haue the Ghospell he may haue and preach beliefe in the name of the Father and the Sonne the holy Ghost but saluation he can find no where but in the Catholike Church Wherefore since the saluation of our soules cannot be had out of the Catholike Church it is most necessary for euery man to inquire and learne which and where is that Temple of God that kingdome of Christ that store-house of truth and that second Eue our spirituall Mother that knowing her resorting to her he may be cherished in her lap and nourished at her brests with the milke of her holsome Doctrine The beliefe of all Catholikes is that these foresaid aâ—tributs agree to the Roman Church and to no other congregation in the world and that therfore she alone is the Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church in which whosoeuer is may in which whosoeuer is not cannot be saued Vpon this our Doctrine you passe a censure suitable to your modesty Videlicet that it is False Imposterous Scandalous Schismaticall Hereticall Blasphemous euery way Damnable (n) Pag. 5.182.419 Presumgtuous (o) Pag. 336. Impious (p) Pag 95. Execrable (q) Pag 127. Damnably hereticall (r) Pag 91. Pernicious Antichristian (s) Pag 99. Sacrilegious (t) Pag. 336. Sathanicall Idolaâ—rous (u) Pag. 387. This is your censure and to make it good you write a large volume which you intitle The Grand Imposture of the now Roman Church but mistake your selfe in the name for the booke is ought to haue been intituled The Grand imposture of Doctor Thomas Morton against the Roman Church of this and all former ages for vpon due examination such he will find it to be that shall please to passe his Eye ouer the ensuing Apology and I doubt not but after the perusall thereof he will rest conuinced that
their Bishop with the multitude of Saints being departed out of it shall be consumed with fire before the reigne of Antichrist or in the very beginning therof as (r) Riber a cap. 17 n. 20. in vers 16. Ex hoc quod nunc ait Apostolus intelligitur Roman euertendam antequam Antichristus regnare incipiat vel certè ipso initio regni eius Ribera and (s) Viegas in cap 17. n. 5. Viegas reach In this supposition why may not the Pope with that multitude of holy Christian Romans be truly and verily the Bishop and Church of Rome Why should that multitude of Roman Christian and Saints be titulus sine re and not a very glorious and venerable Church Why should the Pope then cease to be Bishop more then the Bishop of Canterbury should in case Canterbury should be destroyed into ashes Will you say vpon this contingent that the Bishop of Canterbury shall be the man in the moone the sheepheard of Vtopia to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You might haue learned from Cusanus (t) Epist 2. ad Bohemos whome you cite often and highly commend that if by any accident the Citty of Rome should fayle the truth of the Church shall remaine there where the Principality and seat of Peter shal be Nor is your example of the Emperor of Rome (u) Pag. 77. any helpe to your Argument For albeit the Roman Empyre be now in part decayed or weakned in respect of that power and greatnesse which anciently it had yet it still remayneth so that the name succession of the Roman Emperors at this day is famous in the world els why did our late Soueraigne King Iames inscribe his Monitory Prefation Sacratissimo atque inuictissimo Principi ac Domino Rodulpho secundo Romanorum Imperatori semper Augusto c. And why els doth the Church of Rome in her Office (x) In die Parasceues Sabbatho Sancto pray for the Roman Emperor Nor the Authors which you alledge for the contrary do say ought els though you falsify Salmeron to make his words found otherwise for wheras he speaking of the Roman Empire as it anciently was sayth Imperium illud Romanum iamdiu euersum est that Empire of Rome to wit with that ancient splendor maiesty and power which once it had is long since destroyed you leaue out illud and make him say absolutely The Roman Empire is long since destroyed wheras in the words next following he expresly affirmeth that there is still a Roman Emperor and that he is so called although what now be possesseth be but a very small shadow of the ancient Empire Lastly I will not omit to put you in minde of your weake manner of arguing throughout all this Section for how doth it follow that because Ribera and Viegas hold that Babylon out of which the faythfull are commanded to depart is the City of Rome as she shall be idolatrous in the end of the world you may now lawfully reuolt from the Church of Rome Againe who obligeth me to allow of their exposition I might retort your Argument vpon your selfe and tell you that Babylon signifies not Rome but Geneua and proue it by the testimony of Castalio a prime brother of yours who liued there and was a speciall friend of Beza They sayth he speaking of the Geneuian brethren (y) Apud Rescium pag. 54. are proud puft vp with glory and reuenge We may with lesse danger offend Princes then exasperate these fiery Caluinists their life is infamous and villanous they are Maisters of art in reproches lyes cruelty treachery and insufferable arrogancy They name their Geneua The holy City and their assembly Hierusalem but in very truth we should call it O Babylon Babylon O infamous Sodome and children of Gomorrha If you like not this exposition yet I know no reason why if you will belieue Ribera and Viegas expounding Babylon in the Apocalyps to be Rome you may not as well belieue your brethren Vdalricus Velenus (z) Lib. de hac r◠and Henricus Buntingus (a) It iner de it iner Petri. denying it and so much the more because S. Augustine Tyconius Bede Arethas Primasius Ansbertus Haymo S. Anselme and S. Thomas (b) Apud Riber in vers 8. cap. 14. Apoc by Babylon vnderstand not Rome but the society of all the wicked in generall from whose vices the faithfull are commanded to depart (c) S. August Breuic Collat. collat 3. Others vnderstand Paganisme which because it adoreth a confused multitude of Gods is rightly named Babylon that signifies Confusion others Mahometisme the mother of fornication and all filthinesse Others Constantinople the Metropolitan of Turcisme And others the chiefe City of the Chaldaeans which is properly called Babylon These expositions with their Authors and reasons you may read in Cornelius à Lapide (d) Ade 17. Apoc. Suarez (e) Defens fid l. 5. c. 7. and Peron (f) Replic Chapit 15. But the truth is that all these senses as likewise that of Ribera being purely allegoricall afford no solid foundation to build matter of fayth vpon but are merely coniecturall And therfore if S. August say (g) Ep. 48. Who dares with an vnbridled licence produce for himselfe that which is couched in an allegory vnlesse he haue places more cleare by whose light to illustrate that which is obscure we may with iust reason reproue you for grounding your departure from the Roman Church vpon the allegoricall sense of those words of the Apocalyps Get forth of Babylon my people and so much the more because the Authors whose exposition you take for your ground admonish you that by Babylon is not vnderstood the Church of Rome but the City that not as it is Christian but as it was idolatrous in S. Iohns tyme and shal be againe in the end of the world But any thing will serue your turne be it true or false if by sleights you can wrest it against the Pope and Church of Rome SECT II. Whether S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter were subiect to the Bishop of Rome S. Peters Successor SVarez treating of the authority of S. Peter and his Successors moueth this question (h) De trip virtute disp 10. sect 1. Whether the Apostles that suruiued S. Peter were subiect to S. Peters successor in the See of Rome His answeare is I remember not that I haue read any thing of this point in Authors but it seemes to me to follow out of what hath bene said that they were inferior in iurisdiction and consequently subiect therin to the Bishop of Rome although in other excellencies and prerogatiues they were superior to him For the same power and iurisdiction that was in S. Peter descended to his Successours who therfore in three things surpassed the Apostles there liuing 1. In the obiect of their power for the charge and gouerment of the whole Church belongeth primarily to the Successor of S. Peter which as I haue
blessed memory as of all our predecessers we command your Dilection to keepe so that if any one contemne them he may know that pardon shall be denied him And to the Bishops of Maurirania (i) Ep. 8â— We command that the cause of Lupicinus Bishop be heard there whom we haue restored to our communion he himselfe earnestly and often desiring it These few testimonies of holy and renowned Popes that liued before S. Gregory are sufficient to shew how ignorantly you affirme that it was not the style of Popes in the ancient and primitiue tymes to Command And as the ancient Popes commanded when it was necessary for them to shew their authority so the Bishops euen the greatest Patriarkes acknowledged in them authority to command and in themselues subiection and obligation to obey For did not S. Athanasius vpon Pope Iulius his citation obey taking his iourney from Aegypt to Rome (k) Theoder l. 2. hist c. 4. and doth he not professe his subiection to Marcus Pope (l) Ep. ad Marc. when he sayth We are yours and with all that are committed to our charge are and will euer be obedient to you And do not the African Fathers writing to Bonifacius Pope promise to obey his Mandates vntill a more diligent inquisition of the Nicen Canons And do not the Fathers of the Mileuitan Councell beseech Innocentius the first to shew his authority against the Pelagians Many say they (m) Ep. ad Innocent oppose against them in defence of Grace and the truth of the Catholike fayth c. But we belieue that with the helpe of the mercy of our Lord Iesus Christ they that hold these opinions so peruerse and pernicious will more easily yeld to the authority of your Holinesse drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures And when Paschasinus B. of Lilibaea Lucentius of Ascoli Legates of Leo pope said to the Councell of Chalcedon (n) Conc. Chalced. Act. 1. We haue in our hands the Commands of the blessed and Apostolike Prelate of the Citty of Rome wherby he hath vouchsafed to ordaine that Dioscorus sit not in the Councell and that if he offer to do it he be cast out because hauing no right to do the office of a Iudge he attempted it and presumed to hold a Synod without the authority of the See Apostolike which neuer was lawfull nor hath euer benedone And did not the Councell obey the Popes command causing Dioscorus not to sit among the Bishops as a Iudge but as a person guilty to stand in the midest of the place to yeld account of hid proceedings And did not the Bishops of Dardania in their Epistle to Gelasius acknowledge that they had receaued his commands with due reuerence and thanke him that he had vouchsafed to visit them with his Pastorall admonitions And did not the Bishops of France in the second Councell of Tours say (o) Can. 21. Our Fathers haue alwayes obserued what the authority of the See Apostolike hath commanded And when Chrysostome was deposed by a Councell of Bishops at Constantinople did he not appeale to Innocentius Pope and petition him in these wordes (p) Ep. 1. ad Innocent Vouchsafe to command that these things so wickedly done we being absent and not refusing iudgment may not be valide as in truth they are not and that they which haue caried themselues so iniustly may be submitted to the punishment of the Ecclesiasticall lawes And when Theodoret B. of Cyre was deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus did he not write to Leo Pope (q) Ep. ad Leon. I attend the sentence of your Apostolike Throne and beseech your Holinesse to succour me appealing to your right and iust iudgment to command that I transport my selfe to you and verify that my Doctrine followes the Apostolike steps And finally did not the Emperors Theodosius Valentinian (r) Nouel Theod. tit 24. publish a law which ordeynes that to all Bishops those thinges shall be lawes which haue bene or shall be ordeyned by the Apostolike See in such sorte that whatsoeuer Bishop being called by the Pope shall refuse to appeare shall be constrayned therunto by the Gouernor of the Prouince These and a thousand more examples which may be alleaged conuince that it was the stile of ancient Popes before S. Gregories tyme to command when necessity required it and that all Bishops and generally all Christians acknowledged this power in the Popes and in themselues obligation to obey And as for S. Gregory in particular who say you vtterly abhorred the word Command as he was a man of admirable humility so his gouerment was not dominiering in the Clergy but according to the commandment of Christ (s) Lue. 2â— 27 and of S. Peter his predecessor (t) 1. Pet. 5.2 with great meekenesse and humility and therfore writing to Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria he wisheth him L. 7. ep â—5 not to mention any command of his for when crimes exact it not sayth he all Bishops according to the condition of humility are equall And in many places of his workes he teacheth (x) L. 4. ep 38. l. 2. Pasto. c. 7. Hom. 18. in Ezechiel that the Ecclesiasticall Gouernor ought to make himselfe a companion and equall to his subiects and whiles they do well to preferre himselfe before them in nothing but yet so that if they offend he shew his power and authority in correcting them This therfore is the reason why in his Epistle to Eulogius which you obiect he beseecheth him not to say that he commanded for being he writ not to him to taxe him of any crime or offence committed though by the authority of his place he knew himselfe to be his Superior yet by humility he made himselfe his equall and wished him not to say that he commanded for sayth he I commanded not but endeauored to signify those things which are profitable All which notwithstanding the same S. Gregory to shew that in authority and iurisdiction he was Superior to Eulogius and all other Bishops and had power to command and punish them when they ossended sayth (y) L. 7. ep 64. For wheras the Patriarke of Constantinople confesseth himselfe subiect to the See Apostolike I know no Bishop that is not subiect to it And what he professed in words he practised in deedes commanding and exercising his iurisdiction ouer the Bishops of all Christian nations as out of his writings and the confessions of our owne more learned brethren I haue formerly proued (z) Chap. 15. sect 3. But because you so boldly auerre that he vtterly abhorred the word Command (a) Pag. 114. I will briefly shew how ignorantly and vntruly you speake for to Anthemius he writeth (b) L. 11. ep 35. Because notice hath bene giuen vs that the Bishops of Campania are negligent c. therfore with this authority we command you to call them together and by vertue of our Command to giue them a strict
ignorant that the custome is that we be first written vnto that from hence may proceed the iust decision of things If therfore any suspicion were conceaued against the Bishops there it ought to haue bene referred hither to our Church And therupon he denounceth to them that in condemning Athanasius without expecting his sentence they had done contra canones against the Canons namely of the Nicen Councell which he setteth downe in his second Epistle to them and that aswell Athanasius as other Catholike Bishops whom they had condemned in appealing from their Councell to him as he in repealing their Actes in restoring the Appellants to their seates and in summoning their aduersaries to Rome had done quod Ecclesiastici Canonis est according to the Canons of the Church If therfore the holy Popes Iulius Felix Marcus and Liberius that liued soone after the Councell of Nice if S. Athanasius that was personally present if Iohn the learned Orator of the Latines speaking in all their names in the councell of Florence if Socrates Sozomen Theodoret Nicephorus and many other ancient writers deserue to be credited and if they knew how to call things by their proper names there were in the Nicen Councell more then 20. Canons properly so called which is also acknowledged by your Protestant brethren (a) Brereley Prot. Apol. Tract 1. sect 7. subdiu 2. Oecolampadius who chargeth the Latin copies of the 20. Canons as defectiue Caluin M. Iuell and M. Bilson mentioning a Canon of the Nicen Councell concerning the Sacrament and lastly by Doctor Whitgift (b) Brereley ibid. prouing out of the second Councell of Arles S. Hierome and other approued authors diuers Canons which are not to be found in those 20. The testimonies which you obiect for the contrary vrge not Not that of Pope Stephen for though he say that in the Roman Church there are 20. Chapters of the Nicen councell yet he immediatly addeth that it is vncertaine by what negligence the rest are wanting which words you wittingly leaue out mangling the sentence that so he may seeme to fauor your opinion of the 20. Canons Theodoret and Nicephorus speake only of 20. Canons or lawes made pro conformandis moribus for ordering or reforming of manners wheras notwithstanding as Pisanus out of their owne words hath obserued els where they acknowledg that the Arians in condemning Athanasius had infringed the Nicen Canons and that Athanasius in appealing to him had done according to the same Canons Wherfore it the two Patriarkes Cyrill and Atticus knew not of more then 20. Nicen Canons it was because the Arians hauing cast out the Catholike Bishops and possessed their seates as we read in Socrates Sozomen Theodoret and Nicephorus (c) Brereley ibid. had corrupted the Canons of that Councell and suppressed those which declared their proceedings to be vnlawfull contrary to the Nicen Canons And howsoeuer those Patriarkes thought you cannot deny that your 20. Canons were not the only nor all the true Canons of Nice vnlesse you will grant the Canons of Ruffinus which you allow to be corrupt and false for as Osiander confesseth (d) Epit. Cent. 4. pag. 122. those 20. of Ruffinus differ ordine rebus both in order and matter from the others which Cyrill Atticus sent out of the East And the same is yet made more euident out of the Councell of Florence affirming (e) Sess 20. that by the testimonies of many ancient and holy Fathers the African Councell it selfe did know those Canons which they receaued out of the East to be corrupt and false It resteth therfore that neither they nor the other of Ruffinus comprehend all the true Canons of Nice but that there were others declaring the primacy of the Roman Church her authority to call confirme Councells and in particular her right of appeales as Pisanus hath proued whom therfore you abusiuely alleage for the contrary Nor is your dealing better with Turrianus for albeit he grant that as in the Councell of Chalcedon so likewise in that of Nice beside Canons there were among the Actes other Decrees or Constitutions and that of this number are the seuerall Decrees which you set downe out of him yet with what conscience do you conceale the rest for in the words immediatly preceding he sayth In illis Actis c. In those Actes was also contayned that Canon of Appeales which Zozimus Pope in the sixt Councell of Carthage witnesseth to be of the Nicen Councell and which after the Nicen Councell was renewed in the Councell of Sardica C. 7. And is not this very point here in question Our dispute is not verball whether the decree of Appeales to Rome made in the Councell of Nice were a Canon properly so called or a Constitution Words of this kind are by the best authors vsed promiscuously The canons of Councells are somtimes called Canones somtimes Capitula somtimes Leges somtimes Decreta somtimes CoÌ„stitutiones The reall difficulty betweene vs is whether appeales to Rome were decreed in the Councell of Nice by any either Canon properly so called or by any Law or Constitution That they were decreed hath bene proued and that not only ancient writers giue it the name of a Canon but enen Pisanus and Turrianus those very two whome you produce for the contrary I conclude therfore that as this your discourse is a digression from the truth so it is from the purpose and a trifling shift to put of the reall difficulty by reducing it to a question de nomine And that which most sheweth your folly is that by trifling you wholly ouerthrow your cause for you grant (f) Pag. 302. all the examples which our Authors collect out of the Fathers and Councells as though they had bene Canons of the Nicen Councell to be Constitutions of the same Councell though not Canons which is to grant that in the Nicen Councell there was a Constitution wherby Appeales to Rome were decreed for this is one of the examples which our Authors collect out of the Epistles of Iulius out of Socrates Sozomen Theodoret Nicephorus and other ancient writers And this alone is sufficient to shew that as you deny the same without ground so you conclude your digression falsly saying (g) Pag. 303. that the decree which the Popes alleaged for appeales is not to be found at all either among the Canons or the Constitutions of the Councell of Nice SECT III. Whether if there had bene no Canon for appeales to Rome in the Councell of Nice it had bene forgery in Pope Zozimus to alleage a Canon of the Sardican Councell for a Canon of Nice SOme Catholike writers coniecture that the Canons of appealing to Rome which Pope Zozimus directed to the Africans were Canons of the Councell of Sardica but sent by him vnder the title of Nicen Canons You say (h) Pag. 145. These Canons of Sardiâ—a mun be iudged fictions and that it is sufficiently proued to be a falâ—hood
wordes sayth Sanders it is apparent that S. Augustine would haue had the matter of Appeales referred to the Pope and ordered as he should thinke best So that whereas you cite Sanders saying All the African Bishops were seuered from the Church of Rome his true wordes import the direct contradictory Non omnes Episcopi Africani All the Bishops of Afrike did not oppose the Roman Bishop You also alleage him de visibili Monarch pag. 368. n. 411. where he hath nothing to your purpose but only alleageth the wordes of Eulalias of Carthage his recantation We anathematize all those that proudly lift vp their neckes against the Holy Roman and Apostolical Church From these wordes can you gather your dismal assertion that All the African Bishops from the dayes of Cyprian vntill Boniface the second that is for three hundred yeares were excommunicated by the Pope and seuered from the Communion of the Roman Church The Iesuite Salmeron sayth no more then (g) Salmeron tom 12. tract 68. §. Ad Canonem that in the dayes of S. Cyprian the African Bishops began to be seuered from the Roman Church and that in the dayes of Pope Innocent and Aurelius Bishop of Carthage they were bitter and displeased against the Church of Rome But he doth not say that all the African Bishops were so nor that they withdrew their Communion and obedience from the Roman Church Yea in the dayes of S. Cyprian though he and fourescore African Bishops were displeased with Pope Stephen because he did strongely and constantly oppose their impious doctrine of Anabaptisme yet they neuer proceeded to make a Schisme and separation from the Roman Church Contrariwise the very same fourescore Bishops who had made a decree for Anabaptisme met together againe as S. Hierome doth testify (h) Hieron Dialog cont Lucifer Illi ipsi Episcopi qui Rebaptizandos haereticos cum Cypriano statuerunt ad antiquam consuetudinem reuâ—luti nouum emisâ—re decretum and repealed their decree which might haue caused their separation from the RomaÌ„ Church So false is it that all the Bishops of Africa from the dayes of S. Cyprian vntill the time of Boniface the second were seuered from the Church of Rome that euen those very Bishops of those dayes were not seuered By the Epistle of Boniface the second grant it be true no more is proued then that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage superbirâ— cepit was somewhat arrogant and proud against the Pope and that Eulalius of Carthage did against the example of his other Predecessors imitate Aurelius therin as he doth testify saying in the said Epistle of Boniface that he felt himselfe Peccatis Aurelij praegrauatum ouer-burthened with the sinnes of Aurelius But that all the Christians of Africa namely those many Martyrs that suffered persecution vnder the Arian Wandalls were tainted with this bitternes of distast and Schismaticall dis-vnion against the Roman Bishop is a fable by your selfe newly coyned and vented abroad Now to the third point proposed although the Epistle of Boniface do not iustify your slander against all the Bishops Martyrs of Africa that they were excommunicated by the Pope and out of the communion of the Roman Church yet there be many Arguments that may seeme to euince that the same is counterfeit the relation thereof being incoherent First you (i) Pag. 148. The Epistle of Boniface the second wherin about the yeare 606. the same Pope complaineth c. say that the reunion of the Church of Africa to the Church of Rome happened about the yeare 606. and in the time of Boniface the second These thinges hange not togeather and consequently are false for Boniface the second dyed in the yeare 531. that is almost an hundred yeares before the yeare 606. Secondly the said Epistle of Boniface the Second affirmes that Eulalius his reconciliation with the Church of Rome was performed in the daies of Iustine the Emperour (k) Iustini elementissimi Principis Orientis sacrarum literarum exemplaria ad voâ— destinauimus that this Emperour writ letters to the said Boniface about it Now Iustine the Emperour was dead three or foure yeares before Romiface the Second was chosen Pope Thirdly the Epistle of Boniface is written to Eulalius Bishop of Alexandria But the Bishop of Alexandria in the dayes of Boniface the second was not named Eulalius but Timothaeus an Heretike and an Aduersary of the Roman Church You saw this difficulty and to auoyd it feare not to do against the command of the Holy Ghost (m) Vide titulum Psalmi 58. Augu. tract 117. in Ioan. Ne corrumpaes Tituli inscriptionem For the Title of that Epistle in Surius being Epistola eiusdem Bonifacij ad Eulalium Alexandrinum Episcopum (n) Pag. 248. in marg at x you change it and make it to be Epistola Bonifacij ad Alexandrum Episcopum the Epistle of Boniface to Bishop Alexander nor do you tell vs of what Church or See this your Alexander was Bishop Fourthly in the time of Boniface the secoÌ„d Gilimer the Arian Wandal was King of Africa during whose reigne there was no Catholike Bishop in Carthage (o) See Baron Anno 620. seqq nor in any Church of Africa but only Arians Finally your Apostata-Bishop of Spalato Antonius de Dominis in his (p) De Repub. Eccles. lib. 4. c. 8. n. 34. London-writings which he published vnder your nose with your so great approbation and applause doth so lay about him against the Epistle of Boniface that you who are so stiffe a defender therof had best to stand aside for feare of knocks In the Controuersy about Appellations sayth he (q) Communio inter Africam Romam non est abrupta the Communion between Africa and Rome was neuer broken as Baronius and Binius do proue very well The reconciliation or recantation made by the Church of Carthage vnto Boniface the Second which some one hath faigned (r) Mara est impostura is a meere Imposture as the said Authors demonstrate Thus he May you not number this man among the Children of the Tribe of Dan and angry fellowes who doth so peremptorily auerre the Epistle of Boniface to be a meere forgery and a grand Imposture with greater reason then you haue done Bellarmine for only saying I suspect it is counterfeit In fine these Arguments abundantly shew that this Epistle of Boniface may be questioned and reiected and yet all the other Epistles of ancient Popes set downe in the Body of our Councells cells subsist firme against which the like implicancies and incoherencies cannot be vrged As for Bishop Lindan he speaketh against them who discard this Epistle voluntarily and without euident proofes saying that they might aswell infringe the credit of any ancient history which his inference is of no force against them who refuse it as counterfeit not voluntarily but constrained by the pregnant incompossibilities thereof with other knowne vndeniable truthes CHAP. XXVIII Whether the Britans
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
that presume to bring in nouelties wherby the Churches are fallen into heresy Wherfore O beloued brethren you as Phisitians cure our soules c. So S. Basil freeing the Westerne Churches especially the Roman to which he chiefly writ both from pride and error Wherfore when you obiect (m) Pag. 197. that S. Basil expressing his griefe said The Westerne Bishops neither knew the truth themselues nor would learne it he taxeth them not of error or ignorance in the true fayth as you falsly interpret but that being ignorant of the Asian affaires they were not carefull to vnderstand them from him and other Catholike Bishops that might rightly informe them but gaue to much credit to the lying reportes of heretikes who slandered him falsly as you haue heard SECT V. Whether S. Hilary excommunicated the Pope TO persuade that S. Hilary B. of Poictou so you write him he being not Bishop of Poictou which is a Prouince of France but of Poictiers the chiefe Citty of that prouince held it not necessary to be in the communion of the B. of Rome you say (n) Pag. 199. S. Hilary no sooner vnderstood that Pope Liberius as your Cardinall hath confessed had subscribed to haue communion with the Arian heretikes but he made bold to excommunicate the Pope out of his communion and fellowship saying I anathematize thee O Liberius and thy fellowes And you adde that Hilary had iust cause to do this (o) Pag. 199. sin 200. because it was alwaies lawfull for any Catholike Bishop to excommunicate any hereticall Bishop that is to abandon his fellowship and communion Here you shew great ignorance in the ordinary principles of Diuinity for to excommunicate a Bishop or any other person is not only to abandon his fellowship and communion els euery man yea euery woman may excommunicate her Bishop or any other person whatsoeuer for she may abandon his fellowship and communion denouncing Anathema vnto him There are two kindes of Anathema the one iudiciary that is to say an Ecclesiasticall Censure pronounced by an Ecclesiasticall Superior against them ouer whom he hath lawfull power and iurisdiction wherby he abandoneth their fellowship and communion and commandeth all others to do the like and withall depriueth them of the benefite of the Sacraments and seruice of the Church This Anathema is an Excommunication And this is so certaine that howbeit euery Protestant Minister may at his pleasure abandon the fellowship and communion of any other man and in that sense denounce Anathema vnto him yet neuer any was so absurdly ignorant as to thinke he could excommunicate any one ouer whom he had not Ecclesiasticall power and iurisdiction And who knoweth not that when you excommunicate Catholikes or others you do not only deny them your owne fellowship and communion but by vertue therof forbid all others to haue commerce and communication with them In this sense the Councell of Nice pronounced Anathema against the Arians in these words (p) Socrat. l. â— hist. c. 5. They that say there was a time when the Sonne was not the Catholike Church anathematizeth them that is depriueth them of the vse of the Sacraments and commandeth all men to renounce their fellowship and communion In this sense S. Hilary neither did nor was so ignorant as to thinke he could denounce Anathema to Liberius being not his Superior and therfore neither did nor could excommunicate him Another kind of Anathema there is which is not iudiciary but only executory wherby euery particular person ecclesiastick or laick man or woman protesteth and declareth to hold for Anathema such as are excommunicated by the Church In this sense S. Hilary pronounced Anathema to Liberius for hauing subscribed to the banishment of Athanasius and therby entred into Communion with the Arians The iudiciary Anathema that is the sentence of excommunication had bene pronounced before by the Councells of Nice and Sardica against the Arians in generall into whose communion Liberius was entred There was no need of pronouncing a new sentence of Anathema against him but of applying the sentence of the Councells vnto him by abiuring and abhorring him as one fallen into the sentence which the Councels had pronounced against the Arians And therfore S. Hilary addes to his Anathema these words For my part saying For my part Anathema to thee O Liberius to shew that he spake not with a iudiciary but with an abiuratory Anathema In this sense Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople (q) Ep. â—ad Hormisd anathematized Timothy the parricide surnamed Aelurus whom Felix Pope excommunicated And In the same sense Iustine the Emperor (r) Euagr. l. 5. c. 4. denounced Anathema to all heretikes condemned by the Church who yet being a secular Prince had not power to excommunicate any I conclude therfore that you confound these two Anathema's and because S. Hilary pronounced an abiuratory Anathema against Liberius inferre ignorantly that he excommunicated him But if for arguments sake I should grant that the Anathema pronounced by S. Hilary was indiciary and that he excommunicated Liberius it would make nothing for you against the Pope for when Hilary pronounced this Anathema Liberius was not Pope but fallen from his Papacy and Felix substituted Pope in his place This I haue said not questioning but supposing Liberius his subscription to the condemnation of Athanasius which yet some haue denied (s) See Bellar. l. 4. de Pontif c 9. But be it true it followeth not that he was therfore a formall heretike in his iudgement belieuing the blasphemous doctrine of the Arians but only interpretatiuè for so much as signing with them the condemnation of Athanasius and out wardly communicating with them he gaue to some that iudged of him by his outward actions occasion to thinke he belieued their doctrine And in this sense only it is in which some Catholike writers condemne him of heresy and in no other For the very Arians themselues neuer pretended that Athanasius agreed in fayth with them but condemned him only for other crimes which they had maliciously composed against him wherin though Liberius for a tyme yeilded outwardly to them yet he was euer most constant in the Catholike fayth as you may see testified by antiquity (t) Apud Iodoc Cocci to 1. l. 7. art 11. Lastly I must aduertise you that wheras you often repeate as an article of our fayth that out of the Roman Church there is no saluarion here (u) Pag. 199. and afterwards (x) Pag. 345. againe you say part of that our article is to belieue that in matters of fayth the iudgment of the Pope is infallible This you proue by imposing on Bellarmine your owne fictions His opinion is that the Popes iudgment in matters of fayth is infallible and that the contrary is erroneous and neere to heresy but he is so farre from affirming this his opinion to be anarticle of fayth or the contrary to be hereticall that he directly sayth (y) L. 4.
honored Blessednesse Did not these men know how to speake Or will you presume to charge them with blasphemy Wherfore as they by Celestiall power by Diuinity and Diuine Magnificence did not vnderstand the increated power and Maiesty of Almighty God but the great dignity and power giuen by him to Emperors and Popes vpon earth so if you had not bene minded to cauill and spend paper in obiecting silly sophismes insteed of solid Arguments you might haue knowne that the Venetian Orator by the title of Celestiall Maiesty giuen to the Pope vnderstood nothing els but the great power and dignity of supreme Gouernor of Gods Church giuen him from heauen 4. You obiect (h) Pag. 251. Galbus Embassador of France called Pius the fourth The voyce and oracle of Truth proper to Christ who sayth I am the truth So likewise Christ sayth (i) Ioan. 9.6 I am the light of the world doth he therfore blaspheme that calls the Apostles and Doctors of the Church lights of the world This Syr is not to argue but to trifle If it be blasphemy to call the Roman Church or the definitions of the B. of Rome The oracle of truth what thinke you of 289. Bishops assembled in the sixt Councell generall (k) Act. 8. 18. calling the Epistle of Agatho Pope The suggestion of the holy Ghost dictated by the mouth of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles And what of the Bishops of France who speaking to Leo Pope of the instructions of fayth which he had sent them said (l) Inter Ep. Leonis post Ep. 51. From the See Apostolike spring forth still the Oracles of the Apostolicall spirit which what are they but Oracles of truth for the Apostles were pen-men of the holy Ghost and guided by the spirit of truth And why did the Councell of Mileuis say (m) Aug. Ep. 92. that God ruleth the Pope in his consultations of fayth And why S. Augustine speaking of the Roman chaire (n) Ep. 166◠that Christ in the chaire of vnity hath placed the doctrine of Verity And why did Christ assure S. Peter that his successors shall not faile in their definitions of fayth (o) See this proued aboue Chap. 12. sect 1. 2. but because the definitions of the See Apostolike are of truth 5. If an orator of Portugall speaking of the dignity of the B. of Rome called it A dignity aboue all Principalities and Powers why may not you vnderstand that he vseth that manner of speach to professe that so great a dignity hath not bene conferred on any other either Man or Angell Which if to you it be Blasphemy is to Orthodoxall people a certaine Truth for to be the supreme Vicar of Christ on earth and gouern or of the vniuersall Church is a dignity that hath bene giuen to no man nor Angell but only to S. Peter and his successors 6. If Bellarmine (p) Cont. de Rom. Pont. Praefat. called Sixtus Quintus The Corner-stone in Sion proued precious and chiefe foundation what was it els to say but as Christ sayd to S. Peter in him to his successors that he was the Rocke and foundation of the Church signified by Sion and that wheras the rest of the Apostles are secondary foundations Peter his successors are in that ranck the chiefest and next vnto Christ and therfore in a secondary sense participate with him and as his Vicars the title of Corner-stone in Sion 7. You bid vs stop our eares (q) Pag. 25◠that we may not heare Stapleton call Gregory the thirteenth Supremum in terris Numen which you english Power Might and Maiesty of God on earth But you must be put to your Grammer againe to learne that Numen doth not only signify the increated power and Maiesty of God but any great earthly Power why els did Cicero say (r) Philip. 3. Magna est vis magnum Numen vnum idem sentientis Senatus And why did Iustinian say (s) Authen ad Ioan. Pap. Vt Eccles Rom. Necessarium duximus fontem Sacerdotij speciali nostri Numinis lege sancire Stapleton therfore blasphemes not but you falsify obtruding for his sense your owne ignorance of grammer or which is worse your wilfull misconstruction of his words 8. You obiect (t) Pag. 252. that the Glosse calls the Pope Our Lord God the Pope This is a malicious cauill for the word Deus God is not in the Roman copy not in the ancient edition of Paris anno 1522. by Thielman Keruer Printer to that famous Vniuersity nor in the edition of Turin per Nicolaum Beuilaquam anno 1520. Only I finde it in the Parisian edition of the yeare 1585. which hath no name of printer and therfore giues cause of suspicion that it is of an hereticall printer or if he were a Catholike why may it not be thought to be an error in the print or that wheras the Pope is somtimes called Dominus Dominus noster Papa in the second place Dominus for breuity sake is wont to be expressed only by the letter D the Printer thinking that Dominus was not to be repeated twice for Dominus in the second place said Deus But to giue you your greatest aduantage let the edition be Catholike let the words be as you obiect them must you presently cry blasphemy and bid vs stop our eares Doth not Deus often signify an earthly dignity Did not Dauid (u) Psal 81.1 call Magistrates Gods when he said God stood in the assembly of Gods and in the middest iudgath Gods Did not God himselfe (x) Exod. 7.1 call Moyses the God of Pharao Did not Christ say (y) Ioan. 10.35 to all that are his children by grace You are all Gods Did not Constantine the Great (z) L. 1. hist c. 2. speaking to the Bishops of the Nicen Councell say You are constituted Gods by the true God and therfore end your strefes among your selues for it is not fit that Gods should be iudged vs vs And did not S. Gregory (a) L. 4. ep 31. alleaging this testimony of Constantine adde vnto it that God himselfe in the holy Scripture hath honored Priests with the name of Gods And did not our late Soueraigne King Iames say (b) Praefat. monit that Kings are Gods vpon earth Did he or any of the other heere named blaspheme I suppose you will not presume to lay so foule an aspersion on thē or if you do we shal make bold to tel you that you blaspheme whiles in your late Sermon preached at Durham before his Maiesty you call Kings Mortall Gods Yf then the name of God may not only without blasphemy but in a true Catholike and pious sense be giuen to all Kings to all Magistrates to all Bishops to all Priests to all Gods adoptiue Children shall it be blasphemy only to giue it to the chiefe of all Priests to the Bishop of Bishops Did S. Bernard blaspheme (c) L. 2. de
confiderat when he called Eugenius Pope The God of Pharao as God called Moyses Did Ladislaus that famous King of Hungary blaspheme when he called Nicolas the fifth A God vpon earth (d) Orat. ad Nicol. 5. Acknowledge then that this your obiection is an imposterous cauill against the Bishop and Church of Rome or rather a calumny inuented to mantaine a bad cause which with other Arguments you cannot vphold CHAP. XXXVI The nullity of Doctor Mortons answeares to the testimonies of ancient Fathers discouered SECT I. Some of his Answeares examined WHAT hath bene produced hitherto out of antiquity conuincingly proueth the vniuersall Authority and Iurisdiction of the B. of Rome to haue bene acknowledged from the beginning by all the Catholikes of the world Here you vndertake to answeare the testimonies of ancient Fathers alleaged by Bellarmine but performe it not Some of them you passe ouer not only without answeare but without any mention of them as of Valentinian the Emperor Venerable Bede S. Anselme Hugo de S. Victore and S. Bernard whom yet Caluin (e) L. 4. instit c. 7. §. 22. cites for himselfe acknowledgeth to be a Saint 2. To the testimonies of S. Ignatius and Irenaeus you answeare but satisfy not as hath bene proued (f) Chap. 15. sect 5. 6. And the like hath bene shewed of your answeares to the testimonies of S. Basil (g) Chap. 34. sect 4. and Iustinian (h) Chap. 30. sect 5. the Emperor 3. Of S. Prosper you say (i) Pag. 270. fin 271. init His meaning might haue bene better knowne if he had written in prose and not assumed vnto him the liberty of a Poet. But who seeth not this to be a mere shift void of truth for as in verse he sayd (k) L. De ingrat c. 2. Now Rome the great Apostle Peters seat Head of Pastorall Honour here below Hath by fayths Empire made her selfe more great then she by all her armed powers could grow So likewise he said in prose (l) De vocat gentium c. 16. The soueraignty of the Apostolicall Priesthood hath made Rome greater by the Tribunall of religion then by the Throne of Power Bellarmine alleageth both the one and the other as well in prose as in verse But because both of them are vnanswerable you vnder colour that the one is in verse reiect S. Prosper as fabulous in both for the liberty which Poets assume vnto them is to report fables insteed of truthes This is the reuerence you beare to that holy and renowned Father and such the solutions wherwith you shift off the testimonies of antiquity and yet beare your Readers in hand that you belieue as they belieued 4. The B. of Patara in Licia (m) Liberat. in Breu. c. 22. vpon the banishment of Pope Siluerius represented to the Emperor Iustinian the iudgment of God vpon the expulsion of the Bishop of so great a Seate saying There are many Kings in the world but not one of them as the Pope who is Head ouer the Church of the whole world You answeare (n) Pag. 156. Liberatus who reported this history was an author deceaued by heretikes belieued not himselfe what he reported for the Pope Giue vs any one author that excepted against this relation of Liberatus before your selfe or that sayd he himselfe beliued not what he reported for the Pope If it shall be lawfull for you to reiect testimonies of antiquity vpon no other ground but because they are against your selfe what authority may not with such answeares be eluded You know this not to satisfy and therfore haue inuented another that this Greeke Author must be taken in the Greeke sense of Primacy of order This satisfieth as litle as the former for the B. of Patara compares the spirituall authority of the Pope with the temporall of Kings protesting that no King hath temporall power ouer all the Kingdoms of the earth as the Pope hath spirituall ouer the Church of the wholeworld Againe that the Popes Primacy in the Greeke sense is not Primacy of iurisdiction but of Order only is said gratis and vntruly The Greeke Fathers in the Councell of Chalcedon spake in the Greeke sense yet they acknowledged (o) In relat ad Leon. the Pope to be their Head and to rule ouer them at the Head doth ouer the members Theodoret spake in the Greeke sense when he said (p) In Ep. â—â— Renat The See of Rome hath the sterne of gouernment ouer all the Churches of the world Theodosius spake in the Greeke sense (q) Const. â— Nouel The 24. when he called the Pope Rector of the vniuersality of Churches This therefore is the Greeke sense and in this sense the B. of Patara spake to Iustinian 5. S. Epiphanius (r) Haeres 58. reporteth that Vrsacius Valens Bishops chiefe sticklers of the Arians touched with remorse for their treachery against Athanasius went vp to Rome and presenting libels of pennance to Iulius Pope craued pardon for their offence and promised to stand to his iudgment which sheweth that they acknowledged him to be the Head and Iudge of Bishops This testimony though set downe in your Latine margent curtalled (s) Pag. 254. yet in your English you make no mention of it but pretending to answeare by a similitude tell vs a tale of a tubbe of A. R. in the County of Suffolke crauing pardon of the Sheriffe of Middelsex for a notorius offence done vnto him But to omit that hereby the English reader can haue no notice at all of the force of this testimony your answeare is nether similitude nor solution but petitio principij a false supposition that Vrsacius and Valens asked pardon of Iulius for a notorious offence done vnto him Their offence was not against Iulius but against Athanasius and yet of this offence they asked pardon of Iulius because they knew that to him as to the Head of the Church it belonged to remedy the disorders of the Church and that as he had power to punish them for their offence so he had also to pardon them vpon their submission and promise of amendment which to that end they made 6. No lesse impertinent is the other flimflam which you adde (t) Pag. 254. as an answeare to the testimony of Dionysius Alexandrinus of two Gentlemen the one being a Iustice of peace agreeing to haue their difference to be ordered by another Iustice of peace for when Dionysius Patriarke of Alexandria was fallen into suspicion of heresy (u) Athanas de sent Dion Et de Sin Arim Seleuc the Catholikes of Alexandria went vp to Rome to accuse him before the Pope The Pope admonished him to cleare himselfe and he obeying presently sent vp a booke of defence and apology which sheweth that both the people Patriarke of Alexandria acknowledged that the cause of Bishops and of fayth were to be tried at the Popes tribunall and that the Pope knew himselfe to haue
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